Latest cliffsnotes on Absolute soulreading.

[Cruzincat]

Rather than being a superuser account, is there any possibility ha someone could have cracked the RNG insofar as only the initial part of the deal goes? It was said at one point the cheater would sit out from time to time. Could it be he would have to sit out when there were not nine players at the table, because anything less and his calculations would be off?
Maybe the rng works off of the hand number and date and time worked into a formula, that someone figured out. After the initial deal(hole cards), the rng gets seeded some other way for the remaining cards.
There was a guy sometime ago that figured out the pattern for keno and would have made a killing if he hadn't been stupid about. Sounds familiar doesn't it.

[knappis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Anyway, a SD of 270PTBB/100 sounds really extreme too me and I'm not too sure that figure is beleivable even for a maniac like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

that number seems to have fallen from the air. I have no clue where the SD of 270 ptnn/100 comes from, and i doubt it shows from the samples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, my mistake. It should be 260PTBB/100 and it is supposed to be estimated from the 190 hand session.

[ QUOTE ]
Drag, just so you know, Doubledrag's standard deviation was around 260 PTBB/100 in that 190-hand sample, and he won about 470 PTBB. Even if you think the loss rate should be -20 PTBB/100, the result is within 2 standard deviations.

[/ QUOTE ]

[apefish]

The problem with an in depth math approach is this: who are you trying to explain it to?

The idea behind leaving the math/variance debate out of the cliffsnotes this time was to put what we know out in public view and not let yet another thread get bogged down in one particular spot.
Examples from the previous threads that come immediately to mind...

1)"This is how I think the cheater did it" "zomg no you're a tard it has to be THIS way." "stfu you obviously know nothing about hax."

2)"I've run hot like this before I don't see anything wrong." "okay provide any 200 hand stretch where you replicate something like these numbers" "zomg I know I have I just can't find it right now".

3)(insert random debate about math here)


This episode of suspected cheating doesn't pass the sniff test for many winning/expert poker players.

Undoubtedly you could explain a good portion of it away with some variance issues much like monkeys eventually typing works of shakespeare.
The problem is these particular monkeys all started typing shakespeare at the same time in the same manner.

Don't forget that despite Absolute Poker saying they've investigated and in some communications "found no wrongdoing" these accounts have yet to make another appearance at Absolute.

There is certainly some good to come out of a math discussion on this. It just bogs the thread down.

[Marnixvdb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Anyway, a SD of 270PTBB/100 sounds really extreme too me and I'm not too sure that figure is beleivable even for a maniac like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

that number seems to have fallen from the air. I have no clue where the SD of 270 ptnn/100 comes from, and i doubt it shows from the samples.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, my mistake. It should be 260PTBB/100 and it is supposed to be estimated from the 190 hand session.

[ QUOTE ]
Drag, just so you know, Doubledrag's standard deviation was around 260 PTBB/100 in that 190-hand sample, and he won about 470 PTBB. Even if you think the loss rate should be -20 PTBB/100, the result is within 2 standard deviations.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

yes but who wrote that? I have never seen the 260 confirmed by anybody with access to the data

on a sidenote: how reliable is the SD number itself from such a small sample?

[nath]

[ QUOTE ]
Rather than being a superuser account, is there any possibility ha someone could have cracked the RNG insofar as only the initial part of the deal goes? It was said at one point the cheater would sit out from time to time. Could it be he would have to sit out when there were not nine players at the table, because anything less and his calculations would be off?

[/ QUOTE ]
He won the 1k tournament calling an all-in on the turn with ten high heads-up. I'm pretty sure he can see the cards.

[cassette]

Well it took about 5 days but all the Absolute regs are back.

GG Absolute, you got away with it.

[GaryTheGoat]

[ QUOTE ]
Well it took about 5 days but all the Absolute regs are back.

GG Absolute, you got away with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely hilarious

gg

[FatalError]

[ QUOTE ]
Well it took about 5 days but all the Absolute regs are back.

GG Absolute, you got away with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

deny deny deny works in practice

[DannyOcean_]

we need to spam/inform the other sites of this. P5s, FTR, rec.gambling, every big site in the world needs to know about this.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
we need to inform the other sites of this. P5s, FTR, rec.gambling, every big site in the world needs to know about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp.

i don't know if this is of value to you or others, but here's a listing of traffic sources for the website on this issue:

forumserver.twoplustwo.com / referral 305
stumbleupon.com / referral 165
(direct) / (none) 130
digg.com / referral 84
flopturnriver.com / referral 30
bet-the-pot.com / referral 19
absolutepokercheats.com / referral 15
cardschat.com / referral 13
pokerforums.org / referral 10
facebook.com / referral 9
google / organic 9
ipetitions.com / referral 8
en.wikinews.org / referral 5