Absolute Poker is rigged... no seriously

[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.

[Talking Poker]

I don't know that that hand singlehandedly PROVES anything, but it's a valid piece of the puzzle. If this guy has the best hand EVERY time he puts money in on the river (excluding failed bluffs, which should also be easy to spot), that's something. And if he's never calling on the river with the worst hand, that means something too.

You can't play for very long without having a second best hand on the river. It's just part of the game.

Back to the hand above.... I actually think you could use that as a case against this guy being able to see your hole cards. I mean, if he really could see his opponent's hole cards, would he want to make it "obvious" by making plays like that? Why not fold and wait for a more reasonable spot, or grind your opponent down gradually?

[de-coder]

And this is my point exactly - that behaviour has yet to be proven to be the case.

I posted that hand because it was originally posted as proof on 2+2 when it actually proves nothing. It may be part of a pattern, but maybe it isn't - we'll just have to wait and see.