Updated Cliff Notes On Absolute Poker Scandal (18th October)

[solids]

[ QUOTE ]


In particular, he calculates the probability that someone would run this good in a multi-table tournament: 1 in in 1.88 × 10^44, or, in long form, 1 in 188,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000. He put it at 14 standard deviations above the mean.



[/ QUOTE ]


Unreal. What a great stat.

[senna4ever]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

http://wizardofodds.com/software/absolutepoker.html

Michael Shackleford's website. I wondered when he would chime in.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the best layman-readable analysis of how the POTRIPPER tournament is evidence of cheating that I have read. Please sticky this somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. That was well done.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Matfrid]

[ QUOTE ]
Why quote and respond to me when we obviously are on the same page? I just made a simplified version for non-programmers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because what you wrote is in negative form. You wrote: "
The super user belongs to another user group and has access to more tables in the database. Just like you restrict user groups on your windows to have different restrictions(except that doesn't have anything to do with databases).

That modified client and decrypted sending theory is just mambo jambo. "

This may all be correct. It shows that the talk about a modified superuser client is technically lacking. What I wanted to show is that it is anyway right on the money. There may very well exist a client that has all the privileges - including the possibility to see all hole cards - that those that spoke of a 'superuser' were thinking about.

[Rips]

The privileges would never be on the client side, but on the server side. They would never be authorized to go online if it was done at client side.

[suzzer99]

Just to be clear on this client/server thing. Even with Absolute, I think we can be fairly certain all hole card data is not being sent across the internet to every client on every hand. (I'm talking about the Windows client that runs on your computer, I'm not 100% sure that's clear.)

BUT - even if a client is getting all hole card data (logged in as superuser), one would think there might be some last line of defense where a normal client says "hey, I'm not supposed to be seeing all this" and dies or something. Or it just simply isn't programmed to handle showing all hole cards at once.

But maybe not. Just something I don't think anyone has considered yet.

[N 82 50 24]

I am speaking strictly from a web programming perspective here.

But I know that I "send" more or less info to computers based on user level access. It's as simple as this

if (userlevel == x) {
//something here (ie, send all holecards)
}

I don't know much about windows programming, but I can't imagine it would be too hard to do that. There's no reason it can't be running on the same client and have that programming on the server side.

I'm not saying that's the case, but that's one way that one person could receive some info and another person couldn't.

[GFresh]

This is a garbage stat. All he's doing is comparing potripper's winning percentage to the probability for a win if every hand went to show down.

Of course his number is more than average, that's the definition of being a winning player. The way he states it is misleading and is circumstantial at best as evidence for cheating.

All this number crunching is sensationalism. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

The evidence is in the hand histories themselves more than some soundbite about winning a whole bunch of lotteries in a row which is just plain misleading and cheapens the real proof.

[Johnny#5]

Post deleted by Johnny#5

[goofyballer]

Well, I think the way he presented it is pretty close to accurate and is much easier to explain than trying to convince a layman reading it "well, this is how winning at poker works."

Also, my 6max VPIP is only around 15-16%, so I probably win less than 1/6 of the hands I play and I'm still a very solid winner, so your definition of being a winning player is a little off.

[suzzer99]

Gfresh, that's a good point. A maniac at a table full of passive nits who don't adjust could easily win a ton of pots. Maybe not that many, but certainly a ton more than he would just by taking every hand to showdown.

I once open-shoved the first 15 hands in a row of a VIP freeroll before someone finally called.