well said , theres people on here from all over the globe and they think the bets gonna be played out as if they are sitting with there mates lol . wise up people !!

Yes the evidence of chip dumping is simply the fact that he lost money to Gary. Jesus Christ, talk about stuff going straight over peoples heads. It's like banging your head against a wall.

I just couldn't be bothered repeating stuff that people have said a thousand times at this stage for people who are either too lazy to read the thread or too simple to understand it.

ok while I did say something like that earlier I admitted I was wrong/phrasing what I was trying to say wrong (and one post I typed something like what you said realized it was wrong and edited it to say what I really meant). The thing is that the poker world is so interconnected. So what I've been trying to say is that instead of taking the odds that these 2 particular people (how were they chosen? Why wasn't rongrong chosen? The answer to that last question basically is the core of what I'm trying to say) you need to take the odds that ANYONE connected to Gary through a common friend would have done that. I don't know how many people Gary knows in the micro 6max community but I've said before I'm pretty sure upwards of 50% of the micro FR community (this is regs, and remember we didn't look at rongrong so we're only considering regs) could be connected either directly to me or through a mutual friend. So the odds are not that these 2 particular people did the odds are that ANYONE connected through a mutual friend or immediate friend would do this. Now it's certainly not common for a microstakes reg to take a jump 8x their normal stakes and tilt-spew a buy-in but the odds we need to look at are the odds that any microstakes reg does this on a given Friday night, not the odds that specifically breeeze and stoppedclock (or watch, or w/e it is I forget now). See what I'm saying now?

And on top of that what if it wasn't random and they wanted to take a shot during his prop bet and outplay him?

Look I'm not trying to prove his side because frankly I'm pretty sure he's guilty now. But anyone who comes to the conclusion that he's guilty without considering the fact that it could be any reg connected through a common friend to Gary (which could be hundreds) or that they specifically could have played with him intentionally (although probably not true or they would have just said that in the thread) are jumping to conclusions without actually considering all the evidence/logic.

Also one important thing, but someone told me one of the hands (the clockwise one?) was at hand 20k. That's hardly at the end at his moment of need. Why do people keep saying both players dumped near the end when he needed it?

I know a lot of people who when they lose money they think the answer is just grinding volume out. So many people when they run bad decide they have to grind through it so decide to either do hand pools, small side prop bets, etc. to motivate them to play more hands. This is not unusual for someone running bad and the fact that he is going for sne also makes it plausible. Honestly I think assuming he did cheat that he wasn't intending to at the start.

Especially seeing as they are micro grinders this seems like the most reasonable thing. He could offer them money back plus a few hundred and that would seem like a ****ton of money to them so they might do it. Now while most of us would hopefully not do it for any amount of money, I hope you realize that a 200nl grinder would simply laugh at dumping for only $200 while a 25nl reg might think 8 buy-ins was enough especially if he was convinced that they knew how to avoid detection (I mean he has to be smarter than me, he plays 200nl!!!).

It's not a stretch, it's downright idiotic and no person would ever do this. Who would cheat and risk getting caught while also losing money in the process? I'm sorry but if Gary was dumped to he knew about it. The only possible exception was the guys hated Gary so dumped trying to get detected. But the fact that it seems they attempted to avoid detection and didn't do anything obvious, that's pretty much impossible as well.

Yeah I guess my previous thing ignored that. If maybe they had money on Gary's side then they could dump to him without his knowledge but then Gary would have posted by now that they had side action when Jalex specifically asked him.

lol you're kidding right? Right now it's some circumstantial evidence and in the future they could convince people it was a misunderstanding and to give them a second chance. They admit it publicly and they're shunned from the poker world for life basically and likely if they ever want a job in the future their future employer will google their names and find out they admitted to running a scam.

lol that would be pretty hilarious, although still cheating so it really doesn't matter lol. Also there's no way it happened, but still funny to think about .

I bolded the important one. People keep saying they only played with Gary and I even ran some probabilities with that assumption. No one corrected me and a few people quoted me and used that as evidence against him. He obviously did play hands that were not at Gary's table so those stats are no longer relevant.

This is pretty important and will make the case against them pretty much 100%, does anyone know how many tables each Breeze and Clockwise were playing during their sessions and how many of those tables had Gary on them? Any where all 3 of them were at a table? The fact that he actually was at a table not with Gary is actually evidence against him as well because that means he was not simply trying to outplay Gary for the prop, although I guess he could have just gotten on all Gary's waitlists and didn't get on enough so added tables. Hopefully this is something Stars will check out.


You're both complete morons.


Yeah I do remember that him saying I believe "if I need to I'll redo the bet". Seriously if I were innocent I would never say that in a million years. He tried to clarify that he meant if the judges forced him to he would, but that's not what that phrase means. Is Gary fluent in English? If he's not that MIGHT be a case where he meant "if I need to" differently from what it actually means. But if he speaks English fluently/as his first language there is no way any innocent person would say that.

here is the entire post...was number 663...and yes he is fluent in english

damn, was hoping gary would pop up with the old 'herro, me asian, me no understand ingerish'

zach, nanonuts, starzz

PLEASE stop writing such long ****ing posts saying the same thing over and over again. it's really ****ing annoying and none of you are going to change the other's views. i am at the point where i skim to only look for posts from jalex, gary, roseeker or stars support

fwiw, since people keep referring to the fact that he "only won by $20" - he won by $20 because he got into a position where he could fold his way to victory by being up more than $0.50 * num hands remaining. You can't really posit that without breez giving him $250, he'd have lost by $230 - he would have played the end differently and he may have won anyway, or he may have lost spectacularly, but what definitely WOULDN'T have happened is him folding the remainder of his hands while being down.

this thread is killing me. i keep awaiting updates now...ugh i wish i didn't discover it until a week from now.

Also, I find Gary and Roseeker's silence in light of the mounting evidence after their passioned personal attacks earlier to be very damning.

yeah but on the other side if he was down by more, who's to say he wouldn't have breezzz or other dumpers fill in that gap? of course he's just going to get to where he's up and fold his way to victory.

yea i still can't wrap my head around how he wouldn't just fold his way to victory. perhaps he was too tired to think like that. it's the one thing that makes me think he *may* be innoncent.

um he did fold his way to victory

The reason the players were chosen is because they are the ones who were involved in the suspected chip dumping hands and other hands they played show up as obvious statistical anomalies in HEM. Surely that's a 100% standard and logical reason to chose those players as ones to investigate??? What else do you suggest for choosing players to investigate...just choose a random player from the 30K sample?

The reason I didn't mention rongrong is because no connections have been found between him and gary. jalex thinks he's in on it too but I'm not convinced.

I get what you are saying. It's not that we should be taking the odds of two specific players being connected to gary. It's what are the odds of anyone connected to gary ending up as the ones under suspicion. And yes you are right that does reduce the odds.

This is wrong though. We are not just considering regs here. They don't need to be regs to be involved in this. Stoppedclock wasn't a reg. The entire pokerstars microstakes player pool is the data set that the chip dumpers could have come from. Anyone with a pokerstars account. Now of all the hundreds of thousands of microstakes players that could have been the ones under suspicion, it turns out that both of them are connected to gary. And BOTH of them have the exact same background and CONNECTION - friend and studends of Roseeker.


The facts are when you set the group of players connected to gary, directly or through a friend, against a data set as massive as the entire microstakes player pool it remains a very low chance that a player connected to him would've have ended up being under suspicion. Nevermind two players being under suspicion, and both have the same connection/background.

I see where you are coming from here and you are correct. To phrase it more accurately though as we are not just including all the microstakers, we have to limit the pool to the microstakers who have zero (or practially zero) history of shot taking on higher stakes -

1. What are the odds that a microstakes sng player (stoppedclock) with zero cash game history would show up on a random friday in a cash game.
2. What are the odds that this player with no cash game history would show up playing way way above his regular stake.
3. What are the odds that a microstakes cash player (breeezzz) with next to no history at 1/2 apart from 19 shortstacking hands about a year ago, would show up on a random friday night at 1/2.

When you limit the players to the ones who have zero (or practially zero) shot taking history the odds go way up that they would show up on a random friday night in a 1/2 cash game.

Something else to consider
4. Of all the shot taking microstakers playing 1/2 on this random friday night, who have basically no shot-taking history, what are the odds that two of them would be connected to each other - both students and friends of roseeker.

Well breeezzzz definitely knew about the bet as he is a 2+2er and posts alot in bbv, and his buddy/coach Roseeker would've told him about it too. So if he and stoppedclock did go to gary's tables innocently just to outplay him the 86o and J8o hands become even more relevant imo. Why did gary play so differently versus these two players connected to him? He didn't 3bet unsuited junk even one extra time out of the 30K hands. Just against these two shot taking microstakers, who to gary's knowledge would have been unknowns with no stats in his hud (other than from the session itself). The last people you want to be 3betting offsuit junk oop with are unknown (likely) fish. On it's own, it's random, but taken in context with everything else in this thread it definitely very shady.

Eh, I don't know who said they only played with gary. I thought everyone knew that they donked off a stack or two on other tables as well?

The first page in the chip dumping manual reads "Don't just dump the cash and leave. If you want to avoid getting caught you must donk off extra cash here and there or it is going to stand out like a sore thumb that you cheated"

+1.

Also what do you make of the fact that of all the people in this thread the only two to get the names of the suspects wrong were gary and roseeker. Twice gary referred to stoppedclock as stoppedwatch, twice roseeker referreed to rongrong as rongrongrong. I mean I remember the names of players from interesting hands I played 4 years ago. I can't see how you could get the names wrong of people involved in hands that could cost you thousands of dollars and ruin your reputation, in hands that you only played a week ago and whose names you have been reminded of on a continuous basis in your prop bet thread.

oops too late

This.
First post in thread but been reading daily and amazed that statement didn't get more attention.

Quoted for second attempt....and so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle.

I also know plenty of people that think this way. I'm actually one of them. However, the reason that we think that volume will cure variance is because we are winners over a large sample size. So when I'm running bad I can expect that with volume I should start to have hands hold up and even maybe get lucky to make up for all of the bad run.

But since Gary is a big loser how is it logical to just say oh I can't win and i'm running bad and if i add more volume I will become a winner.

Sorry Zac but that logic doesn't pass for Garys situation imo.

Usually quoting your own post doesnt fly but damn, this guy haz his own BIZNESS

small irrelevant interjection
gary wouldn't be the first poker player to have at least small delusions he's better than his winrate suggests
**** i think im better than my winrate suggests

and thats fine if we can at least agree thats its being delusional at worst.

I hope that a friend of Gary's didn't mention to a couple his micro stake friends that Gary had a big volume propbet going -- and would be hugely exploitable at the tables or something.

They see he is up xxx dollars and shove stupid hands (because they look at the wrong progress report, like when he was up tons, and think he's folding a ton).

Anyway, there's a couple different scenarios that allow for friends of friends to come to the table, play weird, and look all like they're colluding when in fact they're just there and playing the guy in the big prob bet.

exactly the opposite you would think...in the QQ vs T7 hand, Gary 4 bet...his 4 bet range there should be soooooo tight and he is NEVER folding to a shove from an unknown in that spot. and this hand came late in the session when he realllllly needed it. (forget exact hand count and amount down but i think 1500 hands to go and down about 200ish...sorry if this is wrong)

Alright I'll keep it short.


ok after thinking about this more I think you're right. But you also have to consider the fact that he's lost to multiple people as well. Were the 2 found to be connected and rongrong the only people investigated by Jalex? If so then yeah I guess it's the odds that 2 of 3 of the suspicious accounts were in the pool of people connected by a mutual friend out of the overall 200nl 6max pool that night. If he investigated more it's a bit more likely. But still we're getting into details that don't really matter. I think we both agree it's to the point where it's pretty unlikely to happen by chance, it's just whether it's 0.001% or 0.0001% lol.

First off with fpps he's a winner right? If he's going for sne obviously he'd want to grind. He probably thought he could at least break even and with all the fpps and vpps towards sne that's how he'd get out of his downswing. Then he makes a prop bet.

And this. Back like 2 years ago I was an fpp pro too so I can pretty much relate. Every few thousand hands you convince yourself that you were running bad before and you finally discovered what you're doing wrong or that you are going to really concentrate on not spewing or any other excuse you can use to convince yourself that you really don't suck at poker. I did a very similar thing to Gary was going for 200k milestone so did small $500 side bet with another reg who was as well we had to play 100k 200nl hands and if we both did it the person with most profit won. Since I'm not a cheater I didn't have people dump and ended the month negative money but hit the milestone (and obv lost the bet). Although it's a little different because there was no PTR at that time but I still used HEM lol. I'm almost positive I know exactly what Gary was thinking and why he'd take this prop bet even if he was an honest person. It just looks like unfortunately when he realized this time he wasn't going to win to have people dump to him.

But Jalex/Black/whoever what was the status of the bet when the hands at the 20k mark were dumped? If he was down money at that point I'd be ready to say it's 99.9% there was dumping involved. Right now it's only like 99%

How come neither of them mentioned that in this thread when asked to explain?

It would be cool if someone could make possibly objective list of events which are evidence against OP.
Please make it without comments and emotions. It should be like:
"Connections: X knows Y, X coached Z etc.
Suspicious hands: "Folded QQ on KKxx board to X, got it in with QQ vs T7 vs Y
Credibility of people involved: Z multiaccounts on 2p2 and Stars etc."

Maybe if it's all put in one place people could make better judgment. At least idiotic conclusions will be cut off a bit.
I would really appreciate if someone could do that. It will be beneficial for the case.

Gotta love internet From what I remember this guy admitted he is guilty though and just is not going to pay, right? Here if OP is found guilty he deserves something even better...