Completely lost track of this a while back. What was the final outcome?

Originally Posted by mendozaline

My guess is that Ultimatebet is probably the most legitimate site out there,

I`m not sure that follows, given that Ultimatebet and Absolute are now sister companies.

Originally Posted by Egon Towst

I`m not sure that follows, given that Ultimatebet and Absolute are now sister companies.

I can think of one possible interpretation of that, but maybe it's best left unsaid.

What I can say it that I never got 83o 4 times in a row on Ultimatebet.

something along this line happened several years ago at poker room.com.think it was called ace of aces tourney.any way,some guy was playing multiple accounts.some how the other players found out what he was doing,yada,yada.was turned over to poker room staff.said they could see know evidence of collusion.anyway,when this happened people started cashing out in droves.i dont even know if there a site anymore.never see or hear about them,in any fourm.maybe someone knows this story better than me ,and can clarify it.

Thank you, for all your time you all put in on my question

It makes me wonder if all the sites are rigged or not?

i played there for a week and my buddy told me to bail out of it cause ppl were cheating.......being me i didn't listen and found out for myslef and i found out the hard way. lost couple bucks doing it too.....damn cheaters

I was playing a freeroll one time on absolute and i dont recall all the cards but i clearly had the guy beat with a full boat i was all in cards flipped up and i could see i had him beat. he took all my chips???? when i checked the replay they had all the cards diffrent from what we just played and him the winner!! I emailed them and they replied that there software has been checked out and is has no problems they had no explanation.I was right near the final table also.

I re-read alot of this thread because I wasn't paying attention when the thread first started. I would like to give you a little insight into what happened here.

Some posters have speculated that the "software was hacked" or "security was breached" or "some spyware was installed" etc. etc.

Let's make one thing clear, in case it still isn't clear. The software at Absolute Poker was made (yes made) with the ability for superusers to login and play with the hole cards visible. Nothing was hacked!!!

What does that mean? What is a "superuser"? Well what it means is that during the early development stages of the client software (that we use when we play at Ab), the development team made it possible (i.e. "built into" the software) the ability for anyone with the knowledge of how to login under superuser privledges, that they would see the hole cards as they played. It's as simple as that. Did they do it to build in the ability to cheat the client base? Probably not. Mostly it's just for QC and test purposes.

Ok, so what is a superuser? A superuser is just someone who has those login rights and privledges, and who has a reason to login as such. Some examples of superusers would be the developers themselves, the high level QA team, some applications guys, some marketing guys, upper management if they wanted to see it function that way.

I was a superuser on every single product line I ever worked on, that's how I know this. It gave us access to things like system parameters, recipe creation, modification and deletion rights. All the kinds of things that you don't want Joe Blow out on the manufacturing floor to mess with were reserved for the superuser access accounts.

It's as simple as that. And I'm here to tell you that Ultimatebet has them, Pokerstars has them Bodog has them (and X, Y and Z has them).

We just have to hope no one else is using them. Either that, or go back to freerolls.

While I'm thinking along these lines of how the software was built in the first place, here's another little tidbit.

Imagine in the early days of development, if they wanted to see how a tournament played out, to test all the table switching and the like. Don't you think they would build in "fake players" (i.e., "software simulations" of people or........how do you sayyyyy?........"Bot") so that they could watch the tournaments unfold before they had enough real people to play them?

Hmmmm. Now I wonder what they did with that part of the software? Hmmm. I wonder what rules they would have implemented for the Bots to make decisions on? Hmmm. Maybe they were pretty simple, because they really only wanted to test table switching. Hmmm, but suppose maybe someone wanted at least one developer to explore makiing the Bots good enough to beat the your average Joe. Maybe they needed to be able to fill tables (tournaments) that didn't have enough real people. Hmmm, now what else may they have done?

I got a kick out of the Full Tilt Bot scandal when everyone was speculating about how the Bots "infiltrated" Full Tilt. Ah, you gotta love it.

There are other things, too. About three other avenues of things that might make it harder for us to win consistently, which along with Bots and Hole card viewing makes it about five things, I would estimate.

And the RNG isn't one of them. That's a red-herring, as is the whole notion of "Donks" winniing too many hands. That one is really laughable.

I got so sick of folding 85 only to see 885 flop that last night I decided, hey let me try playing an 85 or two.

Here's my first try last night.

{Note: Before anyone complains that this post doesn't belong on this this thread, stop and think about that for a second. I submit to you that not only does this post belong, it is highly relevant to the subject at hand }

****************************************
Full Tilt Poker Game #4581697807: $3 + $0.30 KO Sit & Go (34740754), Table 6 - 25/50 - No Limit Hold'em - 22:40:09 ET - 2007/12/21
Seat 2: uh2k (6,420)
Seat 3: Will BetMoore (2,500)
Seat 4: torhouse (4,440)
Seat 5: Wodkatrinker (2,760)
Seat 6: D1GG3R (6,060)
Seat 7: sbyrne1 (830)
Seat 8: mendoza200 (4,500)
Seat 9: JohnyMike (4,390)
uh2k posts the small blind of 25
Will BetMoore posts the big blind of 50
The button is in seat #9
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to mendoza200 [8s 5s]
torhouse calls 50
Wodkatrinker calls 50
D1GG3R calls 50
sbyrne1 calls 50
mendoza200 raises to 100
JohnyMike has 15 seconds left to act
JohnyMike calls 100
uh2k folds
Will BetMoore folds
torhouse calls 50
Wodkatrinker calls 50
D1GG3R calls 50
sbyrne1 raises to 830, and is all in
mendoza200 calls 730
JohnyMike folds
torhouse calls 730
Wodkatrinker calls 730
D1GG3R folds
*** FLOP *** [3h 6c 7c]
torhouse checks
Wodkatrinker checks
mendoza200 has 15 seconds left to act
mendoza200 bets 1,250
torhouse has 15 seconds left to act
torhouse folds
Wodkatrinker folds
mendoza200 shows [8s 5s]
sbyrne1 shows [Js Ts]
torhouse: 22
Uncalled bet of 1,250 returned to mendoza200
*** TURN *** [3h 6c 7c] 4♦
*** RIVER *** [3h 6c 7c 4d] 9♥
mendoza200 shows a straight, Nine high
sbyrne1 shows Jack Ten high
mendoza200 wins the pot (3,595) with a straight, Nine high
sbyrne1 stands up
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 3,595 | Rake 0
Board: [3h 6c 7c 4d 9h]
Seat 2: uh2k (small blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 3: Will BetMoore (big blind) folded before the Flop
Seat 4: torhouse folded on the Flop
Seat 5: Wodkatrinker folded on the Flop
Seat 6: D1GG3R folded before the Flop
Seat 7: sbyrne1 showed [Js Ts] and lost with Jack Ten high
Seat 8: mendoza200 showed [8s 5s] and won (3,595) with a straight, Nine high
Seat 9: JohnyMike (button) folded before the Flop

In other words - we now have a verifiable, reliable and representative sampling that will assure us a win every time we play out our 8,5o's. Awesome, to say the least. Can't wait to play....

Originally Posted by nevadanick

In other words - we now have a verifiable, reliable and representative sampling that will assure us a win every time we play out our 8,5o's. Awesome, to say the least. Can't wait to play....

Actually no. It gaurantees less than nothing. The example was used in a way that will serve as a representation of something that I will publish at a later date. In fact it was a "representative sample" of something much more subtle. I don't suspect playing 85o on a regular basis will get me very far, however I do suspect that at times that's exactly what should be done.

Interesting that you would comment on this and not the other two posts.

What a waste of my time reading this thread.
IMO, if you don't trust the sites, then don't play.

Originally Posted by shinedown.45

IMO, if you don't trust the sites, then don't play.

Yes, I guess that's a valid viewpoint. But suppose I was writing about how the New York Times was a Communist Rag, and someone else's argument was "if you don't trust the newspaper, don't read it." Well yeah, that's true, but that doesn't mean there isn't a valid reason for me pointing out that it's a communist rag, does it?

Originally Posted by mendozaline

While I'm thinking along these lines of how the software was built in the first place, here's another little tidbit.

Imagine in the early days of development, if they wanted to see how a tournament played out, to test all the table switching and the like. Don't you think they would build in "fake players" (i.e., "software simulations" of people or........how do you sayyyyy?........"Bot") so that they could watch the tournaments unfold before they had enough real people to play them?

Hmmmm. Now I wonder what they did with that part of the software? Hmmm. I wonder what rules they would have implemented for the Bots to make decisions on? Hmmm. Maybe they were pretty simple, because they really only wanted to test table switching. Hmmm, but suppose maybe someone wanted at least one developer to explore makiing the Bots good enough to beat the your average Joe. Maybe they needed to be able to fill tables (tournaments) that didn't have enough real people. Hmmm, now what else may they have done?

I got a kick out of the Full Tilt Bot scandal when everyone was speculating about how the Bots "infiltrated" Full Tilt. Ah, you gotta love it.

Umm, no, they got people to alpha/beta test the software, so congratulations, your whole point is null, void, and absurd.

I got so sick of folding 85 only to see 885 flop that last night I decided, hey let me try playing an 85 or two.

Here's my first try last night.

Well I dunno about you guys but after this one hand I'm utterly convinced! Of course, you'll say it's part of some 'grand experiment', and even perhaps post an update after 100 trials where you're getting better results than expected, but as soon as your sample size gets reasonable and results start to converge with expectancy we won't be hearing from your little experiment again, of course.

I'll probably lock this soon seeing as it has nothing to do with Absolute Poker anymore and instead is becoming a tool for silly people to ramble about silly things.

Originally Posted by Dorkus Malorkus

I'll probably lock this soon seeing as it has nothing to do with Absolute Poker anymore and instead is becoming a tool for silly people to ramble about silly things.

Well, if it keeps people from posting the silly things elsewhere, keep it open.

Dorkus, what are your credentials? How much do you know about building software?

And why are you so sure I'm wrong? Now, it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that you are somehow associated with these online poker companies, would it?

I suppose in your fantasy world the Absolute Poker scandal didn't even happen. How about the Full Tilt Bot scandal? Maybe that didn't happen either.

I've seen how you ban the posters who see this for what it is. What do you think, we're all idiots out here?

This is child's play compared to the Yahoo Finance boards.

You guys keep on getting caught cheating, and then you all use the same tactics. I call it the Bill Clinton Defense......"I did not have sex with that women Miss Lewinsky...."

And the rest is as they say.....history. What a joke. Just like the Natalie Holloway investigation. Samo samo.

Umm, no, they got people to alpha/beta test the software, so congratulations, your whole point is null, void, and absurd. Dorkus

Alpha and beta tests are fairly far down the development cycle. Way before they get to that, the developer is sitting in his cube testing it himself. With me. I was "pre-alpha". That's when the Bots would be created.

too lazy to quote so responding to your 'points' in order.

- more than you if you think it's common practice for poker sites to use bots to playtest software, obv

- lol, oh look it's the typical "OMG HE DISAGREED WITH MY POINTS THAT I HAVE 0 EVIDENCE FOR HE MUST BE A SHILL" argument. i thought it would only be a matter of time before that came out, heh,

- umm, who made this thread?

- i ban people for trolling. there's a difference between saying "i think online poker is rigged because..." and saying something like "YOU ARE A ****ING IDIOT OF YOU PLAY ONLINE POKER IT SUCKS AND IS RIGGED".

anyway, thanks for crapping up my thread, locked now.

"I don't suspect playing 85o on a regular basis will get me very far, however I do suspect that at times that's exactly what should be done." mendozaline

If someone is going to trash what I'm saying, at least use my last sentence on the subject in your analysis.