|
|
|
|
#1
10-12-2007, 07:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute Poker\'s Official Response to \"superuser\" allegations
AP's Offcial Response to Allegations
Official Absolute Poker Response To Player Fraud Allegations Absolute Poker takes all allegations of player fraud and collusion extremely seriously. Fair play and security are of paramount importance to us. Our Security and Fraud Department is dedicated to ensuring that everyone on the site has a fair opportunity to win, and that no improper methods, devices, programs and/or other unfair advantages are ever utilized in our games. We were greatly concerned by a recent thread on the 2+2 forums along with emails and other communications we received, regarding alleged player fraud. We thank the vigilant players who reported this matter to us, giving us an opportunity to investigate these serious allegations. We spent extensive resources thoroughly investigating and analyzing our players’ claims. While our investigation is ongoing, we feel that we have enough information at this point to share with you some of our findings. Please be advised, that we will continue to investigate each and every claim of wrong-doing on an individual basis and we will report any further significant findings that are appropriate for public review. Also, please keep in mind, while we endeavor to provide as much information as possible on a public level, we take our players’ privacy issues very seriously, and will never compromise this. As a matter of Company policy, Absolute Poker never divulges personal information about our players nor do we make public any hand information that did not go to a showdown, ever. As a result, we are limited in terms of the level of information that we can provide for public review. In response to the allegations, we froze the accounts of the players in question while we performed an extensive investigation. The result of our investigation is that we found no evidence that any of Absolute Poker’s redundant and varying levels of game client security were compromised. In other words, we have determined with reasonable certainty that it is impossible for any player or employee to see hole cards as was alleged. There is no part of the technology that allows for a “superuser” account, and there is no way for any person to influence the game software to their advantage. We base this finding on a thorough security check on a technological level, coupled with a thorough investigation of hand histories including those that did not go to a showdown. As a part of our investigation, we also tested the integrity of our certified random number generator (“RNG”.) We determined that our RNG was not compromised either. Details of the investigation We combed through all hands involving the accounts that were mentioned in the online forums. Please note that only a select number of hands were featured in the threads. Our ongoing investigation continues to show that there were countless instances where a somewhat unorthodox poker strategy resulted in a loss. Allegations that the player accounts at issue “always guessed right” are unfounded. We examined screen shots from Poker Tracker Software that displayed an “infinite” river aggression factor for one of the player accounts at issue. We examined similar screen shots which showed a lower but still relatively high river aggression factor. We were very concerned by this anomaly. Accordingly, we reviewed each and every hand that this player played during the relevant time period and determined that while the play was extremely aggressive, particularly on the river, there were several instances where the player merely called on the river. Thus, the allegation that the player accounts at issue “never called on the river, they either raised or folded” are also without merit. With respect to the allegation of chip dumping, we have determined that chip dumping by at least one of the accounts at issue, did in fact, take place. We have determined that the chip dumping was made to several seemingly unrelated accounts. We are continuing to investigate this issue. Conclusion A ‘super-user’ account does not exist in our software. Absolute Poker was created by poker players who value security and fair play. The back-end of the Absolute Poker software prevents the possibility of any such feature. Our game client only receives data regarding an individual’s hand and no other player hole cards are ever visible – by anyone – except in the event of a showdown. Having said that, we will continue this investigation as well as look into any other allegations of wrong-doing. If appropriate, we will freeze funds and reimburse effected players. Absolute Poker remains a 100% secure place to play. We value all of our players and we will continue to provide our community with a safe, secure and exciting online poker experience. The Absolute Poker Management 
|
|
#2
10-12-2007, 07:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Poker\'s Official Response to \"superuser\" allegations
"Accordingly, we reviewed each and every hand that this player played during the relevant time period and determined that while the play was extremely aggressive, particularly on the river, there were several instances where the player merely called on the river. Thus, the allegation that the player accounts at issue “never called on the river, they either raised or folded” are also without merit."
What needs to be explained is how the player was able to NEVER lose money on a river bet. The fact that he just called sometimes doesn't address that. Also the vagueness about how many hands are in question is troubling. You need to be specific about the number of hands, because that affects the probability of deciding whether the player was just lucky or godlike. We need to know many times he NEVER lost money on the river. If it was ten times, well then perhaps this guy got very, very lucky. It was a hundred times, luck was not involved.
|
|
#3
10-12-2007, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Poker\'s Official Response to \"superuser\" allegations
phew, what a relief.
|
|
#5
10-12-2007, 07:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Poker\'s Official Response to \"superuser\" allegations
L
O L
|
|
#10
10-12-2007, 10:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Absolute Poker\'s Official Response to \"superuser\" allegations
One of the problems with a site posting a response like this is we have no idea what sample of hands/sessions they looked at in making these determinations.
If they looked at the sessions that were eventually plotted on Josems plot against other known databases they would have a hard time explaining the sessions, because quite simply they are unexplainable in the context of everything good players know about the game. But I have no doubt that in situations like this- the first thing sites tend to do is seek any miniscule plausibility instead of seeking to determine how implausible it is. In other words- I am almost certain Absolute looked at the incredibly suspect sessions and then said "well let's find minor details we can latch onto that don't fit the theory people are operating under." All in river calls or turn all in calls while marginally ahead in which they get drawn out on would be some of these factors. Another factor they likely used but will never let us know explicitly is the other sessions in which it was clear the player knew he was suspected of cheating (the night half of 2+2 was aware he was on and playing) or isn't within the period of suspected cheating. In short- I am almost certain they used sessions where the accounts lost money as evidence in favor of not cheating without looking at the underlying play. This way they can come back and say "well the person played the same unorthodox poker in another session and lost- therefore your claim cannot be true." That they use the words unorthodox/fortunate result/etc to me indicates either a vast misunderstanding of the game or a attempt to tell us the same. You can have fortunate results while playing "unorthodox". But unorthdox isn't a catch-all for all suspicious/maniacal/otherwise inexplicible styles of play. And it certainly shouldn't be used as a phrase when the sessions in which the account was already exposed in these threads and loses are "unorthodox" in a much much different way than the winning sessions were. When I sit down and do flips with other 2+2ers surely that is "unorthodox" play. And I can have a "fortunate result" with my unorthodox play of hands in them. But it is explainable given context of that single session. Absolute has failed to address that these winning sessions tend to be unexplainable on their own, and that is a mild shortcoming on Absolute's part. But the big failure is they have completely missed the sequential context of all the actions of the suspected accounts. And that is unforgivable.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
