Actually, we don't really know that. What we seem to know is that Account #363 was railbirding the game while the hole cards were being read. We don't know that the hole cards were viewable through account #363.

One possible explanation, consistent with AP's most recent press relaease, is that the hole cards were being viewed by an AP internal system account reading the database of stored hand information. This database may have had its transaction timing adjusted during the software update so that hole cards were written to the database at the same time as they are transmitted to their holders.

So, if the cheater had access directly to the database, why the observer account? There are several possible reasons, including:

The hole cards were written to the DB when generated, but the community cards were not. That may sound unlikely to a casual observer, but from a database design point of view it makes sense. So, the person using database access to see hole cards in near real time needed a different method to see the community cards. The observer account was the means.

Another explanaton is that the observer account was not being used on an ongoing basis. It was only used at the start of a cheating session, perhaps to find which table the cheating account was on, and that having confirmed the location, nobody bothered to log off the observer.

A third possibility is that the account was just being used by a second person to watch the fun.

I can not understand your point Nat?

If Scott Tom is still owner then the Press Releases must meet his approval. The information to which you are accorded access must meet his approval. The "auditors" being hired must meet his approval.

Do you have direct evidence that Scott Tom has absolutely NO control over any of these issues. I don't see how you could make that finding and without that assurance is there any way to ever believe that ABSOLUTE POKER and ULTIMATE BET are anything but a scam.

I haven't read your report yet so maybe that will have some answers for me but the statement you make here seems to present an impossible paradox.

*sigh*

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
by any other name would smell as sweet."

It is important, in constructing a logical argument, or even in the interests of communicating accurately, to have a clear understanding of the meaning of the terms being used.

Thoughout the coverage of the AP scandal on this forum, there has been a lot of confusion around the use of the term "account". Usually this word has been preceded by another qualifying word, such as "superuser", "player", and now, "observer".

What is an "account"? Generally speaking, an "account" is a record of (most often financial) data, usually pertaining to a specific person or thing.

There are many distinct types of accounts involved in this story. There are player accounts. There are computer access accounts on AP's internal computer systems. There are bank accounts and e-wallets belonging to the cheaters and the cheated. Confusion occurs when people don't understand the definition of each type of account, and when people try to take a concept that applies to one type of account and apply it to a different type of account, and when people attribute to an account some capability which is really an atrribute of something else, such as a piece of software.

A player account is what you get when you sign up to play at AP. A player account is what is used to authorise access by an instance of AP's poker client software to its server software. A player account records a username, a password, an email address, banking or e-wallet information for money transfer purposes, balances in real and play money, (and points?), bonus information, etc. A player account may relate to a real person, or to a fictional entity created for test or other purposes.

A computer access account is a set of information which identifies a user who can access the services of the operating system of a computer. It is what one uses to "log on" to a computer. A player account is not a computer access account.

Account #363 is a player account. It is used to allow an instance of the AP client software to connect to the server. I have no idea if it is, or ever was, associated with any real person.

It has been, at least, suggested, but I think "claimed" is an accurate term, that account #363 is a "superuser account" by which what was meant was that a person could use account #363 to view hole cards. I'll get back to the confusion over the term "superuser account" in a moment.

You seem to suggest that an observer account is not a player account. For your suggestion to be true, the term "player account" has to mean something different than what AP means and what I mean and what most reasonable people mean when they use the term in this context.

That is not to say that "observer account" is a term with no meaning or usefulness. A player account that is used soley or primarily for the purpose of observing rather than playing in games could usefully be called an "observer account". Similarly we could call some player accounts "recreational accounts", and others "professional accounts"; some "real person accounts" and some "test accounts". However, all of these, including "observer accounts" are player accounts.

No, they can not and should not do that. Once they have said that no player account can see other players' hole cards, they have covered off observer accounts. Adding "or observer account" would erroneously imply that there is some separate sort of account which just does not exist. Saying just "any account" would also not be true. There are no player accounts that can see other players' hole cards, but there certainly are AP internal computer system access accounts that can (or at least could) see hole cards. AP's press release says so:
No. What we have seen was evidence of cheating, of hole cards being viewed, but it may not have been evidence of a superuser account. Claiming that there was a "superuser account" may have been a misinterpretation of the evidence.

So what was account #363 being used for if it wasn't a "superuser account"? We don't know for certain, but see this post.

Please don't say "that internal AP computer access account that was used to view the hole cards in the database - that's what we meant by 'superuser account'". That's just BS. If you trace the history of the term in this forum, you will see that what is first envisaged is a player account that had been assigned special access privileges. When it was pointed out that this would mean that the client software would have to be able to receive hole cards for all players some people took this to mean that all instances of the client software had the ability built in, and that you just had to log on with the correct account to enable the ability.

It was reported that a reverse engineering exercise showed that the standard client did not have the abiity to receive hole card information for multiple players. This lead some people to think "superuser account = special client software". That ofc was a misuse of the term "account". "Superclient" would have been a better label for such a scenario than "superuser account", but once the latter term had been coined , it stuck around, with its presumed meaning changing to fit people's changing understanding of the facts.

AP have stated that no player account can or could see hole cards, and that hole cards were viewed by AP internal computer access accounts. Hence there was no superuser player account. That there are AP internal user accounts that can read the database of hand stories should come as a surprise to nobody. The key information seems to be that the timing of writing of hole card records to the database was such that the database could reveal this data while the hand was still being played.

Thanks for doing all of this.

Are you going to be in a position to clarify for us the corporate ownership and management structure?

So if I`m reading between the lines correctly, Scott owns more than 50% of AP and because he lives outside the US or any other respectible juristiction, he is immune to both getting expelled from the company and prosecution and there is absolutly no motivation for him to not do this in a year, month, tomorrow? Wow it sounds like his `removal from resbonsibility` is sort of like the self exclusion button which you could easily override by playing a friend's account whenever you wanted. Been thinking about a conclusion here and all I can think about are unplessant things to do to Mr. Scott and how anyone who ever plays there again - loose tables or not - is a 100% [censored].

That isn't the way business ownership works. Lots of businesses have silent partners who do not have operational control. Even though I own a piece of BLUFF, I do not have any say over who goes on the cover or what articles are in the magazine.

Also, in response to other people, I am pretty sure Scott Tom does not own over 50% of AP.

No, I won't be able to do that. I actually address that point in the holdem radio show that I linked earlier.

Translation: "Baby, i swear i wont cheat on you again, Sheila at work was a one time thing"



Translation: "Baby, I know screwed up. Here take these flowers and this diamond bracelet (no wsop). Forgive me, I wont do it again."

Translation: "Baby, forget about what you found out on your own. I hired a private investigator to follow me, just to prove my innocence. I cant tell you everything he found or show you the pictures he took, but i swear, on my love for you, FOR US, that I only cheated that month, and never before this summer. I swear, you have to believe me! I love you



Translation: "Baby I only cheated on you with the people you caught me with... Shiela, your sister, your cousin, your ex boyfriend, and your dog. And for every time I had sex with one of them, I plan to buy you 2 dozen roses! See i really do care!"




Translation: "Baby you have to understand, every time i hung out with those people (and dog) we didnt have sex, sometimes we just talked. But Im still going to buy you gifts because Im a good guy and know what to do to make things right. See how much I love you?? I got you roses and it isnt even valentines day!"

Translation: "Listen honey, me, all my friends, family, frat brothers and co workers still think Im a good guy, so whataya say? Give me another chance, forgive me, I LOVE YOU... gimmie a big kiss and come back to the house, i miss you"

Then as far as I`m concerned there is no reason for AP to not hunt him down and feast on his bloody carcass. With all there backtracking half truths etc. I think AP`s only reasonable chance at salvation in many people`s eyes is to at leas ATTEMPT to make him responsible for his crimes. I see no reason for them to not pursue this avenue unless they are responsible for other cheating attempts I think anything else they may have done and he could blackmail him about is inferior to cathing this [censored] and putting him in his place be that prision or burried.

Edit: I cannot speak for anyone else on this matter and am aware as someone who was not ripped off by them in the first place my opinion has less value than those directly afected.

Edit2: Lol at your post CPOner. A+

Yes but do him, his father, and his frat buddies own over 50% of AP together?

I don't know the ownership %s or how it's structured, so I'm going to step out of this stuff here. And no, I'm not holding out because of an NDA, I really don't know it.

That doesn't compute with your statement earlier,

In any audit or investigation, the ownership and structure are the most important part. You went to Costa Rica and learned nothing of this?

Please show me where I said I know ownership %s. My best guess is that Scott Tom does not own over 50%, but that does not mean I actually know what he owns.

Also, I did not go down there to audit and I was not given audit level access in the least. I went down there to interview and find out what I could. If people won't talk about everything that doesn't mean I won't go talk about something.

That's disappointing, but not very surprising, I guess.

The ongoing, and apparently increasing, opacity of their corprate structure is one of the most worrisome aspects of this whole thing, imo.

jesus & that hs golf guy
should be intewieved in that ap'espn thing ,IMO

Guys, I don't know how you keep missing this.

Don't worry, all is well!

Well, I don't know. I would guess it's the way it is so that American citizens can control Absolute while not technically owning it, with the goal that they don't get arrested when they step on American soil.

If you consider it worrisome that they want to evade or work around the UIGEA, then fine. But I doubt the opacity of their structure indicates anything more than that.

the word of the day for you is accountability. Imagine running a billion dollar buisness and answering to nobody. This isn't an "American citizen" ideal, it's f'ing logic 101.

Sure, the Chief owns AP.
What does AP own?
What does Absolute Entertainment own?
What does Blast Off own?
Who owns Absolute Entertainment?
Who owns Blast Off?
Who owns the players' deposits?
Who owns the rake?

Enquiring minds want to know.

They don't seem to want anyone to find out.

After all, it's not like they have anything else to hide...

Lest we forget:

"Scott Tom has not been involved with Absoloot Poker for over a year..."

Who made sure that nasty little lie was in AP's recent press release?

Scott "f*cking" Tom, of course.

The main cheat, thief and fraudster is the principal owner of the company. He hasn't fired himself and nobody else can.

Everyone who ever plays on AP again will be giving good money to Scott Tom and his gang of cover-up crooks. The longer AP survives, the longer they are laughing at the entire poker community - and all the way to the bank too.

There is absolootly nothing to stop Scott Tom and his boys from swindling AP players again once the fuss dies down - and the next time, there won't be any smoking gun hand histories. They'll do it for years.

You don't 'keep the good bit' of a malignant tumour.

bump

huuum AP survives this in tact me thinks. how can the owner of the company fire himself? usa owned sites need to be regulated and controlled in their own country.hopefully the ppa will help the american online industry to achieve that goal. until then all usa sites will have a cloud over them. offshore businesses have been a double edged sword for players, now i think the balance has swung in favour of proper regs with some sort of governing body to ensure safety and fairness for all players.being european i think i will be using william hill/labrokes ect till the usa industry gets its own house in order.

I didn't think it was a serious question based on his previous posts about AP.