both Adanthar and Yellow are well respected though I would like to see as many respected people as possible doing the investigation ldo

I think it would be good idea to have David Sklansky to head up the investigation. But he should be paired up with inteernet players as well who understand modern poker. Otherwise any winning player who three bets anything other than AA, KK, QQ, AK wil lbe flagged as superuser.

It could be like Charlie's Angels with Sklansky as Charlie.

in before "you need a net and some bait" comment

agree 100%

ppl can hate on PTR all they want but they prob have some of the best statistical analysis tools not to mention vast amounts of computing power

wasn't this kind of technology the problem at UB/AB..... i was under the impression that this was supposed to be impossible to do

Op, everything you have posted is common knowledge.
Problem is not all superusers are greedy. If I was every lucky enough to get a superuser account you would never catch me.

Bigger sites like fulltilt and Stars have their own in house teams to watch for unusual play. Problem is, a lot of their staff might not be as experienced as some of 2plus2.

The smaller networks like ipoker etc, dont care too much about colluders or bots etc. They are too concerned with trying to attract players. Money talks, I can assure you superusers is the last thing on their mind.

Anyway I am posting to tell you that your idea that a pokersite would hire some of 2plus2 is stupid and would never happen. Think about it.

Useless post, PokerAng,

of course all super users are greedy. If they weren't, they wouldn't superuse.

PokerStars is currently looking for scurity personnel, so apparently their in-house teams are not capable of checking on all instances of unusual play.

The insider knowledge you pretend to have about smaller networks sound pretty made up. Common knowledge, eh?

Anyway, I am posting to tell you that your thread entry on 2p2 is not exactly smart and shouldn't have happened. Think about it.

We live in a world of greed. There isnt a man on this planet who wouldnt use a superuser account if they could, risk and consequence free of course.

What I meant is, there are certain people who if given a superuser account, would control their greed and not get caught. I know if I had an account I would make sure I was undectable.

I do beleive there are bigger issues then superusers out there now in the poker world. The problem right now is simple. Who polices the pokersites right now, other then themselves?, people with limited access to the information needed to do so correctly. Its a lawless world.

this is much more easily said than done, i think, and a much more interesting thing to think about than OP reinventing the wheel.

superusers are easier to catch on the high stakes level, in the mid and micro midst it becomes much tougher. im surprised xblink lasted as long as he did on ub.

AFAIK both Superusers and packet sniffers should be easily avoidable through the use of modern encryption technology and regular key regeneration.

the op post is not wrong, but it is pretty naive. It doesnt account that most hands dont go to showdown.
Simply winning the blinds without resistance by opening when nobody has anything and folding if someone does will make you a huge winner for instance.

he's just saying a smart superuser would play as a normal person does but in marginal situations will make the right choice, without anyone looking suspicious at the hand played. He will not fold kings preflop all the time when he sees someone else has aces for example, I don't know what you mean with "there's no showdown", yes the players will not see his cards but obviously pokerrooms can dig into your hand histories with full access.

I don't really get the blind winning argument either

What if he didn't "always" pick the one that was clearly better given the other's hole cards?

Also, how do you define which alternative is better in a case where the superuser has the option to, say, c/rai the river rather than c/c with a very marginal hand (that still beats his opponent).


ie. Superuser has J9 on a T8553 board and legit player has 97, superuser has the option to c/c the river, but chooses instead to c/r, knowing the guy can't call, and automatically "justifying" it by saying he was bluffing (even though the "better" alternative is to c/c, given the opponent's cards).



I might just be confused, but it seems like you would still never be able to catch a superuser that had half a brain when it came to poker (so if a winning MS/HS player got his hands on a superuser account, you'd never catch him because he would commit enough "mistakes" to throw the scent off the superuser trail, even in a massive database of tracked hands.)

+1 cake give full access to Skalnsky

This misses the point. In order for a super user to have a higher WR they must use the extra information they have, a competant poker player will be able to spot situations where they used this extra information. The less they use it the harder it will be to detect, but the lower their WR's.

If a super user used the information so rarely that even after 18 months of play they could still not be detected then getting cheated for .001bb/100 seems like something I could let slide.

To give an example, ever time a river c/rai as a bluff is semi-reasonable given play and the super user does it and makes the other player fold, after doing this 75/100 times being right 70% of the time where even the best online players would only be doing it 30/100 times and being right 55% of the time it becomes v. likely you are a super user.

Even more so good players would v. quickly (i belive) be able to see if your thought process is coherent. I can often quickly work out vs. fish what "sort" of player they are which gives me huge insight into there game. A player who limps 65% of BTN's and calls 65% from the BB in HU NLHE will v. rarely make big bluffs on the river because they belive in "seeing a flop" and trying to "make hands" and making big bluffs isn't part of his strategy and is not what he would consider good play.

So if in one spot the super acts old man passive when its +Ev and then acts Swedish Laggro in another when its +Ev this happens sooo rarely in actual play that any player who did this would be v. likely a super user.

but as long as nobody suspects anything the pokerroom doesnt bother looking at HH. As you will develope your pokerskills, you might find out that far over 50% of decisions are not no-brainers, especially preflop.

I could always raise, call or fold a hand like 57s, KQo etc., there is no best play in a vacuum

That way i will quietly win more blinds than the opposition, what will give me 2bb/100 without anybody noticing. Just imagine what a great deal it is if i win one preflop battle a day. Say i shove over a 4-bet bluff. that is such a huge win it make up for the whole day.

of course i wont play the same every day. tomorrow i will win some pots with flopraises etc.

One specific thing to look for when searching out thes cheaters/packet sniffers...He/She will be avoiding all coolers of significant pot size

i still think you can be a huge winner without getting caught, if you are someehat competent. If i had any money i would make a sidebet that i would be able to win an absurd amount on a big plattform like FT (like 7BB/100) without anybody noticing that i am cheating, no matter what analyze programs you would track my plays with.

Very good point. It takes a lot of discipline to not fold your set vs higher sets.

could still be a misclick :-)

but coolers like this dont happen to often. sometimes you could make a legitimate big laydown, like all the time where you say '**** it' and still stick it in.

The HH's that should be looked at more closely, obv., are hands that are folded on the flop, turn, or river[not shown down @ river]. If any suspected player wins an unusual # of hands here, AND it is then shown that he does this with marginal- or crap- holecards, we then revert to the identical hands, using HH's w/ his/her opponenents' holecards, especially HU and 3-handed on the flop..

If there is an abnormal # of situations where the opponents are literally "pushed off" the hand-other than std. estimates of an opponent's range-
we likely haz a bingo, as even a maniac capable of playing post-flop like this cannot deliver a consistent winrate.

I like the exorbitant part, David. You might end up with an army of backups willing to assist w/ this on piece-rate, so exorbitant is still justified.

As the DS mentioned, there's no need to know how. Also, he is correct that this has to be worth significant money. Otherwise, it isn't worth the effort and risk of getting caught.

You just have to follow the money. A couple of steps is all that is necessary.

1. Sort the DB for the top 200 greatest $ net win between two players over the past 18 months.

2. Then Sort for the top 500 greatest $ wins for an individual win.

If someone is a winner in the first group and a loser in the second group, especially to someone who doesn't play much, you've found them. If not, then you need to look the win rate of the top 200 against that one player vs. how that compares to the rest of the players' WR against them.

TBH, if there is a systematic cheater, their name (or IP address) is going to pop up fairly frequently in the first group. This analysis doesn't require a poker player. You'd only need a player at the end when you've identified the individual(s) to come up with specific examples in the HHs.

So since you dont understand i will be more clearly.

Poker is not a solved game. The reasonable play is not known for a huge amount of situations.

You will never be able to differentiate between cheaters and legitmate edges by mastrubating on some numbers unless the chaeter is a total idiot