![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
Matt, please, don't clutter the important thread with irrelevent accusations. I don't care if Chris works for Paradise or for Gul Dukat. I care about Paradise returning my money and about letting people know that Paradise can do it to them if they choose to.
Aslan:
You can chastise Matt all you want but, as with Doug Grant (whom he might just be), the poor guy lives for this kind of conflict (and likely little else). Some months back I pointed out obvious problems with certain claims of cheating by Paradise and ever since then he's been claiming that I'm some sort of conspirator or agent of Paradise Poker. As I've offered to prove repeatedly, I'm a bankruptcy attorney in Denver and have no connection with Paradise Poker or any internet provider. Just write it off as yet another coincidence of gambling and mental illness.
Mr.Alger's questions appear to assume guilt on the part of Aslan without any evidence. Nor does his original post state what can be done. He later states that Aslan should suit them. He then suggests that Aslan has committed credit card fraud, and may be prosecuted. That is definitely siding with the outfit. If a case has already been filed in civil court, it could be interpretated as witness intimidation.
I have never suggested that anyone "should suit" anyone else; only that litigation could remedy the problem posed. Nor have I suggested or have any reason to believe that Aslan or anyone else has committed fraud of any sort. And while I don't like having my name dragged through the mud by an anonymous internet twerp, if it helps you cope with what must be nearly overwhelming burdens of life then I guess I'm not entirely displeased.
Easy. When you give your credit card info you must, necessarily, give your name and address. These can be compared easily.
AF
Not so easy to map addresses.
Also, my guess is that the most serious form of fraud occurs with stolen credit cards, in which money is "dumped" to some other user. Address of the card will always be different.
I have been a big fan of Paradise Poker and have written of my success there often on this forum.
I also admire the way they seem to be managing their business.
The post by Aslan is disturbing...if it is true then Paradise needs to respond and say what evidence they have and what is their JUSTIFICATION for confiscating the money.
I don't see why they need anyone's permission to do this.
Day in and day out you read posts here that collusion is making Paradise unbeatable. Paradise is cheating, people are cheating, colluders are everywhere blah blah blah. "There needs to some crack down on the collusion. Professional monitoring damnit!!" Paradise catches someone who probably had no idea what an IP address is so him and some buddies collude. To level off the profits, they "transfer" money into his account by going heads up and folding the money to him over and over. Now, Paradise catches someone and we scream for proof??? What do you want? Patrol or not?.. and if so, are we going to question every time they catch someone and demand they display their argument. I bet they have caught 100s of cheaters but if they told you who they were some lunatic would demand he get his money back because he played in a game with the cheater.
SO... back to Aslan, he probably made some legit dollars along with his ill got gains and is pissed they grabbed the $2500. So he does the only thing he can do, bring public doubt and concern on Paradise, hence their decision not to comment. Anything they say will be twisted and misconstrued by the critics here. They caught someone, took appropriate action, and all of you begging for policing are now demanding an explanation. What do you want? A collusion free-for all, or to live with the decisions Paradise makes when they do catch someone? and explain to me someone whats in it for them to wrongly accuse someone... certainly the $2500 is inconsequential. There are much bigger account to seize im sure. If they have enough data and info to say you cheated, who are we to now police their policing without any facts. Just my opinion.
W
All i wanted is what has happened...the proof posted by David Sklansky refuting Aslan's claim.
Now, what was that crap about David's lack of a contribution to humanity?
Here it is, in spades!!
.
EXACTLY
PP has assumed the roll of the accuser, the judge, the jury and the executioner. They have done this without presenting any compelling evidance except " Trust us, we know"
There are people on death row right now, convicted FALSELY, on much better evidance.
Why do they need anyone's permission to reply?
Because it would be unethical for any corporate entity to discuss the details of a private matter. This is an issue between Paradise and Aslan. Aslan has chosen to air his complaints in public. Paradise would need permission to discuss details in public as it would likely require revealing personal information.
Dear David,
As per your request we are reply to you directly in person. Aslan was involved in a specific method of attempting to cheat the site; transferring funds from multiple accounts and credit cards to his own and then attempting to cash out the profit with a check. Then at a later point the cards come back as fraudulent charges. Our security measures identify and track this sort of behavior, and from there it's very easy to go back and analyze the fraud. These instances are extremely rare but when we have over 30,000 clients there are a few bad apples.
From the period July 22nd to July 28th the following 3 players "lkaer" , "viola" and "Boyuk" were involved without question in intentionally losing their chips to the "Aslan" account.
FACTS
Here is the full playing summary of the 3 accounts in question.
lkaer: Played 47 hands and lost $1,200 (max 48 hour limit). Boyuk: Played 39 hands and lost $1,200 (max 48 hour limit). viola: Played 90 hands and lost $1,500 (max 7 day limit).
Gee, I came over here from the newsgroup thinking I'm going to read something neat, instead I read that someone was comiting credit card fraud.
It sounds to me if three accounts are all losing the max loss per time period, and all to the same player, and all in a relative quick expirence (39 hands, lost $1200 to one player, geez, how come I never get so lucky?) it is a cut and dry case.
Good for Paradise if they really caught a scam in action!
Joel
THERE should be no doubt that PARADISE POKER is a criminal enterprise. I am recruiting a mercenary force to close down the operation. I am looking for two types of individuals 1) those with prior military experience 2) computer experts, i will be paying $300.00 per day plus expenses. We will have a one week training exercise somewhere in the southwest and then go in and close them down permanently. Any interested party can e-mail me @nealross@bigfoot.com. Time is of the essence before they move the operatiom. I was in Costa Rica in February, this will be an easy operation.
A commando named Neal? Sounds scary. Save a rainforest while you're down there, OK Neil?
Hey while you are at it, go take care of that referee that ripped off the US soccer team down there a week ago. He made one of the worst calls I have seen in a long time. He laid the crappy NFL refs to waste with a horrendous call that gave Costa Rica the game. He is listed as Jamaican but he must have been paid off to make that call, so he probably lives in style there. I mean if you have this whopping commando force, I am sure this job should be even easier!
ny player losing this fast, this much, and to the same person (Aslan) shoots up security flags very quickly.
What makes this fraudulent action so easily caught is not only the obvious hand histories but our technical data that 100% verifies that ALL these accounts are directly related as they have historically shared the same physical computer! These individuals all know each other. We have undeniable technical records that enable us to track every individual machine that logs in... this allows us to determine related accounts for security reasons (mostly. This is an invaluable tool.
ALL 3 of the accounts (lkaer, Boyuk & viola) were created and played from the EXACT SAME physical computer (even though they registered under different names and different physical addresses). Each machine has a unique serial number and these accounts logged in from the identical machine and from the same IP address. Aslan is also technically related to these accounts from a historic log in when he accessed the site from a related machine.
In each and every case at different times, days and tables Aslan was magically at the exact table against these individuals one at a time and was the benefactor of BLATANT intentional losses by the fraudulent accounts.
I would think this response should rightfully end this disgusting topic and threads.
.
since paradise has the ability to determine when multiple accts are logged on from the exact same physical machine, how is it that their software allows these accounts to log on SIMULTANEOUSLY - since this can ONLY be for the purpose of cheating? Furthermore, the hand histories indicate that in many cases classic " squeeze play " techniques were employed which no doubt contributed to losses of other players in these hands. There is absolutely no way that the software should allow more than one acct to log onto the site from the same location at the same time - this MUST be rectified, and all those players who lost any money at all in these hands should be compensated by PP. Multiple accts logged on from the same machine at the same time in the same game...this is truly incredible!
I don't think that is what they were saying at all. I am not sure, but it sounds like what Paradise is CLAIMING happended is that Aslan was on one machine, these three accounts were on another machine, and the three accounts took TURNS losing to him.
They also stated that Aslan had some sort of relationship to the machine that the other three were using. My understanding of their message is that he at some point in the past used that machine to log on under 'Aslan'.
Chad, This is a verbatum quote from the Paradise email: " All 3 of the accounts ( Ikaer,Boyuk & viola ) were created and played from the EXACT SAME physical computer..". That statement seems quite clear in what it means to convey - whether true or not. If the statement is true then it follows that for these players to appear at the same table they would be simultaneously logged on from the same computer. If this statement was incorrect or " poorly phrased " then I would be much relieved to find that this could not occur.It appears however, that it is in fact possible to set up seperate money accts on the same computer - a player did so successfully according to an ealier post here today on the subject
x
Read the subject line.
Up to your playground propaganda tactics again? I totally agree with Ed here. He wants to confiscate the money but have it returned to the people who have been cheated. An excellent idea. Note that Ed is, as I am, opposed to them KEEPING the confiscated funds.
I agree with Ed. This matter reinforces my respect for Ed and makes it all the more clear to me that you are a schmuck.
AF
ast try: Ante ($1) slex2 : Ante ($1) BarryB : Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Call ($4) last try: Fold slex2 : Call ($4) lkaer : Raise ($8) celtics : Fold MAKEaRUN: Fold antics : Fold BarryB : Call ($4) Aslan : Raise ($12) slex2 : Call ($12) lkaer : Call ($8) BarryB : Fold Dealt to lkaer [ 9h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 5h ] Dealt to slex2 [ 6s ] lkaer : Bet ($8) Aslan : Call ($8) slex2 : Call ($8) Dealt to lkaer [ 6c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 7c ] Dealt to slex2 [ 2c ] lkaer : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) slex2 : Fold lkaer : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ 3d ] Dealt to Aslan [ Qd ] lkaer : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) lkaer : Raise ($32) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ 4c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9s ] lkaer : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) lkaer : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $277 | Rake: $3 lkaer lost $121 (folded) [ Qc 9c Ah 9h 6c 3d 4c ] (a pair of nines) celtics lost $1 (folded) [ 5c Kc As ] MAKEaRUN lost $1 (folded) [ 5s Qs Ac ] antics lost $1 (folded) [ 4h Td 8c ] BarryB lost $9 (folded) [ 2h Ad 4d ] Aslan bet $137, collected $293, net +$156 [ Js Jd 8h 5h 7c Qd 9s ] (a pair of jacks) last try lost $1 (folded) [ 2d 8s 7h ] slex2 lost $25 (folded) [ Jc Th 9d 6s 2c ] (high card jack) -----------------------------------------------------
Boyuk - Aslan hands (this is an administrator hand history which shows the players hole cards in the summary - these are being published based on the fact the hands were engaged in fraud):
----------------------------------------------------- Game #15584038 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/27-20:53:09 (CST) Table "Papeete" [3007] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001075df] Aslan ($447.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$00101a83] Vector ($313.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001079e8] Boyuk ($370.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$00100c0e] Bigdog ($342.00 in chips) -- playing Aslan : Ante ($1) Vector : Ante ($1) Boyuk : Ante ($1) Bigdog : Ante ($1) Dealt to Aslan [ Jd ] Dealt to Vector [ 4d ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 4c ] Dealt to Bigdog [ 3c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9d ] Dealt to Vector [ 5h ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 2s ] Dealt to Bigdog [ 6h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6s ] Dealt to Vector [ Jh ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Kh ] Dealt to Bigdog [ Ac ] Aslan : Bring-in ($4) Vector : Fold Boyuk : Raise ($8) Bigdog : Fold Aslan : Raise ($12) Boyuk : Call ($8) Dealt to Aslan [ As ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Qh ] Aslan : Bet ($8) Boyuk : Call ($8) Dealt to Aslan [ 3s ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Kc ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) Boyuk : Call ($16) Dealt to Aslan [ Kd ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Js ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) Boyuk : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $146 | Rake: $2 Aslan bet $89, collected $162, net +$73 [ Jd 9d 6s As 3s Kd ] (high card ace) Vector lost $1 (folded) [ 4d 5h Jh ] Boyuk lost $73 (folded) [ 4c 2s Kh Qh Kc Js ] (a pair of kings) Bigdog lost $1 (folded) [ 3c 6h Ac ] ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15584949 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/27-21:01:34 (CST) Table "Papeete" [3007] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001075df] Aslan ($752.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$001076ce] IZZY23 ($416.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00102dc8] Piesang ($400.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001079e8] Boyuk ($270.00 in chips) -- playing
Seat # 8: [$00100c0e] Bigdog ($147.00 in chips) -- playing Aslan : Ante ($1) IZZY23 : Ante ($1) Piesang : Ante ($1) Boyuk : Ante ($1) Bigdog : Ante ($1) Dealt to Aslan [ 2d ] Dealt to IZZY23 [ 4s ] Dealt to Piesang [ 5h ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 6h ] Dealt to Bigdog [ 9h ] Dealt to Aslan [ Jh ] Dealt to IZZY23 [ 7h ] Dealt to Piesang [ 8d ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 9d ] Dealt to Bigdog [ 5c ] Dealt to Aslan [ Th ] Dealt to IZZY23 [ 9c ] Dealt to Piesang [ Tc ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Ah ] Dealt to Bigdog [ 6d ] Bigdog : Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Call ($4) IZZY23 : Fold Piesang : Fold Boyuk : Raise ($8) Bigdog : Fold Aslan : Call ($4) Dealt to Aslan [ 4h ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 3s ] Boyuk : Bet ($8) Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to Aslan [ 2s ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Td ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to Aslan [ Qc ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 4c ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to Aslan [ Ks ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 6s ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) Boyuk : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $135 | Rake: $2 Aslan bet $81, collected $151, net +$70 [ 2d Jh Th 4h 2s Qc Ks ] (a pair of twos) IZZY23 lost $1 (folded) [ 4s 7h 9c ] Piesang lost $1 (folded) [ 5h 8d Tc ] Boyuk lost $65 (folded) [ 6h 9d Ah 3s Td 4c 6s ] (a pair of sixes) Bigdog lost $5 (folded) [ 9h 5c 6d ] ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15585140 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/27-21:03:17 (CST) Table "Papeete" [3007] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001075df] Aslan ($821.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$001076ce] IZZY23 ($386.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00102dc8] Piesang ($429.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001079e8] Boyuk ($204.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$00100c0e] Bigdog ($344.00 in chips) -- playing Aslan : Ante ($1) IZZY23 : Ante ($1) Piesang : Ante ($1) Boyuk : Ante ($1) Bigdog : Ante ($1) Dealt to Aslan [ Jd ] Dealt to IZZY23 [ 9h ] Dealt to Piesang [ 6c ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Ks ] Dealt to Bigdog [ Qc ] Dealt to Aslan [ Qh ] Dealt to IZZY23 [ 9d ] Dealt to Piesang [ 9c ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Td ] Dealt to Bigdog [ 7h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6h ] Dealt to IZZY23 [ 5s ] Dealt to Piesang [ 3d ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 3c ] Dealt to Bigdog [ 6s ] Boyuk : Bring-in ($4) Bigdog : Fold Aslan : Raise ($8) IZZY23 : Call ($8) Piesang : Fold Boyuk : Call ($4) Dealt to Aslan [ 5h ] Dealt to IZZY23 [ Ad ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Th ] IZZY23 : Check Boyuk : Check Aslan : Bet ($8) IZZY23 : Call ($8) Boyuk : Raise ($16) Aslan : Raise ($16) IZZY23 : Fold Boyuk : Call ($8) Dealt to Aslan [ Ts ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 5c ] Aslan : Bet ($16) Boyuk : Call ($16) Dealt to Aslan [ As ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 8s ] Aslan : Bet ($16) Boyuk : Call ($16) Dealt to Aslan [ 3h ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 7c ] Aslan : Bet ($16) Boyuk : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $147 | Rake: $2 Aslan bet $81, collected $163, net +$82 [ Jd Qh 6h 5h Ts As 3h ] (high card ace) IZZY23 lost $17 (folded) [ 9h 9d 5s Ad ] Piesang lost $1 (folded) [ 6c 9c 3d ] Boyuk lost $65 (folded) [ Ks Td 3c Th 5c 8s 7c ] (a pair of tens) Bigdog lost $1 (folded) [ Qc 7h 6s ] ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15585947 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/27-21:10:27 (CST) Table "Papeete" [3007] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001075df] Aslan ($787.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00105982] ImTheCaptain ($437.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$0010520a] MrMaverick ($231.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00102dc8] Piesang ($637.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001079e8] Boyuk ($82.00 in chips) -- playing Aslan : Ante ($1) ImTheCaptain: Ante ($1) MrMaverick: Ante ($1) Piesang : Ante ($1) Boyuk : Ante ($1) Dealt to Aslan [ Td ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ 3h ] Dealt to MrMaverick [ 2h ] Dealt to Piesang [ 9h ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 7d ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6c ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ 9s ] Dealt to MrMaverick [ 8c ] Dealt to Piesang [ Ks ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Tc ] Dealt to Aslan [ 7s ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ 2s ] Dealt to MrMaverick [ As ] Dealt to Piesang [ Ad ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Th ] ImTheCaptain: Bring-in ($4) MrMaverick: Fold Piesang : Raise ($8) Boyuk : Raise ($16) Aslan : Raise ($24) ImTheCaptain: Fold Piesang : Fold Boyuk : Call ($8) Dealt to Aslan [ 8d ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 8h ] Boyuk : Bet ($8) Aslan : Raise ($16) Boyuk : Call ($8) Dealt to Aslan [ Jd ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 6h ] Aslan : Bet ($16) Boyuk : Call ($16) Dealt to Aslan [ Jh ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Jc ] Aslan : Bet ($16) Boyuk : Call ($16) Dealt to Aslan [ 3s ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Kh ] Aslan : Bet ($16) Boyuk : Call All-in ($9) *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $177 | Rake: $2 Aslan bet $89, collected $184, net +$95 (showed hand) [ Td 6c 7s 8d Jd Jh 3s ] (a pair of jacks) ImTheCaptain lost $5 (folded) [ 3h 9s 2s ] MrMaverick lost $1 (folded) [ 2h 8c As ] Piesang lost $9 (folded) [ 9h Ks Ad ] Boyuk lost $82 (showed hand) [ 7d Tc Th 8h 6h Jc Kh ] (a pair of tens) ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15697071 - $15/$30 Hold'em - 2000/07/28-22:21:07 (CST) Table "Rum Cay" [1012] (real money) -- Seat 5 is the button Seat # 1: [$00105c2a] buzzard09 ($654.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$001075df] Aslan ($245.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$001035dc] dergy ($900.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$00103a13] shuelry ($1,030.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 9: [$001079e8] Boyuk ($616.00 in chips) -- playing shuelry : Post Small Blind ($10) Boyuk : Post Big Blind ($15) Dealt to shuelry [ Qs ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 6d ] Dealt to buzzard09 [ 7c ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ts ] Dealt to dergy [ 5s ] Dealt to shuelry [ Ac ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 6h ] Dealt to buzzard09 [ 3s ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6s ] Dealt to dergy [ Jd ] buzzard09: Fold Aslan : Raise ($30) dergy : Fold shuelry : Call ($20) Boyuk : Raise ($30) Aslan : Raise ($30) shuelry : Call ($30) Boyuk : Call ($15) *** FLOP *** : [ 8s 8h 7s ] shuelry : Check Boyuk : Bet ($15) Aslan : Raise ($30) shuelry : Call ($30) Boyuk : Call ($15) *** TURN *** : [ 8s 8h 7s ] [ 2c ] shuelry : Check Boyuk : Bet ($30) Aslan : Call ($30) shuelry : Fold *** RIVER *** : [ 8s 8h 7s 2c ] [ Tc ] Boyuk : Bet ($30) Aslan : Raise ($60) Boyuk : Raise ($60) Aslan : Raise ($60) Boyuk : Call ($30) *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $568 | Rake: $2 Board: [ 8s 8h 7s 2c Tc ] buzzard09 didn't bet (folded) [ 7c 3s ] (two pair, eights and sevens) Aslan bet $240, collected $568, net +$328 (showed hand) [ Ts 6s ] (two pair, tens and eights) dergy didn't bet (folded) [ 5s Jd ] (a pair of eights) shuelry lost $90 (folded) [ Qs Ac ] (a pair of eights) Boyuk lost $240 [ 6d 6h ] (two pair, eights and sixes) ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15699151 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/28-22:38:54 (CST) Table "Bikar" [1028] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001079e8] Boyuk ($382.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00100cd0] celtics ($273.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$00105cbb] axelfreed ($137.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$001075df] Aslan ($372.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$00105c21] BarryB ($579.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00100d0e] elpanavic ($209.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$00102d6b] last try ($670.00 in chips) -- sitting out Seat # 8: [$001076e6] slex2 ($605.00 in chips) -- playing Boyuk : Ante ($1) celtics : Ante ($1) axelfreed: Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) BarryB : Ante ($1) elpanavic: Ante ($1) slex2 : Ante ($1) Dealt to Boyuk [ 3c ] Dealt to celtics [ 5h ] Dealt to axelfreed [ 8c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9s ] Dealt to BarryB [ Jh ] Dealt to elpanavic [ 2s ] Dealt to slex2 [ 9h ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 7h ] Dealt to celtics [ Ad ] Dealt to axelfreed [ 2d ] Dealt to Aslan [ Js ] Dealt to BarryB [ Th ] Dealt to elpanavic [ 5c ] Dealt to slex2 [ 3d ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 9c ] Dealt to celtics [ 4s ] Dealt to axelfreed [ Kd ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ts ] Dealt to BarryB [ Qd ] Dealt to elpanavic [ 8s ] Dealt to slex2 [ 3h ] slex2 : Bring-in ($4) Boyuk : Call ($4) celtics : Fold axelfreed: Fold Aslan : Raise ($8) BarryB : Call ($8) elpanavic: Fold slex2 : Call ($4) Boyuk : Raise ($12) Aslan : Raise ($16) BarryB : Fold slex2 : Fold Boyuk : Call ($8) Dealt to Boyuk [ 7d ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6c ] Aslan : Bet ($8) Boyuk : Raise ($16) Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to Boyuk [ 5d ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4h ] Aslan : Check Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to Boyuk [ Jd ] Dealt to Aslan [ 5s ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) Boyuk : Call ($16) Dealt to Boyuk [ 2c ] Dealt to Aslan [ As ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) Boyuk : Raise ($32) Aslan : Raise ($32) Boyuk : Call ($16) *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $324 | Rake: $3 Boyuk lost $153 [ 3c 7h 9c 7d 5d Jd 2c ] (a pair of sevens) celtics lost $1 (folded) [ 5h Ad 4s ] axelfreed lost $1 (folded) [ 8c 2d Kd ] Aslan bet $153, collected $324, net +$171 (showed hand) [ 9s Js Ts 6c 4h 5s As ] (a flush, ace high) BarryB lost $9 (folded) [ Jh Th Qd ] elpanavic lost $1 (folded) [ 2s 5c 8s ] last try didn't bet slex2 lost $9 (folded) [ 9h 3d 3h ] ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15699389 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/28-22:40:51 (CST) Table "Bikar" [1028] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001079e8] Boyuk ($229.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00100cd0] celtics ($272.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$001075df] Aslan ($543.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$00105c21] BarryB ($570.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00100d0e] elpanavic ($208.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$00102d6b] last try ($670.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$001076e6] slex2 ($596.00 in chips) -- playing Boyuk : Ante ($1) celtics : Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) BarryB : Ante ($1) elpanavic: Ante ($1) last try: Ante ($1) slex2 : Ante ($1) Dealt to Boyuk [ 8h ] Dealt to celtics [ 3d ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6s ] Dealt to BarryB [ Jh ] Dealt to elpanavic [ 4s ] Dealt to last try [ Ad ] Dealt to slex2 [ 7s ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 7c ] Dealt to celtics [ 5c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9d ] Dealt to BarryB [ 4c ] Dealt to elpanavic [ Js ] Dealt to last try [ Kh ] Dealt to slex2 [ Jd ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 2s ] Dealt to celtics [ 2c ] Dealt to Aslan [ Kc ] Dealt to BarryB [ Ks ] Dealt to elpanavic [ Tc ] Dealt to last try [ 8s ] Dealt to slex2 [ Qc ] celtics : Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Raise ($8) BarryB : Fold elpanavic: Fold last try: Fold slex2 : Fold Boyuk : Call ($8) celtics : Fold Dealt to Boyuk [ Td ] Dealt to Aslan [ 5d ] Aslan : Bet ($8) Boyuk : Call ($8) Dealt to Boyuk [ Th ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9c ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to Boyuk [ 3s ] Dealt to Aslan [ 3c ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to Boyuk [ 7h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 7d ] Boyuk : Check Aslan : Bet ($16) Boyuk : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $104 | Rake: $3 Boyuk lost $49 (folded) [ 8h 7c 2s Td Th 3s 7h ] (two pair, tens and sevens) celtics lost $5 (folded) [ 3d 5c 2c ] Aslan bet $65, collected $120, net +$55 [ 6s 9d Kc 5d 9c 3c 7d ] (a pair of nines) BarryB lost $1 (folded) [ Jh 4c Ks ] elpanavic lost $1 (folded) [ 4s Js Tc ] last try lost $1 (folded) [ Ad Kh 8s ] slex2 lost $1 (folded) [ 7s Jd Qc ] -----------------------------------------------------
viola - Aslan hands (this is an administrator hand history which shows the players hole cards in the summary - these are being published based on the fact the hands were engaged in fraud):
----------------------------------------------------- Game #15036922 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/22-22:19:13 (CST) Table "Guadeloupe" [2324] (real money) Seat # 1: [$00104832] RiverGuy ($510.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00100d24] Apple22 ($213.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$00105982] ImTheCaptain ($537.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$001076f1] viola ($277.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$001067aa] JeffreyC ($202.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00105e4a] Phil King ($392.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001075df] Aslan ($745.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$00102dc8] Piesang ($439.00 in chips) -- playing RiverGuy: Ante ($1) Apple22 : Ante ($1) ImTheCaptain: Ante ($1) viola : Ante ($1) JeffreyC: Ante ($1) Phil King: Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) Piesang : Ante ($1) Dealt to RiverGuy [ As ] Dealt to Apple22 [ Ah ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ Jc ] Dealt to viola [ 2s ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 4c ] Dealt to Phil King [ Ad ] Dealt to Aslan [ 5d ] Dealt to Piesang [ Qd ] Dealt to RiverGuy [ Th ] Dealt to Apple22 [ 9s ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ 7d ] Dealt to viola [ Ts ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 9c ] Dealt to Phil King [ 9h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 3s ] Dealt to Piesang [ Kc ] Dealt to RiverGuy [ 4h ] Dealt to Apple22 [ 3d ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ Tc ] Dealt to viola [ Qc ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ Qh ] Dealt to Phil King [ Kh ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ks ] Dealt to Piesang [ 8c ] Apple22 : Bring-in ($4) ImTheCaptain: Fold viola : Raise ($8) JeffreyC: Fold Phil King: Fold Aslan : Raise ($16) Piesang : Fold RiverGuy: Fold Apple22 : Fold viola : Raise ($16) Aslan : Raise ($16) viola : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ Js ] Dealt to Aslan [ 5s ] Aslan : Bet ($8) viola : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ 7h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 2h ] Aslan : Bet ($16) viola : Raise ($32) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ 7c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 8d ] viola : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) viola : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ Jd ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9d ] viola : Check Aslan : Bet ($16) viola : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $217 | Rake: $3 RiverGuy lost $1 (folded) [ As Th 4h ] Apple22 lost $5 (folded) [ Ah 9s 3d ] ImTheCaptain lost $1 (folded) [ Jc 7d Tc ] viola lost $105 (folded) [ 2s Ts Qc Js 7h 7c Jd ] (two pair, jacks and sevens) JeffreyC lost $1 (folded) [ 4c 9c Qh ] Phil King lost $1 (folded) [ Ad 9h Kh ] Aslan bet $121, collected $233, net +$112 [ 5d 3s Ks 5s 2h 8d 9d ] (a pair of fives) Piesang lost $1 (folded) [ Qd Kc 8c ] ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15036095 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/22-22:11:04 (CST) Table "Guadeloupe" [2324] (real money) Seat # 1: [$00104832] RiverGuy ($438.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00100d24] Apple22 ($222.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$00105982] ImTheCaptain ($545.00 in chips) -- sitting out Seat # 4: [$001076f1] viola ($441.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$001067aa] JeffreyC ($251.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001075df] Aslan ($587.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$00102dc8] Piesang ($443.00 in chips) -- playing RiverGuy: Ante ($1) Apple22 : Ante ($1) viola : Ante ($1) JeffreyC: Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) Piesang : Ante ($1) Dealt to RiverGuy [ Th ] Dealt to Apple22 [ 6c ] Dealt to viola [ 6h ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 3s ] Dealt to Aslan [ As ] Dealt to Piesang [ Jh ] Dealt to RiverGuy [ 8c ] Dealt to Apple22 [ 9d ] Dealt to viola [ 9s ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 2h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 7d ] Dealt to Piesang [ Qd ] Dealt to RiverGuy [ Kh ] Dealt to Apple22 [ Qs ] Dealt to viola [ Ad ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 9h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 5s ] Dealt to Piesang [ 3c ] Piesang : Bring-in ($4) RiverGuy: Call ($4) Apple22 : Fold viola : Raise ($8) JeffreyC: Fold Aslan : Raise ($16) Piesang : Fold RiverGuy: Fold viola : Raise ($16) Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ 4c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4d ] viola : Bet ($8) Aslan : Raise ($16) viola : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ 4s ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ah ] viola : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) viola : Raise ($32) Aslan : Raise ($32) viola : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ Kd ] Dealt to Aslan [ 2c ] viola : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) viola : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ 8d ] Dealt to Aslan [ Jc ] viola : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) viola : Call ($16) *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $347 | Rake: $3 RiverGuy lost $5 (folded) [ Th 8c Kh ] Apple22 lost $1 (folded) [ 6c 9d Qs ] ImTheCaptain didn't bet viola lost $169 [ 6h 9s Ad 4c 4s Kd 8d ] (a pair of fours) JeffreyC lost $1 (folded) [ 3s 2h 9h ] Aslan bet $169, collected $347, net +$178 (showed hand) [ As 7d 5s 4d Ah 2c Jc ] (a pair of aces) Piesang lost $5 (folded) [ Jh Qd 3c ] ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15037278 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/22-22:22:33 (CST) Table "Guadeloupe" [2324] (real money) Seat # 1: [$00104832] RiverGuy ($518.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00100d24] Apple22 ($206.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$00105982] ImTheCaptain ($534.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$001076f1] viola ($106.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$001067aa] JeffreyC ($191.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00105e4a] Phil King ($389.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001075df] Aslan ($927.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$001076e6] slex2 ($400.00 in chips) -- playing RiverGuy: Ante ($1) Apple22 : Ante ($1) ImTheCaptain: Ante ($1) viola : Ante ($1) JeffreyC: Ante ($1) Phil King: Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) slex2 : Ante ($1) Dealt to RiverGuy [ 4s ] Dealt to Apple22 [ Kd ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ 4h ] Dealt to viola [ 4d ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 2d ] Dealt to Phil King [ 5s ] Dealt to Aslan [ 3s ] Dealt to slex2 [ Ah ] Dealt to RiverGuy [ 7c ] Dealt to Apple22 [ 7d ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ Ac ] Dealt to viola [ Td ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 3d ] Dealt to Phil King [ Jh ] Dealt to Aslan [ Tc ] Dealt to slex2 [ Qh ] Dealt to RiverGuy [ As ] Dealt to Apple22 [ Qd ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ 6h ] Dealt to viola [ 8c ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ Jd ] Dealt to Phil King [ 2s ] Dealt to Aslan [ Qc ] Dealt to slex2 [ 7s ] Phil King: Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Raise ($8) slex2 : Fold RiverGuy: Fold Apple22 : Call ($8) ImTheCaptain: Fold viola : Call ($8) JeffreyC: Call ($8) Phil King: Fold Dealt to Apple22 [ 6s ] Dealt to viola [ Ks ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ Kc ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ad ] Aslan : Bet ($8) Apple22 : Fold viola : Raise ($16) JeffreyC: Fold Aslan : Raise ($16) viola : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ 6c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9c ] Aslan : Bet ($16) viola : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ 6d ] Dealt to Aslan [ Jc ] viola : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) viola : Raise ($32) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ 7h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 3h ] viola : Check Aslan : Bet ($16) viola : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $217 | Rake: $3 RiverGuy lost $1 (folded) [ 4s 7c As ] Apple22 lost $9 (folded) [ Kd 7d Qd 6s ] ImTheCaptain lost $1 (folded) [ 4h Ac 6h ] viola lost $97 (folded) [ 4d Td 8c Ks 6c 6d 7h ] (a pair of sixes) JeffreyC lost $9 (folded) [ 2d 3d Jd Kc ] Phil King lost $5 (folded) [ 5s Jh 2s ] Aslan bet $113, collected $233, net +$120 [ 3s Tc Qc Ad 9c Jc 3h ] (a pair of threes) slex2 lost $1 (folded) [ Ah Qh 7s ] ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15037153 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/22-22:21:20 (CST) Table "Guadeloupe" [2324] (real money) Seat # 1: [$00104832] RiverGuy ($519.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00100d24] Apple22 ($207.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$00105982] ImTheCaptain ($535.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$001076f1] viola ($171.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$001067aa] JeffreyC ($196.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00105e4a] Phil King ($390.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001075df] Aslan ($856.00 in chips) -- playing RiverGuy: Ante ($1) Apple22 : Ante ($1) ImTheCaptain: Ante ($1) viola : Ante ($1) JeffreyC: Ante ($1) Phil King: Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) Dealt to RiverGuy [ 2h ] Dealt to Apple22 [ Jc ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ Ah ] Dealt to viola [ Ts ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 8h ] Dealt to Phil King [ Qh ] Dealt to Aslan [ 2s ] Dealt to RiverGuy [ 3h ] Dealt to Apple22 [ 9h ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ 4d ] Dealt to viola [ 5s ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 7h ] Dealt to Phil King [ Ad ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9s ] Dealt to RiverGuy [ Qc ] Dealt to Apple22 [ 7d ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ 8s ] Dealt to viola [ 8d ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 2d ] Dealt to Phil King [ 7s ] Dealt to Aslan [ 7c ] JeffreyC: Bring-in ($4) Phil King: Fold Aslan : Raise ($8) RiverGuy: Fold Apple22 : Fold ImTheCaptain: Fold viola : Call ($8) JeffreyC: Fold Dealt to viola [ Js ] Dealt to Aslan [ As ] Aslan : Bet ($8) viola : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ Kc ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4s ] Aslan : Bet ($16) viola : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ 3s ] Dealt to Aslan [ Qd ] Aslan : Bet ($16) viola : Raise ($32) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ 3d ] Dealt to Aslan [ Jd ] Aslan : Bet ($16) viola : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $136 | Rake: $3 RiverGuy lost $1 (folded) [ 2h 3h Qc ] Apple22 lost $1 (folded) [ Jc 9h 7d ] ImTheCaptain lost $1 (folded) [ Ah 4d 8s ] viola lost $65 (folded) [ Ts 5s 8d Js Kc 3s 3d ] (a pair of threes) JeffreyC lost $5 (folded) [ 8h 7h 2d ] Phil King lost $1 (folded) [ Qh Ad 7s ] Aslan bet $81, collected $152, net +$71 [ 2s 9s 7c As 4s Qd Jd ] (high card ace) ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15244227 - $4/$8 7-card stud - 2000/07/24-19:37:51 (CST) Table "Jolly Beach" [1294] (real money) Seat # 2: [$001076f1] viola ($273.50 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001075df] Aslan ($52.50 in chips) -- playing viola : Ante ($0.50) Aslan : Ante ($0.50) Dealt to viola [ 2d ] Dealt to Aslan [ Jc ] Dealt to viola [ Ks ] Dealt to Aslan [ 3d ] Dealt to viola [ 4s ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6s ] viola : Bring-in ($2) Aslan : Raise ($4) viola : Call ($2) Dealt to viola [ Qh ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9h ] viola : Bet ($4) Aslan : Call ($4) Dealt to viola [ As ] Dealt to Aslan [ Qc ] viola : Bet ($8) Aslan : Raise ($16) viola : Raise ($16) Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ 2c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4c ] viola : Bet ($8) Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ 9c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 7d ] viola : Bet ($8) Aslan : Raise All-in ($12) viola : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $96 | Rake: $1 viola lost $48.50 (folded) [ 2d Ks 4s Qh As 2c 9c ] (a pair of twos) Aslan bet $52.50, collected $100, net +$47.50 [ Jc 3d 6s 9h Qc 4c 7d ] (high card queen) ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15244134 - $4/$8 7-card stud - 2000/07/24-19:37:11 (CST) Table "Jolly Beach" [1294] (real money) Seat # 2: [$001076f1] viola ($284.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001075df] Aslan ($43.00 in chips) -- playing viola : Ante ($0.50) Aslan : Ante ($0.50) Dealt to viola [ 8c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 2s ] Dealt to viola [ Jc ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4d ] Dealt to viola [ 8d ] Dealt to Aslan [ 5c ] Aslan : Bring-in ($2) viola : Call ($2) Dealt to viola [ Kc ] Dealt to Aslan [ 8s ] viola : Bet ($4) Aslan : Raise ($8) viola : Call ($4) Dealt to viola [ Js ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4s ] viola : Check Aslan : Bet ($8) viola : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $20 | Rake: $1 viola lost $10.50 (folded) [ 8c Jc 8d Kc Js ] (two pair, jacks and eights) Aslan bet $18.50, collected $28, net +$9.50 [ 2s 4d 5c 8s 4s ] (a pair of fours) ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15245240 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/24-19:45:27 (CST) Table "Virgin Isles" [1018] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001076f1] viola ($260.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$001075df] Aslan ($228.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$0010657f] Sweeti ($389.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$0010560b] Agent ($470.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$00102d6b] last try ($1,001.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00100ee6] harry ($541.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001034ff] Mr Nice Guy ($167.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$00105e4a] Phil King ($806.00 in chips) -- playing viola : Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) Sweeti : Ante ($1) Agent : Ante ($1) last try: Ante ($1) harry : Ante ($1) Mr Nice Guy: Ante ($1) Phil King: Ante ($1) Dealt to viola [ Kd ] Dealt to Aslan [ Qs ] Dealt to Sweeti [ Kc ] Dealt to Agent [ 5s ] Dealt to last try [ Ts ] Dealt to harry [ 4h ] Dealt to Mr Nice Guy [ 5h ] Dealt to Phil King [ Qd ] Dealt to viola [ Kh ] Dealt to Aslan [ 2d ] Dealt to Sweeti [ 9d ] Dealt to Agent [ 3d ] Dealt to last try [ 3h ] Dealt to harry [ 8s ] Dealt to Mr Nice Guy [ 9c ] Dealt to Phil King [ 7c ] Dealt to viola [ 2c ] Dealt to Aslan [ Js ] Dealt to Sweeti [ As ] Dealt to Agent [ 4s ] Dealt to last try [ 8h ] Dealt to harry [ 6s ] Dealt to Mr Nice Guy [ Jd ] Dealt to Phil King [ Qh ] viola : Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Call ($4) Sweeti : Raise ($8) Agent : Fold last try: Fold harry : Fold Mr Nice Guy: Fold Phil King: Fold viola : Call ($4) Aslan : Raise ($12) Sweeti : Raise ($16) viola : Call ($16) Aslan : Raise ($16) Sweeti : Call ($8) viola : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ Td ] Dealt to Aslan [ 2s ] Dealt to Sweeti [ 3s ] Sweeti : Check viola : Bet ($8) Aslan : Raise ($16) Sweeti : Fold viola : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ Qc ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6c ] viola : Bet ($16) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ 4d ] Dealt to Aslan [ 8c ] viola : Check Aslan : Check Dealt to viola [ Jh ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ks ] viola : Check Aslan : Bet ($16) viola : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $165 | Rake: $3 viola lost $65 (folded) [ Kd Kh 2c Td Qc 4d Jh ] (a pair of kings) Aslan bet $81, collected $181, net +$100 [ Qs 2d Js 2s 6c 8c Ks ] (a pair of twos) Sweeti lost $33 (folded) [ Kc 9d As 3s ] Agent lost $1 (folded) [ 5s 3d 4s ] last try lost $1 (folded) [ Ts 3h 8h ] harry lost $1 (folded) [ 4h 8s 6s ] Mr Nice Guy lost $1 (folded) [ 5h 9c Jd ] Phil King lost $1 (folded) [ Qd 7c Qh ] -----------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- From: > Someone has just posted on our Internet Forum that you have confiscated $2500 > of his money for "transferring funds". It is causing consternation. Could you > please put a post on that forum regarding this? DS
----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.support@paradisepoker.com> Received: from rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (rly-yh01.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.33]) by air-yh03.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:02:22 -0400 Received: from cardroom3.paradisepoker.com (cardroom3.paradisepoker.com [209.203.205.20]) by rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:01:15 -0400 Message-ID: <106201bffb4b$9b311f70$2ccfcbd1@mark> Reply-To: "Paradise Poker" <.support@paradisepoker.com> From: "Paradise Poker" <.support@paradisepoker.com> To: <.Dsklansky@aol.com> References: <.c8.84fe224.26b73d8a@aol.com> Subject: Re: A Post on Our Forum Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:01:12 -0600 Organization: Paradise Poker MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_105F_01BFFB19.503359C0"
I think the hand history says it all
Well, that looks fairly conclusive. In any event, if the monies are credited back to the original credit cards, including the money that was lost to other players, then Paradise is taking a loss on this.
If in fact that is what they are doing, then I commend them for their action. The very first people that need to be protected are the legitimate credit card holders. If Paradise is willing to lose money to credit those people back, my faith in the integrity of the company is reinforced.
Of course, the flakes will come out now and claim that the money was never credited back to anyone, or that the original credit cards are dummies set up by Paradise or something.
They must be using the MAC address of the network card in the machine, or generating a local serial number at install in order to track these computers. An intelligent move. My opinion of their security has also gone up a notch or two.
Deep throat and others!
Paradise does not accuse me of colluding!!! So stop saying that i am guilty unless you know something about it. Apparently they say that someone stole money from credit cards and lost it to me. This is not the case as hand histories show and I already offered to send histories to anyone interested. So stop sentensing me without any evidence.
You aren't accused of colluding. You're accused of felony credit card fraud, or at least being an accessory to it.
Paradise may be right. Seizing money and accusing people of felonies isn't fetherweight stuff. This type of stuff proably goes on more than they let on. Not everyone that has this happen is going to go on this forum and complain, declare his innocence, and talk to a lawyer about it. It should be interesting.
After reading some of the hand histories--Guilty
Some of the hand histories? The first one was convincing enough.
*** SUMMARY *** Pot: $48 | Rake: $1 Aslan bet $24.50, collected $48, net +$23.50 [ Qh As 6c 5s 9h Ac 3s ] (a pair of aces) lkaer lost $24.50 (folded) [ 3c 3h 8h Qd 5h Ah Jh ] (a flush, ace high)
Yeah, that 659A board looks awful scary to someone who fills an ace-high flush on the river.
I welcome any formal response from Aslan on my website Askoj.com. I for one do believe in his innocence.
The Juice
btw - if you do play on Paradise Poker and you see me, say hello. I play under the screen name 1Kaer.
Sorry I don't know how to do this right.
> Sorry I don't know how to do this right.
Yeah, it's a real brain-twister. Following is a concatenation of David's multiple posts. All discontinuities and mis-formatting are carried over verbatim.
Dear David,
As per your request we are reply to you directly in person. Aslan was involved in a specific method of attempting to cheat the site; transferring funds from multiple accounts and credit cards to his own and then attempting to cash out the profit with a check. Then at a later point the cards come back as fraudulent charges. Our security measures identify and track this sort of behavior, and from there it's very easy to go back and analyze the fraud. These instances are extremely rare but when we have over 30,000 clients there are a few bad apples.
From the period July 22nd to July 28th the following 3 players "lkaer" , "viola" and "Boyuk" were involved without question in intentionally losing their chips to the "Aslan" account.
FACTS
Here is the full playing summary of the 3 accounts in question.
lkaer: Played 47 hands and lost $1,200 (max 48 hour limit). Boyuk: Played 39 hands and lost $1,200 (max 48 hour limit). viola: Played 90 hands and lost $1,500 (max 7 day limit).
ny player losing this fast, this much, and to the same person (Aslan) shoots up security flags very quickly.
What makes this fraudulent action so easily caught is not only the obvious hand histories but our technical data that 100% verifies that ALL these accounts are directly related as they have historically shared the same physical computer! These individuals all know each other. We have undeniable technical records that enable us to track every individual machine that logs in... this allows us to determine related accounts for security reasons (mostly. This is an invaluable tool.
ALL 3 of the accounts (lkaer, Boyuk & viola) were created and played from the EXACT SAME physical computer (even though they registered under different names and different physical addresses). Each machine has a unique serial number and these accounts logged in from the identical machine and from the same IP address. Aslan is also technically related to these accounts from a historic log in when he accessed the site from a related machine.
In each and every case at different times, days and tables Aslan was magically at the exact table against these individuals one at a time and was the benefactor of BLATANT intentional losses by the fraudulent accounts.
It should also be noted that we are not taking any money from anyone and in fact are sure to lose additional money in this fraud as some of the funds lost by the fraudulent players went to other players as the fraudulent accounts pathetically attempted to disguise their actions. The $2,500 in question will be returned to the credit cards that made the original purchases.
In conjunction to the technical proof, the Hand Histories below are clearly show the obvious intentional losing of the fraudulent accounts to their related party Aslan. We have included samples from each of the three players.
1. Please note the BLATANT folding of better hands even when the hand is checked to ensure Aslan wins the pot. 2. Please note the BLATANT raise, raise, call of hands that are visibly and guaranteed beaten (exposed cards in stud). 3. Please note how in each case with each player no matter the time they played, or the tables they played at, Aslan was sitting there at the exact same table even moving with them to different tables during the same session.
David, we appreciate your concerns since this fraudulent act has been made a public ordeal. When blatant cheating is committed we must act and in this case we have. Having responded to your request we wonder if you may do us the courtesy of posting something based on the evidence we have provided, if you wish to post our email in its entirety you have our permission.
If you have any further questions please let me know.
Sincerely,
Winston Paradise Poker Security
lkaer - Aslan hands (this is an administrator hand history which shows the players hole cards in the summary - these are being published based on the fact the hands were engaged in fraud):
Game #15576707 - $4/$8 7-card stud - 2000/07/27-19:42:15 (CST) Table "St. Lucia" [1016] (real money) Seat # 3: [$001075df] Aslan ($28.50 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001079de] lkaer ($568.00 in chips) -- playing Aslan : Ante ($0.50) lkaer : Ante ($0.50) Dealt to Aslan [ Qh ] Dealt to lkaer [ 3c ] Dealt to Aslan [ As ] Dealt to lkaer [ 3h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6c ] Dealt to lkaer [ 8h ] Aslan : Bring-in ($2) lkaer : Raise ($4) Aslan : Call ($2) Dealt to Aslan [ 5s ] Dealt to lkaer [ Qd ] lkaer : Bet ($4) Aslan : Call ($4) Dealt to Aslan [ 9h ] Dealt to lkaer [ 5h ] lkaer : Bet ($8) Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to Aslan [ Ac ] Dealt to lkaer [ Ah ] lkaer : Bet ($8) Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to Aslan [ 3s ] Dealt to lkaer [ Jh ] lkaer : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $48 | Rake: $1 Aslan bet $24.50, collected $48, net +$23.50 [ Qh As 6c 5s 9h Ac 3s ] (a pair of aces) lkaer lost $24.50 (folded) [ 3c 3h 8h Qd 5h Ah Jh ] (a flush, ace high) ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15578283 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/27-19:56:56 (CST) Table "Virgin Isles" [1018] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001079de] lkaer ($426.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$001026fd] sweet lou ($262.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$0010000a] QuadAces ($556.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$00105e4a] Phil King ($362.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$00100fa1] JoeFi ($398.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00104358] ezed. ($487.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001075df] Aslan ($122.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$00102497] 10JQKA ($173.00 in chips) -- sitting out lkaer : Ante ($1) sweet lou: Ante ($1) QuadAces: Ante ($1) Phil King: Ante ($1) JoeFi : Ante ($1) ezed. : Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) Dealt to lkaer [ 9d ] Dealt to sweet lou [ 9c ] Dealt to QuadAces [ 2c ] Dealt to Phil King [ 3d ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 6s ] Dealt to ezed. [ Tc ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4d ] Dealt to lkaer [ 5c ] Dealt to sweet lou [ Kc ] Dealt to QuadAces [ 7d ] Dealt to Phil King [ 8h ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 9s ] Dealt to ezed. [ Js ] Dealt to Aslan [ 8c ] Dealt to lkaer [ Qh ] Dealt to sweet lou [ 5s ] Dealt to QuadAces [ Qd ] Dealt to Phil King [ 6d ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 8d ] Dealt to ezed. [ 2s ] Dealt to Aslan [ 7h ] ezed. : Timed out ezed. : Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Raise ($8) lkaer : Raise ($16) sweet lou: Fold QuadAces: Fold Phil King: Fold JoeFi : Call ($16) ezed. : Timed out ezed. : Force All-in Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to lkaer [ Ks ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 5d ] Dealt to ezed. [ Jd ] Dealt to Aslan [ 3h ] lkaer : Bet ($8) JoeFi : Call ($8) Aslan : Raise ($16) lkaer : Raise ($16) JoeFi : Call ($16) Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to lkaer [ 6c ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 3c ] Dealt to ezed. [ 7c ] Dealt to Aslan [ Kd ] lkaer : Bet ($16) JoeFi : Call ($16) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ 6h ] Dealt to JoeFi [ Qs ] Dealt to ezed. [ 8s ] Dealt to Aslan [ Kh ] Aslan : Bet ($16) lkaer : Call ($16) JoeFi : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ 4s ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 4h ] Dealt to ezed. [ Jh ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ac ] Aslan : Bet ($16) lkaer : Raise ($32) JoeFi : Fold Aslan : Raise ($32) lkaer : Call ($16) *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $23 | Side pot 1: $297 | Rake: $3 lkaer lost $121 [ 9d 5c Qh Ks 6c 6h 4s ] (a pair of sixes) sweet lou lost $1 (folded) [ 9c Kc 5s ] QuadAces lost $1 (folded) [ 2c 7d Qd ] Phil King lost $1 (folded) [ 3d 8h 6d ] JoeFi lost $73 (folded) [ 6s 9s 8d 5d 3c Qs 4h ] (high card queen) ezed. bet $5, collected $23, net +$18 (showed hand) [ Tc Js 2s Jd 7c 8s Jh ] (three of a kind, jacks) Aslan bet $121, collected $297, net +$176 (showed hand) [ 4d 8c 7h 3h Kd Kh Ac ] (a pair of kings) 10JQKA didn't bet ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15579074 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/27-20:05:25 (CST) Table "Virgin Isles" [1018] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001079de] lkaer ($439.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$001026fd] sweet lou ($235.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$0010000a] QuadAces ($593.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$00105e4a] Phil King ($358.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$00100fa1] JoeFi ($310.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00104358] ezed. ($502.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001075df] Aslan ($167.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$00102497] 10JQKA ($170.00 in chips) -- playing lkaer : Ante ($1) sweet lou: Ante ($1) QuadAces: Ante ($1) Phil King: Ante ($1) JoeFi : Ante ($1) ezed. : Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) 10JQKA : Ante ($1) Dealt to lkaer [ 3d ] Dealt to sweet lou [ 3s ] Dealt to QuadAces [ 6h ] Dealt to Phil King [ Kh ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 2s ] Dealt to ezed. [ 5c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4d ] Dealt to 10JQKA [ Ah ] Dealt to lkaer [ 7h ] Dealt to sweet lou [ Ad ] Dealt to QuadAces [ 9c ] Dealt to Phil King [ 4s ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 9h ] Dealt to ezed. [ 8h ] Dealt to Aslan [ Td ] Dealt to 10JQKA [ 4h ] Dealt to lkaer [ Qd ] Dealt to sweet lou [ 9s ] Dealt to QuadAces [ 3h ] Dealt to Phil King [ Qs ] Dealt to JoeFi [ Th ] Dealt to ezed. [ 3c ] Dealt to Aslan [ Jh ] Dealt to 10JQKA [ 7c ] ezed. : Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Raise ($8) 10JQKA : Fold lkaer : Raise ($16) sweet lou: Fold QuadAces: Fold Phil King: Fold JoeFi : Fold ezed. : Fold Aslan : Raise ($16) lkaer : Call ($8) Dealt to lkaer [ 5h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 8d ] lkaer : Bet ($8) Aslan : Raise ($16) lkaer : Call ($8) Dealt to lkaer [ 5s ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6c ] lkaer : Bet ($16) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ Ts ] Dealt to Aslan [ 5d ] lkaer : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) lkaer : Raise ($32) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ Jc ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ac ] lkaer : Check Aslan : Bet ($16) lkaer : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $217 | Rake: $3 lkaer lost $105 (folded) [ 3d 7h Qd 5h 5s Ts Jc ] (a pair of fives) sweet lou lost $1 (folded) [ 3s Ad 9s ] QuadAces lost $1 (folded) [ 6h 9c 3h ] Phil King lost $1 (folded) [ Kh 4s Qs ] JoeFi lost $1 (folded) [ 2s 9h Th ] ezed. lost $5 (folded) [ 5c 8h 3c ] Aslan bet $121, collected $233, net +$112 [ 4d Td Jh 8d 6c 5d Ac ] (high card ace) 10JQKA lost $1 (folded) [ Ah 4h 7c ] ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15693589 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/28-21:49:10 (CST) Table "Bikar" [1028] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001079de] lkaer ($356.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00101f47] all gone ($727.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$00103f10] MAKEaRUN ($302.00 in chips) -- sitting out Seat # 4: [$00102457] antics ($2,187.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$00105c21] BarryB ($431.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$001075df] Aslan ($234.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$00102d6b] last try ($387.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$001076e6] slex2 ($844.00 in chips) -- playing lkaer : Ante ($1) all gone: Ante ($1) antics : Ante ($1) BarryB : Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) last try: Ante ($1) slex2 : Ante ($1) Dealt to lkaer [ Ad ] Dealt to all gone [ Tc ] Dealt to antics [ Kh ] Dealt to BarryB [ Qd ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9h ] Dealt to last try [ 5s ] Dealt to slex2 [ 6c ] Dealt to lkaer [ 9d ] Dealt to all gone [ Jh ] Dealt to antics [ 7c ] Dealt to BarryB [ Jd ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ks ] Dealt to last try [ 5d ] Dealt to slex2 [ 4c ] Dealt to lkaer [ 8h ] Dealt to all gone [ Qh ] Dealt to antics [ Kd ] Dealt to BarryB [ 4d ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6d ] Dealt to last try [ 8d ] Dealt to slex2 [ 2c ] slex2 : Bring-in ($4) lkaer : Raise ($8) all gone: Call ($8) antics : Raise ($16) BarryB : Fold Aslan : Call ($16) last try: Fold slex2 : Call ($12) lkaer : Call ($8) all gone: Call ($8) Dealt to lkaer [ 3d ] Dealt to all gone [ 2h ] Dealt to antics [ 6s ] Dealt to Aslan [ 2s ] Dealt to slex2 [ Th ] antics : Bet ($8) Aslan : Call ($8) slex2 : Call ($8) lkaer : Call ($8) all gone: Call ($8) Dealt to lkaer [ Ah ] Dealt to all gone [ Td ] Dealt to antics [ 9c ] Dealt to Aslan [ Qs ] Dealt to slex2 [ 8c ] lkaer : Bet ($16) all gone: Call ($16) antics : Call ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) slex2 : Call ($32) lkaer : Raise ($32) all gone: Call ($32) antics : Call ($32) Aslan : Call ($16) slex2 : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ 8s ] Dealt to all gone [ 2d ] Dealt to antics [ 6h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9s ] Dealt to slex2 [ As ] lkaer : Bet ($16) all gone: Call ($16) antics : Call ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) slex2 : Fold lkaer : Call ($16) all gone: Call ($16) antics : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ 4s ] Dealt to all gone [ 7d ] Dealt to antics [ 4h ] Dealt to Aslan [ Qc ] lkaer : Check all gone: Check antics : Check Aslan : Bet ($16) lkaer : Raise ($32) all gone: Fold antics : Fold Aslan : Raise ($32) lkaer : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $556 | Rake: $3 lkaer lost $137 (folded) [ Ad 9d 8h 3d Ah 8s 4s ] (two pair, aces and eights) all gone lost $105 (folded) [ Tc Jh Qh 2h Td 2d 7d ] (two pair, tens and twos) MAKEaRUN didn't bet antics lost $105 (folded) [ Kh 7c Kd 6s 9c 6h 4h ] (two pair, kings and sixes) BarryB lost $1 (folded) [ Qd Jd 4d ] Aslan bet $153, collected $572, net +$419 [ 9h Ks 6d 2s Qs 9s Qc ] (two pair, queens and nines) last try lost $1 (folded) [ 5s 5d 8d ] slex2 lost $73 (folded) [ 6c 4c 2c Th 8c As ] (high card ace) ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15694631 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/28-21:59:23 (CST) Table "Bikar" [1028] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001079de] lkaer ($293.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00100cd0] celtics ($200.00 in chips) -- sitting out Seat # 3: [$00103f10] MAKEaRUN ($302.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$00102457] antics ($2,002.00 in chips) -- sitting out Seat # 5: [$00105c21] BarryB ($453.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$001075df] Aslan ($532.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$00102d6b] last try ($504.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$001076e6] slex2 ($750.00 in chips) -- playing lkaer : Ante ($1) MAKEaRUN: Ante ($1) BarryB : Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) last try: Ante ($1) slex2 : Ante ($1) Dealt to lkaer [ 2c ] Dealt to MAKEaRUN [ 6s ] Dealt to BarryB [ 4s ] Dealt to Aslan [ As ] Dealt to last try [ Th ] Dealt to slex2 [ 8d ] Dealt to lkaer [ 5h ] Dealt to MAKEaRUN [ 4d ] Dealt to BarryB [ 6h ] Dealt to Aslan [ Js ] Dealt to last try [ Qc ] Dealt to slex2 [ Jd ] Dealt to lkaer [ Kd ] Dealt to MAKEaRUN [ Kh ] Dealt to BarryB [ 2d ] Dealt to Aslan [ 2h ] Dealt to last try [ 7c ] Dealt to slex2 [ 8h ] BarryB : Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Call ($4) last try: Fold slex2 : Call ($4) lkaer : Raise ($8) MAKEaRUN: Fold BarryB : Call ($4) Aslan : Call ($4) slex2 : Call ($4) Dealt to lkaer [ 8s ] Dealt to BarryB [ 6d ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ac ] Dealt to slex2 [ 6c ] Aslan : Check slex2 : Check lkaer : Bet ($8) BarryB : Call ($8) Aslan : Call ($8) slex2 : Call ($8) Dealt to lkaer [ 3h ] Dealt to BarryB [ 9h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4h ] Dealt to slex2 [ Ad ] slex2 : Check lkaer : Bet ($16) BarryB : Call ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) slex2 : Fold lkaer : Raise ($32) BarryB : Fold Aslan : Raise ($32) lkaer : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ Ts ] Dealt to Aslan [ 8c ] Aslan : Bet ($16) lkaer : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ Jh ] Dealt to Aslan [ 7s ] Aslan : Bet ($16) lkaer : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $243 | Rake: $3 lkaer lost $97 (folded) [ 2c 5h Kd 8s 3h Ts Jh ] (high card king) celtics didn't bet MAKEaRUN lost $1 (folded) [ 6s 4d Kh ] antics didn't bet BarryB lost $33 (folded) [ 4s 6h 2d 6d 9h ] (a pair of sixes) Aslan bet $113, collected $259, net +$146 [ As Js 2h Ac 4h 8c 7s ] (a pair of aces) last try lost $1 (folded) [ Th Qc 7c ] slex2 lost $17 (folded) [ 8d Jd 8h 6c Ad ] (a pair of eights) ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15695212 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/28-22:04:47 (CST) Table "Bikar" [1028] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001079de] lkaer ($165.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00100cd0] celtics ($197.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$00103f10] MAKEaRUN ($294.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$00102457] antics ($1,999.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$00105c21] BarryB ($590.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$001075df] Aslan ($635.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$00102d6b] last try ($420.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$001076e6] slex2 ($726.00 in chips) -- playing lkaer : Ante ($1) celtics : Ante ($1) MAKEaRUN: Ante ($1) antics : Ante ($1) BarryB : Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1)
ast try: Ante ($1) slex2 : Ante ($1) BarryB : Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Call ($4) last try: Fold slex2 : Call ($4) lkaer : Raise ($8) celtics : Fold MAKEaRUN: Fold antics : Fold BarryB : Call ($4) Aslan : Raise ($12) slex2 : Call ($12) lkaer : Call ($8) BarryB : Fold Dealt to lkaer [ 9h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 5h ] Dealt to slex2 [ 6s ] lkaer : Bet ($8) Aslan : Call ($8) slex2 : Call ($8) Dealt to lkaer [ 6c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 7c ] Dealt to slex2 [ 2c ] lkaer : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) slex2 : Fold lkaer : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ 3d ] Dealt to Aslan [ Qd ] lkaer : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) lkaer : Raise ($32) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ 4c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9s ] lkaer : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) lkaer : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $277 | Rake: $3 lkaer lost $121 (folded) [ Qc 9c Ah 9h 6c 3d 4c ] (a pair of nines) celtics lost $1 (folded) [ 5c Kc As ] MAKEaRUN lost $1 (folded) [ 5s Qs Ac ] antics lost $1 (folded) [ 4h Td 8c ] BarryB lost $9 (folded) [ 2h Ad 4d ] Aslan bet $137, collected $293, net +$156 [ Js Jd 8h 5h 7c Qd 9s ] (a pair of jacks) last try lost $1 (folded) [ 2d 8s 7h ] slex2 lost $25 (folded) [ Jc Th 9d 6s 2c ] (high card jack) -----------------------------------------------------
Boyuk - Aslan hands (this is an administrator hand history which shows the players hole cards in the summary - these are being published based on the fact the hands were engaged in fraud):
----------------------------------------------------- Game #15584038 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/27-20:53:09 (CST) Table "Papeete" [3007] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001075df] Aslan ($447.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$00101a83] Vector ($313.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001079e8] Boyuk ($370.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$00100c0e] Bigdog ($342.00 in chips) -- playing Aslan : Ante ($1) Vector : Ante ($1) Boyuk : Ante ($1) Bigdog : Ante ($1) Dealt to Aslan [ Jd ] Dealt to Vector [ 4d ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 4c ] Dealt to Bigdog [ 3c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9d ] Dealt to Vector [ 5h ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 2s ] Dealt to Bigdog [ 6h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6s ] Dealt to Vector [ Jh ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Kh ] Dealt to Bigdog [ Ac ] Aslan : Bring-in ($4) Vector : Fold Boyuk : Raise ($8) Bigdog : Fold Aslan : Raise ($12) Boyuk : Call ($8) Dealt to Aslan [ As ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Qh ] Aslan : Bet ($8) Boyuk : Call ($8) Dealt to Aslan [ 3s ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Kc ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) Boyuk : Call ($16) Dealt to Aslan [ Kd ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Js ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) Boyuk : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $146 | Rake: $2 Aslan bet $89, collected $162, net +$73 [ Jd 9d 6s As 3s Kd ] (high card ace) Vector lost $1 (folded) [ 4d 5h Jh ] Boyuk lost $73 (folded) [ 4c 2s Kh Qh Kc Js ] (a pair of kings) Bigdog lost $1 (folded) [ 3c 6h Ac ] ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15584949 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/27-21:01:34 (CST) Table "Papeete" [3007] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001075df] Aslan ($752.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$001076ce] IZZY23 ($416.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00102dc8] Piesang ($400.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001079e8] Boyuk ($270.00 in chips) -- playing
Seat # 8: [$00100c0e] Bigdog ($147.00 in chips) -- playing Aslan : Ante ($1) IZZY23 : Ante ($1) Piesang : Ante ($1) Boyuk : Ante ($1) Bigdog : Ante ($1) Dealt to Aslan [ 2d ] Dealt to IZZY23 [ 4s ] Dealt to Piesang [ 5h ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 6h ] Dealt to Bigdog [ 9h ] Dealt to Aslan [ Jh ] Dealt to IZZY23 [ 7h ] Dealt to Piesang [ 8d ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 9d ] Dealt to Bigdog [ 5c ] Dealt to Aslan [ Th ] Dealt to IZZY23 [ 9c ] Dealt to Piesang [ Tc ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Ah ] Dealt to Bigdog [ 6d ] Bigdog : Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Call ($4) IZZY23 : Fold Piesang : Fold Boyuk : Raise ($8) Bigdog : Fold Aslan : Call ($4) Dealt to Aslan [ 4h ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 3s ] Boyuk : Bet ($8) Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to Aslan [ 2s ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Td ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to Aslan [ Qc ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 4c ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to Aslan [ Ks ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 6s ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) Boyuk : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $135 | Rake: $2 Aslan bet $81, collected $151, net +$70 [ 2d Jh Th 4h 2s Qc Ks ] (a pair of twos) IZZY23 lost $1 (folded) [ 4s 7h 9c ] Piesang lost $1 (folded) [ 5h 8d Tc ] Boyuk lost $65 (folded) [ 6h 9d Ah 3s Td 4c 6s ] (a pair of sixes) Bigdog lost $5 (folded) [ 9h 5c 6d ] ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15585140 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/27-21:03:17 (CST) Table "Papeete" [3007] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001075df] Aslan ($821.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$001076ce] IZZY23 ($386.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00102dc8] Piesang ($429.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001079e8] Boyuk ($204.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$00100c0e] Bigdog ($344.00 in chips) -- playing Aslan : Ante ($1) IZZY23 : Ante ($1) Piesang : Ante ($1) Boyuk : Ante ($1) Bigdog : Ante ($1) Dealt to Aslan [ Jd ] Dealt to IZZY23 [ 9h ] Dealt to Piesang [ 6c ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Ks ] Dealt to Bigdog [ Qc ] Dealt to Aslan [ Qh ] Dealt to IZZY23 [ 9d ] Dealt to Piesang [ 9c ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Td ] Dealt to Bigdog [ 7h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6h ] Dealt to IZZY23 [ 5s ] Dealt to Piesang [ 3d ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 3c ] Dealt to Bigdog [ 6s ] Boyuk : Bring-in ($4) Bigdog : Fold Aslan : Raise ($8) IZZY23 : Call ($8) Piesang : Fold Boyuk : Call ($4) Dealt to Aslan [ 5h ] Dealt to IZZY23 [ Ad ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Th ] IZZY23 : Check Boyuk : Check Aslan : Bet ($8) IZZY23 : Call ($8) Boyuk : Raise ($16) Aslan : Raise ($16) IZZY23 : Fold Boyuk : Call ($8) Dealt to Aslan [ Ts ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 5c ] Aslan : Bet ($16) Boyuk : Call ($16) Dealt to Aslan [ As ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 8s ] Aslan : Bet ($16) Boyuk : Call ($16) Dealt to Aslan [ 3h ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 7c ] Aslan : Bet ($16) Boyuk : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $147 | Rake: $2 Aslan bet $81, collected $163, net +$82 [ Jd Qh 6h 5h Ts As 3h ] (high card ace) IZZY23 lost $17 (folded) [ 9h 9d 5s Ad ] Piesang lost $1 (folded) [ 6c 9c 3d ] Boyuk lost $65 (folded) [ Ks Td 3c Th 5c 8s 7c ] (a pair of tens) Bigdog lost $1 (folded) [ Qc 7h 6s ] ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15585947 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/27-21:10:27 (CST) Table "Papeete" [3007] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001075df] Aslan ($787.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00105982] ImTheCaptain ($437.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$0010520a] MrMaverick ($231.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00102dc8] Piesang ($637.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001079e8] Boyuk ($82.00 in chips) -- playing Aslan : Ante ($1) ImTheCaptain: Ante ($1) MrMaverick: Ante ($1) Piesang : Ante ($1) Boyuk : Ante ($1) Dealt to Aslan [ Td ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ 3h ] Dealt to MrMaverick [ 2h ] Dealt to Piesang [ 9h ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 7d ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6c ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ 9s ] Dealt to MrMaverick [ 8c ] Dealt to Piesang [ Ks ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Tc ] Dealt to Aslan [ 7s ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ 2s ] Dealt to MrMaverick [ As ] Dealt to Piesang [ Ad ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Th ] ImTheCaptain: Bring-in ($4) MrMaverick: Fold Piesang : Raise ($8) Boyuk : Raise ($16) Aslan : Raise ($24) ImTheCaptain: Fold Piesang : Fold Boyuk : Call ($8) Dealt to Aslan [ 8d ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 8h ] Boyuk : Bet ($8) Aslan : Raise ($16) Boyuk : Call ($8) Dealt to Aslan [ Jd ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 6h ] Aslan : Bet ($16) Boyuk : Call ($16) Dealt to Aslan [ Jh ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Jc ] Aslan : Bet ($16) Boyuk : Call ($16) Dealt to Aslan [ 3s ] Dealt to Boyuk [ Kh ] Aslan : Bet ($16) Boyuk : Call All-in ($9) *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $177 | Rake: $2 Aslan bet $89, collected $184, net +$95 (showed hand) [ Td 6c 7s 8d Jd Jh 3s ] (a pair of jacks) ImTheCaptain lost $5 (folded) [ 3h 9s 2s ] MrMaverick lost $1 (folded) [ 2h 8c As ] Piesang lost $9 (folded) [ 9h Ks Ad ] Boyuk lost $82 (showed hand) [ 7d Tc Th 8h 6h Jc Kh ] (a pair of tens) ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15697071 - $15/$30 Hold'em - 2000/07/28-22:21:07 (CST) Table "Rum Cay" [1012] (real money) -- Seat 5 is the button Seat # 1: [$00105c2a] buzzard09 ($654.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$001075df] Aslan ($245.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$001035dc] dergy ($900.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$00103a13] shuelry ($1,030.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 9: [$001079e8] Boyuk ($616.00 in chips) -- playing shuelry : Post Small Blind ($10) Boyuk : Post Big Blind ($15) Dealt to shuelry [ Qs ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 6d ] Dealt to buzzard09 [ 7c ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ts ] Dealt to dergy [ 5s ] Dealt to shuelry [ Ac ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 6h ] Dealt to buzzard09 [ 3s ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6s ] Dealt to dergy [ Jd ] buzzard09: Fold Aslan : Raise ($30) dergy : Fold shuelry : Call ($20) Boyuk : Raise ($30) Aslan : Raise ($30) shuelry : Call ($30) Boyuk : Call ($15) *** FLOP *** : [ 8s 8h 7s ] shuelry : Check Boyuk : Bet ($15) Aslan : Raise ($30) shuelry : Call ($30) Boyuk : Call ($15) *** TURN *** : [ 8s 8h 7s ] [ 2c ] shuelry : Check Boyuk : Bet ($30) Aslan : Call ($30) shuelry : Fold *** RIVER *** : [ 8s 8h 7s 2c ] [ Tc ] Boyuk : Bet ($30) Aslan : Raise ($60) Boyuk : Raise ($60) Aslan : Raise ($60) Boyuk : Call ($30) *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $568 | Rake: $2 Board: [ 8s 8h 7s 2c Tc ] buzzard09 didn't bet (folded) [ 7c 3s ] (two pair, eights and sevens) Aslan bet $240, collected $568, net +$328 (showed hand) [ Ts 6s ] (two pair, tens and eights) dergy didn't bet (folded) [ 5s Jd ] (a pair of eights) shuelry lost $90 (folded) [ Qs Ac ] (a pair of eights) Boyuk lost $240 [ 6d 6h ] (two pair, eights and sixes) ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15699151 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/28-22:38:54 (CST) Table "Bikar" [1028] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001079e8] Boyuk ($382.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00100cd0] celtics ($273.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$00105cbb] axelfreed ($137.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$001075df] Aslan ($372.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$00105c21] BarryB ($579.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00100d0e] elpanavic ($209.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$00102d6b] last try ($670.00 in chips) -- sitting out Seat # 8: [$001076e6] slex2 ($605.00 in chips) -- playing Boyuk : Ante ($1) celtics : Ante ($1) axelfreed: Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) BarryB : Ante ($1) elpanavic: Ante ($1) slex2 : Ante ($1) Dealt to Boyuk [ 3c ] Dealt to celtics [ 5h ] Dealt to axelfreed [ 8c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9s ] Dealt to BarryB [ Jh ] Dealt to elpanavic [ 2s ] Dealt to slex2 [ 9h ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 7h ] Dealt to celtics [ Ad ] Dealt to axelfreed [ 2d ] Dealt to Aslan [ Js ] Dealt to BarryB [ Th ] Dealt to elpanavic [ 5c ] Dealt to slex2 [ 3d ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 9c ] Dealt to celtics [ 4s ] Dealt to axelfreed [ Kd ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ts ] Dealt to BarryB [ Qd ] Dealt to elpanavic [ 8s ] Dealt to slex2 [ 3h ] slex2 : Bring-in ($4) Boyuk : Call ($4) celtics : Fold axelfreed: Fold Aslan : Raise ($8) BarryB : Call ($8) elpanavic: Fold slex2 : Call ($4) Boyuk : Raise ($12) Aslan : Raise ($16) BarryB : Fold slex2 : Fold Boyuk : Call ($8) Dealt to Boyuk [ 7d ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6c ] Aslan : Bet ($8) Boyuk : Raise ($16) Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to Boyuk [ 5d ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4h ] Aslan : Check Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to Boyuk [ Jd ] Dealt to Aslan [ 5s ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) Boyuk : Call ($16) Dealt to Boyuk [ 2c ] Dealt to Aslan [ As ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) Boyuk : Raise ($32) Aslan : Raise ($32) Boyuk : Call ($16) *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $324 | Rake: $3 Boyuk lost $153 [ 3c 7h 9c 7d 5d Jd 2c ] (a pair of sevens) celtics lost $1 (folded) [ 5h Ad 4s ] axelfreed lost $1 (folded) [ 8c 2d Kd ] Aslan bet $153, collected $324, net +$171 (showed hand) [ 9s Js Ts 6c 4h 5s As ] (a flush, ace high) BarryB lost $9 (folded) [ Jh Th Qd ] elpanavic lost $1 (folded) [ 2s 5c 8s ] last try didn't bet slex2 lost $9 (folded) [ 9h 3d 3h ] ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15699389 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/28-22:40:51 (CST) Table "Bikar" [1028] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001079e8] Boyuk ($229.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00100cd0] celtics ($272.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$001075df] Aslan ($543.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$00105c21] BarryB ($570.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00100d0e] elpanavic ($208.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$00102d6b] last try ($670.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$001076e6] slex2 ($596.00 in chips) -- playing Boyuk : Ante ($1) celtics : Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) BarryB : Ante ($1) elpanavic: Ante ($1) last try: Ante ($1) slex2 : Ante ($1) Dealt to Boyuk [ 8h ] Dealt to celtics [ 3d ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6s ] Dealt to BarryB [ Jh ] Dealt to elpanavic [ 4s ] Dealt to last try [ Ad ] Dealt to slex2 [ 7s ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 7c ] Dealt to celtics [ 5c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9d ] Dealt to BarryB [ 4c ] Dealt to elpanavic [ Js ] Dealt to last try [ Kh ] Dealt to slex2 [ Jd ] Dealt to Boyuk [ 2s ] Dealt to celtics [ 2c ] Dealt to Aslan [ Kc ] Dealt to BarryB [ Ks ] Dealt to elpanavic [ Tc ] Dealt to last try [ 8s ] Dealt to slex2 [ Qc ] celtics : Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Raise ($8) BarryB : Fold elpanavic: Fold last try: Fold slex2 : Fold Boyuk : Call ($8) celtics : Fold Dealt to Boyuk [ Td ] Dealt to Aslan [ 5d ] Aslan : Bet ($8) Boyuk : Call ($8) Dealt to Boyuk [ Th ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9c ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to Boyuk [ 3s ] Dealt to Aslan [ 3c ] Boyuk : Bet ($16) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to Boyuk [ 7h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 7d ] Boyuk : Check Aslan : Bet ($16) Boyuk : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $104 | Rake: $3 Boyuk lost $49 (folded) [ 8h 7c 2s Td Th 3s 7h ] (two pair, tens and sevens) celtics lost $5 (folded) [ 3d 5c 2c ] Aslan bet $65, collected $120, net +$55 [ 6s 9d Kc 5d 9c 3c 7d ] (a pair of nines) BarryB lost $1 (folded) [ Jh 4c Ks ] elpanavic lost $1 (folded) [ 4s Js Tc ] last try lost $1 (folded) [ Ad Kh 8s ] slex2 lost $1 (folded) [ 7s Jd Qc ] -----------------------------------------------------
viola - Aslan hands (this is an administrator hand history which shows the players hole cards in the summary - these are being published based on the fact the hands were engaged in fraud):
----------------------------------------------------- Game #15036922 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/22-22:19:13 (CST) Table "Guadeloupe" [2324] (real money) Seat # 1: [$00104832] RiverGuy ($510.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00100d24] Apple22 ($213.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$00105982] ImTheCaptain ($537.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$001076f1] viola ($277.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$001067aa] JeffreyC ($202.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00105e4a] Phil King ($392.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001075df] Aslan ($745.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$00102dc8] Piesang ($439.00 in chips) -- playing RiverGuy: Ante ($1) Apple22 : Ante ($1) ImTheCaptain: Ante ($1) viola : Ante ($1) JeffreyC: Ante ($1) Phil King: Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) Piesang : Ante ($1) Dealt to RiverGuy [ As ] Dealt to Apple22 [ Ah ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ Jc ] Dealt to viola [ 2s ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 4c ] Dealt to Phil King [ Ad ] Dealt to Aslan [ 5d ] Dealt to Piesang [ Qd ] Dealt to RiverGuy [ Th ] Dealt to Apple22 [ 9s ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ 7d ] Dealt to viola [ Ts ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 9c ] Dealt to Phil King [ 9h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 3s ] Dealt to Piesang [ Kc ] Dealt to RiverGuy [ 4h ] Dealt to Apple22 [ 3d ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ Tc ] Dealt to viola [ Qc ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ Qh ] Dealt to Phil King [ Kh ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ks ] Dealt to Piesang [ 8c ] Apple22 : Bring-in ($4) ImTheCaptain: Fold viola : Raise ($8) JeffreyC: Fold Phil King: Fold Aslan : Raise ($16) Piesang : Fold RiverGuy: Fold Apple22 : Fold viola : Raise ($16) Aslan : Raise ($16) viola : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ Js ] Dealt to Aslan [ 5s ] Aslan : Bet ($8) viola : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ 7h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 2h ] Aslan : Bet ($16) viola : Raise ($32) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ 7c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 8d ] viola : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) viola : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ Jd ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9d ] viola : Check Aslan : Bet ($16) viola : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $217 | Rake: $3 RiverGuy lost $1 (folded) [ As Th 4h ] Apple22 lost $5 (folded) [ Ah 9s 3d ] ImTheCaptain lost $1 (folded) [ Jc 7d Tc ] viola lost $105 (folded) [ 2s Ts Qc Js 7h 7c Jd ] (two pair, jacks and sevens) JeffreyC lost $1 (folded) [ 4c 9c Qh ] Phil King lost $1 (folded) [ Ad 9h Kh ] Aslan bet $121, collected $233, net +$112 [ 5d 3s Ks 5s 2h 8d 9d ] (a pair of fives) Piesang lost $1 (folded) [ Qd Kc 8c ] ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15036095 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/22-22:11:04 (CST) Table "Guadeloupe" [2324] (real money) Seat # 1: [$00104832] RiverGuy ($438.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00100d24] Apple22 ($222.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$00105982] ImTheCaptain ($545.00 in chips) -- sitting out Seat # 4: [$001076f1] viola ($441.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$001067aa] JeffreyC ($251.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001075df] Aslan ($587.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$00102dc8] Piesang ($443.00 in chips) -- playing RiverGuy: Ante ($1) Apple22 : Ante ($1) viola : Ante ($1) JeffreyC: Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) Piesang : Ante ($1) Dealt to RiverGuy [ Th ] Dealt to Apple22 [ 6c ] Dealt to viola [ 6h ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 3s ] Dealt to Aslan [ As ] Dealt to Piesang [ Jh ] Dealt to RiverGuy [ 8c ] Dealt to Apple22 [ 9d ] Dealt to viola [ 9s ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 2h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 7d ] Dealt to Piesang [ Qd ] Dealt to RiverGuy [ Kh ] Dealt to Apple22 [ Qs ] Dealt to viola [ Ad ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 9h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 5s ] Dealt to Piesang [ 3c ] Piesang : Bring-in ($4) RiverGuy: Call ($4) Apple22 : Fold viola : Raise ($8) JeffreyC: Fold Aslan : Raise ($16) Piesang : Fold RiverGuy: Fold viola : Raise ($16) Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ 4c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4d ] viola : Bet ($8) Aslan : Raise ($16) viola : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ 4s ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ah ] viola : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) viola : Raise ($32) Aslan : Raise ($32) viola : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ Kd ] Dealt to Aslan [ 2c ] viola : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) viola : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ 8d ] Dealt to Aslan [ Jc ] viola : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) viola : Call ($16) *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $347 | Rake: $3 RiverGuy lost $5 (folded) [ Th 8c Kh ] Apple22 lost $1 (folded) [ 6c 9d Qs ] ImTheCaptain didn't bet viola lost $169 [ 6h 9s Ad 4c 4s Kd 8d ] (a pair of fours) JeffreyC lost $1 (folded) [ 3s 2h 9h ] Aslan bet $169, collected $347, net +$178 (showed hand) [ As 7d 5s 4d Ah 2c Jc ] (a pair of aces) Piesang lost $5 (folded) [ Jh Qd 3c ] ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15037278 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/22-22:22:33 (CST) Table "Guadeloupe" [2324] (real money) Seat # 1: [$00104832] RiverGuy ($518.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00100d24] Apple22 ($206.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$00105982] ImTheCaptain ($534.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$001076f1] viola ($106.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$001067aa] JeffreyC ($191.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00105e4a] Phil King ($389.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001075df] Aslan ($927.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$001076e6] slex2 ($400.00 in chips) -- playing RiverGuy: Ante ($1) Apple22 : Ante ($1) ImTheCaptain: Ante ($1) viola : Ante ($1) JeffreyC: Ante ($1) Phil King: Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) slex2 : Ante ($1) Dealt to RiverGuy [ 4s ] Dealt to Apple22 [ Kd ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ 4h ] Dealt to viola [ 4d ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 2d ] Dealt to Phil King [ 5s ] Dealt to Aslan [ 3s ] Dealt to slex2 [ Ah ] Dealt to RiverGuy [ 7c ] Dealt to Apple22 [ 7d ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ Ac ] Dealt to viola [ Td ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 3d ] Dealt to Phil King [ Jh ] Dealt to Aslan [ Tc ] Dealt to slex2 [ Qh ] Dealt to RiverGuy [ As ] Dealt to Apple22 [ Qd ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ 6h ] Dealt to viola [ 8c ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ Jd ] Dealt to Phil King [ 2s ] Dealt to Aslan [ Qc ] Dealt to slex2 [ 7s ] Phil King: Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Raise ($8) slex2 : Fold RiverGuy: Fold Apple22 : Call ($8) ImTheCaptain: Fold viola : Call ($8) JeffreyC: Call ($8) Phil King: Fold Dealt to Apple22 [ 6s ] Dealt to viola [ Ks ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ Kc ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ad ] Aslan : Bet ($8) Apple22 : Fold viola : Raise ($16) JeffreyC: Fold Aslan : Raise ($16) viola : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ 6c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9c ] Aslan : Bet ($16) viola : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ 6d ] Dealt to Aslan [ Jc ] viola : Bet ($16) Aslan : Raise ($32) viola : Raise ($32) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ 7h ] Dealt to Aslan [ 3h ] viola : Check Aslan : Bet ($16) viola : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $217 | Rake: $3 RiverGuy lost $1 (folded) [ 4s 7c As ] Apple22 lost $9 (folded) [ Kd 7d Qd 6s ] ImTheCaptain lost $1 (folded) [ 4h Ac 6h ] viola lost $97 (folded) [ 4d Td 8c Ks 6c 6d 7h ] (a pair of sixes) JeffreyC lost $9 (folded) [ 2d 3d Jd Kc ] Phil King lost $5 (folded) [ 5s Jh 2s ] Aslan bet $113, collected $233, net +$120 [ 3s Tc Qc Ad 9c Jc 3h ] (a pair of threes) slex2 lost $1 (folded) [ Ah Qh 7s ] ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15037153 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/22-22:21:20 (CST) Table "Guadeloupe" [2324] (real money) Seat # 1: [$00104832] RiverGuy ($519.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$00100d24] Apple22 ($207.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$00105982] ImTheCaptain ($535.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$001076f1] viola ($171.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$001067aa] JeffreyC ($196.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00105e4a] Phil King ($390.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001075df] Aslan ($856.00 in chips) -- playing RiverGuy: Ante ($1) Apple22 : Ante ($1) ImTheCaptain: Ante ($1) viola : Ante ($1) JeffreyC: Ante ($1) Phil King: Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) Dealt to RiverGuy [ 2h ] Dealt to Apple22 [ Jc ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ Ah ] Dealt to viola [ Ts ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 8h ] Dealt to Phil King [ Qh ] Dealt to Aslan [ 2s ] Dealt to RiverGuy [ 3h ] Dealt to Apple22 [ 9h ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ 4d ] Dealt to viola [ 5s ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 7h ] Dealt to Phil King [ Ad ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9s ] Dealt to RiverGuy [ Qc ] Dealt to Apple22 [ 7d ] Dealt to ImTheCaptain [ 8s ] Dealt to viola [ 8d ] Dealt to JeffreyC [ 2d ] Dealt to Phil King [ 7s ] Dealt to Aslan [ 7c ] JeffreyC: Bring-in ($4) Phil King: Fold Aslan : Raise ($8) RiverGuy: Fold Apple22 : Fold ImTheCaptain: Fold viola : Call ($8) JeffreyC: Fold Dealt to viola [ Js ] Dealt to Aslan [ As ] Aslan : Bet ($8) viola : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ Kc ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4s ] Aslan : Bet ($16) viola : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ 3s ] Dealt to Aslan [ Qd ] Aslan : Bet ($16) viola : Raise ($32) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ 3d ] Dealt to Aslan [ Jd ] Aslan : Bet ($16) viola : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $136 | Rake: $3 RiverGuy lost $1 (folded) [ 2h 3h Qc ] Apple22 lost $1 (folded) [ Jc 9h 7d ] ImTheCaptain lost $1 (folded) [ Ah 4d 8s ] viola lost $65 (folded) [ Ts 5s 8d Js Kc 3s 3d ] (a pair of threes) JeffreyC lost $5 (folded) [ 8h 7h 2d ] Phil King lost $1 (folded) [ Qh Ad 7s ] Aslan bet $81, collected $152, net +$71 [ 2s 9s 7c As 4s Qd Jd ] (high card ace) ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15244227 - $4/$8 7-card stud - 2000/07/24-19:37:51 (CST) Table "Jolly Beach" [1294] (real money) Seat # 2: [$001076f1] viola ($273.50 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001075df] Aslan ($52.50 in chips) -- playing viola : Ante ($0.50) Aslan : Ante ($0.50) Dealt to viola [ 2d ] Dealt to Aslan [ Jc ] Dealt to viola [ Ks ] Dealt to Aslan [ 3d ] Dealt to viola [ 4s ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6s ] viola : Bring-in ($2) Aslan : Raise ($4) viola : Call ($2) Dealt to viola [ Qh ] Dealt to Aslan [ 9h ] viola : Bet ($4) Aslan : Call ($4) Dealt to viola [ As ] Dealt to Aslan [ Qc ] viola : Bet ($8) Aslan : Raise ($16) viola : Raise ($16) Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ 2c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4c ] viola : Bet ($8) Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ 9c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 7d ] viola : Bet ($8) Aslan : Raise All-in ($12) viola : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $96 | Rake: $1 viola lost $48.50 (folded) [ 2d Ks 4s Qh As 2c 9c ] (a pair of twos) Aslan bet $52.50, collected $100, net +$47.50 [ Jc 3d 6s 9h Qc 4c 7d ] (high card queen) ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15244134 - $4/$8 7-card stud - 2000/07/24-19:37:11 (CST) Table "Jolly Beach" [1294] (real money) Seat # 2: [$001076f1] viola ($284.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001075df] Aslan ($43.00 in chips) -- playing viola : Ante ($0.50) Aslan : Ante ($0.50) Dealt to viola [ 8c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 2s ] Dealt to viola [ Jc ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4d ] Dealt to viola [ 8d ] Dealt to Aslan [ 5c ] Aslan : Bring-in ($2) viola : Call ($2) Dealt to viola [ Kc ] Dealt to Aslan [ 8s ] viola : Bet ($4) Aslan : Raise ($8) viola : Call ($4) Dealt to viola [ Js ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4s ] viola : Check Aslan : Bet ($8) viola : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $20 | Rake: $1 viola lost $10.50 (folded) [ 8c Jc 8d Kc Js ] (two pair, jacks and eights) Aslan bet $18.50, collected $28, net +$9.50 [ 2s 4d 5c 8s 4s ] (a pair of fours) ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------- Game #15245240 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/24-19:45:27 (CST) Table "Virgin Isles" [1018] (real money) Seat # 1: [$001076f1] viola ($260.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 2: [$001075df] Aslan ($228.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 3: [$0010657f] Sweeti ($389.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 4: [$0010560b] Agent ($470.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 5: [$00102d6b] last try ($1,001.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 6: [$00100ee6] harry ($541.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001034ff] Mr Nice Guy ($167.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 8: [$00105e4a] Phil King ($806.00 in chips) -- playing viola : Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) Sweeti : Ante ($1) Agent : Ante ($1) last try: Ante ($1) harry : Ante ($1) Mr Nice Guy: Ante ($1) Phil King: Ante ($1) Dealt to viola [ Kd ] Dealt to Aslan [ Qs ] Dealt to Sweeti [ Kc ] Dealt to Agent [ 5s ] Dealt to last try [ Ts ] Dealt to harry [ 4h ] Dealt to Mr Nice Guy [ 5h ] Dealt to Phil King [ Qd ] Dealt to viola [ Kh ] Dealt to Aslan [ 2d ] Dealt to Sweeti [ 9d ] Dealt to Agent [ 3d ] Dealt to last try [ 3h ] Dealt to harry [ 8s ] Dealt to Mr Nice Guy [ 9c ] Dealt to Phil King [ 7c ] Dealt to viola [ 2c ] Dealt to Aslan [ Js ] Dealt to Sweeti [ As ] Dealt to Agent [ 4s ] Dealt to last try [ 8h ] Dealt to harry [ 6s ] Dealt to Mr Nice Guy [ Jd ] Dealt to Phil King [ Qh ] viola : Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Call ($4) Sweeti : Raise ($8) Agent : Fold last try: Fold harry : Fold Mr Nice Guy: Fold Phil King: Fold viola : Call ($4) Aslan : Raise ($12) Sweeti : Raise ($16) viola : Call ($16) Aslan : Raise ($16) Sweeti : Call ($8) viola : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ Td ] Dealt to Aslan [ 2s ] Dealt to Sweeti [ 3s ] Sweeti : Check viola : Bet ($8) Aslan : Raise ($16) Sweeti : Fold viola : Call ($8) Dealt to viola [ Qc ] Dealt to Aslan [ 6c ] viola : Bet ($16) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to viola [ 4d ] Dealt to Aslan [ 8c ] viola : Check Aslan : Check Dealt to viola [ Jh ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ks ] viola : Check Aslan : Bet ($16) viola : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $165 | Rake: $3 viola lost $65 (folded) [ Kd Kh 2c Td Qc 4d Jh ] (a pair of kings) Aslan bet $81, collected $181, net +$100 [ Qs 2d Js 2s 6c 8c Ks ] (a pair of twos) Sweeti lost $33 (folded) [ Kc 9d As 3s ] Agent lost $1 (folded) [ 5s 3d 4s ] last try lost $1 (folded) [ Ts 3h 8h ] harry lost $1 (folded) [ 4h 8s 6s ] Mr Nice Guy lost $1 (folded) [ 5h 9c Jd ] Phil King lost $1 (folded) [ Qd 7c Qh ] -----------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 2:37 PM Subject: A Post on Our Forum
> Someone has just posted on our Internet Forum that you have confiscated $2500 > of his money for "transferring funds". It is causing consternation. Could you > please put a post on that forum regarding this? DS
----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- Return-Path: <.support@paradisepoker.com> Received: from rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (rly-yh01.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.33]) by air-yh03.mail.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:02:22 -0400 Received: from cardroom3.paradisepoker.com (cardroom3.paradisepoker.com [209.203.205.20]) by rly-yh01.mx.aol.com (v75_b3.9) with ESMTP; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:01:15 -0400 Message-ID: <106201bffb4b$9b311f70$2ccfcbd1@mark> Reply-To: "Paradise Poker" <.support@paradisepoker.com> From: "Paradise Poker" <.support@paradisepoker.com> To: <.Dsklansky@aol.com> References: <.c8.84fe224.26b73d8a@aol.com> Subject: Re: A Post on Our Forum Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:01:12 -0600 Organization: Paradise Poker MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_105F_01BFFB19.503359C0"
Yet a third smart cookie.
The e-mail from paradise sounds like a lawyer's speech - convincing on the surface, empty when one starts to dig. I will reply to it here in the morning. Please, don't draw any conclusions until you see my reply.
good luck
ASLAN, i am a lawyer and i have been working with the governmental authorities here and in Costa Rica, it is obvious to me that Sklansky and others are paid molls by paradise poker. I will spend whatever it takes to close this operation down, they have STOLE millions now fro unsuspecting players around the world.
Thank you for that post (and the one below where you are organizing mercenaries to invade Paradise in Costa Rica.) It may have been just what Ray Springfield needed to jolt him completely back to his senses. It is always nice when that happens.
I don't know what Sklansky is talking about.I haven't read all the laatest threads, though. I've been pretty nice lately, an haven't posted very much. I don't understand it. Of course Sklansky has begun to post scarcstically about Ed Hill, too.
I only meant to say that if you saw how wacko some of those who are on the same side of the fence as you are, it might give you pause and it might make you jump over that fence.
Well, I believe that there are wackos on both sides. I've been trying to be open minded on this lately. Certainly Matt is extreme, but wildbill is too. These are just two examples.
The mercenary note is extreme. I bet these are posted by an online supporter trying to discredit critics. Its either that, or a truly dangerous mind exists out there. Of course, in a society (ours) where cutting someone off on the highway is justifiable logic for shooting people...one never knows.
Your state and BAR number please (which is public knowlegde if you have one?) Or a place to check your reference. We know what your failure to back this up means... bluff.
First you are a commando and now you are a lawyer...what the hell is that? So you think its right for people to defraud businesses and credit card companies so the rest of us pay higher fees? If you ask me Aslan should consider himself lucky that he probably won't be the subject of a criminal investigation since the credit card companies would probably be forced to prosecute him from Costa Rica. Further you are a lawyer, someone that uses evidence to back your claims and should believe in that fact that evidence should decide the case. Well I don't think too many people on here would say that Aslan has proven his case better than Paradise. Maybe Paradise should do some follow up later to assure people that they did indeed get fraudulent charges made against them, but otherwise I don't think too many people on this site will shed any tears for Aslan. However I would love to see what kind of defense he can concoct overnight. Maybe he is busy calling up Alan Dershowitz...
"If the collusion don't stick you must aquit..."
not much of message, but if Aslan has the time and money to legally defend himself, he should file in US courts. An international incident should be fun!.
I did look at the hand histories and some of them do look suspecting but the same things were accussed of me by paradise when I made a killing one night against one guy playing heads up. I'm not going to go into details but simply paradise accussed me of knowing this "other person" and that the money lost to me was stolen. To make a long story short, I said screw you to paradise and just cashed everything I had out. They subtracted my winnings from that player. I have never played there ever again. I think they are crooked.
Aslan,
You're saved mate, neal ross is on your case.. I suggest your use Deja news to look at this dudes posting history on RGP before contracting any of his "services"...
d.
Why bother. First hand I read shows lkaer throwing away an ace-high flush when your board isn't showing as much as a single pair. When I first started reading this I genuinely thought you might be the victim. Instead, you should be locked up.
Don't waste your time. If they truly have network logs as well showing that all of these users came from the same machine, I suggest you start looking for countries without extradition treaties in place. The hand histories themselves wouldn't convict you, but network logs would. That becomes indisputable.
Boy, with all these posting site traffic must be great. More ad revenue anyone?? J/K
I have read the posts here and on rpg, and also played on both planet and paradise poker extensively and I have one conclusion.
Yes, the software is hackable and there is certainly collusion going on at both sites.
Because of these problems which exist I believe that internet poker sites are not providing the service which they are suppose to. As a company they have not supplied the service which we as players were expecting when we typed in out credit card numbers.
As a result many players which I know playing on those sites have refused to pay the charges since they feel cheated. Their argument was that they were not given the service which they paid for.
Overall I have only lost a few hundred dollars on these sites and therefore I just paid my bill but for those who have lost large amounts and suspect cheating by other players and collusion, I think they should think twice about what kind of service they got for their money.
In one of your posts you had expressed concern that every computer in a college dormitory could have the same address or something like that and that it could lead Paradise astray to unfounded suspicions. Did their E-mail to me alleviate that concern?
At the time, the forum was under the impression that Aslan was accused of colluding (and it turned out he's a sorry excuse for a credit card thief). It looked like he was in trouble simply because he was on the same subnet (or local area network, or sharing the same IP) as his buddies. Obviously, Paradise is looking beyond that. I'm under the impression they do not throw accusations easily.
It is my belief that the high limit hold'em games are on the square now. I'm not so sure about $10-20 games a couple of months back, I saw some weird shit at the time Ed Hill lost his bankroll and I lost a few grand too many myself during that period.
Angelina Fekali
Though you are killing the games, you mention that they were perhaps cheating for a little while, a few months ago, when you had a couple of thousand drop off. And they say I have an ego.
.
It's was not the losing, it was the weirdest suckouts that raised eyebrows. Trust me on this. But I do have some ego, sure :)
Angelina Fekali
What's your explanation for the suckouts?
I have none. I only have theories and they are all shaky. I'm not claiming the games back then were rigged. I'm just saying I'm not sure.
Angelina Fekali
It is important to realize that if someone knew what cards were coming, either through hacking or a renegade employee, many hands would appear to be rigged when they were not. The same, to a lesser extent would be true if there was collusion. Unlike many who took my survey, I have never said that I thought the chances of these other problems were almost nil, though people seem to think I did. Again, I only entered the fray because I was trying to show those who thought it likely that Paradise was knowingly cheating, weren't thinking clearly.
But they were. Surely David Sklansky doesn't believe that organized crime is a myth?
I am saying that poker sites would make LESS money if they cheated. Therefore a site owned by organized crime would not cheat.
Also, I was at the tables witnessing Ed Hill getting his bankroll mowed down. Remember, those were the $10-20 days. I'm not surprised he snapped.
Angelina Fekali
Pretty much. It sounds like they are using the MAC address on the network card, which is unique, or they are generating a GUID in software when the client program is installed. If they are doing something like that, then they can positively identify every machine that plays, without ambiguity.
However, they also mentioned that they check the IP addresses, and those can be the same for a large number of computers. That said, my opinion of their technical prowesss is currently pretty high, so I'm sure they've considered that.
I have a NAT going at home and I've noticed that when I'm playing that both the internal and external addresses are listed on the title bar in the connected from: xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy. This combination must be unique.
Not necessarily. If you are using DHCP and dynamically assigning internal IP's, it wouldn't necessarily be true. It would have to be unique, but only so long as the computer was on. Depending on how your DHCP server was configured, different computers could use the same IP during different sessions (at different times).
Or you can manually cancel your DHCP lease to force the server to give you another one. If you're a scammer, you'd be doing that constantly to keep 'em guessing. So I suspect that Paradise is recording the MAC address of the network card or generating a GUID on the client machine and storing it in the registry. If in fact the dual-boot thing won't let you create two paying accounts on one machine, then they'd have to be going for the MAC address. A really determined little thief could swap out network cards with each different account, but that sounds like a lot of work. Mind you, little weenie hackers seem to have endless amounts of time to monkey around with this stuff.
I apologize for the delay. It was a long letter.
First, I want to say that I am surprized that so many inteligent people will jump to any conclusion before hearing both sides. Even before paradise's letter people were siding either with me or with paradise without even knowing what the real issue was. After their letter, about 5 people already made their verdict. Have anyone of you heard about "presumption of innocence"? Paradise presented their arguments. They seem to be very sure of themselves. Every time in court DA is sure of his evidence, nevertheless, a person is often acquitted. Paradise's letter sounds like a lawyer's speech - a lot of speculations, conclusions and emotions. it is never "cheating" but "BLATANT cheating", etc. My language is not as eloquent so let's go to bare facts:
Paradise alleges: .1. Three persons have created three acounts on the same computer.
.2. Deposits were made on these 3 accounts from, apparently, stolen credit cards
.3. Each of them lost $1200 plus one lost additional $300 in the period from July 22nd to July 28th
.4. They always played at the same table as me.
.5. Their play was wild, they raised with nothing, often folding on the river.
.6. I also played wild and bluffed a lot
.7. I won their money
.8. Paradise can link my computer to theirs. "What makes this fraudulent action so easily caught is not only the obvious hand histories but our technical data that 100% verifies that ALL these accounts are directly related as they have historically shared the same physical computer! These individuals all know each other. We have undeniable technical records that enable us to track every individual machine that logs in... this allows us to determine related accounts for security reasons (mostly. This is an invaluable tool."
.9. Paradise intends to return money to credit card owners.
That is all that's left from this long letter after stripping the dressing. Now let me answer.
1. It is impossible to create more than one real money account on one computer, regardless of what name you use. Anyone who does not beleive me can try it. When you go to cashier and click "Setup account for real money" you will get an message saying that you already have an account. Either paradise lies about it or they (an employee of theirs?) knew about it from the beginning and gave a special permission. I will not try to guess the reasons but it is a major discrepancy.
2. Possible but two thing do not sound true. First, this means that paradise do not verify name and address on the card - a major security flaw. Paradise boasts of their security so much that it is hard to beleive that they do not do it. Second, it takes more than 3 days (last play was on 28th), more than a week for a statement to arrive to a person, dispute form received and signed, then for dispute request to arrive to paradise.
3. Any of people here lost $600 in a day? For 2 days in a row? It happens. I lost $600 on my first day on paradise (can be proven by histories)
4. I mostly play 8-16 stud. They played only 8-16 stud. There are only one or two tables of 8-16 stud and I was usually sitting on both. So it is natural that we were at the same table.
5. I cannot try to explain someone else's play. I have seen only one realy strange case in histories when a person folded a flash but it could just be a wrong button pressed. Other cases are loose-aggresive but nothing really unusual.
6. I try to adjust my play to my opponents. IMO, my play was the correct play at the moment. The fact that I won supports my opinion.
7. This is simply not true. I won some hands from them, won some from others. They won some hands from me (e.g. 14924549, 14922044), won some from others. Paradise sent to David only few selected histories. In the end, I was ahead but I won as much money from others as from them. If someone analyzed all histories he would come to the same conclusion.
8. Everything bfore that was speculation. This is the most serious argument. I asked Paradise to clarify it and to produce records. They have replied and this time they do not claim that my account shared the same physical computer but say that: "Your machines are linked by IP address" (verbatim) This statement is, at least, beleivable but explanable. I use free providers as ISPs - Juno, Bluelight, Altavista (whoever is faster at a moment). If the computer with these 3 players was using the same provider in the same geographical area their is a good chance that at some point he would have the same IP address as me. Note, that paradise does not say that it happened at the same time but rather that at some point (historically) I was connected from the same IP address as these people were now. In any case, I ask Paradise to publish these connection records here or in an e-mail.
9. This is irrelevent but paradise can only use money to compensate their losses since credit cards compaines will take money from paradise account automatically. So they do intend to put my money into their pockets.
I hope I addressed all points. The fact remains that Paradise, based solely on their conclusions, without asking me a single question, has confiscated my account. Next time you win a lot can they get suspicious and do the same to you?
I propose that an arbiter is chosen to decide this case. Paradise should give all their records about me and these players (hand histories and connection records) to him and he should make a decision: 1. should my account be closed as a security precaution 2. Should my money be confiscated by paradise
I will accept Sklansky as an arbiter and agree to abide by his decision if paradise agrees to the same. I see it as the only way to prove my innocence.
I didn't see a single rebuttal in here. You just questioned their security policies and suggested possible explanations for some things. The problem is that, while any one fact may be a coincidence or explainable, when you put them all together it looks pretty damning to me. You are suggesting that the same person who played so badly that he lost the maximum to you also just happens to be on the same router as you somewhere in the States, AND two other players who also lost the maximum daily amount to you are also in the same geographic area, but unknown to you. AND all three of these players just happen to be using stolen credit cards.
The hand histories are very damning. The very first one I read had a player betting into you all the way to the river, then folding a nut flush to a bet. Not a chance. Sure, if that were the only flaky hand between you and that person I might write it off as a mouse click error, but after seeing a handful of similar strange plays by the same person, I'm sure that's not the case.
And regarding having two client programs on the same physical computer... Off the top of my head I can think of one simple way to do it - Have a dual-boot machine with two operating systems on it, and install one client on each.
And BTW, the standard of guilt here is not 'reasonable doubt', so don't bother arguing that the evidence is only circumstantial. This is more akin to a civil action, in which case the standard of proof is merely a preponderance of evidence. And so far, this case looks open-and-shut.
I am not qualified to be an arbiter in this case and don't have time to do the necessary studying to become qualified. Besides, all of your defenders are having a heart attack that you asked me, since they claim I am far from neutral. So I appreciate the request and appreciate also that you consider me unbiased. I would also like to say that you are obviously very intelligent based on your postings here, and if you are a thief it is not because you have no choice.
Thank you for the compliment. If I was a thief would I have asked for an arbiter? It is unfortunate that you could not do that. Perhaps Malcolm will agree to it? How about that? Or any well-known person that knows stud?
>>I didn't see a single rebuttal in here. You just questioned their security policies and suggested possible explanations for some things.<< It is impossible to PROVE one's innocence. I have shown in my e-mail that paradise's evidence is very inconclusive, and sometimes simpley false.
>>You are suggesting that the same person who played so badly that he lost the maximum to you << And lost to others, and won from me. There is no real pattern.
>also just happens to be on the same router as you somewhere in the States, AND two other players who also lost the maximum daily amount to you are also in the same geographic area, but unknown to you. AND all three of these players just happen to be using stolen credit cards. <<
Did you read previous postings? According to paradise all three players played on the same computer so they would have the same IP address. As far as we know it even was one person under 3 identities. My geographic area include about 15 mil. people I would guess that millions of people use free ISP, especially Juno and Bluelight, So it is entirely possible and not improbable that at some point in the past I accessed the same ISP that the other person.
>>The hand histories are very damning. The very first one I read had a player betting into you all the way to the river, then folding a nut flush to a bet. Not a chance. Sure, if that were the only flaky hand between you and that person I might write it off as a mouse click error, but after seeing a handful of similar strange plays by the same person, I'm sure that's not the case. << What other similar plays? Paradise selected the strangest hands and even here I don't see anything similar.
>>And regarding having two client programs on the same physical computer... Off the top of my head I can think of one simple way to do it - Have a dual-boot machine with two operating systems on it, and install one client on each. << Won't work. Paradise can identify a machine by either MAC address or drive serial number. Try it.
>>And BTW, the standard of guilt here is not 'reasonable doubt', so don't bother arguing that the evidence is only circumstantial. This is more akin to a civil action, in which case the standard of proof is merely a preponderance of evidence. And so far, this case looks open-and-shut. << This is a case of theft, so the standard has to be "beyond reasonable doubts". Otherwise, any time you win a lot they might do the same to you.
>>Paradise can identify a machine by either MAC address or drive serial number. Try it.
It's interesting how you know so much about PP's capabilities. Are you seriously going to tell me you just happened to find this out right now? That in order to defend yourself on some public forum you went to the trouble of installing a dual-boot? Or perhaps you know all of this stuff because you already tried it in developing your scam?
I suggest rather than coming up with some elaborate explanations, that you instead get the feds involved on the stolen credit card numbers. Ask them to investigate you so that you can exonerate yourself and then post the results of the investigation on the internet. The feds will get the records of your free internet providers and could trace the phone numbers and shouldn't have much of a problem finding out who was playing with paradises cooperation. We'll all wait for the results.
You seem like a smart cookie too maestro.
>>It's interesting how you know so much about PP's capabilities. Paradise has said so. I don't know what they check for but they said that it hardware, not software.
<> I fail to see what could the results prove. It will show that my computer was connected from phone number XXX to ISP yyy and that another computer was connected from number aaa to ISP bbb. How does that prove or disprove anything?
>>It will show that my computer was connected from phone number XXX to ISP yyy and that another computer was connected from number aaa to ISP bbb.
It would either prove your innocence or guilt as follows..
PP provides FBI with IP logs which shows when the users which played with stolen credit cards were logged in. FBI takes IP addresses and times and goes to internet access provider which corresponds to IP addresses. ISP turns over logs for the time in question which show which phone number was connected to their modem pool with the IP during that time period.
FBI can then associate PP nicknames with the phone numbers used to dial up to the internet providers, whichever were used. Whoever was using the stolen CC#'s will be dialing up using those numbers.
Using this information, it should be a small step to finding out who was using the CC#'s. I am actually surprised the PP didn't turn this info over to the feds. Credit card fraud is a pretty serious crime and it shouldn't take very long to figure out who was doing it.
> 1. It is impossible to create more than one real > money account on one computer, regardless of what > name you use. Anyone who does not beleive me can > try it. When you go to cashier and click "Setup > account for real money" you will get an message > saying that you already have an account.
No, it isn't. All you need to do is install the client into a separate directory, two separate installations on the same machine, and each can have its own real money account, with different names, different cards, etc.
I did exactly as you asked -- I TRIED it, just now, not with intent to ever USE the account (Paradise: You may DELETE the experimental account, ADBJester, which I just created -- it will not be used, nor a credit card number provided), but to prove this wrong.
I tried that. It did not work. You can CREATE an account, you CANNOT set it up for real money. Try to buy chips and you will see.
Obviously you've tried. How did you manage to get around that?
huh? The three people were on the other computer, not mine. I can see it possible only if someone at paradise gave them special permission to do it. Why don't Paradise explain it here?
Jeff, being the resident computer guru.. let me riddle you this. I strongly doubt you can run and play 3 seperate Paradise sessions from the same computer without some really elaborate IP spoofing thing going on, do you agree?
But let's say he could do that, what is this indisputable proof that paradise could have that shows they were the same machine? The only thing I know offhand that is a unique identifier is the NIC address, but there is nothing saying this guy even has a NIC card in his machine, or that their software could read it.
I am not sure where I stand on this issue, the hand histories are very incriminating, but I would love to have more information on the technical side. What exactly is this identifier paradise used to show they came from the same computer? Paradise? Anyone?
My gut feeling is that the client software creates some sort of dicrete user ID code on install. This number could be randomly generated, but more likely relies on something relating to the machine itself. For example, it could use the Windows CD key, or a portion of it, in creating this unique PP user ID. If so, and if Aslan had ever once logged into paradise using the same machine with any one of the three accounts, then the alarm bells would sound. Now, who's to say he didn't use two separate computers to play in the same game at the same time. The alarm bells would still go off if the second computer had Windows installed from the same disc. Even if they had different installs, perhaps there was one time when "viola (or whatever the second account name is)" logged on to Paradise from the macine normally used by the Aslan account.
I think someone said it best (I believe it was Dan Hanson) when they stated that individually each piece of evidence would seem to be circumstantial. But when considered together, it seems unlikely that this set of "circumstances" are a mere case of coincidence. Also, Aslan seems to know a whole lot about different methods of creating multiple accounts on the same computer. Seems like he is talking from experience. Perhaps he has tried different methods? HMMMMM.....
Thoughts and Skewers welcome Maven
P.S. I hope David calls me a "smart cookie" too.
If what you are saying is the case why would Paradise refuse to produce this evidence? Because, they don't have it and they want everyone to beleive that they do.
Or because they don't want to give away the exact method in which they identify machines, lest they give the other weenie hackers out there a head start in thwarting their security.
If they don't want to show it, it is not an evidence.
BTW, it would be easier to change a computer than to try to deceive their security systems. You could get an adequate computer for $200
Or is it because they are cooperating with authorities and the credit card companies to file criminal charges. How often does a prosecutor/police share "evidence" with the public when a criminal investigation is underway?
Aslan, I suggest you pack your bags and forget the $2500.
You don't think four-betting him on the river is a little out of line? Perfect spot for colluders to pass money.
Adam.
> Jeff, being the resident computer guru.. let me riddle you this. I strongly doubt you can run and play 3 seperate Paradise sessions from the same computer without some really elaborate IP spoofing thing going on, do you agree?
Concurrently, no, that won't work. The PP client won't let a second instance be started while another is running. Log off, shut down, re-log on from a different installation directory on the same machine, and yes, you can.
> But let's say he could do that, what is this indisputable proof that paradise could have that shows they were the same machine? The only thing I know offhand that is a unique identifier is the NIC address, but there is nothing saying this guy even has a NIC card in his machine, or that their software could read it.
Possibilities, or things I'd use if I were coding it:
Hard Drive Serial numbers (NOT volume labels, they're different animals) Pentium III serial numbers (too limited) Registry keys (computer names, operating system data, etc) Partition information (size, number, etc)
Or any combination thereof. There's probably others, too, if I had time to dream them up.
I don't know PP's althorithm, however I use a unique key algorithm to prevent people from stealing my server-based software on NT (similar but easier on Unix). Disk ID plus other info in the registry will tell you that the same machine is in use: we use that plus one more 'secret' ingredient. Have a look at MS SMS or Centennial or Belarc for three different PC Asset management software products which will tell you everything you need to know about a machine; believe me, you *will* know one machine from another.
For those who doubt, go to www.belarc.com, run the web-based PC asset manager software on your PC: It will tell you all sorts of neat things about your hardware and software configuration; you will find enough info there to know your machine from another machine. Very uniquely. And PP uses a product like this or their own (more likely) to uniquely identify machines.
Sorry if this has confused any non-Komputer-nerds.
Mark the K(omputer Nerd)
I am not 100% convinced that Alan is guilty. My doubt is again not technical but based on the fact that he is obviously a very smart cookie who doesn't need to steal. On the other hand if he was the victim of amazing coincidences, that makes Paradise innocent also. Given that all the people who understand this stuff, think the evidence is overwhelming, so must Paradise. But Aslan's refusal to go away, his rejecting the nuts who are defending him, and his seemingly cogent counterarguements are intriguing to say the least. I really wish Mike Caro would say something about this. Again though, if by some fluke Aslan is exonerated, that doesn't mean that Paradise did something wrong. They can't wait until they are 100% sure to take action. If their standard is 99.9% (I do agree with Aslan and disagree with Dan Hanson that beyond a reasonable doubt is the right standard, especially when it comes to confiscating money) we are all better off. All except for that poor guy who is a victim of a 1000-1 shot.
The standard of proof for a civil trial (which a financial confiscation would be), is a preponderance of evidence.
OJ was tried for murder, and aquitted. When they tried him in civil court he was found innocent because of the different standard of proof.
However, this assumes a trial in a court of law. Before you take unilateral action like this the burden of proof should be quite a bit higher than a preponderance of evidence. I don't know how much higher, but I certainly don't want to lose my money because of a 51/49 decision.
In my part of the world, if you buy a stolen car, you lose the car and you have to try and get your money from the thief.
Aslan benefited from stolen goods. It's unfortunate that he had the impression that he was a winning player, but he had a gift from the fraudsters. If the incident had never occured he would not have the money.
Good point but not an acceptable reason for confiscating it in this case.
> I am not 100% convinced that Alan is guilty. My doubt is again not technical but based on the fact that he is obviously a very smart cookie who doesn't need to steal. On the other hand if he was the victim of amazing coincidences, that makes Paradise innocent also. Given that all the people who understand this stuff, think the evidence is overwhelming, so must Paradise. But Aslan's refusal to go away, his rejecting the nuts who are defending him, and his seemingly cogent counterarguements are intriguing to say the least.
David, one thing is: just who *is* "Aslan"? Aslan, are you a name we'd recognize, say, a BARGE attendee of past, or a name player we'd know? I'm also not 100% certain, but my biggest problem is the apparent implication that Aslan had himself logged on and played using the same computer that the credit card thieves used. To me, that's the most incriminating accusation, though we've seen no proof of this, other than the claim. I find it hard to believe that credit card thieves would be so stupid as to dump to a complete stranger, so if it was in fact dumping, that's a pretty fair preponderance of evidence that Aslan knew the perps, and thus he's undeniably guilty. If it was just poor play, or kids on a joy ride with daddy's credit card, and Aslan was just "taking advantage of what he thought was very poor play", then he MIGHT be innocent.
One thing is certain -- the perps WERE playing with stolen money, and they weren't playing an "A" game.
Aslan, your position is a bit less solid than if you had bought in for $2500, and then had that money stolen. By your own claim, you were "in" for $200, and if you indeed are innocent, then you yourself were the victim of credit card fraud. Get your own money (your original buy-in) back from your card issuer, and get on with life.
well i have been watching this take place, and watching dsklanasky get beaten by a select few on this forum. aslan looking at your rebutals is a joke in itself. you must not have ever played poker in a casio or card room because your tells in this disbute have been large.
a incident occured to me on paradise where i had a similar screenname and password to someone else, through a series of events they took over my account and pounded it to nothing while i was at work.
within 72 hours paradise found the person who did this, (through the same processes that anyone who understands ip addresses would) and credited my account.
in summary looking over your hand histories no matter what, the hand where you won with a pair of jacks or kings against a A high flush sticks in my mind as the biggest example of what went on. and we all know what went on!
so aslan it may be time to give up, your agruments dont make any sense. you seem to be confused as to what to say and how to say it and yet i would be going insane with anger if i took my bankroll from 28 dollars to where you took yours. so unless your gonna go to costa rica and bomb the servers you might as well go back to hacking web sites to get credit card numbers except this time buy some poker books and learn to play the game how it was meant to be played!!!!!
Another spit-spayer (sigh). Guys, can you keep your posts calm and argumentative? I am getting tired replying to nonsense. I'll do it this time. If you disagree with my arguments you must say why. An insult is not an argument. As I wrote earlier, the hand with a flash is a single incident and most likely to be a wrong button click. My bankroll was never at $28. I don't know where you got this number. I am not going to bomb servers in Costa Rica but I want everyone to realize that anytime they win a lot they might have their accounts confiscated. Especially if, by chance, someone with stolen credit card will be at the same table. Now, say something constructive or be silent
Let's tune in now to a brilliant display of hand selection, semi-bluffing, and -most importantly- value betting. The game in question is 15-30 Texas Holdem. Our hero is Aslan who is recognized as a "smart cookie" by at least one well known and highly regarded poker theorist. Let's pick up the action pre-flop:
buzzard09: Fold Aslan : Raise ($30) dergy : Fold shuelry : Call ($20) Boyuk : Raise ($30) Aslan : Raise ($30) shuelry : Call ($30) Boyuk : Call ($15) *** FLOP *** : [ 8s 8h 7s ] shuelry : Check Boyuk : Bet ($15) Aslan : Raise ($30) shuelry : Call ($30) Boyuk : Call ($15) *** TURN *** : [ 8s 8h 7s ] [ 2c ] shuelry : Check Boyuk : Bet ($30) Aslan : Call ($30) shuelry : Fold *** RIVER *** : [ 8s 8h 7s 2c ] [ Tc ] Boyuk : Bet ($30) Aslan : Raise ($60) Boyuk : Raise ($60) Aslan : Raise ($60) Boyuk : Call ($30) *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $568 | Rake: $2 Board: [ 8s 8h 7s 2c Tc ] buzzard09 didn't bet (folded) [ 7c 3s ] (two pair, eights and sevens) Aslan bet $240, collected $568, net +$328 (showed hand) [ Ts 6s ] (two pair, tens and eights) dergy didn't bet (folded) [ 5s Jd ] (a pair of eights) shuelry lost $90 (folded) [ Qs Ac ] (a pair of eights) Boyuk lost $240 [ 6d 6h ] (two pair, eights and sixes)
I didn't wade through the hand histories. If they show my cookie statement to be wrong I will stand corrected.
What is strange about the preflop? I played with Boyuk before and knew that there is an extremely strong chance that he was bluffing with his raise. When he had a good hand he tended to slowplay it. So I reraised to make shuelry fold. When he called I put him on two big cards (he would have reraised with high pair), so when there were no big cards in the flop I raised again to make him fold. His staying to the turn was his mistake.
Please post a hand history showing that you had played against boyuk before. The logs show that boyuk had just bought in with the stolen money. How could you have played against him before?
Presto
If they were colluding on this hand, why didn't aslan raise the turn?
my verdict is still out, but this hand didn't convince me. Aslan also has a straight draw and an overcard. This hand looks a lot more like he played it dumb than played it in a colluding fashion.
mth.
I thought this one was interesting- mainly because there was little money involved- why would you fold here?
7-card stud - 2000/07/24-19:37:11 (CST) Table "Jolly Beach" [1294] (real money) Seat # 2: [$001076f1] viola ($284.00 in chips) -- playing Seat # 7: [$001075df] Aslan ($43.00 in chips) -- playing viola : Ante ($0.50) Aslan : Ante ($0.50) Dealt to viola [ 8c ] Dealt to Aslan [ 2s ] Dealt to viola [ Jc ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4d ] Dealt to viola [ 8d ] Dealt to Aslan [ 5c ] Aslan : Bring-in ($2) viola : Call ($2) Dealt to viola [ Kc ] Dealt to Aslan [ 8s ] viola : Bet ($4) Aslan : Raise ($8) viola : Call ($4) Dealt to viola [ Js ] Dealt to Aslan [ 4s ] viola : Check Aslan : Bet ($8) viola : Fold Aslan : Winner -- doesn't show cards *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $20 | Rake: $1 viola lost $10.50 (folded) [ 8c Jc 8d Kc Js ] (two pair, jacks and eights) Aslan bet $18.50, collected $28, net +$9.50 [ 2s 4d 5c 8s 4s ] (a pair of fours)
*** SUMMARY *** Pot: $20 | Rake: $1 viola lost $10.50 (folded)
[ 8c Jc 8d Kc Js ] (two pair, jacks and eights) Aslan bet $18.50, collected $28, net +$9.50
[ 2s 4d 5c 8s 4s ] (a pair of fours)
I agree. NOBODY plays this poorly with their own money. viola knows Aslan cannot have trip eights, and it takes trips or better to beat what viola knows he has, and is WELL concealed. This fold makes no sense at all, unless one is dumping. What is he afraid of? a buried 67o?
I don't know why the guy folded but you don't seriously suggest that it was an illegal transfer of $9.50?
There was poor a 3rd person in the hand, I guess they thought he had them both beaten so did want to loose any money to him (if they were colluding that is), when he folds they go at it like rabbits on the river..
d.
mth:
please come play at some of the Mississippi casinos if you will call a raise after a flop when all you hold is a draw to a non nut straight with two flush cards and a paired board on the flop.
oh the classic, "come play at my table" response. what an insightful analysis.
Of course I wouldn't play it that way, but some people would. I don't think it is far-fetched to believe the guy strongly played a gut-shot against someone he thought was a habitual bluffer (or put on overcards), nor do I find it strange that they both went at it with two-pair on the river (you ever played with someone that thinks, "oh i have two-pair. better raise it up."?)
As I said before, my verdict is still out. The flush fold seems strange in the 7cs example. The fold in smd's 7cs example seems very suspicious, but I haven't seen Viola play on a regular basis. Is she "nuts-paranoid"? Is she normally aggressive? How did she play when Aslan wasn't there?
It's a little too little right now to rush to judgement. If you make an effort to convince yourself Aslan was not in on it, some of these plays dont' look so suspicious.
But at the very least don't waste space with manly challenges.
mth.
Did you edit this hand history? why is there only a $2 rake at $568 pot ???? Can you post the hand# ?
At Paradise Poker, there are maximum rakes in short handed games depending on the number of players.
ActionBob
I see. There was so much action involved in this hand, I didn't see that is was shorthanded.
Thank you
#15578283 - 7 stud
*snip*
Dealt to Aslan [ 4d ]... Dealt to Aslan [ 8c ]... Dealt to Aslan [ 7h ]...
Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Raise ($8)...
Dealt to Aslan [ 3h ]...
lkaer : Bet ($8) JoeFi : Call ($8) Aslan : Raise ($16) lkaer : Raise ($16)..
That 4d, 8c, 7h and 3h is a pretty powerful hand. Guess those were value raises.
Mike
I too have folded winning hands by accident. If a seat opens up at a game I'd rather play, I hate to leave a table if I've just posted my blinds, so I'll continue to watch/check/fold until it's my big blind again. I'll be ready to fold one hand; without warning the screen will shift to the other table and I'll fold the wrong hand. It's only happened a couple of times -- but it has happened.
Mike
I sent an e-mail to paradise requesting to appoint an independent arbiter to analyze the evidence. Here is their reply
I received an e-mail from Paradise. It simply repeats previous accusations and says
<< Your account will be closed. As you are lying, we don't really see any point to maintaining any dialogue. You have attempted to defraud us, and you have lied to us.
This dialogue is now terminated.>>
So, Paradise refuses to show the records to an independent person. They also ignore my repeated foru times pleas to show their evidence about linkig machines. They simply say "we are not interested in talking to you".
I can only hope that having all this in the open will cost paradise more in bad publicity than $2500 that they stole from me.
One night a few weeks ago three friends came over to see my new computer and sip a few beers. While were checking out the internet poker sites I had a flash of inspiration. I said "Hey, why don't we all sign up for an account and you guys lose all your money to me and then after I cash it out you report your credit cards lost or stolen and we split up the money." Bob replied "Hehe.. I have a new one that just came in the mail today. I'll just claim I never received it." "Even better." "But I don't know how to play poker." "No problem. We'll just set up all the accounts here, then you guys all go over to Bob's house and play against me. All we gotta do is keep raising and everybody else will fold. We'd better just do one every couple of days, though. Don't want to attract too much attention. And we'll use one of those free ISPs so they can't trace anything. The perfect crime.:)" Actually, none of this never happened (to me). But if it did, I would immediately start screaming "outrage" if I happened to get caught. Credit card companies can get downright nasty when they think they've been had. I wouldn't want them investigating me and my beer buddies.
"After I read this message I called a friend and said "Let's kill 'Not Aslan'" And we traced his IP address and we went to his house..."
Or another one: "I rented an appartment under another name, bought a thousand credit card slips from a guy that pumps gas at Mobile, installed 8 phone lines and started moving money around..." Not even very difficult.
None of this never happened as well (to me).
Anything is possible hypothetically. However it did not happen. Paradise yells that it has evidence but refuses to produce it.
Pretty extreme reaction to a piece of fiction. Are we on the verge of a Perry Mason Moment?
By the way, I am posting through a proxy server through a proxy server through a free ISP account which was set up through another free ISP account which was set up through another free ISP account ... etc... etc... which was set up from a public access computer. Don't you wish you had thought of that?
Send me an e-mail and a $100 and I will tell you your name, address, SSN, and how much money you have in your checking account :-)
Wow... if you know wall that it's not a stretch to figure out the computer credit cards scam you and your buddies tried to get away with. Loser...
it was a joke, idiot.
EXPERT HACKER WANTED-i am offering $50,000 plus i have committments for 35,000 additional money to be paid to an individual that shut down PARADISE POKER'S servers, Paradise Poker is a DETRIMENT to the entire poker community, please contact me at nealross@bigfott.com
If Paradise had half a notion you are legit, they would quickly track you down and prosecute you if they experienced a single attack on their servers. Loser.
?
Many have been asking how can Paradise verify and prove three accounts were created on the same computer. I work at a place where computer security is a high priority. I am not an expert, but I asked the head geek a few questions. In adddition to IP addess ID, Paradise's soft ware can have all kinds of programs built in that would allow them complete access into your system. This could include Windows registry and the original setup registration with your name, address etc. So no matter who signs up for a Paradise account they know who owns that computer. My guess is when the two don't match a bell rings in Paradise security. They probably watched the whole Aslan scam unfold before their eyes and gathered evidence every step along the way.
It sounds like Paradise has caught Aslan red handed. Paradise's evidence may support the credit card companies file criminal charges. Aslan may end up playing prison poker with a guy named Bubba.
Paradise does not claim that the three acounts were created on my computer. So your message is technically correct but tells nothing about me. Stop saying "Aslan scam" until you have proof not only that some three people were using stolen cards but also that I was on a receiving end of it. Hand histories (all of them, not the selected few that paradise posted) show that I wasn't.
Aslan,
The hand histories posted by PP are pretty damning. I' m far from an expert on isp's and such, but paradise seems quite confident that all the accounts were accesed from the same computer, at one point or another. I do, however, consider myself to be an expert poker player (hehe), and the 15/30 holdem hand is quite ridiculous. The river aggression just does not make sense. It's a crying call for you on the river. And why you would decide to take a piece of crap like T6 up against a wingnut, tells me that either you were colluding or you are not a very good poker player. Not an insult, just an observation.
If you are a theif, I would hope for your case that you did not use your real name and address, or you will be playing that heads-up freeze-out with Bubba. Some advice....don't show him the bluff when you check-raise him on the river.
However, your continued effort to answer all questions on this forum makes me wonder about your guilt. But the truth of the matter is, you have nothing to lose. PP has confiscated your money, and this would seem to be the only forum for recourse.
It's too bad PP has cut off your account. It would be quite interesting to see ALL the hand histories relating to these three or four accounts. I'm sure if PP took a selected few of my play, they could prove that I shot JFK.
My gut feeling is that you are guilty. Of what, i'm not sure. We don't have enough information about the fraudulent credit cards, or of all the hand histories. With this information, we could all make a more accurate conclusion.
not yet a smart cookie,
Adam.
Joe,
I am a computer expert.
Between the registry, the disk ID, and the IP addresses, they can know everything they need to. And the hand histories are pretty compelling to me.
I am very surprised having read all of this that Aslan brought it to our attention. In his/her unpleasant position, I would be spending my time with my attorney, figuring out how to keep out of jail. No joke.
Mark
If he is in as much trouble as you say, the debate on this forum might be helpful to him, don't you think?
Good point David, that's why I am a computer nerd and not a lawyer (thank god) hehehe.
But David, in all seriousness, you *know* that this debate is meaningless if the credit card companies want to make trouble for Aslan or others. If Visa or MC hires you or Caro for $20k or $30k to act as expert witnesses (and some computer type who can vouch for the fact that this was all done from one place) to prove a point and send some alleged thief to jail, who will the judge and jury believe? The experts, who have written 3 books and 20 articles -- or some of the random and anon. posters here. No offense to my fellow posters meant, but ya know what I mean, right?
I rest my case. If I were Aslan, I really would worry. On the other hand, life is complex: Visa or MC might not care to prosecute. On the other other hand, now that they know who Aslan is, they might come down like a ton of bricks for every offense in Aslan's city over the last five years. From what I've read about credit card theft and fraud, and the credit card company's level of upset at the large amount of it: I think Aslan should be worried. I assume that PP's message to you was real. If so, and since they did not use words like 'alleged' they must have VERY compelling evidence. Why cause these people who believe they have compelling evidence you have stolen from them to get even more pissed off at you? What sense does that make? That is all I was trying to say.
Mark the K(omputer Nerd)
Prosecutions for CC fraud are extremely rare. The evidence is almost always circumstantial, the crimes often cross state lines meaning federal jurisdiction (and big bucks to prosecute), the amounts are typically to small to interest the feds, and the guilty parties are hard to spot.
This is why credit card companies charge such incredible interest rates. Their bad debt costs are enormous. I used to be a VISA Merchant, and was involved in trying to solve more than one credit card fraud scheme. I never saw one go anywhere near trial, and in one case I produced reams of computer logs and phone records at the request of police.
In fact, that case was somewhat similar to this one: I ran an online service, and some kid was using stolen card numbers to buy computer time (this was a chat-line BBS, years ago). He was using dozens of aliases and different credit card numbers, so they were hard to track. I went through our computer logs and drew out all the log-on times for the bad credit cards, and the police got a warrant to pull the phone records for the suspect. EVERY log entry matched a call from his home to our computer system. The kid worked at a restaraunt or something, and every card number used turned out to be from a customer of that place. He was undoubtedly pocketing the carbons from the credit card slips. We had the kid cold.
A few months later, I called the officer to find out the result. And it was... all charges dropped. Circumstantial evidence. They knew that the perp was in the kid's house, but he wouldn't admit to the crime, and there were other people living there, none of whom would say a thing. The connection of the card numbers to his place of employment was deemed completely circumstantial.
Incidentally, I had to eat half of the charges, and the credit card company ate the other half. All customers who disputed the charges were given full compensation.
Thanks for the info Dan.
So David: Perhaps you are right. If PP and the police won't do anything vis-a-vis criminal charges, even if someone is guilty, once their $$ is seized, it pays to scream loudly.
Then use the debate as a smoke screen...
...on the other hand, if someone stole credit cards and had a basement full of stuff, they might want to take the quiet route.
Mark
DS, I'm just wondering why you keep referring to Aslan as being highly intelligent. What specific statements or arguments has he made to make you suggest this as a possiblity? What, that he came forward to discuss his case on 2+2.
Assuming he is innocent: This would be the straightforward thing to do..Get it in the open. Nothing out of the ordinary here.
Assuming he is guilty:
#1 He went through quite a bit of trouble getting a stolen credit card, creating false accounts along with one real account, funneling money into real account.
#2 He cannot be prosecuted and has nothing to lose.
#3 When he planned this idea he figured he would at least be sent his money whether he was caught or not.
#4 He realized the only was to get his money is to come public and have a public outcry to paradise how he and other colluders/thieves should at the very minimum get their money back and just have their accounts closed.
Innocent or Guilty he doesn't strike me as being above avg. smart.
He either has no clue on how to play good poker and was getting lucky or he was milking the 3 bad accounts.
Aslan, did you find it strange how 3 players donated so much money to you in such a short period of time playing poker. Oh yeah don't forget that each one had over $1000.00 in stolen credit card advances.
Why did all 3 of these players stick out in your mind? Name others that you outplayed for so much money.(6 I try to adjust my play to my opponents. IMO, my play was the correct play at the moment.) Oh you forgot their handles but only remembered the the 3? Convenient.
Aslan strikes me as an idiot with a typical criminal mind w/ nothing to lose.
By the way Aslan, when you went to cash out did you cash out your entire sum? or leave $$ in your account to build up further with your remarkeable poker talent?
I suspect you cashed out ALL THE MONEY, for a real "Hit and Run". Answer please.
My suspicion is that you are not that bad of a player, but were only playing really bad in situations w/ the other 3 involved to knock out other players and have the money funneled to your account.
Why would a simple guy who got cheated by PP be so up to date on attempting to create multiple accounts and know the ins and outs of credit card abuse...
He obviously feels if the case against him is only 95% proveable that he just wants his money anyways. Good luck.
There can only be one motive to create 3 accounts w/ bad c.c.s. using the same computer. To funnel it into 1 or more accounts then cash out. Paradise has clearly shown this to be your account(Hand histories). Whether you were using the same computer of not is irrelevant.
DS, you should look at the hand histories, and ignore the technical issues(Even though they help prove against Aslan). If an expert looked at the hand histories of colluders but never rules against them because he couldn't tie them together technically, then there would be no solution to the cheating problem.
DS ask for the entire hand histories of all 3 thieves so we can calculate how many hands they played against Aslan(preflop or first 3).
Then we could also look at playing styles vs. Aslan and playing styles vs. general public.
If they are too long, post them on a web page instead of here. TY
< As I said many times before, that was not the case. I won some of thier money, lost some to them, won some of others, lost some to others. Even my total winnings are much less than $4100 that allegedly was stolen. Hand histories should show that.
>>Why did all 3 of these players stick out in your mind? Name others that you outplayed for so much money.(I try to adjust my play to my opponents. IMO, my play was the correct play at the moment.) Oh you forgot their handles but only remembered the the 3? Convenient. << You seem to ask a question and answer it yourself. I actually have records on many players (mostly stud). When I play I have my notes on each opponent next to the table. I also subscribed to Poker Analyzer and waiting for them to finally get live.
>>Aslan strikes me as an idiot with a typical criminal mind w/ nothing to lose. << You couldn't write a long message and not throw an insult at least once, could you? You nature did not allow it.
< >>My suspicion is that you are not that bad of a player, but were only playing really bad in situations w/ the other 3 involved to knock out other players and have the money funneled to your account. << That is what it is - a suspicion. That is what Paradise has - a suspicion. The problem is that they confiscate money on a suspicion. And what would you say when they suspect you and take your money?
>>Why would a simple guy who got cheated by PP be so up to date on attempting to create multiple accounts and know the ins and outs of credit card abuse... << 1. Paradise have said so themselve 2. The only thing I ever said about credit card abuse is that it takes more than a week for the dispute form to reach paradise and that credit cards always get the money back from vendor's account. It is common knowledge and everyone who ever disputed a claim knows that. Perhaps, I should call you "an idiot" for not knowing that?
>>He obviously feels if the case against him is only 95% proveable that he just wants his money anyways. Good luck. << I think the case against me is not even 20% proveable but noone have seem the evidence yet.
<< Paradise has clearly shown this to be your account(Hand histories). Whether you were using the same computer of not is irrelevant. >> NO! Paradise selected a few hands out of 1000s that I played and out of, probably, 200 ( a wild guess) that I played with these people. Ask them for all hands and you will see that I right. I already offered to send the histories that I have to anyone. I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE!
>>DS ask for the entire hand histories of all 3 thieves so we can calculate how many hands they played against Aslan(preflop or first 3). << I have asked the same.
ParaPoke claims the 3 fraud accounts were on the same machine. If so, this would certainly tie those 3 together in an attempted credit card scam. I do not understand that ParaPoke is claiming Aslan's account was on the same machine, but on a "related machine". I have no idea what this means in ParaPoke terminology.
Aslan has reasonably explained his presence at the same table with the "3".
From ParaPoke's e-mails to Mr. Sklansky, it would appear that the "3" dumped a total of $3900, but Aslan only had $2500 in his account. It is unclear whether or not the $2500 came exclusively from the "3", but if not, then Aslan received less than $2500 to his account from them. Where's the rest of the $3900?
If this was a 4-way scam, why not just play heads-up? By attempting to do it at a full table, they all ran the risk that a non-conspirator would grab the loot by simply having the best hand.
I think it's possible that the "dirty" 3 simply stole some credit cards and used that money to try to make a big score on ParaPoke. This thesis would adequately explain the above facts, though a close examination of ALL hand histories would be required.
Perhaps this is a two-fold breakdown of ParaPoke's security. One: they allowed stolen credit cards to be used to open cash accounts. Two: they acted hastily by assuming an innocent(?) person was involved in the scam.
If the above scenario is correct, it does raise an interesting question as to who should take the loss when credit card fraud is perpetrated - the casino, an innocent customer or the card company?
Thank God! Finally I see one voice of common sense here!
Just curious - don't you think it's over the top to use the nick "Aslan"?
I am not sure what you mean. Aslan is a common arab name, meaning "lion". I am not aware of any other meaning.
Sorry - didn't know it was arabic - Aslan is a character in Chronicles of Narnia, representing God or Jesus. Please ignore.
Trying to follow this alternative hypothesis. Let's see if I got it right:
3 people with stolen credit cards try to make a moppin' at Paradise. Meanwhile, Aslan:
- happens to be in the same geographic area - happens to be using the same free ISP - happens to be using a "related computer" - happens to be in the same game as the perpetrators - happens to be the recipient of substantial losses resulting from horrendous play by the criminals.
It don't make no sense to me
Did you ever bother to read previous messages? All of this was answered already
Well..if that scenario is correct , then Aslan has a cut and dried libel suit that could be prosecuted in Costa Rican courts. If Aslan is legitimate, he should pursue litigation. If he feels he would lose, or doesn't have the money to hire legal counsel,then he should pursue an attorney that would work on contingency. Enough evidence exists in the e-mail alone to win slander if slander it in fact is.
I'm sitting on the fence, and will not rush to judgemnt either way.
Ray,
I spoke to an attorney about that (it is in earlier messages). He said that an amount is too small for any attorney to take this case. It has to be tried in Costa Rica. I don't know any attorney in Costa Rica, nor I know their laws. If there is an attorney here (I think, Chris Alger said that he was a lawyer) and is willing to take this case on a contingency basis I will gladly accept.
Why don't you ask Neal to do all the work? He obviously is well funded if he can offer bounties on Paradise and he claims he is a lawyer that just got back from Costa Rica, gee all seems like a perfect match for me. Then again you might not want to set foot in Costa Rica in case the credit card companies or Paradise decide to prosecute you for fraud...
The original note posted by dsklansky actually says the the perps were using the same "physical" machine as identified by some serial number using the same IP address. This evidence I would like to see as this would be the most damming. The hand histories by themselves are circumstantial.
It's not necessary for Aslan to win all of the money that is dumped. In fact, winning it all is undesirable as it provides for NO plausible deniability. Others at the tables unwittingly benefited from the dumping, but all the better to cover traccks.
As far as I know, the credit card company would be the one to take the loss. It's usually standard policy for customer's to be responsible for the first $50 in unauthorized charges. The CC company usually eats the rest.
I believe that Sklansky wrote that email himself. I am referring to the one that he alleges was sent to him by Paradise Poker in reference to Aslan's account.
Let's look at the evidence.
All the messages we've seen from PP in the past have been well written and structured more or less formally. We all know that Sklansky can't write for sh*t. (Just read some of his books - you know what I mean.) This email that was supposedly sent by PP is written in a style more consistent with Sklansky's drivel.
Furthermore, Aslan has a clear cut case for libel if these messages did in fact originate from PP. They state that Aslan committed various crimes and permission was given for them to be posted on a public forum. No where do these messages state that Aslan ALLEGEDLY did any wrongdoing. They state it as fact. This is libel pure and simple.
I believe that Sklansky wrote these messages. In any event, why does Sklansky have all these 'contacts' down there anyway????? Isn't all of this setting off the alarm on anyone elses bullsh*t detector?
AF
Aslan, don't ask Sklansky to be an arbiter for you!
I find it disturbing that another player recounted the story of how he won a large sum of money playing heads up and that PP confiscated it and closed his account. I guess the lesson to be learned here is 'Lose all you want, but don't win too much or we'll steal it from you!'
This reminds me of reading the stories of when TJ Cloutier used to play in the no limit holdem games in Texas. If you won a lot your biggest fear was getting robbed by the proprietor on the way out!
Here is another discrepancy that is making me curious - if you add up the money that Aslan won from the three accounts he was allegedly linked to, the sum is far more than the 1200 or so that he claims was in his account when it got closed down. Where is the rest of it?
I'm sorry, but even if PP is on the level and believes that Aslan used stolen credit cards to pump up his account, they have no right to steal his money and close his account without due process.
AF
I added it up to $2500-$2600. Aslan stated his acount was about $2500- not 1200.
Ok, if that's the case, my bad. With all the posts I must have forgotten the amount in the account. (Heh that rhymes.)
AF
Boys, you can't even count. Paradise said: "$1200 boyuk and lkaer each, $1500 viola" = $3900 My account was about $2500.
Well then you and your team need to get that EV up.
I already told you, Paradise Poker is really headquartered in Sklanky's garage. Why should this come as a surprise?
Although I think D. Sklansky sometimes comes to Paradises defense way too much because they advertise here and thus it affects his judgment, he has gone out of his way to be fair and non-judgemental on this matter. He also made appropriate inqueries to his contacts there and passed them along to all of us. To accuse him of being involved is ridiculous. I would almost think you were joking but since you have a strong dislike for Mr. Sklansky, I know you are not. I have seen others call you a nut/crackpot/etc., but didnt take them too seriously as I found your previous postings sometimes made sense and I was in agreement with some of your points. I now have come to the conclusion that you are a nut job who has some sort of obsession with Sklansky. Fats, you need help and David, you should get a bodyguard in case this wacko really goes off the deep end.
What makes you think I am some kind of violent psycho? I merely wanted to illustrate 2 points that seemed obvious to me. First, that the email that Sklansky received from PP was conspicuously different from ALL of the other messages we've seen from PP. And second, that PP would be committing blatant libel by publicly accusing Aslan with no proof. Ask any lawyer to explain what I am talking about if you can't fathom the concepts involved.
AF
One: Who would go through all the trouble of making up hand histories. Also, Aslan defended the play in at least 1 hand, so therefore it isn't made up, unless Sklansky really lost his rocker and took the time to make up Aslan as well.
Two: How do you know PP doesn't have evidence? They probably do and just won't share it. From the note it sounds like they have a pretty solid case. Also, PP didn't publicly liable anybody. The note was sent to Sklanksy. It was he that published it to the forum and made it public.
Anyone who puts all the information together can come to only one logical conclusion: Sklansky owns, or rather, is, Paradise Poker, lock, stock and barrel (fortunately he has a 3-car garage). Only someone of as high an intellect could possibly have conceived and followed through with such a grand and complex scheme, together with invented supporting characters. This means that David must by now have many millions in offshore accounts and will therefore be easily able to afford a bodyguard or two should he deem it advisable. Thanks to the threads below, if he should wish to hire an ex-SEAL or ex-Green Beret he will know whom to contact. The only remaining question is: is it just possible that Mike Caro really is Planet Poker?
As noted above, it is starting to appear that Sklansky might really be Paradise Poker. However, for Mike Caro to actually be Planet Poker would involve an even grander scheme. Caro would have had to completely conceal his ties until well after Planet was already well established, and then make it appear as if he had just then joined the "team." However, this would be perfect cover for his current involvement which he does not have to take pains to hide (like Sklansky does). This may at first blush appear too grandiose, but those who would put this past the "Mad Genius" might be making a mistake.
This would also help to explain why David is now desperately seeking Mike's input on the Aslan issue.
Did you notice that the correspondence from Paradise was signed by different people? This might account for the difference in writing styles.
FROM ASLAN: "What is strange about the preflop? I played with Boyuk before and knew that there is an extremely strong chance that he was bluffing with his raise."
FROM PARADISE: "Boyuk: Played 39 hands and lost $1,200"
So? You don't think that 39 hands of crazy wild play with a person is not enough to know that a person raises with nothing and calls with a good hand? Besides, I think paradise meant that he lost $1200 in 39 hands in this particular incident only not alltoghter.
How would you know what they meant? Because you remember playing w/him all week? Or because he was your buddy and you knew he was disguising his play for more than 39 hands?
Aslan, how good of a poker player do you honestly consider yourself? Have you read books? Which ones? Or are you just a natural? Maybe you just play for the fun of it...
I would like a copy of your entire hand histories for the month of July. I believe the answers lie within and would like to anaylze them. Should I e-mail you for them?
DW
>>Aslan, how good of a poker player do you honestly consider yourself? Have you read books? Which ones? Or are you just a natural? Maybe you just play for the fun of it... << Let's just say that I usually play $50-100 to $150-300 stud in casinos. Don't play hold'em much. Favorite book: 7CSFAP
>>I would like a copy of your entire hand histories for the month of July. I believe the answers lie within and would like to anaylze them. Should I e-mail you for them? << I don't have all of them. But you have my permission to ask paradise for them.
YEAH RIGHT!!!! You play for limits like that and play 8/16 online? Why do I have a hard time believing that? I mean losing one hand at 150-300 and you would be playing for a month at 8-16 to try to make it back. Besides I didn't see a whole lot of plays straight out of Mason and David's book in your hand histories. David what copy of your book did you send this guy that told him to bet with no pair and mostly low cards on fifth street? Oh thats right his opponent is a known bluffer...
If he read your book and played like this I think at the very least he deserves a refund for either not being able to read or understand your writings!
Are you really that suprised he's full of shit? He's backpedaling as fast as he can, trying desperately to gain some respect. His attempt to win in the court of public opinion is near total failure now and, consequently, his remarks are getting more and more ludicrous. If he doesn't just let it go and accept that he was caught (as all professional criminals do at various times in their career) he is going to have an aneurysm and turn into Neal Ross. But it makes for good forum fodder :)
David,
You rebutted my suggestion that someone who has had their money confiscated with strong accusations of credit card fraud should be quiet and hope that the accuser goes quietly away: You say that this debate helps them; I understand but don't agree with that point of view.
However, many others have come forward after looking at these hands histories and said this could only be 'money dumping' based upon the PP records given out. What do you think? After you read the hand histories, what do you see? You are always giving us wonderful 'test' questions - -I'm not being sarcastic -- what do you make of the 'test' hand outputs that PP so nicely gave us?
If you don't want to answer for the obvious reason that Visa or Amex or the DA's office will pay you as an expert witness, I understand. Otherwise, please: Let er rip. Can you see any other reasons for why these hands were played the way they were?
Mark the K(omputer Nerd)
I did not rebut your point, but rather offered another viewpoint. I had not really looked at the hand histories yet. Your idea that someone, be it prosecution or defense, would pay me to be an expert witness is something I hadn't thought of. But you may be right so I'll stay out of it for now (while feeling a little guilty that I am not complying with your request only because of a tip you gave me). But there are plenty of good players out there who could answer your question quite adequately.
Ok, rebutted was too strong a word.
And I like your point of view, my pleasure suggesting ways to make money. (Someone once gave me the greatest compliment --- the line from the godfather, about the 'Meyer Lansky' character -- "your partners always make money"). I hope you do.
So, who will step up to the plate? Ray, Mason, Jim B, Dan N, Mike, Gary, Fred in NJ, Dave in Cali, Abdul, my friend Mr. Fekali, Ed Hill...sorry if I missed someone...one of you gold bracklets, come on: Tell us some explanation for the flush folding, or the t6 raising a zillion times....
Inquiring minds want to know.
Mark
n 01 Aug 2000 17:26:39 GMT, in rec.gambling.poker you wrote:
> I really want to know what your take is on this Aslan case. If you want to >reply only here that is fine. But you do need to read the details on our >internet forum. DS
[ By private e-mail ]
David --
I read what was at 2 +2.
Assuming the complaint and the response are real and not contrived, I simply don't know what to think about the Paradise Poker episode. Perhaps they were able to determine that more than one computer was being used in the same game from the same location. Of their software or spotters may have flagged collusion.
We look for these things, too.
Or, more likely, they were able to determine that bogus credit card accounts were established to get $300 advances and throw the money to another legitimate account to be cashed out. We have dealt with that issue, too.
Perhaps the guy was accused falsely. I just don't know. The e-mail response from Paradise Poker stating that they wouldn't consider any responses seems strange to me. I would have invited a defense, instead. But that isn't my decision to make, because I'm with Planet Poker, not Paradise Poker.
I'd be pretty surprised if they weren't confident that their decision was correct, though.
Although this is a private e-mail, you may quote this message in its entirety on RGP and on your forum. You're right -- this is an interesting topic. I just don't think it's appropriate for me to be involved without all the facts.
Straight Flushes, Mike Caro
sorry
I know that if something like this happens at Planet they will do much better investigation.
I sent them an e-mail asking them to keep reading our forum if for no other reason than to address some technical points that were brought up. I also expressed a small doubt about Aslan's guilt. I pointed out that if by some fluke he was a victim of incredible coincidences, few would blame them for their initial actions if they wound up changing their mind.
They responded for my benefit but asked me not to post their response here. I will honor that. I will say however that Dan Hansen's speculation that they do not want to divulge information that thieves will benefit from, appears to be correct. They also said that they have zero doubts of the correctness of their position. I don't expect that we will hear any more from them.
Any prosecutor in court has zero doubts that an accused is guity and that his evidence is indisputable. That does not make it so. If paradise says that it has evidence they should show it so I can rebut it otherwise it cannot be used. Their reasoning about not showing it in order to not warn thieves is meaningless: everyone by now knows that they can identify physical computer. So it does not not make any difference whether they check MAC address, harddrive or something else. Is it possible for you to send me this e-mail privately, so I can rebut this "evidence" to you only? Or paradise asked against this too?
I cannot send it to you nor anyone else. They would never have sent it to me if they thought I would, so I really have no choice. This whole thing is really outside my domain. Interestingly however, Mike Caro just posted on rgp that he is in communication with Paradise about this matter! That's pretty interesting given the fact they are competitors. I suggest you go on rgp and plead your case with him.
How to get to rpg?
Guaranteed $50,000 to the individual who can shut down PARADISE POKER'S servers, i am posting this bounty plus i have committments for an additional 35,000 to be paid to the individual(s) who can shut down paradise poker. This site is a detriment to the entire poker community. Besides the use of DRONES, the arbitrary and capricious stealing of player's funds and the refusal to identify who is behind the scenes, the further existence of PP is aa ongoing threat to the poker world as a whole. By my plebian calculations they are draining 150,000 of bankroll a day plus the incalcuable amount their drone's are stealing.
Tag Neal Ross' IP address so it can be traced. Should Paradise be shut down by a DOS attack, he should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. What you say you imbicile is much like threatening the President, whether real or not, it is a crime.
Wank Wank
imbecile is spelled wrong. Where is Maven?
> Guaranteed $50,000 to the individual who can shut down PARADISE POKER'S servers, i am posting this bounty plus i have committments for an additional 35,000 to be paid to the individual(s) who can shut down paradise poker. This site is a detriment to the entire poker community. Besides the use of DRONES, the arbitrary and capricious stealing of player's funds and the refusal to identify who is behind the scenes, the further existence of PP is aa ongoing threat to the poker world as a whole. By my plebian calculations they are draining 150,000 of bankroll a day plus the incalcuable amount their drone's are stealing.
LOL! What "guarantee" do you have here? Is that $50,000 in escrow and/or bonded? If so, can you post a copy of the escrow account, as an image scan?
What is a "drone?"
20 games were shown - 1 HE and 19 stud.
Guess you just missed the post where Aslan says: "Let's just say that I usually play $50-100 to $150-300 stud in casinos. Don't play hold'em much. Favorite book: 7CSFAP"
I'm gonna have to get this book. Sklansky, Malmuth, & Zee are the greatest..Oh yeah I already have it. I must have skipped a chapter.
But seriously it would be nice to have the hand histories of all 4 players at least for their last week of play...I'm curious to know how often the main 3 fold hands like a pair of Jacks or better on seventh street against non-Aslan players (Let alone 2 pair and flushes against maniac play).
I was going to suggest earlier that without any further information from ParaPoke, the only way to decide this issue is by a complete analysis from an expert of hand histories of all the parties involved, going back for some time.
What you show here (and I haven't read the hand histories myself) certainly indicates some strange play, to say the least.
Even if Aslan is guilty, I think ParaPoke's behavior in this episode is lacking. Since they already have major credibility problems, I was hoping they could provide a more definitive answer to the questions raised.
I still remain skeptical of ParaPoke's operation, but now am waiting for Aslan's explanation of the above hands. If I saw this in a game I would be screaming collusion.
Ain't online poker fun?
These hands, if they really happened as described, constitute proof beyond even an UNREASONABLE doubt. The withholding of the funds is certainly a reasonable solution. I think ParP should not say definitively that they intend to keep the money, at least not right away. First they should just suspend his account and think through all the measures before announcing the final verdict.
Personally, I would notify US authorities about the credit card fraud and if they make a case out of it, wait until the case unfolds before announcing to keep the cash. In the end, maybe ParP should give the cash to the authorities since it was stolen.
Darryl Parsons
Yes the more I think about it the more I feel the right thing to do is to suspend the account and notify the player that investigations are being undertaken.
Then PP should report the issue to US authorities. Then wait until they make a determination. If guilty, the money goes to the authorities. If not guilty, the money gets returned to the player.
This is akin to what an employer does if an employee is suspected of stealing. It is a mistake to fire him immediately. First he must be suspended, let the appropriate parties carry out the investigation, and act accordingly thereafter.
Sorry if I'm a bit repetitive but I'm really tired.
Darryl Parsons
You wont hear any response because this, as the previous poster says, shows he is guilty as charged. Case closed.
.
Knowing Paradise, they can easily make the fake hand history. When I played there (I don't anymore) and had a question on a particular hand (I posted it in 2+2 at the time) I never got any reasonable explanation from Paradise.
I was too lazy to sift through the hand histories. Thanks for the summary NSA. Unless Aslan disputes that these hands actually happened, there is nothing more to say. The calls on the end when they were beaten on board cinches it. It doesn't matter if these hands were picked from hundreds. Given this I wonder what made Aslan think he had a chance with me as arbiter.
see my message below
Very strange. I did not expect Paradise to change histories but these analysis made me go and check. I had compared these hands with my histories. The hands are different. The difference is usually one or two cards. Here is at least one example:
Game #15578283 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/27-19:56:56 (CST) Table "Virgin Isles" (real money)Seat 1: lkaer ($426 in chips) Seat 2: sweet lou ($262 in chips)Seat 3: QuadAces ($556 in chips) Seat 4: Phil King ($362 in chips)Seat 5: JoeFi ($398 in chips) Seat 6: ezed. ($487 in chips)Seat 7: Aslan ($122 in chips) lkaer : Ante ($1)sweet lou: Ante ($1)QuadAces: Ante ($1)Phil King: Ante ($1) JoeFi : Ante ($1)ezed. : Ante ($1)Aslan : Ante ($1)Dealing... Dealt to Aslan [ 7d ]Dealt to Aslan [ Ah ]Dealt to lkaer [ Qh ] Dealt to sweet lou [ 5s ]Dealt to QuadAces [ Qd ]Dealt to Phil King [ 6d ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 8d ]Dealt to ezed. [ 2s ]Dealt to Aslan [ 7h ] ezed. : Timed out ezed. : Bring-in ($4)Aslan : Raise ($8) lkaer : Raise ($16)sweet lou: Fold QuadAces: Fold Phil King: Fold JoeFi : Call ($16)ezed. : Timed out ezed. : Force All-in Aslan : Call ($8)Dealt to lkaer [ Ks ]Dealt to JoeFi [ 5d ] Dealt to ezed. [ Jd ]Dealt to Aslan [ 3h ]lkaer : Bet ($8)JoeFi : Call ($8) Aslan : Raise ($16)lkaer : Raise ($16)JoeFi : Call ($16) Aslan : Call ($8)Dealt to lkaer [ 6c ]Dealt to JoeFi [ 3c ] Dealt to ezed. [ 7c ]Dealt to Aslan [ Kd ]lkaer : Bet ($16) JoeFi : Call ($16)Aslan : Call ($16)Dealt to lkaer [ 6h ] Dealt to JoeFi [ Qs ]Dealt to ezed. [ 8s ]Dealt to Aslan [ Kh ] Aslan : Bet ($16)lkaer : Call ($16)JoeFi : Call ($16)Dealing... Dealt to Aslan [ Ac ]Aslan : Bet ($16)lkaer : Raise ($32)JoeFi : Fold Aslan : Raise ($32)lkaer : Call ($16)*** SUMMARY *** Pot: $23 | Side pot 1: $297 | Rake: $3 lkaer lost $121 [ 9d Kc Qh Ks 6c 6h 4s ] (two pair, kings and sixes) sweet lou lost $1 (folded) [ 5s ] QuadAces lost $1 (folded) [ Qd ] Phil King lost $1 (folded) [ 6d ] JoeFi lost $73 (folded) [ 8d 5d 3c Qs ] ezed. bet $5, collected $23, net +$18 (showed hand) [ Tc Js 2s Jd 7c 8s Jh ] (three of a kind, jacks) Aslan bet $121, collected $297, net +$176 (showed hand) [ 7d Ad 7h 3h Kd Kh Ac ] (two pair, aces and kings) 10JQKA didn't bet
Note that my hole cards are completely different from what paradise posted, so I have aces up vs. kings up.
I didn't check all of posted hands yet, and some of those I don't have at all but I already found 3 alterations in five hands. Now, I expect, a lot of nuts will accuse me of modifying histories. I ask other players in the posted hand - if you have this hand history - post it here so we have absolute proof of paradise behaviour.
My opinion is that paradise made an honest mistake originally, and after getting a lot of bad publicity in this forum decided to fabricate a proof to clear itself.
OK- remember you posted this- so tell me what this mean
... Dealt to Aslan [ 7d ]Dealt to Aslan [ Ah ]
Aslan bet $121, collected $297, net +$176 (showed hand) [ 7d Ad 7h 3h Kd Kh Ac ]
how did that Ah turn into an Ad?
Just a typo. I tried to retype it accurately. Sorry. Typos happen
What, you typed the whole hand history in, when you could have just done a cut-and-paste from the original file?
And typed it perfectly- except for that 1 small typo
Because he has to keep covering one lie with another.
And he says that its his word against theirs......
Aslan, I thought cut & paste was common knowledge? *%$#!....
Elementary my dear smd. Nice catch.
At least not if what you say is correct. Of course if you could really prove that they purposely alterred histories, their ad would be off this website lickety split. And I would comp Matt, Avocado, and Ray to the show of their choice in Vegas. I might even join Ross's mercenaries to invade Costa Rica.
On the other hand I assume from your post, that you agree that if the hands as presented are accurate, you don't have a leg to stand on.
The only possible proof as I see it would be the same history from another player that was requested before Paradise sent this history to you. Do you agree? To prevent someone from falsely posing as a player in this hand I request that he posted a hand before and after this one.
Why does Sklansky include me with Avocado and Matt? I said simply that I reserve judgement on the issue. Does that mean I'm a super paranoid nut? I don't think so. I don't believe that "neal" is real. His posts sound like something wildbill would post.
Maybe Matt's calling you El Supremo isn't too far off.
I think John Feeney's inside the poker mind should have gone further into the psychological profile of gamblers in daily life. His section on a poker player in therapy appears Rogerian, with a trickle of classic psychoanalytic psychology. A study of the poker player and personality disorders strikes me as more interesting i.e. The anti-social poker player, the narcissitic poker player, the self-defeating personailty at the poker table(compulsive gamblers), etc..
Unregulated gaming is prone to abuse David. Wildbill himself claims that Costa Rican law allows silent ownership to limit liability. Paradise apparently acknowledges that credit card fraud occurs. Collusion obviously occurs. Software weaknesses have been proven by rst corporation. Enough real evidence has demonstrated that internet poker has problems. I doubt that you will ever acknowledge that(other than collusion). To state that these issues are real is not super paranoid. Claiming that they aren't is delusional.
I doubt that Paradise would have seized the account if collusion was the only charge. If they hadn't suffered credit card rejections, I doubt that they would have cared.
<< David, what if what you say actually is the case, which I agree is a big favorite. Don't you feel that a site that is raking in $150,000 a day owes it to their customers to protect them from all you have mentioned.
With the right equipment they would have to know that their system is being hacked I would think.
There should be a safeguard system to keep a corrupt employee off his guard enough.
As for collusion, if they are not doing all they can to thwart it, like hiring some experts, then they are at fault.
If they haven't done all of the above, it is the site to blame. They are the ones collecting the big profits and in return promising that their games are honest
Here is collaboration from Angelina that a lot of weird stuff happened in the same time frame that Nolan Dalla and myself are bitching about. Don't you feel it at all odd that a fair amount of good players all took a big dump at the same time?
I would like to know the time frame in question. I have been a winning player on Paradise for 8 months but have recently struggled at the 15-30 and 20-40 holdem games. I assume this is just a natural fluctuation but I acknowladge the possibility of collusion or hacking.
Also, David if you read this I would like to know if I am one of the 8 you refer to. We had a lesson while having a chinese dinner at the Golden Nugget.
I just sent you an e-mail Ed, replying to your e-mail which had similar questions. Please repost it here when you get a chance. And no, Dancing Dave was not one of the winners I had in mind.
Everything you said is correct. The only problem is that you must have misconstrued my remarks. At all times I was really only talking about Paradise's owners intentionally cheating. Others thought that other types of cheating were almost impossible but I never said that. Who knows, maybe there was a renegade employee who Paradise caught but doesn't want to admit. However those twenty people who are beating Paradise bad (some over 20K) means any possible cheating could not have been widespread and/or did not go on for long.
It is important to understand that this whole thread I started was not about Paradise but rather about evaluating evidence. I felt that the super paranoid types had a problem that could carry over into their poker playing and other aspects of their life. Your experiences could only be given so much weight. Other winners plus the insanity of owners cheating deserved a greater weight.
I realized that you never thought it likely that the owners cheated but rather only felt that something was wrong. Even that opinion came before you found out about other winners and befoe Paradise bent over backwards to accommadate you. What surprises me is that you haven't tried to make this clear on our forum. There are six or seven nuts out there who are holding you up as someone who agrees with them. For your sake I think you should make it clear that you don't. David
David sure is trying to make problems at the company seem like problems of indivdiduals. This is a Stalinist tactic practiced heavily by totalitarian regimes. If Ed doesn't comply, then I predict that Sklansky will start slandering him more and more.
I said that I agreed with everything Ed said except that he appeared to be misunderstanding me. How is that slander? But is is kind of cool to be compared to Stalin.
<< This isn't right, David and I understand each other just fine. I have been saying for years that he belongs in the Hall of Fame because of his impact on poker.
During this entire debate I have understood fully where David is coming from, nothing has been misconstrued.
I have understood all along that it would be utterly stupid for a site making that kind of money to cheat its customers. But on the other hand, I have seen it happen before. Therefore I know it is not impossible, especially taking into consideration that this is unregulated gaming, which is very dangerous in its own right.
To rule out entirely ownership involvement I am not willing to do. To give ownership involvement a low probability I am willing to do.
This all depends on what we consider ownership involvement to be. I think that has been the primary reason for my differences with David.
I believe that if the site is not: 1. Spending all the money it can to safeguard the system against being hacked by an outside or inside source that they are to blame. 2. If the site is not hiring expert players to police their site to catch colluders, then again the fault falls entirely on the site.
If you are the one benefiting from the rewards of an enormous drop therefore guaranteeing that your site is honest. Then you are to blame if it turns out that your site is dishonest, it is nobody elses fault but yours.
I would like to know how many people have been kicked off of Paradise and Planet for colluding. It is obvious that many people are going to attempt to collude. Are they getting caught? What happens to them when they are indeed caught? If there is no real downside to cheating a lot of people are going to do it, because unfortunately that is how people are.
For those of you that think I must be nuts or this is sour grapes because I broke even for 650 hours consider the three posts that Angelina posted on this forum: 1. At the time, the forum was under the impression that Aslan was accused of colluding (and it turned out he's a sorry excuse for a credit card thief). It looked like he was in trouble simply because he was on the same subnet (or local area network, or sharing the same IP) as his buddies. Obviously, Paradise is looking beyond that. I'm under the impression they do not throw accusations easily. It is my belief that the high limit hold'em games are on the square now. I'm not so sure about $10-20 games a couple of months back, I saw some weird shit at the time Ed Hill lost his bankroll and I lost a few grand too many myself during that period. 2. It's was not the losing, it was the weirdest suckouts that raised eyebrows. Trust me on this. But I do have some ego, sure :) 3. Also, I was at the tables witnessing Ed Hill getting his bankroll mowed down. Remember, those were the $10-20 days. I'm not surprised he snapped. Angelina Fekali Studying People Inc. Ljubljana, Slovenia http://www.fekali.com/angelina My five friends which all happen to play well had the same experience. Nolan Dalla and three friends all got clobbered simultaneously. I am not saying this happened, but it sure looked and still looks like Paradise cold decked a lot of good players during the entire month of May and the first few weeks in June. From all the people that David found that are winning I would like to know how they did in this time frame? As Angelina states above, it was the weirdest shit I have ever seen. I know that including Dalla and his three friends it amounts to 10 good players that all ran worse than they have ever run in the entire careers. I think to rule out these results all as bad luck is at least as equally as ludicrous as the ownership of Paradise being involved in a cheating scam. No matter how I look at the arguments of some very intelligent people that have commented against this argument, I can not help come to the conclusion that something sure seemed to wrong at Paradise at the time. Is it that way now? I wouldnt know I packed them in. Angelina seems to think that everything is all right now and is probably correct. I started playing at Paradise on February 2 and noticed right away that the swings were much larger than any poker game that I have ever played in. What causes this? Yet when I packed them in and started playing at Planet, the swings and the game itself seemed to be very much more realistic. What causes this? Am I to believe that online players on one site are very much different than ones on another? Especially when a lot of the players play at both sites? I have stayed away from singing Planets praises because I didnt want what I had to say to lose creditability. When I said that Paradise needed to hire expert players to police their site. Somebody posted on RGP that if I thought it was such a good idea, why didnt I do it myself? I had never really considered that option, but I figured that since I was the one that had been so vocal, that if they were willing to make the money right I would consider it. Now I have Gary Carson telling me, it looks like your whole attack on Paradise was to belittle them into giving you job because you couldnt beat the game. That taught me that one has to be very careful how they state things in a public forum and that even when one does take care that they are going to catch a lot of heat if they are going against mainstream opinion. I had a lot of doubts on the integrity of Paradise, which have already been stated, numerous times in this forum and in RGP and those same doubts still remain. Whether or not any case can really ever be proved, even if Nolan and I do take them up on their offer to inspect their site, is extremely dubious. I know this is impossible under the present conditions, but I would sure like to see Internet Poker be regulated by some commission. I would like to see all the sites hire expert players to police for cheaters (no Gary I am not trolling for a job.) I would like to hear from the sites about barrings for cheating and what exactly was done to the cheaters. These are the issues that appear to be of the foremost importance when it comes to Internet poker.
I had never heard of Ed Hill before these threads started concerning Paradise Poker. But, if Ed Hill is in any way representative of the kind of people who play poker for a living they ought to start putting their pictures on cardboard and selling them with bubble gum. This is a real standup guy who deserves everyone's appreciation for taking the time to make this situation better.
I applaud you.
Do not in any way misconstrue this to mean that I have less appreciation for the authors. It is just that this is their forum and their participation is not nearly as unexpected.
If during the time period that Ed lost, my twenty winners were also losing, than it is a slam dunk that something happenned. What were those dates again Ed?
I thinkk the reason I was misunderstood were those 3 surveys. My first survey asked what the chances were that Paradise was in on shenanigans. MOst said 1% or less. I agree. But then Dan Hanson suggested I should also ask about hacking, a single employee, etc. So I added two more surveys. Most still said less than 1%. I DISAGREED. My original answer would have been much higher. However I did not mention this because I felt that my opinion counted for little since I am computer illiterate. Ironically some said that the survey was biased bewcause posters were subconsciously trying to please me by agreeing with what they thought my asessment was. But they (and Ed) guessed wrong about my assessment.
I recently received an e-mail from a computer expert, who posts here, who told me that all online sites can be hacked by the truly superior minds he deals with. He doubted it was happening due to the small potatoes it would be to these mega minds. I'm sure he was sincere but have no idea if he is right.
Getting back to Ed, my one quibble is his reference to successful operations in the past also cheating. Even if he is right we are talking about one in 10,000. That was a flaw in the Nixon arguement. So I still think he is overestimating this possibility. But I do want to reiterate one thing. When I saw Ed's post on rgp and asked him to repost it here, it was because I truly was concerned that something was wrong as he was. I didn't think it was with the blessings of management but I thought it was something. Only when I got unsolicited e-mails from big winners that I knew personally, did my concerns subside. So I certtainly did not invite ED here so I could refute him.
David,
The Nixon argument was offered simply to show that those with the power to abuse their positions sometimes do so even to their own detriment. Common sense, downside, fear of killing the golden goose do not enter the equation when your chances of being caught in your own estimation are nil. Arrogance, not pride, cometh before the fall in these situations.
I think that Planet is much better and honest then Paradise. That's why all talks are around Paradise.
Don't forget that Paradise stalled the on-line Poker idea from Planet
In a post on rgp, Mike Caro said "I am satisfied that Paradise Poker acted prudently in this case" though he admits that he did not see absolutely all of the evidence. The Court in the Hague did not grant a reprieve. This was fun while it lasted but I think it is time to move on.
I totaly agree, David, it's not going anywhere.
All this credit card problems at Paradise only can happen because Paradise is not asking for Credit Card Draft Authorisation Form (as Planet does).
If they know that credit cards are sometimes being stolen why don't they verify the ownership before letting people charge thousands dollars.
Planet will not let you charge more then $50.00 before verifying who you are.
Maybe Paradise is trying to make an extra profit to itself....................
It is obvious by now that Paradise is not going to return me my money no matter what happens here. It takes too much of my time to answer all messages so let's discontinue this discussion. I will still answer if someone posts something meaningful.
Let me summarize everythin what was said here.
1. Paradise sent to Sklansky some selected hand histories. I compared them to my histories and found at least 3 cases where these histories were "doctored" either by Sklansky or by Paradise. I have too much respect for Sklansky to suspect him so I accuse paradise. I asked for other players in the hand posted to post their histories but so far noone replied.
The objective conclusion: until there are other players' post, it is their word against mine, meaning that no conslusion can be drawn.
2. Paradise claims to have "unequiocal evidence" linking my machine to other machines. Despite repeated pleas they're refusing to present his evidence. Their stories extracted from e-mails to me and David are contradictory: they have said "Played on the same machines", "Machines are linked by IP address", "Related machines" (whatever it means). Paradise states that they are able to identify a physical machine but yet does't want to show what number they track (as if it can make a difference). Supposedly, they sent the evidence to Sklansky, and, from his words, to Caro. Sklansky reserved judgement and Caro, according to Sklansky, was satisfied. I was not given chance to see and rebut this evidence.
The objective conclusion: if an evidence cannot be presented for examination and rebuttal it must be dismised.
3. I have requested Paradise that an independent arbiter be appointed to study the evidence and give the verdict. This request has been refused.
The objective conclusion: Paradise is not sure that their evidence will stand up against careful examination.
4. If we ignore the obvious nut cases, mercenaries and maniacs on both sides, the majority here agrees that Paradise does not have a moral and legal right to seize accounts without iron-clad proof, and that the proof should be clearly presented upon request. In this case, the proof is very far from iron-clad.
5. Paradise has proven itself to be very incooperative in this case. They did not post a single reply here.
So, people, if you are not convinced that it is possible that Paradise can at some point suspect you and confiscate your account, at least, listen to a word of caution and keep your balance to a bare minimum. Or, better, play at Planet.
"El Supremo" (=David Sklanksy) has pronounced you guilty. Now you must just go away, or he will proclaim you to be a super paranoid type. El Supremo may also badger other players in Las Vegas to post and slander you. If this still doesn't work, he will most likely post under a diferent name and threaten you with militia violence.
I liked Oz but I may like El Supremo better. Meanwhile I did not pronounce Aslan guilty but merely said that if Paradise's version of the hand histories is correct that would be pretty irrefutable. Even Aslan apparently agrees but, claims inaccuracies in those histories. Paradise is not willing to make public everything about this case (they say) for the sake of future security. Poker player's are evidently willing to accept this for their own good and don't appear to be worried that their acceptance will put them in danger of having their own money confiscated. Mike Caro said he was satisfied that Aslan was guilty though he would not come right out and say that Planet would have done the exact same thing since he did not have all the information. But he certainly did not say the opposite. I think most people assume that Planet would in fact do the exact same thing, assuming the hand histories and the other evidence is what Paradise says it is.
Basically I have just been a moderator in this discussion. I don't know enough about computers to be more. That is why I solicited Mike Caro's input. Meanwhile some of these crazy accusations against me, such as that I made up Paradise's e-mail are so off the wall that I wonder what is going on. Is this all a put on? A conspiracy orchestrated by another site? Or is it really possible that folks who appear intelligent can really be this crazy? My biggest detractors would never believe this stuff. What gives?
You continue to give WAY too much credit to people. There are cases all through history of brilliant people acting in incredibly stupid ways either because of emotions, insecurity, logical blind spots, ego, greed, or what have you.
Bill Clinton is by all accounts a very intelligent guy. Rhodes Scholar, etc. But he put his administration and marriage at risk because he couldn't keep his hands off a silly immature intern.
Nixon's Paranoia and insecurity led to his losing the presidency, when he could have salvaged it a dozen different times before and after the Watergate break-in.
Several high officials in the CIA, an agency not known for hiring stupid people, were caught in espionage because they were both greedy and stupid. Greedy because they wanted more money than their already sky-high salaries. Stupid because they took the money and bought expensive houses and cars, living clearly beyond their means, when they had to know that the Agency routinely checks for that sort of thing when auditing for spies.
Almost daily you hear about some guy who pulled off a brilliant scam, only to be caught because he went way too far and milked the system so hard that it triggered an investigation.
And the list goes on...
I know Dan. That is my biggest flaw. Giving WAY to much credit to people.
Thats right. You have refuted your own argument for Paradise not cheating. Your argument applies directly to why Paradise would intentionally cheat. Good Post!
I have not refuted my own argument. The difference is that while it sometimes happens that a smart individual does something against his own interest for emotional or whatever reasons, I believe it is much rarer for a group of people to conspire to do something similar when they would be better off not doing it.
This response adds nothing to the case for or against Aslan; it is about criteria for selecting expert witnesses.
David said, "Basically I have just been a moderator in this discussion. I don't know enough about computers to be more. That is why I solicited Mike Caro's input."
But I am not aware of Mike's having demonstrated any expertise in the aspects of computer technology that are relevant to Paradise's claims in this matter. (I may have missed something Mike's written or said; but even if I haven't, I am not claiming that Mike *lacks* the specified expertise. My point is about David's M.O. here.)
My guess is that David is so ignorant of computer technology that he approaches anyone (e.g., Mike) who has, say, written poker application programs as virtually omniscient. But the knowledge of system software and telecommunications protocols (those are specialized sub-areas, David) relevant to this case is not implied by having written Poker Probe or ORAC or having used computers for a long time, nor by being a consultant to an online poker site.
That is why I said, on r.g.p in response to David's repeated public entreaties for Mike's input, that I didn't see why Mike's input would be *especially* valuable in this instance. (Again, this is not to deny that Mike should be very welcome in a discussion of the matter for his expertise in detection of cheating and online poker in general.) There are two types of evidence that have been discussed here: hand histories and claims about accounts having used the same computer. Mike's input on the former would be valuable, but no more so than that of any of dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of intelligent poker players. And, as discussed, I've seen no reason to solicit his judgment on the second type of evidence.
I have no idea if what you say is true or not. I assumed Mike was familiar with all aspects of the technical side of this issue.
> I have no idea if what you say is true or not.
> I assumed Mike was familiar with all aspects of the technical side of this issue.
--An excellent summary of my two main points, just going to show that on occasion even I can use an editor.
>>2. Paradise claims to have "unequiocal evidence" linking my machine to other machines. Despite repeated pleas they're refusing to present his evidence.
This is because they do not want this info out into the general public...That is probaly why they are sending DS and MC private e-mails so they do not divulge all of their secrets. It could hurt them in the future. I personally trust DS and MC's opinions on this case.
On the other hand you do seem quite desperate for this info and it could be very dangerous in your hands.
x
Guilty or not guilty?
I vote for guilty.
A player(50to300) tries out a scam/fraud which he thinks should work but something is a off beat (by just a little or so he thinks). The money in question does not seem to bother him. Yet he continues to pursue the subject. Why? ......
Should paradise refund? Maybe.
Should they give more info on why you were barred? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
P.S Whether you are guilty or not "Final Summary" is right, enough is enough.
Otherwise an excellent summary.
It was Audi. I stand corrected.
I believe it was found to be that Americans were not used to the "European" style pedals where the accelerator and brake are in closer proximity to each other.
Yes, that was part of the reason, but it didn't explain why many other European vehicles with similar accelerator/brake Pedal arrangements had no such 'uncommanded start' complaints. The main conclusion was that the public had pre-conceived notions and acted on them.
Another 'classic' example of this kind of thing comes from UFO sightings. Back before Whitley Streiber wrote his best-seller "Communion", which described aliens as Grey little men with big, cat-like eyes, the description of aliens from 'abductees' was quite varied, but typically centered around the 'little green man' stereotype. After 'Communion' was published, the average description of Aliens changed to match the cover photo on the book.
Dan,
Excellent job.
Mark
Your points 5 and 6 seem to indicate that this was a case of collusion. Clearly it was not. The actions of Paradise here should not make anyone feel more secure concerning collusion.
One thing we have gained from this mess is the knowledge that an online site is in complete control of the evidence. Though I think it is likely Aslan is guilty, it should be obvious that if the accuser controls the evidence, the accused has no recourse. Once again, we are reduced to relying on the credibility of the casino.
Mr. Sklansky mentioned in another post that the huge losses of good players recently could have been due to a renegade employee (or for that matter hackers), which Paradise discovered, rectified (?), and then covered up. That thought has occurred to me but I was reluctant to post because I dislike being labled paranoid. But if that is what happened, how credible is Paradise?
One final point - where's the money? If the 3 dumped $3900 and Aslan's account had $2500 when confiscated(some of which may have come from hands other than those involving the 3), what happened to the other $1400 plus?
The rest gets spread to unwitting benefactors who just happen to be part of the game. Aslan doesn't have to win it all, just most of it.
Aslan - You mentioned that you were planning to subscribe to the dumb service that gives you info on your online opponents. If you sent them any of the the hand histories in question, perhaps they would be willing to forward a copy of the histories you sent to you and Sklansky.
Of course, I just read Dan's post below, and if the suits of the Aces got transposed during your version of the history, well...
1.I don't know why you call it "dumb service". They are not operational yet but they look very promising.
2.Excellent idea. I did send my histories to them. They should have it. Why don't you write to them (poker_analyzer@yahoo.com). If it comes from me, some people will not beleive it.
3. A typo is a typo is a typo.
I just sent a request to poker_analyzer asking them to forward the hand history to you and David
I just sent a request to poker_analyzer asking them to forward the hand history to you and David. If the address you put here is bogus, please, give me you real e-mail address
When cashing out of Paradise, the system automatically first refunds to a credit card account the full amount of deposits before sending any checks.
Since depositing about $2000 to Paradise in May, I have paid off my card independently, but now would like to partially cash out of Paradise.
Has anyone had experience with this? Must I end up with a negative amount on my credit card, or will Paradise just send me a check?
Thanks very much for you help, and sorry for distracting you all from Aslan's drama!
They will send you a check.
I thought that cash always went back to the credit card until the debits were repaid. I.e. you can't get a check unless you are in profit.
not true. They can issue checks, and will if you ask their tech support. They are pretty good this way.
I said something positive about Paradise Poker.
Thanks!
Why does Sklansky include me with Avocado and Matt? I said simply that I reserve judgement on the issue. Does that mean I'm a super paranoid nut? I don't think so. I don't believe that "neal" is real. His posts sound like something wildbill would post for efect.
Maybe Matt's calling you El Supremo isn't too far off.
I think John Feeney's inside the poker mind should have gone further into the psychological profile of gamblers in daily life. His section on a poker player in therapy appears Rogerian, with a trickle of classic psychoanalytic psychology. A study of the poker player and personality disorders strikes me as more interesting i.e. The anti-social poker player, the narcissitic poker player, the self-defeating personailty at the poker table(compulsive gamblers), . the sociopathic poker player, etc..
Unregulated gaming is prone to abuse David. Wildbill himself claims that Costa Rican law allows silent ownership to limit liability. Paradise apparently acknowledges that credit card fraud occurs. Collusion obviously occurs. Software weaknesses have been proven by rst corporation. Enough real evidence has demonstrated that internet poker has problems. I doubt that you will ever acknowledge that(other than collusion). To state that these issues are real is not super paranoid. Claiming that they aren't is delusional.
I doubt that Paradise would have seized the account if collusion was the only charge. If they hadn't suffered credit card rejections, I doubt that they would have cared.
I agree with almost everything you say. Just thought you might like to see a free show.
Just how did I get this reputation for being a nut? All I do is stand up for everyone's right to have gambling legal on the internet. As much as you all want to make this out as an anti-government issue, I think you all are reaching a bit on that. I am sure I am not alone, on an INTERNET poker board after all, in stating that I think the government is overstepping its bounds in outlawing forms of gambling just because they are not part of their lists of high worth donors. I am just stating the government should stay out of our lives when it comes to decisions about what we choose to do with OUR money.
The whole mafia thing is a joke some imaginative poster came up with. Listen, its real simple there are quite a few guys running sports books or in key roles that worked behind the counters of Las Vegas sports books in the early 90s. Seeing that in the past I spent two years of my life as a professional sports bettor its not surprising I got to know quite a few people in this capacity. The casinos are squeezing them out of work or marginalizing their jobs so many are bolting to offshore where at least some of the artform of sports booking is respected. If these guys all passed very stringent background checks to get into the positions they were in, I don't think mafia is a term that can be fairly used on them or on me for keeping in touch with them.
My defense of Costa Rican law comes because I think here as in many facets of life, people just quickly reach conclusions based on myths. If I were from Costa Rica I would be deeply disturbed at the outrageous claims people just pass around here as banter to use to strengthen their statements when often there is no basis for it. If you have never been to Costa Rica, how can you be qualified to make judgements on the place. On one or two cases that you think you know all the facts on??? After all most of the cases you are talking about involve information given out by either political entities such as the CIA or the Justice Department, or on highly sensationalized news sources. None of these parties can be called fair and impartial. Just remember that when you make comments about someone else's country with no basis you are taking a shot at everyone that is proud of where they are from. I am sure we all live fairly decent lives here and aren't gun toting cretins out to screw anything that moves, yet that is a common perception in Costa Rica, Mexico, and much of Latin America. To them we all carry guns, we all are victims of crime and fear all the time, we all are having sex with at least three other people a week, and that all our marriages end in divorce. Seems extreme, but this is the view an awful lot of people have of our lives here. If someone told you that you probably would be insulted and pissed off. Well the same thing goes the other way when you stereotype that Costa Rica is a lawless place with no legitimate court systems and a huge community of protected con men, when that is far from the truth. So I am just saying if you want to make a point, try to do it without spreading lies and insulting others. That seems to be the spirit of the oft neglected "acceptable use policy".
Further I don't understand Sklansky and others calling me extremist for just pointing out the ridiculous nature of some of the fools posting on here. I mean we have a lawyer turned commando, people claiming Sklansky owns Paradise, people that seem to take out vengeance on anyone that makes even a passing comment of approval of Paradise...and I am the extremist? Hardly so, but if you all want to think that go ahead. I have actually spent part of my life as a professional gambler and have a list of contacts in a plethora of facets of the gambling world that only a few on this board can claim. If something is going on in the gambling world I have probably heard about it or can find out. How many people on here can say that? Most of the real extremists on here only possess an extremely fertile imagination to go along with an undying mistrust of Paradise and online gambling. Dan Hanson is right, there isn't a damn thing we can do to prove anything to them so why even worry about it. After all I think Aslan's case was pretty well proven out yet how many people started claiming conspiracy in almost unconceivable forms? Yet even two people who I had greatly respected in David an Mason are calling me an extremist; oh well I guess life is full of disappointments. I guess he who writes books is allowed to be an ass to any and all he chooses...
Ok, If you aren't the mercenary lawyer then I apologize. I still don't think that Neal the paramilitary legal counsel is real. Somebody made him up to make critics of Paradise look wacko. Thats my opinion.
I believe that Costa Rica is a nice place to take a vacation. Thats all I'll have to say about their business practices from now on.
Neal the "paramilitary lawyer" has been posting on RGP for a long time now, long before this most recent debate over Paradise took place.
If that is true, then Paradise employees are in trouble.
wildbill,
When you claim that cases that have been brought up come from the CIA, or the justice department, who did you think you were dealing with? You are not the only person that has lived a life of exposure.
I never said you were an extremist. You are getting confused with someone else's post that said their were extremists on both sides and mentioned you. As for Mason, you misinterpreted a post he made about deleting advertisements and proceeded to insult him. You seem rather normal to me. At least by the standards of this particular forum.
wildbill,
I never claimed that Sklansky really owned Paradise Poker; I was joking. This does not make it any less likely, however, that Paradise Poker is really headquartered in Sklansky's garage.
If it were true, do you think he has hired some security to protect himself for paratrooper Neal? I guess we are all just a bit stupid in here. I will continue on talking to the Costa Rican crowd and making my bets offshore, much to the chagrin of the piece of shit Vegas casinos (ok most, not all of them I direct that at). To think I work for a gaming company and live less than 10 miles from the most famous casinos in the world and yet I rarely set foot in them should tell those of you that live outside Vegas what I and many people in the town think about the current state of the casinos and their management. In any other industry if I went out and went to the businesses that gave me the best deal with the most convenience I would be a wise shopper. In this case by going offshore and getting better deals and more convenience I am an outlaw that the government wants to shut down. Am I the only one that sees the irony in all this? Believe me unless you want to play those high limit poker games in Bellagio or are a BJ card counter, this town has little to offer you that you couldn't get in Peoria or Savannah or any other town with an internet connection and a phone to make bets with. There are other things I do like about this town that makes it a good place to live, but the casinos aren't it.
The fact that I was joking does not make it any less likely that Paradise Poker is actually headquartered in his garage.
*
Aslan:
Its time for you to go away now. All of the "circumstanstial" evidence that has been made public proves to me, PP, and virtualy all the reasonable posters here that you are guilty.
This was further enhanced by your lies regarding PP doctored your hand. Then you changed the Ace of Diamond to a Heart, when you doctored it. You then get caught in another lie when you say it was a typo.
Give me a break, hand histories don't get typed in and can therefore never be mistyped. Unless of course someone of your "network and computer proficiency" doesn't know how to cut-and paste e-mails.
Regarding your constant pleas thet Paradise should release all their evidence for you to refute and it therefore must not exist. Heck you haven't even refute what they have published.
I also aggree with them not releasing it to you or others. A few years ago I was involved in the catching and investagation of some two bit crackers, who were sniffing accounts and using them. During the interview process we presented some of the evidence, but we kept back some. We kept some back for the following reasons:
-We did NOT want them to know how we discovered them. -We hoped that if they knew we had more information they would be honest. -We knew that they would get entangled in their own lies. -We wanted to keep some of the more damning stuff to share with the legal authorities, should it come to that.
As it turned out the three of them denied any knowledge, tried to lie. We then presented them with a little more. Two of them came clean. The third denied it to the end. BTW he was later expelled.
Regarding your claims of "lack of due process". Due process IS available for you to persue. However you will probably have to go to Costa Rica to persue it. Yoe were aware that you were doing business with a foreign country don't you. What! You expect them to incur all kinds of expences to come to your city. LMAO.
If there is one saving grace in this whole disgradefull pitifull story, it is the fact that the criminals never get what they deserve.
I take great satisfaction in the fact that you have claimed a $200 buy-in which you have LOST. Looks good on you, your lieing thief.
Do you not have any remorse for the people who you have stolen from, they probably have to pay the first $50. Do you not feel remorse for the rest of us who have to pay more in service fees and interest rate to compensate for the money lost because of the fraud you and others do. Do you not have any remorse for the Internet poker players who pay extra in rake to protect the gaming companies from this and similar fraud.
Looks good on you, you wear it very well.
P.S. If you still claim to be so inocent why the anoniminity. You have lost all your credability.
P.P.S. LMAO at you.
I am now 99.9 % sure that your goal was to prey on the fears of poker players that they might get their own money confiscated. That might have worked. The problem was that we were astute enough to realize that it is to our BENEFIT if online poker rooms take the action they did in extreme cases such as yours. You should have made your first post on rgp instead.
what is the address of rgp?
David,
Are you suggesting that people on this forum are just smarter or a more intelligent breed of animal than those on RGP? That RGP is not 'astute' enough to realize what is here, given the evidence presented? May I ask why this is the case?
On average, you bet it is the case. There are many reasons but I see little point in going into them.
I concur.
I concur with M's concursion. (Is concursion a word?)
:)
Maven
Is the possessive of M "M's"?
Maven, This is too simple for words. If you take two M&M's candies and subtract one, whose are the one that is left?
Above should be "whose is the one that is left?"
No, but you might have said "concurrence." "Concordance" would also fit well, although it has other meanings also (so too does "concurrence").
But if a bunch of M&Ms own a wrapper, is it "Ms's" wrapper, "Ms'" wrapper, or "M's&M's" wrapper?
*
Please don't attack me for my stupidity but how do you cut & paste? I bought all this stuff to play poker and I am now learning I should have had a computer a long time ago! Slow student but I'm learning! PS I also want to change the subject.
Nelson:
Generally, but not always, the cut and paste process for Win9x and apps is:
1- Highlight the desired area by left-clicking (while keeping the button down) and draging the cursor over the text to be cut and pasted.
2- Then right-click the mouse, a menu should appear, select CUT.
3- Move the cursor to the desired area, then right click again. Then select PASTE.
Now don't go using your new-found computer skill to try to defraud innocent people like Aslan did.
Thank You & I couldn't swindle a 6 yr old!
Jodder, you are such a complete twit. You talk out of your ass and embarrass yourself.
It is not ASLAN'S responsibility to pursue due process. That is what the punishing body is bound to do. I am not even sure I understand what in the hell you are talking about.
Of course, in this case there is no punishing body other than PP itself - a conflict of interest.
And another thing. Don't bring analogies from some kids screwing around with computers at the junior high school you teach at here. Don't try to make yourself sound like some kind of detective. You are humiliating yourself - again.
Why don't you just stop posting here until you get a clue.
AF
At Neil's suggestion below I sent a request to Poker Analyzer to send the hand from their file. They have replied to me, Neil, and Sklansky. Their reply has arrived and is consistent with what I put here. Sklansky, please, comment.
So, as per Aslan's request, I am posting the email sent to me by Poker Analyzer. I am neither vouching for nor denying Aslan's innocence, and I realize email addresses can be forged. But this is (cut and pasted) the email I received, which corroborates Aslan's version of the hand. (Minus the magically changing ace.)
From: Poker Analyzer
To: bagir467@yahoo.com, dsklansky@aol.com, antiveg@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: A request
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 13:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Hello Aslan,
At your request we send the transcript of the hand. ------------------------------------------------------ Game #15578283 - $8/$16 7-card stud - 2000/07/27-19:56:56 (CST) Table "Virgin Isles" (real money) Seat 1: lkaer ($426 in chips) Seat 2: sweet lou ($262 in chips) Seat 3: QuadAces ($556 in chips) Seat 4: Phil King ($362 in chips) Seat 5: JoeFi ($398 in chips) Seat 6: ezed. ($487 in chips) Seat 7: Aslan ($122 in chips) lkaer : Ante ($1) sweet lou: Ante ($1) QuadAces: Ante ($1) Phil King: Ante ($1) JoeFi : Ante ($1) ezed. : Ante ($1) Aslan : Ante ($1) Dealing... Dealt to Aslan [ 7d ] Dealt to Aslan [ Ad ] Dealt to lkaer [ Qh ] Dealt to sweet lou [ 5s ] Dealt to QuadAces [ Qd ] Dealt to Phil King [ 6d ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 8d ] Dealt to ezed. [ 2s ] Dealt to Aslan [ 7h ] ezed. : Timed out ezed. : Bring-in ($4) Aslan : Raise ($8) lkaer : Raise ($16) sweet lou: Fold QuadAces: Fold Phil King: Fold JoeFi : Call ($16) ezed. : Timed out ezed. : Force All-in Aslan : Call ($8)D ealt to lkaer [ Ks ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 5d ] Dealt to ezed. [ Jd ] Dealt to Aslan [ 3h ] lkaer : Bet ($8) JoeFi : Call ($8) Aslan : Raise ($16) lkaer : Raise ($16) JoeFi : Call ($16) Aslan : Call ($8) Dealt to lkaer [ 6c ] Dealt to JoeFi [ 3c ] Dealt to ezed. [ 7c ] Dealt to Aslan [ Kd ] lkaer : Bet ($16) JoeFi : Call ($16) Aslan : Call ($16) Dealt to lkaer [ 6h ] Dealt to JoeFi [ Qs ] Dealt to ezed. [ 8s ] Dealt to Aslan [ Kh ] Aslan : Bet ($16) lkaer : Call ($16) JoeFi : Call ($16) Dealing... Dealt to Aslan [ Ac ] Aslan : Bet ($16) lkaer : Raise ($32) JoeFi : Fold Aslan : Raise ($32) lkaer : Call ($16) *** SUMMARY *** Pot: $23 | Side pot 1: $297 | Rake: $3 lkaer lost $121 [ 9d Kc Qh Ks 6c 6h 4s ] (two pair, kings and sixes) sweet lou lost $1 (folded) [ 5s ] QuadAces lost $1 (folded) [ Qd ] Phil King lost $1 (folded) [ 6d ] JoeFi lost $73 (folded) [ 8d 5d 3c Qs ] ezed. bet $5, collected $23, net +$18 (showed hand) [ Tc Js 2s Jd 7c 8s Jh ] (three of a kind, jacks) Aslan bet $121, collected $297, net +$176 (showed hand) [ 7d Ad 7h 3h Kd Kh Ac ] (two pair, aces and kings) 10JQKA didn't bet ----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Poker Analyzer.
> There is a dispute about validity of one hand played > on ParadisePoker. Could you,please, check histories > that I sent to you and if you have this hand forward > it to D. Sklansky (dsklansky@aol.com) and to > antiveg@hotmail.com (he is the person that suggested > asking you). Hand #15578283 > > Sincerely, > Aslan
Thank you, Neal,
Every e-mail has a header that include sender and his IP address. Sender, technically, could be forged, but not easily. IP address cannot be forged.
As for ace, I already explained that it was a typo. It is not easy to cut and paste a long file from UNIX box.
I would like to hear what Sklansky says.
>Every e-mail has a header that include sender and his IP address. Sender, technically, could be forged, but not easily. IP address cannot be forged.
Unfortunately, we did not see the entire header. Even if we had, we still would not know if it was just another of your aliases. The person who suggested that you ARE Poker_Analyzer just might be onto something. Sounds like the kind of thing a "smart cookie" sleaze ball would dream up.
>As for ace, I already explained that it was a typo. It is not easy to cut and paste a long file from UNIX Box.
Cut & paste is more difficult on a *nix box? LOL. Not to mention that your use of the phrase "UNIX Box" indicates that you do indeed have multiple computers online.
From the Pure Fiction thread:
>Send me an e-mail and a $100 and I will tell you your name, address, SSN, and how much money you have in your checking account :-)
Since I cannot send cash through e-mail can I just send you my credit card number?
< < <
I was joking that Sklansky=Para and Caro=Planet, but I was seriously suggesting in the above threads that Aslan=Poker Analyzer, or at least that Aslan is in cahoots with Poker Analyzer.
eom
I have refrained from posting an opinion on Aslan's role in this matter because I did not want to add fuel to the "probably guilty" view, although that was my view with room left for some doubt.
Thec fact that Aslan claimed the "typo" mistake was in my opinion ludicrous and I cannot envision any reason he would go to the trouble of typing everything in rather than cutting/pasting unless he intended to doctor the material. If there is another reason why Aslan chose to laboriously type it all in perhaps he would enlighten us.
As far as Poker Analyzer and his hand histories, how do we know that Aslan is not reall Poker Analyzer (this time I am serious, not like re. Sklansky being Paradise), or at least connected to Poker Analyzer. As I recall, Poker Analyzer seemed a bit scamlike to me, with his offer of "free" service and "immunity" from being identified to those who submitted hand histories vs. his "threat" to make public everyone elses hands and betting patterns.
If I recall (don't have time to look it up now), Poker Analyzer's writing style seemed quite close to that of Aslan's.
Just a theory, but the window of doubt in my mind is closing further as we go on, and new doubts are being raised.
I had not read Aslan's post immediately abopve me when I wrote this. I don't know about those things, but it does not eliminate the possibility that Poker Analyzer is at least a confederate. Now if we saw some hand histories from others...
I dont know what Poker Analyzer is- except that a company that can analyze hand histories. When did Poker Analyzer receive this hand?
Just a theory: 1) hand was doctored with an error 2) The error was corrected, then sent to Poker Analyzer 3) The request was made of Poker Analyzer for the hand history.
I sent histories to Poker Analyzer before Sklansky posted Paradise e-mail here. You don't have to take my word on it. Ask Analyzer (poker_analyzer@yahoo.com) when they received it.
Interesting. A company that uses yahoo to do business from. Also your e-mail is through yahoo.
You can contact me at poker_analyzer2@yahoo.com
.
Truth does appear to be stranger than Fiction.
Lets see, First Aslan accuses Paradise of changing hand histories. Then produces his version of the hand history. Then its pointed out that the Ace of hearts turned into the Ace of Diamonds. His explanation a typo.
What! He typed in a huge hand history and only made one type. Well he did say he tried to be carefull when typing it in.
Hold it later on in another thread he said the mistake occurred because he was cutting and pasting from a Unix box. Huh which is it cutting and pasting or typing.
Well how then does he try to re-establish credability. Hmmmmmm what to do.
Then all of a sudden along comes Niels, Hmmmmmm he has never posted here before, and just happens to have a hotmail account. Neils makes the suggestion of asking that extremely credible dot.com company (poker Analyser) that has been established for a couple weeks now.
Yea thats it! Aslan asks Poker Analyser to send the hand history to mysterious neils, Aslan and Dsklansky. he made the request sometimes betwenn 3:13 and 3:47. Hey what a company that Poker Analyser is they receive the request look up the hand and send back the reply 13:09 Pacific. (4:09) within the hour. Good thing that Victor at Poker Analyser just happened to check his E-mail.
They responded and even commented here is the hand and joked about the magical missing Ace. Huh! Just a second ! There was no mention of the magical missing Ace in the original request sent by Aslan. Hey how did they know about it. Hmmmmmm more coincedences.
Well anyway Aslan gets the E-mail from Poker analyser and within 15 minutes Declares his PROOF thread. He has found the smoking gun.
Hey wait a minute! Neils verifies the post 4 minutes later. Good thing that Neils saw the importance of the E-mail and has been sitting by his computer all day waiting for it to come.
David, DO NOT take the E-mail you receive serious. E-mails are very easy to spoof.
P.S. Aslan I am really LMAO at you and your pathetic lies and your loosing your $200 Paradise buy in.
Jodder, it all does seem quite incredible, but I must point out that I have seen Niels' posts here before, and that Aslan appeared to be implying that he typed it in because of difficulties cutting and pasting a long message. Not that all that makes it much more believable.
neils does not exist. well, neils did exist. and he used to be a friend of mine but the post in question was not by him.
this really isn't any of your business but he was in a car accident a couple months ago. he lost most of his brain functions and his parents moved to minneapolis to be close to a specialist. the niels that any of us knew is gone forever.
this has been hard enough to deal with without all of your shenanigans.
ps jodder is a flaming homosexual.
scott
who cares about Jodders sexual preference?
My wife does!! :)
scott is right. These posts are not by Niels. I am actually a black-market baby. An orphan which scott purchased to write inferior-quality poker theory posts and make him look good after Niels' untimely passing preventing him from performing this service.
I receive a grain of rice each day for my services, though scott has threatened to cut me back to a half grain if I am ever funnier than him.
scott,
Sorry to hear about Niels. Bummer.
My son Rob, your classmate, just learned that he has lost his second college friend, first one was murdered in the happy friendly countryside of Tivoli NY, the second just died last week in a fire in Rhinebeck (Rob went to Bard, transferred to Columbia). Rob is very bummed out.
Who cares about Jodder's sexual preferences?
About Aslan, this is all very crazy, I hope though that they prosecute. Crime doesn't pay! Oh my god, you're not Aslan, right?
What do you think that chances are that PP or the other PP has been hacked? I put the number at 10-15%. And 100% within 1 year.
mark
DS, the Aslan Case brought up an interesting question by a previous poster: If there was no credit card fraud, would paradise have even cared?
After posting on RGP & reading some of Mike Caros responses, I am certain that Planet is taking the right measurements in banning collusioners.
With your inside connections, we would all be interested in finding out to date such questions as how many players have been kicked off Planet and Paradise? How many employees do they each have screening for cheating? Does paradise have a program to monitor the % of time(hrs or hands played)one player plays against another(non-heads up)? Planet does.
I know a few people who play for a living, and a lot of people who play on-line (You don't know me, but I know a few people that you know really well too).I also work in the casino industry in California, and the overwhelming conclusion amongst all my friends and MYSELF, is that Paradise really doesn't care one way or another (I myself am up over $6000.00 playing mostly 5-10).
One reason I think Paradise doesn't care, is that the first time I was playing back in Nov. a player purposely TIMED OUT and went all-in. I reported the incident and they sent a reply that this person would be added in their data base and warned and if they did it again kicked off...GREAT I thought.
Over the months, I reported at least 6 more cases of CLEAR all in abuse(Sometimes I wasn't even involved in the pot), all 6 I received the same message stating that they found no indication of abuse and how there really could have been a bad connection since they are hard to fake... These were really blatant too! It's like my complaint is going to someone who really has no idea what the hell they are talking about, doesn't care, or doesn't want to lose too many customers for a simple all in abuse. They were not being straight with me on all 6 cases. I am sure of it.
DW/
I believe Paradise's heart is in the right place. But they are not expert poker players. Given Mike Caro's and Roy Cooke's involvement with Planet Poker it would be fafethched to expect Paradise would be able to completely match Planet's standards, in this area at least. Of course some of you think I'm saying that merely because Planet advertises here and Paradise doesn't, but I'll never convince the skeptics.
I thought Paradise did advertise here...
Just saw their ad-OK, I get it now...
nt
Innocent <=;{}
LOL
From "Reply to Paradise Letter" posted by Aslan Tuesday, August 1, 2000 at 11:40 a.m.
"First, I want to say that I am surprized that so many inteligent people will jump to any conclusion before hearing both sides..."
From "Poker Analyzer - reply" posted by Poker Analyzer Wednesday, July 5, 2000 at 11:38 a.m.
"I apologize for not replying to all messages earlier. I have to admit that I am surprized by the attitude of many people here..."
That's not the way "surprised" is spelled in MY dictionary...
Mike
So it wasn't only my imagination based on vague recollection that they shared similar writing styles!
Now let's see...what are the chances that both individuals coincidentally misspelled "surprised" as "surprized"--not a common spelling error--I would say about 9,999,999,999 to 1 or more when combined with all the other "coincidences."
Note also the appeal to a "reasonable" way of looking at things, found in threads from both "individuals."
Here we also have something related to articles in the past from S&M dealing with coincidences. Certainly coincidences occur, but there are often hidden reasons for this as well as pure coincidences. When you add up all the coincidences in this case I feel that the resulting chance of it all being coincidental is too small to be measurable.
What we also have here is perhaps an error in judgment by Aslan. While he may have been smart enough in the past to fool individuals or small groups, it is much harder to fool large groups with access to information-sharing. It is also symptomatic of rather bright individuals to overestimate their own intelligence when compared with others. Just because someone may be in the top 3%, or 1%, or even .005% of the population in IQ or certain types of mental ability does not mean that they are smarter than everyone else. A similar effect can be observed in poker players to a much greater degre, as discussed in Roy Cooke's recent column "King Of The Hill."
Moral of the story: It's very hard to fool large groups who can share information intelligently.
Moral #2: An objective assessment of of one's capabilities versus one's opponents' abilities is essential to success in any endeavor (especially Poker).
However, maybe I am not giving Aslan due credit. Maybe he knew he would probably lose this debate on this public forum. Maybe he just felt it would help his case to put up as loud a squawk as possible.
the s is very close to the z on the keyboard.....
t wrote: In Response To: BEAUTIFUL! Perfecto Bingo! (M)
"the s is very close to the z on the keyboard..... "
It is exceptionally close on Aslan's machine.
Why then not "zurprised" or any other countles s/z transposition errors in these threads?
lol -- or how about surprixed, surpriwed, surprided or surpriaed?
I guess thats proof...hang em high!
Aslan is Poker Analyzer is Vadim??
I searched the archives for surprized and found one other posting using this spelling.
Vadim- Friday Feb 25 2000 10:18am
This thread leads me to believe Planet will kick out ANYONE that spells surprised with a z.
Paradise did the kicking- not Planet.
Coincidence. You be the judge. After all didn't all of Batman's foe leave clues like this?
Actually, it IS a common spelling error to spell surprised with a z.
I respond as someone interested in the English language, not as a defender of Aslan:
In the American Heritage Dictionary, "surprize" is given as an alternative spelling of the verb.
My bad. I must confess I didn't actually look in the dictionary; I considered only the most common spelling.
Oh, hell -- I had no clue that "surprized" was a valid variant.
Mike
Nor did I--but whether it was a spelling error or a British spelling, it is good identifying evidence either way.
"Surprize" is an alternate spelling of "surprise." It is not a British variant. For some words the British spelling will take an "s" where the American takes a "z" -- e.g., "analyse" and "analyze" are both given in the OED -- but I am not aware of any cases of the reverse.
I will forever more endeavor to use spellcheck/and content analysis programs when searching for this kind of behavior.
Well done Foldie! Let's see what the next excuse is...
English is not my first language, as you might have guessed from my previous postings. I learned it abroad. "Surprized" is the correct spelling in "British" English and British English is taught in the whole word. So, before making such stupid arguments, first check the facts. I don't know who works for Poker Analyzer but "Victor" does not sound like an American name.
On Thursday, August 3, 2000, 1:03 p.m., Aslan writes:
"English is not my first language, as you might have guessed from my previous postings. I learned it abroad. "Surprized" is the correct spelling in "British" English and British English is taught in the whole word. So, before making such stupid arguments, first check the facts. I don't know who works for Poker Analyzer but "Victor" does not sound like an American name."
I simply pointed out that Poker Analyzer, who has a writing style remarkably similar to Aslan, spelled "surprised" with a "z"; coincidentally Aslan, who has a writing style remarkably similar to Poker Analyzer, spelled "surprised" with a "z". Imagine that.
I'll leave it for others to draw their own conclusions.
Mike
Excuse me.
I seem to have a bit of a split personality using one screen name when I should be using another.
Mike (in Virginia)
English is not my first language, as you might have guessed from my previous postings. I learned it abroad. "Surprized" is the correct spelling in "British" English and British English is taught in the whole word. So, before making such stupid arguments, first check the facts. I don't know who works for Poker Analyzer but "Victor" does not sound like an American name. I guess, next you will start counting vowels.
If this is indeed so, it does indeed significantly reduce the odds against all these things being one grand extraordinary coincidence. I now reduce my previous estimate of 9,999,999,999 to 1 against to 999,999 to 1 against.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, an eminent British auhority, the correct spelling of the verb was "surprize" in the 16th-19th centuries. Since then, the correct British spelling is "surpise," and, unlike in the American Heritage dictionary, "surprize" is NOT listed as a (current) variant.
As I pointed out elsewhere on this forum, for some words the British spelling has an "s" where the American spelling has a "z" -- not the reverse.
That should be:
the correct British spelling is "surprise,"
Do they have ZURPRIZE in any dictionary?
I know this topic is getting long, but I think it's important to try and resolve it. Besides, it's more interesting than all the other boring conspiracy theory posts we had before.
I wish people would step back and look at the situation objectively. I see only two possibilities.
1. Aslan participated in credit card fraud, but set up Poker Analyzer as a backup in case he was caught. When he was caught, he came on this forum to complain, but did not mention Poker Analyzer until I SUGGESTED it. At this point, Poker Analyzer corroborated his story. Note that Aslan sending fake hand histories to Poker Analyzer is not an issue because Paradise selected the hands in question.
2. Paradise doctored the hand histories.
Both these possibilities are ridiculous. I don't think we have enough information to blame Aslan or Paradise. Also, if Aslan is in league with Poker Analyzer, he would have an interest in keeping Paradise in business, as more satisfied Paradise customers create a larger customer base for Poker Analyzer.
So what's my point? I don't know what to think, except that everyone should stop jumping to conclusions.
your point is another stupid conspiracy is at hand
The problem with your analysis is that Aslan could still easily be convicted without the Poker Analyzer evidence. And if Poker Analyzer is indeed different, why don't they come forward with details about themselves?
I agree that without Poker Analyzer there is certainly enough proof to convict Aslan. My point was only that hearing from the company should introduce enough doubt to put the burden of proof on Paradise.
Either way, I'll agree that Aslan is most likely the result of Paradise's attempt to police its players and having a few innocent people accused is the price we pay for increased security. Perhaps the lesson we should take away from this is to just take a break for a day or two if we think something funny is going on.
How does Poker Analyzer get its hands? From submission by players, isn't it? Does that not mean the original hand history in their database that 'verified' Aslan's claim actually came from... Aslan?
Yes, but Paradise selected the hands in the first place. You're implying that Aslan rewrote all his suspicious hand histories before sending them to Poker Analyzer.
So I'm not saying that Aslan and Poker Analyzer aren't in cahoots, but rather that if Aslan's guilty, it looks like Poker Analyzer is, too.
Why? What if Aslan doctored those histories, knowing they could be a problem in the future, and sent them off to Poker Analyzer, so he could use them as a backup? Or what if he sent the histories half an hour after Paradise released them, then waited 24 hours to request them back hoping that no one would notice?
Is the fact that you are the same guy as aslan and poker analyzer.
This whole story would be much more believable if Poker Analyzer guy and You identified yourself, as well as Aslan. I see no reason for any of you not too. Why don't you?
Stop trying to assume my identity. If this is Aslan/Niels, I want you to know that I've had about enough of your shenanigans, you hooligans.
Did you include (n/t) if you included message text? You can't be maestro because he is a smart cookie and would never do such a dumb thing.
Now please, Niels (I guess I usually call you Neal, although why I am not sure), stop posting with other identities. You are going to make my story lack credibility.
Thank you.
the real aslan would not have read a 'nt' message because he's a smart cookie.
so this must not be the real aslan!
scott
He was going to reply because he suspected that I was writing the post, even though I wasn't. You have to click on the topic to reply to it and the text of the message is displayed.
You are clearly not a smart cookie or you would have figured that out so I am left to conclude you are the real scott.
Because I'm pretty sure I didn't
but there is still one thing i don't understand
(audience yells -- one thing?)
who moved the cook's body from the kitchen into the dining room?
scott
I am suprized that you would fall for such a ploy. It's obvious that the fake Niels (and Aslan) didn't include an e-mail address. Elementary !
Because he's way uglier than you.
The issue is serious. Stop playing with it.
The faux Aslan has gotten more creative, responding to his own posts and also including my e-mail address.
Shouldn't we be saying I didn't write *that* post? Isn't "this" self-referential and thus the statement "I didn't write this post" paradoxical in nature?
And I didn't write those other posts.
I know, because I was doing it with him in the kitchen at the time in question.
I probed Aslan in the Library with the Candlestick.
Suffice to say, he should have much trouble walking for the next few days.
Aslan might not previously have set up Poker Analyzer as a backup in case he was caught, but rather as an another attempt to make money and possibly gain an advantage over others in the game (or even as a scam of sorts). It could have just turned out later that it appeared to fit well with his attempted defense.
This is just another possibility.
These "what-if" scenerios always keep me coming back to find out what's next! How many of you *seriously* believe the filth you are pandering here?
What if you are Aslan?
Has anyone noticed that when you first buy chips at Paradise, you usually have a winning session, but after that the games become much much tougher, almost impossible to beat?... This has happened to me way too many times for something not to be going on. I mainly play Stud, but it's happened when I've played Hold'em also. What's really frustrating is when I really get a monster hand--like last week I got Aces over sevens, only to be beat by four twos [rolled up!]--and this sort of thing will happen over and over again.
I've also noticed that no one really wins on a regular basis on the stud tables. I see some really solid players going up one day [usually after buying chips], but in a day or two I usually see them going all-in.
Is it just me?
There is no way to "know" when a player is buying chips. If I have $3000. in my account I can put any or all of it on the table whenever I wish.
I can enter a game with $400 and add to this total without ever winning a pot.
If I have a large sum in from of me I can leave the game and re-enter with the minimum amount if I want to.
Unlike a live game...it is virtually impossible to "track" how the other players are doing in the game.
You can make assumptions that when a player goes all in he is out of money but this is not always the case.
you are not alone kelly....that phenomenom has happened to many a player i know....it might be you get respected when you are unknown, then as other players make note of your style of play, they adjust their play...or it could be something "funny" going on at Paradise...
There is one overiding reason why so many players who jump off winners, eventually lose it back. And it is not the psychological reason I postulated on rgp. At least 90% of online players will eventually lose. (Actually it is probably more like 95%. About 70% would lose if there was no rake. The rake gets the other 25%). Now those who jump off winners are not a totally random sample. Hopeless players probably won't. But it is close enough. At least 85% of those who jump off winners are in fact losing players. In other words if I randomly selected a player who after his first buy in at 10-20 was ahead $500, I could lay at least 4-1 that he will eventually go broke; no matter how much money he had. Get it?
ok...no more posts from me
Perhaps I should have replied as Mike Caro would: You make some very interesing points. It is a pleasure to have you on this forum. Certinly your idea about starting out as an unknown could in part account for subsequent downswings after an initial upswing. I would like to however, in all due repect, point out that another syndrome is possibly at work. I speak of the fact that since the vast majority of players lose in the long run, so do the vast majority of players who happen to jump out winners. You may well have thought of that yourself but simply wanted to emphasize another point. In any case my research has shown that what I have pointed out here is a truly POWERFUL concept.
As to something funny going on at Parasise, I certainly sympathise with your concerns. When someone with your obvious poker skills has a bad run it is natural to assume chicanery. Why else would I believe that there are now exactly 179 partnership presently scamming poker rooms around this country? Exactly 57 of these partnerships contains players who have tried to cheat ME and I will one day castrate them all. In fact, uh wait a second where was I? I got sidetracked for a moment. Oh yes funny business at Paradise. You see the truth is that you are a sample of one and thus a biased sample. I know of so many huge winners at Paradise that it is virtually impossible for them to be doing "funny business" at least at the present time. Rather what has happenned, unfortunately, is that you experienced one of those unlucky runs that occurs to good players once in a thousand. But Paradise has 30,000 clients so there rated to be a few who would achieve this unfortunate bad run and then post about it. Another explanation of course is that it wasn't a 1000-1 shot but rather less than stellar play on your part. But I don't believe that. Straight Flushes Mike Caro
What an utterly disgusting post!
I wouldn't have thought it possible to lose all respect for you as a person, but that's EXACTLY what happened as I read this post. Now the hardest part for me will be to rationalize buying the (arguably) strategic brillant books of such a rude man.
thanks for the quandary!
David,
I believe that you are correct, I would have put the numbers at about the same levels given what I have watched (and my limited play online during a two week period). But this leads me to one or two questions: Is the 90-95% who will go broke the same as in Casinos in your opinion? If not, why not? (I think the number online is higher, for three reasons, but I would love to hear your reasons.)
Mark
I suppose that there are small differences for various reasons. Why do you think this is relevant?
Might improve my online game and that of others...
Mark
I wouldn't see any real reason for the percentage who lose to be any higher.
The difference between online and casino is that you will most likely have more of the successful players seeking out the online game thinking it's a way to make some easy money. So the 100% of people who make up the online game may include 90% who are successful in casinos. Now all but 10% of them are going to lose. This leads to skepticism about the game.
Next you throw in the statistical anomaly created by variance and you have a real paranoia building. What I mean by variance is simply that some people will start off winning and assume that because of their previous casino success that the winning is the norm. However, they quickly fall into the 90% that end up losing and are thus led to believe that something is fishy.
It all leads to widespread paranoia. Simply put people should probably not play because it's like taking the best players in the country or world and sitting them at your table. Why would you want to do this?
so why should anyone play poker? Blackjack offers a better expected value.
Because I can spank the games online.
AHA.
Yet another nefarious, unscroupulous, dastardly plot by some 2+2ers directed at other 2+2ers. What is it you may ask yourself. I may be the first to point out what may be the worst case of disruption, scandoulous disregard of forum and netiquette never witnessed by me. It may even be the most recent, but given the history of some on this board I'm sure far from being the last. Pay attention and I will exlain it.
If a post has the "n/t", "nt", "no text",etc., as the tag to the subject I just skip it as do most on the forum do I'm sure.
Now that has all been CHANGED! Because a few have taken up on their own to ACTUALLY SEND TEXT in a post whose subject tag line indicated that there was not text in that particular post. Some have, rightly or wrongly (it is for each individual 2+2er to judge for him/her-self) that people were posting text in messages that indicated "no text".
I for one, will never be able to by-pass a "n/t" post without wondering if I really should have looked. When I do look and find no text I will be disapponted in my lack of discipline. AND how about all the other times I did put my confidence in my fellow 2+2ers and believed if it said "no text" it really meant it.
----------------- Ernie said, "You know, I think I'm getting paranoid, sometimes I get the feeling everyone is out to get me."
As one, all replied, "No Ernie, you're not paranoid, we are all out to get you".
Well, look at that!
See, the flaw in your argument is that 2+2 won't allow you to post an actually empty post. You have to put something in the body. I generally just bang my head against the keyboard and see what comes up. So any attempt to interpret the gibberish in my (n/t) posts is your own fault.
I would be much more concerned about the fact that one's reply to a (n/t) post contains (n/t) at the end of the subject line, thereby causing confusion among those casual readers not alert enough to realize the (n/t) trickled down from some previous message!
So be alert. The world needs more lerts.
He's much better looking.
Curious, why do you put the breakeven point at the 70 percentile player? Of course the naive hypothesis would put this at around 50% of the players (assuming they all play a significant number of hours).
Because I believe that few rank suckers spend many hours online. Thus 30 very good players beat 70 slightly weak players. But I could be wrong.
The answer my friend is DRONES, paradise poker has a programmed DRONE at each and every table for limits 5-10 and up, i do not believe that most of you are having a difficult time believing this, put that in your pipe Sklansky and inhale!
Borg Drones play at Paradise Poker?! How cool! Hope I don't get assimilated!
I agree that rank suckers would tend not to last as long at the tables. While at the table, however, they are apt to lose money at a much faster rate than the best players are likely to win it. And at least in live LA low-limit games, there are many extremely poor regular players. As long as the number of guppies in the water is close to the number of sharks, I would expect more than 50% of players to be long-term winners in a rakeless/tokeless game.
Maybe. But they would mainly be very small winners who would lose after the rake so my 90% figure stands.
I have a theory.
People all complain that they start out winning on line and then they get wiped out. It's happened to me, it seems to happen to lots of players especially after cashing out.
A reasonable person would start playing holdem at the 3-6 level because $500.00 was the maximum allowable deposit at one time.(It still might be.) Those reading this forum are well aware that it would do you well to move up in limits as soon as possible (due consideration to talent and bankroll) to offset the rake. You have a few good sessions and pretty soon you have amassed 2000.00 and you think you're ready for 10-20. You watch a little, see the same people playing there that you beat at 3-6 and 5-10 and give it a shot. You get beat for a quick $500.00. You feel awful, you know you can win with just a few cards so you don't do the prudent thing and step down to 5-10 you need to get back up to 2000.00 fast. So, you stay at 10-20 and take another hit. A small tilt later and you've got the MasterCard out again complaining how the game is rigged.
Just a theory.
I very much agree that the psychological effect of a losing run plays a big part.
I made the mistake of cashing out at the time of the Ed Hill/Kyle Bill controversy convergence.
I then tried to play the higher limits short stacked and suffered a very bad run. I only saw sense when I sat down in 20/40 with $200, realised that this was an absurd proposition and left the table without playing a hand. I also found during this time that as I was chasing, I would not leave a game. Whereas in my winning period I'd leave the table quickly if I didn't like the game.
So its back to playing 3/6, 5/10 where I started.
To go on a long stretch of losses, you have to first have a lot of money. Since there is a maximum allowable weekly buy-in, you probably got that money from winning it.
Thefore, the sample set is skewed. Most of the people who have had a long series of losses will previously have had a long series of wins, because the ones that lose right off the bat either go away, or have to wait to buy in again. If the minimum buy-in at Paradise were $5000, and you sampled all the players for size of winning and losing streaks you'd see a much smoother curve.
No scientific sampling needed to convince me most win in the beginning and lose it twice as fast because somewhere along the line they mistook catching cards for brilliant play and moved up prematurely.
I start With $300 play 2-4 mostly and then 15% $4-8 7cs at planet hit $1300. Then I decide to learn holdem at the 3-6 & 5-10 table. Back to $400, hopefuly learn my lessons, what every thry me be. Have a nice day, see you at planet 7cs or ( 1-2 or .25 -.50 cents Holdem.) I don't know about Paridise but never had any question about the player or games at Planet. LOL Ron ie "beard"
Just wanted to say that I had the same experience. I was ahead about $3,000. I credited my credit card and requested a check for $1,000. The next session I played, I lost over $2,000. It was unbelievable the way hands were going down. Just makes me wonder.
I play stud and suck at Hold 'em. I bought in at Paradise for $150 one night because a friend of mine who moved to another city did and was ragging on me for playing at the play money tables.
Lost the first night, half my stack. Played badly. Came back and went on an epic winning tear peeling off one and two hundred dollar winning nights. Did I mention I was playing 2/4 stud? Wow. My win rate per hour was astronomical. I was a genius.
Pissed away some of it proving I suck at Hold 'em and learning that stud/8 is harder than it looks. Had a few losing sessions at stud. Full houses being beaten by quads. You know the suspicious bad beats. Cashed out a winner and bought my wife the patio furniture she wanted. Looks nice by the way.
What's the point, you ask? Simply this. I noticed the same people playing stud every night. I was able to identify two or three good players who consistently put severe beats on me. Were they cheating on-line. No emphatically. They play every day and are very observant. They are probably not long term winners, but at 2/4 are break-even players because of the rake. They probably don't care to play higher because they are playing for fun. But the one thing they have in common is that they are observant. Once they figured out that I was a pretty good player who waited for good cards and then played them correctly, they made absolutely sure they had quality when going in against me. Hence when they improved it was usually to a monster.
No cheating. Good players beat bad players. Good players beat me.
David
P.S. as an epilogue to this, I couldn't resist trying again now that they have super low limit games on Paradise. Bought in for $50 this time. Again I'm a genius, but when the regulars figure me out again, I expect my win rate of 15-20 BB/Hr will go down again. At these limits, perhaps I can get the wife the umbrella to go with the patio furniture. Huge Grin.
David, Mike and others who might care to answer:
David: You have said that you could identify online colluders and teach others to do so. I am sure this is so. And Mike: you are in the business of doing this.
BUT: If you worried that a poker site had been compromised, such that someone could see other players' cards, could you identify the player with this special knowledge, other than that they looked like a great player, whose stack always increased? (I assume here that the computer anti-hacking measures have failed). I cannot think of how I could identify such a person (or persons), but I defer to your insightfulness.
I do not suggest with this message that this has happened, although I concur with a previous poster (dan?) that it might have happened and might in the future.
Mark
Done carefully it would be virtually impossible to detect this sort of cheating from the play. By this I mean the cheater would for the most part ignore his pre-knowledge of the cards and play a natural game. Using his special knowledge sparingly, while ensuring that his winnings are not too high so as to be suspicious. Maybe arranging the occasional loosing streak if things have been going too well!
However if the cheater were to get greedy, and try to get the max possible, then the scale of the winnings would likely alert the site operators. Study of the hands would be collusive. In these circumstances I think even the other players could get enough evidence to be justifiably suspicious after a relatively short amount of time.
Actually I think it would be easier to spot this sort of cheating than than it would be collusion. Colluders are playing their normal game 80% of the time. Not so for someone who sees his opponents cards. Even less so if he knows what cards are coming off the deck.
David,
Thank you. Your answer of course presupposes that the spotter can see all cards, right?
But wouldn't the clever hacker (who could probably only see the cards in people's hands, [no real poker site should be so weak as to be making non-random decks any more] and who might even only WANT to see those cards, even if they knew what was coming) lose sometimes on the river naturally, so all would look kosher? Then they wouldn't even need to dump occasionally as Niels suggests. (thanks Niels)
I worry about my own poor play more than I do colluders and hackers and bots anyway. Oh, and sorry about the nesting in para #1, it comes of writing too much code for too long. Mark
I just received an e-mail from a person that says that he was another player in the hand in question and that he sent you his hand histories. Could you, please, confirm or deny it? Is it true or it is just another nut?
no way he can be a nut. Probably has an anonymous mail account though
I truly don't know. I got a few e-mails about hand histories but don't read them.
You mean that you, probably, have the most important piece of evidence - hand histories from an independent player but don't even look at them? Why????
Yea, and how do we know it's not you pretending to be the independent player sending out those emails. Please stop harrasing nice people like Sklansky trying to prove you are innocent while you are not. We should consider this case close.
I am not harassing anyone. I don't understand why he wouldn't look at the histories. Anyone who thinks I would go to such lengths as to impersonating another person is mad.
Hazen't zou zeen reazing DZs postz? Now run along.
I was in on the hand too. I have the real hand histories.
If you do, post them. You must also post the hand before and after that one. Only real player would know them.
Or possibly someone else who was in the hand would know the hand numbers. You were in the hand as well. But you wouldn't do anything like that because you are brutally honest.
Hey QuadAces, If you could produce say 10 hands in a row, that you played and Aslan and his AKA's (boyuk, Ikaer, Viola) were NOT in then I would believe you otherwis,. NOWAY.
I don't know who QuadAces or any of these other people are. There is a bunch of evidence that vindicates me building up and nobody wants to admit it.
You are the biggest LOSER I have ever seen in my life.
I hope you die slow...real slow.
Mason had told them to stop posting what he considered ads. When I asked them to identify themselves for the purpose of the Aslan case, they said they were told not to post. Mason is recovering from eye surgery so I will take it upon myself to give them permission to post here in regards to exactly who they are and where they are etc.
.
I wrote to Poker Analyzer and asked them if they had hand histories of that particular hand from any other player. They replied that they did, but could not divulge his name for privacy reasons. However, they were willing to forward my email to him.
The anonymous player was nice enough to respond and sent me a copy of the hand history. It matches Aslan's version. Though the player wishes to remain anonymous to protect his account on Paradise, he would likely be willing to meet someone online at a certain time to prove that he was one of the players involved in the hand.
So no we definitely have two witnesses (Poker Analyzer and that player) who corroborate my story that Paradise, or, at least, an employee of Paradise has doctored histories before sending them to Sklansky. It looks like someone should start to choose a Vegas show. If someone still thinks that I manufatured ALL evidence from different sources, that person is simply mad.
Aslan is a loser.
News at 11.
If this is indeed the case, and it can be confirmed that this is an independent party, it would cast further doubt on Paradise. However, hackers, scam artists, etc. often have associates, so merely one more individual would still not be conclusive.
If someone actually has hand histories that show that Paradise has fabricated evidence, why would they be interested in "protecting their account" for any longer than it would take to empty it?
I have played at Paradise a great deal since they opened and I also have played in home games and casinos. It is my opinion that, while there are some online players who are very proficient, there are also many players who play poorly. It is an interesting mix, I think there are fewer average players than you might encounter in a live. I would be interested to hear others opinions on this.
My general impression as well.
I have found that better player will play at lower limits, probley becasue they can not read other player. and do not want to risk as much without reading others. Ron But the lower the limit the greater the win rate for me. I agree
I agree with this. There are a number of 5-10 players that seem to be pretty competent, and a lot of others (new ones, I've noticed) that are just awful. I was one of the ones that claimed that the 5-10 online games were pretty tough compared to live action. Either I was wrong or things have changed.
I play on paradise, and I would have to say that most of the players on paradise tend to play competently preflop compared to casino play. However, many players play poorly post flop, and the amount of players who make crazy and irrational bluffs i find to be much higher than in real life. Because you don't have access to physical tells, you have to pay very close attention to what each player did in the previous rounds to give you a clue as to whether or not he is bluffing. Fortunately (for me at least), online play allows you to do this easier than does casino poker.
I just remembered that I sent out the hand histories to get them engraved in copper to mount on my wall. I contacted my copper-carver and luckily he still had them. I've instructed him to send the engraved copper-plate to David S.
David, did you get it yet? My copper-carver is copper-carver-joe@yahoo.com. Anyone can contact him to validate my story.
Would you stop cluttering the issue with idiotic remarks and posting as me?
Aslan contacted me and I can assure you I am an impartial third party. I will do anything but reveal my true identity. Just e-mail and I will answer your question. David S. will get the copper-plate in the mail soon.
Regards,
CCJ
i dont even own a computer.
scott
I am just an impartial third party, but I remembered that Aslan had mentioned about carving the hand histories in copper and I called up copper-carver Joe.
Has he contacted David S. yet?
Because when I make a joke, it's funny.
Three points:
1. I am much better looking than the fake Niels.
2. I am much funnier than the fake Niels.
3. When I find the fake Niels, I will be much less on fire than the fake Niels.
The entire selection of posters seem to have a bad case of collective hysteria.
it just so happens tha i am only mostly mad. there's a big difference between mostly mad and all mad. when someone's all mad there's only one thing you can do....
scott
Everyone knows that I am dead.
there's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. when someone is all dead there's only one thing you can do.
scott
I think that I died almost forty years ago, but I could be wrong...maybe if one reads Symbols of Transformation backwards I will be shown to be only partially dead...
Nothing here. Get a life.
I got some one else
Suppose you sit down heads up, say at 5-10 Paradise HE, and you don't know the opponent. With what hands do you generally (as a first approx.)
1. call in the BB 2. raise in the SB 4. reraise in the SB,
(and ditto for the BB.)
BillC
This is a follow up post from a different thread.
David I know that when you polled your 20 winners that Angelina was one of you biggest winners. She has now posted the following three posts:
1. At the time, the forum was under the impression that Aslan was accused of colluding (and it turned out he's a sorry excuse for a credit card thief). It looked like he was in trouble simply because he was on the same subnet (or local area network, or sharing the same IP) as his buddies. Obviously, Paradise is looking beyond that. I'm under the impression they do not throw accusations easily.
It is my belief that the high limit hold'em games are on the square now. I'm not so sure about $10-20 games a couple of months back, I saw some weird shit at the time Ed Hill lost his bankroll and I lost a few grand too many myself during that period.
2.It's was not the losing, it was the weirdest suckouts that raised eyebrows. Trust me on this. But I do have some ego, sure :)
3.Also, I was at the tables witnessing Ed Hill getting his bankroll mowed down. Remember, those were the $10-20 days. I'm not surprised he snapped. Angelina Fekali Studying People Inc. Ljubljana, Slovenia http://www.fekali.com/angelina
Would you please poll the rest of the group of 20 and see what their results were during the month of May and the first two weeks in June.
This is the time frame when all of my friends, myself included got clobbered. All of the people associated with Nolan Dalla had the same results. Now I see that one of your biggest winners is singing the same song. It would be interesting to get to the bottom of this.
If you are a long term winner who would like to comment on your results during May and the first two weeks of June, please post here or e-mail me privately.
I have for this 6 week period: 52 hours of 10-20 holdem - 1450.00. One disclaimer though, I was not focusing on holdem as much then and have since improved my holdem game. Still I am a winning player and I am confident Angelina is a winning player so this time period merits investigation.
Upon checking my records, the month of May was good to me, but had a horrendous losing streak in first couple of weeks of June and lost $5000 in the first 30 hours of play that month. Colluders were my main concern, but could never pinpoint them. I cannot say I was cheated. I can say I smelled a rat.
Angelina Fekali
Can you find out the handles of those who beat you so bad during this time, Ed? Curious if thy are still playing.
I began playing for money on Paradise in mid February. I started out playing $3-$6 and worked my way up to $10-$20. By May I was up about $4000, and I had been playing about 10-15 hrs per week. I then had a horrendous losing streak where I lost about $2000. About half of this was playing 10-20. As my bankroll dwindled, I moved down in limit.
For May and first two weeks of June:
up over $2000. Winner at stud, stud8, holdem, omaha, and omaha8.
- Andrew
you were only up $2000.00. Your program that sees the cards must have some bugs in the progrm. Either that, or your practicing on how to avoid the collusion police.
David,
I am very long term winner at 5-10 through 10-20. In early June I lost enough times at those levels at HE on Paradise to some incredible suckouts (that might have been just weirdos playing poorly and getting lucky, but it *might* have been hacking) and several other times where it looked like there were colluders. So I STOPPED PLAYING online.
I won enough at the same levels at O8 to make up for it. As I posted several times in June, the O8 looked like they were (might still be?) pretty easy games, at least for me. But I think collusion problems should and WILL be much worse and harder to police in split games.
I will not play online any more, since, as I told you privately, it is my belief that any site can be hacked (with enough work by serious computer experts) and not know it. To all those who disbelieve, read Scientific American, last year they had a full issue on this. I am spending a little bit of time watching a handful of 20-40 players who might be winners too consistently. That's why I asked how one might know if people can see others' cards earlier this week.
Mark
Except that at the present time there are non hackers beating the game nicely. (Of course really astute cheaters might stay away from obviously good regular players but that is pretty farfetched.)
My records are not very good but I can say that I bought in on the 6th May and cashed out as a (10000 hands+) winner on 24th June( 10-20 to 20-40).
Given my relative inexperience I cannot state that I can beat the higher limits long term. I am currently $400 down after a bad run following my cash out. I may have been one of the "lucky long term losers" during the period in question.
3-6 and 5-10 holdem:
After cashing out $710.00 in mid-april/early may, I left about $500.00 in my account. Built it up to $800.00. Went broke June 27th. (lost a couple hundred of it playing Omaha, which isn't my game..But things seemed kind of weird, but maybe thats what happens when your not on top of things.) Bought in $300.00 more Playing mostly 3-6 and 5-10. Credited back my $300.00 to my CC. And currently have it built up to $1650.0 playing the same.
Total I'm up somewhere near $6000.00 between Planet and Paradise (mostly paradise since I think Planet is too slow.) (I've lost about $1000.00 playing omaha, and $500.0 playing heads up holdem, so I'm actually up over $7000.0 playing 3+ handed holdem)
From time to time things kind of strange, but I really think its just from playing so many more hands than live play. (I play 40 hrs per week and have a good feel for the game & situations). For example, I see more set over set than live play, (sometimes Im on top). There are also hands where live ones give me tremendous action, but I think thats just my fast image of giving action, and they're giving it back. There aren't too many days of playing where I don't yell:"How the hell could you have stayed???" But I'm still up, and one reason might be is because I am currently staying away from the bigger games until I build my online br up more.
But from what I have seen, these games have some real live ones too.
DW.
I approached online poker cautiously. April: 160 hours of low limit split games, broke even. Caliber of my play: Beat the Mirage $10/20 Omaha8 for over $28/hr over more than 1000 hours. Caliber of their play: The worst I have ever seen, yet I made no money. Definitely had the feeling that those guys raising nut lows with nothing else in three handed pots DID know what they were doing.
May to middle of June switched to $2/4 & $3/6 HE. Won $1400 in 200 hours. Much lower than my historical live game play at those limits, but still winning.
Okay, spot a soft looking $5/10 HE game. Played four hands in 33 minutes: AA, KK, KK, AQs. Didn't win a pot: -$234. Raised every hand going in, beat by horrible horrible rags on all four hands. Four hands prove nothing, but getting those hands all beat by 62o type hands who had all cold called a raise or two going in just felt reallllly bad.
Back to low limit HE and now increasing my win rate a little, though with fluctuations up to (+/-)$900/week, pretty big for such small limits. I'm still undecided about playing any higher and have an extensive list of people I don't play against. Fortunately, I have the time to experiment and am one of those semi-mytical people willing to step down in $ for less stress and more fun. The game's the thing.
FWIW: only a few hours
1st 2 weeks june: 10/20 +$1084 16hrs may through 2 weeks june 5/10 +$1074 32hrs
d.
Long periods of boredom punctuated by short periods of extreme stress.
Just like this forum
Although it will not stop people from assuming multiple identities, it will stop posters from spoofing well known handles. I've seen too many "That wasn't me!" posts to be sure who anyone is!
.
Hail to the King, baby!
anybody can be just like me, obviously. but then again not many can be like you, fortunately. well, six white horses that you did promise were finally delivered down to the penetentiary. but to live outside the law you must be honest. i know you always say that you agree. alright, so where are you tonight, sweet marie?
down here next to me in this lonely crowd, there's a man who swears he's not to blame. all day long i hear him cry so loud, calling out that he's been framed. i see my light come shining, from the west out to the east. any day now, any day now, i shall be relesed.
everybody sees hisself walking around with noone else. half the people can be part right all the time and some of the people can be all right part of the time but all the people can't be all right all the time. i think abraham lincoln said that. i'll let you be in my dream if i can be in yours. i said that.
bob dylan
just kidding. i am not really bob dylan.
, i am the walrus
..to the Other Topics forum. Badger's gonna pop up some more popcorn and we're gonna post some more of our "Favorite Movie" lists!
Forget about all this Aslan/Paradise nonsense and let's get Avocado Fats and David debating something REALLY important, like whether or not Chloe Sevigny got robbed of the Oscar by Angelina Jolie, f'rinstance.
And, AF, whatever happened to that LSAT 'n Math GRE contest?
*
That is a great question. I accepted Skalnsky's offer and then never heard another word about it. Looks like he's welching out of a 50K bet.
Sigh.
AF
Hi folks: Having trouble with Greg's poker client. Getting a "24057 Socket is not connected" Message. Suggestions? I have tried changing the port from 6667 to 6666 to 7666 (on a friends computer and he uses AOL). Help appreciated. Thanks
You can't access IRC poker from AOL.
q
eom
eom
Sklansky wrote: "Of course if you could really prove that they purposely alterred histories, their ad would be off this website lickety split. And I would comp Matt, Avocado, and Ray to the show of their choice in Vegas"
Since then two independent sources confirmed that the hand history that I posted was correct - Poker Analyzer and the player who wrote to me, Sklansky and Niels. I know that some nuts love to say that I am all these people but I am not, beleive it or not. David, don't you agree, it should, at least be a reason for investigation? So far you did not even commented on histories you, apparently, received. I do not suggest that you work for paradise but by actively participating in the matter before you got the evidence against paradise and becoming silent after the evidence you give fuel for all kinds of suggestions. People, please, don't put idiotic sarcastic replies.
.
Even if there was an error in a few hand histories, that would be inconsequential, unless Paradise purposely alterred them. Even if you were ultimately proven innocent, that would be inconsequential unless it was shown that Paradise took action without being 99% sure of your guilt. It is inconceivable that Paradise would have dared sending ME, El Supremo, purposely alterred hand histories. Mistakes are another thing.
One reason I have stopped commenting on specifics of this case is because I have stopped following the details. The case was only relevant to this forum if it involved collusion, or if it showed that Paradise would confiscate money with a flimsy excuse. No one thinks they did, including Mike Caro. The case might still be interesting to detective buffs out there but not to me. I no longer want to get involved, nor should I, since I haven't followed the details. Meanwhile my personal opinion is still that you miscalculated by choosing the wrong forum. At first I thought you might be posting here, as I suggested to Mark the K, as a means of establishing a sort of defense if you are prosecuted. That may be true . But I now believe your main reason is that you thought you could rally poker players to your side, since they would worry that their money would be confiscated as well. That failed miserably but only because we have some wickedly smart people here. Also when you suggested this would not happen at Planet Poker, you were basically refuted by Mike Caro. However I really do believe you might win your case if you go to rgp. (Click on our Favorite Links, scroll down and click on rec.gambling.poker). Mike Caro will be reluctant to refute you there. You might have to worry about Gary Carson tearing you up. Howeve, you can get around that by saying in your first post "Mason Malmuth is convinced I am guilty". Good luck. (By the way, if you used that brain of yours in a more productive manner that $2500 will be utter peanuts.)
>>It is inconceivable that Paradise would have dared sending ME, El Supremo, purposely alterred hand histories.<< I have though about that. One possibility is that an employee of paradise (a single person with database access) was involved in the scam and altered histories. The person at paradise who sent them to you might not be aware of this.
>> Mistakes are another thing. How can a changed hand history be a mistake?
>>(By the way, if you used that brain of yours in a more productive manner that $2500 will be utter peanuts.)
I don't care much about $2500, especially in winnings. It is the principle that matters. I am being wrongly accused of a crime I did not commit.
The strangest thing: Paradise has returned $200 back to my credit card (my original deposit). I only found out this morning. My guess is that did not wanted my credit card to investigate.
Again: "Of course if you could really prove that they purposely alterred histories, their ad would be off this website lickety split. " You have evidence from two sources. Regardless of my situation this should enough to investigate if paradise has purposely alterred histories. To dismiss evidence because "it is inconceivable" is not prudent.
If our readers are satisfied we are satisfied.
I have to look askance at the "evidence" of this you have produced thus far.
As mentioned before, it is incredibly coincidental that both you and Poker Analyzer spelled "surprised" as "surprized." Further, your writing styles seem rather similar to me. Now combine this with all the other "coincidences" related to this issue, and it is hard to attach any significant weight to Poker Analyzer's corroboration of your hand histories. Also, if you are not actually he, he could be a confederate. David invited him to provide further details about who he his, and he has not yet done so. Finally, Poker Analyzer's prior offer to us all was somewhat shady or had unethical overtones(benefit to those who cooperated with his request for hand histories, detriment to those who refused).
There was another source - a player that was in the hand and that wrote to me , Niels, and Sklansky and sent his hand histories. For reasons that I do not understand, Sklansky chose to completely ignore him.
on Paradise, since you guys know it's honest and the games are easy. Please send funds to PO.BOX 4556 S.F. CA 90231
x
We have just deleted a post from Poker Analyzer. We had given them permission to identify exactly who they were for the sake of the Aslan case. We had made it clear to them earlier that they could not use our forum to advertise their site. Though they did not give any furher information they did identify a Victor Lugor. However they did not give an address or any other information identifying themselves. So their post was rather useless from the standpoint of what David was trying to achieve.
I happened to read the post before it was deleted. The people at Poker Analyzer apparently think that the word believe is spelled "beleive". If you search the posts on this forum you will find one person who has consistently spelled believe in this manner... Aslan! Put it up, please for all the world to see. Poker Analyzer is some kind of scam, and Aslan is involved.
Hi, Mason --
I noticed the "beleive" spelling as well and was going to post; unfortunately it happened at "quittin' time" and I didn't want to spend time at the office on an "anti-Aslan" post.
Nice catch, Michelin.
Mike
...if indeed both Poker Analyzer and Aslan have consistently misspelled "belie(ei)ve" the same way, in addition to misspelling "surpris(z)ed." You would think that they/he would be smart enough to at least use a spell-checker to avoid further similar evidence connecting them.
I went ahead and looked up "Zmart Cookei" in the dictionary and dizcovered the follwing definition: Zmart Cookei=One who doesn't get caught twice the zame way in 48 hourz.
*
Another Huge coincidense!
Poker Analyser uses the "free" web page site 20m.com under the name "www.pokertools.20m.com"
Well Guess who also has a web page at 20m.com a young "arabic" fellow named Aslan. Try www.aslan.20m.com.
He did say that Aslan was Arabic for lion.
There you will see a picture of our aledged perp.
But then again it is quite possible that 20m is in cahoots with Paradise to frame this poor young soul.
Well I am in no hurry to send Poker Analyser my credit card number.
*
ORIGINAL ODDZ that Aslan is at least in cahoots with Poker Analyzer or is Poker Analyzer, based on numerous coincidences:
9,999,999,999 TO 1.
Then it was pointed out that "surprized" may in fact be an alternate spelling, possibly used more widely overseas.
ODDS REVISED at that time:
999,999 TO 1.
With the addition of new coincidences: Another misspelling is found, "beleive", which both used repeatedly (and nobody else did), and it is discovered that they both have free web pages at 20m.com.
NEW REVISED ODDZ:
9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 TO 1 that Aslan either is Poker Analyzer or is in cahoots with him.
FURTHER ODDZ: That Aslan isPoker Analyzer vs. Aslan is in cahoots with Poker Analyzer:
IS POKER ANALYZER: 4-1
IS IN CAHOOTS WITH HIM AND WRITES FOR HIM: 1-4
I think we've seen the last of him, but I wanted to check out his photo should he ever disgrace a public card room. Lose the tie, Aslan...the casual look is in nowadays.
Hi I'm Cybel, uh no Aslan, no Benim, Poker Analyser. Can I borrow your Credit Card?
Boy Aslan looks like such a dope. Nice Hitler mustache. I hear that look is in.
The fake Niels is starting to annoy me. No so much because he has co-opted my name, but because he is attributing non-funny jokes to me.
Can I send you my credit card number?
Poker Analyser's E-mail with the "altered hand history" made referance to the magical disappearing Ace, even though Aslan's request made no mention of the changing Ace, or that the altering of the hand history was in question.
How come that didn't affect the oddz?
Poker Analyzer rezponded to the requezt in a timely fashion, did he not? We can certainly afford to give him the benefit of the doubt on this izzue. He could have gathered the other related detailz from the Forum, not from Aslan. I really cannot see why this should be too hard to beleive. It is a releif, and I am happy to see that we have been able to dizcuss this like civilized human beings...
Now, let us leave the past behind us, where the past rightfully belongz. Let us instead turn our attention to hand hiztoreiz and to a great new zervice...by the way, if you will simply forward...
Which credit cardz do you take? I have Viza, Maztercard, Dizcover and American Exprezz.
Mike (no s's there...zhuckz!)
I'd say giving your credit card number to this Aslan/Analyzer guy is not such a good idea.
Angelina Fekali
I just received a reply from Paradise support regarding changing my screen name. Seems I made the Analyzer list.
From Paradise: "certainly changing your name would mess it all up"
I was informed that yes, I may change my name if I wish. I miss my old self already. Is anybody actually sending this guy money?
Note that I could not read the Poker Analyzer site just by going to it. I had to use the "view page source" option.
http://www.pokertools.20m.com/players.html
I think that there is a very small chance of cheating at Paradise, but I do admit I am having trouble winning at this site and I win consistently at Planet. In fact I pound Planets 15-30 stud game week after week because there are weak players giving their money away. The same *should* be true on Paradise, even more so, it just seems hard to win. Obviously, this could be a coincidence, but still its troubling. I would be prepared for wild swings on Paradise because of the speed of the game and the extra poor level of play, speaking only for 7-Stud and 7-Stud 8 or better, but with these swings, I would expect a steady win, which has been elusive. Paradise does seem weird, and Planet just plays more like a real game.
As I said, I do *not* believe there is cheating, so what could explain my inability to win? The fact that everybody else also thinks Paradise is strange makes me think that there may be other reasons. The game on Paradise moves so fast, 120+ hands an hour, that the rake is huge. They just rake and rake and rake the hell out of that game, $3 out of every pot. Thats $350 an hour, which means that the rake approaches $2000 every seven hours. That is pretty strong for an 8/16 game. If a guy is $2500 winner after a night of 8/16, like the house is, doesnt experience tell you that you are lucky to be even? As for the wild beats, thats just a product of the intensely bad play, think of all the hands you win when they are giving their money away, thats when they *dont* get there. So I dont think there is cheating but until I crush the game week after week, its going to feel weird to me.
*
nt
People here are so eager to put dirt on my name that they don't even care for the truth. I did misspelled word "believe", but only me. The same mistake was made by Joe and Jeff Woods. Do a search and check. Or, may be, I am all of these people?
I am not associated with with Poker Analyzer in any way, whether you believe it or not.
Please, stop looking for typos, etc, and consider the evidence. Two independent sources confirmed that the hand history I have is correct. If you don't believe Poker Analyzer, you have to believe another player that was in the hand. Sklansky has the copy of his histories.
*
Okay, you're innocent.
Will you go away now?
Mike
Fuck off and die, creep.
Actually, Jeff was quoting you. One "Joe" did spell believe in the same way as you.
Another search detemines that out of 1000 posts, 97 other posters managed to spell believe correctly. Draw your own conclusions.
Of course you, Poker Analyzer, and this mysterious person on the grassy knoll, er I mean that was in the hand, could all quit hiding and come out publicly. What on earth would you have to fear?
Since Mason Malmuth considered our information that we posted earlier incomplete we are posting more complete info.
Poker Analyzer is a product that was created by a group of programmers and players. It belongs to PokerTools, Inc. The corporation is registered in the state of Delaware. We do not have an office and, since we plan to do all business through internet, do see the need for one. The president is Victor Lugor, an american born in Belgium. If there is more information we can give you about ourseve we will be happy to do it. We are completely open and we plan to start advertising at 2+2 in nearest future.
To answer some concerns about credit cards security we would like to point out that all transactions will be done through Amazon secure server. We will not see your card information - you submit it directly to Amazon.com and they send us a message that money has been transferred.
Sincerely, Poker Analyzer www.pokertools.20m.com
We had not heard from Aslan since his post Aug. 4th at 9:25 AM until his most recent post Aug. 5th at 11:12 PM., a period of almost 38 hourz. Coincidentally, we heard from Poker Analyzer (who hasn't posted all that often recently) a mere 19 minutes later. This remindz me of how quickly Poker Analyzer rezponded in submitting the original hand hiztory upon requezt. As Jodder pointed out, from the time Aslan emailed Poker Analyzer to the time Poker Analyzer sent out the requested emails the entire process took less than 1 hour.
My complimentz to Aslan and Poker Analyzer for thier efficiency.
Yes folks, that right:
Give your credit card info to PA/aka Aslan. See what your next bill looks like...hehehe, you might be surprized. I beleive I was suppozed to spell that believe, or is it beleive. hm 'i after e except after z' Mark
We will not accept any advertising from Poker Analyzer.
Except I doubt they are creating any consumer confidence.
Mr. Malmuth,
Your arbitrary decision is unfounded.
1. We have provided all information about ourselves that was requested.
2. There has not been a slightest suggestion that we DO anything dishonest. Some people suggested that we MIGHT do something dishonest simply because we have the opportunity. The same people said same things about ParadisePoker and other online services.
3. The knowledge of other players that we provide is a valuable tool. This is stressed in all poker books.
4. Perhaps, 5-6 people showed their distrust for our services on this forum. On the other hand, 14 people has registered since we posted our information yesterday and about 30 more e-mialed us requesting more information. Currently we receiving hand histories from 26 people on a regular basis plus occasional histories from more people. We could prove it if necessary. Our opinion is that people who are interested in the service don't raise noise in the forum.
5. Naturally,we will accept check or money order.
6. We are not associated with a player "Aslan" in any way other than he is registered with our service. In any case, this is irrelevent to our service.
What arguments do you have against our service?
isn't it funny how the Poker Analyzer people have no grasp over the English language just like me.
For instance, sentences like: "We currently receiving..."
I mean, where is the verb in this sentence. they forget em just like me.
I don't trust any business that uses Yahoo mail for corporate correspondence. What business can't afford registering a real domain? I'm assuming that these guys would need some basic IT infrastructure to provide their services. Why wouldn't they have their own messaging service?
It is just possible that Aslan is being so persistent because he really believes himself. I am actually suggesting that it is somewhat possible that Aslan is suffering from Multiple Personality Syndrome. His Aslan self might not know much of what his Poker Analyzer self is doing, and vice versa.
Before rejecting this theory out-of-hand, let me state that I do not consider it very likely--but it could be possible. This is a serious post and I am not being tongue-in-cheek. Here are some observations which could support such a theory:
Both Aslan and Poker Analyzer have been very persistent, even when the bulk of the public opinion has seemed to be against what they are doing. Recall how Poker Analyzer, in his original posts dealing with his service, responded to my saying that it seemed like coercion, by saying that, well, there has to be some incentive for people to send us their hand histories. He was quite earnest and did not see any problem with his approach.
Now note how Aslan sounds very sincere as well. His persistence is truly rather amazing. He genuinely sounds like he believes what he says, and in the correctness of his position (much like Poker Analyzer sounded regarding his beliefs in his service).
Both use the same approach to move toward their goals: a polite, reasonable tone, but a stronger persistence, coupled with what seems to be a lack of perception of how they are perceived, and they both seem to ignore to some extent the facts against them.
Aslan's willingness to broach the subject on a public forum when apparently caught red-handed by Paradise, and his insistence in the face of public opinion, seem to be more than a run-of-the-mill scam artist might bother with. Now note Poker Analyzer. It does not seem to bother him in the least that quite a few people weighed in against the concept of his service when he first announced it. He fully intends to go through with it and has just announced his intention of advertising on this site (I guess he is assuming that 2+2 will accept his ads if they are paid ads). I don't know if he has talked to 2+2 about this aspect of it, but it sounds like he believes it will be a done deal. This would come as a surprise to me at this point. I doubt if Sklansky or Malmuth would condone such an ad, but of course I cannot speak for them. What is striking is Poker Analyzer's apparent poor judgment on this issue. Even if there were a good chance that 2+2 would accept such an ad, it would seem like an error in judgment for Poker Analyzer to state this as a fact (unless of course they have already made a deal). Errors in judgment, and errors in judgment regarding how one is perceived, are often quite prevalent amongst those with serious psychiatric problems.
The more I recall the posts both have made, the more convinced I become that they are the same person. I am not even talking about spelling errors here, I am talking about the feel of what is said and how it is said, and of their similar approaches. Inexorable pushing towards their goals. Polite, reasonable language. A lack of good judgment and a lack of perception. Almost a pleading for what in their eyes is reasonable.
In the last post by Poker Analyzer, the English was perhaps a bit more unwieldy than in previous posts. I suspect that this post might have come from a confederate and from a different location; Aslan may be taking minimal precautions now. But I cannot shake the overall feeling that these two people are the one and the same, and now the growing feeling that there is some serious psychological or psychiatric problem at work here as well.
If indeed Aslan has serious psychiatric problems, I would urge him to seek professional help as soon as possible.
How's this for an error in perception: You would think that Poker Analyzer, after all this, would realize that the chances of any of us sending him our credit card to pay for his service is close to nil. Even if it was all legit, he should realize that the doubts engendered by this whole thing are enough to make just about anyone back off from sending their credit card. But instead of giving up on the idea (and perhaps instead stressing how people can send cash or money orders to pay for the service if they prefer), he stresses how all transactions will go through Amazon.com's secure server. As if he thinks some of us would at this point send our credit cards even if we wanted the service.
Just another example of very poor judgment and poor perception of others (and of how others view him). As mentioned above, these traits are frequently found in those with serious psychiatric problems (and in poor poker players).
Again, Aslan and Poker Analyzer, if you think you might need psychological/psychiatric help, please go and talk to someone.
The thought crossed my mind also. What's really scary is the number of people who we have recently come across on this forum who appear so rational, even highly intelligent, who have a screw loose somewhere. I used to think those kind of people existed only in movies. My reason was that it would stand to reason that an illogical thought put forth by the emotional part of your brain would be vetoed by your thinking brain if you were smart enough. Abdul is the perfect example. He is quite distrustful of many in the poker community but he nevertheless estimated the probabability of Paradise intentionally cheating well below most. I used to think that didn't prove he wasn't nuts but I guess it did. (The preceding sentence was mine alone and does not necessarily reflect the view of Two Plus Two LLC or it's management.)
Who is Abdul?
Fr
/
Bobby Fischer and Stuey Ungar. I believe I read that they each had an IQ of 185, yet their actions were often anything but logical. I guess you could say that they each had a screw loose somewhere.
.
/
Hi all!
This is my last post here, so I just wanted to clear a few things up.
I am a loser. A sad, sad, sad example of someone who is a complete and utter waste. Maybe my mother just didn't love me enough? I just don't know.
Either way, I am a guilty and rotten thief. I am a fraud and a bamboozler. I failed every Speling Bee I was in as a child. And I have no life.
As many of you know, I mindlessly thought I could use fraudulent credit cards to commit acts of collusion and cheating on internet poker websites.
And for this, all I have to say to you, the Poker community is:
* SUCKERS!!!! HA HA HA, EACH AND EVERY LAST ONE OF YOU!!!
* I TRICKED YOU AND STOLE ALL YOUR MONEY AND MADE YOU ALL LOOK LIKE FOOLS.
* YOU STUPID AMERICANS! HA HA HA
* I PLAYED YOU AT POKER, I WIPED YOU OUT, AND I LOVED EVERY LAST MINUTE OF IT!!!
* AND NOW I GET TO EXTORT MORE MONEY OUT OF YOU THROUGH MY PHONY ANALYZER WEBSITE, WHICH JUST HAPPENS TO BE LINKED DIRECTLY TO MY ARABIC HOMEPAGE. HA HA HA!
* UNCLE SADDAM WOULD BE SO PROUD OF ME NOW!!!
Well, I guess that about raps it up for today. Thank you all for your prayers and your concerns in this very emotional and trying time for me family and I.
And please, if you ever choose to do what I did, make sure of one thing first. Get F. Lee Bailey or Johnny Cochran as your lawyer. Man these guys are so good they could let you get away scott free with first degree murder almost.
Happy trails!
Your Friend, Aslan
I would almost pay you that $2500 out of my own pocket to know who you really are.
David,
My guess would be Niels.
The tip off "get away scott free".
Certainly not a semitic idiom.
Just send me a check, money order, or your credit card number (Visa, MC, Discover, AE, all accepted) and exp date to:
Aslan c/o Shysters and Poker Analyzers P.O. Box 512 New York, NY 10102
For your small $2500 contribution you can learn everything you would ever want to know about me. (Please include $4.95 for shipping and handling charges)
David, you really need to start to consider making this a log-on site. These phony person messages are getting awfully tedious.
.
I rather agree, but we might lose some real people. I would also miss the posts from Foldie Hawn, Michelin Man, Professor Plum and many others.
If the biggest problem is people posting as others, perhaps a system which allows only one user per unique handle could be implemented. That way we could still hear from Professor Plum and others. Such a system would identify when someone was attempting to use a handle that was already taken. It would therefore still allow a person to post as The Red Baron or Batman occasionally if they wished to do so.
Also, perhaps this problem of people posting as others will diminish or disappear. It wasn't much of a problem until recently.
That's all you have to do with a log-on site. This software (WebBBS) can handle it, too. Just have a log-on screen where people type their user name and E-mail address. A password is sent to that E-mail address, and they use that to log on. You typically only have to use the password once and a cookie will be set so you don't have to do it any more.
Once you're logged on with your username, you don't ever have to worry about someone posting under that name.
You know what, scratch that idea.
I kind of like it when people put words in my mouth. Not like I have anything interesting to say otherwise.
well, i am against the log in system because i would hate to make it harder to make people laugh. i don't care how many people are confused or irritated. no one can be hurt on the forum and laughter is the most beautiful thing in the world.
but if you must take such precautions, you should have people register their names if they wish and require a password for only those names.
i have had people post as me a couple times. nothing happened. i didn't start bleeding from the eyes or melting away into nothingness. i am exactly as fine as i ever was. i just don't think it's a big deal.
scott
i agree with scott
If the biggest problem is people posting as others, perhaps a system which allows only one user per unique handle could be implemented. That way we could still hear from Professor Plum and others. Such a system would identify when someone was attempting to use a handle that was already taken. It would therefore still allow a person to post as The Red Baron or Batman occasionally if they wished to do so.
Also, perhaps this problem of people posting as others will diminish or disappear. It wasn't much of a problem until recently.
I agree.
I'm sick of people posting as me, The Great Aslan!!!
Agreed.
Vince
I hope everyone realizes that I did not post that message. Sklansky, etc., can't you trace the IP addresses and ban these fake posters from forum?
Sklansky, if you drop the attitude "if readers are happy, we are happy" and start investigating the evidence against Paradise you have I will e-mail you all my personal info.
David has no motive to do that. Go away.
Angelina Fekali
I know that many might consider physical beauty as being purely superficiial. But at the risk of being purely supeficial, this woman is enchanting.
Oh oh her brother is probably gonna come beat me up.
Have you met the enchanting Angelina? I think that if you venture on to the 20-40 at Paradise she might beat you up quite badly without fraternal aid.
Reading all this bullshit I thought that there many mentally sick people on this forum. But now I realise that it could be all one single person, who write here, using different names.
Oh, BTW, I am not Sklyansky :)
Stop using my name, thank you.
I'm a little teapot short and stout....
There have been numerous posts here and on rgp about the unpleasant phenomenon of getting an incredible unlucky run of cards subsequent to cashing out on your winnings.
I have fallen prey to this a few times and have always explained it away as playing a bit looser, feeling a bit unbeatable and losing respect for my opponents. However, after two hours of play last night on Planet Poker a few days after cashing out for $1200 I had a run of cards which was, to say the least, unsettling.
MPos with AJs. 5 see flop of AKQ, with button raising. I bet 3 call. Turn K. I bet. Button raises I call. River jack. I check, button bets I call. lose to KQ.
I have button with AQs. 5 callers with my raise. Flop QJ8r. UTG bets I raise three callers. Turn Q. UTG Check to me I bet, all call. River is J. Check to me I bet, UTG checkraises, I lose to QJo.
Next hand I have AA in cutoff. 2 limpers to me I raise. All fold but one. Flop is ATx. I bet he folds.
Two hands later AA again. Flop is AA8. I check the flop bet the turn my 1 opp folds.
Two hands Later I have KK early position. I raise all fold.
I have 88 in the BB. Flop is AA6. UTG bets 5 callers. I decide to take one off. Turn is an 8. I bet. 4 call cutoff raises I reraise. She calls. 3 players left. River is J. I bet out cutoff raises. I lose to AJ.
My point is that I can see where some people might see this as suspicious. If I wasn't ahead so much online I would think it as well.
many people online feel it is easy money, and sometimes it's so easy you think that you can't lose. Now, the only thing that got to me was that i was losing a lot with my losers and wining nothing with my winners. The other item of note is that it was always the same player that won when I lost.
But sometimes, that's just the way it goes.
The best thing about being online in that situation is that you don't have a long drive home and therefore can avoid tilt by going in the other room and watching a movie. The gane will be there when I get the revenge out of my mind and can play level headed again. It's a big plus few people mention.
Sammy,
This is a great post. Why?
You are not whining...you say: "sometimes, that's just the way it goes." Also, you show how overconfidence against (possibly) weak players can get you into trouble....
Also: Look at your first example, better yet, put it up on the Texas Holdem Forum (it is only one example):
"MPos with AJs. 5 see flop of AKQ, with button raising. I bet 3 call. Turn K. I bet. Button raises I call. River jack. I check, button bets I call. lose to KQ."
I think others might tell you that you lost 2-3 too many big bets on this hand. I would. The button raised preflop. What can he have when he raises the turn? AA, AK, AQ, KK, KQ all clobber you on the turn. JT (unlikely to have raised preflop) does too. JJ gets you on the river, as does TT. I would have check/folded the turn.
By the way, when I read this, I thought you were playing hand #1 against me on Paradise a few days ago. Board and my KQ on the button were identical. But the other hands were not in that game, so I guess not.
Good luck, and play tough!
Mark
SammyB,
You're probably right about hand #1. I had seen the button playing and raising such crappy hands that I forgot loose players sometimes get cards as well. Another example of ignoring the information at hand and playing by rote . . . a bad way to play.
When I got $5000 winner I requested a check for $2000, which I recieved in 5 days. I immediately blew off $2000, with my last $1000 (this was 10-20 holdem) I started winning until I had $6000 in my account. That is when I requested another check for $2000. That is when the "run from Hell" set in, in 4 days I blew the entire $4000 left in my account. I got out my credit card and attempted to buy more chips, the software told me that I had a $2000 check pending. Pending? The first check was in my hands in 5 days, the second one was still pending 5 days later. I went ahead and told the software to put the $2000 back into my account and continued playing. But this bothered me more and more. Why didn't the second check come like the first one did? So I sent them an e-mail and asked them that exact question. They informed me that checks are cut on Wednesday and Saturday. The first check I ordered was on a Saturday and therefore was mailed out immeadiately. The second check was requested on a Thursay and therefore wouldn't be processed until Saturday, by that time I was busted. Take it for what it is worth.
$4000 is quite a bit to lose in 4 days in 10-20 Texas, espcially for a seasoned professional, be it an on-line game or live game... I wonder what the bankroll requirement for you ought to be in such game... and then you lost $2000 more? Does not make me feel secure.
They told me that all checks are cut on Monday and that this was a firm policy. I think they cut them when they feel like it.
To quote Angelina:
It is my belief that the high limit hold'em games are on the square now. I'm not so sure about $10-20 games a couple of months back, I saw some weird shit at the time Ed Hill lost his bankroll and I lost a few grand too many myself during that period.
It's was not the losing, it was the weirdest suckouts that raised eyebrows. Trust me on this. But I do have some ego, sure :)
Also, I was at the tables witnessing Ed Hill getting his bankroll mowed down. Remember, those were the $10-20 days. I'm not surprised he snapped.
Angelina Fekali Studying People Inc. Ljubljana, Slovenia http://www.fekali.com/angelina
I noticed a typo in my last post, it was 5 days that I lost the $4000 in, like that matters.
For example, I have AA and raise, QQ re-raises, the big blind calls with J10, I cap it. If the flop comes AQ2 and the J10 ends up hitting a gut shot, it is incorrect, but I do understand. But when the BB has something like 63 offsuit no back door flush draw I begin to wonder.
I don't understand how a player like this wouldn't play every hand if he were willing to call $20 more with one of the worst hands in the deck? You would think that even the worst players would at least figure that one of the two preflop raisers has hit the flop or at least has an overpair to your high card which happens to be a 6. Therefore, you need to hit 66,33, or 45. If either of the raisers have flopped a set, you are down to needing 45. Not to mention that you had to call $20 cold twice on the flop!
The other ones that I got tired of looking at was; I have KK, the flop is KJ9 and losing to 33 that happens to hit runner runner to a suit making a flush with the 3. How did they know that they were even drawing live to the 3 high flush?
I have run bad at poker before, it just never looked really weird like this. These are once in a blue moon beats, you certainly don't see them all the time. I didn't like the second check pending 5 days later. I e-mailed them and gave them a chance to explain, their explanation seemed logical enough. I e-mailed them again, before i made my first public attack. Their explanation for my bad run was; They knew I was a top player, I had to understand that there were a lot of good players on the site, they were sorry that I was so unlucky, and that a times they run advertising campaigns, this brings in a lot of fish and the games thrive, then after all the fish are busted the games get real tough again. Until they told me this, I thought I was playing against some of the worst players that I had ever played against!
Oh Well.
I just bought a 19" monitor. Can someone tell me how to play two games at once on Paradise without swapping back and forth. I overheard someone saying this is possible. Thank you very much if you can help me.
Thanks,
Jim Kuhn
You left click on the bar at the top of the screen and by holding down the mouse button you drag one screen a little up and the other one a little down until they are offset by about 2-3 inches. it will take a little getting used to but I almost never make a mistake with this procedure.
Just separate the two screens enough so that the command buttons don't overlap.
Heck, I play two games at once on my laptop and you KNOW how small that viewing size is.
Diane
You should also consider increasing the screen resolution to higher values. This will make each "poker table" smaller, relative to the screen size.
ty
If you use 1080/1024 resolution you will have two seperate games on a 21" inch monitor. On a 19" there will be some overlap, but it shouldn't be to bad.
Actually, if you use 1152x864, or higher, resolution, it doesn't matter what size your monitor is (17", 19, 21"). You will still see the same amount of pixels, they will just be bigger and easier on the eyes with a larget monitor.
I was looking through my cache of about 1500 hand histories. About 6% of the time the flop was of the same suit, when this should occur about 5% of the time.
There was some analysis of Paradise's flops some time ago and I remember some discussion about 4 suited boards.
Is my sample unrepresntative or is this phenomenon borne out by examination of larger populations?
1500 hands is so little that flops can look quite ridicilous in average. At least compared to my average starting hands they have looked pretty darn ridicilous lately :( :)
Also the long run percentage is almost 5.2%...
I just wish I would see that many single colored flops - folding some marginal hands would reduce my fluctuations quite a bit I think... (as my fluctuations always seem to have a negative sign... :)
I realise that my sample is quite small, I was rather hoping that someone with a larger sample or others with similar sized HISTORIC samples would have a look.
Although you are correct that the long run is 5.177%, it takes quite a unusual distribution of hole cards to start affecting the flop significantly.
There are some quite important but not immediately obvious ramifications if the distribution of suits of hole cards were not to be random.
So I would appreciate anyone with a store of histories having a look at them.
Your figures are within two standard deviations.
Although this appears to be rather academic. The point I was making was that if the flop was random but the hole cards were not, then the hole cards would have to be distributed unusually say 8,5,5,2 in suits to result in 6% suited flops.
I can see no reason why an online poker site would wanted suited flops as players would act cautiously, but there would be logic in giving players suited cards as they would be more likely to stay with marginal hands.
HOW MANY TALES OF WOE DO YOU CLOWNS NEED TO HEAR-before you realize that PARADISE POKER is a criminal enterprise and the fact that this site accepts advertisements from them makes them as equally culpable if not more so because of the stature of the owners. If they want to throw me out of here for my opinions, so be it. this is not Communist Russia, and Sklansky is not Trotsky or is he. Hi M.
...I actually got beat by quads twice on Paradise within the last few hours. The first time I had KK and capped it late position. Someone had 99 and flopped quads. A couple hours later I had 77 on the button and raised in a 6-way pot. The flop came 3,4,5 two spades. Flop was capped by the early position bettor. Turn paired the 4 and completed the flush and it was checked around. River was a glorious 7. Or so I thought. Bet, raise, I reraised, call, quad 4's capped it.
This actually happened, and I still am thick enough to think it was probably random.
As for Sklansky, we will have to leave it to him to say whom he feels it is cooler to be compared to, Trotsky or Stalin.
After the above beatings by quads twice within the space of 2 or 3 hours, I played a little longer then took a break for a few hours. Coming back to the Paradise HE tables, I raised UTG in a semi-short 15-30 HE game with 88. Lo and behold, I flopped quads and won a fair pot.
Bent? Who knows. I'm just dense enough to really believe it was probably luck. But it's true and I requested the hand histories.
Dave,
First of all bravo for the analysis! Posts like yours help to get us closer to the truth about card randomness at Paradise.
I can tell you a simple formula to see if you are within 2 standard deviations from the expected value...this is the most commonly used benchmark used by statisticians to check if actual results are in line with expected results. It also happens to be the benchmark used in US courts to mean "beyond a reasonable doubt" for cases that lend themselves to statistical analysis.
Anyway, one standard deviation = SQRT(npq), where
n = the number of items (in this case flops) analysed p = the probability of getting the desired outcome (in this case a 3-flush) q = 1-p
and SQRT means square root.
So in this case, 1 s.d. = SQRT (1500 * (.0518) * (.9482)) = 8.6
So 2 s.d's = 17.2
The number of 3-flush flops you would expect if the deck were random is 1500 * 0.0518 = 77.7
So an interval of +/- 2s.d.'s is 77.7 +/- 17.2, or
60.5 to 94.9
So if your actual observation falls outside this interval you can conclude that the flops are probably not random. If they fall within the interval, then unfortunately you can't reject the hypothesis that the cards are random.
In this case you observed 6% * 1500 = 90 which falls within the range.
The advantage of taking a larger sample size is that the interval of 2 sd's gets narrower and narrower compared to the number of observations, so you can be more confident of the results.
You've started on the right path and I hope you continue with this type of analysis.
Darryl Parsons
Dave,
I analysed a very large number of hand histories a while ago when Paradise posted the address here of where to get them from. If I remember, there was 40 megs (?) of compressed data. I have a full T1 line with very fast Sun servers and a bunch of nice Unix utilites to munge data.
All data, like card, suit, etc statistics over the large number of hands (it was 5 or 6 or 8 M at the time) looked perfectly as one would expect from a random program.
I would like to see the same data from after the live games started. PP: R U listening?
Mark
Thanks for your comments. Mark, I downloaded the file (5.9m hands - it took an age) but due to my computer ineptitude could not open or unzip it. It tried to use Media Player for some bizarre reason any suggestions?
Dave,
I am trying to be polite, so please do not be insulted:
If you figure out how to unzip -- then do you have the programming skills to do an analysis? My 5 minutes of trying to read even a tiny piece of this (after unzip) into any standard PC program caused my nice new megafast and large PC to get very very sick - forget using excel or other tools like that -- so I moved the data over to my Sun box, wrote some little perl or shell or awk scripts, had the data in good shape in no time.
Trust me, the number of each card -- total, and in each position, is within a miniscule percentage of each other. Once I saw that, plus a bit more, I said "this part is square".
Mark
that was on data that was play money? Your post indicates that you have done nothing with real money data. How can you say that that part is square?
There's no need to be polite about my lack of programming knowledge - I was considering splitting it up into Access tables and running queries, however after what you have said this might not be such a good idea.
I take it from what you said that you did not actually test for such things as suited flops paired flops.
Good God, people, there are enough conspiracy theories floating around on this board to warrant an Oliver Stone movie. In my (limited) experience on Paradise Poker, yes, some flops, turns and rivers seemed questionable.
But when Turbo HE first came out and I played myself silly on that I recall having the same thoughts exactly. We're just all taking a walk down Random Lane, and sometimes it isn't pretty.
A9suited
I like that: "A Walk down Random Lane"
Good post!!!
Mark
Even though I earlier advertised that I'll never spend another penny on Paradise Poker, I decided to give it another try. I have now played about 60 hours of Omaha8 (and some Seven8), at many different levels (since starting this second attempt at beating the games). So far this has happened:
One straigh flush, one Royal flush - about one hour apart - amazingly won both times. Once I flopped aces full of jacks - two callers, so wasn't too afraid of quads....should had been as they were there.... actually I have had quads twice myself over the last couple of days as well - funny how I've only had quads or a straightflush once in real life Omaha (hi only, PL) over the _last six months_).
Early on I went up a bit and actually felt positive on things - however the last two days have been from hell. I have witnessed all the possible drawouts: I've flopped topsets with nutflush draws - a straight is of course the winning hans... in heads up hand I flopped nut low with top two pair - my opponent had the same low and two overcards - whoa, he hits both of them to quarter me (a 2% outdraw...yum), when I have only the top set against one opponent, he always seems to hit his overpair. When I have A2xx the flop is all high, or otherwise bad, only once did I get an ace on the flop with 23xx (2*19 hours of play in two days). Zero times with A3xx did the flop include a deuce. Only once did my nut flush draws make it - unless one counts backdoor flush draws; those I made a couple of times. Funny how the odds work.
Overall, during that 38 table hour period (about 1200 hands or so) I lost more than I had previously though would be possible for me to lose in any limit poker game (bigbetwise) (sure, I've lost more in pot/nolomit games :). Hmm....where did that smiley come from.... must be the beer talking now - I just opened a bottle of nice bitter just to maintain my sanity. It is tough when one scoops 3 pots in 18 table hours period (once with a semibluff on the flop, once everyone folded to my big blind... funny how even in the loose tables sometimes everyone folds to your blind - I was happy to collct that buck or two extra with my regular trash).
Thankfully this beer is helping already - can't remember all the beats, drawouts and especially the zillion missed flops (I think an A2 should hit more than 10% of all the flops it hits for me). Fortunately (?) I also get more paranoid about the shuffling algorith in Paradise... I've play serious poker for almost a decade and only once I've had such draught of hands and especially flops in real life I've had during the last two days - and that time it was cheaper since it was pot limit Omaha (high only) and I just kept folding hour after hour after hour untill I was ready to go home and hit the bed after n hours of nothing.
Food for thought (for all the other paranoid persons/nonpersons): a weighted shuffling algorithm that gives the loose players better board cards than for the tight players would 1. allow the fish to live much longer (and not exceed their credit card limit - hitting the limit a few times may ring alarm bells in some fish), and 2. eventually the fish/rock ratio would go up and most pots would be capped (although even now half of them are already). 3. Great hands make people happier to spend even more. I'm not (yet) implying that PP has such algorithm, but having two ridicilouslty bad runs of cards in relatively short time makes me paranoid.
*glug* ahhhhh....beeer (with my best Homer Simpson imitation).
Totally unrelated issue: I finally got my first AA23 double suited a few nights ago - tat time I was running ok and scooped a nice pot.
What is your worst record at Paradise Poker? Or some other poker site? How does this compare to your worst live play record? Do you think it's because of fraud or because of inferior play and tougher opposition? I certainly have played rather well - actually I've been surprised on how well I've kept my cool - however now it's beer time as I know I had to leave the server for today - I was this close (*keeping my fingers 1" apart) from starting to play (theoretically - in practise I've been losing too much over the last 38 hours...whine whine whine) losing poker.
Another issue: I overheard once that there are house players at Paradise Poker? Can this be true? (if I had an on-line casino, my house players would be bots :) I would myself be surprised if there were (argh, this keyboard is so small and my fingers are like huge weenies), but would like to get some info on this.
Bored already? I'm not yet, nor drunk enough, but getting a bit tired of listeing to my own whining... perhaps it's a time for a game of weiqi now...
(darn, my armpits smell... tomorrow I'm going to kill everyone in PP, if not with cards, then with the smell.)
Next Paradise (or perhaps the opposite) Poker Report will come out in a week or two (assuming I will not go broke over there - I will not risk any more money on something I have little trust on at the moment). And if I go broke, more whining is quaranteed to come from I, me and myself.
*glug* ... more beer, less sanity....
...and *yawn* to you too...
Tried to check out the site and it's nothing but a blank page with a banner ad. Just my browser or is it like this for everyone?
I hate to give "poker analyser" a pug cuz I DON't trust this service. But it can only be viewed with IE. Not netscape.
Me so horny, me love you long time.
The tower of intellect that is Pocker Analyzer is too lazy to put a </TABLE> tag at the end of his table, so Netscape doesn't render it. Workaround: Use View Source to see the HTML, or use some other browser.
The log on system is a bad idea because this thread has run its course and the nuts will go back to their closets. (I just wish George W. would go back in his.)
Besides, if you can't handle a little diversity then you shouldn't be reading posts on newsgroups and websites when you are suppossed to be working.
I also see little need for a log-on system. I suspect the recent rash of imposters is a temporary aberation provoked by the Aslan debate. I've noticed no similar activity in other forums. I visit these forums for the exchange of ideas; verification of identity is not important to me or to most forum participants IMO. I also like to ocassionally post under a unique/humorous handle.
The nuts will leave once they know that Paradise Poker will not ever address the issues in question. Paradise will continue to rip people off as long as grass grows, and the wind blows.
David, I'm quitting this forum, the fake post etc have become so ludicrous... I'll come back when there is a log in.
Are you saying that the inventor of the Internet really didn't post below?
It certainly is interesting that you would make a cute dismissive statement instead of addressing the poster's concern when it is convienient and/or humourous to do so. I mean it's not like it contradicts anything stated on this site. Oh, wait. From the acceptable use policy:
It would be much more accurate if that portion of the acceptable use policy would instead say:
Just a humble suggestion.
Remember me, that kid who flushed away his whole collge bankroll on casino poker games that were way out of my league?
Me love you long time.
That boy was innocent !!!! Plus I am taking my medication everyday now, and feelling much better, thank you.
This is just a test to check if you can really sign any name.
Sorry David
This is ridiculous!!!!!!!! I can sign as David Sklansky (or anybody else and post a message)
Sorry, but it gives any moron a chance to use any well- respected name.
Can this be fixed.
Again, Mr.Sklansky, my apologies for using you name. It's just a test, but it should ring a bell.
If the social security office says that you are dead, how do you prove that you are not?
I think that we should have dossiers made available for every poster. After all, just because you say that you have no economic interest in an entity that refuses to say who owns them, why should we believe you?
This is ridiculous!!!!!!!! I can sign as David Sklansky (or anybody else and post a message)
Sorry, but it gives any moron a chance to use any well- respected name.
Stop posting as other people and we will not take appropriate action. Only children play these games.
Always be your own man as I am and don't suck up to your superiors. I never have and I think that the world knows that.
By the way, I picked Joseph Lieberman to get David's vote. I am desperate.
I have been watching these threads for awhile now as I have been tempted on several occasions to plunge a few bucks into PP.
I do beleive that the integrity of the game with re: to PP is fine, I'm certain that it is in their best interest to ATTEMPT to maintain the highest levels of honesty. That being said please help me with the following. Oh by the way I did go for $300.00 just to check it out and I guess this is why I am questioning this more seriously.
A) What's to stop people from IM ing one another during a game ? There are seceral "instant messaging" programs available and while I was playing my hotmail message popped up that I had received mail.
B) Having a few computers in the same office or whatever and well need I say more.....
C) The telephone, ie conference calls etc.
I don't want to post every suspicion I have but am I just naive and should realize that this is just part of the game or what ?
I would appreciate your comments on this, I have $274 of my original $300 left and am thinking that I should take it and run.
P.S. I am not posting this to offend in anyway, I'm sure that some folks here have vested interest in these games but I am just putting it out there...Thanks
There are numerous threads here and on rgp speaking to the point of collusion, two or more players at the same table playing as a team.
For all intents and purposes it cannot be stopped as you pointed out. However, David Sklansky, in some interesting collusion problems, pointed out that even some of the brightest people on this forum could not discern the best course of action when playing with a partner. So, although people could be talking to their cohorts their subsequent actions might not be all that effective.
Play a tight and agressive game on-line and stick to 3-6 or 2-4 and you should do fine. At theses levels collusion is probably non existant.
Take your $274 and run. I am a 30 year professional and I couldn't beat the game. I played from 10-20 down to 2-4. On line poker is simply not poker. If I couldn't beat it how is a rookie going to win.
Play real poker. Poker is a visual game. If you can't beat a real poker game on line poker is out of the question.
By the way, I experienced serious draw downs about the same time as Ed Hill.
I will not reveal my real identiy because I don't need the heat. You'll just have to take my word for it like everything else you read on the internet.
PS I think Dan Hanson is a real bright guy but there is a God, the universe as we know it is not an accident. How could it be? I have faith and I pray a lot. Have a nice day.
Well being the "rookie" that I am, I cashed out $200. and have a balance of $105.. I'm giddy over my $5.00 streak......LMAO It was fun and I'll play out the $100., who knows maybe I'll even get that back and be able to play a little. I found the 2-4 Om-8 game pretty easy, does that mean I'm in trouble!!!!!!!!
Mississippi Mud wrote:
> Take your $274 and run. I am a 30 year rofessional and I couldn't beat the game. I played from 10-20 down to 2-4. On line poker is simply not poker. If I couldn't beat it how is a rookie going to win.
I know of several players who are beating the game consistently. Myself I have won more in 6 months than I make in my day job. The game can be beaten, no question about it. Maybe its tougher to beat than an average live game. Compared to our local live game, i would say yes, but i live very far from Vegas style games :-)
> Play real poker. Poker is a visual game.
Well, there are pro's and con's to both live and online poker. This abuse of online poker (without any arguments) is not called for. (I play live 150 days a year, so i know both worlds).
> By the way, I experienced serious draw downs about the same time as Ed Hill.
It would be naive to suggest than there is no cheating at online poker. Many methods are at hand. Being able to maintean a steady win rate over 6 months however, the treath doesnt look all that big to me, but then again i might have been lucky to escape most of the con artists. On the other hand, if you have a card room nearby in which you regulary win, while you usually loose on Internett, then the choice of arena should be obvious. If you have no live game available, and are making a profit at the net game even if you suspect there is cheating going on, then it would be hard to stop playing, right?
Right and there's very few games in Florida
not unless you are a cheater yourself. Just ask Mr.Prock how he does at live games( not well), and how he does at internet poker. He has a program that reads all the cards. He does well.
So the only way to win at online poker is to cheat? Wrong. There are so many games where more than 50% of the people are seeing the flop/4th street. You are going to tell me NONE of these games are beatable? These players are obviously making mistakes. I think good players can (and do) capitalize on these mistakes, just as they do in live games.
The only way to win at poker long term is to cheat. Poker players are sleazy, unethical, usually drug addicted slime that would slit your throat for 50 bucks in a dark alley to get a buy in. There you have it.
xx
You must be a real loser at life itself!
....and you don't recognize scarcasm. Get a clue.I guess people that feel guilty tend to take scarcasm for true intentions.
Sorry!! I did think you were serious.
sarcasm is useless if it has no intelligent thought to it
and your comments had none
LOL
After thinking about your response I was correct the 1st time. Sorry about the sorry! You are a LOSER!!!!
You are a PEDOPHILE!..have fun in prison..pal....
Why don't you post your name & email? Cowards should be barred!!
The poster's statement, though meant to be scarcastic per his reply..turns out to be the truth. None of you degenerates have an ounce of integrity, and are no different than common street hustlers in your quest for ill gotten gains. Do something more honorable for a hobby. Go sell used cars.
It is my strong belief that all Paradise games are beatable, except for one on one tables (the rake there is downright ridiculous, shame on Paradise).
Angelina Fekali
I play alot of online poker in low limits and I am a consistent winner.
If you have the patience and the ability there isn't a poker game you can't crack on the net.
"Crack" is probably just the right word :)
On Aug.6 at 5:43 PM Poker Analyzer posted the following under his response "Re: Our Information"
"...6. We are not associated with a player "Aslan" in any way other than he is registered with our service. In any case, this is irrelevent to our service.
What arguments do you have against our service?"
(Note the misspelling of "irrelevent"
On July 31 at 4:49 PM, in a post entitled "Re: another friendly response..where's Mason?", Aslan posted the following:
"Matt, please don't clutter the important thread with irrelevent accusations."
I think Aslan just answered Poker Analyzer's question, "What arguments do you have against our service?"
*
*
Consider for a moment the deluge of cash pouring into the coffers of Paradise Poker. I have seen the figure of $ 150,000.00/day mentioned on this forum - whatever the case, anyone can plainly see that its a huge amount of income. Now consider the costs of establishing and then maintaining an online cardroom - particularly as compared to a comparable venu in the real world. I am not familiar at all with the costs relating to a business such as Paradise Poker, but I would wager they are a fraction of those of large California card rooms. No multi-million dollar facilities, no electricity, air conditioning, food services etc etc.In addition to the money saved by not having to hire real dealers or use real cards, the online cardroom can churn out hands at speeds no real cardroom could ever approach - further pumping up their hourly take. So my question is why none of these online rooms have adopted a longer range view ( or even just to compete! ) and lowered the rake in these games ? I played heads-up 3-6 holdem one day at Paradise; after ten minutes I was even and the other guy was stuck $10 - we were paying an hourly rate of $60 to play head up 3-6! I told him to forget it, it was pointless to play. I can understand the greed of Paradise Poker, what I don't understand is why none of the competing operators are greedy enough to grab all the money they would get by offering games at half the price they are now. They would win legions of players from Paradise and from the live games, and make nothing but money. If I had the capability and resources I would do it myself tommorrow.
I am surprised at the lack of competition. It certainly seems like a nice setup. I'm not so sure I agree with your analysis of the costs of running a poker room though. I think that many rooms are profitable or damn close due to the variety of things that you can buy, particularly the ones that sell alcohol. I agree with you and would like to look at the costs of starting an inernet poker sight.
P.S. You think "the Godfather" will be a cost of doing business ???
I didn't intend to imply that "real" cardrooms aren't profitable - there's no question that many are VERY profitable - ergo if they can make good money with their comparatively huge overhead, why are we paying comparable, or near comparable rates to play online where operators do business at a fraction of the cost of larger cardrooms in the real world.
The reason that the rake remains the same at all the online Casinos is that they wouldn't make more money if they lowered their rake. Paradise obviously has no incentive to do it since a 33% reduction in the rake wouldn't increase the number of hands played by the same amount. Planet is the only other cardroom with a significant number of games and the reasoning is the same for them as for Paradise. As for the other cardrooms they have trouble getting more than one game and that would still be true even if they lowered their rake. Game selection and availability are more important to most players.
The average poker player whether online or live isn't as rake sensitive as most people believe. The 5% , $3 max rake is less than most people pay in live cardrooms and that is what most players will compare it to.
A good example of this was here in Toronto when the charity casinos were running. The busiest games were the ones that charged 5% to $10 max at a 10/20 game. Not the $5 per half hour time fee games. Most poker players are ignorant and that's why the game thrives.
I do wish the rake were lower but I don't see it happening since it wouldn't be in the best long term interest for Planet or Paradise to do it and the other online cardrooms just don't matter yet.
Bob Masternak
I do wish the rake were lower but I don't see it happening since it wouldn't be in the best long term interest for Planet or Paradise to do it and the other online cardrooms just don't matter yet. I believe this analysis is incorrect for the following reasons. Eventually there will be serious competition to Paradise Poker whether it be from existing competition or from sites that haven't hit the market yet. These new sites will offer much more in the way of graphics and interface and will have a much lower rake. How does a $1 rake per hand sound? Paradise would very much find it in their best long term interest to lower the rake before the competition starts taking very big swings at them. $150,000 a day is enough to make people offer serious alternatives. By lowering the rake immediately they will cut off many attempts at those trying to make inroads on their market. I know I would certainly try a site that offered a $1 per hand rake. Poker players have long memories. If Paradise waits to lower the rake because a new site started attracting some of their customers this would be viewed as too little too late. "If you loved us so much why did you wait so long to treat us right?" Paradise Poker has all the business. I can't tell you how many cardrooms that had all the business at one time or another went out of business. Nothing lasts forever.
Why should the profit Paradise Poker earns have anything to do with their cost of doing business?
Their quality of service is excellent. I'd bet it's because they have top rate computer professionals working on their software every day, along with a team of dedicated customer service reps. It's also because they invested substationally in developing the site. It's also because they were willing to take the risk of establishing themselves in Costa Rica.
How much money did the guy make who invented the Pet Rock? Profits don't have much to do with costs. It's your ideas and guts that matter.
Anyone is free to FIND the capital (or someone who has it), move to another country, and develop a competitive site. I'm not that greedy, and am happy making what I do at the table.
What makes you think it's all that cheap to run Paradise Poker?
I have some idea of the software development costs involved, and it's substantial. I'd guess they have a number of developers, each probably making $75K per year or more. How many they have is anyone's guess, but that software is not a hack that some guy can knock out on his own in a couple of months.
Then there is the cost of maintaining a high bandwidth connection to Costa Rica. Again, without analyzing the size of the data stream to each person I wouldn't hazard a guess, but I can guarantee it's a substantial chunk of change.
They are also subsidizing the credit card purchases with the rake, since they credit the service fees back to the players. That's at least 5% of the buy-in.
They also probably have a pretty substantial IT infrastructure. I don't know how many simultaneous games one server can handle, since I haven't seen their software. But it's possible that they have dozens of servers supporting all the games, plus serving up the web pages that people are hitting.
Then there is the financial infrastructure. Thousands of checks being cut, tons of paperwork, etc.
Customer Service. How many requests do they have to handle personally? People complain, they have to respond. That's a significant cost. For all I know, they have 20 operators working full-time on that.
Large commercial web pages are not nearly as cheap as many people think. I have some experience in this, and I can tell you that the costs mount rapidly. A large E-commerce site like buy.com can costs tens of millions of dollars to build, and they aren't nearly as computationally-intensive as something like running a live poker game.
Advertising. That's not cheap either. They have it reasonably good here being in a 'vertical market' where advertising is relatively cheap. But even so, a full page ad in something like Poker Digest is no doubt several thousand dollars. How many magazines do they advertise in? How many banner ads to they have sprinkled around the net?
Almost everyone underestimates the cost of running an E-commerce site, including the people who build and run them. Amazon has hundreds of millions invested, and has yet to turn a profit.
Payback to investors - initial funds to develop a multi-million dollar site doesn't grow on trees. The people who put up the money expect a pretty good return on their capital.
The fact that no one has dropped their rake significantly suggests to me that they are probably not raking in profits as fast as you think.
Our company runs a relatively small web site as part of a much larger collection of web sites. Our site is fairly simple, with mostly static pages and very little active content. Still, developing and maintaining it ties up four full-time people, several servers, a T1 connection, and a bunch of other subsidiary staff members part-time. Probably half a million a year. And it's not even in the same ballpark as a site like Paradise poker.
Oh poor Paradise. I guess they should increase the rake, if you are right. Of course you support them in every post. They could go a long way towards legitimacy if they would publish their ownership, and balance sheetes. They never will. Oh poor Paradise....
I never said anything about Paradise being poor or in hardship. My guess is that they make a good profit. I was trying to explain why it's possible that the other sites that are struggling haven't lowered their rake.
> Oh poor Paradise. I guess they should increase the rake, if you are right. Of course you support them in every post. They could go a long way towards legitimacy if they would publish their ownership, and balance sheetes. They never will. Oh poor Paradise....
Do you know the ownership and balance sheets of the corner grocery store (not the big chain, but the local one)? Of MYOB. If they don't want to publish it, that's their prerogative -- they are not publicly traded, and are under no obligation to confirm who owns it, much less how profitable it is. It is your prerogative to either play there or not, based on that knowledge.
If they have the audacity to justify a high rake, then they should do so with real information, and not poor me stories.
What? re-read the thread. PP isn't attempting to justify the rake. Neither is anyone trying to with "poor me" stories. Some clueless people claim they should. Point is they don't need to and aren't under any obligation to.
People keep playing there.
*
Lets do some simple calculations: assuming that they have (Paradise) 24 hour action, 30 money tables open in average all the time (at the moment there were 30 and now is quiet time of day), and lets assume that the rake is in average only $1.5. And lets assume the average number of hands per hour is 30 (it is actually much more than this) According to my pocket calculator this comes to $32.000 per day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year - a whopping $12 million each year (and that's just about the absolute minimum estimate) - I find it hard to believe that they could not lower the rake and still make more money in a month than I will in hundred years.
Yes, I am a sucker as I still am playing there, but since I have real hard time winning even a single session on even the lowest limits (well, I've not tried the 0.5-1 limit) and I have no trouble beating middle limit Texas Hold'em in Vegas (beating 10-20 while getting really drunk is as easy as ABC...then again, I tighten up when I drink and play), it looks like I'm only going to play for a few more days untill I go broke again, and I definately will not sent any more money in that place (or any other online poker room). I just don't have too much confidence on the integrity of Paradise Pokers shuffling algorithm. Collusion doesn't seem to be a problem - I've never witnessed anything that would suggest that it were a major threat.
Time to go and drink a couple of pints....
1) I think everyone seriously underestimates the cost of running a highly reliable e-commerce enterprise. I haven't been playing long (I only play on the play money tables), but it's been up everytime I've played. Some companies have trouble keeping a simple web site up, much less a full service gaming server(s). Software development doesn't come cheap, nor does a reliable, redundant IT infrastructure.
2)What socialist country is everybody from? PP will charge whatever rake the market will bear. Who cares how much they make? If you feel like you're paying too much, then take your money elsewhere. Why does everybody feel like that they should be entitled to a "discount"? "PP obviously makes a lot of money and therefore should give up all their profits back to you!" What kind of thinking is that?
And you're right, nothing lasts forever (except for death and taxes, of course) and therefore PP should milk it for all its worth.
Neither you nor I have a clue about the costs of running Paradise. Amazon grossed something like 500 million last year, and they lost money. Revenue isn't everything.
Perhaps Paradise is making 10 million off the 12 million in rake, or perhaps they're barely breaking even. I really don't know. I was simply pointing out that running an E-commerce site can be a lot more expensive than a 'back of the envelope' calculation might suggest.
The only real evidence I have is the fact that the other poker sites, all of whom dearly want to be much bigger, have not lowered their rake. Not even as a one-time special. That suggests to me that there is more cost in this than you might think, since it would be an easy competitive tactic.
Knowing something about capitalist economics, I can tell you that there are NO companies that make money hand over fist without attracting competitors like flies. Eventually, the price of a product drops to the point where the marginal return on investment is commensurate with the risk. Paradise may be benefitting from a head-start in development, but if it truly is making a fortune then it won't last. Someone WILL lower their rake and take Paradise's business at some point.
Actually there is one publicly traded company involved with Internet poker, Poker.com. The symbol is PKER.OB. I would suggest anyone who is interested in the profitibility of this business to have a look a the most recent 10Q for pker.ob. Very interesting report as there are huge gross margins.
The payoff to Paradise as with most websites comes with volume, as certain fixed costs (software development being one big one) are spread over an increasing revenue stream. Unless their incremental cost of each dollar revenue is greater then the dollar of revenue itself, (which is very unlikely to be the case) then Paradise will benefit by increased sales.
One common way to do this is to reprice the service, up or down, to increase margin. Sometimes this means cutting prices (Walmart, for example), and sometime it means keeping prices very high (Premium Scotch). In both cases the seller is pricing to maximize their profit. It follows that Paradise will do the same.
By your estimates Paradise now must deal 8 million hands per year to gross $12 mil annually, at $1.50 average rake per hand. What we do not know is how much the cost of dealing those 8 million hands is.
We also do not know the incremental cost of each dollar. However, one can be quite sure that if Paradise could increase their profit by having a sale, they would.
There may also come a time when they can charge a higher rake then they do now, and make more profit by doing so. (For example, individuals with no recourse to any poker may be willing to pay a lot higher rake)
The fact that pricing has not changed, dispite increasing competition, is some evidence that the product is reasonably priced.
And one other point: you underestimate yourself when you say that even with a lower rake they would make more money in a month then you would in a hundred years. By your estimates they gross 1.2 mil per month. You would earn this much in one hundred years at a rate of $6.00 per hour??..........
I agree with a lot of your points. It's a business that should scale up real well. If I remember correctly Planet Poker has trouble handling the number of players they do get now. If this is the case it only stands to reason that they would maintain their current rake structure or perhaps even raise it. I do think that sooner or later the rake will come down on at least one of these sites.
One thing about increased competition, even though there are more sites coming on line they may not be able to handle the volume of players. There is a lot of competion in other areas related to the internet but the market is so big that they are all making money.
Because they can n/t
Mr Sklanski, I some recent posts you have stated that only about 5-10 percent of the online players will win money. The rake coupled with bad play will get the rest. I play low limit holdem on line and up to this point I am a consistent winner at 1.5 BB per hour in 3-6 games (4500) hands.
My winning pot percentage is 48% when I pay to see the flop. Here is the question. How much is the rake effecting me when I am in so few pots?
A lot of posters at RGP claim that you cannot beat a low limit game, the rake will eventually eat you up. My results, although limited, say different. Am I just fooling myself and wasting my time?
Thanks in Advance
Your results are extraordinary. You must be a better player than Sklansky himself. You should write a book.
Are they? I have no baseline to judge my results. I believe my strategy is sound, but is 4500 hands enough to predict what will happen in the future?
In real life poker room you can beat 3-6 games as long as the rake is capped at a level similar to LV poker rooms. In on-line poker rooms...who knows. Anyhow, most people do not win in any poker game, regardless of the level of game.
You also seem to get rather good flops (compared to me) - I wonder where you are playing?
I use Lee Jones. 1. I need to be in there with players who play second or bottom pair two overcards top pair with bad kicker 2. I raise very little preflop. I disguises my hand and I don't invest much preflop. 3. When I have the lead, I make them pay and they frequently do. 4. Release second best 5. Don't bluff unless you are cornered That's about it.
Against poor players: why do you disguise your hand? It costs money.
My problem in PP is not bluffing too much: I rarely bluff unless I can bluff with positive expectation. And in the loose low limit games in PP, there usually is no point in bluffing.
Releasing lost hands: that is as easy as ABC in PP - fortunately I rarely have a hand worth releasing...
The two times a night I have the best hand, my opponents sure do pay for seeing it: for some odd reason the button always seems to raise in the games I play so check-raise is my best friend. However I rarely have the best hand as floppoing anything is really tough in PP for me at least.
I thnk you said earlier that you won close to 50% of all the hands where you saw the flop? In my opinion this is very much. Either you only play big pairs or you do get rathter good flops in average, especially considering the fact that in lower limits you get several opponents every hand you play.
Not raising pre-flop only costs you money if the total amount of money by raising exceeds the total amount of money by not raising. Often this is not the case.
I mentioned earlier that I use Lee Jones starting hands.
In the games I play there are usually less than 4 players seeing the flop, me and two other players. Is it unreasonable to expect to win 48% of the time against two players, I don't think so.
Simply put, a 3-6 game raked at 5% with a cap at $3 (like Paradise Pokers) should be beatable, since you are not giving out any toke money. Would you consider a 5% rake game with a $2 cap beatable, if you were toking on average $1/hr (a reasonable amount)? I think I would. They key is playing tight and winning a very high percentage of the time when you do see the flop, (which your results indicate). However, after 4500 hands, or about 90 hrs worth of play, you don't have nearly enough sample data to say conclusively whether you can beat this game at this rate over the long term.
x
z
Its amusing that a guy labled Sklansky "El Supremo", in a manner that reminds one of the cult of the personality generated by totalitarian regimes on both the left and right(Stalin,Franco, Peron). Sklansky liked it. Others here use it as a source for adulation and praise. Jim Jones would not be more pleased if he saw techniques which induce blind obediance used so smoothly.
Dear Mr. Amusing Sychophants,
We are unworthy of your divine presence, and now see the light. We recognize the danger, which you have pointed out to us, of sychophantic adulation. Had you not graced us with your most poweful words of wisdom, word which pentrate to our very souls and bring to us an energy and a light which induce loving tears of joy, we would still be groveling in our ignorant hero-worshiping ways. Please let us know what to do next. We await your further direction.
--Your humble servant
Hetron, thanks very much. How many more hands would be required to confirm that I can beat this game?
Mark this is a tough question to answer because of multiple factors involved. If on average you are considering that you get about 60 hands per hour in a typical paradise poker 3-6 holdem game, then you have 90 hours worth of results so far. You may play in games that are faster or slower on average. Also, there is the standard deviation of your win rate. Standard deviation is the measure of fluctuation in your win rate from hour to hour. The lower the fluctuations in your win rate (the less violent the swings in your bankroll), the less hours you need to calculate with relative assurance that you are beating the game long term, provided that you are a winning player. The devil is in the details and for that I think you would be better served to look at both one of 2+2 books dealing with this subject, look at the archives on this board, or consult with one of the posters who has more of a statistical background than me and my one college level prob and stat class. However, just so I don't leave you totally hanging, from what I have read in the past, I think that a player winning at the rate of 1.5 BB/hr with a low standard deviation could say that this is an indicative rate with high confidence after about 500 hours of play. At 60 hands per hour, you would need about 30,000 hands.
Hetron, thanks again. At this rate, it will take me 7 more months. If I am right, that will be a pretty sweet bankroll to take to the next level. 7 months it is. I have been working on my swings, which I keep track off. Slowly but surely I have been improving in that area. One of my biggest problems is that my losing sessions are longer than my winning sessions on average. Just don't know when to quit.
There is about a 15% chance that a break even player would achieve your result (or better) in 4500 hands. It is very important, however, to understand that the above statement is not equivalent to "There is only a 15% chance that you are no better than a break even player". Unfortunately you cannot say that. This is an important distinction that confuses even many good statistics students.
For instance suppose you thought you could predict coin flips. I flip a coin three times and you get it right all three. You can say that there was a 12.5% chance that someone with no predictive talent would achieve that result. You cannnot say that there is an 87.5% chance that you have that talent.
David, Since it is a slow day, one more thing. I have also tracked my mistakes, when I threw money into the pot when I felt I did not have the best of it and lost. I did not track the $ made from mistakes when I won, however it wasn't very frequent when I won from mistakes. The total of my mistakes slightly exceeds my winnings. Is it fair to look at that number as profit lost and by not allow that number to continue to be equal to my winning my BB per Hour ratio to go up accordingly?
You win 48% of flops you take? Am I the only on that thinks this is impossible to do unless you wait for AA or KK? And if you did this, you certainly would not be winning at the rate you say.
Please explain how you calculate these stats.
Adam.
48% is accurate, however I do not count a free ride in the big blind unless I call a raise preflop or pay to see the turn. If I win with a free ride in the BB, I count the win and the record that I did see the flop. I see the flop every 5.9 hands. Which is 17% of the time. I am amazed at the percentage as well, hence the post.
One thing that paradise poker lies about on there site is that 5.25% fee and that in there words they do not participate in this fee. I have owned many businesses store front and internet and can tell you the credit card processing fees range from 1 1/2% to 2 % I realize they credit you back later throught the rake with the points. But I dont like them saying they dont particiapte in their fee when they are.
While this fee is not friendly I would not compare them to any old credit card fee since it's a third party service using software(third party) and secure server (third party) with encryption.
Some versions of Netscape could not see our site. The problem has been fixed. You can access it from both Netscape and IE.
Victor www.pokertools.20m.com
/
I did a quick scan for my toughest opponents, as well as myself, in the available players list. Only one was there...
We published only names with a thousand hands or more. We are accumulating histories on many more players. If you give us a list of players you wanted to see we could tell you how many hands we currently have for them.
On your website you encourage people who have statistic suggestion to ask for them.
I have a stat I wouldn't mind:
The percentage of people who send you their credit card info who later on have problems with somebody using it illegaly?
I have another statistical question for you. The answer might help those who are wondering if your service would be beneficial them.
I can't imagine you came up with the idea for this service without actually playing yourself as well. Given that, as you say, you are not Aslan, how much do you still play and what is your hourly rate of earnings? Most importantly, how much has your hourly rate improved since you analyzed all these hand histories?
I usually come from work very late, so I play, perhaps, once or twice a week for 2-3 hours. Usually 5-10/10-20 hold'em. My play has definitely improved much after studying the hand histories. The point is: the same information is available to you for a very small fee.
One might expect that your play would improve after studying hand histories.
Has your hourly winning rate improved also? What is it now? What was it before you started studying hand histories? How many hands for real money have you played on Paradise Poker?
...although perhaps I am to blame here for asking a leading question.
As we mentioned earlier we do not even see the credit card information - you enter it directly on Amazon.com. Plus you can always send us a check. Many people just forward us 1000 hand histories (just forward 10 e-mails) and use $20 credit to get a monthly subscription.
The only way to fix "the problem" would be to assassinate Aslan.
This will be my last post on this message board.
Whoever is impersonating me, you win.
I have never posted here, but a player online mentioned this site when they thought I was someone else.
My handle online is tbill, so anyone who plays with me can judge if I'm a poor player. I don't believe I am, and I'd like to state a few things about Paradise.
I am currently playing both the 5-10 and 10-20 games aat paradise.
Although the 5-10 games has many loose multiway pots, the 10-20 games don't. I believe that there are some irregularities with the software though.
My best guess after many hours in these games is that the deal is truly random, but that the remaining cards dealt are correlated to the hands being played.
It sounds crazy even too me, but besides the bad play there are very few hands where at least two players don't hit the flop in some way, while in my live game experience this just isn't reality.
At first I felt ,for a long time that this phenomenon was due to a possible higher percentage of players in the hands, but I feel that I have watched closely as I have played, and found this to be true in the higher games with less players in.
I have won money, and I have lost money, currently down roughly $600.00 over all, which really isn't much, so I'm not posting this to whine about losing money.
I'm truly concerned that there might be a flaw (intentional or not) with the software, but if I'm right I would tend to believe that it is intentional.
There are of course hands where someone raises and nobody calls etc, but it seems that when the pot reaches X amount of dollars, everyone gets a piece of the flop.
I suppose i should tell you people a little bit about me. I am 44 years old and have been playing for roughly 20 years.
I truly don't want to sound like a paranoid loser. it has taken me a while to arrive at this point, and I have questioned myself quite a bit along the way.I'm not mad at anyone, and probably I'm going to continue to play , but on a very limited basis. I realize that without any proof my comments are basically smoke, but I'm wondering if anyone else is having similar thoughts. If this has been covered before, then excuse me, I don't go to these sites much.
Your response will be welcomed........I think.
tbill
YES, there is a problem, and yes it is intentional, and yes i now have to believe that SkLANSKY and his buddies are fully aware of the problem and because they are being supported by PARAdISE POKER THEY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING ABOUT IT. I REPEAT MY OFFER OF 50,000 PLUS EXPENSES TO THE INDIVIDUAL(S) WHO CAN SHUT DOWN THEIR SERVERS. THERE IS NO PROBLEM WITH BREAKING THE LAW BECAUSE PARADISE IS OPERATING IN VIOLATION OF EXISTING U.S. LAWS. THEY MUST BE STOPPED BEFORE THEY DESTROY THE ENTIRE POKER COMMUNITY!
Here is the breakdown: Me $ 2700 per week. Dan Hanson $1800 per week. M $1500 per week. Don't tell Mason.
Neal, I was hoping for a more balanced response.
Are you saying that Mr Sklansky is involved? I would seriously doubt that. But I would like to hear why or what you think is happening at Paradise, as I'm still doubting my own conclusions.
If there is no intelligent life here at this site I will be happy to move on.
tbill
It is hard to recieve a balanced response from an unbalanced person.
oh please, if this is what I'm in for here I'll give up. Name calling is about as unbalanced as it gets. Is there one intelligent person on this site, or should I use the name Ed Hill to get a realistic response?
Sorry t-bill I was not referring to you but to neilross's crazy posts.
If you give up that readily how do you expect to ever win at poker?
I have to go to play No-limit or pot-limit now at Foxwoods. Upom my return I'll address your questions if others have not already done so.
I thought Dan Hanson and I were supposed to be getting the same amount!!!
because he doesn't participate in the Paradise debates as much as others. Give him $1.87 per week and I'm sure he'll be happy.
.
US laws... violation of US laws... I did not know that Costa Rica is a member of USA.
First of all let me assure you there is intelligent life on the 2+2 Forum. The Internet Forum of late has been the Forum of choice for most of the pranksters here.
The questions you pose about Paradise in partcular and online poker in general have been bandied about here for more than a year. The many fine minds of 2+2 who contribute here have no documentable answers for you.
In order to determine if something is out of the realm of possibility, statistically speaking, you would need a very large sample of hands to analyze. This is quite difficult to accomplish without hundreds of thousands of hand histories.
I understand you have your doubts about the honesty of the game. You're in very good company.
By the way, to fully appreciate the incredible wealth of talent that stalk these forums post a few hands you've played or misplayed on the appropriate forums. You'll be amazed.
As a addendum to my post below, after playing many hours you see the same names day in and out,.... but when you are sitting in games with names you have never seen, suddenly strange drawouts etc abound. These names disapear, then new ones come along. Its only when the the game is full of non regular names that some really unorthodox hands arise.
Are these simply new players, playing 10-20 for the first time? This is a question I believe many people have.
Generally new poker players will play more conservative even if they aren't playing correctly. The unorthodox plays I have seen include aggressive play against opponents who obviously are holding superior hands, yet the 3 outer wins. Are these house bots ? You tell me.
tbill
I can't tell you if they are house bots. You'd better ask Neal about that.
tbill, glad you found us 5-10 at paradise is far easier to beat than the 10-20 IMO. the unfamiliar names you refer to are likely newbies attracted by ads - paradise claims that many new players come aboard at the start of each month. they make crazy calls pre-flop and post-flop and some do get lucky short-term. often by the third week or so most are tapped out resulting in games with 'familiar' names, like tbill, and churchlady, who play a fairly standard, solid game. if paradise were to use house-bots, I don't think they'd have them win in such radically controversial ways.
I am a regular poster here but under a different name - I used churchlady in this post as that is the name I play under @ paradise - hence no e-mail address.
Churchlady is right - I have seen some unbelievably bad play from two unfamiliar names recently. One of them called every hand. (He/She played like a bot programmed to call but never raise!!) The $200 dollars was gone in about 5 circuits of the table.
Taking up your post below I can see how you would get the impression that the flop was "set up" to create action. I have almost been thinking that myself recently.
I went through a 100 hand history from the 7th August. I played 12 hands voluntarily (loose or what) only three action hands were AQo UTG against 55 in BB. I hit an Ace on the flop he hit a set. JTs late, three jacks lose to J9o house. The finest moment was my raise with AQo in the SB being called by the BB with 23o - flop is A45. I think have have two other hand histories from recent times showing similar.
It's hard to accept when these things happen a lot in a short period of time, but I just try not to let it affect my efforts to improve my game. If I look back at a session and can't see any mistakes (very rare)then I know I've spent my time profitably, win or lose.
One of the twenty or so players who have told me they are doing well at Paradise Poker just e-mailed me with the information that he is now more than $30,OOO ahead. I am speaking of someone familiar to many of you. Just this one fact makes it inconceivable that serious cheating is going on unless the cheaters are for some reason avoiding this individual.
I,ve been considering online poker for some months now so I've been interested in the debates as to the integrety of online poker. For me to play online I have to buy a new computer( mines old). I have no real interest in computers to justify such a purchase other than to play poker. I have been cheated in the past at live action and I am not convinced that online would be safe. I do not believe that the operators would cheat just players. If someone can hack the Pentagon, how hard would it be to get in here. I'm completly ignorant about computers. I'm sure that if my computer was up to snuff I'd shoot a thousand or so but I'm not ready to buy a new computer just to check it out. I will continue to follow the debate.
Ed I,
If you do buy a computer make sure it has enuf megabites, ram, and all that other stuff for running Paradise or Planet. The frustration of having your computer shut down in the middle of a hand about every half hour or less drove me crazy. I have AOL and it stinks but I would recommend Cable or Better for a hook-up. Talk to someone who has no problems with their hook-up and ask what they have before making a large investment.
paul
A very good friend of mine who also happens to be a top notch player began playing at Planet Poker a mere 10 days ago and is up over 16k. He spends most of his time in the shorthanded tables.
I have played about 180 hours on Paradise this year and can't seem to buy a win. I am now down $2500. On the other hand, in live play here in Vancouver, I am currently riding a 31 session winning streak. Every session has been between 6 and 10 hours as when it's poker night for me, I go to play - not just to take a win and run.
There are probably several reasons why my results at Paradise are nowhere near as good as live play. These are the reasons as I see them:
1. I must rely on tells a lot more than I thought. In live play, I generally have a good feel for the game and am able to read hands with a fair degree of accuracy. On the net, I am "lost" more often than not.
2. I raise preflop with AK. 3 rags fall. "JimBillyJoeBob" on seat 9 raises me. I don't have the foggiest what he has got. Put him in the Vancouver game and in a couple of sessions, I am going to have a pretty good read on what he is doing.
In other words, my live opponents are known to me. While I am also known to them, I would venture to say that I put my knowledge to better use than most of my opponents do. On the net, I don't know them and that hurts more than whatever benefit I derive from them not knowing me.
3. E-tilt. For reasons that I still can't figure out, I tilt way more on the net. In fact, I rarely ever tilt in live play. On the other hand, in almost every net session, I have played a hand or two on tilt; I have also gone FBT (i.e. full blown tilt) on a couple of occasions. For some reason, it is just easier to assume that guys are always bluffing on the net.
Some others I have spoken with have said the same thing: It is way too easy to E-tilt.
4. Paradise has some world class players. Not many of those in my neck of the woods.
5. Possible collusion between players (although this is clearly a less important reason than the others listed above).
Having played only about 180 hours, I am certainly not yet going to concede that I can't beat the Paradise game. Although to beat it, I certainly have to overcome reasons 1, 2, and 3 above.
I am amazed at the paranoia sweeping this board as to cheating orchestrated by Paradise Poker. While it is not impossible, it is highly unlikely. As you say, there are guys that are beating the hell out of the games.
Those of you who are losing on the net need to take stock of your own game rather than using possible cheating as an excuse for your poor results.
I would also add this: Many winning players even in live play have gone through long lean stretches. They think nothing of it: They know that it is just a bad run. They know they have won before and will win again once the cards turn around for them. On the other hand, if they began losing when they first started playing at Paradise, they don't have any prior winning record at Paradise to help them keep things in perspective. Thus, it becomes easy to externalize the reasons for losing.
BTW, this whole board is a bit of a joke to be quite honest. I am just glad that most of the nutcases that post here don't post on the HE board.
I'm confused by Sklansky's proclamation. The fact that David S. knows someone that's winning 30k doesn't mean anything. Actually, there should be lots of people winning this much. David should know of at least five or ten people winning 30k. If he only knows of one then that means there really must be something funny going on.
< This is the reason that Poker Analyzer has been developed. It gives you information about your opponents.
pokertools.20m.com
I would refer you to my post on this board from about 3 weeks ago. I list many of the same reasons for why some successful live game plyers might find difficulty beating the games online. If I can find this post I will repost it here, since I think it would do many of the doubters some good to read it. As far as the nutcases, they can't be converted anyway, so it probably won't help them.
.n/t
These Sklansky brown noses will never stop taking direction from "El Supremo". No intelligent discusiion of organized criminal activity can take place here as long as "El Supremo" gets money from the culprits.
Skp,
This was a great post. I agree most strongly about the going on tilt, it is the main reason my play has improved so much. I have tried and tried to NOT let myself get crazed when I lose to some horrible suckout. I think that there are strong psychological forces in a live game to stop this for me, but not online.
Mark
I have been personally watching some of the players at the higher limits at Paradise for many many hours of play, just on the sidelines ready for an assault in the near future. I can absolutely say there is some excellent players there, who by my admittedly unscientific test, are definitely winning. Overall there are several players even at 10 20 who cleary have a limited understanding of the game, and these better players are eating them up. Just my thoughts. I dont have a million hands crunched in a mega computer.
If the player that David speaks of was not a known player, then I would take notice.
But if there is anything corrupt happening at Paradise it would stand to reason that they wouldn't want someone who everyone would expect to win, saying that they lost. So even if Paradise is totally a straight house, this doesn't prove it, or even come close.
Give us the names of some unknowns who are beating the games.
I am an unknown ( except to my family-lol) and I am a 36k winner on paradise since they opened. I do not discount the possibility that funny business could occur but I feel that paradise is striving to run a clean operation, they are making a fortune on the square it would be stupid to cheat. See my post above about the flucuations.
I am an unknown (to some) and have handily beaten the games. Some may know me, but I am certainly not a "known" figure in the poker community. I've seen lots of crazy suckouts, possible collusion, and just some downright strange things, but the games at Paradise are certainly beatable.
-ActionBob
OK, I've been "lurking" here for several months now and I just wanted to give my two cents on the whole Paradise Poker paranoia.
I have a casino approximately 15 miles away which hosts a 19 table poker room; unfortunately, my working there prohibits me from playing. Therefore, online poker is it for me with the exception of the occasional 2 hour drive to play live.
I began my foray into online poker two years ago after first hearing about Planet Poker. I quickly lost over 1,800 and realized that I knew VERY little about the game. It was time to delve into this game a bit deeper before playing more. At the time, I naturally had suspicions that perhaps something was amiss, but that still didn't discount the fact that I needed to learn the game better before playing more.
Since that time I have logged what must be over 2,000 hours of live casino poker and have become a modest winning player. My next venture into the online realm was February of this year; again at Planet Poker. My results were similarly disappointing. But about the middle of April a friend at work suggested I give Paradise poker a shot.
My first few weeks were absolutely horrible and I quickly lost about 900 playing 2-4 and 3-6 holdem. I was frustrated to say the least! The fluctuations I experienced were phenomenal!! I too began screaming "rat" at the top of my lungs to everyone who would listen.
One day at work I was discussing my poor online results with a poker buddy and he simply said one thing: "You're playing too loose." "But I'm not a loose player!", I replied. And he knew this to be true......of live play!! Since taking that sagely advice to heart, I've had truly winning results at Paradise. I have made back my initial 960 buy-in and am currently ahead to the tune of roughly 3,000. I know that isn't anywhere near the grand figure that David tossed out there, but I only play 2-4!
I am now convinced beyond any doubt that Paradise Poker is on the square. In the roughly 500 hours that I have played there, I have only seen one questionable case of possible collusion (so obviously I don't play when those two are in the game). Their customer service staff has always been courteous and prompt. All this combined with the speed of their games will keep me playing there for QUITE some time.
As for all this talk about conspiracy, management cheating, and twoplustwo.com being in cahoots with some PP scandal; I seriously hope you guys are not serious. However, if you are, simply don't play online and leave the serious poster alone before this site becomes like RPG!
It is conceivable that cheating exists and that this player was cheated. Why couldn't s/he have won 45,000. As long as the cheaters did not focus on this player, the player may not notice or care if s/he was cheated. I believe that most players will play in a game that they can beat easily even if they know that the game has cheaters/colluders.
note: There exists a player that wins 30,000 on paradise does not imply that there is no cheating nor does it imply that if there is serious cheating that this player is being avoided
some of you will recognize my handle. i will play anywhere from .50/1.00 to 20/40 on paradise (sometimes my girlfriend will play the lower limits)
ron
By "serious" cheating I meant "strong" cheating.It is 99% sure that some people attempted collusion against him.
This is a disappointing statement, coming from someone whose logical powers I have really respected.
The fact that one player won $30,000 doesn't mean diddly squat.
If I was running a crooked operation (which I am NOT accusing Paradise Poker or anyone else of doing), I would probably want to have a few people win a lot of money, so I and others could point at them and say "see, the games ARE beatable".
After all, the walls of every casino are plastered with pictures of the lucky $50,000 keno winners, but I don't think DS would say "I know someone who won $50,000 at keno, so it must be a beatable game."
Meanwhile, if I was running that crooked operation, I'd be watching for weak players who seem to rebuy readily, and I'd suck them dry and spread 10% across a few lucky winners...
Anyhow, it's all academic to me, since I am quitting online money poker for good. The risks -- real or perceived -- simply are too high for me anymore.
--j
I´m pretty new to internet-poker and haven´t played for real money yet. Reading some of the post below, it seems to me, that lots of you complain about paradise poker, on the other side there aren´t many complaints about planet poker and the other pokersites.
Is there any reason for that?
Regards
M.A.
Yes. The vast majority of people who play poker on the internet play at Paradise Poker. I have been playing there for months and love it.
I understand there are some .50/1.00 games now if you'd like to try some very low-limit.
My technique is simple If I don't win I take out my big knife and they all just give me money.
I order a cigar and beat them with the ashtray ;-)
someone always wins rigged games. They have to advertize somehow. Neal Ross has a point. Sklansky has a major conflict of interest in defending these rackets.
I am also about a 36,000 winner since Paradise opened. I think the games are on the square but of course during a bad streak I have my doubts. Also the ability to take 4 times as many tough beats ( two games and fast dealing) as a ring game makes it very easy to steam. An example of fluctuations from a winning player: One two week stretch I was minus 6,000 and going crazy. About a week later I went on a tear and won 12,000 in ten days. I have been playing poker for about 10 years and I find myself constantly amazed by the swings. But ultimately these flucuations are what allow a losing player to book a few wins and ensures that there will always be great games to play in. All comments appreciated
This post seems to be reasonable in light of all the accounts that have been posted so far by skp, Ed Hill, Chris Villalobos, etc. Have you had a chance to calculate your standard deviation at an of the games you play yet?
"Here" is a screen shot of my $2-4 HE results on Paradise Poker that I posted in reply to an rgp post earlier today. It may be relevant to several of the discussions here regarding beating the rake in low limit poker, standard deviation, the possibiliy of winning online at all, etc.
Yes, it's only $2-4. I don't have enough time at any higher limits yet for the results to be at all meaningful.
Here is a postscript from an email I sent to Mason on an unrelated topic. The postscript actually turned out to be longer than the main message, and after writing it, I thought it would be a good post for this forum.
With regard to the recent ranting about cheating at online sites, I too was nearly bitten by this paranoia bug. I started off horribly on Paradise, losing $2000 in 70 hours of play at 10-20. This loss (not especially rare in statistical terms) was not nearly as surprising as my HUGE swings. During those 70 hours I went from -2000 to +1800 3 times; a real rollercoaster. Now, I consider myself a fairly solid player, and I keep very detailed statistics of my results. I have made a decent living playing in live games at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun in Connecticut in the 10-20, 20-40 and 40-80 Holdem games, along with similar limits in stud. This earn reflects a nearly 1 BB/hr rate in the tougher games, and over 2 BB/hr in the weaker games, especially the 20-40 at Mohegan, which has been described by many as the best (livest) 20-40 in the country.
Anyway, the point of all this is to show how a solid player in real-life can face several adjustment issues when playing online. I nearly boycotted online play all together, until I decided to give it one more shot---with one MAJOR caveat: conduct a very detailed analysis of my play online thus far, along with a thorough statistical analysis of my results over 70 hours. The ability to retrieve hand histories helped out quite a bit. I was amazed to find that my play during these 70 hours was anything but optimal. I saw myself calling raises with hands I would NEVER call with in live play. I also saw myself peeling cards much more often (and incorrectly) than in live play. In sum, I found my online play to be very much inferior to what I consider to be "my" game. Sometimes I even had to reread the hand history several times to be sure I was looking at the correct player!! :). With regard to statistical analysis (which is admittedly tough to rely on with only 70 game-play hours), I found that my standard deviation was more than double what it is in my regular live games. This was a sure sign that I was playing too loosely, and playing too many speculative hands (especially those with -EV). I then decided to give online play another shot, while trying to play the game I know I am capable of playing, the game I play all the time in the live games, the game that has basically paid my bills for the last 5 years. Lo and behold, it worked. I am now happy to say that after 350 hours of online play, I have made back the money I lost, and now am ahead over $8000 (more than 1BB in 15-30 and 20-40).
The moral of this whole spiel is not to boast about my success on on Paradise, but that all of these players we see complaining on the internet poker forum on 2+2, even the accomplished pros such as Ed Hill, should take a LONG HARD look at not only their game, but also how their game meshes with the internet interface. I think some players rely on physical tells and reading of opponents much more than they realize. When they play on the internet, these tools are stripped from them (or at least dramatically diminished), and they are often reduced to playing based only on known exposed cards. This fact leads me to believe that internet poker lends itself less readily to those who play "by feel," even if these "feel" players are consistent winners in live play.
I believe that internet poker will be good for my overall game in the long run. It has certainly helped me to tune in much more closely to how a particular opponent is playing AT THE MOMENT. Some players play well when winning but horribly when losing, some like to protect small leads, etc. etc. Keying in on these subtle changes is one of the few strategic adjustments (not relating to simple card strength) that one can make in an internet game. Like those made for individual poker games and game structures, successful play on internet poker requires specific adjustments from traditional (S&M) strategy. Anyone who thinks they can just take their regular game from the live card room to the virtual one and expect "usual" results is in for a rude awakening. I have had this awakening, and now am much better equipped to compete in the internet arena. I suggest other would-be internet card-sharks think carefully about the necessary strategy adjusments they need to make to their regular games in order to be successful.
Just a few thoughts and anecdotal notes. I would be interested in hearing yours.
Comments and Skewers Welcome
Maven
Why keep posting your silly, speculative, non-empirical rantings?
x
SKP,
Do you play two games at once?
I tried it once for about 20 minutes. The toggling drove me nuts.
I do look for players who are playing at 2 tables. I would think that those players are using a more straight forward type strategy as they probably don't have enough time to think about doing anything out of the ordinary.
Maven,
This is a good post.
I started playing again, even though I said publicly that I wouldn't, but only after I reviewed my logs too, of losing HE sessions. But not my winning O8 sessions, see my reasons below....
I found to my surprise also, that my HE play was way looser than my Casino game, I could not believe some of the hands I started with! (My O8 games were never a question in my mind...but also I decided to play one game, HE, and one level only and not jump around). I now have a chart in front of my face to remind me to NEVER call preflop with junk just because I am a better player than the bettor(s).
Also, I discovered that I am a great player with winning cards: I am so good at getting extra big bets. But I get bad online -- I chase etc -- after I get sucked out on. I have really really tried to correct this.
There *are* online tells, but they are different. I am very visual, so I remember faces, this helps in a Casino, but I am bad with names, so I am trying to write names down; this one is good, that one is great, that other one is a fish.
Oh, by the way: Weekend games have lots of fish...I never thought of that online...but we know this from Casinos.
thanks for the post maven,
Mark
Online poker is so much faster than cardroom play that you can easily find yourself playing on autopilot, and an inferior autopilot at that. Remember, emotions are quicker to arise than logical thought. If you tilt just a little, the effect is magnified because your next decisions come around so quickly. I find that I have made a lot of dubious decisions online that a few more seconds' reflection would have corrected. "In a minute there is time / For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse."
You know someone who is a 30,000 winner on Paradise Poker? Big deal. 30K is chump change. How many hours did it take them to win that much, and how many hands at a time? Let me guess, 5000 hours playing 2 at once? They are a 6 dollar (effectively less than 3 dollar)winner. Big deal.
Also, why is it that all of your friends who are big winners insist on remaining anonymous? We just have to take your word for it. Sorry but I don't believe everything I read.
Frankly this does nothing but increase my suspicion. I think that anyone who played a lot of 20-40 and was beating the game soundly, as you suggest, should be making AT LEAST 30 dollars an hour. I would hope that a good player could make more since more hands per hour are played and they can play at 2 tables at once.
Anyway, it would take 1000 hours to make 30K. That's about 25 weeks full time. Sorry if I'm not impressed.
If that's the best anyone can do then what's the point??
AF
I now finally realize it-Sklansky and Fats are one in the same!!! They run Paradise Poker and present this hoax of being two different people with 2 different points of view. That sly old fox Sklansky has done it again-presenting an alter ego idiot via Fats to decieve all of us. I have finally unmasked you Sklansky!!!!!
There is alot of money for the taking just smart and you shall win play position 90% and like wild child 10% and you shall win, dont alter this strategy and you will have a good chance at beating the bigger limits. :) Ace
Speaking of people who are full of it...looked in a mirror lately? Your postings here are a littany of immature character asassination directed at DSklansky who shows a good deal more class than you by not engaging you on that level. If you are such a BIG IMPORTANT MAN that $30,000 is " chump change " for 6 months play then perhaps you should haul your BIG FAT ASS and your BIG FAT EGO off of internet poker and this forum - where you're being paid $0.00/hr to go on endlessly engaging in infantile behavior.
The player in question has played less than 1000 hours. Dancing Dave posted that he is up even more-36K. But I can't vouch for that. Jim Mogul also admitted doing well. I believe that there are quite a few players up over 10K. My point however was that if there is even one person up that much, than HE was not being regularly cheated either by hackers or some non random Paradise algorithm. That is not to say that he might have been cheated during a short period of time. It is also not to say that he was wasn't colluded against. But if there was collusion against him it was mild or more likely incompetantly done.
I even pointed out myself the farfetched possibility that the "cheaters" were staying out of his way for some reason. Finally , as I am sure someone will suggest, maybe he is ONE OF THEM. Some of us however think it is a lot more reasonable to believe the game is on the square except for clumsy colluders. But I am glad not everybody does, because their posts are so entertaining that it is increasing the hits on this forum. That in turn allows us to raise our ad rates which means that have succeeded with a self fulfilling prophecy!
Do I count among those who write entertaining postings, thereby increasing the hits at this site? You flatter me sir!
AF
Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
Nelson's on tilt again.....I think he's a coward...
he worships Sklansksy..he counts for something
.
.
Its it me or does AA get beat 9 times out of 10?? I got AA 5 in 2 hours and lost 342 dollars and lost 5 times 4 times I went to the river, I know you have to mucked it when board is scary, I dont always go to the river, I have talked to many people on PP about this and big hands dont hold up, they lose to the gut shot inside straight draw wayway too much WHY??? I dont understand I play alot of live at least 20hrs. a week and I figure my AA holds up like 90% of the time in live. I play on here another 20hrs a week, AA is just bad bad luck for me..... ACE
*
I'm sure it seems like your pocket rockets hold up 90% of the time in live action because you are a victim of selective memory, or you are able to better protect your "vulnerable" hand in live action through various methods. I have found that online, it is difficult to protect your aces without playing them QUITE differently than you may in live play. This isn't always the case, and you just have to accept the times that they get cracked as "part of the game"; no matter how difficult it may be.
The fact of the matter is that you are most likely raising these preflop (perhaps in low limit game - 3/6,2/4) and in these games, people just don't respect preflop raises as much as the do in live play (especially early position raises). Sometimes, this means adding variety to how you play these "monsters" both preflop and postflop. For instance, say you have AA in the big blind, and it is 3 bet by the time it gets to you, do you raise, or do you call? I am a strong proponent of just calling and depending on the texture of the flop either leading into it with the hopes of being raised, or check-raising. It is a rare case when you would fold these postflop in this situation. Another way of playing these is waiting until the turn to bet these when you're in late position. This would be especially true if you are shorthanded, perhaps you would reduce the pot odds of those drawing to gutshots. Still another way would be....
The point of all this is simply this. In a multiway pot, AA just isn't as powerful as it is in a shorthanded pot. You also somtimes give people correct drawing odds simply by raising these in late position. I think that experimentation is the key here. Try playing them differently once or twice instead of just "mindlessly" pounding the pot. You may just be surprised by your results.
In looking back at Poker Analyzer's posts, it seems he always manages to get in a plug for his service.
The most recent and incredible example: in response to "Re:$30,000 winner on Paradise", Poker Analyzer claimed that this was the reason Poker Analyzer was developed, and gave his web site address again.
The real content of his posts seems low or nonexistent; the advertisement content of his posts seems high.
What do others think?
I have to disagree with you. I think that Poker Analyzer is a valuable tool. Knowledge of one's opponents is important. In response to "Re:$30,000 winner on Paradise" Poker Analyzer replied to a paragraph saying: "I don't know my opponents". They do help one know one's opponents so I don't see anything out of line here.
I have two questions: #1 if anyone notices this tell below #2 if I react properly to the tell
Have you ever noticed this tell about weak players on Paradise Poker low limit (2-4 and .50-1 and maybe 3-6)? I've noticed it many many times and I don't remember many instances where I called and won (the tell would indicate that I should fold).
Say I have AQ and someone from late position raises me with a flop of QJJ. I call and the river ends up being:
QJJ24 rainbow. If I check and the raiser waits 5 or 10 seconds and then bets, it's almost certain he can beat my hand, with a J most likely.
My reaction is always to call. Is this correct?
- Tony
No
If you picked this up, and think its a tell, why on earth would you call it down?
A better move on flop would be to checkraise or reraise to define his hand. If he plays back at you again or bets on turn, you should fold.
Because the connection may not be reliable all the time I NEVER draw any inference from a person acting SLOWLY on Paradise Poker. The person might have acted quickly but it only APPEARS to be slow because of the bad connection.
On the other hand...there are many good "cybertells" to be observed when an opponent acts too quickly. Especialy when it is obvious that he has selected the "raise in turn" option and his raise or reraise is instantaneous.
I think the online tells almost carry no weight in poker, and, because of that, I believe that a bot can be trained to be a significant winner, simply based on opponent's betting patterns.
True the slowness could be due to internet lag, but I notice this also. If the player has had lag a lot I would discount his slowness as trying to get me to call... Anyways, from responses I think I am trying to draw too much from this, and that it probably isn't a tell!
Tony,
Jim is right: Instant raise/reraise have meaning. Slowness may or may not. I have tried to do both to put people off on the wrong track, but no one pays attention anyway Try this on a bluff (why am I telling you?): Bet instantly/fast. This might convince someone that you have a hand. This is NOT the same as delaying the bet with a strong hand, which I think is wrong.
Mark
PS I have found that some of the players are so bad (up to 15-30) that a cr is always strong, and some of these idiots do it early. They convince me to fold my second pair. It also means that i can check raise with weak hands and (a) get some of them to fold (b) save a bet on the turn. (c) bluff them out on the river if they have second pair and I have nothing.
I think if i have something i should act slowley not fast. soo i think your tell is wrong
i think in all poker games you should vary all your actions so no one can draw any positive conculsions from them.
They correct everyones English grammar too often.
*
it said n/t dummy
*
I have been playing poker for the past 20 years and have always been a winning player for the past 15 years. My game is 7 card stud I play like a rock playing only good starting hands and having tremondous patience going in when I have the best of it. At paradise I think the game is designed for loose players spreading the money out or some people taking a few losses and not made for players like myself. I have played over 400 hours at paradise and have lost money , I checked all my play and see my game the same as I play at Atlantic city and Conneticut. What I see is this game is not designed for rocks or for tight play and the game is made for fast play loose players and for the rake to go to paradise. I see players going in with terrible starting hands complete garbage and pulling it out at the last second over and over. I also believe I have seen collusion from a few players I stay away from them when I see them. I will stick to playing at casinos beause something just doesnt feel right and look right to me. I may be wrong and just have become unlucky but my gut tells me no.
I agree. I play 7-stud also, and I'm a fairly tight player, waiting for good premium pairs and good drawing hands. I have no problem folding if I don't make something early on. But none of that means anything at Paradise. I was getting to the point where I dreaded getting a pair of aces. I hardly ever improved, and some fish, starting out with garbage, would usually end up beating me. This happened again and again and again. I don't know what the deal is with Paradise, but something isn't kosher.
welcome to the 3-ring circus of loose-aggressive games - a tight players nightmare. Two aspects particular to the internet, I believe, are responsible for this phenomena in online poker - particularly below $10-20 limit; first, an abundance of novice players with only rudimentary knowledge of the games are taking a shot because of the super-easy accessability of online cardrooms; secondly, many players are emboldened by the annonymity of playing online - playing more aggressively and bluffing more than they would in a live game where they have to PHYSICALY confront their opponents. I see no evidence of anything "funny" aside from the fact that Paradise and other online sites attract a large following of loose aggressive players - along with the " tight-aggressive" ones - which can make these games very frustrating and, if you're running even a little bad luck, difficult to beat.
But you would think that a tight player would do very well in loose games where many people are playing garbage.
Kelly I have beaten loose games many times (in live play) at paradise it is very hard to beat them. I think these games are programmed for loose players to pull it out in the end. But it is just a theory I have formed the play that I encountered was something I have never seen before in live play. These fish are too lucky at times they go in with garbage and come out with the pot its crazy. My play which has made me money for 15 years cannot beat paradise. I see posts that some people have made money in here but it seems they all made it in hold em. I WOULD LIKE TO GET SKALNSKYS OPINION ON THE QUESTION YOU POSED TO MR. PRESIDENT.
For what it's worth, I also play tight and after about 1000 hours at 8-16 Stud at Paradise I'm up about $500. Holdem, on the other hand, is a different story for me.
Darryl Parsons
I think it is about matchups. It is very difficult to beat many opponents when starting with a high pair unless you make full houses. Stud is my favorite game but I don't play it much on Parsadise because of this. Maybe when they have 15-30 stud it will be easier to thin the field.
Have you been able to beat these "aggressive" games, Mr. President, and what do you feel is the best strategy against them?
Don't ever say that something isn't right. El Supremo has said that Paradise doesn't cheat. That should be good enough for you. Shame on you Sam Donaldson.
After observing many, many hands in on-line stud (both planet and paradise) I came to conclusion that 99% of players play by this strategy:
1. With ANY staring pair - raise on third, call if already raised. Keep betting/calling till river unless a higher pair appeared on board. Often keep calling even then.
2. Bluff bet on a river with one pair unless opponent's hand looks like flush or str8, check with 2 pairs.
3. Start with any 3 of the same suit, no matter how many are out. On fourth, check/call if not improved, bet/call if improved. Same with straight.
4. Bet any new open pair.
5. Never ever fold ANY 2 pair. Not even to 4 open cards of same suit.
6. If started with big cards and did not improve - bet till 6th. If improved - bet/reraise
If you play too tight you can never win online.
My guess is that if it took you five years to learn how to beat live poker, it'll probably take at least 2-3 years to learn how to beat online poker.
Good luck!!!
- Andrew
Maybe you have right ....i am really smell it in the air that PARADISE that somthing is wrong...i have never played for real but ( Iam watch ). I have look on the 20/40 many hours maybe 1000. And allso smaller games. When i play for fun i can win to 1500 after that i go down to 700 and then come the rush to 1200 i think.
I think Paradise can design the game that the loose players wining more. Because they whant them to stay alive and get mutch more Rake. But i dont now.
Planet play there and you see the diffrent,....
The only way to beat these low limit games is to thin the field doun to 1 or 2 other players. This way you only have 1 or 2 sucking out on you instead of 5 or 6. But you can`t get them out no matter how much you raise. Raising just makes them stay, because of the big pot. My solution is keep moving up in biger games till this stops, then you can play your preium hands and be a winner over the long haul.
n/t
There is nothing to talk about in an internet forum other than internet cheating. Until the major companies come clean with who they are, their code, and security, the forum will be laced with the same old 1. they cheat, 2. they don't cheat, 3. you are a shill, 4. you are a nut. A new forum won't solve this.
Well, I finally busted out the last few $$$ in my Paradise bankroll, and have decided to quit it for good.
The games have been a mix, from rock gardens to schools of fish. But no matter what, I've been unable to win consistently.
It could be just running bad, it could be that I'm a lousy player. Whatever the real cause, I'm tired of worrying about collusion and more insidious forms of cheating, so I'm not going back.
Yes, the cardrooms here in the SF area are more expensive to play at, but at least in a live card room, I can be pretty sure when I lose that it is on the up-and-up. With Paradise, I can never be sure.
--james
PS Here's a classic example, from tonight, of the kind of weirdness I see that has made me lose my stomach for Paradise Poker. This guy raised preflop with Q9 clubs, flopped NOTHING... bet into the flop, which was AK4 -- all diamonds -- and caught runner runner 2pr to beat AJ offsuit that caught top pair on the flop. Now, in the low-limit games around SF, I see a lot of random stupidness, but this is over the top. You see enough of this kind of stuff at Paradise and your mind just starts to wonder. It's way too troubling for me to deal with anymore!
I won't deny you're right about something being "fishy" in PP, 'cause I have no way of knowing either way, but it is not the first time I see people fooling around with what for them is spare change! Your example might as well be from the Play-Money tables.
Take care.
So a guy got a little aggressive preflop, bluffed at a three suited board, and value bet the turn and river. Seems like he wasn't really that out of line. The real mistake was by the passive calling station which let the aggressive player push him around. AJ should have raised the flop or the turn.
- Andrew
Now, in the low-limit games around SF, I see a lot of random stupidness, but this is over the top. You see enough of this kind of stuff at Paradise and your mind just starts to wonder. It's way too troubling for me to deal with anymore!
You've got to be kidding me.
I played 3/6 once at Bay 101 in San Jose and for every hour that I played I saw a worse bad beat than this one.
This anti-Paradise hysteria is getting out of hand.
I played with that guy earlier in the day. When I joined the game he had $379. When he left the game (which immediately broke) he had $171. I kinda enjoyed playing with him. ;)
James,
I have played a lot over the years -- while out there on business -- at Artichoke Joes and at Garden City Club. Those places, at 3-6 or 6-12 are pieces of cake. It is like minting money. And I am not *that* good.
I find the Paradise has much more variance (faster) and even a few good players to watch out for (not at Artichokes or Garden City)...but otherwise not too hard either. More fast play and bluffing at Paradise.
Go to Artichoke Joes (a nice club too). If you cannot consistently beat it, your game needs work. No offense intended. The players who buy in for $40 and play stupidly, and then buy in for $20 more five times, and when they finally get a good hand they have no chips to bet: Well they are in Artichokes, Garden City AND Paradise. They might as well hand me the $$. Look for them,
Mark
I've been on PP for the last 6 months abd if you ask me these are the players that I want to see in my game evry time. At first when I started, I was playing way too many starting hands and ending losing my ass for about 2 months. I took about a month off and studied a few books and just watched and looked for the common mistakes made by these players. Now I'm a consistent winner. I mostly play 2-4, but jump back and forth between 2-4 and 5-10. Both games are easy to beat with a tight agressive style of play. Most players lose because they're giving too much value to their big starting cards. You have to know when you're beat.
Regards
jazzman
One of the twenty or so ROULETTE players friends of mine who tell me THEY ARE WINNING, just e-mailed me with the information that he is now more than $30,OOO ahead! I am speaking of someone familiar to many of you DEGENERATES. Just this one fact makes it inconceivable that ROULETTE CANNOT BE BEATEN.
On the other hand, no BLACKJACK player that I know of, has come forward with the information that HE is $30,000 this year!! Which proves two things:
A. BLACKJACK cannot be beaten.
B. All these guys still owe me money.
Roulette can be beaten in the long run??? Just how did they come up w/ a system to overcome a little ball that has no memory and a game that has a 5% house edge??? I understand that you can come up w/ a "betting system" that will win 95% of the time but the 5% of the time that you lose, you will lose more than the amounts you win 95% of the time. I feel sorry for anyone who believes in these "betting systems".
Amdrew Prock wrote:
My guess is that if it took you five years to learn how to beat live poker, it'll probably take at least 2-3 years to learn how to beat online poker.
Good luck!!!
- Andrew
It would seem to me that when he is refering to online poker he is refering to Paradise. I find Planet poker to play like a real game. I have stayed away from posting my records at Planet until I have gotten enough time in, but here goes: 39 of these hours were playing 15-30 holdem the remainder were 20-40.
9-Jun 7.00 1573 10-Jun 12.75 -366 11-Jun 5.75 -1652 12-Jun 3.00 -297 14-Jun 4.50 1031 15-Jun 4.50 -990 16-Jun 10.75 1051 17-Jun 4.50 115 18-Jun 2.50 167 19-Jun 7.00 620 20-Jun 7.75 1651 21-Jun 2.25 1023 22-Jun 5.50 -1060 23-Jun 6.25 1495 24-Jun 9.25 -442 25-Jun 2.00 1188 26-Jun 8.50 566 27-Jun 4.00 69 28-Jun 4.00 388 29-Jun 2.00 -291 30-Jun 10.50 -246 1-Jul 8.00 687 2-Jul 6.50 1110 3-Jul 7.50 -421 4-Jul 4.75 -363 6-Jul 3.00 302 7-Jul 5.00 -752 8-Jul 6.75 1 9-Jul 3.50 -639 10-Jul 1.50 699 12-Jul 4.25 -105 13-Jul 10.50 -111 14-Jul 3.50 1030 15-Jul 4.50 1071 16-Jul 1.75 248 17-Jul 4.50 1206 18-Jul 4.25 -222 19-Jul 4.25 -38 20-Jul 3.50 -1091 21-Jul 7.25 -1476 22-Jul 3.25 -17 23-Jul 3.75 389 24-Jul 2.50 -1454 25-Jul 4.75 -238 26-Jul 1.25 1022 27-Jul 4.75 1043 28-Jul 4.75 536 29-Jul 1.25 535 30-Jul 3.75 348 31-Jul 1.50 523 1-Aug 2.50 750 2-Aug 3.25 79 3-Aug 3.00 -972 4-Aug 3.00 -875 7-Aug 0.50 353 8-Aug 6.25 1190 9-Aug 6.50 -647 10-Aug 2.75 761
278.25 hours +$10055 $36.14 per hour
You would think that it was safe to assume that from the group of poker players that were willing to play online, the games would be somewhat similar on both sites. This apparantly is a bad assumption. I understand that this isn't much of a sample size, but online poker is realtively new and this is the best that I can contribute to the ongoing debate. I couldn't beat Paradise, neither could my 5 friends, neither could Nolan Dalla and his friends. Yet, Planet seems to be a different story.
I don't know what makes Paradise so weird, there has been many assumptions on this forum ranging from; dishonest employees, to hackers, to mass collusion, and finally that the site itself is cheating. Who will ever know for sure?
Without doing any calculations, (I just woke up, I am physically unable to calculate standard devuiation before my first coffee) it would appear that your standard deviation is high for these numbers, probably higher than your STDDEV in live games. If this is the case, then couldn't your poor results on Paradise be attributed to this high variance in the online games? It certainly is conceivable that you will have a protracted long run of bad card/beats/suckouts. I will post more once I run your numbers through a stats program.
Maven Thoughts and Skewers welcome
I stated not too long ago that I thought Planet Poker had resolved its distribution problems, and that if their trend of improvement continued that I predict they will return to industry leader status. I still believe that. Maven is doing a good job of kow-towing to "El Supremo." Lets quit trying to find excuses for Paradise. Someone new comes along with the exact same complaints almost weekly. The smoke and mirrors of the lackeys gets old.
Ed,
My personal experience on the sites has been contrary to yours. I've lost on Planet and won on Paradise. Ufortunatly, since April my credit card company won't let me charge to either site, so I'm stuck on Paradise till I get a new credit card.
Regardless, I do think that it is fairly likely that you were a victim of collusion, not wacky software. While both sites may have collusion on them, I'd think that Paradise would be more likely to have it since they are "bigger" and easier to hide in.
- Andrew
You must have lost a lot to get banned by the credit card company.
lol,
Good one matt
- Andrew
278.25 hours +$10055 $36.14 per hour
Ed, would you mind posting a summary of your results for your first 278.5 hours on Paradise?
What is the difference?
Ed, would you mind posting a summary of your results for your first 278.5 hours on Paradise?
What is the difference?
I wish I had them, about the time that I quit Paradise, I had to get my hard-drive reformatted and they became part of the cosmos.
The standard deviation per hour for 20-40 online is in the $500 neighborhood. You divide that by the square root of 278 and get about 30. Thus Ed is a bit more than one standard deviation above break even. His long run results could still be off by as much as $60 an hour either way.
On RGP you posted number to lead me to believe that your results for the first 500 hours on Paradise were about .8 BB/hour
Your results on Planet are about .9 BB/hour.
What is the difference?
Or am I missing something?
The 80% of a big bet for the first 500 hours is correct. The only difference I see between Paradise and Planet is that Planet seems to play more like a real poker game than Paradise.
I took huge swings in the first 500 hours at Paradise, I just was winning, but the swings were really something to behold. My 10-20 results at Paradise looked almost but not quite identical to my 20-40 results at Planet.I had many days where I won or lost a dime, which is a pretty unusal result playing 10-20.
There is some reason that makes Paradise play a lot bigger than Planet, Sklansky has found a reasonable amount of players that are winning at Paradise. Like I said in my previous post:
A) I haven't got enough hours in for these results to mean a whole hell of a lot. It is going to take quite a long time before I do.
B) You would have to assume that drawing from a base of poker players that were willing to play online that the games would be somewhat similar on both sites and that this does not seem to be the case.
The second comment (B) strikes me as really odd. I would think it would be safe to assume that a lot of the players are playing at both sites. Then whst makes the swings so big on one site comapared to the other? It is possible that it is the short sample size that we are using. You will just have to trust me on this, it just feels different. I am not the only person to remark on how big the swings are at Paradise.
Ed,
You have my greatest respect for admitting online about your losing streak on PP. And I am glad you are now winning on the other PP. Way to go.
With all of the niceties out of the way, I do have something substantive to say:
1. The online game is different than the Casino game. In several ways. It is faster. The tells are less obvious. Others too....
2. I am not the only person to have years ago cured the going-on-tilt syndrome in live play, but who had a lot of trouble with tilt when losing to terrible players sucking-out online. I think I have my own solution to this, as well as a much tighter style online now in several situations.
3. Collusion collusion collusion: It is happening. Mostly the players who are doing it suck. I played last night in a game with 4-5 of the 9 people from "Iowa City"...I was about to leave when I noticed, but then I also noticed (sorry if this offends anyone) that these 4-5 were terrible, they played crap hands pre-flop and had no clue after. I am sure they were talking to each other - POSITIVE -- but who cares if their collusion sucks so bad. In your case, at higher levels, I bet really good players were colluding. Or one good player (not Aslan haha) was playing multiple hands at once.
I think there are more differences online and live, but I do not think it is a Paradise problem, honestly.
Oh, I win more offline to reading people's expressions etc. but I am getting better online at subtleties too.
Mark
You told Sklansky last week that you quit. A new poll should ask how many losing card players say they will never play again , and then within 7 days find themselves ordering up a rack? I call that compulsive gambling.
I think Mark the K may have hit on something. Collusion will make hands "smell" different to good players like Ed Hill. It could also account for strange suckouts since colluding hands will sometimes stay in when they normally wouldn't. Someone else postulated that there may be more colluders on Paradise than elsewhere since with so many games going it may be "easier to hide". That argument has a flaw. However a better guess is that colluders are staying away from Roy cooke and Mike Caro.
On the other hand, most types of collusion can still be beaten. There are three reasons. Firstly no one is attempting anything flagrant, lest they be caught. Secondly, correct collusion strategy is no piece of cake, and never will be unless I write a treatise on it. Thirdly and most importantly, is that most colluders choose this path because they are losing players on the square. When they add non flagrant and ill thought out collusion strategy, they are still probably losers.
David,
Thanks for the compliment. I agree that I've hit on something I think you should not write any treatise's on collusion. If you do, I offer to edit Of course, I am sure that I have seen colluders playing, and it does smell wrong. I say, Run Run Run. If Ed Hill's reputation is correctly stated, then he was run over by colluders or hackers, there are so many poor players online otherwise, he should have cleaned up.
I also think that playing at levels below 20-40 and 15-30 holds no danger of good colluders or hackers. For many reasons other than the size of potential winnings.
Mark
I'm afraid that with Sklansky his "compliment" has nothing to do with recognizing your "insight." Instead, his grabbing onto your theory (collusion is responsible for otherwise winning players losing at Paradise) likely is simple calculation: Paradise provides ad revenue and the perception that Paradise has integrity helps protect at least some of that revenue. Also keep in mind that Sklanksy has a huge ego investment in being right, whether the facts are told (or recognized) or not.
When you think Sklansky think informercial no matter how much he protests and denies.
There are three problems with your theory Mr. perspective.
1. Paradise's ad revewnue is peanuts to me and could esily be replaced.
2. The collusion theory was actually stated by me in the past. I was just throwing Mark a compliment. But the records show I and others had talked about this before.
3. I was not saying that collusion explains why otherwise good players are losing on Paradise. I said it could be an explanation for why some hands don't smell right. But I also said that if there was collusion, it was probably being done very mildly and/or incompetantly and/or by players who play so poorly on the square that they still aren't winning.
The fact is that every EXCELLENT player that I know who is presently playing there is winning. Even Ed Hill broke even. However I have seen enough of the bigger games to know that in order to beat them, you had better be good enough to beat a Vegas 20-40 game. Rarely is someone giving money away.
David,
Again thanks for the compliment. Also, you could not be more right about the 20-40 HE and 10-20 O8 games at Paradise. Tough tough tough. The regulars never give anything away. Even the 'harder' 10-20 and 5-10 HE games are harder than RL because of speed and big swings.
The whining around here is ridiculous. I sometimes watch the big games for pointers, I do not understand why instead of being whining losers some of these people whose play isn't as good as they think don't simply watch a great player....maybe they cannot tell the difference. My play has improved a lot -- and I am winning consistently at HE now online -- by watching and learning, some things clicked for me which I didn't quite get until I saw them in action by a master.
Yesterday I watched a pretty good player get outgunned on the 20-40 table by a regular female player who he thought he was better than (yes, her name especially got to him). He started to whine, boy did they jump all over him. He was gone -- both his $$$$ and his whining self within a very few minutes.
I think, hehe, that the idea someone had for an online forum for ideas, and learning and information, and another for the Whiners and Paranoids (I *might* read that Paranoia section Mark
Its sad that you believe that a few hours(2 weeks) makes you a winner. As mentioned, your posts are indicative of compulsive gambling. I hope that you get help before you destry your life.
actually, you can expect to run into collusion from time to time at any limit - including 3-6. I know from experience because the VERY FIRST time I played at Planet over a year ago I was squeezed so blatantly by two colluders in one hand of 3-6 holdem ( they both immediatly quit the game after the hand) that the whole table was remarking how obvious it was. I emailed support about what had occurred and the next day they emailed me back stating that there was " compelling evidence " that these two players had acted in collusion - and not just in the hand involving me. I had my $ refunded and the two players had restrictions placed on them ( they were not barred - which I strongly protested and still believe was a mistake - because their financial records as well as their pathetic play showed them to be a couple of hopeless losers). Perhaps Planet is taking a harder line on this issue now, I don't know. The one thing you have going for you at the lower limits is that collusion will generally be much easier to identify than at the higher limits due to the lack of sophistication of the participants. At lower limits all-in abuse is a much more signifigant form of cheating at both sites - contributed to greatly by the apathy of most players who seemingly don't mind being pissed on in this manner and can't be bothered to report the guilty parties.
although colluding is certainly a factor, it is almost instantly apparent when you play on planet that there is a huge difference not only with the action, but with the actual cards being dealt.
My confidence is growing that the software is flawed at pp. Now there are very normal looking flops at pp, but in imo, you will see quite a few more flops with connectors, such as 10-j-k and 2 suited, etc etc.
And if there is enough money in there, evryones hit it in some way. It's not the colluding that feels weird... it's the hands. This might account for Ed Hill's wild swings etc.
If you go watch or play Planet 10-20, and then go play pp 10-20, you will see a big difference. There are good players on both sites, but IT"S THE HANDS that are coming down that mnake pp weird.
I'd love for Mason or David to spend a few hours playing each. I don't know Ed Hill or any other of the Vegas Pros, but I believe he is correct, and my experience tells me the same. goodluck
I have played and I've noticed nothing special. Besides these things such as two suited flops could be statistically tested.
you haven't watched very close. it's a very drastic difference between the hands and play at the competing sites. I'm not stupid, and either is ed hill and others. You simply refuse to believe that there is a problem, and there is. I'm sure that people are winniung at paradise, .... this doesn't mean that there is nothing wrong. I don't believe that you have spent time looking or playing at both sites.
I played over 400 hours at paradise before becoming convinced that there is a problem. I'm sure that collusion is part of it, but the distribution is Fked up, period.
As an author who writes books with the implication that you can win at poker, it disturbs me that you have a "I don't care" and cavilier attitude towards this subject. You represent this game whether you like it or not and you have an implied responsibility to the players that you have brought into this game.
You have shown otherwise and it is dissapointing to see that you are simply interested in selling books, but not seriously interested in maintaing the integrety of the game.
Take a lesson from Mike Caro..... he may not be the best author, but he realizes that it is important to at least look like he cares about the players he is teaching.
Again David is right. Most colluders are scam artists, low life grifters and the lot. They are not highly schooled in the game they attempt to capitalize on. In the early seventies I played in a poker game with a couple of sons of a very famous mob figure. Their lack of understand of the game of poker and their bumbling attempt to collude made them easy target for a slightly better than average poker player.
most poker players are "low life grifters", get a clue.
Matt,
Glad you are so good at reading every message.
I also wrote more recently that I have begun to play again. With some small changes to my online play to account for some differences I am now cleaning up at HE too. Don't imply that I am a loser: I always said I lost a bit at HE, I admitted it. I also said that I always killed the very weak O8 game. SO now I win at both. And I am way ahead at both, the play online is very weak if you pay attention.
Mark
nothing like denial to justify compulsion. Do your relationships with your wife and children suffer due to poker? Do you find yourself neglecting your business due to poker? I think you should take a hard look at it. Your posts show signs of a problem.No offense intended.
Has anyone else ever played with this guy on Paradise Poker? I played 10-20 for about an hour and a half with him. It was hilarious. He called EVERY hand preflop, no matter how many bets and regardless of position. He didn't call all the way to the river, though, and rarely put in raises.
The worst player I have seen at any level.
He put a few beats on guys (me included) and built his stack up the over $600, and then blew it off in less than an hour.
Lots of people like that there...
...and in casinos too.
Mark
pignuts was just advertising for future earnings.leave pignuts alone.
Don't scare him off...he's the one that I want in my game.
jazzman
Is it just me or is it annoying as hell when you bet on the river and get called, turn your hand over, and your opponent waits about 10 seconds before showing you the winner as if to make you sweat it out...
If you are one of these players, quit wasting my time and show your hand. The more time you waste, the longer it takes me to win your money, so please cooperate because I will be getting it sooner or later.
When you do this, I already realize after the first 4 seconds that I am beat (90% of time). So show the hand and move on to the next. TY
Im sure there are some slow rollers out there, however, most of the delays are due to internet latency.
Most of the time its easy to spot the difference.
There's alot. These same players usually take much less time calling your bet.
I think the software is a lot of the problem. On Paradise you have to click a button. This is rather dumb design, because when you have the best hand shown so far, you don't have any choice - you can either click the button, or wait for the software to time out and show your hand anyway.
nothing like slow rolling to make some people go on tilt.
I'm sure you talk 'bout Planet.
I don't want to show my losing hands. As oppose to Paradise, Planet has not 'muck losing hands' option.
They are asking at the showdown if I want to show or fold even when I won. So it takes time to double check it (esp. for me playing three tables + reading 2+2 and RGP simultaneosly).
Speedy,
About a year ago, before the expansion of the Forum many people were posting online hands on the Hold Em forum. Badger made the comment that Online Poker is a joke and in no way, shape or form should it be confused with real poker, or words to that effect. He also called for a separate forum for intenet poker so that the outcasts and refuse of the world (online poker players) would not offend his sensibilities.
Well, I'd like to know if Online Poker has gained any respectability from folks like Badger considering that some of poker's finest players are participating, and, according to our host, racking up sizable wins.
Is it still a joke or here to stay? Is it the future?
Well he was definitely right about the need for a seperate forum.
Well, I think it's here to stay for sure. But I have no idea what sort of growth it will experience in the coming years. My own experience suggests to me that it will undoubtedly grow, but maybe not at the rate many are expecting. I say that because in my fairly limited experience playing online I just don't like it as much as live games.
During the last six weeks or so of finishing my book I didn't play in a cardroom. I just dabbled on Paradise. I won a little, nothing remarkable. Only played some fairly small number of hours. The first day I returned to live play it was, to borrow from a line in one of Mason's books, "like someone had turned the sound back on". Now, of course I've put myself publicly in the camp that holds that tells don't account for all that much of your hourly rate. And I'm not changing my tune here. But if you broaden the definintion of tells, or just use a broader term like "nonverbal cues", thereby including all the little subtle behaviors you see as you play -- things that often wouldn't be seen as tells per se -- then I think you (I) do pick up on enough to make not only a significant monetary difference, but to add a lot of interest to the game. (Is that a long sentence?:) Comparing live and online play shows you exactly how significant that information is . Without it I don't enjoy playing as much.
There's also the social aspect of live play, the possiblity that the online sites won't get very high limits, and of course all the concerns about various kinds of funny business. But mainly, I just don't much like the lack of direct face to face contact with the other players. I'm not even sure that adding video/audio would solve this very well. I think there's a level of subtlety in real life contact that video can't capture.
But the big question is - why does online poker stimulate goofy anonymous posts?
Good question, as well as long winded ones.......LOL just kidding....
*
Playing online has considerably improved the technical aspects of my play, precisely because of the lack of sound. This is especially true of my hold'em play - I think I was already a pretty solid stud player.
Hi Guys;
Does anybody here currently use DSL to play on Paradise? I currently use AOL in the Los Angeles area and often at Peak times get repeatedly "booted off" the internet with AOL'S famous "GOOD BYE" signoff.
I've also tried some of the free internet providers and MSN. They seem somewhat better than AOL in terms of maintaining internet connectivity. But still suffer from significant random disconnections during peak internet traffic periods.
So, I've been recently considering getting DSL. It's about $40 per month. Is it worth the extra cost? Do you NEVER get disconnected at ALL with DSL? I know that it's a direct connection (always on, no dialup, so the phone can be used at same time also). But how often are the internet disconnections affected when you have DSL?
Thanks...
That 40 per month includes an ISP so its really only an extra 20 bucks per month. To answer your question, I have pacbell DSL and play Paradise often. No problems at all. I can't remember the last time I had to reset my all-in. Also,if you surf the web much you'll notice a huge difference in opening big web pages (or atleast I did), like these forums.
I get booted alot from Paradise, thought there was a problem with my ISP but it's probably there server. Pissed me off yesterday when I hadn't had a hand in what seemed like an hour and then got disconnected the second I looked at pocket J's !!!
P.S. I've had a much better connection at Planet but they don't seem to have nearly as many players thus less games and more waiting lists.
I use a cable modem and it blows away a phone connection to the net. There are very rare problems but much less than I hear others experience.
DSL would almost certainly be better. However, you might want to try another dial-up ISP before paying extra for DSL. You have many options in LA.
I have been considering switching to DSL myself for the "always on" feature. But I am concerned about the security risks, and I rarely need the extra bandwidth.
So if you are paying for an extra phone for the modem anyway, and you could use the extra bandwidth, then DSL might be a good idea. But if your only concern is getting disconnected from Paradise, then I would try another dial-up ISP.
CNET has a section that reviews ISP's in your area (www.cnet.com).
Steve
Hi Pokerbum,
I have DSL at home -- from a poor DSL service, but it is the only one available. It is still up 99.999% of the time and it is fast, and it costs only $39 per month including the builtin ISP (which I do not need). And no dialing.
Lately I have been seeing Paradise client crashes, buI have no idea why, and it is not the DSL doing it.
One more thing: With DSL and cable, you need a 'firewall' since you have an IP address. I downloaded something called Zonealarm, installed it in 2 minutes (it is free for personal use) and it is now telling me when idiots are trying to hack my machine. It stops em too.
Some of my buddies got cable instead and I believe it is slightly better, speed and reliability-wise, but it requires Cable at home. DSL simply plugs into a phone line (not dedicated).
If you can afford the $19 for ISP, then the $39 for DSL is well worth it.
Mark
A lot of factors affect connection stability. I have two ISPs, regular old modem connections, and I almost never have disconnects from Paradise with the one but frequently have disconnects and modem hangups with the other. Sometimes both are bad, which would indicate the problem is perhaps in the network or the local telephone system, or at Paradise's end rather than the ISP.
Why does an NSA analyst only use 56k modems? It doesn't make sense.
This is prompted by the DSL message below and I guess it is mostly intended for the other computer jockeys here...
I have very fast and OK realiability (not great, which it should be) DSL at home. This has always worked real well with Paradise (and everything else), I virually never lose a line, I have only used ALL-IN one time, when the DSL provider (Bell Atlantic, which is pretty lameo), crashed.
Just this past week, though, my Paradise client was crashing a lot starting one night. Reboots, etc did not help. Also, my PC is super mega and never has any crashes with any other 'real' clients. Then someone in the game says to me: You have DSL, right? You should get a firewall, there's a nice free for home use one called zonealarm. Why did he ask? How does he guess ?
Ok, I get out of the game, download zonealarm, install it for home use (real product, real company), and what do I see? People trying to hack me. Also, I have NOT seen a crash of the Paradise client since.
Anyone else have this experience? I am also emailing this to Paradise.
Mark
Were people trying to hack your Paradise account or your DSL account? How did the firewall show this?
They were (are) trying to get into my machine via various IP commands...for instance:
"The firewall has blocked access to your machine from IP address xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx port 4657."
that is more or less the message....
So this is people trying to hack my PC.
When we once left our ftp site up over the weekend (my company -- with a Sun Ultra over a t1 line) and we had mistakenly left one directory in /pub with write access, we found 'bots' filling the machine up with garbage...
And we have enormous logs of people trying to hack through our company firewall every day.
Mark
Thanks very much for that info Mark. Does this have any relevance for players using standard phone line ISPs? If so, would the product you installed work?
I had a lot of crashes when I was playing higher limits. I moved down in limits but simultaneously changed my PC settings, so I assumed that the change in settings was the reason the crashes stopped. If there is something odd going on it might be only at the higher limits - so my crashes have stopped for that reason.
Yes, ZoneAlarm works fine on a dial-up connection. Keep in mind that most of the alarms you get will be things like search engines looking for web pages. A very common one will be on port 12223. That is the Powwow chat program. It happens when you dial in just after someone else on your ISP was chatting on Powwow and you get the same dynamic address assigned that they were on before you.
Before installing ZoneAlarm, try Shields Up for a scary demonstration of just how vulnerable your computer is without a firewall.
This is interesting stuff. Are you indicating that other players were trying to hack you, or that some unaffiliated to poker hacker was trying to hack you?
It would be damn near impossible for another player at PP to know your address while playing you. What is happening 99.9% of the time is someone using a "war-dialer" type program to try blocks of addresses to see if there is a vulnerability. This is akin to the old-school hacker would keep trying every phone number in an area hoping that a modem answers.
A possible way someone could knowingly hack you would be to ascertain your static IP address a priori, then check it out and see if they can sniff what traffic is coming through the PP port, which IIRC is the same everytime on your computer. They putatively might have obtained this IP address by visiting your web page. For example, I can quickly generate a list of all the IP addresses of people who've visited jimgeary.com having been referred from the 2+2 favorite links using a 3-line c-program(probably one line in Perl) and my access logs. What are the odds that some of those people play online? Pretty good that at least one or two do. An even more direct route that was formerly available was when the html-source for these fora included an IP footprint. Then you could know exactly who you were aspiring to hack. This is no longer so, but it serves to underscore that you leave your IP address all over the web, and if it were a static always on connection, then one would be served well by using the firewall.
JG
Jim,
Great points. I think that the clients crashes were a graphics bug which PP pointed out to me in their program, after turning off some graphics param, all is well.
(I have had one crash since the firewall, so it wasn't hackers probably).
About the firewall: They are trying blocks of ports just like they do on my T1 at work. The zonealarm program is stopping em cold. And telling me who they are (big deal).
Thanks for your good points.
I am very impressed witrh the Paradise operation, they have their act togther: I got an email from support within a couple of hours of complaining about the client crashes.
Boy the swings in the online game are so fierce...up now, and even cashed some in, but it is soooo wild.
Mark
I've been out of the country for a few days meeting with world leaders, but I want to respond to some questions directed at me by Kelly Parker and Sam Donaldson re tight players in loose-agressive games; from the perspective of a " tight " player, games which contain a high percentage of players who are playing both loose and aggressive pose a much higher degree of difficulty than games containing a high percentage of players who are merely playing "loose" - or what is typically referred to as "loose-passive". While the latter games may reward even a "weak-tight" player on a regular basis, the former variety are likely to leave the same player feeling like they just landed in the middle of the gunfight at OK coral. That is in fact what many of these games become - shootouts - where a "weak-tight" player becomes a sitting duck and any skilled player finds their usual methods of play offer little or no advantage. My strategy in a loose-agressive game?...get the hell out before I end up looking like a piece of swiss cheese.
I know what you mean. You can really lose a bundle if you're not carefull. This is why I have initiated a practice of "watching" a game for 10 to 15 minutes before I decide to play. I make note of such things as: average pot size, # of players to see flop, how many go to the river, who seems to be winning, any raises pre-flop, and speed of play. Gathering this information beforehand helps me decide if this is a tight or loose game and if I want to play at all.
Excuse me, Mr. President, but that is not a very informative response. I'm going to ask Steve Forbes what he would do.
On the contrary Mr Donaldson, I have been more informative with this commitee than my advisors are comfortable with. I stand by my earlier statements that games of an exceedingly loose-agressive character are problematic for many reasons and are probably best avoided by tight players, myself included. Furthermore, I did not - I repeat, DID NOT have sex with that woman...Miss Lewinski.
You lying, no good lecherous snake. I think you should be thrown out of office for being heterosexual. Imagine recieving oral sex from a young, innocent, angel. I think you should never play "poke her" again.
I'm getting it installed this week, and now having read Mark the K's post, I'm a little worried that the necessity for a firewall will screw up Paradise which would greatly increase the coset of the service... Hopefully, PP will say that MtK is doing something wrong and that the problem isn't endemic to all f/w setups.
JG
I've been using the ZoneAlarm firewall for several months and have not had any difficulty on Paradise or anywhere else. It is free, it is simple to install, and it works. You will be amazed at how many attempts are made to access your computer.
Everyone, absolutely, positively everyone should use a firewall. It would be much easier for a hacker, particularly one who is attempting to cheat at online poker, to gain entry to an unprotected home computer than to try to get into a heavily protected internet business site.
I am new to computers and know little to nothing about hackers and firewalls(what are they). Could someone please tell me what a firewall does and how to get one. Thank You.
A firewall is just a computer that guards the traffic in and out from your local area network.
Two good personal firewalls are
ZoneAlarm, Free http://www.zonelabs.com/
and
BlackICE Defender, 39.95 http://www.networkice.com/html/blackice_defender.html
I was hoping someone could tell me what a firewall is? What it does? And why they are necessary. I am very new to Computers? Thank You.
I don't know either!
I told you. Apparently you don't read my posts.
Anyone ever have buttons dissapearing on paradise poker? IT's like your turn except you only have checkboxes, no buttons, or something just nothing, and you have to time out and go all-in. It's really rather annoying...
I've noticed it plenty of times. It often happens when my connection is spotty. I can see the action, and I can see the client prompting me to act, but I can't press any of the buttons because there are none.
I emailed paradise about it, but they haven't fixed it.
- Andrew
I had this happen to me once. The software put me all in and reduced my ALL-IN to zero. I was somewhat irratated when Paradise made ME justify to THEM why my ALL-IN should be reset because their software screwed up.
After I explained that the buttons weren't there, they implied that they wouldreset my ALL-INs, because "I was a new player" and suggested that it was my fault because my monitor wasn't set to "16bpp and 800x600".
Included are the e-mails. (edited to remove my name and game numbers)
First their response to my ALL-IN request:
Hello,
We noticed during your request for an all-in reset that one of your recent hands showed you had a good connection.
#1: 08/08@22:17:50 (good) game # XXXXXXX (hand history requested) As a matter of course we require a formal response for any player showing a good connection prior to resetting your all-ins.
We await your reply.
Regards, Paradise Poker Support Here was my reply:
Hi: During the hand that I requested the All-in for, I never lost my connection. However the FOLD CALL RAISE buttons weren't on the screen. If you note in the hand dialog you will see two occasions where I'm saying things.
First I went "......." as I was seeing if my connection was still live.
Later During the hand I said "That sucked the buttons weren't on."
Thank you, XXXXXX Finally their response:
Hello XXXXXXX,
As you are a new player, we have reset your all-in. Please be careful to check the settings of your monitor, which should be set at 16bpp and 800x600 for optimal performance.
Regards
Vincent Paradise Poker Support Clearly the buttons not appearing is a problem in their client software. When the problem occurs we are disadvantaged. They need to address the flaw in their software, NOT imply that we are angle shooting.
This has happened to me when I tried to request a hand history.
When my buttons disappear, my client dies too.
PP told me:
Go down to 16 bit colors and turn "optimize graphics off" in their client, that it was likely some graphics bug.
Mark
I believe Dancing Dave is correct, it has something to do with requesting hand histories. PP has not fully addressed the problem, and has attributed it to resolution, video driver, etc. but based on tests I have done and input from others, it appears to be an occasional conflict when you request a hand history as the action has reached you.
-Action Bob
Yes requesting a hand history and having the box for the hand history still open when the buttons are supposed to appear somehow seems to cause this to happen. I try to request hand histories faster now but sometimes I can't do it fast enough and I'm forced to play buttonless...
On Paradise I have noticed that lose usually soon after I start playing(usually a bad beat). This means I have to play catch up for a while. When I do start winning it's only to a break even point.
I wish I had read this chat before I started playing on Paradise. I won $300 initially, then lost it back plus $300 more. Trying to get my money back doesn't seem to be an option at this point. I don't need that kind of frustration. I'll stick to Planet.
Mike,
I have been playing sporadically (I am winning consistently lately now that I have modified my play), and studying it too, especially the high stakes games to watch masterful play.
It isn't some Paradise plot to get you: All games are fast (twice as fast as real life). Many of the games have really good players. Even at 3-6 some of the people are VERY good, and at higher levels beware: You *will* find world class players there as Paradise said in a message to 2+2 a few months ago. It is scary how good some of them are.
Play tighter. Play much tighter. I had AhAd beaten by a guy with 6d2d when xxxd hit the flop my first hand this weekend. I beat the game anyway. I lost to some moron with 74o UTG with KK, big deal. He lost it all and I won within one hour.
But in all game from 3-6 and up there are some *really* good players.
I played 10-20 O8 this weekend for the first time with a smallish stake (200) and beat it for quite a while by playing very tight. I left even, after 1-2 bad beats, which is the right time to quit...but the regular players are really really good, no mistakes that I saw and I am good at O8. I saw em clean out 2-3 users who were not experts...
Mark
Oh this is ridiculous....Mark the K apparently says that the games are soft(last month), now the games are tough, (2 weeks later), he said he stopped playing altogether(2 weeks ago), now he knocks down all those tough 10-20 players. I suppose next he will say that Sklansky is God, then 2 weeks later Sklansky is the devil, Then 3 weeks later it will be MArk the K is God!
He reminds me of Caligula.
Wow, you sure seem to offend some people. Hey lighten up everyone, we're just exercising the 1st amendment.
I've been playing semi-serious poker since jan 99 and i've been playing Planet Poker for the better part of the last year and a half (10-20 thru 20-40). I've bought several 2+2 books and even read some of them;>). Seems so far online is a pretty good way to get a feel for the analytical part of the game, especially when you don't have access to good games. I was wondering if anybody has played against me much?.......any comments suitable for public viewing?
woodman
I vaguely remember you from Planet -- I don't go there much anymore. You were not on either of my lists (players to avoid or players to seek). I think you played tight and a tad passive. Maybe I am thinking of Woodsie. Sound right?
i think u are thinking of someone else........being passive is something i don't think has ever been a problem:)
you suck
Woodman,
From my notes. Often does not recognize when beaten. I have seen you be the initial aggressor, be geting 3 way action and not realize that the new raisers hand is protected. My only note.
Mark
I think thats how I was early on but I think i'm overcoming this now. I still have one problem though......i don't think my check button works;>)
I'll reintroduce myself - I'm a (no-name) professional poker player; I mostly play pot limit games, usually $5-5 or $5-5-10 Texas or Omaha, and have supported myself for a better part of the last decade. Playing poker, even limit poker, would have been very nice for me since the local poker games are not what they used to be - not that much loose money around anymore, so I decided to try on-line poker. Not willing to send ten grand to Costa Rica I decided to start with two grand and slowly work myself upto my target games ($10-20). This "series" of reports is what has happened so far.
First, I've heard people claiming that there are some great players at even $3-6 level: nonsense - I have not seen anyone who plays great at these levels. There are some players who play quite well before the flop, but who donate money on the 4th and 5th street. And most players just play too many hands - most, if not all the aces etc in Texas, 2-4-x-x-combinations etc. in Omaha. And then there are the fish: people cold call three bets with absolute trash, people play middlesized cards in Omaha/8 (and usually scoop the pot if playing against me).
To make a long story filled with whining and crying short I'll use only this paragraph for that purpouse: I do not believe that the cards are dealt in random manner in lower limit games - I've only played the big games for a few hands, so I'm not going to say anything about them. I simply find it hard to believe that hitting two low cards in Omaha only occures twice a night when I'm holding A2 - and I will either miss my draw, get counterfeited or quartered (or worse) practically every time. This happenes session after session after session. Actually I made a game to myself to entertain myself while I play: I tried to guess what kind of cards the flop will show whenever I have certain kind of holdings...unfortunately I am too good at guessing - A2ds with two high cards will get a flop like 7-9-10 (replace the 10 or 9 with once of the face cards I don't have every now and then) of suits different to mine. A234 and similar hands usually give three high cards (for me - different players/bots might have diferent results). And if I have conditions to play four big cards it will be a low-low-low-flop. Oddly I don't find flopping top sets as rare as I find it in RL poker - and sometimes I even scoop the pot with them....which reminds me: I never scoop a pot with a holding that is really any good in the end - I only scoop with a hand that ought to have been counterfeited and where the hi-hand is one pair or less.... even I am now sick of my whining ... in Texas I'm sick of people making their draws all the time - although my AA's and KK's have done well - every other two card combination in the deck has been a losing combination (well, at least out of those that really matter).
In short: I can not seem to be able to beat any game in Paradise Poker even though on surface the games seem to be very beatable - oops, almost forgot: shorthanded games have actually been profitable for me - many players do not adapt their playing at all or much when there are only 3-5 players in the table).
Anyhow, I am now almost broke (Paradisewise) with only a fistfull of dollars left and I'm likely to try my luck in the heads up confrontations now. If I can rebuild my stack I'll write yet another meaningless and stupid report filled with nonproductive whining in a week or two. If not, I won't be playing in Paradise again. I may try Planet someday (since people in general whine less about it), but probably not for a while even though travelling to a RL poker room takes a while - I just trust the games there more (I'm not going to whine aboiut my recent bad beats here, be thankful :)).
heheheh...the pain you're feeling is Omaha, not Paradise Poker - that game drives me crazy...
Anyhow, I'd advise against playing the heads-up games. I've fleeced people for $200 and only been $50 up - and I've been on the other side of that coin too...in the end, only the rake wins.
~DjTj
welcome to the club. Of course, Sklansky and Malmuth only care about their how their friends are doing. The lower limits they state are beatable any where, yet I've seen 20 years pros at 10-20 and 15-30 that barely break even at 2-5 low limit holdem. The nature of low limit poker is that it is almost unbeatable with any kind of rake. They don't tell you that in two plus two books.
Actually I won so few hands that I didn't really pay all that much rake :) Anyhow, in 3-6 games, the rake is not at all impossible to beat - all it requires is tighter than usual game (of course this only applies to real life poker games - I just don't trust Paradise Poker); also the structure of 3-6 (at PP) favours tight play as folding the small blind is almost automatical unless the cards are really exiting as paying two bucks to see the flop is not too sensible most of the time considering the position and rake. The structure is one thing I have been positively surprised in PP.... the only such thing.
And I blew rest of my on-line bankroll away quickly in heads up match - not at all surprising though as the ups and downs can be rather high and getting several good flops with one notch too weak kicker can get rather expensive... well, at least I don't have to worry about withdrawing money from that "cardroom" :)
I actually feel tempted on trying Planet Poker because of the big name players committed to it, but somehow I think I still won't try it until sometime next decade if at all.
CU all in real life tables.
In theory low limit Omaha/8 in PP is the easiest game to beat I've seen in a while - actually losing in that game should be practically impossible even if you just play weak tight (as long as you play tight enough before the flop and on the flop and fold those counterfeited hands). In practise it was totally different story at least for me - any (limit) poker game is impossible to beat with flops that just don't coordinate with the board. I guess my nick was so insulting to PP management that they set the player -> mustalwayslose -flag to TRUE for me :) :)
Ok, no more whining... time to check the action they have in the nearmost casino today. And if they have none, it's beer time...
Welcome to Paradise!!! Your posting is nothing new...there is a pattern/history here. I never have and never will play any poker via the internet for various reasons...too many to list here. Good luck to those that do....
In my opinion the people that are complaining about Paradise not being on the up and up are the ones that need to improve on their game. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that there is some colluding going on but I think there are some very good players at this site and you people don't realize that.
Regards
jazzman
2-4-7-9 called for a raise preflop..Please...
In general, on Paradise, the most beatable games are in Omaha. Omaha consistently features 35-70% of the players taking a flop. As for the comment Mark the K and others saying about the Texas holdem games, I couldn't agree more. The flop numbers stay consistently in the 18-30% range preflop for most games, down to 3-6. That game may be beatable, but it's on the tight side. And if these players play aggressive once it gets down to two or three people, it makes the game even tougher. Even though some of these players may use aggression when it is ill-warranted (ie trying to bluff raise when it is obvious the other player has a real hand), in general a game that is a tad too aggressive is still plenty tough. Casino games in the lower limits generally do not feature tight aggressive players, so yes they are tougher on paradise.
you are dreaming. The play online is pathetic. The suckouts happen a casino also, just not at the same frequency.
I don't know when the last time you played a real 3-6 game and a Paradise game. All I know is that the AC 3-6 games feature MUCH more than 20-35% of the players seeing each flop. MUCH more. So that stands to reason that suckouts occur much more often in those games than the ones online, at least at the low limits.
within the last 30 days
Matt is right. His name is Matt BLecha. I work with him for Qwest. What is your name?
Why is my name relevant at all to this discussion? If you want to verify I am not some sort of paradise ad man in disguise, email simotach@umdnj.edu and I can tell you about myself if you so desire.
Paranoia? It was just a friendly question. Forget about it.
I'm not paranoid, I was just wondering why you asked. If your only intention was to be friendly, I have no problem with that whatsoever. It is just that I have seen some wild accusations on here, based on the fact that certain posters believe that anyone who claims paradise is most likely on the up and up to be on the paradise payroll. I happen to be of the opinion that most paradise games are on the up and up, and I am most surely NOT on their payrolls. In fact, I play there (and at planet) under this name. I am sure I have played with some people from this board at some time or another.
That wouldn't surprise me. The reluctance of people on this forum to admit their legal names doesn't add to the legitimacy of the forum, their views, nor the ethics of online poker.
I am sure there are some really good players. How ever (beer talking now...just had a few with a friend), when the opponent call raises with substandard hands it is not because they are superior players. Remember, I have mostly played low limit games, games I would not usually touch, however, for three resons they are the ones I decided to play on the net: 1. I do not want to deposit ten grand or more into some company in South America (no offence meant), 2. I know that the games on the net are tougher than live games compared to the game size - this is only natural as net gamblers tend to be frieks like me :) 3. Collusion is a problem, although, if you think about it, colluding really succesfully is not as easy as one would think.
I have beat any middle limit texas hold'em game I've ever met with one exception - once in 15-30 game I did burn myself badly - unless we talk about the PP games. In priciple the PP games are very beatable. In practise, I can not beat them. And in pracitse I do get better flops in RL poker. There are four possible reasons: 1. I was unlucky - this is very much possible - however I've never had this bad board cards in my life before. Ever. I've played seriously for most of last decade. I've made a living gambling for more than seven years. 2. I am lousy player - possible, yet I beat anything up to 20-40 Hold´'em in Vegas, 10-20 while really drunk. Also I also must haver been rather lucky for a few years in live games. 3. I was playing against superior opponents - get real, I was playing against mostly fish. Actually I would like to play against oppositiohn that is slightly tougher as bluffing is not a viable strategy that too often at low limit PP games - after all I am from pot limit school. Anyhow, cold calling with trash is not what I call superior playing 4. I was cheated, one way or the other - possible, although I did not witness any probable collusion with excpetion of one hand, however the other action of the players in that hand were quite regular, so....
Argh, I am still whining. Silly me :) I am smiling, because I am insane :)
Last advice: if you play in PP, play for fun, don't try to win too much, you may end up being depressed until you quit. Also do not invest too much (unless you play the big games - they might provide "proper" results - there sure are suckers around there in the bigger games as well, especially on weekends).
Time for one more beer....
Tengen,
I have now played at all levels from 3-6 to 10-20 in HE and O8 on both PP and the other PP. And I have watched a lot of 20-40 HE on Paradise.
I lost at HE at first and won at O8. (3-6 to 10-20 O8, 3-6 and 5-10 HE). I have now only been playing 3-6 and 5-10 HE and I am winning slowly but consistently.
1. I think the HE games are tougher, but the O8 games have a higher variance, with all the crazies playing at especially at 3-6 and 5-10. 10-20 O8 has only extremely excellent players as regulars.
2. I studied the Paradise card distributions of the first 6 million or so hands they posted to their website. The cards are not skewed.
3. You cannot beat the head to head I fear due to rake.
4. Pick one game, let's say 5-10 O8. (In my case I started again with 3-6 HE, then graduated to the much tougher 5-10). Spend a week (part-time) studying who is a regular, who is not, who is good, who is not. Figure you will need to play tighter and more agressively. Watch the 10-20 O8, no insult intended, but they are masterful: Do not play in a 5-10 game against any of those regulars until you have built up a bankroll.
5. The players are so good. Do not underestimate this. Write notes before you play on who is who.
I hope this helps; by the way, Planet Poker has great players too. And bad beats. And crazies. I see little difference between the games.
Pretty good, huh David? hehe
Mark
I studied those same statisitcs, and the cards are skewed (suited) 2 standard deviations above the mean. You are wrong.
Please publish your results then.
I do not agree. No cards, suits, flops, etc showed me anything out of order.
mark
I have looked at the flops from both planet and pp, and there is a difference.
I looked at 400 hands in a row from both sites.
The pp hands had twice as many flops with close connected or 1 gap cards, such as J10 8 etc.
both sites had the same amount of flops with flush cards, but pp hands paired on 4th straight at a much higher rate.
Of those 400 hands, planet had about the same amount with aces, but again pp had twice as many with two cards 10 or higher.
The other interesting thing was that there were many more hands at pp, that when they went to 5th street had closely connected or 1 gap cards, ex. flop- 569 8 10 .
The playing is much more in line with normal poker at planet. I founfd that at pp you just about have to have the nuts or a very strong hand to win a pot as someone else always seems to make something.
One other thing that happened to me, that has never happened before, but I guess could be normal is that in one hour and 1/2 session at pp I held AA and KK 8 times. I won once. Iv'e never held big pairs like that in such a short time in my life, but I guess it can happen. And I guess that winning with them only once can happen as well,but........ if you add everything up you have to wonder.
I would urge anyone who is playing pp to try Planet. you will instantly see the difference. There are good and bad players just like anywhere else, yet you will see that the texture of the flops is normal and the drawout ratios are normal.
While everyone is shouting collusion, the colluders still have to make hands. This happens with high frequency at pp, so ...you draw your own conclusions.
good luck
400 hands?! you call that a sample size?
~DjTj
Where can I find those statistics ??
another sycophant begging Sklansky for a smart cookie accolade. Disgusting.
Replys to each point you made: (beer talking, but still the good (?) old brains barely functioning)
1. Agree that HE games are tougher, however the fluctuations are much lower at O/8 as the level of play is _much_ lower at all levels of play, especially at lower limits. There are some good players at both games, but Omaha seems to attract many more loose gamblers.
2. I didn't study those hands (board cards?) and can't really say anythin about them - I hope didn't stuidy them by hand :) I may have been realy unlucky, but I have never seen this many bad flops for this many hands.
3. Heads up can be beaten - it only depends who you're playing. Unfortunately the people who want to play headsup in PP are usually better than average heads up players. Shorthanded games in "regular" tables is much more profitable - it's the only form of game I made profit.
4. In 5-10 Omaha/8 half of the players seem to have little knowledge of poker. If a player plays 4-5-6-7 willingly, he is a loser. A4xx is another very popular starting hand... although whenever I am playing someone else also has A2xx or the flop is hi or if ...blah...sorry, no more crying today by me... enough beer...
5. There are some good players, at low limits there are very few player who are very good, most are either suckers or good old tight passive wonders... (a bit crying is left in me today: in 16 table hours, flopping the nut low/nut low draw twice is not what I have ever met in RL tables - there are some unbelievable draughts in PP AFAIK, perhaps not for you or YOU, but definatey for me. Unlucky, perhaps, but I don't really believe in luck all that much). This is beer talking, and I am definately not trying to whine, but itis just so easy... well, anyhow, I am not bitter or anything. I am an adult and I made a risky investement and I lost. Tough beat, but s*** happens; you win some and lose some. This time I lost. Tomorrow I will probably win a bit. But even that is not certain. What is certain is that I'll curse beer tomorrow morning.
I would like to know what you think the bankroll requirements are for playing 20-40 holdem in two games at Paradise at the 95% confidence level for an average, good and excellent player. I have read your articles in Gambling Theory and other topics but the charts definetely do not apply to Internet poker. Thank You
32k
If the only difference is the number of hands you play per hour as compared to a live game, your bankroll requirements do not change. This of course assumes you are a winning player. Think about it. Your swings per hour are greater but you will get into the "long run" that much sooner. (And you should average three times as much per hour playing two fast games)
On the other hand if the games are tougher than you usually play but your hourly rate is slightly higher because you are getting three times as many hands out, than you do indeed need more money. (For specifics, see Mason's Gambling Theory book.)
If I were to play a lot of 20-40 on Paradise, I'd like to keep at least 10-12k on account or luft on my CC. The nice thing about Internet poker is that if you're a winning player, it's trivial to scrape up a bankroll. The nice thing about Internet poker is if you're a losing player....
JG
I'm confused. Your statement seems to indicate that you don't play("I'd like" indicates doubt, or desires)It seems difficult to determine if you are a winner or loser also. A bankroll of 10-12k on a credit card has to do with paying your bills on time. Thats the only way to have an initial bankroll.
Average: Infinite ... you will lose it all. Good: Infinite...you will lose it all but more slowly. Excellent: I would have $10k available. But you better be very excellent.
I have watched a lot of 20-40. FREE LESSONS. You better be awfully good.
When Paradise said there were world class players there, they weren't kidding.
Dave, think about this: You open up a card room which anyone -- including the best from ALL OVER THE WORLD -- can play without travelling. These players are not only the best, but are just a little computer savvy too. If they don't win at 20-40 (really higher, due to the speed), they cannot buy in for unlimited amounts (Paradise's model). Who will win there after a while has gone by? Who will you be playing against? Oh, Dan N, maybe Phil H, Johnny C, Badger, others better than 'excellent' -- world class. Picking up petty cash. Can you beat em? Over the long haul? It's like triple A and the 'show'. Excellent players at triple A.
And watch a tight online 5-10 game sometime: It is much tougher IMHO than any Casino game at that level I have ever seen.
Waiting for another 'thrown' compliment David...hehe.
Mark
I don't quite agree with you Mark. There ARE many outstanding players online but you don't make much money off good players anyway. There are, however, many soft spots that eventually give their money away and this should stay true as the player base expands. I find that playing against the excellent players has improved my game, thus making it easier to win money from the soft spots.
OK, Dave I accept that. But it wasn't exactly your question, or maybe you were being humble, and didn''t say "I am excellent"
Your game will improve. I agree. There are soft spots, I agree, but they do not last long. But, you MUST make a list of the bigtime players, and avoid them. You do not want to be in games that look like the finals of the WSOP, and look at some of the locations, you might be.
Just trying to help, I have studied these games a lot.
Mark
Thank you Mark. I enjoy reading your posts, they are very insightful.
more brown nosing, and lies. anyone that "wathces" 5-10 on Paradise sees ridiculous 2-7 suckouts as a common occurence. Any ace is a big hand. You are lying and grovelling. Please stop.
You, sir, are a moron, you probably lost all of your feeble stake and you are now making a fool of yourself even more.
"The games are fixed" waaaaa. Whine whine. "There are lots of weak players at 20-40, I just couldn't beat em cause they cheated me" waaaaa. Whine whine.
That's you "Matt the whiner"
Go join Gary and some of the others on rgp, maybe you can find out who stole the Orleans $$, hehe.
Mark
You are a compulsive gambler. What that means is that at some point in time you will probably experience at least 1 big win. You will also hit a streak , and it may take years, where you win a little or lose a lot. At some point you will reach a point in which everything you have, your wife and children, your business, your self-esteem , and possibly your life are lost to your obseesion to always appear as a winner. I defy you to show us your records from paradise poker verbatim. I believe that we shall see that you are most likely down.
I believe further that your psychological propensity to belittle others with your HeHE statements shows signs of sadistic compensation for an inferiority complex. Your idol worship of Sklansky, and your groveling clearly show signs of an unbalanced mind. I suggest, for your own good, that you seek out Gambler's Anonynous at your earliest conveniance.
"And watch a tight online 5-10 game sometime: It is much tougher IMHO than any Casino game at that level I have ever seen."
I agree with this statement.
Berya,
Thanks for the support,
Mark
Add me to the list of supporters of that statement. By and large, ALL of the limits online play tougher than the same limits in the casino, with the possible exception of the lowest 2-4 games.
Last night I watched my wife play an online 3-6 game that looked like a tight 10-20 casino game, with lots of blind steal raises, usually no more than 2-3 people in every hand, a lot of semi-bluff raising, etc. I've never, ever seen a 3-6 game like that in a casino. I've seen some rock games, but never with that amount of selective agression.
I've played plenty of 5-10 at Paradise Poker (over 700 hours). Once again the truth is that 4-5 people come to a preflop raise. Any Ace wins more than its fair share. The 4-flush boards hit over 2 standard deviations above normal. Collusion is apparent as when players with 4-7 off raise, and call raises against big pairs to hit a runner runner gut shot. Additional comments could be made, but I'd give away too much information to you adherents of the two plus two school.These are daily occurences.
The distributions seem to promote action. The flops hit at least 3 hands hard. I believe it promotes action to increase the rake, and to keep poorer players around longer.
The 5/10 game at par.pk are about like the 10/20 games in mississippi
I think its really funny when I use the software to beat people with 2-3o! They never suspect its coming,the wheel that is. Its truly fun to know when they have AA, or KK, and the flop coms A,4,5 or K, 4,5. The program tells me the last card makes my straight. Its delightful. He He
Hello
I'm thinking about starting playing at either Paradise or Planet. Has anyone had any troubles with paying through visa? Like freaky withdrawals etc..
Is a bank draft the only way to go?
May your Aces hold up.
- Andreas
Personally, I have had no problems whatsoever with my credit cards. They have been recredited on time every single time. It has been awhile since I have had to have any money recredited to my account. The checks that I have recieved have also been sent in a timely manner. I don't think you have anything to worry about.
Regards
jazzman
I tried using the credit card at Paradise but it treated the transaction as a cash withdrawal....Paradise refunded the xtra fee but said only once. They won't tell you who or why some credit cards are treated as cash withdrawals instead of regular transactions so you don't find out until you get your bill (at least that is the way it was end of 99, no depo's since then). No problems at Planet but they don't refund the fee.....but you can wire money with no fee and quickly. Can't wire to Paradise only by courier.
Planet now refunds the credit card fee just like Paradise does. As to the transaction being treated as a cash advance, that would be your credit card issuer doing that and not Paradise. Many credit card issuers treat the purchase of gaming chips as a cash advance and not a regular purchase.
Bob Masternak
TY
I normally charge for this kind of thing but I'll throw out this freebie:
It has been noted by Mark K and others how tough the 20-40 games are online. Mark has told us that he has improved his game merely by watching. Imagine how much more he could improve if he saw all the hands!
So here is my idea. Have one 20-40 table with no rake. But to play on this table you must agree that all of your hands will be shown on a delayed basis. The delay would have to be at least five minutes but could be much longer than that. Meanwhile others could log on to watch the game with all cards face up! They could be charged perhaps 25 cents per hand. The online site would make money if more than ten or so players watched, but even if not that many did, it would still be a good publicity stunt.
What's cool about this idea is a few things. Firstly it is a natural for online poker since it couldn't be done in a real casino. Secondly is the fact that for a tiny amount, maybe $15 an hour, beginners could really see how excellent or even world class players play. And there is little doubt that such players would play. Even 100-200 pros would sometimes play given the high number of hands per hour and NO RAKE. (By the way, if this was a huge success the site could even ADD to the pot [or pay an hourly fee to the players]rather than rake it.)
Again keep in mind that no one would see hands in real time. The delay could be 24 hours or more. Furthermore the names of each player could be anonymous so it would be very hard to track who was who. I once had an idea that you could own a motel, charge no rent, but require all tenants to allow a closed circuit TV in the room, which would be how you make your money. I never did that but I like this idea just as well . What does everyone else think?
This could be an extremely good research opportunity. There are questions on hold'em nobody has definitely answered yet. My guess is some of those questions could be answered in couple of months, if complete hand histories should be available (let's say to participating players only).
I'd be happy to participate as I consider myself a student of the game. I'd be perfectly willing to lose my chips to any world class players out there. I'll get them back when I master the game eventually.
Angelina Fekali
Gee angelina I've been winning regularly out there and you beat on me like a drum and you think you have a long way to go? Where does that leave me? :)
I've learned hold'em from some of the best in the game and have a fair understanding of their play. Trust me hon, we both have a long way to go. I appreciate your compliment, though, you're a gentleman both at and away from the table.
Angelina Fekali
Great idea. But let me be the first one to complain. 25 CENTS IS TOO MUCH!!! 10 cents I would pay right now though.
PARADISE POKER -- 10 CENTS SOUNDS GOOD.
While we are on this subject can we add a money list. NO real names, no user id's used for playing on-line but a second user-id which will be only known to the player to let him/her see what he or she ranks. Let's create some competition out there. Maybe a list by game and money won per hour should be posted as well.
top five rankings. 1. bot1 2. deepbot2 3. shill#1 4. Colluder#1 5. Shill2
You brought a smile to my face but nevertheless I'd like to see it. This way you know what is possible and how many are doing it. Even if you have to discount the 5 at the top so be it. Ranking the players is a good thing.
I have to disagree with you here, Fingaz. As Neal mentioned previously, DRONES would be far, far more dangerous than bots, shills or colluders.
This has many possibilities. Many, like berya, will balk at paying to watch. But, I would, as long as the fee only applied to hands that went to the turn card.
As for anonymity how will we know if we're watching world class players or local yokels. Certainly world class players could mix up their game adequately that they shouldn't suffer under the scrutiny of post mortems.
When I asked the posters on this Forum if it hinders them to be so free with their thoughts when they sign their own names no one thought it was an issue. So, let's see whose playing. Lots of folks would play to see Abdul, Badger, Sklansky, Malmuth and Roy Cooke duking it out. And if this catches on, David, it could be the first step to TV coverage and corporate sponsorship.
It would be so cool.
Sammy,
You will know one from another - great, excellent, good, fish -- very quickly without real names. Trust me. It has to do with (a) Play; (b) Stacksize (c) longevity. You will figure it out before too long...I did, I know others did. It took me less than one week, plus some luck of seeing some names on other forums, etc, to know.
Mark
I don't think the games are that tough since I am beating them at least for now, and I don't think I am ready to sit down with the likes of louie, rick, fossilman and of course you or mason or ray.
But I think that this is a fantastic idea so long as it is not in real time, for obvious rasons. I would participate gladly.
I think it is a great idea. I agree with berya that 25 cents sounds like it may be too much. A lot of players would be happy to win $15.00/hr and might not relish the idea of paying that much to watch.
My guess is that Paradise would have a very long waiting list for this game, at least initially.
It definitely would attract attention and draw people to the site. It might even be well worth it for Paradise to let people watch for free for this reason! Paradise could track the number of new hits and soon see if their business volume increases as might be expected. It would definitely be a first and would set Paradise apart from the others in a positive way in people's minds. Sort of like "Paradise Offers More." Paradise could always offer it on a trial basis-if it didn't seem to be producing positive results they could always discontinue it.
Players in this game could have their own specific handle different from their normal handle. This way watchers could follow the players' styles (and their "heros" without being able to take advantage of it too easily in the other games).
If it drew many more hits to the site Paradise could capitalize on it it in various ways.
I think it is a good idea. As another poster suggested, it may also be the path to making the game more appealing to spectators, which increases the potential for sponsorship.
Players who are worried about collusion would have added comfort from being able to analyze the hand histories of games that they have played in without entirely relying on the management to do it for them. This might be as much of a draw for some players as the lack of a rake.
Steve
David,
Well, it's funny, I have been think how seeing the results would help me more, so I am in favor of this, and I think free would bring giant benefits to any Poker site who did it.
The ad possibilities for the site would be enormous.
About 3 months ago i posted a list of 'business' suggestions to any Poker site -- Planet, Delta, Highlands, etc -- to compete better with Paradise. (What I would do if I wasn't out of $$ and I had to compete with Paradise.) While Planet's player numbers appear to be higher -- good for competition -- their interface still sucks, it is so bad compared to Paradise, and none of the obvious ways to improve have been implemented. For instance, with their numbers rising, why not lower the rake a teeny bit to compete? For a short time (anyway) they would steal a ton of Paradise business...
I hope someone pays attention to your excellent idea.
Mark
Its a good idea.
A problem from the poker site's point of view is that they could do little to prevent copies of such hand histories from being freely distributed. Free availability of hand histories, even if was weeks after the hands were played would take away incentive for spectators to pay for the privelege.
However, this should not stop anyone from trying out the idea. If a cardroom tries it out, they can always pull the plug if they think they would do better with the regular rake.
There are also some variations on the idea that could be used to promote a site. For example, they could have one day every week or two which has one such no-rake table for some period of time. This would draw players to the site, hopefully in large numbers. While players were waiting in the queue for the no-rake game, they would probably play in the regular raked games. So in addition to the spectator's admission cost, and possible extra advertising revenue, a site potentially increases it's number of raked games.
I would not be surporised if Paradise Poker does not do this, since they are already very successful. They do not need a gimmick to bring in more players. However, any of the less popular sites might be more willing to do this to gain market share.
The problem is, all the good players would be in the same "no rake" game. I think I would rather pay the rake than play in a game that had nothing but good players in it.
I agree that online poker is a great teaching tool. You could charge the student a fee and have him log into the same game that you are playing in and tell him what you have and think out loud. Then the info would stay between the student and the teacher.
Now THAT is a good idea. Sklansky, if you're reading this here's a whole new way to earn money teaching people how to play poker. Your student observes the game, connected to you with MSN Messenger or on the phone. You tell the student what your hole cards are on every hand, and let him watch in real-time as you play the hand out while you verbalize your thinking.
You need some trust that the student isn't communicating your hand to other players at the table if you're doing it long-distance.
Depending on the time-delay (several minutes, hours, or even perhaps days), this really draws poker closer to the world of sports in the sense that we are getting an "instant replay" of the action. One side effect of this "tape delay" would be the interesting effect on the play of those actually playing in the game to be "broadcast." I would hazard a guess and imgaine that knowing that sometime in the next few minutes or hours, dozens of people are going to dissect and critique every play I make, would have the effect of making me play "better." This factor might tighten the games up a, but this might also be counterbalanced by the lack of rake.
As many others here have pointed out, given the huge marketing potential of such a promotion, I don't think Paradise would need to charge an "admission fee" for this to recoup the lost rake. What better way to attract newbies and amateurs than a promotion like this? This is as close to a sure-fire marketing plan as I can imagine for online-poker sites, even more so than adding tournament play.
Some of the technical details would need to be hammered out (perhaps a cap on the maximum number of watchers, in the interest of saving bandwidth and not slowing the server.) Having a wait list to watch might help push some of those waiting to play in raked games
Odds that a promotion like this would pay for itself in increased rake in the normal games (via new membership and more player-table-hours): 1:25. This means Paradise wouldn't even have to charge for the service, or maybe only a nominal fee (such as $1/hr, just to keep people from hogging it).
*
What happened to Remarq??
Is anyone playing anywhere other than Paradise or Planet? If so, where, and how are you doing?
Mike Ad
I play at both planet & paradise. I started playing at Brunson's site (highlandspokerinn) about 6 weeks ago and have done well. They started slow but picking up daily! Also a 20K badbeat Jackpot! I have tried them all & Planet or Highlands are about all I play now.
The Delta Casino was a online poker room in 1999. Whatever happened to them? Did they bust out? Did people lose their bankrolls with them?
I still play at Delta but Rarely. I keep a little money on account there because sometimes they have tournaments.
I doubt any poker site would go along with what I beleive is an excellent idea. (Very close to one of mine) Another Idea....You have the power and clout to put together 10 or 20 of the worlds best. Have them play a winner take all game. You add to the prize money to make it really attractive. Then sell (online, no publishing expense) the results along with complete hand histories. Make it an annual event. You'll rake it in !!!
I am interested in playing online poker but I have several concerns. Paradise Poker looked like a good website, however I am worried about its legitimicy. I thought it was a bit wierd that they dont have a telephone support system. The site just seemed a bit shady. Can anyone post messages with their oppinions on the web site. Should I open an account with them? If not, then where should I play on the net. Thanks.
Go to archives (look to your left in the green column) and do a search for Paradise Poker. You'll have all the info you'll need.
They are very solid financially. I have made around twenty cash withdrawls and had no problems at all.
I wonder why Paradise doesn't host any tournies? Anyone know the reason why?
I'm sure all the players would enjoy the idea. Have a 100 player Texas tourny...1 qualifying round and 1 final table.
Buy-in and fees can be determined. Any suggestions??
Bill
Because there are only interested in the rake. They want to make much money, as fast as they can. The best way to do this, is hosting ring games.
Hosting a tourney is not very lucrative.
But www.pokerspot.com is planning to make tourneys.
My experience with playing at Paradise over the last three months confirmed all the sucked out comments and the apparent extraordinary high percentage of flush and gutshot completions. Since I am not sure if they are statistically significant or not, I cannot make any claims that such results are not random. However, one thing is of major concern to me and hope all you experts can help.
In a tight game, you normally see fewer players seeing the flop but they tend to play better cards. In loose games, players tend to play anything but there are generally at least 4 players seeing the flop. In Paradise, so many players raise or call with gabage, especially when the two cards are suited, that it is unreasonable to have only 2-3 players seeing the flop on average. Why are these games look like a tight game on the flop but many of them play like loose players, who often suck out on the much better hands?
It is tough to beat these games because when you raise on the turn with a nut straight, you often lose to a single caller with 62s and caught his flush on the river. When your straight held up, you only win a small pot,quite unlike in a loose game where many people will pay you off. Any explanation will be greately appreciated.
BK
Its nice to see that someone here doesn't try to pull the wool over the eyes of the others. Anyone wo has played cards knows that the distributions are skewed at Paradise. Anyone who claims that they aren't , including Sklansky, is either making money from supporting them, or mentally ill.
A nice feature that could be incorporated into online tournaments that cannot be done in regular ones would be to raise the stakes based on number of hands played at a table instead of the amount of time that has elapsed. Then you don't have to worry about players who act slowly - either due to a bad connection, or because they are just slow.
Of course, having reliable connections to the poker server is even more important in a tournament than it is in a ring game.
You got to be kidding!!! As it is peple are cmplaining about colluders. If it is hard to play against a team of players in regular tournaments, You can imagine how hard it would be if they khew each others cards?
You can check out hold em and 7 card stud hi/lo tourneys at pokerlive.com Their tournaments are mondays and thursdays. $30 buy in gives you a chance to win $500. I haven't won yet, but they're fun to play in.
Paul
Hello Bill,
We're introducting freeze out style tournaments at Pokerspot.com this weekend. If you get a free moment, check out our website at www.pokerspot.com for more details.
Cheers, Russ Boyd President, Pokerspot.com
I have an old computer only 8 mb of ram. Not suitable for on line play. What should I look for when considering a computer adequate for online poker. I'm not much for computers so I don't need all the latest features. I wouldn't even be looking if mine could handle poker. Thanks for the info.
I believe you need a Pentium 133 to run Paradise, and planet runs fine on a pentium 100. 56 K modem will work better than slower modems. I would e-mail support at both sites to find out for sure.
i would get the cheapest new computer you can find, 300mhz 64meg ram and 500 dollars would be my guess. it should have a 56k modem and everything built in.
brad
I bought a used Pentium 100 for $200 (monitor and printer included!) and it runs Paradise fine.
Just get one of those cheapo PC with intel celeron chip with 32 or 64 meg ram should be enough. It should cost you around $500 or so monitor included.
watching 20/40 at Paradise... 5 limp in seat 6 BB checks. (FLOP 8d 4c 7s)in seat 2 DH Bets, in seat 4 KB Raises, all fold except DH, DH calls, (TURN 3s)DH checks, KB Bets,DH calls,(RIVER Qd) DH checks, KB bets, DH calls.(BOARD 8d 4c 7s 3s Qd) Who wins the $337 pot? KB shows 9s Jd, DH wins with Ts 8s...a pair of freaking 8's.
I am trying to work my way up the ladder and would love a pro's take on this hand and a couple others I'll post later as time permits. THANKS IN ADVANCE !!!
When a bunch of people start limpimg in, most players lower their starting requirements, and some are not too discriminating to begin with. The guy with T8s flopped top pair and bet it, figuring that with no raises preflop he probably had the lead. The guy with J9 was blowing smoke on a gutshot and raised with a drawing hand and position - mostly as a bluff I suppose. Then he continued to spit into the wind on the turn. Not satisfied he decided to throw another $40 away on the river in a futile attempt to bluff. This type of player is fairly common even at this limit and I suspect I would have called it down too. I am a winner (so far) not a pro but this stuff is pretty common. I would guess DH knew that KB would net his hand for him.
KB has two overcards and a gut shot straight draw. This is a good (but not great) hand on the flop. The other player has top pair and choose to bet and pay off all the way. The hand seems fairly routine to me.
What don't you understand about this? The guy with the J9 is the fish here - it was probably a bad raise on the flop, probably a bad call before the flop.
Do you think the T8s should fold to a single raise? What can his opponent have? If he had an overpair, he probably would have raised before the flop in late position. A8s is possible, maybe J8s, but there is a wide range of hands he would raise with that the original bettor can beat. For instance, if the J9 player thought the original bet might have been a draw, he could have raised with as little as two overcards or a medium pair to try and get heads-up.
The T8s player doesn't have to like the raise, but there are now 8 small bets in the pot. So he goes into check-and-call mode, which costs him the least amount of money if the player does have a big hand, and earns him the most if the player was semi-bluffing and continues to bluff on the turn and river.
As Mason said, this was a pretty routine hand. If you had trouble understanding it, you need to work on your game some more before stepping up in limits.
KB flopped a good hand. His raise has 2 benifits. First, if he pairs on the turn or river, his chances of ending up with the best hand are higher if he can eliminate other players with just overcards on the flop. Second, he could get a free card.
Unfortunatley KB squanered his free card opportunity and chose to attempt a bluff instead. Evidently, he thought that there was a good chance that DH would fold on the turn. We cannot tell from this one example if that was a reasonable assessment. I would say that against most opponents KB should have checked the turn to take a free card.
Steve
First let me say thanks again. I've been a regular low limit winner, but had my ass kicked at the high.
The general thought seems to be that this hand is routine. That shocked me !!! Correct me as I go through my thought processes. 1. One person had already called when it got to DH who was holding Ts 8s. Two bettors when KB bet his 9s Jd. 2. For 20/40 to me (Ts 8s)/(9s Jd) are a crappy starting hands. Right wrong? 3. 4 players are left to act. If someone raised I'd be compeled to muck and see my $20 go down the crapper. Or would you call? THE FLOP 8d 4c 7s 4. DH bets his pair. OK ??? I think he was trying to steal. Betting that flop I would put him on 88, A8s, A7s etc. 5. KB raises. DH has to shit. KB could have anything including slow playing a big pair, a set, etc. DH calls the raise. TURN 3s RIVER Qd 6. The turn and river DH checks and KB bets rather than take a free card(s). KB bets with only Q high hand. Any K, A or pair beat him yet he bets the river into someone who is not going away. I guess KB bets hoping DH will fold.
To me this play was insane by both players. I'm here to learn so let the coments fly...I can take it.
Bravo!!!
You got it right. Both of these turkeys play like they have more money than brains. Only a stupid idiot would go to the river in 20/40 with either hand. And for a professional(Mason)to say it seems routine to him. I think he needs to read someone else's books. If you don't have some kind of starting hand requirements, you will be a big loser at any limit.
MA
I'm no professional, but you're reasoning sounds very weak tight.
Perhaps the preflop calls were a little loose, but your statement 2. For 20/40 to me (Ts 8s)/(9s Jd) are a crappy starting hands. is meaningless - a limit doesn't define what kind of starting hands you play. It is mostly your opponents, and it seems like this was a loose enough table to make the calls not too wrong...
On a junk flop like that, top pair is very likely the best hand, so you have to bet it. The semibluff raise is also very logical. The 8T calling is automatic, since the pot is very large. Doing anything except for what happened on the flop would be rather weak tight.
The continued bets are really pure bluffs, but the pot is rather large and they don't need to work too often to be right. The call on the turn is necessary with a 4-flush, and the call on the river is okay if he thought there was even a 15% chance his opponent was bluffing.
Hey, I play the low limits too - and weak tight works very well against loose passive players; but as you move up, you will be making a lot of mistakes if you play this way.
~DjTj
I would have not played either hand (KB 9s Jd or DH Ts 8s) Does that make me weak tight and a fish at the higher limits? Help me out here with some examples of different playing catergories. tight/weak, weak tight, and how toip players would have handled a hand like this. I've got the 2+2 books but this escapes me. Thanks in advance!!!!
I think you can almost always fold J9o and T8o in 20-40 games and do at least as well.
The key points in this hand are on and after the flop. IMO, both of these guys should have folded pre-flop. Given that they played, it is helpful to understand why they do what they do on and after the flop.
The raise by J9o was not a bad play at all. This is they type of aggressive play that has more value in a typical 20-40 game than in a typical 3-6 game. He is buying extra outs, plus a free card. The guy with the pair of 8's clearly should not fold, and I agree with his call.
This hand is really pretty simple. Other than some weak pre-flop limps, both players played it in a reasonable fashion.
DH bets the flop with top pair, KB raises with gutshot and 2 overcards (strong hand). Raising here is certainly a reasonable play. If he can get heads up with DH, then he has a likely 10 outs.
KB's bet on the turn is questionable but certainly not out of line, if he feels there is any chance DH will fold, it is certainly a reasonable play.
And as far as the river, its pretty much an automatic bet after deciding to not take the free card and bet out the turn. Cant win by checking and DH only needs to fold ~15% of the time for this to be profitable.
Just my 2 cents.
-Action Bob
O.K.
So you want to live on the edge. Your hand plus the flop represents 71% of your total hand. But, the two hole cards represent 35% of that hand. In my opinion, either player could have had a high pair totally separate from the flop cards. It seems to me that you can't ignore the value of the hole cards, especially at these limits. Unless you have unlimited funds, I believe you have to tighten up your starting hands. Each player bet $140.00 on a hunch. Am I totally off base with this observation? Or am I just too conservative?
Me
Mike,
Once they (incorrectly) play pre-flop with this junk, which doesn't happen all that much at 20-40, then the play is so routine. It is an everyday event at 3-6 and 5-10 for players to play this kind of junk (J9 and T8) preflop, and then the bet on the turn might even convince Mr. T8 to fold -- if he is weak.
These two players probably lost their stake pronto. They will not survive at 20-40 games I have watched playing this junk preflop.
Mark
I am new at this game also, but as I see these hands both are meant to be folded before the flop. Since niether did however, look at the play. DH flopped the high pair with the board. go ahead and bet it and see who folds out with weaker "limp in" hands. that will leave only decent hands against you. KB raised to get everyone out, and every one folds, but DH has a pair already, he calls. Fourth street shows DH at high pair (on the board)and four to a flush, but not a "bettable" hand, he checks. KB bets, but it would still be unlikely that he had a 5/6 for a straight or trips off what is on the board, so call him. the Qd is "wild" in this picture to DH so he checks, then BK bets on a bluff that would work against "scared" money, but DH takes the gamble and wins. Not plays I would make, but it worked for DH on the "gut check" at the end.
Hi,
I noticed there was a thread earlier about buttons dissapearing on Paradise Poker. There was a situation where I flopped Quads but my buttons dissapeared and I was forced all-in. It was very obvious that I would never fold in this situation. I emailed Paradise and they have took care of this very professionally. Best of all they noted that they are aware of the buttons dissapearing and are working on fixing it. This is good news! Their customer service is top-notch.
The Internet Forum is definitely competing with the Hold'em forum nowadays in terms of traffic...Maybe they should split it up into "Conspiracy Theory" and "Poker Topics" - and maybe one called "Aslan"...
Anyhow, I think somebody said long ago that internet poker would expose the losers because the numbers would show up on your credit card, eventually diminishing the number of fish in poker as a whole. I think its actually doing a good job of sending all those people back to the casino because they're afraid of "collusion".
All this complaining about cheating or whatnot seems to be a number of players realizing that they are not as good as they thought they were - perhaps they never kept accurate records before; or perhaps they just haven't adjusted to the games online that are inevitably different from those at their local casino.
I haven't been playing poker as long as most people on this forum, but my short ~400 hour experience with low-limit poker has shown me that suckouts appear everywhere - if anything, more in live games than online. If you all really haven't noticed this, you must not be playing much poker...
Oh yeah, my favorite thing is the people encouraging others to switch over to Planet - haha, so some people are working for Paradise and some people are working for Planet - where do I sign up to be part of this whole propaganda war?
just some thoughts...
~DjTj
P.S. Here's a nice suckout that just happenned a little while ago:
Game #18xxxxxx - $3/$6 Hold'em - 2000/08/18-xx:xx:xx (CST) That's poker! Can't wait to play with this guy again!
He'll beat your brains out, over and over again. Let me give the reason why you lost that is prevalent on the holdem forum. You were a fish to call pre-flop with A-10o. Of course if you had won, then you would be a genius to call with A-10o. That might not make much sense, but thats holdem. This forum is great because fools such as yourself reveal again and again that they will send an unknown entity thousands of dollars.You are a sucker, just as people that play lotteries,and penny stock markets are suckers.
I repeat, this low limit suckout artist will beat you over and over again. Mark my words.
I have to kind of agree here, not only was the preflop call quesionable, but the bet on the flop was even more sketchy. But given how bad the 3/6 players play, you can probably get away with these plays.
- Andrew
haha, you're probably right, calling with ATo probably wasn't too smart - I wasn't even looking for commentary on that hand, hitting the 2 on the river was just something signifcant I remembered about this maniac guy - he lost all his money about an hour later while rambling on about how Paradise was rigged...
My point was that its probably not rigged and that hands like that happen all the time - but whatever, I need to work on my sarcasm...haven't posted on this forum in a while...
~DjTj
I play a lot of poker on-line, and it seems to me there are probaly a lot of players who play better than this guy, and still think the game is rigged just because they cannot beat the games.
They play good preflop, but they have too many leaks post flop.
My advice to beating the on-line poker scene, is to learn how to play shorthanded (i.e. learn to play poker).
I don't think the flop bet was too bad - with just one blind player checked in front of you and one player behind you? I think it's ok to semi-bluff here unless the player behind you is a calling station. Bottom pair overcard kicker plus nut str8 draw plus backdoor nut flush draw. Do you really thing betting is that bad?
seems to me you were the initial one doing the sucking out and then got sucked out on yourself
Haven't seen this mentioned, so I'm beginning to wonder if it happens only on my computer...
You're at the Paradise table when suddenly you're switched to the "Lobby." This happens about every ten minutes.
Invariably, it seems to happen just when the action gets to me. I then poke one of several buttons at the bottom of the screen, but go to one or two wrong tables before returning to the correct one. Whatever my action, I have then "sent a message I didn't intend" with my delay. This has cost me $$$ on more than one occasion.
The timing of betting seems to me to be magnified in significance online vs. live games, since there is so little non-betting information available for use as deception.
I mentioned this in an e-mail to Paradise Support, but along with questions about disconnects. No response from them.
This seems to have started after the "upgrade" about 3 weeks back. Anybody else notice this?
clambaker
Yes I have seen on occasion. Seems to occur just as my cards are beginning to be dealt, and by time second card is there, it is back.
What really bothered me was one time as this was happening was something that popped up in the "chat" box, it was so fast, a second or less, but appeared as though it could have been the symbols for cards (4h kd Js, etc., with colons scattered every so often, a beginning of the cards to next player?) several lines of this. If this was indeed the hands being dealt and someone knew how lto capture it. Whoooooaaaaa!
Ernie said, "You know, I think I'm getting paranoid; it feels like everyone is out to get me!"
"No Ernie, everyone said as in one voice, "you're not paranoid, we are out to get you."
not a true techno glitch but just something strange. last night i was playing in both a 5-10 and .5-1 hold em games. i was dealth pocket 5's in the low limit and aces's at 5-10 twice in a row, even though i lost all four hands i could'nt keep up considering this happened within the same amount of time. has anyone else who plays more than one table seen this occur?
This tends to happen if you have clicked on a table to observe but are not actually playing at that table...
In fact you may be playing at another table at the time ...and have the second table connected so that you can switch to it for observation.
What I've noticed is that if you are not, finally, seated at that second table you will be "removed" from even observing the table and when this happens you are switched to the lobby momentarily...but you are NOT REMOVED from the table at which you are actually playing.
You and Bob indicated that your switches to the Lobby are momentary. Most of the time these switches will keep me in the Lobby until I switch back to the table.
It is true that I usually have two or three tables "open." I will try closing all but the one I'm playing in to see if that stops the switching.
Since there are few responses, and since this happens with regularity on my computer, I assume that it's likely a problem with my machine/software installation, and not something that's affecting other players.
In my case it is while watching only *one* table.
How about the strange text in the "chat box" has anyone else seen this? As I said before it was too fast to really get an idea on, but something to do with the cards being dealt for the present hand is my guess.
I just ran a quick experiment on Paradise. The first four tests are when I just watched (not played) a game at a table. All times were calculated from my task bar clock, so they are +/- one minute.
1. One table in an active window (active table) --> Stayed open for 30+ minutes
2. One table in an inactive window (inactive table) --> Closed after 8 minutes and Lobby becomes active Paradise window, causing it to appear on top.
3. One active table and one inactive table --> Inactive table closes after 8 minutes, Lobby becomes active window.
4. Two inactive tables --> both close after 8 minutes and Lobby becomes active window.
Then I played one game while watching another in an inactive window. Watched game closed after 8 minutes of inactivity, Lobby appears over played game.
Conclusion: Any watched table will close after 8 minutes in an inactive window, causing the Lobby to become the active Paradise window. Of course, one or more played-on tables will never close because they never experience a period of inactivity nearing 8 minutes.
You can avoid the problem by moving the Lobby window to a place on your screen where it does not overlap any of the tables you are playing on (if your screen is not large enough, you can move the Lobby past "the edge," where only a small part is showing.)
Now as to the strange text in the chat box, I didn't see anything but now I will be forever looking :-)
Mitch
Mitch, you said: Conclusion: Any watched table will close after 8 minutes in an inactive window, causing the Lobby to become the active Paradise window.
The switches I'm referring to aren't happening at a "watched" table. They're happening at the table where I'm playing, sporadically (not fixed interval) and frequently.
Played several hours this evening, and made sure that only one window was open (see above). Problem remained.
I'm becoming more certain that no one else seems to be experiencing quite the same switching to the Lobby. Otherwise, there would be plenty of howls. I'll try Paradise Support again on this.
You said: You can avoid the problem by moving the Lobby window to a place on your screen where it does not overlap any of the tables you are playing on...
I don't have the Lobby window open except to scope out the tables, lists, etc.
Thanks for thoughts & ideas. I, too, will be looking in the chat area for strange characters than might be hand info.
clambaker,
I have had the exact same problem. I have to click on the game i want to get it back Usually the lobby switch occurs right before I have to act. The switch is even more annoying when I am playing at two games w/ same limit and type, because it is difficult to get back to the correct game quickly. Also, the second game may prompt you during these few seconds which adds to the confusion (you wish to act quickly, but you need a few seconds to figure out which game you are on... if its your turn on the other game it will prompt you also).
Ron
I just read DS's Bank Requirement article a few days ago and applied his Max Swing formula to my real casino life results. I play $6-$12 about 5 days a week(sometimes w/ a kill) and my max swing is around $1300.00 based on my results the last few yrs.
Online I play mostly $5-10, some 3-6 and some 10-20. Although I am up between $6500-$7000, I did post a few months back how I've had what felt like "RUNS FROM HELL"....
I even came to the conclusion before I read a single post on this web site that Planet games seemed more real life then Paradise (With some doubt that this might be a psychological feeling based on playing so many more hands per hour).
However, my RUNS FROM HELL never exceeded more than $900.00-$1200.00 either (Some of them included -$200.00 or so playing Omaha which isn't my game)which is IN LINE with real life play.
My point is, even IF there is card distribution conspiracy on Paradise, the low limit games are still beatable, and do not differ from real casino play( As far as my BR requirements are concerned). Of course the players are more loose-aggressive, etc, etc..But I do play a lot of shorthanded. Some might say that this would add to my swings, but I find it just the opposite. The on-line opponents make a few major mistakes SH. In fact my winning % is much higher shorthanded than in full games.
Another theory I've heard from a winning high limit player who is up between $30,000 - $40,000 on Par.(plays lots of heads up), is that the cards do seem weird as if Paradise is purposely trying to redistribute the money, but he thinks his skill level especially shorthanded, is overcoming this anyways...
Maybe the majority of long term Paradise winners are just good shorthanded players, while others like Ed Hill are not as good shorthanded as they are in full games...I dont know for sure, but I am 100% positive all the games are beatable one way or the other. If you don't think so, my advice is to "get your game fixed" or "stick w/ the passive tourists that can easily be manipulated into doing what you want."
I sold some hand histories to Poker Analyzer, and they requested that when the check arrived, I mention it here. Well, they sent me $10, as promised. Perhaps this "plug" is worth more than the hand histories I sent them, but it seems like a reasonable request.
B$
*
Does poker analyzer have a website?
LOL
n/t
*
I just started playing on Planet Poker, and I have a sound glitch that comes up every once in a while. My computer just keeps clicking (like you are shuffling), and it doesn't stop.
Any suggestions?
Derrick
You should be able to turn the sound off in the "options" button.
I've had similar problems and it's due to low system resources. Reboot and it will go away. BTW, how much mem and speed does your computer have?
I have the same problem on a laptop running NT and it certainly isn't a resource problem - running 64 meg at 233. Support suggested the problem was with my NT.
I have a 166MMX with 128Megs of RAM. I also have a high speed internet connection, all in all well within their specs.
I am also running NT sp6a.
That's all I know.
Thanks for the suggestions,
Derrick
A few days ago I was catching a good run of cards in a 3 handed game. I was getting very lucky against a certain individual. I guess he finally had enough, and after giving me tremendous action with his Ace of diamonds draw against my second nut flush, he decided to STALL on the river and go ALL-IN thinking his ACE high might possibly be good or he just wanted to see my hand.
Now I've reported people for ALL-IN ABUSE, about 6-7 times before, and only once were they disciplined. (Sometimes I'm not even involved in the hand. It just pisses me off to see people cheat this way.)
I sent the following e-mail to paradise:
------------------------------------------------------ Hand # 18456521 While playing 3 handed ***** went all in because he didnt want to pay me off... I have played w/ this guy before...I know he wasn't having connection probs based on the previous hands, and the actual hand he had (AQ with the ACE of diamonds)...This is clear.
If you do not understand what he did and why he did it, please forward the message to someone who understands the game.
As far as I am concerned he owes me $10.00
Thank you. ------------------------------------------
***** To me surprise I received the following reply:
------------------------------------ Hello D****,
We have credited your account $10. We are seeking an explanation from ***** for the reason for the good all-in.
Thank you for your report.
Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.
Regards,
Jonathan Paradise Poker Support -----------------------------------------------------
WOW! I was impressed. The next time this happens to you and your pretty sure it was done on purpose, be sure to report it as you may actually be credited with every bet missed..(Imagine if they go all in on the flop with 5 or more bets that they skipped out on.)
This was quite interesting and I appreciate you posting this. I play at Planet and I will find out soon if they do the same thing.
Your title of the post suggests entirely different content. I was ready to read yet another maniacal theory on Paradise Poker using props(house paid players) and fixing the deck so their props can win. What a nice surprise.
I would suggest Paradise fix THEIR problem with the buttons disapearing or the cheats will claim that is the reason they didn't react.
I keep hearing from various sources that there is major diff beetween internet poker and real card rooms. Would You please explain to major differences in internet poker strategy as opposed to real card rooms(as far as texas holdem is concerned).Thank You in advance.
I only play the low limits (up to 5-10), so I can't tell you much about the higher limits.
However, I can tell you that the main difference between Paradise Poker and the LA casinos I play in is that Paradise games tend to be a lot tighter. I find myself playing against a mix of mostly weak tight and some tight aggressive players at Paradise. While its mostly loose passive and some weak tight players at the casino. Of course, there are loose aggressives spread throughout, but probably more at the casino.
Personally, I don't think my hourly rate is that much different between online and live games, but I do a lot better at LL HE on Paradise since the rake is smaller and I don't have to tip the dealer.
~DjTj
Internet poker strategy at Paradise? Don't play unless you are a personal friend of David Sklansky.
...I'm starting to think that these Paradise-bashing one-liners that keep coming from anonymous posters must be someone working for Planet...
Why is it that 99% of players feel they " have " to tip dealers in live games? This is all well and fine for the occaisional player, but for those who play alot these dealer tips can add up to thousands of dollars per year. If you played 40 hrs/week and tipped $1 every pot you won you'd be looking at something in the neighborhood of $100/week in tips -you have to ask yourself if you are really making the kind of money at poker that justifies you giving this money to strangers who are, after all, performing a service for the casino, not you.
I agree, especially in the lower limit games. The rake is tough enough, but that $1 tip on every pot can be the difference between being able to play poker for fun and a small profit and going broke.
You could, for that matter, train a typical 8 yr old child to perform at the level of your average poker dealer - its a job that basicly requires only that you pay attention and keep quiet but its amazing how many dealers can't do one or both; $30+/hr...if I could have averaged that as a player I would never have gone into politics and become leader of the free world :-)
Tips are optional, the rake isn't. Stop tipping the dealers and they will need a raise. Guess who is going to pay the raise and guess how they'll collect it.
The idea that we ahould all give money to dealers to forestall a " possible " increase in rake is certainly a very "dealer friendly" concept, but not too strong on logic or " player " perspective. First of all, my remarks are really directed at players who put in lots of hours at lower limits and for whom the cost of poker is an issue. Most players (particularly at lower limits) are " pleasure players " for whom the cost of playing poker is irrelevent - it is from these players that dealers should expect to make their tip money,not from serious players who have to look at the bottom line. From the player perspective, money that goes off the table into dealers pockets is EXACTLY the same as if it went down the rake slot - its just more money going to the " house ".
So, I guess any serious poker player, and by serious I mean one who needs to book solid and regular wins vis a vis some bottom line should have as part of his basic tight agressive strategy a no toking policy.
Can you make a logical argument to toke? Won't you still get two cards? Won't you still get the pot pushed to you when you win? When you have the best hand and you make everyone at the table aware of this fact won't you be declared the winner? So, logic dictates that a no toke strategy is somehow optimum.
Dealer's have a bottom line, too. It's called supporting a family and paying taxes. I'm not saying you need to be overly generous but leaving it up to the pleasure players even though you are receiving the same service is kind of selfish don't you think?
I definitely agree with you Sammy. I don't know if any of you have ever waited tables or had any sort of jobs in the service industry, but if you did, you'd know that tipping is an important part of peoples' incomes.
I don't know many people that are playing the low limits professionally, so worrying about losing these dollars isn't a huge concern of mine. As long as I'm having fun and learning something about poker, I can stand to lose a little bit of money.
So, it all works out well - the "pleasure players" - those playing the lower limits, pay a proportionately higher toke, while the professionals, those at higher limits, pay a proportionately smaller toke.
~DjTj
Sammy Your sentiments indicate that you are , or have been a dealer yourself so I can understand your difficulty with my position on this issue. I am not suggesting that players should stop toking dealers, or even that SERIOUS players should never toke - though you do make a very good case in your post as to why they shouldn't. If you approach poker as a business you have no choice but to minimize or, as you say, eliminate it altogether. I have worked as a dealer myself, I have worked with dealers and I have also played professionally for periods of time. I have looked at this issue from all sides. When I worked as a dealer I never resented the meager tips from " business " players because I understood their dilemma. Dealers perform a service for the " house " not the player. Players who imagine that the dealer is servicing THEM are the same ones who often end up throwing cards and being abusive when their luck runs bad.
Mr. President,
I have never been a dealer nor had any job where my wages were dependent on tips, except when I was 17 and parked cars at a beach club for a summer. (I didn't do it for the money, I did it to drive the really cool cars.)
I used to play blackjack seriously, and in that venue I never toked. Perhaps, I was just taking the advice of Stanford Wong or maybe it was because they pooled their tips. When I started playing poker, it was simply a "When in Rome" kind of a thing.
But now, when someone tries to make an argument that players who play for a living are some sort of special breed, I don't know, it just rankles me. I assume, mistakenly I guess, that pros play less hands, win fewer pots, and the pots they do win are generally bigger proportionately to their investment. They also play higher stakes, so how can throwing a dealer a couple of whites make that much of an impact.
For the record, I do not believe you have to toke more because you're plying higher stakes. The dealer still did the same job. I also don't believe that I should tip a waiter/waitress more for bringing me a steak than for bringing me a tuna sandwich. Why should she/he benefit from my expensive tastes? After all, even though I have a weakness for valets, I tip them the same for bringing me my Audi as i do when I'm driving my Toyota.
I don't feel it's a case of full-time players being a " special breed ", but of recognizing that for them poker is their business and livelihood and it is incumbent on them to minimize costs as would any competant business operator. You dismiss the toking of " a couple of whites " as insignifigant but you also seem to have the erroneous impression that most people ATTEMPTING to make a living at poker - I say " attempting " because most fail and give up within a couple of years - are playing " high " limits. There are legions of players trying to grind out a living at limits of $10-20 and under, and for these players the financial impact of constant dealer toking can be huge - I know because I've kept records myself and I've crunched the numbers. A hundred dollars a week is a fair estimate for a player putting in 40-50 hrs and toking only $1/pot; Try keeping track some time of how much you toke over a few sessions, do an hourly calculation and extrappolate that over a 40-50 hr week 11 mths a year and you'll get the picture. An aspiring pro who shows an average monthly income around $2000 and gives $400-$500 of that to dealers is, frankly, a mutton-head. I'm not heartless; I always tip waiters, waitresses etc but I can do so because I don't interact with these people over and over all day long, day after day, week after week. If I had to eat 20 times a day I guess I'd have to rethink my tipping policy there too.
I'm a big fan of tipping - I think it creates better service. Nonetheless, I think low-limit players over-tip. Throwing a dollar to the deal in a 10-20 game when you rake in a $200 pot isn't that big a deal. Nor is taking perhaps $2/hr out of your win rate.
But put yourself in the position of a low-limit, recreational poker player. This player is break-even at best, and is essentially paying the rake and tokes. If this player wins 2 pots per hour, and plays 20 hours a week, then tokes are costing him $160 per month. That's a hell of a lot of money to give away for one's recreation. Would most of these players be able to afford, say, a Golf Club membership if it were $1920 a year? How about buying a new big-screen TV every year? This is the kind of money we're talking about.
Around here, the rake is $5, the Jackpot Drop is $1, and the players ALWAYS seem to throw the deal a buck every time they win a pot. They often throw two bucks if they win a big one. The low limit players are therefore paying perhaps $12 per hour for the privelege of playing in a casino. How many can afford that? How many even make that much in their jobs?
This combination is busting players out of the game, which is hurting poker overall. Our larger games are stagnating, because players can't survive the lower limits long enough to move up.
If the dealer is allowed to keep his own tips, and people throw a dollar every time they win a pot, then that dealer is going to be making perhaps $25-$30/hr. Do you really think dealing poker is a job that warrants a $30/hr salary?
The whole tipping thing becomes ridiculas, especially in California. The house is already robbing you, charging you $12 per hour to play 10-20. Now, it is up to you to pay their employees. Think of how silly this is. Yes, but the poor dealers don't make any money. It isn't the players fault that they took a job where their employer wants to keep all the money and throw the burden of paying their help back on to the customers.
Another thing that is very dangerous in California is that the dealers keep their own racks. If any mistakes are made in the dealers favor, they get to keep it. Something to consider for those that don't toke.
I don't know if this counts as a change in "stratey," but since you can't see your opponents and the games move faster, you probably need to concentrate harder on what your opponents are doing. Since the players move in and out more quickly, you have to adapt to changing lineups faster. You'll see a much greater variation in skills at the lower limits than what you're probably used to in a cardroom. You also have fewer opportunities to exploit your opponents' impatience and don't see the phenomenon of the player that drove 2 hours to the casino playing desperately to get even. Overall, I'd say you have less information and less time to exploit the information you have. So you should expect a lower hourly rate and higher fluctuations, assuming you can adapt to the overall tighter play. If you can't adapt, expect to lose a lot unless you are very table selective.
You should also be hyper-vigilent against "soft steaming." If you react to frustration by overplaying hands, you can lose a bunch of bets in a few clicks of the mouse before you know what's happening.
I think that a lot of players that were used to beating very loose casino games experienced severe difficulties when they first played internet holdem with only 3-4 players on average seeing the flop.
Mr.President,
I suggest you learn how to play poker better, so that you can afford to tip a fair amount. If you were slightly more clever, you would realize that the way poker rooms are set up elicits your freedom to choose to tip or not.
If you are not receiving any service from a dealer, how do you get your cards? As to your comment that you could teach an 8 year old how to do the job, well, I suspect that you underestimate what the job entails.
I would be strongly in favor of a fixed amount of the rake going to the dealer, but guess what? The rake would increase.
Mr. Hill,
Your argument holds no water, the dealers chose the job they did BECAUSE they will get paid based on their performance by THEIR customers, the players.
It always amazes me that the players who are usually the first ones to go crying to the "house" when service is less than spectacular are the same players that tip meagerly.
Imagine a dealer that did and said exactly what he/she wanted in a down during one of your games. You wouldn't have to tip at all, but you might never see a hand. Do you think the house would fire that dealer for not taking a rake?
What really makes me sick, though,(and I'm not saying that you do this) is that someone is willing to accept another person's work and never pay anything for that service. If you're unwilling to pay a fair wage, don't accept the service. Play online, please.
Well, I've put in a hundred or so hours at Planet Poker now, so I thought people would like to hear what I saw as the main differences between the two sites...
First, let me say that I saw no sign of collusion, non-random hand distributions, or anything else out of the ordinary at EITHER site. If you disagree, great. Just don't respond to this message. I'm not interested in another 'cheating' thread.
Here are my comments on both sites:
That's about it for now. Comments welcome, other than paranoid cheating theories.
I've played on Planet, and I like it better too. I agree the game is slower and less selection, but when there are no software problems, the players in the games are more stable and the games are usually pretty good. My results in Planet mirror my results in real life...while my results in Paradise are almost the exact opposite...like lots of people, I don't know if there is cheating on Paradise, but I just feel a lot more comfort at Planet....it may be that I am too result oriented, which would be an error...but on the internet, comfort is an important subject.
David and Mason, you're about to lose me from the 2+2 forums.
Life is way too short for me to have to log on here and have to read this crap. Now I've got unknown people calling me a racist. I hope it goes without saying that this is the farthest thing from the truth. This is the type of insidious character assassination that may seem ridiculous but has a nasty habit of following you around.
I'm NOT going to run around and defend myself at every turn against wild accusations, and the alternative is about as bad - people saying stuff like this without opposition. The only other alternative for me is to simply stop posting.
I agree!! There seems to be at least one idiot in every discussion. They spoil things for the rest of us. Don't let the father-less wimps get you down. Enough said about social skills. Ha!
Me
Mike Ad appears as biased as Hanson. Refusing to see racism that obviously exists may be a pattern for Mr.Hanson. He fails to see irregularities where they obviously exist, too. Hanson's posts on the other forum are pro Nazi for christ's sake. See no evil, hear no evil, no evil exists!
Mr.Hanson strongly denied that he is anti-semitic. I believe that he probably is not a racist. Nevertheless, his postions on not seeing racism, which exists everywhere in the world, and not seeing obvious irregularities in distributions could be a pattern of denial. In my opinion, he needs to do some soul searching and open his eyes in more than one life venue.
I do find it amusing that he seems to believe that Planet Poker is softer after only 100 hours. In other posts he would suggest that this isn't enough time to make a valid judgement. I believe that it is obvious Planet Poker has made changes to its software over the last 8 months.The gross irregularities there have vanished. I cannot say the same for Paradise Poker.
I see racism all over the place, and it's despicable. It's also the last refuge for people unable or unwilling to examine their own faults or see the world for what it is. Intolerance is just another, highly disgusting side effect of fuzzy thinking. What I specifically have not seen is personal evidence of anti-semitism in the people in my local area, but Edmonton is a pretty cosmopolitan city in the west of Canada. There is plenty of racism here, but not much of that specific variety. That may simply be because Edmonton doesn't have a very active and visible Jewish community. I also agreed that anti-semitism was probably much more prevalent in the large eastern cities of Canada.
Of course I never defended the Nazis. They were a sick, perverted, twisted culture that left nothing but destruction and death in their wake. My only point was that the evils of the Nazis should not blind us to other evils done in the name of other political credos, some of which many 'enlightened' people still adhere to. My specific examples were the Killing Fields of Cambodia and the Gulag Archipelago of Stalin's Russia, neither of which ever achieved the proper levels of condemnation in our society. This is all I'm going to say on this subject
Back to poker: I agree that 100 hours is not enough time to see any real trends in terms of card distributions. However, it's enough time to see the user interface, bugs in the software, overall quality of play, etc. That's what I limited my remarks to, other than my opening comment that so far I have seen no irregularities in card distributions. I'll happily admit that 100 hours isn't enough time to tell.
Hello there !
Does any of this have anything to do with playing poker? If you are convinced that it does, you should try solitare. It's not as threatening.
Me
Dan:
I'm with you on this. The rule should be that all non-poker posts on a poker forum should go, as well as those without an email address, even if one without a real name.
Check out Liberman's racist garbage on the General Theory forum. This is getting ridiculous! If I wanted to read trash like his statements then I would have to go to the library and look up Mein Kempf (SIC). Perhaps poker theory reinforces racial stereotypes and prejudice?
Dan,
Very good post, we need more like them.
I agree, the Paradise tightness indicator needs to go away. I have found many a good game break up because the indicator goes to 40% for 1 minute on another game...this just annoys the hell out of me. Then that game goes down to 21% within 2 minutes, but my good game is gone....arghhhhhh.
About the display: The Paradise display is so much better for me than the Planet that I have trouble playing on Planet. I got used to the Paradise maybe.
Mark
I really think a lot of people spend too much time chasing "good" games. I think that staying in a game for an extended period of time has more advantages than hopping from game to game. Just because a game is tight doesn't mean it's bad.
If you find tight players with big post-flop leaks, you've run into a gold mine. And yes, there are quite a few of these players on Paradise.
- Andrew
Yes, but there are other side effects. For one thing, with players hopping from game to game you don't get to play against the same person for long. That coupled with with the much larger player base means that it's harder for a good player to adapt to his opponents. Or maybe I just have to work harder on it.
Planet is more like a casino game. You can play for an hour without a single player leaving. This allows you to get comfortable with the flow of the game, read the players, etc. Nothing worse than raising to attack the blinds, and THEN realizing that two of the generic ovals have new players in them who will call all bets, when the last two would have had a high probability of folding.
I agree that overall, the Paradise software has a better user interface for navigating between games, cashing out, etc. It's also much faster, and apparently much more stable.
Dan,
"The server on Planet, however, is not. They have some serious software problems over there. Their server crashed twice tonight within an hour."
I was always crashing on Paradise. It may have been my set-up or something AOL I don't know. I couldn't handle it so I gave it up. I tried Planet about 2 weeks ago and I find the games much more enjoyable there is not as much waiting for the player to come back from playing two games at once and the players stay in the game as you stated. To switch games takes more time on Planet and you can't chose your seat. I hate the 1&8&10 seat that is just me, but if I leave a game for another game there is no guarantee that I will not get that seat. I think the server crashed once or twice in the time I've played compared to Paradise it's not a factor. I understand your frustration of having to reboot as I had to do it every time I played on paradise which didn't help my playing at all.
Game selection stinks nobody plays OHigh, O8 limited to one or two games, HE full, 7CS ok, 7CSHL one or two, and I like the lower limits 25/50c to introduce people into the games.
good luck paul
I wrote this early this morning and was the first one to respond but my server is screwed up. Dan everytime you went into a bar did you like it. There are bad bars and unfortunately bad people. By leaving they will have accomplished there sick needs. By staying you will have grown stronger and better because you will see the sickness in their words. They will no longer have any power over you, because you have outgrown their words.
Don't misunderstand - I'm not personally offended by these guys, or upset in any way. It's more a practical matter. I don't need people associating my name with racism in any form. That's what I meant when I said that this stuff has a way of following you around. I don't want to meet someone a year from now, and have him dredge his memory and vaguely recall that I was involved in something anti-semitic, or whatever. Smearing reputations has a lasting effect. These forums become a permanent record. I don't need someone doing a Yahoo! search a year from now for 'Dan Hanson' and having the first hit be a message where someone says, "Don't forget, Dan's an anti-semitic racist". Taken out of context, there is no guarantee that anyone would ever read any further, and the damage to my reputation is done. It would be especially wonderful if a prospective employer hit that kind of crap while searching the web for info about me, as many employers are starting to do.
I guess it's my own fault for using my own name, but since that Pandora's box is open I might just be forced to stop posting. Changing to a pseudonym at this point isn't going to help, since you can spot my writing style a mile away. My chance at anonymity on this board is blown, and it isn't being policed, so perhaps I should just cut my losses.
Dan, you are one of the few posters that add value to the internet forum. Ignore the lunatics and continue contributing.
I sympathize with your problem. Others have been harrassed, but the words heaped on you are particularly onerous. You are right. Mr. Feeney is right, too.
As a long time lurker on this forum, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to you and a double handful of others. I rarely post, and when I do, it's always anonymously and without an e-mail address. There are good reasons for this. The irony is that you have highlighted one of these good reasons, and at the same time point toward the need of a form of "registration" and perhaps mandatory e-mail addresses in order to clean up the odious speech.
Can we just treat it as graffiti? Ignoring it in real life has become just part of the price of existence. I don't like it, but I live with it, and suggest it may be the best course for this forum.
We can't afford to lose your insight. Hang in there!
Dan,
Perhaps because I usually only read posts from those I recognize as having made valuable contributions to other threads, I have not seen any derogatory messages about you. I do very much enjoy reading your posts, however.
I think you overestimate the recognizability of your writing. Like others, you write well, but your writing style has not struck me as very unique. I believe a pseudonym (or two) would be a viable alternative for you. Even if your style was recognized, a pseudonym would largely address your concerns about web searches and strangers recognizing your name from these forums.
More importantly, it would be a shame to make concessions to mean-spirited idiots who engage in a form of verbal terrorism.
MJS
Their wait list display is buggy. If you watch it, you'll notice that from time to time games will 'vanish'. Last night I was playing 10-20, and we were down to 8 players and no one was joining the game. When I went out and looked at the wait list, the 10-20 game didn't show on it. I asked the other players if anyone could see the game, and they couldn't. So the game eventually died because no one could sign up for it.
Later on in the evening, I was on the wait list for two 5-10 games when both of them vanished from the list. I was eventually called into one of the games (which still wasn't visible), but it too eventually died because no new players could see it.
My wife decided to spend the afternoon home last Tuesday to play online. After about half an hour, the server crashed and she could not connect again for a couple of hours. She was pretty annoyed about that. So yeah, I think their software has some serious issues. The industry standard for unscheduled downtime for web sites is running around 0.06% Planet's is much worse. Or perhaps I started playing there during a very unusual two weeks.
The connections have been extremely erratic lately. I thought it was quite ironic that on Thursday night Caro and Cooke were supposed to play 5-10 and Cooke had connection problems and couldn't play. If his connection is iffy what can we mere mortals expect?
the games will vanish if you set parameters such as 8 players etc. Just leave the selection on all games and you won't have dissapearing games.
As far as your other comments are concerened,I can't believe that anyone with an open mind can't see a tremendous difference between the 2 sites.
You say that the planet games are weaker, yet the problem that myself and a growing number of other reasonable people have voiced is that there is a problem with seemingly bad players always making their hands. it's the software!
They chase at Planet, but you don't have 3 players that hit the flop every hand, and stand 3 raises with an underpair then get there. Why does this just happen at PP? Do bad players of this magnitude gravitate to PP and not Planet???? And do they only get there at PP???? Sure they draw out with junk at Planet, but not even clse to PP. PP either has major software problems or it's crooked. And I'm not a paranoid Dan.
Dan, take a look with an open mind and not a pre-dispossed one, and your eyes will open up.
good luck
I do have an open mind on this, which is why I posted the original comment that I haven't seen anything out of the ordinary. If I were sold on the issue entirely, I wouldn't even comment.
The vanishing game problem had nothing to do with my settings. I tried turning on all game types, setting 0 minimum and 10 max players, AND selecting the checkbox for 'display ALL games', just in case their UI was broken. The games still weren't there. I then polled a number of other players, and no one else could see those games either.
In the case of the 5-10 games, two were going, both were full with a waiting list, yet they both vanished from the list.
Dan,
I haven't had your kind of problems on Planet but I can sympathize with you because I left Paradise for that reason. If I start experiencing those kind of problems I will just give up poker on the web until they debug some of these trivial things that drive me crazy. Web poker is new so maybe in a year all this BS will be put to rest.
Paul
I too switched to Planet. I have only played 4 hours of 20-40 but since I am up about $1500, I am liking it a whole lot more than Paradise:)
In my admittedly next-to-nothing experience on Planet, I too have found that the games are generally more stable and more passive (particularly postflop) both of which I like a whole lot better.
Oh ya...don't sweat the accusations too much. We all know that this board in particular has some real resident nutbars.
Hey this is great. I came over here just to find a comparison between the two internet poker sites and found this thread. Too bad it sounds like both sites have some big drawbacks.
I sure hope you don't decide to leave. You've always been one of my favorite posters. Your posts always seem to make sense to me.
BTW, I have more to say about kelly when I get the time so watch out for it...
I think I've become addicted to the speed at Paradise. I tried to adjust to the single game and plodding pace @ Planet but found I just grew impatient. This may account for some of the 'softness factor' as many active players might prefer the faster action at Paradise. As for the troubled connections, perhaps they are similar to the growing pains experienced by Paradise in May and early June (after they went over 10000000 hands). spitball
I found this quite amusing. I was watching $20-40 on Paradise, the play is pretty tight for the most part. One guy is calling almost 3/4ths of the hands and then asks the question
"Would you guys stay with Q8o?"
Needless to say his stack went from $1000 to $200 in the 20 minutes I watched the game.
It's a shame people have that much money to blow.
No, it's GREAT that they do.
If I try to run Napster when I'm playing at Planet Poker it wont work and has even crashed my computer while opening the Napster program. Anyone else have this problem and know how to fix the dang deal?
I once wrote to Planet telling them that I couldn't get any sound on other programs while using theirs. They wrote back and told me that they use something called "Direct Sound." Here is an excerpt from Micheal's (PP Support)email to me:
Our software uses "direct sound" which makes it the dominant sound if you try running other applications with sound. Other games or multimedia software will not be able to play sound.
So, Hasta La Vista Napster!
...that's wierd because the whole point of direct sound is that different programs can all use the soundcard at the same time without conflicts...
Whatever, Planet Poker is pretty crappy software - if you want to try running other things while playing poker, I'd suggest you get more memory.
~DjTj
Don't think its a memory issue...I run it all the time while I'm playing at Paradise no problem - the same problem happens at Delta Poker as Planet and they both use the same software. Thanks the same for your input.
Its probably a definite bug in the planet poker software then - can you run other large programs like Microsoft Word? Or is this very specifically Napster?
Napster isn't necessarily the best written software either, so Planet and Napster could easily be trying to access resources that they shouldn't be.
Complain to Planet, I'm sure they'll love to know any more problems, as they have been constantly updating their software recently.
~DjTj
i run napster and/or play music while on planet. however it has to be running prior to logging on to planet, at least on my system. i have fiddled around with the settings to no avail. i dont know how to fix it either but ill look at it.
Same here, I start up my cd player before logging on and it works fine. If I run it first it also quiets the annoying beep when playing at paradise.
There has been a lot of discussion around the issue of whether people should be allowed to post here under ficticious names without valid email adresses, and the culling of the " rabbid dogs " in our midst. It is precisely because of the profusion of immature emotionally/mentally challenged beings encountered in online chat forums that I am retticent to divulge any personal info, including my real name or email adress - as Dan Hanson probably now wishes he had'nt - and I think posting this information for all to see constitutes a personal security risk I don't feel at all comfortable with. Since each computer has a unique " signature " perhaps this could be the mechanism by which immature and abusive people could be barred from posting on this forum.
...have you ever noticed how your 49o in one game, would be the NUT hand in your other game? And the pocket 5s in your other hand, goes real nice with the other flop of 55A?
Just a funny observation. It always seems to happen when I'm running bad. Maybe I'm too tired...*smile*
Much like flop lag in a regular game. Also much like playing 2 hands of Blackjack at the same time and drawing a five to your 65 double-down and a big fat ugly Queen to J6.
BTW, do you not feel that playing 2 games at once takes away from your time to read the players in your games. Also, just how the heck do you not let the incessant toggling get under your skin?
The one problem I have with playing two hands at once is that just when I click the 'fold' button on one game the screen switches on me, and I end up folding my set of A's in a capped pot in the other game.
change your screen res to 1024X768 or higher and offset your screens so the function buttons don't overlap
But I couldn't change the screen resolution if someone put a gun to my head. In fact, I didn't even know that was an option. What I sometimes do is 'move' one of my games about an inch to the left, so that the 'fold' buttons aren't the same on both screens. Is this what you're talking about?
Dont move them left to right. What I do is I move one screen up 1/4 inch (Click and drag the top window bar where is says: $5/$10 Texas Holdem Table whatever). Then on the second table, I move it down an inch or so, just to the point where my Fold, Check in turn buttons are still visible.....But you will have to set your auto post blinds option first, because it will not be visible (too far down.)
They will never collide this way.
In Win95 or 98 Go to the "Start" menu in the lower left hand corner of your computer. Click. Go up and find the "Settings" option. This should open up another menu that includes "Control Panel." Click it. Find the "Display" option, it's a computer monitor icon. Click it. This opens a window called "Display Properties." Find the "Settings" option and open it. This should give you the option of "more" or "less" pixels. Max it out to the right. Click "Apply". the effect should make your icons and screens smaller. With a 17" or larger montior this should give you enough area to create 2 only modestly overlapping tables where you can see all action on both at once. Or, if you like, 4 quadrants consisting of two tables, a word processing screen to type notes, and an email screen to constantly retrieve hand histories to find out what they've mucking on the end when you win.
don't forget the quadrant with the lobby...to check how all the other games are going.
if you have Win98 just right-click your mouse on any blank area of the desktop; a drop down menu appears - left click on properties, then settings. Under settings you'll see a sliding scale - set to 1024 X 768 and click apply. If you want to change it back later just reset to your previous settings the same way. Let me know how you make out.
>> BTW, do you not feel that playing 2 games at once takes away from your time to read the players in your games. Also, just how the heck do you not let the incessant toggling get under your skin?
As for reading players, I find that two games allows (forces) me to play more conservatively, as I don't like to be in two hands at once.
This makes me somewhat more selective in the hands I play, at the expense of not knowing as much about the style of the other players.
As for toggling, I just run at 1600 x 1200 resolution, and both tables fit fully on the screen without any overlap. It helps to have a large monitor and decent graphics card for this.
Playing two at once is difficult, especially with the high turnover. I'll often scout a game before entering, play a few rounds, then log into a second game. As well, I have reams of notes on player styles (often the're fairly straight-forward e.g. 'nickname' plays like an IDIOT )without which I doubt playing two tables would be worth the extra work. spitball
Is this supossed to indicate how many hands are dealt per hour? If so, I'm calling crap on it. I just saw a full (ten handed) 3-6 game with 57% of players seeing the flop that claimed to be kicking out 107 hands an hour.
problem is it can't respond immediately to changes in the number of people at the table very quickly.
If a game was shorthanded a little while ago, the stats will often be a little screwy.
~DjTj
I believe it takes just the last couple of hands for the average, so if they were played fast(tight play with two or 3 to the end), it will register a higher number of hands per hour.
x
Paradise uses a 20 hand moving average for Pot Size and Players per Flop, so I suspect it also uses a moving average for Hands per Hour.
Also, the 20 millionth game contest will be starting soon. Time to test those servers!
A moving average over 20 hands weights all 20 hands evenly. Zooey above is suggesting they use an exponential average which forgets hands at an exponential rate. So the hand 20 hands ago would only count .91^20 or 10% as much as the new hand.
Other then Planet Poker and Paradise Poker, are there any other internet poker sites. I know of pokerlive, dragoninn, and highlands but these places have like 2-3 players online at a time. There's at most one short handed table going. There's also delta but I cannot figure out how to make a deposit there using my CC since creditprocessor.com stopped doing the deposits for them.
If I've missed any internet poker sites, please let me know, and tell me if there are any worth playing at.
Thanks!
Jack,
I played last night in the pokerlive.com tourney, it was great fun. It is two hours in length, monday's at 8 are HE, thurday's at 8 are Stud.
It has a very wierd format (see below), but I enjoyed it nonetheless and you might get an overlay on the 1st prize ($500) depending on the number of players. $30 to play, no rebuys. First round $1-3, second round $3-6.
The format requires some strange play: After 1 hour, the top ten are put at the final table, so if you come in 11th place, you are out...the dealer did say when the last hand was being played before round 2, so that was ok, and since I guessed I was in 12th or 13th place, I called a guy down with 2 pair on board and won with a K high (I could not believe that 2 others at my table folded, since they then 'died').
The final table is played like this: After one hour, highest stack wins $500. Others with chips keep em. (I kept $25, so my $30 buyin lost $5. but what fun!)
On the last hand, the chip leader (with a nice lead) folded and prayed; three of the remaining 5-6 [including me] pounded and pounded...it cost me $35 or 30 real $$$ [I started this hand with $60 or so] when neither a 6 nor a K came out on the river or flop. If either of those come out I win $500. What a deal: $35 to win $500. I would like this every day. Guy with Q8 won the $500 when his 8 paired the board. Great crapshoot at the end. But good play before the end keeps you in -- hehe more or less.
Mark
Hello,
If you haven't already, check out Pokerspot.com. There's isn't as much action as Paradise or Planet yet, but we think that might change with the introduction of freeze out style tournaments. This weekend, we'll be the first online cardroom to host traditional style tournaments... and the first one is going to be completely free. Check out our website for more details at www.pokerspot.com.
Cheers, Russ Boyd President, Pokerspot.com
HI All.
The other day I went to ParadisePoker.com, and played some poker just for fun. I really liked it alot, and is thinking about playing there for real money. But before I do, I have some questions.
1. Is it possible to win contantly at internet poker??
2. Is it safe to play internet poker??
3. what at the best internet poker site??
Thanks, Daniel
Are you the same John that posted in the General Forum for advice on books about team play in Stud?
Know this young Skywalker, internet poker can beaten, but much to learn have you. The path is treacherous - Imperial Weasels lurk everywhere waiting only for the chance to check-raise and bluff you to death - but don't give in to the dark side...join not the weasel legions and become a poker jedi will you.
Do you comb your hair from back to front ?
1. yes 2. yes 3. Paradise
are planet and highlands controlled by the same owners and or servers...the sites look very much alike and if one has a connection problem the other also seems to. although no one ever seems to play at highlands...just curious
Planet, Delta, Pokerlive, Highlands,
They all use the same software for their sites, that's why they look alive. They just change some graphics on each site, but they are owned by different people.
In Your exelent book(Holdem for adv plyrs)You put up a chart explaining odds of making certain hands with 1 or 2 cards to come, You also warned pepole of not over estemating the odds with 2 cards to come. For the purpose of not bothering plyrs with math formulas You chose not to explain the details. Would You please if it is not too much trouble explain those details. Also are there any books that You recomnd or have writen explains the subject of odds in more detail. Thank You in advance.
I'll field this one for Mason if he doesn't mind since I've answered it here before.
The trick is to compute the probability that you will NOT make the hand on neither the turn nor the river and subtract this from 1. So for a flush draw, the chances of NOT making it on the turn are 38/47 since there are 47 cards left and 38 of which do NOT make the flush. The odds of NOT making it on the river assuming you don't make it on the turn are 37/46 since on the turn we removed one of the cards which don't make it. To get the odds of not making it on the turn AND THEN not making it on the river, we multiply these two probabilities (38/47)(37/46). This is the key. Think of it as 38/47 times we don't make it on the turn, and of those times, 37/46 of those we don't make it on the river either.
So the probability that we DO complete our flush on either the turn or the river is just 1 minus this result. 1-(38/47)(37/46) = .35 or 35% or about 2:1.
For a book reference, see Mason's Gambling Theories and other Topics available here.
Conversely if you have to make runner-runner you multiply the probabalities that you WILL make it. So a backdoor flush is 10/47 * 9/46. About 4.2%.
Here is a table that I downloaded from rgp. The gentleman's name is at end of the table. I have not reviewed them, so I do not know if they are accurate.
Texas Hold'em Odds
outs turn (x/47) by the river turn and river
21 1.2 :1 44.7% 0.43 :1 69.9% 4.15 :1 19.4% 20 1.3 :1 42.6% 0.48 :1 67.5% 4.68 :1 17.6% 19 1.5 :1 40.4% 0.54 :1 65.0% 5.33 :1 15.8% 18 1.6 :1 38.3% 0.60 :1 62.4% 6.04 :1 14.2% 17 1.8 :1 36.2% 0.67 :1 59.8% 6.94 :1 12.6% 16 1.9 :1 34.0% 0.75 :1 57.0% 8.01 :1 11.1% 15 2.1 :1 31.9% 0.85 :1 54.1% 9.31 :1 9.7% 14 2.4 :1 29.8% 0.95 :1 51.2% 10.9 :1 8.4% 13 2.6 :1 27.7% 1.1 :1 48.1% 12.9 :1 7.2% 12 2.9 :1 25.5% 1.2 :1 45.0% 15.4 :1 6.1% 11 3.3 :1 23.4% 1.4 :1 41.7% 18.6 :1 5.1% 10 3.7 :1 21.3% 1.6 :1 38.4% 23 :1 4.2% 9 4.2 :1 19.1% 1.9 :1 35.0% 29 :1 3.3% 8 4.9 :1 17.0% 2.2 :1 31.5% 38 :1 2.6% 7 5.7 :1 14.9% 2.6 :1 27.8% 52 :1 1.9% 6 6.8 :1 12.8% 3.2 :1 24.1% 70 :1 1.4% 5 8.4 :1 10.6% 3.9 :1 20.4% 110 :1 0.9% 4 11 :1 8.5% 5 :1 16.5% 166 :1 0.6% 3 15 :1 6.4% 7 :1 12.5% 332 :1 0.3% 2 23 :1 4.2% 11 :1 8.4% 999 :1 0.1% 1 46 :1 2.1% 22 :1 4.3% -
bullets 220 :1 0.45% AKs 331 :1 0.3 % a pair in the hole 16 :1 5.9 % suited cards 3.2 :1 23.5 % beer hand 82 :1 1.2 % flopping a pair or better 2.1 :1 32.0 % flopping two pair 49 :1 2.0 % pair flopping trips or better 7.5 :1 11.8 % suited cards flopping a flush 118 :1 0.8 % suited cards flopping a flush draw 8.1 :1 11.0 % connectors flopping a straight 76 :1 1.3 % connectors flopping a straight draw 9 :1 9.8 % single Ace no King on the flop 7.8 :1 11.3 %
Izmet Fekali, Desetka, klub ljubiteljev druĦabnih iger, 1999, Ljubljana
Sorry about that table. I tried to cut it in from word and it didn't work too well.
Reposting the complete web address (as Izmet did on rgp) is probably a better idea:
http://www.fekali.com/filez/holdemOdds.rtf
Angelina Fekali
Are either the Planet Poker or Paradise games of the type that you would rarely semi-bluff/bluff/slowplay or are these plays an important part of internet poker strategy?
Actually both sites' games are full of semi-bluffs and bluffs. And yes, slowplaying is a very important part of the game especially to make the most out of your strong hands. I mostly play at Paradise and I am doing very well playing at the lower limits. It is imperative to have a tight agressive image at the table in order to make any of these plays work though.
Regards
jazzman
You will see all that and more out there. I've seen players wait until the river to bet their flopped set or full house or whatever. I call this the double slowplay and I am grateful to anyone who does it when I am in the hand.
Hey Bob, how ya doing?
I think that a double slowplay is really good if you flop a monster AND IF someone bets for you. Then you jam em at the end. I had 4xxx in the BB in O8 a few weeks ago [the xxx part was bad]. I flopped 444, I almost fell out of my chair, then I checked to three pre-flop limpers, sure enough that (a) one of them would bet it. (b) No one would stay if I bet out first. Sure enough, one of em bet [the button], one called, I 'limped' all the way to the river, with TWO callers, and then I checkraised.
I won way way more than by playing hard. It was only 5-10 though, maybe in your 20-40 games this would have been bad. BUT NO ONE suspected the 4 til the end...then they even paid it off, they would have felt silly letting me steal their money...
Mark
Your example is fine, but I have seen a player hold up until the river with a flopped set of kings when no one was betting. This is not the recommended method. In most games you will get callers, and if you don't, they didn't have anything anyway.
I'm sure that the other players make these plays, but what I'm wondering if it is correct in these games. Semi-bluffing and bluffing are not good in games where people always call, and slowplaying is not good where there are lots of callers anyway to build a big pot. So I'm wondering if the internet games fall into this category.
In other words, can a Lee Jones type of style be profitable in these games, or is it better to go with a more sophisticated S&M style?
I am finding that a simplistic approach works much of the time, but occasionally the game is full of decent players and you have to adjust. I find that my best adjustment in such cases is to leave the game for greener pastures.
Played at a new site last nite that had a 1 dollar max. rake only game they had going was 3/6.With more rooms comming on line in the future I hope others might take this idea of cheaper rakes instead of jackpots or cash giveaways.
where?
does anyone know where paradise stands on their countdown to 20 mil?
Or 40million Bucks??
Notme:
20 m hands must have the play hands subtracted. So this leaves 13m hands (they started real play at about that number), divided by 2 = number of real money hands. Leaves 6.5M hands. Avg rake is probably 1.5, so they've grossed closer to $10m in my humble opinion.
Ten other sites could have done it as well but haven't. More power to em. You sound like the sour grapes losers who always put down microsoft for being too successful. I say "emulate em", make something people want.
Mark
I was there on 3m hand for real $ !
Ok, if you say so.
So they've made $12m or $13m...more power to em.
Build a better mousetrap and people will buy it.
Mark
Currently at 18,944,637 4pm MST 8/23
I believe it was at 19,031,000 or so at 7 AM today. So the first award has already been made.
Do you know what the award was?
$100 to everyone in the game, $100 to winner. The winner's amount goes up $100 on every 100,000th game from 19mil to 20mil.
also participant awards go to $200 at the 19,600,000 level and $500 on the 20,000,000. The winner of final gets $2000.
Is anyone out there making anywhere close to $20 per hour playing 2 tables of 2-4 hold em at Paradise? It seems to me that with a combined 100 plus hands per hour this is not impossible. I have not played much 2-4 , thinking that the stakes where piddiling. With potential for 1 big bet equal to 10-20 with very little risk it could be worth it. Any thoughts?
Oscar,
The 2-4 games are somewhat weak. The 3-6 games have some better players but also some big fish. (Even so: If you think these games are the same as the Casino games, think again, they are still much tougher, even with the fish.) Online I am happy to see 2-3 fish, in AC or SF or even LV casinos, look for 4-6 fish...
So I think that with this speed, one or two at a time, either the 2-4 or better the 3-6 are great games for a good 5-10/10-20 Casino player. The 5-10 online is tougher...so I would avoid this...I have seen more fish at 10-20. But again, due to speed, this requires a nice bankroll.
I have averaged about $20/hr for a while at 3-6 online, one game at a time. I choose carefully.
Also, sorry I am a broken record on this: Watch the 20-40 for good players. Keeps me from playing too many hands at the lower limits and gets me raising and folding more instead of the deadly check/call.
Mark
On average, I'm making right around $20 an hour at the 2-4 level and only playing 1 table. Like Mark says, the fish are there but you still have to be careful because there are some good players there as well. If you watch the game for a while before playing, it's pretty easy to see the table where you can make money. I've played enough at PP now to know just by names of the players on the table, which ones are the easy games and which ones will take a little more work.
Regards
jazzman
Does PP have Stud split 8 games? If so at what limits and are they as tough as HE games. Don`t have a computer yet.
Coyote
Paradise has this game. The highest game is 8-16 followed by 4-8 and then 2-4. There is almost always a game of 8-16 going or two. 6-12 got under way recently as well but mostly at the expense of 8-16.
As far as toughness goes maybe somebody else can comment.
Thanks berya, info appreaciated.
Coyote
Hi Coyote,
I see that berya answered the whether it does or not part.
I found the Stud Split game to be very very tough the few times I played. One reason might be that since this game is not so popular everywhere, the few regulars might be real *specialists*...also, you know if you've read here that I think that all of the online games are tougher than the Casino game, and I am not alone in this.
Mark
PP has Stud h/l split. the games vary greatly, but I do not think they have been that tough. They sometimes are, and usually aren't. This can be said for most of the PP games (all flavors) I have seen or played.
Stu hi/lo is a real roller coaster ride, and if oppenents repeatedly catch low inside straights on the river, the game will be very tough....
Are the casino games easier? Probably. Add in your commute time, the higher rake, the dealer's tips, and the 2nd hand smoke. Repeat the same question...
Good luck.
I used to play a lot of stud hi-low/8 on paradise.
I played mostly 2-4, but ventured into 4-8 and 6-12 at times.
The 2-4 game used to be incredibly weak (during the month of April I played 200+ hours and made around $600+). The 4-8 game was a little bit tougher, but wasn't going most of the time. 6-12 was actually pretty soft too, but could vary a lot depending on the players. Around the beginning of May or so, interest in the 2-4 game started to dwindle; I think most of the fish lost all their money. I often couldn't find a table to play at when I wanted to and the only full table would generally be at 8-16.
In mid-May or so, it started to pick up again, but the games weren't as soft anymore. It wasn't the low-variance cash cow that I had enjoyed for one great month. There were a few good players in the game, and some of the fish had gotten a little better. My variance went way up and I dropped down to breaking about even.
I switched to Hold'em after that and haven't gone back, but it still seems to me that, atleast at 2-4, the Hi-Lo Stud game isn't as soft as the Hold'em game - just take a look at the Players/4th street percentages - they are lower than Hold'em and you have to split the pot...
Hope that's helpful!
~DjTj
Djtj, With no disrespect intended at all, for someone of your obvious intelligence, is a win rate of $3 an hour really a 'cash cow?'
Hehe, I guess I just kinda glanced at my spreadsheet - there were definitely some losses at the beginning of that period and some losses at the end...I probably made some $800 in the middle there in around 150 hours or so...the hours are not actual hours I spent either, as I could often play two tables at once...
~DjTj
Canadians have some inferiority complexes with the US. The whole country should not exist at all, by rights it's a frigging 100 mile strip of land over the US border. Canadians think they are smarter than US folks and consider Yanks real shit stupid. It's a gross generalization from their part. Of souse some of the dumbest folks I ran into *were* from the US but she has near 260 million habitants. I used to go up there a lot and my cousin lives there. How they behave on the net playing cards is no matter at all except do they win ?
This paragraph made my morning. I can't stop laughing.
If you buy a nice cell phone, and gather your friends you can be cheap and use Yahoo Messenger. To communicate hands on the internet, how on earth would they ever catch you ???? To play teams you don't need a huge intellect you play position and know your friends hand you have a huge advantage. play 15-30 and up never show your hands and you can destroy the game. Why would any honest player play on the fucking internet ?? (unless he hates money...) Has anyone try it just for playmoney ??? The set-up with a wait is adequate I think to do this. Yahoo Messanger was invented for this explicitely.
Did you come up with this yourself or did you have help? I'm amazed, you kind of opened my eyes.
Angelina Fekali
dem er just duh canadiens frum kabec, eh. like the rest of us normal ones are normal, eh. we're mostly polite and that? but the bilingal ones can be so rude.and thanx fer pointing that out too, eh. spit
Recently I have had a problem on Paradise with my credit cards. Yesterday I tried three different cards and all three were declined. Two of the three cards have been previously accepted. My credit limits are O.K. Has anyone else experienced this problem?
Me
Just Pay The Bills LOL
YO MOMMA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have you never got called on many of your big hands. Hacks can get into your computer through your isp address and now you can protect yourself download http://www.zoneone.com free this will protect you from the hacks that want to read the cards from your computer. If playing online you must protect yourself and it cannot hurt.
The online poker world is small enough that it only takes a few bad apples to make a lasting impression. If there are a handful of Canadians on there who constantly misbehave it's going to look bad for all of us.
In the live poker world I don't see much difference between Canadians and Americans in terms of poker demeanor. You have bad losers and bad winners everywhere.
Dan,
Just wanted to tell you that I truly value your postings on the 2+2 forums and you don't have to justify yourself, or any other Canadian for that matter. The fact that you respond to these posts civilly is a credit to you.
As an American who has been living in Germany and traveling throughout Europe for the past 2 years, I honestly can say that I have seen more outright racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, and just plain ignorance of other cultures in the US than anywhere else.
Anyway, sorry about that rant - just know that there's many of us out there who appreciate your posts and value your opinion.
Puggy
It works like expected even with three graphics cards and monitors.
Angelina Fekali
First make sure you computer will accept a 2nd video card. I called Compaq and was told my Windows 98 PII 300MHZ w/ 256K model would not suport Dual Monitors. Not all computers will work due to mother board config and onboard graphics. You can't just add a PCI video card because it will disable the video on the motherboard. Compaq said you will then have two monitors hooked up but only the PCI video card will be working.
If someone else has other ideas I would love to learn. In the mean time I am looking to upgrade....
I just learned that two of my poker pro acquaintances whom I had assumed were honest have engaged in collusion while playing online. I do not think they have ever colluded/cheated in live play. They rationalized that because collusion is so easy and risk-free when playing online, there was a good chance they were playing against other teams; therefore, it was not really cheating...or something like that.
Sorry for the duplicate post. I thought the first post was lost in cyberspace.
please report these people. This is wrong.
I just learned that two of my poker pro acquaintances whom I had assumed were honest have engaged in collusion while playing online. I do not think they have ever colluded/cheated in live play. They rationalized that because collusion is so easy and risk-free when playing online, there was a good chance they were playing against other teams; therefore, it was not really cheating...or something like that.
No surprise. Cheating is common. Probably the two players are posters here that claim everything is on the up and up.
Nobody here has ever claimed that no Collution go's on in Internet Poker. What I claim is that some "teams" make the wrong decisions even with the extra information, and that only very good players will be able to take extra money off the table without eventually getting caught.
Collution is also time consuming and not as fun as just playing, so I doubt that many players practice successful collution in all but the highest games.
CV
Nobody denies that cheating by people here doesn't take place? It sounds like you have participated extensively, and found it not to be as profitable as other forms of playing. Its nice to know that you openly acknowledge cheating. I always thought that two plus two harbored a forum for thieves. Now you are confirming it.
I never said that I know people on this Forum cheat. I can't say that they don't cheat either. All I'm saying is that I'll suffer the possibility of Collution as long as I can beat the game for a decent hourly rate. I have been able to do just that for quite some time, 300+hrs. In my opinion the chances of Collution are Acceptable right now.
CV
Report them immediately!
Well, I heard of this through a third party, who indicated they stopped some time ago. I do not know in which website they played or their handles. I suspect they were not very successful, since one of them is a weak player (He was a "poker pro" until his money ran out.)
Do online cardrooms prominently display a policy opposing collusion and require players to click their agreement to it? [I have yet to visit one of these sites.] I imagine these sites attract some novice poker players (and some more experienced players) who do not appreciate that collusion is considered unacceptable cheating.
How many here have openly cheated before on the net, or in live play? Mr.Villalobos and Andrew Prock have already acknowledged they do or have in past posts. I wonder what percentage of twoplustwo posters are flagrant cheats?
please provide the text from the posts where Mr. Prock and Mr. Villalobos acknowledge they have cheated on I-poker. If you can do that, I will report them myself to the I-poker rooms!
Villalobos is below, Prock is in the archives. Prock claimed to use "fancy software" to see the cards. He then later recanted. Why should we believe anyone here? Sklansky ridicules Ed Hill and badgered him to change his story. The twoplustwo forum is filled with posters that ridicule any valid complaint about internet poker. At the same time , these people collude and justify it to themselves stating that everyone else does it. Internet poker has no credibility whatsoever. It is unregulated gaming that is subject to fraud.
This is getting so sickening. This whole forum is turning into just a bunch of cry babies whining because you can't seem to win playing online. If that's the case, then don't play. If you look at the title of this forum, it says "Gambling Theory and Strategy", not "Whining and Complaining". If that's all any of you can do, then give up and go back to the live games.
jazzman
Mr.Jazzman just gave a good example of what I was talking about. I bet he colludes, and cheats in any manner he can. The internet poker forum should be renamed to: A denizen of internet cheats.
Matt,
I have to assume that your accusations are either a not so funny joke, or that you are just irrational at the moment because you have lost heavily on Internet Poker.
Chris has come to the same conclusion that other good players have come to. For collusion to be successful, it must be done, very well, by very sophisticated, very disciplined, winning poker players. Those that "might" be colluding are probably not costing a better player very much, and they are probably going to go broke in the near future anyway. This assumption is made by observing the general level of play on the internet which is not that high.
I suggest that you work on your game. If you are not a natural born, genius games player, then it is likely that you will have to work extremely hard to become a "good" poker player. Even with hard work, I think the odds are against most people to beat the games even for a couple of dollars an hour. You must remember how SMALL a winning player's edge is! Everytime you make a mistake, that money lost (on any street) has to be made up. So, say you miss an obvious value bet on the river. That can be up to $20 missed (in a 10-20 game)that you (theoretically)have to make up. If you are a $2 an hour player, well, it will take 10 hours of perfect play to even that single mistake out. Of course, not all mistakes are worth an entire bet, but nickels and dimes, and dollars add up. Can you say that you play as well as the best middle limit players? Do you play as well as a Mason Malmuth, a Roy Cooke, or a Sklansky. You'd have to play almost as well to beat the games for anything significant. I know I don't, and my win-rate reflects that. But I have no illusions.......
What I'm trying to say is....it is extremely difficult to beat poker, whether you are cheating or not cheating.
Please substantiate your claims against Mr. Prock.
I'm there playing a Paradise table.....please Poker Gods let it be my table. No way. "Game 19,?00,000 is being played right now on table 'XXXXX'".
I hit the lobby,I want to watch this game; get out there and cannot find the table, it's not listed. This has happened to me at least twice on jackpot games when I happened to be on Paradise at the winning time.
Am I doing something wrong.....this happen to anyone else?
Its always nice to leave "up" and it's much easier to switch tables on-line. By logging off when doing poorly you may be doing yourself a favor in the longrun if doing poorly hurts your overall play. I think everyone has this tendency to certain degrees.
I'm always on the lookout for a better game when on-line because the games do tend to change much quicker.
CV
Posted by: rich
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:08 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:51 a.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 11:51 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 1:05 a.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 1:35 a.m.
Posted by: rich
Posted on: Monday, 31 July 2000, at 11:58 p.m.
Posted by: Terrence Chan
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 3:15 a.m.
Posted by: O.J. Simpson (mustmove@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 3:38 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:01 a.m.
Posted by: Steve Brecher (steve@brecher.reno.nv.us)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 1:34 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 2:03 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:09 a.m.
Posted by: rich
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:10 a.m.
Posted by: neal ross (nealross@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:14 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:31 a.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 1:14 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 9:05 a.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 9:43 a.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 11:35 a.m.
Posted by: Wankers
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:31 a.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:36 a.m.
Posted by: Wankers
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 1:04 a.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 1:19 a.m.
Posted by: Benny
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 3:52 a.m.
Posted by: Darren
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 3:12 a.m.
Posted by: Terrence Chan
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 3:12 a.m.
Posted by: dct (dtseng@houston.rr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: Devlan
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:43 a.m.
Posted by: Jack R
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:12 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 9:15 a.m.
Posted by: Angelina (angelina@fekali.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 9:41 a.m.
Studying People Inc.
Slovenia
http://www.fekali.com/angelina
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 11:44 a.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:39 p.m.
Posted by: Angelina (angelina@fekali.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:42 p.m.
Studying People Inc.
Ljubljana, Slovenia
http://www.fekali.com/angelina
Posted by: Fast Eddie (Cwkace@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: Angelina (angelina@fekali.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 9:53 p.m.
Studying People Inc.
Slovenia
http://www.fekali.com/angelina
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 10:08 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 9:49 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 10:48 a.m.
Posted by: Angelina (angelina@fekali.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 1:05 p.m.
Studying People Inc.
Ljubljana, Slovenia
http://www.fekali.com/angelina
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 11:49 a.m.
Posted by: dct (dtseng@houston.rr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:34 p.m.
Posted by: maestro
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 2:02 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 11:41 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:01 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:23 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:31 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:25 p.m.
Posted by: maestro
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 1:58 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 2:30 p.m.
Posted by: maestro
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 2:55 p.m.
Posted by: Jeff Woods (jester@r00lerz.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:27 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:38 p.m.
Posted by: dct (dtseng@houston.rr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 12:51 p.m.
Posted by: maestro
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 3:02 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 3:42 p.m.
Posted by: dct (dtseng@houston.rr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:42 p.m.
Posted by: Adam (checkraise@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 5:10 p.m.
Posted by: Jeff Woods (jester@r00lerz.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 9:03 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 1:11 p.m.
Posted by: dave
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 1:58 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 2:00 p.m.
Posted by: Jeff Woods (jester@r00lerz.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 5:29 p.m.
Posted by: HAWKIN
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 1:15 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 1:28 p.m.
Posted by: Gus
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 1:46 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 1:56 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: Presto (paradisepoker@murphstahoe.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 4:17 p.m.
Posted by: mth
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: smd
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 5:15 p.m.
Posted by: Jeff Woods (jester@r00lerz.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 5:21 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 10:49 p.m.
Posted by: Darren
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 7:05 p.m.
Posted by: mredge (mredge@excite.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 8:09 p.m.
Posted by: mth
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 10:41 a.m.
Posted by: Fuzy (Fuzy@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 6:37 p.m.
Posted by: ActionBob
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 10:19 p.m.
Posted by: Fuzy (Fuzy@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 4:12 a.m.
Posted by: Mike in Virginia (mperry@dfrv.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 12:29 a.m.
Posted by: Mike in Virginia (mperry@dfrv.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 12:46 a.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 2:16 p.m.
Posted by: Not Alsan
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 2:20 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 2:38 p.m.
Posted by: Not Alsan
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 3:21 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 3:44 p.m.
Posted by: Wankers
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 12:36 a.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: neal ross (nealross@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 10:57 p.m.
Posted by: Wankers
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 12:39 a.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 9:50 a.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 2:35 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 2:42 p.m.
Posted by: Adam (checkraise@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:46 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:22 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 7:40 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 8:15 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 8:50 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 9:11 p.m.
Posted by: D Woolard (dwoolard@qnis.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 2:56 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 3:39 p.m.
Posted by: Fast Eddie (Cwkace@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 3:27 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Fast Eddie (Cwkace@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:10 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Fast Eddie (Cwkace@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:44 p.m.
Posted by: John Prine (otisbunch@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:23 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:16 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:44 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 1:04 a.m.
Posted by: dct (dtseng@houston.rr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:34 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:14 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:32 p.m.
Posted by: smd
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:54 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:56 p.m.
Posted by: Gus
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 5:30 p.m.
Posted by: Al (AlTang67@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 6:31 p.m.
Posted by: dct (dtseng@houston.rr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 6:39 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 7:01 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 7:24 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 12:16 a.m.
Posted by: hmmmm man
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:44 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 4:54 p.m.
Posted by: D Woolard
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 8:03 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 10:09 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 12:48 a.m.
Posted by: Gus
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 1:21 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 8:39 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 9:03 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 9:18 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 8:53 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 8:55 p.m.
Posted by: L (llll80@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 10:06 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 10:51 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 11:10 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 11:26 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 9:43 a.m.
Posted by: neal ross (nealross@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 1 August 2000, at 11:28 p.m.
Posted by: Wankers
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 12:32 a.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 9:39 a.m.
Posted by: Jeff Woods (jester@r00lerz.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 10:34 a.m.
Posted by: NSA Analyst (analyst@nsa.gov)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 12:23 a.m.
The consistent overall pattern is for the accused players to raise with little or nothing on third street to get heads-up (if not already heads-up). Both then continue to bet with little or nothing, with the non-Aslan hand finally folding on 7th street. Not all the hands are as conclusive as Paradise would seem to think, but some are definitely eyebrow-raisers:
Game 15576707 - 4/8 Stud
lkaer bets the pants off a pair of threes, then folds an ace-high flush on the river.
Game 15578283 - 8/16 Stud
Looking at a pair of sixes vs an open pair of kings, lkaer raises on 7th street and calls the reraise.
Game 15693589 = 8/16 Stud
It's 4-way on 7th street. lkaer checks aces up, check to Aslan who bets a pair of nines, lkaer raises with his two pair, other two players fold, Aslan raises, lkaer folds.
Game 15584038 - 8/16 Stud
On 5th street, Boyuk bets open kings, Aslan raises with nothing, Boyuk calls. On 6th, Boyuk bets again, Aslan raises with nothing, Boyuk folds his kings.
Game 15584949 - 8/16 Stud
7th street: Boyuk bets with nothing, Aslan raises with deuces, Boyuk folds.
Game 15585140 - 8/16 Stud
4th street: both players check-raise with nothing to get heads-up. 7th street: Boyuk folds a pair of 7s to Aslan's ace high.
Game 15585947 - 8/16 Stud
7th street: Boyuk goes all-in with a pair of tens vs Aslan's open jacks.
Game 15699389 - 8/16 Stud
Boyuk bets a pair of tens all the way, catches a 7 on the river to make two pair, and check-folds.
Game 15036922 - 8/16 Stud
viola bet-calls with open 7s on 6th street; catches a J on 7th for 2 pair and folds to Aslan's pair of fives.
Game 15037278 - 8/16 Stud
viola reraises on 6th with open sixes, Aslan bets out on 7th with a pair of threes vs. viola's open sixes, viola folds
Game 15244227 - 4/8 Stud
Aslan goes all-in with queen-high on 7th when viola raises with an ace showing
Game 15244134 - 4/8 Stud
viola folds on 5th with kings up vs Aslan's 5-8-4.
Posted by: D Woolard
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 1:01 a.m.
Posted by: Fast Eddie (Cwkace@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 1:37 a.m.
Posted by: Darryl Parsons (darryl_parsons@deja.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 2:10 a.m.
Posted by: Darryl Parsons (darryl_parsons@deja.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 2:28 a.m.
Posted by: Al (AlTang67@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 10:41 a.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 10:44 a.m.
Posted by: L (llll80@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 10:31 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 11:06 a.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 12:19 p.m.
Posted by: smd
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 12:54 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: smd
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: D Woolard
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: Gus
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 12:48 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:01 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 5:37 a.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 8:35 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 10:37 a.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 12:30 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 1:05 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 7:31 a.m.
Posted by: JayNT (jaynt@optonline.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 10:35 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 11:51 a.m.
Posted by: JayNT (jaynt@optonline.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 12:30 p.m.
Posted by: L (llll80@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 9:58 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 11:21 a.m.
Posted by: L (llll80@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 11:31 a.m.
Posted by: L (llll80@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 11:29 a.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 12:50 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 2:06 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 2:21 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:38 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Brecher (steve@brecher.reno.nv.us)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:15 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Brecher (steve@brecher.reno.nv.us)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: D Woolard
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 1:46 p.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 1:58 p.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 2:22 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 2:25 p.m.
Posted by: Mitch Cumstein
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:48 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:00 p.m.
Posted by: Fast Eddie (Cwkace@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 5:01 p.m.
Posted by: dct (dtseng@houston.rr.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 6:16 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 2:13 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:13 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:48 p.m.
Posted by: DSarid (dsarid@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 2:56 p.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:03 p.m.
Posted by: dave
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 4:23 p.m.
Posted by: DSarid (dsarid@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 6:49 p.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:25 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:30 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 12:35 a.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 9:37 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 6:02 p.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 9:48 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 11:22 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 5:59 p.m.
Posted by: wildbill (wba712@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 12:53 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 3:49 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 3:50 a.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:34 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: u (u@gfd.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: Terrence Chan
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 9:07 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 9:24 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 9:48 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 11:05 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 11:06 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 10:50 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 10:46 a.m.
Posted by: DSarid (dsarid@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 6:55 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 8:08 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 7:12 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 4:42 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 4:24 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 4:28 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 4:33 p.m.
Posted by: Not Alsan
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 9:15 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 9:22 a.m.
Posted by: Mitch
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 8:49 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 4:42 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 4:45 p.m.
Posted by: smd
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 5:02 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 5:09 p.m.
Posted by: smd
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 5:34 p.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 5:55 p.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 7:04 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 7:30 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 8:10 p.m.
Posted by: t
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 9:25 p.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 9:03 a.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 9:14 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 9:29 a.m.
Posted by: D Woolard
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 4:32 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 8:39 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 8:50 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 8:52 p.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 6:07 p.m.
Posted by: Judge Ito
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 7:19 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 7:23 p.m.
Posted by: Foldie Hawn (mperry@dfrv.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 7:30 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: t
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 9:22 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 9:43 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 9:45 p.m.
Posted by: Foldie Hawn (mperry@dfrv.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 11:39 p.m.
Posted by: t
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 9:40 a.m.
Posted by: smd
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:04 p.m.
Posted by: smd
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:11 p.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:45 p.m.
Posted by: traeki (traeki@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 10:16 a.m.
Posted by: Steve Brecher (steve@brecher.reno.nv.us)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 10:29 p.m.
Posted by: Foldie Hawn (mperry@dfrv.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 11:43 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 9:10 a.m.
Posted by: Steve Brecher (steve@brecher.reno.nv.us)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:15 p.m.
Posted by: Secretary of Education
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 10:37 p.m.
Posted by: smd
Posted on: Wednesday, 2 August 2000, at 11:06 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: Mike in Virginia (mperry@dfrv.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 2:16 p.m.
Posted by: Foldie Hawn (mperry@dfrv.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 2:21 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 4:08 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Brecher (steve@brecher.reno.nv.us)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 7:51 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Brecher (steve@brecher.reno.nv.us)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 7:57 p.m.
Posted by: ronzoni
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 8:00 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 11:06 a.m.
Posted by: t
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 11:10 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:09 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:13 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 7:42 p.m.
Posted by: maestro
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: maestro
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 1:30 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 2:02 p.m.
Posted by: Niels
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 2:10 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 2:19 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 2:25 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: Professor Plum
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:09 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 2:58 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: Professor Plum
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:13 p.m.
Posted by: Miss Scarlet
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: Colonel Mustard (colonel@clue.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 5:44 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: traeki (traeki@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 6:14 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 3:58 a.m.
Posted by: Kelly Parker (parkerk@bellatalntic.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 11:32 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 11:40 a.m.
Posted by: mike c (mceb1313@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 11:53 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 12:05 p.m.
Posted by: mike c (mceb1313@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 12:33 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 2:02 p.m.
Posted by: traeki (traeki@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 6:22 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 1:04 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 1:09 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 1:24 p.m.
Posted by: Niels
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 2:08 p.m.
Posted by: t
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 2:16 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 2:21 p.m.
Posted by: bob (bob2929m@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:20 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:45 p.m.
Posted by: Professor Plum
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 2:58 p.m.
Posted by: Michelin Man
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 10:06 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 10:56 p.m.
Posted by: neal ross (nealross@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 12:11 a.m.
Posted by: traeki (traeki@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 6:33 a.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 4:47 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 10:00 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachfaf@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 11:52 a.m.
Posted by: dave
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 1:40 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:05 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:22 p.m.
Posted by: ron (ronbeardslee@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 7:15 p.m.
Posted by: Ernesto Mendoza (emendoza@san.rr.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 6:11 a.m.
Posted by: David
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 10:12 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: Piers
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 2:59 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:14 p.m.
Posted by: smd
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:19 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:25 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: George
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 4:42 a.m.
Posted by: Aslan
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 8:42 a.m.
Posted by: D Woolard
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 3:22 p.m.
Posted by: QuadAces
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: ASSlan
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 4:40 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 8:46 a.m.
Posted by: Elvis
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 5:37 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:29 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:46 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:35 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: Colonel Mustard (colonel@clue.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 5:49 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:44 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 5:14 p.m.
Posted by: ron (ronbeardslee@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 7:02 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 1:12 p.m.
Posted by: hetron
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 8:54 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:51 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 4:13 p.m.
Posted by: Copper-carver Joe (copper-carver-joe@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:53 p.m.
Posted by: copper-carver-joe
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 4:18 p.m.
Posted by: Niels
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 3:54 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: CarlJung
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 4:54 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 4:59 p.m.
Posted by: Carl Jung
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 5:04 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: Carl Jung
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 5:12 p.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 5:20 p.m.
Posted by: who posted this
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 5:28 p.m.
Posted by: BillC
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 6:36 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 7:23 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 11:28 p.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 12:55 a.m.
Posted by: Angelina (angelina@fekali.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 1:09 a.m.
Studying People Inc.
Ljubljana, Slovenia
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 9:27 a.m.
Posted by: Steve Fiete (fiete@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 10:42 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock (jeffysroom@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 4:01 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 9:48 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 12:22 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 1:51 p.m.
Posted by: dave
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: D Woolard
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 2:43 p.m.
Posted by: Terry (terryk@sierranvUNSPAM.net)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 6:20 p.m.
Posted by: Darren
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 9:00 p.m.
Posted by: WHAT ??
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 8:15 p.m.
Posted by: Mitch Cumstein
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 8:41 p.m.
Posted by: Mitch Cumstein
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 9:03 p.m.
Posted by: Zbych (zbych@yoyo.pl)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 9:33 p.m.
Posted by: Elvis
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 5:32 a.m.
Posted by: bob dylan
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 10:21 p.m.
Posted by: the egg man
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 1:27 p.m.
Posted by: BillM
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 10:36 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 3 August 2000, at 10:53 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 4:20 p.m.
Posted by: hanuman
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 12:47 a.m.
Posted by: Aslan
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 8:40 a.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 9:13 a.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 9:31 a.m.
Posted by: Aslan
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 9:25 a.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 9:30 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 9:54 a.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 10:21 a.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 10:24 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 10:28 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 3:03 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 4:47 p.m.
Posted by: :-)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 2:45 p.m.
Posted by: :{
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 7:10 p.m.
Posted by: Michelin Man
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 7:21 p.m.
Posted by: Foldie Hawn (mperry@dfrv.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 7:51 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 8:22 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 8:33 p.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 9:56 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 4 August 2000, at 10:59 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 12:05 a.m.
Posted by: Michelin Man
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 12:26 a.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 2:51 a.m.
Posted by: Niels
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 11:15 a.m.
Posted by: Niels (antiveg@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 9:09 a.m.
Posted by: smd
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 12:43 a.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 2:20 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 4:30 a.m.
Posted by: Foldie Hawn (mperry@dfrv.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 9:25 a.m.
Posted by: Angelina (angelina@fekali.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 12:23 p.m.
Studying People Inc.
Ljubljana, Slovenia
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: Terry (terryk@sierranvUNSPAM.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 1:06 a.m.
Posted by: Murry Burns (ibuyandbuy@earthlink.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 7:08 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 7:24 a.m.
Posted by: Geo
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 11:01 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 11:12 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 11:16 p.m.
Posted by: Foldie Hawn (mperry@dfrv.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 11:20 p.m.
Posted by: Everyone (everyone@icqmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 9:07 a.m.
Posted by: Michelin Man
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Analyzer (poker_analyzer@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 5 August 2000, at 11:31 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 12:01 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 12:47 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 2:49 a.m.
Posted by: D Woolard
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 1:52 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Analyzer (poker_analyzer@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (aslan@loser.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 6:45 p.m.
Posted by: dct (dtseng@houston.rr.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 12:09 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 2:31 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 2:45 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 10:34 a.m.
Posted by: Frode (frodegj@online.no)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 4:07 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 6:55 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 4:30 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 11:34 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 11:35 a.m.
Posted by: Aslan (aslan@loser.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 6:07 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: Bartholemew (bart@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 12:23 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (aslan@loser.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 2:22 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 2:39 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 2:51 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 3:14 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 4:01 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 9:08 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 9:25 p.m.
Posted by: scott (sms134@columbia.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 11:58 p.m.
Posted by: scott
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 12:40 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 4:11 p.m.
Posted by: Aslan (aslan@loser.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 4:27 p.m.
Posted by: Vince Lepore (leporeva@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 4:15 a.m.
Posted by: Aslan (bagir467@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: Angelina (angelina@fekali.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 6:21 p.m.
Studying People Inc.
Ljubljana, Slovenia
http://www.fekali.com
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 10:55 p.m.
Posted by: dave
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 2:47 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (dsklanksky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 12:02 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 9:07 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 8:19 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 7:02 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 11:02 a.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 8:39 a.m.
Posted by: Tengen
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 11:38 a.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 3:26 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Kuhn (jsk_88@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 10:53 a.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 12:04 p.m.
Posted by: Diane from Green Bay (bierd@wlgroup.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 1:22 p.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 1:36 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Kuhn (jsk_88@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 4:33 p.m.
Posted by: Malik Salaam
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 5:42 p.m.
Posted by: dave
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 5:13 p.m.
Posted by: Tengen
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 5:46 p.m.
Posted by: dave
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 6:04 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 6:49 p.m.
Posted by: dave
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: neal ross (nealross@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 11:19 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 12:16 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 3:49 a.m.
Posted by: Darryl Parsons (darryl_parsons@deja.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 10:30 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 6:43 a.m.
Posted by: dave
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 1:30 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: A-2o=the nuts
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 5:50 p.m.
Posted by: dave
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 6:27 p.m.
Posted by: A9suited
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 4:54 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 5:44 p.m.
Posted by: Tengen
Posted on: Sunday, 6 August 2000, at 5:40 p.m.
Posted by: Mackie
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 12:18 a.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 2:52 a.m.
Posted by: Terrence Chan
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 11:36 p.m.
Posted by: HTML G00R00 (imag00r002@g00r00zRus.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 4:31 a.m.
Posted by: Al Gore (Inventor of the Internet)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 12:43 a.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 4:26 a.m.
Posted by: The sad truth.
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 2:38 p.m.
Posted by: dumb dumb
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 1:27 a.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 2:45 a.m.
Posted by: Terrence Chan
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 4:47 a.m.Also, you may not post under someone else's name. All posts are tracked and you will be barred from future participation in the forum.
Also, you may not post under someone else's name, unless it's someone we happen to be making fun of. Then, it's okay. All posts are tracked and you will be barred from future participation in the forum. If we feel like it.
Posted by: Terrence Chan
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 8:09 p.m.
Posted by: Judge Ito
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 8:37 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (test@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (test@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 11:33 a.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 11:51 a.m.
Posted by: Al Gore (Inventor of the Internet)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 1:48 p.m.
Posted by: Red (caseycar@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 11:52 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 1:34 p.m.
Posted by: Mississippi Mud
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: Red (caseycar@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 5:03 p.m.
Posted by: Rog (olasja@online.no)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 6:56 p.m.
Posted by: Red (caseycar@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 7:29 p.m.
Posted by: A-2o=the nuts
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 9:45 a.m.
Posted by: hetron
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 12:33 p.m.
Posted by: yes
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 1:07 p.m.
Posted by: hetron
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 1:58 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 3:16 p.m.
Posted by: Scarcasm taken seriously
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 4:43 p.m.
Posted by: Terrence Chan
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 9:05 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 10:22 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 10:36 p.m.
Posted by: Johnny Law
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 12:55 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 2:01 p.m.
Posted by: Johnny Law
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 12:53 p.m.
Posted by: Angelina (angelina@fekali.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 4:01 p.m.
Studying People Inc.
Ljubljana, Slovenia
http://www.fekali.com/angelina
Posted by: Dan Mullen (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 7:34 p.m.
Posted by: Tengen
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 11:30 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 1:31 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 2:03 p.m.
Posted by: Foldie Hawn (mperry@dfrv.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 2:15 p.m.
Posted by: Mr President
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: Red (caseycar@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 5:49 p.m.
Posted by: Mr President
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 6:45 p.m.
Posted by: CannonBob (bobis@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 9:13 p.m.
Posted by: Something new is coming
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 12:27 a.m.
Posted by: Bob J.
Posted on: Monday, 7 August 2000, at 9:29 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 3:15 a.m.
Posted by: oh poor Paradise...
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 10:01 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 11:44 a.m.
Posted by: Jeff Woods (jester@r00lerz.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 11:52 a.m.
Posted by: how do you justify the rake than?
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: dct (dtseng@houston.rr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: Terrence Chan
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 5:46 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 7:23 p.m.
Posted by: Tengen
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 11:16 a.m.
Posted by: dct (dtseng@houston.rr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 11:49 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 4:45 p.m.
Posted by: A9suited
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 6:42 p.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 7:34 p.m.
Posted by: Mark R. Boyer (mboyer@clearcrossing.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: Mark R. Boyer (mboyer@clearcrossing.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 9:29 a.m.
Posted by: A-2o=the nuts
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 9:49 a.m.
Posted by: Mark R. Boyer (mboyer@clearcrossing.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 11:28 a.m.
Posted by: Tengen
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 11:26 a.m.
Posted by: Mark R. Boyer (mboyer@clearcrossing.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 12:46 p.m.
Posted by: Tengen
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 6:34 p.m.
Posted by: Mark R. Boyer (mboyer@clearcrossing.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 12:51 p.m.
Posted by: hetron
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 12:21 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 12:34 p.m.
Posted by: hetron
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 2:23 p.m.
Posted by: amusing sychophants
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 3:39 p.m.
Posted by: Humbled in the light of your greatness
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 5:12 p.m.
Posted by: Mark R. Boyer (mboyer@clearcrossing.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 12:41 p.m.
Posted by: hetron
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 2:18 p.m.
Posted by: Mark R. Boyer (mboyer@clearcrossing.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 2:35 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: Mark R. Boyer (mboyer@clearcrossing.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 4:27 p.m.
Posted by: Adam (checkraise@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 2:02 a.m.
Posted by: Mark R. Boyer (mboyer@clearcrossing.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 8:56 a.m.
Posted by: nick
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 12:08 p.m.
Posted by: Judge Ito
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 10:12 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Analyzer (poker_analyzer@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 1:01 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: DeadBart (dsb12@cornell.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 6:41 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Analyzer (poker_analyzer@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 10:12 a.m.
Posted by: Jodder
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 7:30 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 8:25 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Analyzer (poker_analyzer@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 10:17 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 11:16 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 4:31 a.m.
Posted by: Poker Analyzer (poker_analyzer@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 10:21 a.m.
Posted by: Terrence Chan
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 9:02 p.m.
Posted by: Terrence Chan
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 9:24 p.m.
Posted by: tbill
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 8:06 p.m.
Posted by: neal ross (nealross@bigfoot.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 9:39 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 9:48 p.m.
Posted by: tbill
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 9:58 p.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 10:06 p.m.
Posted by: tbill
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 10:42 p.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 10:51 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 11:04 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 10:07 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 10:56 p.m.
Posted by: M
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 11:34 p.m.
Posted by: Tengen
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 6:47 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 11:53 p.m.
Posted by: tbill
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 10:38 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 8 August 2000, at 11:10 p.m.
Posted by: churchlady
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 2:19 a.m.
Posted by: dave
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 2:12 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 1:17 a.m.
Posted by: Ed I
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 3:22 a.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (Feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 9:48 a.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 3:35 a.m.
Posted by: Mr. Big
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 4:06 a.m.
"I know someone winning 30k so therefore everything must be fine."
Doesn't it stand to reason that somebody would be winning that much? Just because he knows them that shouldn't make any difference at all.
I'm a winning player and I couldn't win at Paradise or Planet Poker.
What about all of the "good" players that are losing?
Posted by: Poker Analyzer (poker_analyzer@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 10:27 a.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 11:43 a.m.
Posted by: your are the nut case
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 12:47 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 12:59 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 6:07 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 4:03 a.m.
Posted by: tbill
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 5:07 p.m.
Posted by: ActionBob
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 10:59 p.m.
Posted by: traeki (traeki@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 6:28 a.m.
Posted by: rholman23 (rholman23@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 5:03 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 6:14 p.m.
Posted by: James Kittock (james@animal-farm.sf.ca.us)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 3:42 a.m.
Posted by: M.A.
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 4:54 a.m.
Posted by: Bob J. (bobj50@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 8:40 a.m.
Posted by: OJ
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 10:38 a.m.
Posted by: Fuzy (Fuzy@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 4:18 a.m.
Posted by: surprise surprise
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 11:10 a.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 11:27 a.m.
Posted by: Tom Haley (CodeSavvy@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 5:32 p.m.
Posted by: Terry (terryk@sierranvUNSPAM.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 12:52 a.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 12:01 p.m.
Posted by: your logic fails the test
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 12:39 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: skp (supriyabc@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 3:36 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: bill m (billmcneal@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 9:13 a.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: Al (AlTang67@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 4:45 p.m.
Posted by: Ace
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 10:24 p.m.
Posted by: Austin Powers
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 5:10 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 6:06 p.m.
Posted by: Avocado Fats
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 6:51 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 9:26 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 9:46 a.m.
Posted by: Nelson on tilt..
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 10:15 a.m.
Posted by: Nelson counts as a subject of El Supremo
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 10:16 a.m.
Posted by: I bet he can count to 3 n/t
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 10:17 a.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 10:26 a.m.
Posted by: Ace Dale
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 11:07 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 9 August 2000, at 11:33 p.m.
Posted by: traeki (traeki@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 4:57 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 4:25 a.m.
Posted by: Mitch (mcapolla@earthlink.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 9:12 a.m.
Posted by: Tony
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 7:50 a.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 9:35 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Mullen
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 10:39 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 11:25 a.m.
Posted by: zhicheng gao (zhichenggao@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 7:44 p.m.
Posted by: Tony
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 8:53 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 4:58 p.m.
Posted by: Johan
Posted on: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 11:25 a.m.
Posted by: Ray Zee
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 11:56 a.m.
Posted by: Pollster
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 10:29 a.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 1:35 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 7:37 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 7:07 a.m.
Posted by: john
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 12:34 p.m.
Posted by: Kelly Parker (parkerk@bellatalntic.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 1:03 p.m.
Posted by: Mr President
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 1:38 p.m.
Posted by: Kelly Parker (parkerk@bellatalntic.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 2:09 p.m.
Posted by: john
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 3:27 p.m.
Posted by: Darryl Parsons (darryl_parsons@deja.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 5:46 p.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 10:05 a.m.
Posted by: Sam Donaldson
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 2:37 p.m.
Posted by: Pollster
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 4:51 p.m.
Posted by: Stud player (non@noneo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 5:01 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock (jeffysroom@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 11:02 p.m.
Posted by: Johan
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 10:44 a.m.
Posted by: Coyote (kanscoyote@webtv.net)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 5:35 p.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 5:03 p.m.
Posted by: Pollster
Posted on: Thursday, 10 August 2000, at 5:58 p.m.
Posted by: James Kittock (james@animal-farm.sf.ca.us)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 3:24 a.m. Game #17356721 - $2/$4 Hold'em - 2000/08/11-00:31:43 (CST)
Table "Tobago" (real money) -- Seat 3 is the button
Seat 1: jimkatt ($40 in chips)
Seat 2: fryjr ($148 in chips)
Seat 3: mojo69 ($87 in chips)
Seat 4: PaulS ($144 in chips)
Seat 5: EdNorton ($249 in chips)
Seat 6: Fryguy ($192 in chips)
Seat 7: jazzman ($262 in chips)
Seat 8: NANNA ($80 in chips)
Seat 9: panzer000 ($121 in chips)
Seat 10: sammyb ($104 in chips)
PaulS : Post Small Blind ($1)
EdNorton: Post Big Blind ($2)
jimkatt : Post ($2)
fryjr : Post ($2)
Dealing...
Dealt to jimkatt [ As ]
Dealt to jimkatt [ Th ]
Fryguy : Raise ($4)
jazzman : Fold
NANNA : Fold
panzer000: Raise ($6)
sammyb : Fold
jimkatt : Fold
fryjr : Fold
mojo69 : Raise ($8)
PaulS : Fold
EdNorton: Fold
Fryguy : Call ($4)
panzer000: Call ($2)
*** FLOP *** : [ Ad Kd 4d ]
Fryguy : Check
panzer000: Bet ($2)
mojo69 : Fold
Fryguy : Call ($2)
*** TURN *** : [ Ad Kd 4d ] [ Qh ]
Fryguy : Check
panzer000: Bet ($4)
Fryguy : Call ($4)
*** RIVER *** : [ Ad Kd 4d Qh ] [ 9h ]
Fryguy : Check
panzer000: Bet ($4)
Fryguy : Call ($4)
*** SUMMARY ***
Pot: $49 | Rake: $2
Board: [ Ad Kd 4d Qh 9h ]
jimkatt lost $2 (folded) [ As Th ] (a pair of aces)
fryjr lost $2 (folded)
mojo69 lost $8 (folded)
PaulS lost $1 (folded)
EdNorton lost $2 (folded)
Fryguy lost $18 [ Ac Js ] (a pair of aces)
jazzman didn't bet (folded)
NANNA didn't bet (folded)
panzer000 bet $18, collected $49, net +$31 (showed hand) [ 9c Qc ] (two pair, queens and nines)
sammyb didn't bet (folded)
Posted by: Cyrus
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 5:39 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 12:47 p.m.
Posted by: Doug (not@a.real.address.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 2:17 p.m.
Posted by: Terry (terryk@sierranvUNSPAM.net)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 4:47 p.m.
Posted by: jazzman
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 11:48 a.m.
Posted by: Cyrus
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 5:49 a.m.
Posted by: Mathguy (don_n1999@excite.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 3:02 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 8:15 a.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 9:09 a.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 9:41 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 2:31 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 6:54 p.m.
Posted by: Doug (not@a.real.address.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 2:03 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 2:15 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 3:22 p.m.
Posted by: Doug (not@a.real.address.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 5:39 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 8:13 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 4:38 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 4:58 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 9:31 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 10:06 p.m.
Posted by: Some perspective...
Posted on: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 3:25 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 1:24 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 4:07 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 9:41 a.m.
Posted by: Mr President
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 1:17 p.m.
Posted by: tbill
Posted on: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 8:48 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 9:12 p.m.
Posted by: tbill
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 11:01 a.m.
Posted by: Mark R. Boyer (mboyer@clearcrossing.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 9:17 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 10:02 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 10:00 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 10:05 a.m.
Posted by: Michael 7
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 2:58 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 4:18 p.m.
Posted by: pignuts
Posted on: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 4:20 a.m.
Posted by: jazzman
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 10:55 a.m.
Posted by: D Woolard
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 8:14 p.m.
Posted by: tee
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 9:24 p.m.
Posted by: D Woolard
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 9:46 p.m.
Posted by: Gus
Posted on: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 5:17 a.m.
Posted by: Lin (linsherm@gte.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 12:05 a.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 10:33 a.m.
Posted by: Speedy
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 9:46 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 9:36 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Friday, 11 August 2000, at 10:14 p.m.
Posted by: John Feeney (johnfeeney@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 3:23 a.m.
Posted by: Red (caseycar@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 8:38 a.m.
Posted by: Sam Donaldson
Posted on: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 10:55 a.m.
Posted by: Lin (linsherm@gte.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 11:57 p.m.
Posted by: PokerBum
Posted on: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 2:56 a.m.
Posted by: Gus
Posted on: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 5:11 a.m.
Posted by: Red (caseycar@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 8:34 a.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Fiete (fiete@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 7:07 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 9:51 p.m.
Posted by: NSA Analyst (analyst@nsa.gov)
Posted on: Saturday, 12 August 2000, at 11:42 p.m.
The main argument for going with DSL or cable is that it hugely speeds up web browsing and downloads. This isn't a factor with playing online poker - there's plenty of bandwidth with a regular modem.
Definitely AOL, aka America Offline, sucks. They have always had connectivity problems and probably always will.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 10:16 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 12:00 p.m.
Posted by: M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 12:32 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 8:43 p.m.
Posted by: dave
Posted on: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: Terry (terryk@sierranvUNSPAM.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 7:56 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 10:14 a.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@primenet.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 11:11 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 11:22 a.m.
Posted by: Mr President
Posted on: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 9:38 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Ad (michael.adams4@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 8:52 a.m.
Posted by: Sam Donaldson
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: Mr President
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 4:49 p.m.
Posted by: Ken Starr
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 4:03 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@primenet.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 13 August 2000, at 11:03 p.m.
Posted by: Terry (terryk@sierranvUNSPAM.net)
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 1:51 a.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 2:25 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 2:36 p.m.
Posted by: Mitch Cumstein
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 10:27 p.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 11:36 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 7:57 a.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 9:37 a.m.
Posted by: Tony
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 7:27 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock (jeffysroom@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 11:44 a.m.
Posted by: Jodder (jodderx@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 2:14 p.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 2:28 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 3:54 p.m.
Posted by: ActionBob
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 7:24 p.m.
Posted by: Tony
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 8:44 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Ad (michael.adams4@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 9:18 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 11:39 a.m.
Posted by: Fingaz
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: windavis
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 5:41 p.m.
Posted by: woodman
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 2:07 p.m.
Posted by: Scott Wyler
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 12:11 p.m.
Posted by: woodman
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 9:53 a.m.
Posted by: Fingaz
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 3:58 p.m.
Posted by: m williams (mwilliams5@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 3:59 p.m.
Posted by: woodman
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 9:57 a.m.
Posted by: Tengen
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 7:23 p.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 9:53 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 9:35 a.m.
Posted by: Tengen
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 11:06 a.m.
Posted by: Tengen
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 11:23 a.m.
Posted by: Al (AlTang67@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 11:40 a.m.
Posted by: jazzman
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 11:52 a.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 12:40 p.m.
Posted by: hetron
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 5:35 p.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 9:31 a.m.
Posted by: hetron
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 8:10 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 9:52 a.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 9:54 a.m.
Posted by: hetron
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 8:31 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Springfield
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 10:27 a.m.
Posted by: hetron
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Springfield
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 10:22 a.m.
Posted by: Tengen
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 7:02 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 12:29 p.m.
Posted by: Al Bupp
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: tbill
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 12:52 p.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 5:40 a.m.
Posted by: Fuzy (Fuzy@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 7:25 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 12:43 p.m.
Posted by: Tengen
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 7:28 p.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 7:55 p.m.
Posted by: anonymous
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 14 August 2000, at 8:46 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Geary (jaygee@primenet.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 10:59 a.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 1:42 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 11:59 a.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 1:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 1:55 p.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 2:00 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 1:44 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 1:51 p.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 3:37 p.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 1:54 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 1:57 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 2:49 p.m.
Posted by: Al Bupp
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 3:43 p.m.
Posted by: Fingaz
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 3:47 p.m.
Posted by: binn (btullis@charter.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 3:07 p.m.
Posted by: UKGenius
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 4:07 p.m.
Posted by: Andreas (lips@winning.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 8:38 a.m.
Posted by: jazzman
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 10:18 a.m.
Posted by: woodman
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 10:31 a.m.
Posted by: CannonBob (bobis@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 9:55 p.m.
Posted by: woodman
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 10:05 a.m.
Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 2:04 p.m.
Posted by: Angelina (angelina@fekali.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 2:20 p.m.
Studying People Inc.
Ljubljana, Slovenia
http://www.fekali.com/angelina
Posted by: windavis
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 3:57 p.m.
Posted by: Angelina (angelina@fekali.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 4:16 p.m.
Studying People Inc.
Ljubljana, Slovenia
http://www.fekali.com/angelina
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 3:03 p.m.
Posted by: Fingaz
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 3:50 p.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 4:05 p.m.
Posted by: Sam Donaldson, er, I mean M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 4:21 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 7:41 a.m.
Posted by: windavis
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 4:02 p.m.
Posted by: Sam Donaldson, er, I mean M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 4:04 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Fiete (fiete@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 9:37 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 7:51 a.m.
Posted by: ray springfield
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 9:27 a.m.
Posted by: Steve Fiete (fiete@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 9:43 a.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 9:46 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: Maven (neomaven@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 11:00 a.m.
Posted by: Sam Donaldson, er, I mean M (mmmmmm@excelonline.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 4:13 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Ad (michael.adams4@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 4:44 p.m.
Posted by: The Captain
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 5:14 p.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 10:21 p.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 5:38 p.m.
Posted by: Stu (SS2Skilled@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 8:10 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 9:26 p.m.
Posted by: DancingDave (davidb17@home.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 15 August 2000, at 10:23 p.m.
Posted by: Bill (mrgo22@mindspring.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 12:40 a.m.
Posted by: Fuzy (Fuzy@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 7:59 a.m.
Posted by: BK (bill.wong@nyfrb.org)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 10:53 a.m.
Posted by: matt
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 10:58 a.m.
Posted by: Steve Fiete (fiete@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 9:48 a.m.
Posted by: mike.g (mikeghobadi@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 10:05 a.m.
Posted by: Paul Parks (tonsofmula@cs.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 12:36 p.m.
Posted by: Russ Boyd (boyd@pokerspot.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 7:56 p.m.
Posted by: Ed I
Posted on: Wednesday, 16 August 2000, at 11:28 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 12:44 a.m.
Posted by: brad (bradley_abc@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 2:35 a.m.
Posted by: Talbot
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 2:00 p.m.
Posted by: James
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 2:41 p.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 12:04 p.m.
Posted by: windavis
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 12:22 p.m.
Posted by: Mason Malmuth (MasonMalmuth@twoplustwo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 2:26 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 2:50 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Fiete (fiete@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 3:14 p.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 4:33 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Ad (michael.adams4@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 10:15 p.m.
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 12:52 p.m.
Posted by: Steve Fiete (fiete@my-deja.com)
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 4:35 p.m.
Posted by: ActionBob
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 10:49 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Ad (michael.adams4@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 10:00 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 9:26 p.m.
Posted by: John (jbeckd@tca.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 August 2000, at 8:21 p.m.
Posted by: Paradise Poker player
Posted on: Thursday, 17 August 2000, at 5:30 p.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 6:10 a.m.
Table "xxxxx" (real money) -- Seat 7 is the button
Seat 1: xxxx1 ($40 in chips)
Seat 2: Me! ($160.50 in chips)
Seat 3: xxxx2 ($269.50 in chips)
Seat 4: xxxx3 ($180 in chips)
Seat 5: xxxx4 ($104 in chips)
Seat 6: xxxx5 ($276 in chips)
Seat 7: Maniac! ($261 in chips)
Seat 8: xxxx7 ($41 in chips)
Seat 9: xxxx8 ($111.50 in chips)
Seat 10: xxxx9 ($137 in chips)
xxxx7: Post Small Blind ($1)
xxxx8: Post Big Blind ($3)
Dealing...
Dealt to Me! [ Ac ]
Dealt to Me! [ Td ]
xxxx9 : Fold
xxxx1 : Fold
Me!: Call ($3)
xxxx2: Fold
xxxx3 : Fold
xxxx4: Fold
xxxx5 : Fold
Maniac! : Call ($3)
xxxx7: Call ($2)
xxxx8: Check
*** FLOP *** : [ Ts Kc Qc ]
xxxx7: Check
xxxx8: Check
Me!: Bet ($3)
Maniac! : Call ($3)
xxxx7: Call ($3)
xxxx8: Call ($3)
*** TURN *** : [ Ts Kc Qc ] [ Tc ]
xxxx7: Check
xxxx8: Check
Me!: Bet ($6)
Maniac! : Call ($6)
xxxx7: Fold
xxxx8: Fold
*** RIVER *** : [ Ts Kc Qc Tc ] [ 2h ]
Me!: Bet ($6)
Maniac! : Raise ($12)
Me!: Call ($6)
*** SUMMARY ***
Pot: $58 | Rake: $2
Board: [ Ts Kc Qc Tc 2h ]
xxxx1 didn't bet (folded)
Me! lost $24 (showed hand) [ Ac Td ] (three of a kind, tens)
xxxx2 didn't bet (folded)
xxxx3 didn't bet (folded)
xxxx4 didn't bet (folded)
xxxx5 didn't bet (folded)
Maniac! bet $24, collected $58, net +$34 (showed hand)
[ 2c 2s ] (a full house, twos full of tens)
xxxx7 lost $6 (folded)
xxxx8 lost $6 (folded)
xxxx9 didn't bet (folded)
-----------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 10:26 a.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock (jeffysroom@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 11:59 a.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 7:15 p.m.
Posted by: D Woolard (dwoolard@surfbest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 10:09 p.m.
Posted by: Mackie
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 1:10 p.m.
Posted by: born loser
Posted on: Saturday, 19 August 2000, at 12:07 a.m.
Posted by: clambaker
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 10:43 a.m.
Posted by: bob (bob2929m@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 12:19 p.m.
Posted by: HAWKIN
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 1:18 p.m.
Posted by: Jim Mogal (mogalj@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 2:31 p.m.
Posted by: clambaker
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: bob (bob2929m@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 7:25 p.m.
Posted by: Mitch Cumstein (mitchcumstein@usa.net)
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 11:20 p.m.
Posted by: clambaker
Posted on: Saturday, 19 August 2000, at 2:34 a.m.
Posted by: rholman23 (rholman23@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 5:15 a.m.
Posted by: DW (dwoolard@surfbest.net)
Posted on: Friday, 18 August 2000, at 10:49 p.m.
Posted by: Big $lick
Posted on: Saturday, 19 August 2000, at 7:14 a.m.
Posted by: The Cheshire Cat
Posted on: Saturday, 19 August 2000, at 1:59 p.m.
Posted by: dumb dumb
Posted on: Saturday, 19 August 2000, at 7:59 p.m.
Posted by: Nelson (abbeysr@bellsouth.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 August 2000, at 12:30 a.m.
Posted by: Bust (e@e.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 2:44 p.m.
Posted by: The Dodo
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 10:04 a.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (ashworth@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 August 2000, at 1:17 p.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Saturday, 19 August 2000, at 1:24 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 August 2000, at 2:24 p.m.
Posted by: holdemzorro (holdemzorro@icqmail.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 19 August 2000, at 6:27 p.m.
Posted by: Derrick Ashworth (ashworth@powersurfr.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: DW (dwoolard@surfbest.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 August 2000, at 9:21 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 August 2000, at 9:28 p.m.
Posted by: Jodder (jodderx@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 August 2000, at 9:42 p.m.
Posted by: mike ghobadi (mikeghobadi@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 August 2000, at 9:30 p.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Sunday, 20 August 2000, at 11:00 p.m.
Posted by: Donald Duck
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 10:17 a.m.
Posted by: Conspiracy Theorist
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 11:27 p.m.
Posted by: Mr. President
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 3:10 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: Mr. President
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 4:39 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 3:31 p.m.
Posted by: Mr. President
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 4:53 p.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 10:48 p.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 11:25 p.m.
Posted by: Mr. President
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 4:58 a.m.
Posted by: SammyB (peachdad@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 6:18 a.m.
Posted by: Mr. President
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 2:01 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Hill (winner777@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 4:35 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 3:43 p.m.
Posted by: G. Ed Conly (econly@poweruser.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 5:37 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 12:58 a.m.
Posted by: Doc
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 10:18 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 11:56 a.m.
Posted by: Mike Ad (michael.adams4@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 12:13 p.m.
Posted by: Fatherless wimps?
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 12:28 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Springfield
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 12:36 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 2:33 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Ad (michael.adams4@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 1:09 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 4:37 p.m.
Posted by: Ray Springfield (sray4@uswest.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 10:34 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 12:13 p.m.
Posted by: Andrew Prock (jeffysroom@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 1:46 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 2:37 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 2:34 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 12:42 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 2:46 p.m.
Posted by: dave
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 4:47 p.m.
Posted by: don't go
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 5:16 p.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 2:18 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 2:54 p.m.
Posted by: JayNT (jaynt@optonline.net)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 3:24 p.m.
Posted by: tbill
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 5:37 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 6:40 p.m.
Posted by: Paul Feeney (feen9876@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 8:16 a.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 5:19 p.m.
Posted by: BruceZ
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 5:14 a.m.
Posted by: spitball
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 7:16 p.m.
Posted by: Jake Jeck (jakejeck@mail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 5:06 p.m.
Posted by: nj (nj@ADELPHIA.NET)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 5:33 p.m.
Posted by: Mr. President
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 6:01 p.m.
Posted by: jtlv
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 8:17 p.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 11:05 p.m.
Posted by: Mr. President
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 2:27 a.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 5:00 p.m.
Posted by: backdoor (frankersteinross@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 12:02 p.m.
Posted by: Jake Jeck (jakejeck@mail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 12:34 a.m.
Posted by: Mr. President
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 7:00 p.m.
Posted by: Malik Salaam
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 7:27 p.m.
Posted by: skp (spadmanabhan@blgcanada.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 7:58 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 8:03 p.m.
Posted by: Mr. President
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 8:06 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 8:13 p.m.
Posted by: DW (dwoolard@surfbest.net)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 8:33 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Alger (algerc@idt.net)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 11:15 p.m.
Posted by: spitball
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 7:00 p.m.
Posted by: Mr. President
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 2:20 a.m.
Posted by: Jeff Woods (jester@r00lerz.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 12:26 p.m.
Posted by: spitball
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 7:07 p.m.
Posted by: GD (guydowns@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 8:15 p.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 11:02 p.m.
Posted by: Poker Amateur
Posted on: Monday, 21 August 2000, at 11:04 p.m.
Posted by: zooey
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 2:57 a.m.
Posted by: Mitch Cumstein (mitchcumstein@usa.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 10:41 p.m.
Posted by: BruceZ
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 12:54 a.m.
Posted by: Jack R
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 9:46 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 10:33 a.m.
Posted by: Russ Boyd (boyd@pokerspot.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 7:50 p.m.
Posted by: John Slater.
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 11:21 a.m.
Posted by: smd
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 12:23 p.m.
Posted by: Mr. President
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 3:48 p.m.
Posted by: Mike Ad (michael.adams4@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 7:17 p.m.
Posted by: windavis
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 12:26 p.m.
Posted by: mike c (mceb1313@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 3:29 p.m.
Posted by: Jack R
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 10:00 p.m.
Posted by: mike g (mikeghobadi@aol.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 9:03 p.m.
Posted by: BruceZ
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 9:56 p.m.
Posted by: windavis
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 5:03 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Dwyer (ed_dwyer@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 August 2000, at 5:15 p.m.
Posted by: Ed Dwyer (ed_dwyer@prodigy.net)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 August 2000, at 5:23 p.m.
Posted by: Angelina (angelina@fekali.com)
Posted on: Saturday, 26 August 2000, at 7:48 p.m.
Studying People Inc.
Ljubljana, Slovenia
http://www.fekali.com/angelina
Posted by: BruceZ
Posted on: Tuesday, 22 August 2000, at 10:07 p.m.
Posted by: jazzman
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 10:28 a.m.
Posted by: windavis
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 4:59 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 5:25 p.m.
Posted by: windavis
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 12:24 p.m.
Posted by: BruceZ
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 9:35 p.m.
Posted by: windavis
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 12:19 p.m.
Posted by: bvt (btullis@charter.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 5:54 a.m.
Posted by: spitball
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 4:35 p.m.
Posted by: NIGHTHAWK9
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 3:41 p.m.
Posted by: nonameanymore
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 4:57 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 12:20 p.m.
Posted by: nonameanymore
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 5:30 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 11:15 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot
Posted on: Wednesday, 23 August 2000, at 6:18 p.m.
Posted by: windavis
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 12:15 p.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 1:43 p.m.
Posted by: Talbot
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 4:09 p.m.
Posted by: windavis
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 5:21 p.m.
Posted by: oscar (obrianmc@aol.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 11:47 a.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 12:15 p.m.
Posted by: jazzman
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 12:45 p.m.
Posted by: Coyote (kanscoyote@webtv.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 12:18 p.m.
Posted by: berya
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 1:39 p.m.
Posted by: Coyote (kanscoyote@webtv.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 2:46 p.m.
Posted by: Mark the K (msk914@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 3:18 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Z
Posted on: Thursday, 24 August 2000, at 4:08 p.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 1:58 a.m.
Posted by: Dan S.
Posted on: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 5:05 p.m.
Posted by: DjTj (tjou@caltech.edu)
Posted on: Friday, 25 August 2000, at 6:42 p.m.
Posted by: Foreigner
Posted on: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 11:29 a.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 2:24 p.m.Canadians think they are smarter than US folks and consider Yanks real shit stupid. It's a gross generalization from their part.
Posted by: Weasel (not the Imperial one)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 11:46 a.m.
Posted by: Angelina (angelina@fekali.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 12:09 p.m.
Studying People Inc.
Ljubljana, Slovenia
http://www.fekali.com/angelina
Posted by: spitball
Posted on: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 6:31 p.m.
Posted by: MikeAd (michael.adams4@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 12:47 p.m.
Posted by: the king (riverboat@aol.com)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 10:26 p.m.
Posted by: MikeAd (michael.adams4@worldnet.att.net)
Posted on: Sunday, 27 August 2000, at 10:30 p.m.
Posted by: hosh115 (hosh115@aol.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 2:05 p.m.
Posted by: Dan Hanson (danhanson@home.com)
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 2:11 p.m.
Posted by: Puggy
Posted on: Monday, 28 August 2000, at 3:55 p.m.
Posted by: Angelina (angelina@fekali.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 8:58 a.m.
Studying People Inc.
Ljubljana, Slovenia
http://www.fekali.com/angelina
Posted by: Joe (JoeBlow1980@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 1:08 p.m.
Posted by: MJS (mjs_90201@yahoo.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 10:05 a.m.
Posted by: MJS
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 10:11 a.m.
Posted by: jtlv
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 8:27 p.m.
Posted by: Disillusioned
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 10:07 a.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 12:02 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 1:23 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 3:19 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 5:43 p.m.
Posted by: holdemzorro (holdemzorro@icqmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 5:52 p.m.
Posted by: Disillusioned
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 4:26 a.m.
Posted by: Disillusioned
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 4:41 a.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 3:25 p.m.
Posted by: jtlv
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 8:15 p.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 10:30 a.m.
Posted by: jazzman
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 10:41 a.m.
Posted by: Matt
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 1:47 p.m.
Posted by: jtlv
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 12:14 p.m.
Posted by: bob (bob2929m@hotmail.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 30 August 2000, at 4:07 p.m.
Posted by: Chris Villalobos (zardoz@micron.net)
Posted on: Thursday, 31 August 2000, at 7:58 p.m.
Internet Gambling
August 2000 Digest is provided by Two Plus Two Publishing and ConJelCo