Do you think some SBR poker players time or hack the poker software?

[dlowilly]

I was looking at threads bitemeusadoj was in one time and came across a hand where apparently he had A 10 while the opponent raised preflop and had AA. The flop was rainbow nothing for either of them so pocket AA was way ahead. AA went all in and according to that thread biteme said he felt it was coming and called. Turn 10, river 10. Not only is that a ridiculous long shot, according to the posters in the thread biteme didn't go around predicting that type of stuff, and biteme was a very good winning player. That is far from a winning play. He also was on record stating he worked with code for the military and I think it also said he did some freelance work or something for SBR. If someone could find the thread it would be great.

[dlowilly]

have you looked at your own hand histories and added up the percentages for your all ins?

You can't do that if you don't know the opponents hole cards.

[Triple_D_Bet]

everyone is a long term winner in freerolls.

Disagree, considering how long they take for what little you win...but I know what you mean.

Right, and I am saying I would love to quantify it but it's almost impossible to do without hh info. That's the reason this thread is a poll and not a post full of statistical evidence. The only reason they caught Mike Postle is because they could analyze all his hands knowing what his hole cards were, whether he won or folded. Without that info they could only suspect.

Drastically different situation; among other things, those stakes play much differently than freeroll stakes, they're cash games and not tournaments, and there was particularly suspicious play such as losing the least with strong but second-best hands. The data made it easier/possible, but for those circumstances, his winrate alone was reasonably statistically suspicious.

Regarding SBR poker, if you can't quantify these things, than you don't have evidence and can't reasonably suspect anyone of anything, right?

[fried cheese]

You can't do that if you don't know the opponents hole cards.

ah forgot about that. i wonder if sbr does that on purpose.

[dlowilly]

Disagree, considering how long they take for what little you win...but I know what you mean.



Drastically different situation; among other things, those stakes play much differently than freeroll stakes, they're cash games and not tournaments, and there was particularly suspicious play such as losing the least with strong but second-best hands. The data made it easier/possible, but for those circumstances, his winrate alone was reasonably statistically suspicious.

Regarding SBR poker, if you can't quantify these things, than you don't have evidence and can't reasonably suspect anyone of anything, right?

Wrong. It can be quantified but I don't have access to the info to do it. Successful players making constant long term unsuccessful plays in a fair game is evidence in itself that justifies suspicion. Other observational evidence as well. Suspicion has always been reasonable where there is motive and a victim.

[Triple_D_Bet]

Wrong. It can be quantified but I don't have access to the info to do it. Successful players making constant long term unsuccessful plays in a fair game is evidence in itself that justifies suspicion. Other observational evidence as well. Suspicion has always been reasonable where there is motive and a victim.

It can't be quantified by you at this time, so you don't have evidence to support what you suspect. At that point, you can't reasonably elevate your suspicions to accusations or beliefs. "Successful", "long term" and "unsuccessful" are the things you'd need to quantify to have a solid reason to believe these things.

[Auto Donk]

all I know is I want gummo to ship me his "gummobot 3.0" for use in the upcoming world cup.....

the gummobot 2.0 caused quite a stir in last year's world cup, if I recall correctly.....

[dlowilly]

It can't be quantified by you at this time, so you don't have evidence to support what you suspect. At that point, you can't reasonably elevate your suspicions to accusations or beliefs. "Successful", "long term" and "unsuccessful" are the things you'd need to quantify to have a solid reason to believe these things.

I don’t need quantifiable evidence to be suspicious, why do u keep saying that?

Once again, that is why this is a poll and not an accusation thread like when funnyb got exposed.

[Cross]

I’m just going to donate my SBR Freeroll Bot to DLow... sounds like he could use it more than me.

[VBPro7]

dlowilly still crying about poker? Some things never change. Obviously you haven't play enough live. If something can happen, it will happen. I never understood why people talk shit to people who play bad and hit.

[Triple_D_Bet]

I don’t need quantifiable evidence to be suspicious, why do u keep saying that?

Once again, that is why this is a poll and not an accusation thread like when funnyb got exposed.

You don't need evidence to feel suspicious, but you should have it before you share your accusations with others.

If this thread is just to air out your hunch and not making any claims that you believe any of this to be true, then yeah, no harm no foul.

[Optional]

Would be nice if a HUD worked with SBR poker so anyone could collect stats.

[daneblazer]

Would be nice if a HUD worked with SBR poker so anyone could collect stats.

I had one that worked when I played. It only kept stats for a session though.


How big of a loser would you have to be to “hack” sbr poker

[phinfan27615]

Sounds like they're winning and confusing/hard to read. Sounds like good poker players

[spargament]

Hard to see everything, and I don't know if there's enough volume here to add up to anything statistically close to long-term. Variance (even extreme amounts) is surprisingly common.

This. Would literally need to see a million hands to be able to conclude variance isn't a factor. Well said.

[pavyracer]

I like to play SBR Poker so I can test how many times I can lose to an inferior preflop hand on the river. Then I go and play real poker and win because the odds of this happening in real poker are very small.

[Lowly Oaftard]

Clearly, there are exploits that can be utilized to manipulate the RNG Vortex.

The Left Shift Key Theory proves this.

[franklee168]

Hell man we all know that in this 1000 chip "quick tourney" format, you have to get lucky and win about 10 all ins

to even get sixth place or higher. Then you have to get lucky and win even more all ins to get !st or 2nd place!

Don't let it irk you so much! I mean shit dude you got so lucky on the all ins in the Lightning Poker finals that you won the

whole damn thing! You can't expect to get that kind of luck in every damn on of these things!

It's weird how Joe is still playing trivia. HNY Joey!

[sinmiedo]

Wow, dlow has this idea from the beginning. In fact, many times I predicted how the soft will behave.
The improbable, happened, he believed . Lollololololololol.
Sin

[Auto Donk]

It's weird how Joe is still playing trivia. HNY Joey!

HAHAHAHA.............


I LOVE that I got the asshole joe cool banned from chat and then was instrumental in his total banning from the site......

a new year's message to the loser who tried to get me banned daily only to see it backfire on himself: "hey joe fool, go skull f__k your mother!!!!!!!!!!"

[mpaschal34]

Clearly, there are exploits that can be utilized to manipulate the RNG Vortex.
The Left Shift Key Theory proves this.

First post in 1.5 years....interesting.

[Optional]

Wow, dlow has this idea from the beginning. In fact, many times I predicted how the soft will behave.
The improbable, happened, he believed . Lollololololololol.
Sin

Happy New Year Sin

[cincinnatikid513]

is poker still going on

[Optional]

is poker still going on

Yes, the daily tournies are running.

No promotion on at the moment though. There will be an announcement at some point soonish I think.