Quote:
Originally Posted by pokerashich
I'd really like to know the terms of the challenge. Was data mining allowed?
Also, at what point did Brandon suspect the arbiter was in a conflict of interest? Taking OP on face value, he twigged only after the decision.
How did the panel prove access to a 2 year old database gave Paint an unfair advantage in their match, as played? How did Brandon show this? By comparing HHs from the match to HHs he data mined? Or was Paint just taking weird lines in certain spots?
Brandon lost 48k over how many hands?
I don't tnink you need to prove that a 2 year old database has given an unfair advantage too much
Just more that they had access to database and used it. Similar to that if someone was caught using RTA and was still losing, you wouldn't say 'need to prove how rta is giving unfair advantage', just the matter of using RTA would be DQ worthy.
Feel like the point of arbitration here is 'would the match happened if brown knew paint would be using unethically sourced hands with all hole cards known' and the likely answer is no (or would it, people here claiming he already knew? Not sure about that though).
That should be potentially match being voided and that's why people feel like it arb result was too harsh having to pay everything back (and why it's silly he paid side bet) but can see after being constantly misled in arbitration and lied to repeatedly why they came up with harsher punishment.