correct, but I thought thats what they did earlier in the thread (maybe I'm wrong as its 4:30 and I'm falling asleep).

I was being tongue-in-cheek more or less, but also didn't think that the 86 hand was a 3bet vs an UTG raise, thought it was a bvb hand. Maybe I'm getting my Breeeezzz hands confused, and that was the T7 v QQ hand?

edit: just looked at that hand again, they were 5-handed and breez was UTG+1 and Gary was SB.

It's a weird hand.

Don't forget 3bet PF is 5. A 20/15/pf3bet of 5. Even nittier than a standard 20/15.

Well one thing we can all agree on, this analysis that jalex did certainly makes clear why OP is a losing player long term. LOL at all the "but it's soooooted" hands he 3-bets with.

YOU HAVE TO SUFFER LIKE ALL THE REST OF US.

This thread was zipping faster than it can be read from 1am to 3am CT.

lol wp

+1
and lmao at the pic by pjo

bump

I don't think any hhs posted here are suspicious. It's 30k hands, such things are bound to happen.

I am highly sceptical of Jalex abilities to comprehend how people behave after seeing that. Nits do all kind of stuff. People are upset sometimes, tilt sometimes. I had guys calling my allin with nut lows, and they play 16-14 and higher stakes than 200NL.
I think in any 30k hands sample i played I would find more stupid donations than posted in this thread and some of them (like KK hand) is just super standard everyday poker reality.

I think hhs posted here have exactly 0 value as proof against OP.

That being said I find relationships uncovered by Jalex interesting. I am happy PStars support agreed to investigate it. I trust their judgement more than 10's of peopel drooling over super standard hands in this thread.

Yes because I don't believe stars will do near as thorough of a job as Jalex has done.

Not trying to knock stars in anyway, they are awesome

i have no interest in this propbet, but found the issue kinda interesting.

The most suspicious issue, is him only 3betting trash 2 times vs a steal, and both times against the players connected to his friend, who lost to him.

it would help to see his overall 3bet range imo. if he is 3betting offsuit trash otherwise and not only his range against steals is important, since he claims he did 3bet those hands in other instances too. and this could just be an issue of small samplesize in 3betting trash ( he obv doesnt 3bet trash often, so if he only did it once for the whole propbet, while suspicious, it could just be a very unlikely coincidence.)
gary could provide proof of of this too.

the most suspect hands are the openfold on the river, where i possibly dont know with what hands he could do this with, that said it would be a very strange and unlikely way of collusion since it just looks so weird on this board. but stars should look at the donks holecards here.

in the hand,where he folded QQ to the turn minraise, it would be interesting to take a look at the other players holecards too for stars. while this fold looks very bad to me, he doesnt seem like a great pokerplayer, so the fold isnt completely unreasonable for him to make. although it would a very good way to lose the minimum if the other player has Kx, without playing the hand in a very suspicious way, if they shared holecards via messenger on the laptop. But wouldnt really be much evidence if he in fact had king/set. if the other player had air in this spot he would be very likely to not have colluded with him imo.


overall i think he did probably get dumped chips. that said none of the evidence in itself is damning, but the whole picture smells kinda fishy to me. but it could just be a huge coincidence.

p.s. sorry for bad english

How anyone is defending OP is absurd, but I guess people will believe what they believe.

is stars actually going to look for collusion in forms of money transfers? or just at the hands.

cause looking at the hands, none of them really indicate collusion, i highly doubt stars will come up with a different result.

full blown ****nami imo



or maybe a ****quake

Omg 72 sites for a 24hour propbet.
Will he be payed or not?

cliffs pls

Okay so to humor you questioning my judgment....I just pulled up the same data I ran on OP on a nitty MSNL reg that plays tons of tables, specifically the one I had the most hands on in my database.

He is: 21.3/13.9 with a 4.8% 3bet over 107,821 hands. One difference from our hero, he does win 4 bb/100.

Here's his 3bet graph when he's in the blinds vs a single raiser (no callers) vs a cutoff or button open with between 4 and 6 players at the table:



Wanna show me where this 'nit' wigs out? I didn't single him out, I didn't look at any other players, I just pulled the one with the most hands from my db....should I pull some more nit ranges and own your questioning my understanding of nit's 3betting ranges some more?

Wtf do these points have to do with anything? Be sure to post all these hands where people 'call your allin with the nut low'.

Frankly I'm highly skeptical of your ability to eat an Arby's sandwich if you are separating out the hand histories and relationships. WITHOUT a relationship, the hand histories wouldn't be significant, DUH?

can somebody provide cliff notes

No, they'd obviously just skip the most obvious paper trail. You have 8,240 posts, how did you turn on the computer?

Jalex, again can you answer my inquiry?

What inquiry? I think there's almost no chance you won fair and square, at a MINIMUM without stars involvement I would have called the bet a push because of the involvement of your friends' students(?). Holding your money would have been hoping for stars to respond with willingness to investigate.

Now that stars has responded, it doesn't seem to matter, because hopefully they will judge this.

I don't think you've read my question clearly. It seems clear that you believe in my guilt already base on info you showed me, but I don't see how this can in any way allow you to hold all my money and not the bettors. Shouldn't all money still be held by escrows (was my original point)?

Do you have his holecards ? I guess not. Junk is shown more rarely than good hands.
My point is that when someone does something very rarely it's still very likely to happen over significant sample and OP is for sure quite a tilty player.

Can you please post how many times he was in BB against Button stealer ? How many hands he 3bet there and how many of those were crap ?

I had the impression it's not clear for people in this thread as they were 'OMG 3bet with 86, or OMG allin with T7o'
I am happy we agree that those hh's alone doesn't prove anything.

Good point on the showdown - it is late and I've been looking at a computer a long time lol. Do you disagree that it would be considered unusual for a 20/15 5% 3bet nit who is 20? tabling to 3bet 86o? The fact he 3bet 86o is meaningless by itself, but not in light of an established relationship with the other player and the fact he doesn't 3bet bajunky vs other people in the same spot.

As for specific statistics, Blackize has the database, he could probably get that statistic and I'm not opposed to it specifically, but I do want to point out that at some point, I actually do care about not going into insane details on his game, unless those details are supportive of either Gary's case or the case against him.


I'm happy we agree judging the hh's as 'nothing to see here' is NOT possible without including the fact there is a suspicious relationship. People seem to be judging them independently, and that's missing the entire point.

Good night.

Personally now that stars is involved, I'd rather see all the money held. Is that what you were after?

Sorry, I do feel that way, and I would tell Blackize the same. At the point when I posted my personal opinion on the money, that was prior to Star's response to me.

losing player decides to wager $2500 he can break even over 30k hands in 24 hours. gets action, wants to some shady conditions like his real life friend being the escrow, no camera, etc. eventually agrees to fairly reasonable conditions.

he barely succeeds at prop, winning by something like $20. but some hands at the end look strange with a villain playing really odd, with the result of villain donating $250 to op on the tables exactly when he needed it.

op denies everything. investigation/hole cards shows op was playing just as strange as the potential dumpers making very uncharacteristic plays. op explains it away claiming he was just tilted and tired.

mystery man comes in actively defending op and calling the judges' ability into question if they think anything is at all suspicious about these hands. mystery man 2 also comes into play with similar rhetoric.

mystery man 1 is forced to admit by a mod that he is actually the same person as mystery man 2. and not only this but mystery man 1 is a friend of the OP, and has a direct connection to the potential dumper.

more hands start to be called into question with op and villains making some uncharacteristic plays and winning monies from them as well ($1400 in total from 3 potential dumpers). again it turns out these potential dumpers have never played at $200NL (where the prop was played), and for the most part are nanostakes SNG grinders, and also have a direct connection to mystery man 1.

stars gets called in as another party to investigate it all. we're waiting for their response.