It was a one man effort when he started and he was the person almost solely responsible for bringing the site to book.

He had to take all the ridicule that riggies here get for a short time.

The reason he only had to put up with it for a short time was because he rapidly got the necessary evidence and knuckled down and did the appropriate analyses to show that the truly was something amiss.

Now he has the utmost respect from all players here who are aware of the story because he actually did something.

His activities also prove that if a site is really up to no good, the truth will come out and their reputation and customer base will take a dive.

So Josem = crazymarco?

Wat?

No idea - you'd have to ask him.

(I suspect: "not", though.)

I, also, suspect he wasn't one of the players involved who brought the whole thing to light, yet he continually claims all the credit.

What does 'wat' mean?

He doesn't 'claim all the credit'.

He may, quite reasonably, mention that he played some part in the proceedings.

In fact, he was the prime mover.

It is most of the rest of the poker community that are more than happy to give him most of the credit for bringing the scandal to light for the very simple reason that he did most of the work.

Unlike the current crop of whining, mewling, malcontents who do nothing but libel people and companies without evidence of any wrongdoing and rely on screaming 'shill' at anyone who calls them out on their dishonourable behaviour, MJ actually pursued a logical approach: gathering evidence and analysing it.

Once he'd done that others willingly helped by confirming his analyses.

Your trying to badmouth the one person who has actually used evidence and statistics to expose malfeasance by a site is doing nothing more than showing yourself up as a pathetic, mealy-mouthed whiner who hasn't a clue.

If you are really such a cretin that you cannot work it out for yourself; it's a shorthand way of saying: "What is this idiot talking about".

Seriously, you are such a tellbox! You may as well be playing your cards face up.

Conditio sine qua non.

Latine loqui coactus sum.

Well, go ahead.

I'm sure you'll make as little sense as you do in English.

No, I did not claim all the credit for uncovering cheating or the events at Absolute Poker. All I claimed is that I proved that it happened with 850 hands.

No.

I did not do most of the work to uncovering the cheating at AP/UB. All I did was prove that it happened using some fairly simple mathematics and MS Excel. I then translated from the technical mathematical stuff into easy-to-understand English.

OK, if you want to be picky: all the important work.

Or, to put it another way, the 'pivotal' work.

Whatever, the mears idiot is trying to accuse you of something you don't do in his increasingly desperate attempts to throw mud at anyone who won't toe the riggie line.

Of course, with his lack of credible evidence or cogent argument I suppose that's all he's got.

I think THIS is what you really wanted to say.

Oh, hi there BR! Good morning! Are you ready to reply to my questions to you yet? Is there a reason for your silence?

Hi Arouet.

What is this question that BR seems to keep ignoring? Why do you suppose he keeps ignoring it? Is it a difficult question?

What is the use in responding to a shill or ignorant dreamer anymore? Dont need to read about "its variance, or you see more hands online, or hand histories will prove its not rigged" b.s.

Not dififcult questions at all. Bt they go to the heart of one's approach to this issue. I'll repost it again:
The reason the riggies ignore it is because it would acknowledge that they have not approached this question from a critical standpoint. They have no explanation for why when analysed rigourously, their observations at the table don't seem to pan out.

You havent played one hand online, have you? Which site do you work for?

WRONG

I have played millions of hands online at many different rooms, and I work for my own coaching/staking site with 2 partners. You and others can still believe I work for one of the poker sites as well if you like, I encourage that type of paranoid based conspiracy thinking.

With that in mind I ask you the exact same question same questions Arouet asks, and I do this simply to see the way you ignore the topic from a different type of shill. Since you are a silly throwaway gimmick that gets way too much direct attention from my fellow shills, this will be pretty much the only time I ever directly acknowledge you as you take away valuable time that can be spent with the real paranoid crowd of squirrels and murder riggies.

All the best.

The problem is the notion that it is necessarily much easier to prove that it is rigged while it is much more difficult to prove that it is not. If you conduct a test that fails to prove that it is rigged there are still an infinite number of tests you could still try to find out if it is rigged, just as there are an infinite number of tests to find out it isn't. Each individual test confirms in and of itself, to that extent, that it is or isn't rigged. Period. Riggies being stubborn does not make it harder to prove are disprove anything, it merely makes them harder to satisfy or communicate constructively with etc. Pandering to a riggies demands it what makes scope the issue, and it really is made an issue when peoples start doing so and saying things like you can't prove a negative.