Absolute Poker is rigged... no seriously

[Talking Poker]

ty de-coder. +Rep for the summary.

[Wes]

de-coder's summary isn't very accurate. doesn't seem like he read the entire thread, or in that fact any of the hands. Just read this post, and ask yourself if you think there isn't anything up.

[Wes]

And read this thread in the high stakes limit forum

[melioris]

to avoid scandal I will ask a somewhat muddled question. I skimmed these threads and didn't see this stated, so I ask is the named pro from the internettexasholdem link in the OP thought to be the person behind the suspicious accounts named in the 2+2 threads?

[melioris]

btw I think the most damning bit of evidence was stated by someone I am too lazy to refind and link. But the point was that the high stakes limit forums are filled with conspiracy threads and each one of them has been shot down immediately. This appears to be the first one that has legs and no valid detractors other than "meh just a lucky fish I guess".

Second most damning bit of evidence (granted, from several different small samples-maybe >3k hands total), AF per street for these players (who run something like 70/55 preflop, SD maybe 35% and W$SD +60%-those stats being the third most damning evidence) is 3/3/>20, like they never, ever, call the river.

[Talking Poker]

That's what I find the most interesting. Individually, the HHs are goofy, yes, but I see goofy stuff all the time. Check the Beats and Brags section for tons of examples.

But postflop aggression factor that goes 3/3/20+ is just nuts. No one plays (the river) that perfectly.

[de-coder]

I'd like to point out that although his numbers are goofy (and they are) - I was only able to find references to pretty small samples (<550 hands). Also, just because he has a really high AF on the river doesn't mean he's playing the river perfectly - he's clearly playing it in a raise/fold fashion, but that could be a strategy. There's no evidence to indicate that he's always raising with the best and folding the worst - there are lots of anecdotal stories to the affect, but no actual proof. I think that only AB would be able to find that proof by looking at all the actual hands played and seeing if he plays a perfect river.

I can provide an example - this is one of the hands posted as proof from the 2+2 forum:

Table: 14 (Real Money) Seat #3 is the dealer
Seat 3 - POTRIPPER ($765740 in chips)
Seat 8 - CRAZYMARCO ($214260 in chips)
POTRIPPER - Ante $450
CRAZYMARCO - Ante $450
POTRIPPER - Posts small blind $2250
CRAZYMARCO - Posts big blind $4500
*** POCKET CARDS ***
POTRIPPER - Calls $2250
CRAZYMARCO - Checks
*** FLOP *** [4h Kd Kh]
CRAZYMARCO - Checks
POTRIPPER - Bets $9000
CRAZYMARCO - Calls $9000
*** TURN *** [4h Kd Kh] [7s]
CRAZYMARCO - Checks
POTRIPPER - Bets $13500
CRAZYMARCO - All-In(Raise) $200310 to $200310
POTRIPPER - Calls $186810
*** RIVER *** [4h Kd Kh 7s] [5s]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
POTRIPPER - Shows [10c 9c] (One pair, kings)
CRAZYMARCO - Shows [9h 2h] (One pair, kings)
POTRIPPER Collects $428520 from main pot

This is supposed to prove that potripper was able to see crazymarcos cards - I don't think it does, but some people on 2+2 think it does. There are other hands as bad as this one... He might just suck people... I honestly think that if this were happening at a lower limit we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[de-coder]

I didn't read all the 2+2 thread, as I said I got most of the info from the FCP thread on the topic (as far as I know it's never been closed or modified by moderators). As for hands - I looked at a number of samples that were posted (including the ones you referenced and others), but 2 points:

1) I can look through my PT and find a bunch of weird calls and bad plays too (there's even a good sample in the hand discussion forum here)... That isn't really evidence. I did look at the 3 hands in the link you posted, but they don't prove anything other than none of these people play very well.
2) as I stated, I'm unable to verify whether these things are true or not.

My view is that there isn't enough actual, verifiable, evidence to prove whether AB was hacked or whether someone (or some group of people) have access to all the hole cards. Some people have chosen to cash out of AB, others haven't.

I don't, and haven't ever, played there. If you play there and this makes you uncomfortable, which is certainly a valid view, then stop.

This is the kind of thing that get all the conspiracy theorists worked up into a frenzy, particularly since 2+2 seemed to close the topic to the public for a short time (but that isn't evidence either).

FYI - I have sent an email to AB, with links to several threads, and have requested comment. I'm not holding my breath on that though, but it will be interesting to see how much traction this story needs before they are forced to respond. FWIW, I've been unable to find any reference to these fraud reports on their website - but I'll keep an eye out.