What do you mean when you say "that is so much more concrete, you're right." I never said that. So why are you saying "you're right?"

I'm trying to answer your Q's as best I can but I'm not sure you are genuinely asking them. I've also answered a lot of this stuff in earlier posts and you seem determined toput words in my mouth that I never thought or even said...and that seem to be pretty much the opposite of what I have DIRECTLY stated. So that's kind of annoying to me.

Anyway...
I'm interested in ANY hand history involving these cheats just out of my own curiosity which I think is reasonable. I'm also curious how bad some of the incidents were and how far back they go. If there is one HH that is particularly egregious and then that player was allowed to continue playing in 200 more DON's after that then I think that's pretty bad.

If you have 5 players from the same hometown all playing somewhat outrageously at the same table yet the whole thing was somehow able to continue then that would cause me some concern as well.

For my own entertainment I was also interested in seeing if Jane had some way to defend what I would assume would be LOL-obvious play so I was kind of encouraging her to go that route too but it never materialized.

Hey did you ever come across that scammer LaBestiaCulo, I swear to god that guy was nothing but shill? I remember him colluding big time and I think I saw Lazzzzzzy at his table numerous times too?

rize and mitch - You are missing my point completely. And I would request that you stop twisting my words.

I never said it was especially important or necessary to see the evidence. I was just interested to see the evidence out of my own curiosity. Others had the same curiosity as well

I never said I didn't trust Stars to make the correct decision. I specifically stated that I did trust Stars to make the correct decision.

I'm interested in what Chinese Sweat-Shop colluding DON'ers play like at the tables. No biggie. It was just something that interested me. And I kind of was interested in seeing how far back it went. Based on the players' profits it looks like the whole thing might have gone on for a little while which I find interesting too.

I took some pictures of what these "sweat-shops" look like.

Ill post them tomorrow morning when i can remember my photobucket PW

lol look what I found to answer my own question

http://www.pocketfives.com/poker-for...2698/p/4284808

PokerStars Game #28413411506: Tournament #165234075, $20.00+$0.80 Hold'em No Limit - Level VII (125/250) - 2009/05/20 11:18:51 ET
Table '165234075 1' 10-max Seat #8 is the button
Seat 1: hugosbosse (385 in chips)
Seat 2: LaBestiaCulo (6023 in chips)
Seat 4: CharlyJerson (292 in chips)
Seat 5: Lazzzzzzy (1365 in chips)
Seat 6: cebola (2070 in chips)
Seat 8: NEADY05 (1760 in chips)
Seat 10: Nole91 (3105 in chips)
hugosbosse: posts the ante 25
LaBestiaCulo: posts the ante 25
CharlyJerson: posts the ante 25
Lazzzzzzy: posts the ante 25
cebola: posts the ante 25
NEADY05: posts the ante 25
Nole91: posts the ante 25
Nole91: posts small blind 125
hugosbosse: posts big blind 250

Edit: Although I see that was about two other colluders in the $20 DoNs

ok and what qualifies as evidence in this situation and how did you think you were going to get it?

-----------
Name-----------First Game-------Last Game

Jessica318-----29-Jul-09--------25-Jan-10
wudiyg---------Stats Disabled
jane1023-------28-Jul-09--------18-Feb-10
gucci53--------28-Jul-09--------8-Feb-10
lazzzzzzy------13-Apr-09--------6-Jan-10
renhe88--------10-Jul-09--------14-Feb-10
Xuanyu.L-------Stats Disabled
chenxr---------31-Jan-09--------18-Feb-10
flypretty------12-May-09--------4-May-10
nayouyi--------30-May-09--------17-Feb-10
hzlsl----------23-Jul-09--------29-Jan-10
freetime1955---23-Dec-09--------8-Feb-10
xxwpk168-------5-Jul-09---------5-Feb-10
microsoft25----28-Dec-09--------8-Feb-10
wenpk15888-----Stats Disabled
strong arm A---10-Jan-10--------23-Jan-10
Degreexia------10-Jul-09--------7-Nov-09
ellena054------16-Aug-09--------20-May-10
jinse888-------21-Jun-09--------5-Feb-10
liuli888-------29-Jan-10--------10-Feb-10
rara999--------7-Sep-09---------18-Feb-10
DCBM288--------24-Sep-09--------17-Feb-10
linyin---------20-Dec-09--------10-Feb-10
yangguangze----10-Sep-09--------11-Nov-09
pakerster------29-Nov-09--------9-Feb-10
yutian---------18-Dec-09--------6-Feb-10
wenpk15888-----Stats Disabled
coroinpu-------5-Jul-09---------16-Feb-10
maomao1832-----24-Jul-09--------18-Feb-10
hslj001--------7-Dec-09---------3-Feb-10
psnyls---------14-Jan-10--------14-Feb-10
golovorez777---27-May-09--------10-May-10
leaders668-----9-Jan-10---------18-Feb-10
guiliang-------7-Jan-10---------31-Jan-10
chijianli------20-Dec-09--------17-Feb-10
xiawenju-------20-Dec-09--------1-Feb-10
147222---------12-Dec-09--------17-Feb-10
wzem618800-----22-Nov-09--------18-Feb-10
mnbqwe12-------14-Nov-09--------18-Feb-10
wzhongz--------14-Nov-09--------17-Feb-10
superxia-------24-Mar-09--------28-Jun-09
sishun---------24-Feb-09--------28-Jun-09
-------

This is a little funky looking. Good luck with it.

no. Even if the American justice system were 100% accurate the verdict itself does not count as evidence. The verdict came FROM evidence that led to the conclusion in the first place.

Regardless, I agree with you that I don't need to see the hands nor does anyone else. Jane might be the only one who disagrees with that I'm guessing. I have never strayed from that idea.

You and Rize keep insisting that I somehow feel we "need" to see the hands. I never said that.

My apologies that you keep inferring it somehow. I don't know how to make it any clearer that it is a curiosity thing (and kind of double-checking Stars' effectiveness and whether perhaps the whole thing happened too slowly). I have said, "interest" and "curiosity" over and over in regard to the "evidence." I have never said it was "necessary" or that we "needed" to.

this just makes me sigh

thanks amboy - Some of those could be duplicate accounts to throw people off their track somehow. Less of history with the regulars...and also less of a history with each other. Something like that anyway. New accounts kept popping up while others dropped out throughout the similar 7-stud collusion ring I believe.

Bob, you've made that point over and over. I'm sorry if you think I'm misunderstanding that. I know you (personally) don't need to see the actual evidence to have faith that Stars made the correct decision, and you are curious to see the hands is all.

All I'm saying is if you know they will make the correct decision, then the account closures are evidence they cheated. If you have ANY doubt at all, then no, the closures are not evidence. The thing is, someone could post whipsaws and there will be people here that can make an argument that there wasn't any collusion involved.

Ummm, is this a trick question? Isn't this exactly what I've been saying before?

"evidence" would be a hand history that would show some interesting deviation of play that could be construed as potential collusion. I think it would be interesting to see.

I thought it could be acquired by asking some of the others who have played against them (and/or reported them) to post a hand or two that they deemed suspicious.

so how was my description of your view as "stars' verdict isn't evidence but some random HH from the OP which may or may not be real is evidence" twisting your words? Even some of the people accusing OP of colluding could have doctored a HH or two for their own purposes.

Please explain how this is more concrete than throwing in with stars.

You 3 really should lock it up about what you think the other is trying to say. Its incredibly pointless and annoying and makes it very hard to filter through what I'm really trying to see here.

I disagree. I don't believe I have any doubts that this was a collusion ring that Stars caught but it's still not evidence. Whatever. You are just playing semantical games here. If you would prefer to change the terminology to "Bob would be interested in seeing the Hand Histories" instead of "evidence" then go ahead and do that.

If I went to Stars and said, "I've seen the evidence of the Chinese DON colluders" and then they said, "ORLY? We kept that pretty hidden. How did you see it?" and then I said, "well, I saw that you decided to ban them and that is the evidence I saw" I'm pretty sure you would agree that would be a strange conversation.

I'm well aware that any hand that is posted can be justified in any number of ways from misclicks to bad play to erratic play to anything else. I'm not trying to prove or disprove them one way or the other. I am interested in what a typical "sketchy" looking hand from them perhaps looks like. Note also that Stars is counting on their own players to be able to recognize such things.

And as I stated, seeing how far back it might have gone is worth looking into as well.

The closures are PART of the evidence they cheated (if you believe Stars is qualified). They are not the actual evidence that led to the closures.

So what you're saying is:

I trust Stars can correctly identify cheating.
Stars closed accounts due to cheating.
Account closures are not evidence cheating occurred.

you people really need to understand how much history the chinese online gaming community has in cheating. if this situation were found to be a false positive, it would be the equivalent to a guy that was completely innocent being found 2 feet from a dead body, wearing all black with a ski mask on, holding a knife with blood all over it and saying "no way dude, I didn't do anything!!"

seriously, under****ingstand that these people cheated. they cheated a lot and they probably cheated in other games before they cheated in poker.. jesus on a ****ing bun

Mitch - If you changed the last one to "account closures are not the evidence they used to determine the cheating" then I would agree. When somebody is in prison for murder and somebody else asks what some of the evidence consisted of they might get directed to fingerprints on the weapon or something. The evidence that he's guilty of murder is the fact that he's in prison.

Regardless, it's a stupid semantical argument and I agree with others that it would be best to drop it. Please just substitute "hand histories" in there instead if it helps.

She couldn't beat the $1 dons after 165 games, nor the $5 dons after 700 games, but the $10+ she could. That is backwords, then again, probably noone was willing to cheat with her in such small games.

Wish I had a SS sub and then could really dig some info out about all these people listed.

I never said anything about it being a false positive somehow nor did anyone else. Please just re-read some of my previous posts about this. I am not doubting Stars decision here. I really don't know how I can see any of this any clearer.

I agree with your assessment that the cheating of the Chinese rings seems to be a bit of a plague (the other poster's claim of 70% of the people he knows being in collusion rings is pretty scary). Which is why I think it would be interesting and helpful to see some of the hands of these players who seemed to have gotten away with it for reasonable stretch.

Jesus, Bob, how many times have I stated the closures are not the actual evidence that led to the account closures?

So, if 100 qualified eyewitnesses say, "Yes, that person killed her right in front of everyone." all with the same details, that's not evidence - you need to see a tape if you're a juror to convict?

And lol @ the condescending last sentence there.

Mitch - It wasn't meant to be condescending. I'm trying to move this semantical issue along. I am interested in seeing some of the "evidence"...you then say "there is already the evidence that Stars said so...that's the evidence they did it"...and then I say "okay, then...I'm interested in seeing a hand history or two."

If you don't like the way the term "evidence" was being used by me or anyone else in regards to any of this then just ignore it or change it or do whatever. I don't care.


Yes, if 100 eyewitnesses say that they saw it then that would be solid evidence.

So Stars game security experts (Josem for one) says they cheated is not solid evidence?

God knows whats going on in the Ipoker DONs....nobody gives a **** about game security on that network.

Think from now on I will only play on stars.

Mitch - Josem is the decider/judge/arbiter/expert of the issue. His determination is not the same as evidence to me even though I trust his determination nonetheless. But it really doesn't matter.