Absolute Poker Scandal: An Inside Job

[Daddy Warbucks]

I don't think it was an email, it was a post in Internet Gambling.

[jgunnip]

from Internet Gambling thread,

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Absolute Support:

I think you're going to have to give more thorough explanations than what you have here, and you need to do it not only in this thread but in the thread in our other forum Poker Beats, Brags, and Variance located here.

I have written before, that it is very important for a poker room to not only be honestly run, but for players to have the perception that it is honestly run. When an honest poker room looses the confidence of its players, it can mean a significant drop in business for that poker room, and this should be true whether it is a B&M or an Internet cardroom.

So I recommend to you, given the size and scope of these threads, to invest the time and answer every issue that you can to the satisfaction of our posters. I believe it's in your best interest.

Best wishes,

Mason Malmuth
Publisher
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC

[/ QUOTE ]

[HatesLosing]

Why get Gaming Associates to handle this audit? Why not BMM? ( http://www.bmm.com.au/ )?

[El_Hombre_Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
Indignation does not correlate to accuracy. Posters here are very indignant that "equitable" is not a noun and they are very indignant that an "equitable remedy" means something illegal. Rather than asking an attorney or visiting a dictionary, the posters angrily spew their interpretations on here.

The word "equitable" refers to the division of British courts into the legal ("at law") and the equitable (i.e. the chancery). The courts have different jurisdictions and different remedies. In the United States, the distinction remains, somewhat lessened by the federal rules of civil procedure.

There are thus different remedies, some of which are only available in an action at law, and some only available in an equitable action. Which precisely are available depends on the jurisdiction, but typically money damages are available in actions at law, but injunctive relief is available in equity.

Hasn't anyone here read the constitution? What do you think the 7th amendment means?

Also, because of the French influence on British law, many legal terms have the adjective following the noun, that is why "remedies equitable" is perfectly reasonable.

Anyway, despite the firm belief among posters that every successful bluff is "proof positive" of cheating (wow, the adjective follows the noun, I must not know English), and that an "equitable" remedy refers to a contract hit: no, this is not the case. An equitable remedy is just another form of legal remedy, distinct from a remedy at law.

Please return to your regularly scheduled indignation now.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Absolute Poker reserves the right to pursue any and all remedies whether in law or equitable which may procure to it as a result of any unlawful and injurious actions...

[/ QUOTE ]
Does this make sense? I mean, grammatically?

edit: I mean, 'procure' is a transitive verb, and I don't know wtf 'equitable' is doing in there in that form.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I looked up equitable to see if there was some noun form of the word I was unaware of, and no, it's just an adjective like I thought. It makes no sense whatsoever, and what remedies can you take outside the law anyways, order a hit on someone?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it is either more incompetence or some weirdly scary threat.

Also, can someone explain to me what is important or new about this statement? I just can't imagine they would let auditors in if they thought for a second that something could actually be found.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice history lesson. But the phrase is, "in law or equity." See how nicely that flows? So remedies are "legal or equitable" in nature, or you seek redress "in law or equity." In any event, goofy phrasing has little to do with the merits of the evidence. Its just an interesting side note. But to the real point, if you think that this is about a few well placed bluffs, you are either daft (that's a nice English word, right?) or deliberately ignoring whats been set forth. I wonder why.

[mmbt0ne]

Ok, I don't know who else was reading this thread last night around 3am eastern, but Michael Davis made a post that the guy in the pictures linked was not Scott Tom. However, that post is no longer in the thread.

Not sure what it means, but just putting it out there.

[HatesLosing]

And KGC is a complete joke, so...

[HatesLosing]

[ QUOTE ]
is it possible that if all of this happened after tom scott left AP, they really don't know about this?

[/ QUOTE ]
That WAS possible, but it's impossible for them to not know what was going on soon after the incident occurred unless they do not take security seriously, are complete idiots, and/or were in on it and trying to cover it up.

[adanthar]

ok guys, new thread time, best cliffs notes job gets to start it, etc. etc.

stay tuned for more potentially exciting implications by the end of today

[mntbikr15]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it was an email, it was a post in Internet Gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Abledoa said "I just recieved this email from AP" or something like that...

IDK....not suprising some players wouldnt get it. Ive had numerous emails be simply ignored by them

[suzzer99]

Yeah I hate to say it, but this Gaming Associates thing sounds like a white-wash attempt. I used to work for a statistical expert witness who would testify for the client at trials. Needless to say we never found any statistical evidence damning our client.

If AP were serious, they would hire a well known internet security auditor like we used to when I worked for a big corporation (I forget their name). They weren't there to rubber stamp anything, and the audit was really nerve-wracking. 95% of what they would be looking for isn't poker-specific, and they could bring in another expert for that stuff. This is like hiring Arthur Anderson in the later stages, when they were totally corrupt.

One good sign though is their mention of pressure from "business partners" and others. It shows they are at least taking this thing seriously.

I wonder if this auditor will even read these 2p2 threads or look at the HH that's started all this Scott Tom stuff. Or if they get a HH from AP with user 363 removed, who will they believe?