IeLogic was the original software company. Greg Pierson was the founder. On an old WPT Aruba, he is said to be CEO.

IeLogic (Pierson) bought DPC Technology from (Daniel Cunningham)
hence, piersons and cunninghams as shareholders After this it gets murky. E-World holdings, According to Annie, did nothing but hold the gamin liscense. Then "something" was sold to Excapsa. CEO at this time was Jim Ryan, now with Party Poker I believe.

Good luck getting any of the original software people to comment. Pierson has not talked to MSNBC, Oregon reporters, etc. Maybe his good buddy Hellmuth can get him to answer some questions? Even The KGC, SUPPOSEDLY, made attempts to get original software code before 2005, but nobody from Iovation/Ielogic, ever helped out. This was from the KGC final report.

As far as original investors, the shares and shareholders have been examined pretty closely.

I didn't mean to diminish all that you have uncovered. I was commenting about the parts that are still murky. Doesn't Annie have ties to the software company going way back? Maybe I'm overstating it, but my recollection is that, Annie has just been a cheerleader for UB and declared that 'there's nothing to see here' and really not given out any previously unknown inside details.

I guess I've been out of the loop for some of this, like the original shares and shareholders. Has the close examination determined who owned what and when? Have those people been asked just exactly who/what they invested in? What their return was? Who (if anyone) cut them their checks?

Maybe my rant has was totally uncalled for and can/should be deleted. You tell me if the general gist of it is unfounded, and if any mod cares to, they can remove all this...

sock,

Your questions and points are valid. I do not think any of the investors have made any comments, or will comment. Would help explain a lot, but could end up costing them money.

Also, your observation about Annie was spot on. Her interviews, etc. were not helpful at all, and at times she said things that just didn't appear to be accurate at all.

Haley, you're doing a fantastic job on your blog.. fascinating reading, and all your work is appreciated.

One lingering question: who gives that puppet/CEO Legget guy his marching orders?

It's safe to assume the original owners of AP are still in charge, right?

a big +1 and bump. keep it up, much appreciated.

Yes she moved to Portland in 2002 and went to work for IeLogic as a consultant till she moved to California in 2005.

Poker_is Hard,

If you would do me the kind courtesy of not harassing my POTENTIAL FUTURE VICTIMS, it would be most greatly appreciated.

tyvm,
$pike

lol at the PPA's decision to replace BarryG with Annie Duke to testify at the House Judiciary Commitee hearing in 2007

Not necessarily LOL. Subjectively, Annie tops Barry in this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_score

It also helped that she's a mom with 4 kids, which doesn't fit the stereotype of a poker player.

Sigh.

That's like outing a crime victim. Please unsigh.

if that's the case they should have sent Phil Ivey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_I...al_Homogeneity

Great Point. It started to get me thinking. Looking over the KGC final report, something just doesn't sit right. That report was pretty useless, other than naming more superuser accounts . It left more questions than answers.

Given how UB, KGC, Paul, Annie, etc. have acted throughout this scandal, one has to wonder what is going on, what are they hiding?

The KGC has been proven to make false or inaccurate statements. Now we are to believe everything in this report? I find this AuditMonster story a little hard to believe. Going through all the old posts, and comments from software developers, etc. it seems that if this is the truth, it is not the entire truth.

I have no ground-breaking evidence to base this claim on. Looking back, Gank's post on pocket fives about the Mother/Son thing (not the Makar's, as far as I know, Apefish) a few things stand out. If this lady was a GM, of which UB had many people with that title, and her son got "administrative access" that allowed him to see hole cards. I personally believe Gank's post to be true, thus the story is likely true.

Now if the problem did not arise on the software side, but the management/operations side, as I have been told, then maybe this was not "a tool placed on the server" after all, but an Auditing program that management used, that got into the wrong hands. That people with administrative access could potentially have the ability to see cards.

I mean, this theory is just as likely as some of the B.S. stories Annie Duke gave. I will spare the details of reposting Annie quotes, but her story on this is laughable. Anyway, I am still working on this, but I doubt I will make any headway unless either the cheaters, developers, or someone talks, but I will keep plugging away.

very plausible Mookman in other words any employee with administrative access and a certain level of security clearance was given the password and could see the whole cards of all the players 24/7
the GM mom showed the 19 year old son this cool feature and the kid "neoneo" remembered her password and went to town!
Russ got the password in early '04 gave the password to his group of pro's and handled getting the ill gotten winnings off the site delivering the Vegas pros share of the loot Russ would still be operating today if UB had tighter controls and the password didn't leak out seems kind of ironic

cant wait for the book "If I Did It" by Russ Hamilton

Don't forget the Seif vs Reggieman HU game on AP. Or how he treated players on there with his chat ban God powers of infinite doucheness, for character reference.

Ugh, that stupid Seif HU match was one of the dumbest, most unsubstantiated red herring pieces of trash in this entire sordid tale. Please let's not re-open the books on that.

Why? Were you there, was all his past table antics not relevant? Please enlighten me as to the truth since you have it.

Thanks.

I disagree. Go read the Sklansky book Poker Gaming and Life on his application of Bayes Theorem to stuff like this. The subsequent early statements from him defending potripper were also interesting.

That whole HU match was a lot of things, but I don't think "trash" and "dumb" would be at the top of my list of adjectives. In my opinion it was just one more shady coincidence in a long line of shady behavior from people involved with AP/UB. I do agree it is careless to throw accusations around when it is impossible to know the facts.

Too many thread derailers. The topic at hand here is the peeling of more layers of the proverbial UB cheatin' onion, and that's what I'm going to keep plugging away at on several different fronts. I'm not going to put more individual hand examinations on 2+2 (though I might continue it elsewhere) because of the noise factor here, though my original conjecture that the cheater(s) might have recognized Barry's account and gone easy on it obviously holds less water now that we've received Barry's own input.

I try to not build the theory and then fit the facts to it, and as more facts have emerged it's become rather more likely that Barry not getting a refund was due to variance in a relatively small pool of hands played. With the additional info, including Barry's own input, it's time to start modifying theories.

I still think the UB cheating was a class in "Better Cheating 202" when compared against the lolz AP version. Perhaps the odd and inconsistent hands I've posted from early in the session (and the effective bluffing that ran up snowball's profits later in the session, in hands I didn't post) represent not dumping to Barry specifically but table-baiting in general, with maybe a modus operandi like this:

1) Cheating account plays some bad hands and small pots badly and inconsistently early to create a horribly fishy table image; cheater essentially ignores hole-card capabilities for a few dozen hands as average stack sizes build;

2) Cheating account "flips the switch" (though the hole-card viewing capability was always on) and strikes for several big pots by making similar wild bets... but in much better spots.

3) Cheating account exits table with profit. New cheating account enters similar table, rinse and repeat.

Maybe it's worth a ponder for someone else who has their own stash of HH's to go through. As for me, I'm going to keep working on examining the conspiracies we have good evidence already existed rather than creating new ones we don't.

agreed/bump

Wondering if the players who asked for their HH's have any updates?

Just wondering what a timely fashion would be, in your opinion, for these players getting their HH's?

So as I understand it, the players that request HH's, are only getting the hands they played versus the cheating accounts? Are they able to get lifetime HH's of all hands they played, as well?

Actiondan, only got $240, so there wouldn't be too many hands to go over. I would imagine he should have that spreadsheet summary at the very least. That other guy on pokerroad, waiting what like 5 months now for his HHs and he doesn't think he was cheated. After all that time, hopefully something has been compiled. I do not know anything about UB, efficiency, or how to pull HH data, but taking this long seems odd. Not just for these two people, but in general.

Any updates actiondan? Did you get any email from UB? Also, wanted to try to clarify my last post, as to not sound too much like a conspiracy theorist about the cheating method. I found someone to help word it better than I could, but still proving may be difficult, it seems likely though.

Sebok's new blog in response to (some of) Haley's questions:

http://www.pokerroad.com/blog/joe-se...los-angeles-ca

They are only giving hands where "the suspect" (they're suspects now?) puts in action.

QFT

You know, I tried to keep an open mind about Seebok, but after reading that blog I'm just disgusted. Guys just taking the money. I feel sorry for you Barry.