[jamby]

True enough about the deck, but you've then got the risk that the house is involved and it's not an 'honest' virtual shuffle. As to it being easy to cheat live, sure it is, but it's also easy to get caught live. I think it's harder to get caught cheating online.

Originally Posted by Poboy

Yeah but you can't touch the deck online.
... It is pretty easy to cheat live. Code words, signals, marking cards, dealing scams, et al. It is pretty easy to cheat online.

[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by w16227

The only other confirmed occurrence of the hole cards being "visible" was the recent Absolute Poker fiasco.

not so fast, sir.

link to emerging UB scandal

[littlebu]

Ironic huh since they are owned by the same people

Originally Posted by jojobinks

not so fast, sir.

link to emerging UB scandal

[w16227]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

not so fast, sir.

link to emerging UB scandal

UGH

Sick if true - and frankly not surprising if they are owned by the same people.

blu - do they run the same SW? I have not read the complete thread, but it looks like the only really decent evidence is that he disappeared at the same time the AP stuff popped up. Circumstantial evidence for sure, but I know that I would not stop playing if I was on that kind of legitimate roll.

I have read a lot of the thread. While suspicious, they do not have any kind of smoking gun yet other than the fact that the guy played too many hands to win at "that" rate.

The good thing about online poker in these situations is that you have lots of self policing. The bad - same thing (you get lots of unfounded junk out there too).

My thoughts - why do they keep complaining to UB? Aren't the big boys all regulated in their country of orgin? (Pokerstars is Kwanahee or whatever in Canada, no?). I would think that pressure from the local regulatory agency would get UB (or whomever) jumping on some real analysis.

Sure - all depends on the agencies tendencies to - well - CARE about doing their job, but why would you not try?

[littlebu]

W- The SW is different. At least the visual stuff we see. AP has just recently acquired UB (right before or during the whole scandal thing). I haven't played UB in ages so I'm not really on the up and up, but saw that thread on 2+2 when it first started.

Originally Posted by w16227

UGH

Sick if true - and frankly not surprising if they are owned by the same people.

blu - do they run the same SW? I have not read the complete thread, but it looks like the only really decent evidence is that he disappeared at the same time the AP stuff popped up. Circumstantial evidence for sure, but I know that I would not stop playing if I was on that kind of legitimate roll.

I have read a lot of the thread. While suspicious, they do not have any kind of smoking gun yet other than the fact that the guy played too many hands to win at "that" rate.

The good thing about online poker in these situations is that you have lots of self policing. The bad - same thing (you get lots of unfounded junk out there too).

My thoughts - why do they keep complaining to UB? Aren't the big boys all regulated in their country of orgin? (Pokerstars is Kwanahee or whatever in Canada, no?). I would think that pressure from the local regulatory agency would get UB (or whomever) jumping on some real analysis.

Sure - all depends on the agencies tendencies to - well - CARE about doing their job, but why would you not try?

[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by w16227

I have read a lot of the thread. While suspicious, they do not have any kind of smoking gun yet other than the fact that the guy played too many hands to win at "that" rate.

what about this:

Originally Posted by Josem from post #68 in the 2+2 thread

Hey folks,

A new picture for you to look at:



The point in the upper-right corner is the UB alleged cheater.

Some facts about the graph:
-There are 870 "normal" players from a variety of sites and limits
-Each of those other players have at least 2,500 hands logged on them
-The graph is in big blinds/100, not PokerTracker's big bets/100.

-The mean bb/100 win rate is 1.528 bb/100
-The standard deviation is 14.08 bb/100

-The alleged UB cheater is winning at around 10 standard deviations above the mean
-The confessed AP cheater was winning at around 15 standard deviations above the mean

I think that 10 standard deviations is something in the order of winning a 1-in-a-million lottery three or four times consecutively - although I'd prefer if a maths expert could be a little more clear.

[dad604]

While it is not collusion, FTP also caught bots playing. My son was one of those that got email from FTP saying that they would be refunding some money to his account once FTP figure out how it was.