to Josem --
I can refute and/or respond to each of your ramblings point-by-point but what is the point? You've already made up your mind based on the way in which you write and draw to conlcusive remarks. I respect your opinion although I disagree with all of it in full.

1. I'm not bothered at the posts from you. Again, it isin everyones interest for no censorship or filtering to occur. No one should be scared or pressured into closing up. So, I hope you are not trying to do that. We see this happen in everyday society way too often where the minority prevents the majority from finding out the facts to be well informed so they can continue to hide and exploit the majority.
2. Your logic flow astounds me to the point of being unable to respond. In your mind, when a crime occurs,you are suggesting that the logical thing to do is to quilt information together (you call it 'facts' while I call it information) and pray that a conclusion ot of reproach is arrived at. Please take a course in criminal psychology and/or law enforcement. Crime is solved by looking at all possibiities and reducing the breadth of possibilities in order to know where to look. By looking at the rightplaces, certain information (or facts as you put it) can be found or discovered. The discovery of this information then leads to ruling out certain scenarios while introducing new scenarios. I find it very offensive that you should try to use your verbiage to mislead the readers of this forum in the same manner that you accuse me of misleading them. Your approach LIMITS infomation and my approach opens all possibilities. When someone is murdered, the reason why detectives have varying degrees of suspects is because certain parties are historically proven to be higher suspects. Would a detective go and seek out whether or not a murdered housewife had a life insurance policy taken out on a date in close proximity to her death? Yes, they usually do precisely because a possibility is then followed up with either supporting information or refuting information. For you to purport to be some sort of pure champion of logic is both confounding and selfishly repugnant.
3. I do agree that I am confusing people with the flip flopping definitions of bots. That much I will grant you. However, the point is not on the "botnet conspiracy" vs. "audit capability gone wrong." It is crtical to understand the distinction and equally critical to understand that I am not suggesting that some massive botnet wave is hitting online poker or online gaming. I am saying that if indeed someone at UB had originally created bots (bot players) and that person also had access privileges to the underlying code which allows hole card view, then it is more likely that this person used a method such as a distributed botnet design to carry ou the crime. The tool that is used is the audit or admin power user rights and capability (technology) but the process was via a botnet. The latter point is suggested because whether an individual is the perpetrator or many people are perpetrators, it is smarter to carry out the series of crime through a botnet network architecture to evade detection and cover up the trail. If I want to view hole cards and steal money, I would do it through 100 versions of ME rather than just alone. It's a matter of scale and distribution of my efforts. I brought this up because 2+2 ers are onstantly coming up with new account names and presenting them to UB and UB is vaidating it.
4. You remind me a lot of those people in society who would rather mak or chalk everything up to random missives and accusations such as "absurdity" and "hyperbolic" and "baseless" to shut them up but in turn use precisely the same fear instilling techniques and words to ake your case with a degree of certainty a person without evidence and avaiting evidence would never purport to have. My suspicion of you is likely the same as you haveof me. What is your motivation for shutting me and those like me up? I'm almost thinking that you must own or work for an online poker site. Otherwise, I cannot think of a reason why my self admitted theories and expressed thoughts of "potential methods" could irk you so much.
5. In terms of openness and transparency, I simply d not disclose who I am because I am fearful of repercusions from quite frankly strangers ... strangers with a lot to lose by being outed. Also, there are lots of viewers of these forums who themselves are cheating online poker. Simply put, I have a dsincentive to disclose who I am because I will unnecessarily make lots of enemies and I do not care to make enemies especialy considering that I have nothing to gain and only privacy to lose. Further, and again call me paranoid if you'd ike, but this is serious business as it is a crime being investigated albeit at an early preliminary stage. I do not ever intend on providing amateur help to a professional law enforcement matter. My postings are to expose infomation with the hope that those steeply involved with a stake in the matter do the leg work to arrive at a posiive outcome for all people.
6. As a last word, do not think for a minute that I am voluteering my time to write on ths forum as a way to enjoy myself on a nice weekday afternoon and evening. I have spent many many years in information security and network security. I have seen things you would never imagine in relation to bot-related crime, internet fraud, and commercial online fraud and crime. I have contacts in federal agencies that specifically deal with online crime and fraud with whom I have worked with before. I have even represented private sector in a private-to-publc cooperative with government agencies. My knowledge is not as removed or fantasized as your words would have people believe.My interest in this matter was strictly originated from an overall interest to root out the bad guys on the wild west frontier that is the internet and online gaming. I do not want anything nor wil the outcome of UB or anything else in relation to this have any direct or indirect impact on me.

That is all I will say for now as my life and pofessional eperience teaches me that there are always people like you who try to shut off sharing of knowledge and information with vitriole and personal attacks. I will cease to post any further and stop my contributions here. I earnestly hope that the comunity comes together to do what is right ... and that is to cntinue this pursuit vigilantly until ALL the badguys are found -- not just the scapegoats.

If I insinuated in any way that online gaming as an industry is shady or suspect, you av my deepest apologies. That is not what I was trying to do. I was hoping that heightened knowledge would lead to more stringent and strict security enforcement on the part of operators while sending a clear message to illegitimate site operators that their day will come eventually. For those legitimate site operators who have an honest business going, please continue on with evenstrongerand safer environment for your customers - they deserve nothing short of it.

Anyway, thanks for investing the time to reading my this. It seems I have overstayed my welcome ....

noricha

Noricha, this forum appreciates your input very much or at least I do...

Please do not stop giving input because of one poster.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us!

I meant that Monopolized was one of a few accounts used by Neverwin (aka Dustin Woolf), not that the account never won. I am not insinuating at all that he was using a superuser type account because there's no reason to believe that to be the case and when he was on top of the world at UB he was also doing quite well on lots of other sites as well.

Any mention of MSUsFinest as a superuser? i remember him back in the day running up 20+ buyin stacks at 5/10. Cant remember if he was just that sick and i was a donkey or what.

could be a different guy, but MSUsFinest is who i've gotten some of my rakeback payments from on full tilt on a site that also has UB rakeback.

I apologise if that's how my posts came off, because I thought that I addressed his points pretty clearly.

The point is that you shouldn't have to rely on me - or any other self-appointed arbiter of these things, and I regret coming off like that.

The point that I was trying to convey on determining reliable regulatory jurisdictions was that the European Union has investigated a whole series of jurisidctions for their credibility - and found that Isle of Man (PokerStars, Microgaming) and Alderney (FTP, Party) and others are credible... while others, such as KGC (UB, AP) are not.

This is not breaking news, and I really don't think that my views are outside the mainstream.

I forgot about MSUsFinest on UB. I remember him running VERY good for a time. I have no input or reason to believe he was a superuser. I remember he had some very good tournament success on UB also. I remember thinking I was outclassed when I played him then. I don't recall any freakish calldowns or anything that sticks. I know he was killing it circa 2005-06. I don't remember him moving up and playing huge games, which I would imagine he would have, if he was a superuser. He did seem to come out of nowhere fast and win alot quickly but I didn't track well back then so it's possible I simply missed him. It seems like he owned the Sunday on UB if i recall.

***JC I was searching some old stuff and found these posts on google from P5's accusing MSUsFINEST of cheating and being a shill. The posts were made by classyploppy whom I remember playing against a lot and successful tourney player. These are his words and not mine. Like i said i remember him running well and outclassing my play.

Classyploppy said:
I never said MSU uses a mirror program or he cheats, but I do suspect he is a shill. And yes the mirror program does exist. I can refer all of you to check out www.pokerconduct.net for other players opinions. Adam, I have never said anything negative to you or bashed you in anyway, and your opinion of me and your statements are uncalled for. There is no way to 100% say what I am saying is wrong or right either way, my opinion is just as valid as yours. Adam go play MSUSFINEST heads up in NL and let me know how u do, and no its not because hes just some better player.





Re(7): MSUsFinest wins for 3rd time In reply to

By classyploppy on 10-13-2006 12:25 PM

Basically people like Adam are defending it all because if people were to think there is some form of online cheating then they would be less likely to play there. Adam likes to blindly believe that none of this exists and likes to bash good players like myself for thinking that this could be true. Either way it doesnt matter to me, just keep playing MSUSFINEST or other shills and see how you do. And when he wins another 1rst place in the 200k on UB, and UB only mind u, then dont be suprised. What other sites does this player play on? whats his real name? where was he as the WSOP or ARUBA? nowhere!

Another side note now that Mansour Matloubi was mentioned. You guys should consider yourselves very lucky to get any money back.

WSOP main event champ Mansour Matloubi sued the Commerce Casino for allowing him to be cheated. This was a case similar to AP/UP scenario. Matloubi was being beaten over and over by a few bad players and knew the game was crooked. He had the game investigated and it was found out he was right.

The courts ruled that although the Commerce did allow Matloubi to be cheated he didn't deserve to get any money. The court ruled that since poker involves LUCK, Matloubi couldn't prove that the cheating was what caused him to lose money.

He appealed the decision and lost in court again.

Russ/GCA contends that althougth Matloubi lost the Commerce paid him back anyway to avoid the publicity of Matloubi going around knocking the Commerce.

iplay27 and others,
Much thanks for the supportive words of encouragement. Apparently, this fella Josem is extremely experienced in forensic security and criminology as well as jurisdictional matters and law. And I also noticed he has a website where he asks people to donate money supposedly so he uses it for Google adwords. I didn't know this and now realze Josem has an interest in being the 'go to' expert and he is the appointed representative of all online poker players. I didnot know this was already underway. Sorry for stepping on toes. I just wanted to share and help. As much as I want to continue, I will leave it up to the experts. I was not trying to do anything other than share information I obtained through 15 years in the IT security business and software. A duration of time that had me chasing down online criminals alongside the people who founded today's largest security companies and new ones tasked with unearthing newly proliferating ones. I probably created tech products when many were still reading about stuff in textbooks ... maybe even reading stuff that my people were writing.

I will take my communication under now and deal directly with my friends and contacts in law enforcement specific to cyber crime should I choose to continue. I really appreciate your note 2-7 but it is really more appropriate for me to stop here. I'm very high profile in the overall tech community and it is making me uncomfortable to continue on here. It just happened by coincidence that I ran across this matter as I very infreqently play online poker now and then ... and the topic raised my eyebrow. As I've been in numerous meetings and engagements with CEOs of companies like Comcast, Deutsche Telekom and Verizon as well as countless other corporations (including online gambling) specifically identifying online crime and finding tech solutions for them, I wanted to "indirectly" share a lot of information overall of what I know (not do not know but know). In retrospect, I realize that this is a far too serious matter for me or an extreme professional like Josem to mess with. It's time for FBI to take over. Pros will handle it now.

Anyway, I would be lying if said my interest is totally dead on this matter but I can and will observe and follow from a distance. Nothing wrong with that. My contribution in any shape or form is done.

Good luck everyone and good bye. Take care everyone.

noricha.

noricha, please don't bother with this Josem person. He (I assume?) attempts proof by intimidation way too often, and he tries to browbeat people into submitting to his ``facts.'' He clearly thinks very highly of himself, when in reality he's not as informed/smart as he'd like to believe.

Your contributions to the thread have been much appreciated and quite informative. Please continue posting.

In any case, I'm not at all surprised by all this (though i'm no longer as emotional about the issue since I think this industry, should it continue this same path, will crash on its head pretty soon).

For anyone reading this thread that doesn't know, "Josem" is an employee in Pokerstars security department(this is not a secret, but just letting anyone know that may be unaware). He has been shilling for them since hes posted here even though he wasn't technically an employee in his earlier posting days. He is obviously here to try and defuse the situation and to let everyone know that this could never happen at Pokerstars, when anyone with half a brain realizes that it could.

He really should just stop trolling this thread and maybe he could start a new thread about how great Pokerstars is and how great their security is.

BTW Josem- How would we even know if this was happening at Pokerstars since you're the only major site which doesn't allow datamining?

God only knows what we'd find.

IMO, the point is that the many readers of this thread will make their own decision based upon what they read.... and if I've said something wrong, you, and anyone else, should free to disagree with me. Hell, if you type my name into Google, you'll end up with a suite of websites where people do exactly that, so it's hardly something I can stop.

No, of course I was not trying to stop you posting.

I obviously have no way to stop you posting, and in fact strongly believe that the best way to respond to stuff I disagree with is to go through it and respond.... which is precisely what I think I've done.

I'm certainly not in the habit of calling people 'morans' or other names, and althoug I'm certainly not perfect (I like to use the word 'muppet', for example) I don't try to be needlessly offensive.
Well, I'm not convinced that this happens everyday in my society in Australia, so I don't really know what to say about this.
I think that a reasonable course of action is to:
1) have a suspicion
2) to investigate the issues involved
3) to use the results of (2) to determine a likely hypothesis
4) to further investigate and refine (3)

Is it possible that there is some sort of global botnet that corrupts PCs and sends information back to a central source? Sure - is it likely? No. Are there any facts that support such a hypothesis? No.

I completed a degree in policy development which briefly covered a couple of criminology subjects, but I don't want to get into the habit of quoting academic histories to prove or disprove stuff.

I'm pretty confident that the many thousands of 2p2 posters will come to a pretty reasonable outcome in the end.

Well, if I've said something that you feel misleads people, feel free to highlight it and disagree.
I think it is a pretty big leap to assume that someone capable of writing some sort of poker 'bot' is also putting keyloggers and screengrabbers onto people's PC.
I'm not trying to shut you, or anyone else, up, and the suggestion I am is pretty lol-worthy.

It's pretty clear that if I disagree with someone, I'm happy to explain how and why I disagree.

You can read my employment situation by clicking on 'public profile' over on the left. It's not something that I'm particularly secretive about given that there have been various threads about it on here.
I - and a huge percentage of posters on 2p2 - have a pretty clear and obvious financial interest in the success of online poker, either as players or as other stakeholders.

Sure, I feel strongly about it - but again, let's return to the central undeniable point - if you disagree with something I've said, feel free to highlight it and explain why.

Meh, I'm an open book.

On one hand, it gives people the opportunity to make offensive claims about me, but in the long run, I think it's reasonable.

If I'm going to be out there and participating in threads like this, I think it is reasonable for others to know who I am and where I come from.

I don't doubt that you have experience in this sort of stuff, as the language that you use is clearly reflective of someone who works in this sort of area. That's why I'm happy to try to contain this discussion/debate/whatever to the issues involved, rather than attacking you as an individual.
The idea that I am trying to 'shut off sharing of knowledge' is pretty fanciful and is another baseless accusation. It is both false and offensive.

Thanks. I think we both are seeking to avoid this.

I agree entirely with this.

Oh, come off it. Most NVG welcomes are much harsher and underserved than this one.

Wow, remember when someone would say something like this and everyone would laugh at them and tell them to "get on their tinfoil hat"? Sadly, these incidents come as a small vindication for them.

This has been singuarly unsuccessful, and hasn't raised a single cent.

well, no, I haven't received a single cent from any of my activities around AP/UB.
If I'm wrong - or if I've said something you disagree with - then feel free to highlight and disagree with it.

It's pretty intellectually hollow to make a series of claims, receive some resistance, and then decide to take your bat and ball and go home. The point of this discussion board - and why it was so successful in highlighting issues of concern - is that a competitive environment will bring out the truth.

It's not exactly unprecedented for issues of public concern to also be issues of public debate.

man theres some important stuff in this thread and its a shame it got tarded up so badly.

I've quickly gone through this thread. Something that struck was its title. It seems to implicate Annie Duke in the cheating incident..

If this is the case, then is it reasonable that her brother Howard Lederer was completely unaware of all this? Isn't Lederer supposed to be one of the main executives at FTP?

These questions may seem naive to people who are more familiar with this case, but it's something that occurred to me.

It refers to Annie Duke in the title because it was a typical NVG thread arguing whether she was "hot" (after a brief discussion of her relationship to UB).

There's been no evidence presented that Annie Duke was involved in anything untoward.

Stop arguing about botnets and who knows more about what. noricha's claims are interesting and technical, but the reality is that no one here knows that the cheating at UB happened in any sort of manner like that. Josem was being his usual self (ie, quoting an enormous post and responding point by point in a much longer post that I can barely bring myself to even read because it's so long).

Just be nice to each other, you're on the same side.

The point is that Russ Hamilton and Fred David's accounts are all over the superusers' transfer histories. Greg Pierson and about 10 developers listed in this thread (and probably a lot more who were never listed) built the software that allowed this cheating to occur.

How about someone with more time than me goes and tries to contact some of these developers? If they won't even talk to you, that's a pretty good indication that they were doing something shady (IMO). An innocent person will vehemently deny a crime, a guilty person will take some sort of run-around approach with a bunch of misdirection while simultaneously vague denying the crime -- that holds true almost all of the time.

Who wants to step up here?

Anyone have any info on the player legiao.

He is currently playing on UB in a 3 6 NL game 6 max.

According to MPI: His BB 100 is 678.07 after 50,305 hands played.
Ranking: pro (100%)
Earn Rate: Wins 678.07 BB/100
Played: 463 hrs

wait, wat? that's over $2million in two months of 3/6 nl.

WAT? This can't be real right? He is playing right now?

he just left the game but thats what MPI says his numbers are.
i mean i guess its possible theres some type of glitch in the software but that is just ridiculous. here are all the numbers.
legiao
Ranking: pro (100%) 402 wins (51%) Hands: 50,305 played
Earn Rate: Wins 678.07 BB/100 390 losses (49%) 109 avg per hour
Played: 463 hrs 792 sessions total 2,397 sat out (4.8%)

and recent sessions
Recent sessions: legiao
Table Information Big Blind Date Hours Money Win Big Bets
Magee ($50/$100) $50.00 07/04/2008 0.23 -$139.00 -1.39
Magee ($50/$100) $50.00 07/03/2008 1.19 $1,730.00 17.30
North Syracuse ($10/$20) $10.00 06/21/2008 0.02 -$2.00 -0.10
Anoka ($30/$60) $30.00 06/21/2008 0.83 $1,239.00 20.68
Tatooine ($10/$20) $10.00 06/20/2008 0.34 $159.00 7.95
Grapevine (No Limit) $50.00 06/20/2008 0.29 -$81.00 -0.81
Magee ($50/$100) $50.00 06/19/2008 1.78 $3,233.00 32.33
Anoka ($30/$60) $30.00 06/18/2008 0.62 $970.00 16.19
Yorktown Heights (No Limit) $25.00 06/17/2008 1.05 $3,889.50 77.79
Tatooine ($10/$20) $10.00 06/16/2008 0.18 -$220.00 -11.00
Amsterdam ($10/$20) $10.00 06/16/2008 0.29 $150.00 7.50
Amsterdam ($10/$20) $10.00 06/16/2008 0.21 -$237.00 -11.85
Tatooine ($10/$20) $10.00 03/29/2008 0.38 -$306.00 -15.30
Tatooine ($10/$20) $10.00 03/28/2008 1.28 -$280.00 -14.00

Here are some screenshots

Guys legaio aint a cheater. Theres a glitch where if you sit at a very low limit, no max buy in and lose or win say 300$ screwing around with buddies thats a TON of bb's and skews your stats tremendously. Im pretty sure thats what happened here

That would make sense. I mean not even the biggest of dumb****s would be stupid enough to be using a superuser account at the moment with the amount of heat that's coming down.