I am on mobild but dont worry stars has access. It does not prove anything anyway, but i can only wait, cant do anything about it now.

Oh also it was after blackize pm me so no i am not lying. I do know these players so i cant say anything without being shady

First you say 3betting suited and unsuited junk "isn't much different" and now you are saying that "suited crap is substantially better than the same hand unsuited"....which is it?

And as jalex said, taken on it's own it's not indicative of guilt, it's when he checked up on the player that was involved in that hand that things become much more shady.

It's like when potripper was caught out on Absolute Poker. He called and allin with 10 high which actually was the best hand. This was so suspicious it led to an investigation by the players and the lid was blown off the superuser scandal. When you look at the 86o and J8o hands here which stand out when viewed with a 3bet from SB/BB filter, they are suspicious enough to warrant further investigation. And when the players involved were checked out, it turns out they are connected to OP and have zero history at 1/2...having randomly chosen March 19 as the day they would jump way up in stakes and blow off a chunk of cash.

Some people say it's not significant that they lost the most money to OP. Well how many players did breeezzz play on March 19? If we say for arguments sake it was 8, that means it was an 8-1 shot he would lose the most to OP. Same with stoppedclock, he probably played a lot more players as he played 7 times as many hands as breeezzz. Lets say he played 25 players. So he was 25-1 to lose the most money to OP. The chances of them both losing the most money to OP would be 200-1 if those hypothetical figures were correct. Whatever the true number is, it's going to be 150+ to 1 that they would both happen to lose the most cash to OP.

Combined with the fact that since ptr started tracking, say 700 days ago, breeezzz showing on this day in particular at 1/2 out of pure chance is 700-1. The same with stoppedclock. The combined chance of them both deciding to jump way in stakes to 1/2 on March 19 out of pure coincidence would then be 490,000-1. I'm sure there are people here who can do the probabilities much better than I can so it'd be great if one of them could come in and correct my figures/give a much more accurate figure on the odds of this situation.

I can't believe this crap continues. This is why prop bets driven by Internet forums are painful to participate in. Fun to watch, though.

For all of his research, there is nothing in Jalex's posts to point to a concerted effort to cheat. Absent that information, the judges need to consider the demographics of PokerStars and what all prop bettors should know about the mix of players, skills, random luck, random tilt, and changes in playing style everyone who plays faces.

A non-poker person, a true expert, in front of a court of law supporting the defense would treat this as 30,000 random events with an equation of probability of not only results but of reaction of other players during each hand. This includes the possibility of other players being present who may or may not know the OP or friends of the OP.

You cannot convict based on evidence that shows that OP knows people who know other people who happen to play. They may play sh&t^y but they still happen to play.

But, the witchhunt itt won't allow OP to win the bet. People who think they are forensic experts have already connected the dots.

i think he gbman stated more than once that the last part is shady and hasn't tried to defend that at all so you can stop with the cliff notes on every one of your posts.

I think it's shady as hell that two people who know OP took a shot and lost money to him both playing poorly. I don't know what'd prove as the connection still exists, but how many people do we assume play a limit theyve never played before and lose on a weekend day? Given that OP played all day long he would have the highest chance of getting this money but if it's only a pool of <10 shot takers as opposed to ~100 it'd give some good context as to how common or rare this may be. Is there any way to track this? Youd pretty much just to have ideally the same 24 hour period on any weekend.

are we really gonna have to wait 2 weeks for some kinda conclusion on this? We need more graphs, statistics, pies and pictures before that! GO GO BBV!

for one thing, you're treating this situation like an isolated incident. what are the odds that any given micro stakes reg / semi-reg would take a shot at NL200 on any given day?

The amount of coincidental evidence is pretty damning here. Not sure if its enough to rule cheating...tough call for the judge....but I can assure you if I had bet on this prop I would feel as though I had been cheated 100%.

its shady enough that you still insist on posting under 2 separate accounts in this thread.

So here's some questions for you Shane:

1. Which players specifically do you know?
2. Can you quantify the nature of your relationship to them?
3. Was anyone else you know playing on Gary's tables during his prop bet?
4. Were you playing on or sweating anyone playing on Gary's tables during his prop bet?
5. Can you pick one 2p2 account and stick to it?

Also, in light of the fact you were talking to breeezzz about sweating him at Thanksgiving, his posts thanking you for hours of your time, posts he's made where you have played hands together, do you think any of the following posts might come across shady?

Do you think this post accurately characterizes your relationship with breeezzz? How often exactly do you talk to him on msn?
He ran out of money, but yet was playing $100nl afterwards? And playing $25nl the next day? (this is from memory, since PTR is down)

Do you see where the fact you are doing starcraft prop bets would indicate to an unbiased observer that you're pretty close friends when combined with breeezzz's other posts? Also, again you make the assertion he 'lost his roll' AFTER you have posted twice that he was playing $100nl hu after the hands at $200nl.

Yes, let's PM the guy. If I was trying to defend an innocent good friend of mine from wrong doing, I'd be begging Mr. Breeezzz to be enter this thread and clear my friends name, including begging him to provide details that helped my friend. Instead we PM him and get a vague response. Again, none of this is concrete proof, but taken together, it's pretty interesting.

Again, you _KNOW_ he wasn't busto, but yet you assert it again.

It seems to me that you intentionally downplayed your relationship to breeezzz as being nothing significant. You also haven't done anything to use your relationship to breeezzz to bring clarity to the situation.

I also think it would be very interesting for you to post your transaction history.


PS: Why would you want to change your 2p2 screen names to not have people look up your PTR? If that's true, why did you never stop posting on ROSeeker? Most good players would be happy to have a PTR report like yours in order to get action...

WAT. I was logged in by mistake i use this account mortly. I only changed after blackize pm me. I am just annoyed now dragged into this for the last time only stars can do anything now.

So PTR is back up.

$1/$2 NLH SH 53 $-558

Those are Breeezzz's numbers.

Now, Jalex, what homework am I missing. Either this was Breeezzz's first time playing 1/2 and he lost $558 that night, or this wasn't his first time playing 1/2 and people were lying saying it was.

34 $1/$2 NLH (6-max) $-338.25 Mar 19th - 11:11pm CDT Mar 19th - 11:25pm CDT

So like the second part of my post said: So then this wasn't his first time playing 1/2.


Edit: sometime before the 6th of March, Breeezzz played 19 hands of 1/2NL and lost $219.75.

Yes, clearly, this isn't a guy that ever takes tilt shots.

Exactly, it's this kind of ass backwards math/logic that is tilting me. Now when people comb through their own 30k samples and see just how many of these types they are encountering, and they 100 different people confirm that over 30k hand samples they encounter people playing 10x their normal stakes X times, then we can assess how random this is. Saying it's a 700-1 shot in a vaccum is ridiculous. All I am saying is let's spend more time looking at the really suspicious stuff and not applying ******ed math which obviously doesn't account for many variables to determine how likley it is that someone is cheating.

Also to be clear the fact that he may have a connection to these guys is fishy and warrants invegistigation. It's the dumb conclusion that people are reaching w/o giving the situation proper thought that are ruining this thread.

Yes at some point int he last 2 years, he's played 20 more hands of 1/2.

Nothing recently, last 3 months I think is what PTR shows? Edit: Okay looks like it actually shows like 2 weeks of sessions. Again, taken alone, I'd have totally ignored the 2 hands vs breeezzz, all together + the relationships is the issue.


He however has played LOTS of micro sng's in the last 3 months....

Everything about the posting has been creepy as well too, I think a good WW player from POG would catch a lot of bs in here.

I thought it was weird how quickly that post came in wrt the T7 shove iirc, saying I knew him and knew he was aggro and still tried to outbluff him on a huge shot take instead of try and catch him w/ a wider range by calling more. And yet this is after the few hands he hand been at the table he had r/f pf -> r/c IP call a cbet then fold to a turn cbet (OP had 86o on AJ6K) -> 3bet / 5betallin w/ T7o. All the sudden you decide to bluff and then bluff allin (when could have escaped cheaply) pf w/ a hand w/ no value when every previous hand you had played small, taken flops and generally folded a lot? Seemed odd but that's not evidence of any sort.

Here's some more homework that should be done: His last session of 1/2 was no longer ago than Jun 20, 2009.


Go to his hands played, look at the 33 hand towards the bottom of his losses.

The dude has played a session of 1/2 within the past year where he apparently short stacked and lost $220 in 19 hands.

This evidence mounting against Gary is overwhelming, I'm glad it was presented unbiasedly.


Edit: Every hand from his 'losses' column that was played on June 20, 2009, was played at 1/2. You can't see his cards for any but one of them, but its clear from 1) his stack size 2) his playing that he was giving money away.

For god sake, it's not that a player happened to jump several stakes that is the issue, something which happens all the time. It's that the player who decided to jump several stakes is connected to the OP and jumped several stakes on the day of the bet and donked off cash to the OP. And the fact there is another player connected to the OP who also jumped several stakes on the day of the bet and also donked off cash to the OP.

Here's my problem:

Yes, it looks horribly suspicious. But you know what else looks horrible? Being told that this is the FIRST TIME EVER!!!!!!!! That Breeezzz was taking a shot at 200NL, and he just so happened to do it on the day that Gary was doing it.

When, in fact:

1) This isn't his first shot at 200nl
2) This isn't even his worst fail at 200nl

(if PTRs numbers are to be trusted, anyhow)

To me, it appears things are being presented in a way that is totally tilting the field against Gary.

lol, kiss my ass dude, the fact he has 20 more rando hands of 1/2 somewhere doesn't mean jack ****. I spent hours on this trying to find the truth, what's your motivation nitpicking one little detail?

He's still GOOD FRIENDS with RoSeeker and showed up at the perfect time, to make the perfect 5 bet shove with T7o, in order to make the perfect save of OP's prop bet.

Coupled with the other two randos suddenly showing up at 1/2nl, getting absolutely crushed by the OP, and one of them with a demonstrated relationship to RoSeeker....Wanna try to find 20 extra hands on those two guys?

kaedin,

he played one session of 1/2 last summer. right after the QQ vs T7 hand, I just happened to be watching as it happened I looked up breeezzz on ptr and saw this.

other than that sess, there was nothing higher than 25NL

Yes it does

Maybe look at this guys micro results prior to these 200nl 'shots'. Maybe he was on a heater both times and took an ambitous shot or maybe he was on a huge downswing both times and was tilting.

In both cases it look like he lost a fair amount of $$ and left