Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Absolute Poker Cheating Scandal Blown Wide Open
freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com — A combination of some incredible detective work by some poker players and an accidental (?) data leak by Absolute Poker have blown the scandal wide open.
maineman99- 1797 diggs
- digg it
- slasherx, on 10/28/2007, -0/+25Cliffnotes here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat ...
- ImOscar, on 10/18/2007, -0/+10Youtube video of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FczbS7FiWSM (Part 1 of 4). He's obviously not cheating, he's just psychic of course!
- rkettner, on 10/18/2007, -4/+3I watched that entire video... and honestly didn't see one hand that was conclusive. Sure, he played loose and sometimes tightened up, but there were also hands when he bet into AK and JJ pre-flop... and then folded after re-raise. There may be better evidence out there... but this didn't do it for me. I play about an hour and a half of live poker here at the office every day (pretty serious)... and I simply cannot agree there is conclusive evidence in this one YouTube clip.
Does anybody have another clip... and can recommend a specific time in the playback where something seems obvious?- ImOscar, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2Surely, you can't be serious. Try part 2. I haven't watched all of these, but the first two minutes alone are just ridiculous. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbQyKgELDEA&mode=re ...
- Sharkky, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1If you haven't watched all these then you haven't fully done the research and making uneducated assumptions.
- rkettner, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2Um... do you play poker? Do you understand betting patterns, and how they relate to the flop?
Do you also understand that he is a MASSIVE chip leader at that point... and most small stacks will fold even second pair against big bets (on early streets... where the bets will just continue to get bigger). This is FAR from conclusive. The flop on one hand came down A55 and he bets into it to win against 99. This is both an example of how a high stack can push around players, and how he bet into a much better hand (that he "apparently" saw).
- ImOscar, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2Surely, you can't be serious. Try part 2. I haven't watched all of these, but the first two minutes alone are just ridiculous. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbQyKgELDEA&mode=re ...
- rkiga, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1I watched the whole video (up until hand 90-something when it stopped displaying the hole cards) and i didn't see any one hand that was conclusive either, but a whole bunch of fishy ones. There is no real "proof", but all the suspicious hands together with the stuff at http://www.natarem.com/ make it a lot more conclusive.
Regardless of the cheating, a lot of it came down to the players at the table all playing too tightly, and then later trying to call bluffs with bad cards out of frustration. POTRIPPER was muscling people around making them fold left and right, obviously he was bluffing most of the time, but they were all too scared to call or raise anything in the first 2/3 of the tourney. It took them more than 70 hands to start re-raising his pre-flop bullying, that's insane. The definition of tight-aggressive changes when you're letting somebody steal all the blinds and build up a big chip lead. Change up your game people.
Going into a tourney like that with a $1000 buy-in, you know going in that everyone is going to be playing super tight. Playing loose-aggressive at the start isn't a bad game plan, but i guess it sure helps to see other people's cards too.
- rkettner, on 10/18/2007, -4/+3I watched that entire video... and honestly didn't see one hand that was conclusive. Sure, he played loose and sometimes tightened up, but there were also hands when he bet into AK and JJ pre-flop... and then folded after re-raise. There may be better evidence out there... but this didn't do it for me. I play about an hour and a half of live poker here at the office every day (pretty serious)... and I simply cannot agree there is conclusive evidence in this one YouTube clip.
- marm0lade, on 10/18/2007, -4/+8I'm really not surprised at all that this happened. I play online poker here and there, $5 and $10 tournaments, and you would not believe some of the ***** that goes on. Hands that get played that would NEVER get played in a real casino, miracle river cards, and not just to me either, I see it happen to other players all the time. I have no doubt that online poker sites fix games, one way or another, to make sure no one ever wins too big.
- Grumby24, on 10/18/2007, -4/+2I don't believe there games are fixed like you say, the examples you give are a result of variance. In the short run anything can happen, but over the long term luck evens out. I play a ton of online poker and you always see horrible players at the $5 and $10 tournaments. Players generally get better the higher the buy-ins. Anyways, sites like Poker Stars keep track of the winners (on the leaderboard) and it would be pretty obvious after a while if someone were to win too much if they were getting "lucky" all the time and winning. It's funny that the people who think all online poker is rigged are usually not winning players.
- marm0lade, on 10/18/2007, -1/+6Except for now there is proof that is is rigged, or rather the host site is cheating. You really think Absolute Poker is an isolated incident? Highly doubtful.
- MrLlama, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1Firstly, there is no evidence that it is Absolute Poker themselves that are cheating the players. The security breach is more likely to have been done by an employee or someone managing to hack Absolute Poker's servers remotely. Absolute Poker would have little to gain from such an incident, except from the complete loss of reputation. Secondly, you don't play poker enough to be able to say that your losses in $5 and $10 tournaments are due to the poker site being rigged. Yes, you may find a lot of '*****' (as you say) happening if you play occassionally - poker is like that and people get lucky/unlucky in the short run - but if you are a good winning player you will find that you will gain money in the long run.
- marm0lade, on 10/18/2007, -1/+2I have been successful, in the long run, playing in real life casinos. Online is a *completely* different story. The reason why I don't play more online is bc of the '***** that happens' really is unreal. Every time I play online i say to myself "well this time will be different" and then hand after hand after hand, and not just me this is happening to, the cards that turn up are unreal. And I realize that in low cost tables you are getting the ***** that play every single hand bc they are ignorant, but it has to even out sometime right? I mean its statistics and law of averages says it will. No, it won't.
- DooM, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1If you were talking about playing against a single player you would be correct - but you're playing against 6-10 players at a time and hundreds and thousands of different players at different points so it won't work out that way statistically. Poker isn't a 1-on-1 game most of the time - if you play heads up it'll shake out that way.
- Grumby24, on 10/18/2007, -4/+2I don't believe there games are fixed like you say, the examples you give are a result of variance. In the short run anything can happen, but over the long term luck evens out. I play a ton of online poker and you always see horrible players at the $5 and $10 tournaments. Players generally get better the higher the buy-ins. Anyways, sites like Poker Stars keep track of the winners (on the leaderboard) and it would be pretty obvious after a while if someone were to win too much if they were getting "lucky" all the time and winning. It's funny that the people who think all online poker is rigged are usually not winning players.
- ImOscar, on 10/18/2007, -0/+10Youtube video of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FczbS7FiWSM (Part 1 of 4). He's obviously not cheating, he's just psychic of course!
- ImOscar, on 10/18/2007, -18/+33Most claims that online poker is rigged are ridiculous and have no basis in facts. I don't understand how after looking at the hand histories and other relevant info any poker player could try and dispute the claim that cheating has occurred here.
- senatorkevin, on 10/20/2007, -21/+13Maybe you should read the article and the associated forum posts about this before commenting and making an argument through ignorance. This isn't someone whining because their aces lost in a big hand and are looking to place blame.
- senatorkevin, on 10/20/2007, -1/+39Whoa, I completely misread your message and thought you were saying that looking at hand histories has no way of determining if cheating was involved. My bad!
- Tokkii, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1You weren't the only one. Some guy quoted ImOscar in the thread and made the same mistake.
- marm0lade, on 10/18/2007, -9/+3So you don't think it is a little suspicious that the observer's IP address originates from the Absolute Poker's server? You also don't think its suspicious that the player in question never folded one hand while that observer was present? Stop being ignorant.
- ImOscar, on 10/18/2007, -0/+9I think I used too many negatives for people to grasp while skimming Digg comments. Read my comment again.
- marm0lade, on 10/18/2007, -0/+7I see what you did there. Guess I need to slooooow down when I'm reading.
- davidrools, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2I think you should try to phrase your sentences so they're easier to understand by not put two contrasting sentences together without some sort of transition (e.g., "but," "however," etc.) That's just good writing. It's not diggers inability to grasp a slight negative.
- ImOscar, on 10/18/2007, -0/+9I think I used too many negatives for people to grasp while skimming Digg comments. Read my comment again.
- WolverineBlue, on 10/19/2007, -0/+13In the future, you may want to include a "but" or "however" between opposing statements.
- bingobongony, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1I looked at the hand histories. Well, I skimmed them except for eveyr one that Marco commented on parenthetically. And almost ALL of them were not obvious signs of cheating at all. Especially the ones that MArco claimed were the most blatant. In one, POTRIPPER had JJ and his only opponent had a Q high. POTRIPPER made a small bet pre-flop, and then checked until the turn where his opponent bet because a queen came on. POTRIPPER folded.
Marco claimed this was obvious proof. Called is a "sick" hand. But there is NOTHING suspicious about a player with pocket Jacks checking and then folding when a higher card comes out at any point. (The flop were all low cards, so the turn was the first time that the comunity cards could have hurt him, unless the opponent had pocket pairs himself or got lucky and flopped two pairs.) That was a perfectly normal played hand.
And again, since Marco only commented n about 10% of the hands, I assume that the ones he did comment on are the ones he considered to be the most damning. And if that was what he considered damning, then this hand history is not proof of anything.- TunaFisu, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2The big point weren't any of the individual hands, but completely perfect total statistics. The very best in poker win money at about 1% of the speed he did. He didn't fail a single hand. In the whole damned game. He also didn't fold preflop unless someone else got better cards than him. Even when he got quite nice cards.
And when this all came out, why did he instantly start playing the worst possible game, including playing with a hand that could beat literally no other hand in the game after it was clear the others would see it trough.
Don't look at the details, but the big picture. This man was cheating.
- TunaFisu, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2The big point weren't any of the individual hands, but completely perfect total statistics. The very best in poker win money at about 1% of the speed he did. He didn't fail a single hand. In the whole damned game. He also didn't fold preflop unless someone else got better cards than him. Even when he got quite nice cards.
- Mrage, on 10/18/2007, -0/+23A big "thanks" to all the folks continuing to take time out of their days to get to the bottom of this.
- reeder, on 10/20/2007, -0/+38Nothing can beat a determined group of critical thinkers.
- honeymustardn, on 10/18/2007, -0/+15Two groups?
- TheCosmicFool, on 10/17/2007, -4/+6we have a winrar
- rupprupp29, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1Deep Blue
- honeymustardn, on 10/18/2007, -0/+15Two groups?
- mjmaurer, on 10/18/2007, -17/+2Steven Levitt (of Freakonomics) has weighed in: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/t ...
- Terr01, on 10/18/2007, -2/+6You were a victim of Digg's Crappy Comment System. This link'll work.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/t ...- DooM, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Thanks... if either of you rtfa you'd know that THIS IS THE SAME LINK THIS STORY LINKS TO.
- Terr01, on 10/18/2007, -2/+6You were a victim of Digg's Crappy Comment System. This link'll work.
- x5pfif, on 10/18/2007, -14/+2well..its online.. so.. anythin can be done. cheating isnt such a hard thing.
- evg87, on 10/17/2007, -9/+5Yes, it actually is incredibly difficult as something like this has never occurred before dating back to poker's boom in 2003.
Again, nothing like this has ever happened.
Poker sites spend huge sums of money to keep their software as impenetrable as that of most small governments, this is not a common occurrence in the least.
In fact, the only reason why it happened is because it was an inside job. Online poker is incredibly safe, but there simply are no safeguards against fraud committed by the site's CEO's and owners.
Except for this.- VAXcat, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Yah, it's like Slim Pickens said in "Rancho Deluxe"..."all big crime is inside crime..."
- pt4117, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2How do you know nothing like this has happened before? It could happen all of the time; maybe a site owner just skims a little every now and then.
If the security was so good, and they did everything in their power to prevent this then why was it so easy for someone (even someone inside) to see all of the whole cards? You would think that they either wouldn't have this option, or they would have a million alarms go off if it ever happened. - WilliamDavis, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1"Yes, it actually is incredibly difficult as something like this has never occurred before dating back to poker's boom in 2003.
Again, nothing like this has ever happened."
I'd say, oh yeah, it definitely has. This wasn't their first time, and they probably weren't the first to do it. It's just the first time someone sent out evidence. It was done really stupidly, and still wouldn't have been uncovered if not for AP sending out the evidence.
- evg87, on 10/17/2007, -9/+5Yes, it actually is incredibly difficult as something like this has never occurred before dating back to poker's boom in 2003.
- evg87, on 10/18/2007, -17/+6Yes, it actually is incredibly difficult as something like this has never occurred before dating back to poker's boom in 2003.
Again, nothing like this has ever happened.
Poker sites spend huge sums of money to keep their software as impenetrable as that of most small governments, this is not a common occurrence in the least.
In fact, the only reason why it happened is because it was an inside job. Online poker is incredibly safe, but there simply are no safeguards against fraud committed by the site's CEO's and owners.
Except for this.- Zipko, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5It's not like there isn't other fraud going on. I'm convinced the software is rigged to show more high value hands than normal. I've seen drawing hands complete far more often than they should statistically. It's not hard to see the motivation behind this either; The better your hand, the more money you put in the pot, and the site's take is a percentage of the pot.
- Grumby24, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2"I've seen drawing hands complete far more often than they should statistically"
Oh really? Do you use Poker Tracker to be able to document this? Over how many hands are you speaking? BTW, anything less than a 30k hand sample is not statistically significant. I have a huge database of all of my hands from online and there are no statisical anomalies.- marm0lade, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1The problem is that most people that play online at the cheap tables are complete asshats. People will call the most asinine hands bc they are ignorant and have no strategy besides calling everything. Try going to a casino where you play for real amounts of money and playing out deuce seven every time and see what happens.
- gbro, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Grumby24, from what poker websites are these?
- Grumby24, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2"I've seen drawing hands complete far more often than they should statistically"
- MadHarvey, on 10/17/2007, -0/+0Of course this has happened before, anytime there is millions of dollars at stake, there will be people that will try and take it. It makes me feel better that it has happened and has been caught. It shows people are paying attention, thus making it much more difficult.
Also, its not really guaranteed to be an inside job. The server and CEO account could possibly have been compromised...
- Zipko, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5It's not like there isn't other fraud going on. I'm convinced the software is rigged to show more high value hands than normal. I've seen drawing hands complete far more often than they should statistically. It's not hard to see the motivation behind this either; The better your hand, the more money you put in the pot, and the site's take is a percentage of the pot.
- benitojuarez, on 10/18/2007, -4/+8this is already on the front page.
- Jpays, on 11/05/2007, -2/+21GG asolute poker
- Azlen, on 10/17/2007, -7/+1Most of the people who play online aren't going to have to worry about this type of thing. The player who was cheating here was playing 200/400 tables not the low end tables that most people play. If you are going to risk things by cheating you are going to go after the big money, not the little stuff.
- cornerback42, on 10/18/2007, -0/+13Actually going after the little stuff (think OfficeSpace) would be much less obvious then trying to nail big players. Most players that are playing with 200/400, most likely know how to play poker and play it well. Skimming a $10-$100 pot off a smaller game 100 x a day is going to net you serious cash without being obvious. I think your kinda wrong here on this one.
- MiDri, on 10/17/2007, -3/+5Think Superman 3...
- Azuroth, on 10/17/2007, -1/+5I prefer to think Office Space.
- MiDri, on 10/17/2007, -3/+5Think Superman 3...
- smithro1984, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4It was a tournament not cash table
- enlightenme, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1what are small stakes to you are not small stakes to the poor guy in Costa Rica. Small stakes are not immune.
- cornerback42, on 10/18/2007, -0/+13Actually going after the little stuff (think OfficeSpace) would be much less obvious then trying to nail big players. Most players that are playing with 200/400, most likely know how to play poker and play it well. Skimming a $10-$100 pot off a smaller game 100 x a day is going to net you serious cash without being obvious. I think your kinda wrong here on this one.
- soot, on 10/18/2007, -8/+1hot damn hot damn gotta get some
- threadless01, on 10/18/2007, -4/+6Now I have good excuse at why I always lose! I've been cheated!
- ngmcs8203, on 10/17/2007, -0/+5That's the exact reason why a lot of online poker players did not want this to be true. Everyone is going to use this for an excuse more than they already are.
- Frostflame, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2People always and forever find a way to cheat.
- AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -9/+3Jebus, this is already on the front page:
http://digg.com/security/Major_Online_Poker_Room_C ... - cowpig, on 10/18/2007, -2/+3I hope this will encourage the US to revise its laws re: online gaming and opt to regulate instead of ban.
- inigomntoya, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3I think the government should keep their nose out of my business and let me use my money the way I want to.
- gfindlay, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Big Wreck?
- SiNN4R, on 10/18/2007, -1/+17If you're suprised by this you are not too bright. This is why we shouldn't have moved online poker out of the US. We should be able to regulate gaming ourselves.
- FatShady, on 10/17/2007, -0/+3Yeah, because the best way to drive out corruption is to get the government involved.
- LowROI, on 10/20/2007, -0/+34This isn't really news to the poker community. Those of us who have been following the story for a few months have known that something was awry. An infinite agression factor on the river is completely unheard of, almost impossible.
Basically, the player never EVER called on the river, always raised or folded. He was never wrong, if you bet 50 000 dollars with 8 high, he'd insta call with 9 high. No effort was made to even try to hide the fact that he could see the hole cards.
To make a gaming analogy, he had blatent wall hacks, and made hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process.- minoss, on 10/20/2007, -0/+4Yea, no one hand is proof of cheating but when you see he never made a SINGLE post-flop mistake in hundreds of hands it becomes extremely obvious. This isn't even close to disputable.
- LogicBomB, on 10/18/2007, -5/+4Aren't most poker sites dominated by poker bots, collusion, and the like?
- albedoa, on 10/20/2007, -1/+9No.
- khaos4k, on 10/20/2007, -1/+7A poker bot would actually be a very poor player. Super predictable and unable to think.
- inigomntoya, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1I agree to a degree - bots are VERY poor bluffers. Always be weary of a raising bot. They will likely beat you.
BUT - Bots are very quick at determining the odds of their hand winning and can calculate much more quickly than a human can if it is worth calling, raising, or folding.
- inigomntoya, on 10/17/2007, -1/+1I agree to a degree - bots are VERY poor bluffers. Always be weary of a raising bot. They will likely beat you.
- enlightenme, on 10/18/2007, -2/+2yes, they are.
- WilliamDavis, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Poker bots and collusion aren't that big of deal for experienced poker players, and really not much of a problem at all in a tournament, provided there are enough non-colluding players playing. Institutional cheating like this is a giant ***** problem to anyone, though.
- albedoa, on 10/19/2007, -6/+3I think it's important that you don't comment if you know nothing about gambling or online poker. You're diverting the focus from an obviously corrupt poker site to the online poker industry as a whole. This is not the first indication of Absolute's incompetence, only the most newsworthy.
There are sites that are universally trusted by players. There is no chance of something like this ever happening at those sites, and there is no way such a breach would be handled with this much negligence and denial. The fact that it happened at one site which was already known for their dishonesty is more of a reason for online poker to be fully regulated than ignored.- sivsta, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2How do you know the rest of them don't fix a few hands here and there? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
- albedoa, on 10/17/2007, -0/+0If they are fixed, then they are fixed in my favor. WHY WOULD I CARE?
- dkm201, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1LOL apologist!
- sivsta, on 10/17/2007, -1/+2How do you know the rest of them don't fix a few hands here and there? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
- scabbers, on 10/20/2007, -5/+13I naturally assumed all online gambling was crooked.
- minoss, on 10/20/2007, -4/+2And your assumptions would be wrong.
- kavehsamani, on 10/18/2007, -0/+10lol donkaments
- calinazaret, on 10/18/2007, -10/+5buried for duplicate article
- mhender, on 10/18/2007, -0/+9The author says that there will be prison time. Sure. Because they're in the U.S. and all, right?
- stgeorge, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Because there are no laws anywhere outside of the US... it's a barren wasteland of lawlessness and naked Neanderthals. Yeah, something like that.
- Cglass, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1LOL I was going to write this EXACT statement but you beat me to it, neanderthals and all ;)
- stgeorge, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Because there are no laws anywhere outside of the US... it's a barren wasteland of lawlessness and naked Neanderthals. Yeah, something like that.
- xmichael, on 10/18/2007, -0/+15Don't forget Absolute Poker owns Ultimate Bet!
- MrBelding, on 10/17/2007, -0/+2I love this author. I have an audio CD set of his economic findings on all sorts of random stuff. He has an interesting story on how they caught teachers in Chicago changing test scores for their students for No Child Left Behind.
- scrimaxinc, on 10/18/2007, -0/+11I must have put a decimal point in the wrong place....I always ***** up on some mundane detail.....
- xmichael, on 10/20/2007, -0/+7"Also Absolute has since issued a statement that Scott Tom has not worked for them for a year, and they are conducting an “independent” audit into the situation. We will see if anything comes of this. "
This is not true, Scott Tom is the CEO - xmichael, on 10/20/2007, -4/+2"Also Absolute has since issued a statement that Scott Tom has not worked for them for a year, and they are conducting an “independent” audit into the situation. We will see if anything comes of this. "
This is not true, Scott Tom is the CEO - tuxidomasx, on 10/18/2007, -3/+3if you aint cheatin you aint tryin
- Christbait, on 10/18/2007, -4/+1Already on the front page...
- rdgn, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1Wait, isn't gambling online illegal in the US?
- irvman21, on 10/20/2007, -0/+5You know people outside the US can read Digg, right?
- wokethebears, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4online gambling is actually not illegal
- ohcyrus, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1I am playing online when a came across this article on Digg, and I live in California.
- Gabberwok, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2None of the sites can be hosted inside the US.
- idc5, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1I know this didn't affect many of who play smaller blind games, but it's still wrong
- keyme, on 10/20/2007, -0/+8And what lesson did we learn today?
DON'T gamble money when the "entropy" is generated at a remote location. (Like a game server?) - Chickenlip, on 10/20/2007, -1/+4"If that is the case, I hope whomever “accidentally” sent the file gets their proper hero’s welcome in the end."
When are journalists going to learn how to use who and whom properly?- mxmj, on 10/20/2007, -2/+3When are Diggers going to realize that typos and grammatical errors happen. It seems like every third comment on Digg is someone berating a person for the misuse of 'there' or some slight typo.
- WilliamDavis, on 10/20/2007, -1/+1"When are journalists going to learn how to use who and whom properly?"
Explain it real quick for them. Errr everyone. Ok, me.
- lalalalamppost, on 10/20/2007, -2/+4If you're gambling on a video game run out of Costa Rica, you are an idiot and deserve to have your money stolen by fraud. Seriously. They only think more stupid than that is whining to the Internet after you get ripped off.
- cash0utcurse, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1Please write coherent statements. Oh, and I guess i'm an idiot too, since I made $50k this year in online poker.
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2is your nickname " potripper"?
- cash0utcurse, on 10/22/2007, -1/+1was that supposed to be a joke?
- auto98, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I hope so, cos it was funny :P
- mithrasinvictus, on 10/22/2007, -1/+2is your nickname " potripper"?
- cash0utcurse, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1Please write coherent statements. Oh, and I guess i'm an idiot too, since I made $50k this year in online poker.
- Live4Soccer, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1Bots are pretty common and so are teams of cheaters working together to stack the odds at a particular table but I've never heard of cheating on a scale like this and by the Poker site itself...seems rather suicidal to kill your customers like this, knowing that once you're busted, the site is toast...but maybe they were desperate or more likely, it was a group of well connected technical support guys that figured out how to game the site and the people running the company didn't know a thing...never played on Absolute Poker and I'm now glad I never did...
- Onion575, on 10/18/2007, -3/+3People actually play poker online?
- MrLlama, on 10/18/2007, -2/+2Welcome to the internet.
- SwissCamel, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1www.clinique.com
- MrLlama, on 10/18/2007, -2/+2Welcome to the internet.
- tynansanger, on 10/18/2007, -0/+3Great, all we need is more fuel for online poker players who catch a bad break and assume the site is rigged. It's Tim Donaghy all over again.
- ROHFan, on 10/24/2007, -3/+4This, right here, is why I play on Pokerstars. Stars friggin investigates suspicious activity, and they have a manager (Lee Jones) who is TRUSTWORTHY. True justice would be every fish who plays on Absolute going directly to Stars.
- SwissCamel, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1This thing has been blown wider than goatse being given poppers through a ventilator.
- ROHFan, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Hey, it's theredpill, legendary 2+2 forum troll.
- ChromaVita, on 10/18/2007, -0/+14
- Flushnasty, on 10/19/2007, -0/+4I cant speak for all sites because Ive only played on fulltilt and pokerstars but for the most part if your a good player you WILL MAKE MONEY in the long run. Check for yourself! go to sharkscope.com and look up players flushnasty48 (myself) and 15lbsnuts (brother) on the pokerstars network. Were no pros but we've both have made thousands. (and thats just sng tourneys) There may be cheaters out there, Ive certainly had suspicions but its MORE then possible to make some cash playing poker online. If your consistently losing money stop blaming the websites or cheaters.......maybe you just suck. Your more then welcome to msg me and test your skills :)
- HanSolo69, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1Man, talk about "Freakonomics." That douchebag's job is just to blog to the NY Times now. The book was horrible.
- toxzen, on 10/18/2007, -6/+0GG Absolute
- toxzen, on 10/18/2007, -7/+0GG Absolute
- toxzen, on 10/18/2007, -6/+0GG Absolute
- toxzen, on 10/18/2007, -5/+0GG Absolute
- toxzen, on 10/18/2007, -7/+0GG Absolute
- champsampson, on 10/18/2007, -0/+4Im in ur computerz, stealing ur hole cardz!
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by