If they do it like UB, they will refund any net loss from playing against superusers. To make it simple, let's say you play 1000 hands of heads up against a super user name (remember that UB says they didn't know exactly when people were superusing). If you broke even that session, you get zero. If you won $1k, you get $0. If you lost $3k, you get $3k. And so on.

That being said, pretty big jump to start talking about refund methodology when nothing has been shown yet. Probably better to wait to see what results from the various teams looking into it and get into refunds if superusing is found.

So...any possible superusers have withdrawn exactly 100% of the money they stole already, right?

If there was a lot of superusing going on, could the network just totally collapse ala Eurolinx, or are people supposed to be confident enough in Lee that their money will always be good on Cake?

Personally, I don't feel comfortable depositing on Cake now because of the fact the traffic has gone to complete **** and I'm more worried that the network could bankrupt and collapse from the decrease in traffic + any possible superusers causing bigger decrease in traffic + Cake having to reimburse huge amounts of money possibly = Eurolinx

I really encourage you to go read the Independent Investigation thread. I find it hard to believe that any "well-known accounting firm" could begin to do what Noah and Thomas have described as their methodology. In fact, they'd probably end up having to retain somebody like the people we've retained.

Exactly. Let's not put the cart before the horse here. Iff we find cheating, we'll work on a refund methodology. That's partially because we have plenty to do right now anyway and also because any refund methodology would be largely informed by the nature of the cheating (origin, extent, etc).

Best regards,
Lee Jones

Cake Poker Cardroom Manager

Hey Lee,
there are many important questions you refuse to answer. It smells like your hiding something. You want us to trust that this was an honest mistake yet you are not 100% forthcoming with your answers - what's the point of even coming on the thread?

Your player base is going down the sh*thole - you need to be jumping through hoops right now buddy!

honestly...
at this point, what else should he say?
let the investigation do the talking...

So... what happens if they don't find superusers? Would you still play on the site? Do you trust their operation? Do you trust them with your money? Do you trust that they won't go bankrupt?

It's very simple. He needs to explain the managerial motivation for dumping a secure encryption and replacing it with the insecure encryption - then leaving it in for 18 months! His explanation has been vague at best. Why exactly was this done? "We had some software issues" doesn't cut it I'm afraid. Give us the details - let us decide if they are legit.

Why should we ever trust them if they make these kinds of decisions?

I'm sorry but this is a horse**** answer. Yes they would in fact retain someone like the people you have which makes the fact that you haven't used a reputable firm fishy. There are only two reasons I can think off either you wish to retain some control of the situation or you don't want to spend the money. Do you have others?

im pretty impressed with how cake is handling the situation at this point.

+1 Lee Jones in my opinion is handling this correctly now. I dont play on Cake and have no horse in this race. Have been following it anyways, however. 2+2 will do a better job on the investigation than you could EVER hope for with the "Big Three/Four" audit firms. Arent these the same audit firms who audited the financial companies selling this mortgage backed securities and gave them all a green light? Yea, I feel safer already.

Not sure exactly what cake/lee's responses are (perhaps its irrelevant), but if the accusations are warranted there is a near infallible way to determine if cake/lee is guilty; how much is lee getting paid by cake...?

Boy, thats a leap. So, you're saying, if he is well paid, then he is guilty, but if he is under paid, then he is innocent. Wow. Cool. We could just throw out the judicial system and declare guilt by income. Awesome.

QFMT!

These companys are a joke.

The type of audit required to ease fears of incompetence and lack of security and controls is not a financial audit, but a systems/processing audit, such as SAS70 http://sas70.com/. These are common is the US for any publicly traded service-based organization. I'm not sure what the EU equivalent would be (IIASB?). So, save your bashing of the big accounting firms for another thread.

A SAS70 audit is not fool/corruption-proof, but these types of audits go a long way in making the organization's self-declared controls and their performance against them both public and transparent.

p.s. the plural of company is companies.

I actually withdrew from Cake, so I agree with most of your points. However, I'm sure the investigation will answer most of these questions (assuming it's accurately conducted).

Yes, our head of security has gone back to do a review of the intersection of accounts which accessed the Cake Shop crossed with those that reported fraudulent access. As is typical, the ones that were fraudulently accessed happened because the user's email account had been compromised and the fraudster contacted us (from the legitimate email account) asking us to reset his Cake account password.

Occam's Razor applies well here. By and large, a thief doesn't hack accounts by sniffing packets off a network. He hacks an account by finding the piece of paper where his roommate wrote down his password, or the roommate gave him the password.

Best regards,
Lee Jones

Cake Poker Cardroom Manager

Thank you for the answer, Lee, I appreciate it.

Are you for fkn real?

that is the stupidest post in the history of 2p2 - or at least the most insulting.

I work in IT security

yes they do

lots

+1

Righttttt, blame it on the roommate.

Maybe he meant to write "All the cheats we catch do it by stealing a roommate's password."

By definition, you've got no idea how the cheats who are getting away with it are doing it, because if you knew, they wouldn't be getting away with it.

this this this

Cake is a babe-in-the-woods trying to come up with procedures to go back in hindsight. What reputable companies do here is hire experts in assurance and attestation. The auditing company puts its name and label on the line. Its selling point is its name. If its wrong, it goes down (see Arthur Andersen). Yes, it looks like Cake poker made some good hires. But, shouldn't we let internal control experts decide what is necessary and sufficient? You don't know what you don't know.

It's really sketchy of almost all the gaming companies that they don't seek out the very best in internal control auditors. The gaming companies rely on crummy 3rd party commissions that do very little other than slap a label on a website for a fee.

Cake's actions so far have shown me that they haven't even learned the biggest lesson of this debacle: hire real internal control auditors to prevent the problems before they occur. Cake is showing that they don't value such companies. Will we, the players, be surprised at all about the next lapse at Cake?

You'd really rather have a consulting firm doing this rather than two respected poker pros? Seriously? That almost defies explanation.

Do you think the consulting firms wouldn't hire experts in the field?

That would defy explanation.

Have you ever worked for a consulting firm? I'd put serious money on the fact that you haven't.

most of my close undergraduate and graduate school friends have worked or are working in the big 4 US auditing firms

I worked for a Big4 firm and we would have had no idea what to do here. But we would have charged a **** ton, that's for sure. I'd rather have the teams that are in place now.