Absolute Soulreading/Rigged thread #3

[dpdawson]

[ QUOTE ]
If you sit out everytime someone at your table is playing 90/60 and killing it, you'll never make much at poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? That statement is blatantly false.

I play poker almost everyday and I rarely, if ever, see anyone playing 90/60, much less anyone winning doing it.

Add the suspicious calling down with 10 high and value betting 3rd pair to the play style and results and I can safely say I have never seen anything even close to this.

So, if I left every time I saw someone playing 90/60 and winning, I would have left a table a total of 0 times. I think I could still make money sitting out that much.

[ints]

Even if some individual hands look like that they were "honestly" played, it doesn't disprove the cheating. e.g. if you like to hammer men in their anus but then decide to sleep with a girl, that doesn't prove that you're not gay.

I'm getting the impression that most people here that don't know anything about computers imagine that the cheaters see the other players' hole cards on the table, graphically, next to their name as you are used to. But that's probably not the case. I imagine it something like this: there's a script (written by the bad guys) which parses the data on server -- filters out logs of their table, perhaps reformats it and sends you the information as text, maybe similar to HH, but just constantly updating. Of course you can reformat it or even build GUI (graphical user interface) on it, so it could actually paint very beautiful and colorful cards for you, but that'd be some more work for little gain and the villains might have been in a hurry.

Anyway, I remember that some weird delays were mentioned before the cheaters' preflop action. So, it could just have been that he's playing regular account and has a terminal window open, where the parsed info from the server is shown. So, for example in a donkament, he would have to check 9 players, which names have which hands from that window and then check the table for their positions on him and decide the action. That'd sure make some delays, even if he's not the 1st to act but let's say 5th to act and the first 4 just instafolded.

So, if there were couple of hands that were played like he was not cheating, then what's so weird about it?
* I find it much more bizarre that the cheater would so obivously cheat EVERY LAST goddamn hand. that's so moronic
* he might have just miss some hands, laziness
* he might have decided not to cheat some hands
* he might have misclicked
* he might have misread his 'terminal window' (from my example theory)
* ...

So, I don't see any argument in "he played that hand like he didn't know the opponents' cards".


Anyway, ffs, it's long established that there was some cheating going on. Why are we still debating like it wasn't 100% sure?

Apologies for my bad English.

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you sit out everytime someone at your table is playing 90/60 and killing it, you'll never make much at poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? That statement is blatantly false.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point is, you don't expect hole card cheating. People can run hot playing like that for short periods, then someone takes all their money. Can't do that if you're sitting out.

[krumeluren]

[ QUOTE ]
Statistical evidence was actually barely enough but the HH's tell the story much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are right. But so far I have only seen them try to tell one story, the story of the cheater that sees everybody's hole cards. And those HHs have been selected from a larger sample. It would be interesting to see if they also fit the story about the lucky idiot that decides to play a maniac that doesnt like to call river bets. Maybe they do.


Yes, I'm the Devils advocate.

[Rob121]

absolute ever have a response ??

[ITWASSOOOOTED]

Here is a suggestion.

It has already been suggested to approach Bluff or Cardplayer magazines. While this was a good idea, I highly doubt that they will print anything we submitted to them since it would affect advertising dollars from AP and most likely other online sites as well! There is definitely a conflict of interest for either of these publications to publish such a negative story. I would assume they would get pressure from other online sites not to print it. Since it could also negatively impact their business.

Instead, I suggest that we collectively create a statement that explains the situation clearly to anyone. Basically a cliff notes of the cliff notes. It should contain accurate statistical data, and it would not hurt to mention recognizable winners in online poker (assuming that they are willing to have their names mentioned) in order to give credibility to the story. Basically to show that it is not someone whining because they got "unlucky" and lost some money.

While this is being done, someone (maybe more then one person) perhaps apefish, if he were willing could gather names and contact info from people in every state and province in the US and Canada, and anywhere else in the world for that matter. These people would be volunteers who would , on an agreed upon date, simultaneously contact and submit our statement to local newspapers in as many possible cities and towns as we have volunteers for. At the very least we would have the story submitted to one newspaper in every major city in US and Canada. This would be over 60 newspapers at a minimum. It would reach a HUGE volume of people and if there was interest in the story, local radio and television stations would likely comment on it as well. It would be much a much more effective tactic to get AP to answer for what happened.

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Statistical evidence was actually barely enough but the HH's tell the story much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are right. But so far I have only seen them try to tell one story, the story of the cheater that sees everybody's hole cards. And those HHs have been selected from a larger sample. It would be interesting to see if they also fit the story about the lucky idiot that decides to play a maniac that doesnt like to call river bets. Maybe they do.


Yes, I'm the Devils advocate.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they don't fit the story of the lucky idiot. Read all the threads.

[Trogdor!]

theres no way a hacker could be getting the hands without some sort of backdoor (otherwise why not just hack a bank or federal reserve or w/e else schemes that make you billions not thousands). Thats why it has to be an inside job or a flaw in AP's program or such

And im just trying to show that DD's winrate =/ (doesnot equal) 90/70 winrate at a highstakes game

if i could show that then there is 0 chance its not cheating as i am not factoring in the river af or suspect HH

[krumeluren]

[ QUOTE ]
No, they don't fit the story of the lucky idiot. Read all the threads.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have read most and to be frank almost all are biased. Also, any 80/60 play fits a lucky idiot so that is not a very good proof.

The real test would be if there are more hands available than the few hundred posted here. If there is, and he has a similar betting pattern in these HHs but a very low or negative win rate it would corroborate the lucky idiot theory. They has to be dated before these threads ofc.

I'm sure that if he played more hands than those posted here, Absolute has the HHs and could release hem for analysis to see if he was only running hot for a few sessions.

[Trogdor!]

if we could compile all of DD's HH (bar chipdumping) into 1 database and get the SD there should be enough as the df would be about 3 or 4 which would be enough.