Absolute Soulreading/Rigged thread #3 - Page 87

highhustla · #**861** 09-21-2007, 02:00 PM

I'm gonna throw up now.

sethypooh21 · #**862** 09-21-2007, 02:05 PM

They need to do so much better than this. Given the evidence that has been marshaled "nothing to see here" is simply unacceptable.

adanthar · #**863** 09-21-2007, 02:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
what i struggle with is figuring out how one maniacal session is not cheating and another one is. it seems to come down to how much $ he won.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look at the histories, it's remarkably easy. Limit hands all go to showdown, so the first question is: "is he betting into a better hand, and if so, can he get it to fold?" I could actually be wrong and he *is* cheating - he does a bunch of marginal stuff like bet K9 vs. 52 on a 96275 board. No cheater that's any good at limit would ever in a million years try to get 52 to fold there, but we already know he sucks at poker.

but onto the wider point...a bunch of you guys have been playing devil's advocate for the last few hundred posts and it's driving both myself and most of the other high stakes players nuts, because you have good intentions *but you're wrong*. I'm not going to flame any of you like I do in strat forums, because this is a serious accusation and, of course, people are not going to want to believe it, but I'm honestly getting tired of explaining super basic ideas like "yes, schneids, cts, actionjeff, yellowsub, the entire who's who list on p5's, 2+2, AP and myself are good enough at poker to know when someone's cheating and when they're not from looking at hundreds of hands that span the entirety of high stakes limit, NL, and MTT's, and these are not just the only 5 donks in the history of poker who got this lucky on one site over a three week period." complete with challenging well known players to last longers and ten high no draw calls on the turn, ffs.

again, I'm not particularly mad at you for playing devil's advocate, but enough is enough. it's cheating.

pineapple888 · #**864** 09-21-2007, 02:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, Adrian (top Absolute security guy, don't forget) said that he had looked at those hands, and that although it "looked" like chip-dumping, they had determined that it was not.

[/ QUOTE ]

/end any tiny shred of hope that Absolute would do anything but stonewall.

ibluffoldladies · #**865** 09-21-2007, 02:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, Adrian (top Absolute security guy, don't forget) said that he had looked at those hands, and that although it "looked" like chip-dumping, they had determined that it was not.

[/ QUOTE ]

/end any tiny shred of hope that Absolute would do anything but stonewall.

[/ QUOTE ]

This pretty much seals any doubt I had about Absolute being directly involved with those accounts. At best, if you aren't convinced, realize that absolute security is completely incompetent.

FellKnight · #**866** 09-21-2007, 02:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I'll take this thread seriously for a second and ask a serious question. Please don't flame, this is a genuine question.

If, prior to his massive winning sessions (to avoid the possibility he was chip dumping), over hundreds of hands, DOUBLEDRAG played the same style of poker, 80/60ish, with the same kind of overaggro river aggression, but lost $ overall...would you still suspect him of cheating?

If the answer is yes, what would then be the basis of that suspicion?

Again, please no flames. This is a fair question, is it not?

[/ QUOTE ]

It would certainly reduce the chances. Maybe from 99% to 90% IMO.

Fell

KurtSF · #**867** 09-21-2007, 02:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Adrian is obviously one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this is a joke, but the odds that its an inside job just skyrocketed.

ZOMG_RIGGED! · #**868** 09-21-2007, 02:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I know this is a joke, but the odds that its an inside job just skyrocketed

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you sure I was joking? Scary part is I'm not sure anymore. Someone hold me, I liked AP.

FellKnight · #**869** 09-21-2007, 02:18 PM

barftacular.

GG absolute.

dragonystic · #**870** 09-21-2007, 02:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
again, I'm not particularly mad at you for playing devil's advocate, but enough is enough. it's cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

fine, im done. i promise. last post in this thread for me.

but fwiw, i wasnt playing devils advocate. i just flat out disagree with the conclusions you and many others have drawn.

and if this claim was leveled with EXACTLY the same data (screenshots, HH's and everything) but the $ amounts were downscaled proportionally to $1NL, there wouldn't be a single person who would think it was cheating.