Well, I don't know. I haven't seen enough db's of people with their holecards but to my best understanding it's expected for every nit to show up with some random junk from time to time. Not many people are 100% disciplined.
It may be that he only do that 1 every 500 hands (in this position). Still probability of such hands or two appearing in 30k hadns database is quite high.
If it happened vs someone he is related to it's different story, especially if there weren't enough people he is related to in the playing field.
If more such hands happened vs people he is related to then it's pretty strong evidence.

jalex,

I again fail to see how the fact that you own a business is relevant here

Good work jalex. Few points...

Nostalgica had already admitted that he knew breeezzz right after the hand happened (post #386). He also stated (as you posted) in easy to find post on 2+2 that he was friends with Gary. So part #1 wasn't that earth shattering.

The StoppedClock coincidence is a bit much to set aside. The fact that Nostalgica also coached him, no playing history, the J8o 3-bet and -350 is curious to say the least.

00doug is shady, saying he's not friends with Gary but leaving out the fact that he knows breeezzz well and that he is/was staked by Nostalgica. You'd think if 00doug/OreosAndMilk really wanted to defend Gary, he'd just say "oh yah I know breeezzz, he likes to 5-bet spew blah blah" but instead he tries to argue against additional judges etc.

I think most people could agree that if there was cheating going on, that these guys weren't that smart about it. It's extremely likely that there will be a recent trail connecting Nostalgica to breeezzz and/or StoppedClock. Thus, it seems the only fair way to resolve this is to rely on Stars' investigation.

If Stars finds nothing shady, I think Gary should win the bet. Everything Gary has said seems ok to me, specifically his motivation to do this propbet. However, his friend Nostalgica sure could do more to explain everything.

If they're guilty, Stars will get them.

ok Jalex I was curious about that thing with the winning player 3-betting so I decided to check my own. I'm currently on a laptop that I haven't played poker on in ~3 months so these stats are old but I did filter for last 30k hands played on it and checked my 3-bet chart. I don't feel like putting up my 3-bet range in a public forum so I filtered out all pairs/suited cards/AJo+. I don't 3-bet any hand here all that much and 1.19% = 1 time so you can figure out from that how many times in the 30k hand sample I 3-bet these hands. My winrate during this was 6.1bb/100 and although it's almost all 200nl FR rather than 6max I had a 3-bet of 3.7% over that sample, so likely pretty comparable to Gary's at 6max.

I just don't think the part about him 3-betting offsuit junk hands against a player is in particular evidence that he's colluding with them. I mean seriously who decides he's going to collude and then 3-bets each of the guys he's going to collude with once each with a hand he'd never 3-bet normally? Doesn't make much sense to me.

This whole thread.

I finally figured all this out.

jalexand42 is in fact Jason Alexander. American actor and poker player.

On January 6, 2010, it was announced that Jason is the new face of the weight loss company, Jenny Craig (Source: Wikipedia)

so you are comparing this:




to this:




and all you are concentrating on is the 6 8 hand because it was OFFSUIT? cmon....

Wow, this is very thorough and long. You are wrong, but whatever.

As I was reading through the thread I was kind of imagining what I would do if I were innocent and in Gary's position.

Wouldn't it be fairly standard to be as accomodating and helpful towards proving your innocence as possible?

I would not be trying to defend or deny any accusations, but instead asking for/suggesting ways I could prove my innocence.

Oh, and all of those other facts. Gary cheated obv. gw jalex

Uhh what? I've been as accomodating and helpful as possible throughout the thread if you've bothered to read through everything by sending in my HH first thing after the prop, allowing bettors to choose 2+ more neutral judges, and allowing any extra time needed to arrive to a just conclusion. And I was only defending and denying any accusations to the point where I was accused of my guilt. And also I did suggest/ask for ways to prove my innocence various times, but what can I say/do at this point will allow me to prove my innocence?

In any case, jalex as a judge was onto some suspicious links between me and players and rightfully so Stars should be contacted over any possible foulplay.

you convinced me.

bleh idk if there was any foul play in the prop bet, but its going to be really hard to judge if the 86o was in fact 2 people colluding, unless there is a relationship that we can prove by previous money xfers or w/e.

the problem i think this prop bet has, and future prop bets like this will have, is that if the OP was like breakeven through 29k hands and it really looked like it was going down to the wire, a better could easily get a friend to sit with OP and play like a moron to make it look like they are chipdumping essentially freerolling the whole time... (as there really isnt much the OP could do as it'd be hard to prove they are not friends and it is in fact someone trying to throw the bet)

I supported you Gary, I saw you on webcam, and wished good luck.

But something smells bad here. If I were a Judge, I will return the money to both parts.

The bet is void. If you cheated or not, is very difficult to prove.

Bettors don't deserv your money, they shouldn't bet on that kind of bets. Which it's imposible to prove cheats.

Please rephrase the above.

Also, please explain in simpler terms what your graph is trying to prove.

ALERT ALERT ALERT

This is the other screen name for Nostalgica.

Why 2+2 allows this I have no idea.

+1

Roseeker aka Nostalgica is one of the cheaters. So take it with a grain of salt.

I'm saying I was about as big a nit as he was in terms of 3-betting yet I had all those random offsuit junk hands in my 3-betting range. It really doesn't prove anything but I offered it sort of as a counter to Jalex who seemed to think picking one midstakes winning nit who didn't 3-bet random offsuit hands was a good reason to prove that no nits do it. I was simply showing that I was about as nitty as Gary when it came to 3-betting and had all those hands in my 3-betting range.

Gary_Neville didn't have all those hands in his 3betting range tho did he?

We don't know. We don't know how many times he had faced button steal sitting in BB. If he does 3bet junk rarely, the most probable outcome is that some of those hands will appear but not all of them.
We really should have people with some background in statistic/mathematic as judges.
I feel that this thread is witchhunt of sort and I would feel more comfortable if some more objective judges were chosen. Maybe someone who helped with UB superuser thing ?

!!! no way. I thought the guy in his avatar was him lol..

lol @militia being a nit, any 200nl 6max reg knows this to be false.

stars usually doesn't release personal transfer data, in fact i have never seen a situation where they release the fact that a third party sent money to another player for possible chip dumping.

be more condescending about completely non conclusive evidence you presented, asshat.

nuts4butts do you have money riding on this or are you just being a massive ****** for the sake of it ?

Oh, that makes sense. The thing that counteracts that though, is that Gary didn't mix it up nearly as much as you did. Therefore, when he does 3bet with crap, it stands out as particularly exceptional. His 3-bet PF is already very low, even for 9max. Among the situations where he 3-bets as a resteal of the cutoff, only 2.6% of the time (1 in 39) is it with unsuited garbage.

The thing that would tend to exonerate Gary is if your graph was SIMILAR to his. The fact yours is different tends to prove his guilt. Now, I dont want anyone reading this to misunderstand me and say that I'm full of crap for saying that "Gary's guilty cuz he plays different than zachvac." That's completely not what I'm saying. I'm saying that your graph proves only the fact that two different people with a similarly low 3-bet PF resteal of cutoff can choose dramatically different ranges. Obviously, if you guys had the identical 3-bet PF resteal of cutoff percent, yet you had a bunch more crap than Gary did, that would mean that you are flatting/trapping a whole lot more with your big hands (choosing not to resteal) than Gary is. I think your style is trickier and possibly a more winning strategy. The fact that Gary charges forward with the 3bet more consistently with his higher hands does not help or hurt his case. The fact that he chose to depart from his unusually consistent 3-bet preflop standards so infrequently (once/twice the entire 30K stretch) led to further inquiry. That inquiry developed information on who his opponent was, and that raised red flags, which led to even further inquiry, and so on and so forth.

Sorry for rambling, hope that made sense.

P.S.: Your stats are for 9-max. Gary did the prop as 9-max. So it's even more relevant what you're saying. And what I'm saying. LOL.

P.P.S.: It's probable to deduce that you are flatting ALOT with monsters when facing a cutoff steal, and that strategy of yours is what you didn't want to share which is why you blocked out the numbers for the big hands. I was able to figure this out because if you have similar percent as Gary, and Gary only 3bet with crap extremely rarely, and you have a whole bunch of crap you're 3betting with, those numbers have to subtract from somewhere else (the monster category).