i think you might have misread what jalex said. his process was as follows:

1. identify every screen name that lost $200 or more to you
2. out of those screennames, 3 of them have absolutely no history at 200 nl on pokerstars.
3. out of those 3 screennames, 2 of them have close connections to nostalgica/roseeker, who is admittedly a close friend of yours and has posted multiple times in this thread under both accounts for your defense, while neglecting to mention his connection to these accounts even after they have been outed in this very thread.

at the very least, its incredibly suspicious.

Ok for realz last post for the night here.

We went through everyone that you won more than $100 from and looked them up on PTR. People with some play history at comparable stakes were ignored.

We looked at your 3betting range. We found it strange that the only 2 hands where you 3bet with OFFSUIT junk were against players that we were later able to connect to you through a friend.

2/3 can be linked to you. The 3rd, rongrong, jalex and I do not see eye to eye on. I am inclined to believe that those hands were legit.

Quote:

I srsly doubt you looked at EVERY GUY in my entire database for my 30k hands, I'm sure there were a lot of fish (maybe 20+?)who had not many other sessions on 200nl at all lifetime who I have no links to AS MUCH AS there may be three guys who I have vague links to and not many other sessions on 200nl lifetime.

Also, WHY DONT YOU post all these other fishes as possible chip dumping suspects then and try to draw connections with them to me? This is pretty ridiculous.

Listen, I have played MSNL semi-pro for several years now, I know what a typical fish, a regfish, a reg, etc. looks like on PTR. We literally looked up EVERYONE that lost more than $200 to you during the 30k hand and there were certainly players of all kinds:

1. Regs
2. Terrible regs
3. Fish that play off and on
4. Fish that play all the time

EVERYONE but those three had history at 200nl, and significant history enough to discredit them as an issue. It seems to me it would be way more challenging to get someone who plays those stakes regularly to be a party to cheating.



Maybe I should have been more clear, my tone was obviously intended to be extreme, to play devil's advocate. IF you are guilty, I'd obviously hope that's not the conversation lol.

Quote:

Yeah I try to play better all the time, but it could not happen all the time since I was tired and second I'm not a good player to start with. To condemn me because I 3bet trash against those two fishes is ridic, why don't you LOOK AT ALL THE TIMES I 3bet trash against Villain's before you judge and post them? Are they all chip dumpers?

I did look at and posted summaries of your 3bet range from the blinds vs late position opens. The three hands I referred to were the ONLY ones that you 3bet complete offsuit garbage, and that's assuming A7o even counts in that category.

Quote:

In any case, we'll let Stars support do their job, and I trust that they do their right job

This. Hopefully from this statement you're inferring your innocence and they indeed post that you are and you win. :P

It was meant to be so extreme that it was an obvious joke scenario in respond to his categorical denial that he 'knows' them.

No, it's most definitely not. Please explain why because I'm pretty sure you're wrong here and either misunderstand what that fallacy actually is or misunderstand what I was saying.

No it means that for final event to be .25 the product of the 2 other events must be .25. Last I checked 0.5*0.5 = 0.25 so for a bet getting 3:1 involving 2 equally likely occurrences happening twice in a row, that occurence must happen over 50% of the time for it to be a profitable bet. If almost every time he wins you make him do it over that means if he loses either one he loses but if he wins the first one he is made to do it over. That means he needs >50% rather than the 25% needed for the initial bet. That is definitely NOT gambler's fallacy.

why the obsession with OFFSUIT junk? I cant imagine 27 or 34 or 36 or 25 suited has a vastly superior playability on those spots vs 68os. All of them are going to be losing plays given that you cant reasonably 3bet 60% of your range in any position.. so I dont see why the onus is so strictly on the fact that its OFF SUIT.

-owns a company irl
-smell test
-computer forensics
-can put together a swing set

Is it true you own a company?

Because 20/15 nits don't 3bet 86o _ever_, certainly not in the middle of a prop bet they are trying to win.

<3

Good thing judges can't go by smell alone.

dammit, okay so I just got a PM from a moderator. He got an anonymous tip that I do in fact NOT own a company.

He forced me to come post that I do in fact work at Arby's. I highly recommend the French Dip with Au Jou sauce.

THAT hand is certainly suspicious. Even if it was 86s, the fact that he was rarely 3b (5.x%?) and this was oop to boot is odd.

btw, 5.4% would be JJ+, AQ+, and 86 (s or os)

Mystery solved.

what are you on about

Holy **** i wake up and this topic is 20 pages longer... can't read it all

Anyone has some good cliffs?

Op still wins or not?

Well, the voice of reason certainly isn't YOU.

BTW, take your own advice, buddy.

I understand that. It is still a wild allegation you could have easily left out to remain impartial in appearance.

but how often do they 3bet 27s and 35s and 24s and 36s? Its also close to zero for a 20/15 nit.

You make a compelling case with the non-poker aspect of the information, but a lot of the poker-related stuff doesn't do much for the anti-neville case.

Oh and my Arby's salary isn't so good, so if someone wants to donate me a French Dip sandwich, that'd be awesome, they are freaking good, 4srs.

I also like curly fries with that.

As someone with zero money at stake and no connection to any of the bettors, I agree with you 100%.

+1

No I didnt say that I'm the winner. Its just that you stated that money should be returned to the bettors and that money should not be returned to me is ridiculous. If no conclusion is arrived yet, why are all bettors getting their money back? Shouldn't the escrows hold all the money.

Again, I REALLY REALLy fail to see why the entire bet coming from my side is completely "******ED" as you put it. Other than from your point of view that you think there's no way hell in chance that im winning 25% of chance of the time and hence I must be angle shooting is LUDICROUS to say the least. I will not be accused like that.

Stars has access to all the potential dumper's hole cards and their entire exact play history/patterns. This is a whole lot more than we have right now. Not to mention small things like transaction histories. Most cheaters are generally not the brightest folks and if they were special enough to do site transfers for dumping/compensation purposes then it's pretty much open and shut.

Instead of picking on him, pick on me, Im a noob with no job up at 3:30 in the morning who is an attention douche looking for attention. Maybe I should leave the thread.

Live and let live, Steel.

As an aside.. if stars rule there is no clear evidence of collusion, does that mean Gary_Neville wins the bet, or does it still mean that the judges have the final say??

judge has final say but should obv take into consideration what stars says and all points in this thread imo

no. 5,4% doesnt mean top 5,4% of hands.
i.e. he should very rarely 3bet JJ/AQ vs a reasonable UTG- raise