A couple more filter stats for fun. Won 51/52 hands they bet turn, 80/82 when they bet flop, 117/122 hands they 3b, 13/13 for raising flop, etc,...

Just curious if anyone thinks this could be anything other than super-user/s. Odds of it all of this happening legitimately? Seems pretty close to zero to me but I just want to make sure I'm not biased or missing something.

Your stats appear to be extremely convincing. There is a of course a chance, your filters bias the sample. But assuming they don't, every single one of those stats is *extremely* unlikely to be due to sheer variance.

For example:

This is virtually impossible for a non-cheating player. Even if you assume that someone who raises preflop only has a 20% chance to lose the hand (and this is a very generous assumption), the chances of losing only 40 / 676 (6%) are less than 1:10^24 – over 9 standard deviations away from the mean.

Awesome, thanks! How might my filters bias the sample?

did you doctor the HH's above or did your hand change?

i would expect a superuser pushing that river.

not saying there isn't someone superusing, or that the other statistics aren't alarming, but to say these HH's add any credibility to your case seems like helluva stretch.

Dancer is not one of the villians included in the group of guys I'm analyzing. I'm not sure if he is one of the guys Bin expected at some point but a lot of the histories Bin posted are just showing examples of how the HH's are glitchy.

Like I said, when I looked at hands that went to showdown it didn't really seem like good evidence of super-using and there even seemed to be several counter evidence hands. With all the stats taken into account though it just seems likely that they made some effort to not make it completely obvious what was going on.

yea. The first hand histories I posted was not to illustrate anything about super users, it was to show that the handhistories are extremely glitched and have a lot of errors in them.

E.g. If you go to showdown with villain in one hand, the next hand histories, if not going to showdown will show the villain having that same hand over and over again.

This just supports that the hand histories are glitched up and possibly more vulnerable to hack? Im not sure. Just something I wanted to add.

Edit: And yes, dancer is not one of the ones I suspected of superusing, because my match vs him was still fairly normal compared to the others.

I consider this confirmed and will cashout everything. Not surprised either.

Soooo were Binbs, Metalguru87 and I the only three idiots playing midstakes on this site? Gotta be someone else out there with hand histories or experiences with these guys. I know Iwinnomore played the same stakes and at least played some with these guys so if anyone knows him and could direct him this way that'd be great. Owster, did you have any hands with these guys?

Metalguru87, any luck converting those old histories? Alex or I could do it for you if you just send them to one of us.

Any way we could have the title changed to "Superusers found on play2b"? No "?" please.

In all seriousness, Mods. Is there still reasonable doubt for anyone that has read through this?

I hope you guys get to the bottom of this.

Just a question about this hand. Wouldn't a super-user jam this river instead of calling?

Am I the only one here who thinks that 'superusers confirmed' is too far, considering we have seen hardly any actual hand histories here that back that up. If there is work going on in the background that we don't know about, that's one thing, but confirming without doubt, with the evidence we have seen so far here is really pushing it.

As for the last hand, if BinbsKGB plays hands like this with nothing (raise on the river), isn't it very likely that people are going to make hero calls more often against him?

If this turns out to be a mistake and I were one of the players suspended, I would be p***ed that people who I've won money from have the ability to stop me playing because they think my style shouldn't be able to beat them.

Yeah, definitely a super user playing perfectly would shove here and there are other obvious examples of "mistakes" when it comes to hands that are showndown. Also, a superuser playing optimally would play a lot more hands. As I said before when I looked at hands that went to showdown I really started to think that I could likely be wrong about the whole thing. If they are superusers they are definitely attempting to not make it obvious and/or they are completely incompetent. I think that the stats like: winning 626 of the 676 they raise pf 90 of the 93 hands they bet turn (their opponent rivered a flush in two of them and they obv shutdown), 56 out of 56 rivers that they bet, 117/122 hands that they 3b, 12/12 hands 4b etc,... are the real evidence. If any stats buff (sixhigh) could please come give some more probabilities on the rest of these occurring that'd be great. And again, I had no hh's at all bc I was playing through browser but I felt of the 2500 hands I played with them that they were essentially playing perfectly when betting , then Bin, one of the few others that had played them a bit, came along and gave me these histories that I filtered to give stats that showed the same thing I had experienced.

See above. I will say that we have only a very small sample on a couple of the guys and I did not play them. Bin feels pretty confident that they all essentially played the same and he picked out the 3 guys I thought were essentially the same before I named them so I have confidence in his assessment but we definitely have less "evidence" for them.

So does that mean of the 5 that have been suspended, only 3 have "evidence" against them, whilst the names of the other 2 were just chucked into the mix to suffer a temporary suspension?

Yeah, once we were given the power to freeze accounts at will we just tossed in a couple names of people that annoyed us. What's your handle there btw ? No, that is only to say that of the hands we have that are storable (not played on browser) we have a smaller sample on 2 of them but Binbs and others have have mentioned playing with them all outside of that and all of them showing up on the site around the same time with very similar, very strange styles, and crushing everyone that we can find that has played them while seeming to play perfectly every time they are betting.

We reported them as suspicious and they are being investigated (supposedly). Obviously it's unfortunate if someone's account is wrongly frozen but I'd rather take the chance of two guys unjustly not being able to play for a couple of days than many ppl potentially getting superused indefinitely(or until they bust). What would you have us do?

No.

Having signed up for PIV, then moved eutarget(?) now to Tempura, I've watched this thread closely.

Considering the hand histories have been proven to be buggy, how sure can anyone be that they are going to be accurate enough to prove a point here?

Even then, all we have is circumstantial evidence, the circumstance being certain players losing to a style that they think they shouldn't, and looking for reasons why. I'm not saying that there aren't dodgy things going on, nor am I saying that an investigation shouldn't be done, it should.

Uhm, not this...

I thought the idea of an investigation was to ascertain the facts of a situation, not hold an opinion as fact, pretty much negating the need for solid evidence. I'm not saying that there aren't dodgy things going on, but right now it is far from certain that there are superusers involved.

I just like the way that a bunch of winning players have managed to get suspended by the direct action of people who lost their money to them, with nothing but circumstantial evidence.

FWIW,

I agree that superusing is NOT confirmed yet. I just want to put all the facts out there. The main reason Im posting this thread is because I want to pressure the skin itself to do a thorough investigation of the matter.

Someone also mentioned why a superuser wouldnt shove the river in the K6 vs KQ hand.

Well when looking at how tight these players play, its more probable their poker abilities are not very good and they dont think the same way a reg does. That hand doesnt PROVE that I was being superused but should be looked at as partial evidence that something weird is going on.

I'd love for more players who have played against these players to step forward.

Specifically I would love for a player named 'iwinnomore' to chime in here. Me and him regularly played vs Luizaneg for a week or so.

He is a swedish poker player, so if anyone in the swedish poker community can get us in touch with him, I would be very grateful.

I would love to chalk this up to me just being a ****** vs a weird playing style and happily keep playing, but the fact of the matter is that we have our suspicions for a reason and we just want to get to the bottom of this.

You guys are right. It's not confirmed. I'm just frustrated because it seems very likely to me yet we can't seem to get any responses, evidence or counter evidence, from anyone else who has played them.

Played earlier today. Later I logged on and got this message lol. Emailed support and they told me the following:

Dear Alex,

We believe it is a technical issue. We have contacted our IT/Poker department about this.

Im clearing my bonus asap there and get the hell out of with my money, hopefully.

This is getting more and more shady

Also, I got some tables I cant acces because private and they removed more and more some of the tables, wtf

Woke up today. My account is still locked lol.

Now you get investigated :-) . Really guys, ever heard of variance, downswings and upswings? I dont mean that you werent superused, but accusing other players just because of some bad sessions....I dont know. go to 10nl and 20nl and see what people call/raise/bet with...but there you just say "what a donk" and keep on playing...

That's ridiculous, probably 1 in 100 trillion.

Level?

Did you even read the thread?

They are not making accusations just because of some bad sessions.

They are concerned about the oddity of the math in those sessions, and their concern seems justified making those sessions worthy of a closer look.

+1