christ this thread tilts the **** out of me
answer this: is the QQ vs T7 hand strictly gary vs breeezzzz or could breeezzzz be any random scrub?

i really hope this crushes prop betting on 2p2 and bbv, the fact that an impartial judge is calling me names for pointing out a very clear lapse in logic that most of this thread has committed is unbearable

he claimed to be running a lot below ev in his ptr comments so maybe he thought he could use his bad stats there to get good odds on such a bet?

+1

It was heads up between them, Gary opens button to $6, breeezzz 3 bets to $20 in the sb, Gary raises to $48, and breeezzz shoves for $200.

lol, so tell me how you would have investigated this Mr. Wizard (without using faulty logic).

You have the T7o hand and the 68o hand to start with (since BlackIze reviewed Gary's hands vs breeezzz). Good luck.

i know what the ****ing hand says
COULD THAT HAVE HAPPENED ONLY AGAINST BREEEZZZZ OR COULD IT HAVE HAPPENED BETWEEN ANY RANDOM SCRUB

i also just looked up stoppedclocked's biggest losing hands. once he had 7j on a 4568q board losing to the nuts 79 that didnt raise the river for his last 40 bucks or so.. how suspicious would that look in a propbet? op wasnt at that table btw.
the next hand someone opens aq, gets 3b, stoppedclock 4 bets all in with ak to 64 or so. aq guy goes all in, and gets called by ak for the side pot.
so i look up like 10 hands there and 2 of them look very suspicious at first glance.

it's not about how you investigate
it's about not being illogical with your results

Whatever comes of this Jalex and Black should never be allowed to judge again

haha wow, this is your point of contention? have you not read anything jalex has pointed out?

Jalexand42, I really think you are doing a ****ing amazing job. With that being said, I would really hope you take the time to write out a very long very detailed judgement which ever way it goes to explain both your thought process in making the decision.

As a side note, is he guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty?

...no this isn't my only point of contention, but it's the one im discussing right now
have you not read anything i've pointed out?

jalex, i know you spend a good bit of time in the msnl threads and you know that even at 400-600nl hands like these happen on a regular basis, esp amongst "friends". not saying i think gary is innocent cause it's def shady but this hand is def not indicative of collusion.

wrong, without jalex and blackize gary would have been shipped the money a few days ago and none of this shady stuff, which definitely needed to be investigated, would have come up

i think jalex has done an amazing job as well and i feel that im being unfairly hard on him but no one is really arguing on behalf of gary and some things definitely need to be said

blackize, i'd really like to stop reading this thread cause it's such a ****ing trainwreck. can you tell me if you and the other judges are going to base your decision on the stars' findings, jalex's findings, a combination or what?

i'd really like to stop having to come back in here and read all the ******ed posting that has been going on.

gary isn't even arguing on behalf of gary instead of saying things like, "you're wrong" or "no." he's not providing anysort of logical reasoning for anything whereas jalex et al are.

no one would give him credibility anyway
he's in a really awkward situation, i don't know how i would handle it if i were innocent in the same situation (although it'd probably look like spamming the thread)

Disagree, he spent a ****ton of time to look at a ton of **** that he didn't have to. He hasn't been perfect but even though I've spent my last few posts arguing with a few things he's said I still think he's done an incredible job and I don't see a reason black should never judge again either.

But seriously jalex answer Keanu's question, he's making a pretty important point if I can tell where he's going with it that I don't think you quite understand yet.

lol +1

+1 on both of these. Also if Gary is innocent how would he argue? He can't argue it doesn't look suspicious, but if he's innocent it's a coincidence. How can you logically argue that it's a coincidence? Like there's no way for him to logically counter it other than to say I didn't do it. There's nothing more he could really add to prove himself.

I already posted a summary post. He was certainly innocent in my mind to begin with. Now I'm obviously EVIL AND BIASED because I think the elements are too much to explain away as coincidence.

No obviously they do happen. That's why I was originally ready to advice awarding Gary as winner. Hell, even if it was ONE random donk with a connection to RoSeeker showing up and spewing for fun, fine. Two? Gary winning every pot vs them? Some of the hand histories added to this?


lol. You're in here arguing semantic bull**** with me over my conclusions when I just straight up posted the facts of what I found with my own opinion in the summary?

Should Gary/RoSeeker/breeezzz be in here arguing on their own behalf that they aren't dirty ****ing cheaters? What would you be doing?

Personally, if I was those guys:

1. I'd be publishing my transfer screens (I know Gary did this, but why the hell would they do transfers from Gary's account).

2. Voluntarily posting all the hands between the questionable accounts for full analysis by anyone.

3. On my own working to show that I wasn't colluding and posting any evidence I could find to that extent.


Instead, Gary is spending his time trying to discredit _ME_ instead of the evidence. RoSeeker has basically disappeared, and breeezzz hasn't made a single appearance.

Quit giving me **** about time I invested out of the goodness of my heart and do your own investigative work.

no one's arguing that the T7o hand could not have happened versus some random donk. this is why people are ignoring your question, because no one here is assuming that it could [only have happened because of chip dumping.

from what i gather, this is what happened:

1. blackize contacts jalex, says these hands (T7o, 86o, etc) are suspicious. jalex says the hands alone do not indicate any foul play.

2. jalex then happens to decide to google/research breeez, finds out he has a close connection with one of gary's friends (roseeker). he deems this warrants closer investigation before closing the case.

3. jalex and blackize then look at everyone who lost $200 or more to gary throughout the course of the prop bet.

4. out of these people, they find 3 of them have very little to no history at 1/2 NL on pokerstars.

5. out of these 3 people, they find 2 of them (including breez), have close connections to aforementioned gary's friend (roseeker).

6. roseeker, having posted to gary's defense throughout the thread, failed to mention he had contact with/staked/coached (or a combination of those) those 2 people. these 2 people happen to be micro sng players.

did i get anything wrong? is my logic faulty? is it mere coincidence that of the set of people who [ lost at least a buyin to gary and have no history at 1/2 nl ] = also connected to roseeker, who just happens to be a close friend of gary's?

ez off jalex ppl!

Nice job sir.

I am however, now concerned your children are been neglected and your business is facing liquidation due to the time spent ITT.

Why would you say that?

they have done a great job - could you of done what they have done? would you of put all this effort into something that isn't putting a penny in your pocket?

These guys are trying to sort something that is a terrible situation, they are getting dragged into people having hissy fits over he said she said.

cant someone appreciate they are trying to do this for the good of the bettors & the forum as a whole, if I was betting I would really appreciate them being involved, this isn't a Di*k measuring contest.

there are obviously some things that only stars will be able to clarify - so why not wait till they come through with it? then the judges can make the decision & let the people involved know!

Was Gary hidden from the search feature? If so it could make the fact that his "friends" were only on his tables a little more suspicious.