1. #1
    stevenash
    stevenash's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date: 01-17-11
    Posts: 62,631
    Betpoints: 32319

    Wilheim/TheRX's Decision of EasyStreet Casino dispute

    Wilheim's official decision as posted at TheRX:

    Wilheim: I have after a lengthy examination of all the facts in my possession come to a decision to recommend that EasyStreet not pay Cory111 the balance of $46,000.
    The $46,000 in question are indeed the direct result of him hitting three Royal Flushes in a period of 499 minutes of play that included no less than 8762 hands during a prolonged Jacks or Better Video Poker session that began on Monday, February 28th and ended on Tuesday March 1st..

    The reasons for my decision have absolutely nothing to do with Cory1111's tarnished player reputation which was uncovered during my intense investigation. I am basing my decision solely on his play during the 499 minutes mentioned above.

    My direct reasons for my carefully derived at decision:

    1. Cory1111's reluctance to prove his innocence.

    This could have been easily done by Cory simply accepting, the now well discussed, all expenses paid trip to Costa Rica.

    In an effort to make the trip as safe as possible I made several concessions that Cory originally requested such as a secret arrival and departure date to and from Costa Rica. I also agreed to not disclose the hotel where he would reside during the visit. I assured him that he could be accompanied by anyone he wanted at all times during his visit including employees of SBR. All of whom would be allowed to oversee 100% of his activities that involved any contact with EasyStreetSports

    2. Once again, Cory1111's reluctance to prove his innocence.

    The Rx.com and I personally guaranteed all pre-arranged expenses to and from Costa Rica including a per diem allowance of $100 per day that would be paid to Cory if he fulfilled two tasks. These funds were to be paid to Cory regardless whether he passed or flunked these tasks.

    The tasks were as follows;

    First, Cory would agree to a simple polygraph test that would only be concerned with his video poker play at EasyStreetSports, as described above.

    Secondly, Cory would be asked to simply attempt to duplicate and demonstrate in person the 326 minutes session which includes breaks.

    If Cory passed both agreed tasks he would receive his balance in full either on the spot or in more complicated but easily accomplished means so that he would be able to receive the funds in a fashion that was best suited to his welfare when re-entering the US.

    3. Cory1111's outright refusal to take a polygraph, that would in no way be designed to incriminate him for any of his past transgressions but simply be focused solely on only the events at hand and also would be detailed and predetermined on a legal document prepared and agreed upon by all parties prior to Cory taking the polygraph.

    4. After leaving the offer on the table for a full week with no further correspondence from Cory indicating that he would accept the offer in that time, I was forced to take it off the table and consult with a third party unbiased and nonaffiliated with either EasyStreet or The Rx.com

    I decided to track down and seek the professional opinion of an expert in the field of the use of robots and other software designed to defraud Casinos such as EasyStreet’s Casino video poker game. Including other not pertinent to this dispute games such as on-line casino blackjack, roulette etc..

    5. I asked him to provide for me a detailed report as brief but thorough as possible which could easily be understood in layman’s terms.

    I submit that report now as my final reason that convinced me that EasyStreet's clearly posted rules were broken by Cory during the 499 minutes of play mentioned above.

    I will field all reasonable questions directed to either the Expert in the field or myself until 5PM EDT on Friday, April 8th, after which I will lock this thread.

    Pleased be advised only civil posts containing logical on topic questions will be allowed in this thread. I will also scrutinize any new registration that obviously only registers here at The Rx.com with the intention of criticizing myself, The Rx.com, EasyStreetSports.com or my decision in general. I have no problem with known Rx posters posting questions in a civil manner. Please post any opinions in the other thread already in existence here in The Offshore Forum titled "Easystreet".

    The communique posted below is copied verbatim from the contracted expert in the appropriate field that deals solely with Cory1111's play in The EasyStreetSports.com Casino during the 499 minutes described above.

    From the expert in the field already described:

    My Background:
    6 years as a Gaming Engineer and Software architect in the US. Projects include Wynn, Encore, Caesars Palace, Native Games America and IGT/Acres platform support.

    Research and Conclusion:

    Based on my independent research into the issue I have come to the following conclusions.

    1) A human did not play the 8762 hands of video poker that were examined. This conclusion is based on the fact that the "player" played an avg. of 17.6 hands of video poker per minute for 499 minutes without a single error. This is a statistical impossibility.

    2) It's been stated that perhaps the auto-play feature was in use at the time and that the "player" was simply using the auto play feature to achieve his abnormally high rate of perfect play. This feature was verified to NOT be enabled and consequently unless the player somehow breached the platform security (nothing suggests this occurred), toggled the feature on, set a more advanced strategy than is currently available to that feature, toggled the feature off, and then wiped the logs; this as well is very unlikely.

    3) The "player" had no apparent reaction to hitting the 3 royals (in fact playing straight through the royals at a continued rate of ~3 seconds per hand) and was unable to accurately answer whether he was dealt a royal (as he stated) or that he held 2 cards and then received a royal (which he did).

    4) The odds of a player hitting a single royal flush is roughly 1 in 40,000. The odds of a dealt royal flush (the player stated he received a dealt royal flush) is 1 in 649,740. The odds of hitting 3 royal flushes in 8762 hands of poker is statistically impossible. In fact in all of the years I've been in gaming I've NEVER seen that happen (and I've reviewed millions of hands of poker).

    5) Load tests on the system show an average screen draw time of approx 1.3 seconds, this leaves only 1.7 seconds for the "player" to recognize all of the cards on screen, compute optimal strategy, physically issue whatever action he wanted, and the system to receive that action and begin a new hand. While possible (though incredibly unlikely), it's even less likely that the "player" could keep the rate of play up with no discernible alteration in strategy, timing, etc for 136 minutes (which was the longest non interrupted play period).

    6) Based on my review of the play logs, research of the EasyStreet system, and discussions with other industry professionals; it is my professional opinion that the player used a bot or some other form of machine augmented assistance to play the hands at a rate fast enough to attempt to overwhelm the RNG and provide favorable odds to the "player".

    I will continue my research into this issue and release any future findings as well to the appropriate entities.
    _____
    SBR interviews EasyStreet player
    Last edited by SBR Lou; 04-06-11 at 12:49 PM. Reason: helped to format post

  2. #2
    HedgeHog
    HedgeHog's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 09-11-07
    Posts: 10,116
    Betpoints: 16961

    NM. Shit decision on Wil's part.
    Last edited by HedgeHog; 04-05-11 at 06:50 PM.

  3. #3
    Chopsticks
    Chopsticks's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-30-09
    Posts: 1,057

    5) Load tests on the system show an average screen draw time of approx 1.3 seconds, this leaves only 1.7 seconds for the "player" to recognize all of the cards on screen, compute optimal strategy, physically issue whatever action he wanted, and the system to receive that action and begin a new hand. While possible (though incredibly unlikely), it's even less likely that the "player" could keep the rate of play up with no discernible alteration in strategy, timing, etc for 136 minutes (which was the longest non interrupted play period).
    ---------

    I thought cory wrote that DGS said that there was no evidence of bot use. I know they did not want to go on record about this but right about now it seems a good time for them to go on record.

    And time to talk to other books and ask them to stop advertising over at therx.

  4. #4
    tomcowley
    tomcowley's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-01-07
    Posts: 1,129
    Betpoints: 6786

    ROFL. An "expert report" that's self-contradictory, factually inaccurate, and in some cases (overwhelming the RNG) complete nonsense. Not exactly a shock.

  5. #5
    KGambler
    KGambler's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-09-09
    Posts: 2,404
    Betpoints: 66

    I knew this guy wasn't very bright, but some of the things he says here show a truly stunning level of ignorance. This guy is a total and complete imbecile.

    This thread would be a good place for those who defended Shilheim as a rational, intelligent, and non-biased mediator to now step forward and admit their mistake. Fishhead, in the original thread you were clamoring for Shilheim to mediate this dispute, describing him as intelligent, fair-minded, and knowledgeable. He is none of those things. I don't think it would be possible to find a worse person to "mediate" this dispute.

    It's not even worth picking apart this report, because it is ludicrous from beginning to end. Again, this guy shows a truly monumental level of ignorance. It's actually hard to believe somebody could be such a moron.

  6. #6
    stevenash
    stevenash's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date: 01-17-11
    Posts: 62,631
    Betpoints: 32319

    Quote Originally Posted by Chopsticks View Post
    And time to talk to other books and ask them to stop advertising over at therx.
    Because the rx ruled in favor of a book in a fraud case.
    Yeah, that'll run off a bunch of potential advertisers.

  7. #7
    tomcowley
    tomcowley's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-01-07
    Posts: 1,129
    Betpoints: 6786

    Quote Originally Posted by Chopsticks View Post
    I thought cory wrote that DGS said that there was no evidence of bot use. I know they did not want to go on record about this but right about now it seems a good time for them to go on record.
    DGS will probably also want to go on record that the accusations of playing a hand every 3 seconds (not that the player even did this) to "ovewhelm the rng" to "provide favorable odds" is ludicrous. Not that anybody with 3 working brain cells would believe that, but clearly Shilheim believes a lot of his audience falls into that category.

  8. #8
    pokerplayer22
    pokerplayer22's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 05-09-09
    Posts: 1,207

    Quote Originally Posted by tomcowley View Post
    ROFL. An "expert report" that's self-contradictory, factually inaccurate, and in some cases (overwhelming the RNG) complete nonsense. Not exactly a shock.
    "Expert report" made me laugh too. Here is some breaking news... There is no expert. Its a made up person. Thats why Wilheim wants you to direct questions for this "so called expert" to him and he'll pass them along to his made up friend. What a disgrace this Wilheim guy is to the online gambling community.

  9. #9
    SportsMozart
    SportsMozart's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-18-11
    Posts: 377

    That sounds like a speech from 1970-s Soviet Union Communist Party congress! Assumptions with no proof. It is staged "expert" opinion that verifies what I said long time ago- they ain't gonna pay this guy no matter what cause they don't have liquidity! EasyStreet will now be shit canned.

  10. #10
    mtneer1212
    mtneer1212's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-22-08
    Posts: 4,993
    Betpoints: 3369

    This is the least surprising verdict since OJ's "not guilty" verdict. And in both cases the verdict was obviously wrong. Just a complete farce.

    With that said, I have little sympathy for Cory since he is no angel either. What goes around comes around.

  11. #11
    pokerplayer22
    pokerplayer22's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 05-09-09
    Posts: 1,207

    Expert opinions...what better expert opinion do you need than the expert opinion from DGS themselves claiming there was no bot used...

    SBR needs to downgrade this shithole of a book to a D- or F to offset goofy Shilheims incompetance. What a total joke.

  12. #12
    Chopsticks
    Chopsticks's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-30-09
    Posts: 1,057

    Quote Originally Posted by tomcowley View Post
    DGS will probably also want to go on record that the accusations of playing a hand every 3 seconds (not that the player even did this) to "ovewhelm the rng" to "provide favorable odds" is ludicrous. Not that anybody with 3 working brain cells would believe that, but clearly Shilheim believes a lot of his audience falls into that category.
    Very good point. I do not know much about DGS but I do know that lots of sites use their software. For this reason alone I would think that their software is pretty tight. Saying that playing so and so many hands so and so quick would confuse the RNG makes no sense. If he is such an expert then he should have explained a bit more how this would be achieved (I know wil said the post was written so that everyone could understand it, but still).

    I have actually used a bot to play BJ at DSI (DGS I believe) and it did not do me any favors

  13. #13
    KGambler
    KGambler's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-09-09
    Posts: 2,404
    Betpoints: 66

    Quote Originally Posted by pokerplayer22 View Post
    SBR needs to downgrade this shithole of a book to a D- or F to offset goofy Shilheims incompetance. What a total joke.
    The thoroughly ridiculous and embarrassing nature of Shilheim's whitewash, errr "report", really should lead to an F rating for this book. The report contains easily refutable lies. There is something so brazen and crude about this whitewash that it really does make this theft seem worse than your run of the mill stiff job. The fact that ezstreet clearly bought and paid for a whitewash "investigation" shows that no level of fraud or dishonesty is beneath them. It also shows that the "Costan Rican polygraph expert" angle was a set-up from the very beginning.

    It looks like part of EZstreet's payment to Shilheim will consist of a free Video Poker contest for therx forum rubes.

  14. #14
    CallMeChip
    Damn good stuff, sir...
    CallMeChip's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 03-23-11
    Posts: 681
    Betpoints: 24

    No one should have to travel anywhere to get their money, nuff said. That's the reason we bet with offshore books. So #1 and #2 are useless. #3 - If you want someone to take a polygraph to prove a point which can't physically or logically be proven because there is no legal precedent, that's just plain stupid. Because, in general, polygraphs are stupid (In the 1998 Supreme Court case, United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable"). #4 and #5 are the same and try to prove he used a bot. Yet that can't be proven. You weren't there, you didn't see him play. Texting a hundred words on a phone in 1 minute was statistically impossible ten years ago, now an 8 year old can do it. Evolution. These things that once seemed a distant goal become reality as technology progresses. It's an insane amount of hands, but not impossible by any means, especially for an incredibly advanced player.

    1. Speculation
    2. Speculation
    3. Are you serious? You think he'd remember in a session like this? Do you dictate how someone reacts to anything? Moral judgment as a form of refutable evidence? LOL Get real. Don't ever become a lawyer.
    4. "The odds of hitting 3 royal flushes in 8762 hands of poker is statistically impossible" Then how did it happen? You just proved yourself wrong... So if it's a bot, it still hit the 3 royals. Which you claim is statistically impossible.
    5. "While possible (though incredibly unlikely)..." Do I need to say anything? You just spelled it out.
    6. There's enough holes in these theories to drive a mack truck through. Ain't what you know, it's what you can prove. Denzel had it right

    Final Decision for Easystreet: Simple. Show concrete tangible proof that without a doubt he used a bot (what you have written here is known as speculation, without proper documentation and a legal precedent it is useless) or pay the man and fix the loophole in your gaming system. Or don't pay him and keep ruining your own reputation for 40 grand. Just make the decision already, whatever it is, this has dragged out into some sort of totally retarded soap opera, the evidence has all been the same since day 1.
    Last edited by CallMeChip; 04-05-11 at 07:23 PM.

  15. #15
    Scooter
    Scooter's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-15-07
    Posts: 1,159
    Betpoints: 2064

    Justin7 and/or others - DGS seems like a good way to go at this point for anyone who wants to pursue this further.

    DGS should want to guard their product and the integrity of their name. They should not want the word to get out that casino(s) using their software do not pay customers in case of a large win, and partially use the excuse that their software can be compromised by bot play to yield more Royal Flushes than normal.
    That is not something that either players or casino operators will want to be associated with.

    Prior to UIGEA, this could get a software licensor to withdraw their software from a casino website, rather than be associated with the stigma that casinos using their software don't pay winners, and/or the allegation that their software can be manipulated by the player into giving a larger win than it would normally.
    Last edited by Scooter; 04-05-11 at 07:22 PM.

  16. #16
    pokerplayer22
    pokerplayer22's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 05-09-09
    Posts: 1,207

    Quote Originally Posted by KGambler View Post
    The thoroughly ridiculous and embarrassing nature of Shilheim's whitewash, errr "report", really should lead to an F rating for this book. The report contains easily refutable lies. There is something so brazen and crude about this whitewash that it really does make this theft seem worse than your run of the mill stiff job. The fact that ezstreet clearly bought and paid for a whitewash "investigation" shows that no level of fraud or dishonesty is beneath them. It also shows that the "Costan Rican polygraph expert" angle was a set-up from the very beginning.

    It looks like part of EZstreet's payment to Shilheim will consist of a free Video Poker contest for therx forum rubes.
    Its actually comical that EZ then posted up this so called VP contest that COULD exceed 46k. Key word...COULD. This so called VP contest also COULD be worth $46....which probably covers what EZ's bank account looks like

  17. #17
    KEdge2k
    KEdge2k's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-11-09
    Posts: 240

    The first part of this decision about why "cory", whoever the hell that is, is guilty is pretty lacking from an evidentiary standard. "He won't take a lie detector" test means dick, and if I were "cory", I wouldn't take one either. Lie detector test results are so inherently unreliable, and not indicative of truth telling vs. lying, that they aren't admissible in evidence in California state courts and I think most others around the USA as well.

    The only other potential evidence is the expert report. I've dealt with a lot of expert witnesses, and this would be a pretty piss poor report to be honest. Anyone else think it's a little strange that whoever made this decision (never been to theRX) made his list of points with numbers, and the expert does as well? If the report is faked and authored by the decision maker, then he was smart enough to change the thing used after the numbers (from . to )) but still didn't change enough to not leave footprints.

    This report by the expert is just his conclusions and basically you are asked to trust that the data found within those conclusions is accurate. I'd sure like to know who he got the data from, what calculations he did to obtain the final results, and more importantly, the assumptions behind those conclusions "based" on the results.

    However, if it is true that he has the expert report has the numbers correct, then the statistical analysis at least is clear. The play and results by "cory" are so far outside the standard deviation that you have to stop thinking it was a random distribution of results and start looking for external factors that could be manipulating (what should be) a random distribution.

    Also, if true that "cory" did not stop to admire his royal flushes and just kept chugging along with no change in pace, speed, tempo, etc., then that's pretty damning evidence to me just because it is completely at odds with human psychological behavior after a huge hit like that.

    However, the conclusion in the last part of the report -- that the player used a bot "to attempt to overwhelm the RNG and provide favorable odds to the "player"" is completely laughable, and quite frankly, flies in the face of their own conclusion that statistically this could not happen without manipulation. If all he did was play MORE hands, then the results should be exactly the same over the longterm, just the sample size changed.

    Something doesn't add up with this whole decision personally from my point of view.

  18. #18
    KEdge2k
    KEdge2k's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-11-09
    Posts: 240

    Quote Originally Posted by CallMeChip View Post
    No one should have to travel anywhere to get their money, nuff said. That's the reason we bet with offshore books. So #1 and #2 are useless. #3 - If you want someone to take a polygraph to prove a point which can't physically or logically be proven because there is no legal precedent, that's just plain stupid. Because, in general, polygraphs are stupid (In the 1998 Supreme Court case, United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that "There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable"). #4 and #5 are the same and try to prove he used a bot. Yet that can't be proven. You weren't there, you didn't see him play. Texting a hundred words on a phone in 1 minute was statistically impossible ten years ago, now an 8 year old can do it. Evolution. These things that once seemed a distant goal become reality as technology progresses. It's an insane amount of hands, but not impossible by any means, especially for an incredibly advanced player.

    1. Speculation
    2. Speculation
    3. Are you serious? You think he'd remember in a session like this? Do you dictate how someone reacts to anything? Moral judgment as a form of refutable evidence? LOL Get real. Don't ever become a lawyer.
    4. "The odds of hitting 3 royal flushes in 8762 hands of poker is statistically impossible" Then how did it happen? You just proved yourself wrong... So if it's a bot, it still hit the 3 royals. Which you claim is statistically impossible.
    5. "While possible (though incredibly unlikely)..." Do I need to say anything? You just spelled it out.
    6. There's enough holes in these theories to drive a mack truck through. Ain't what you know, it's what you can prove. Denzel had it right

    Final Decision for Easystreet: Simple. Show concrete tangible proof that without a doubt he used a bot (what you have written here is known as speculation, without proper documentation and a legal precedent it is useless) or pay the man and fix the loophole in your gaming system. Or don't pay him and keep ruining your own reputation for 40 grand. Just make the decision already, whatever it is, this has dragged out into some sort of totally retarded soap opera, the evidence has all been the same since day 1.


    To me, this #4 sure suggests that we don't have the full story. Nothing is statistically impossible. Things can be highly, highly, highly statistically unlikely, but nothing is impossible. To me, either the random number generator is not truly random (in which case, is that the fault of the user or should the owner/operator take the hit for not having software that functions correctly) --OR-- it is being manipulated externally. There are really no other conclusions that can be drawn from that result, no? If it's being manipulated externally, then by all means they shouldn't give this guy a penny. If it's not random, then that's the fault of the owner/operator.

  19. #19
    McFly86
    McFly86's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-15-11
    Posts: 149
    Betpoints: 1971

    "1) A human did not play the 8762 hands of video poker that were examined. This conclusion is based on the fact that the "player" played an avg. of 17.6 hands of video poker per minute for 499 minutes without a single error. This is a statistical impossibility."


    What has statistics got to do with this point? JOB is a very simple, static game. If I replicated the feat (I could probably read a book and talk on the phone at the same time) would Cory get paid???

  20. #20
    pokerplayer22
    pokerplayer22's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 05-09-09
    Posts: 1,207

    Quote Originally Posted by McFly86 View Post
    "1) A human did not play the 8762 hands of video poker that were examined. This conclusion is based on the fact that the "player" played an avg. of 17.6 hands of video poker per minute for 499 minutes without a single error. This is a statistical impossibility."


    What has statistics got to do with this point? JOB is a very simple, static game. If I replicated the feat (I could probably read a book and talk on the phone at the same time) would Cory get paid???
    NO...because EZ (Alex Powers) doesnt pay big winners...him and his goons have pulled this crap for years

  21. #21
    McFly86
    McFly86's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-15-11
    Posts: 149
    Betpoints: 1971

    "4) The odds of a player hitting a single royal flush is roughly 1 in 40,000. The odds of a dealt royal flush (the player stated he received a dealt royal flush) is 1 in 649,740. The odds of hitting 3 royal flushes in 8762 hands of poker is statistically impossible. In fact in all of the years I've been in gaming I've NEVER seen that happen (and I've reviewed millions of hands of poker)."


    What a moron. If it's "statistically impossible", how did it happen?!

  22. #22
    McFly86
    McFly86's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-15-11
    Posts: 149
    Betpoints: 1971

    "6) Based on my review of the play logs, research of the EasyStreet system, and discussions with other industry professionals; it is my professional opinion that the player used a bot or some other form of machine augmented assistance to play the hands at a rate fast enough to attempt to overwhelm the RNG and provide favorable odds to the "player"."


    Wow, this tops the cake. He is now alleging that Cory was able to "overwhelm" the RNG?? What is the software designer's evidence on this point?

  23. #23
    KGambler
    KGambler's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-09-09
    Posts: 2,404
    Betpoints: 66

    First of all, hitting 3 royals in 8,762 is nothing close to statistically impossible. Someone did the math and came up with about a 1 in 700 chance. But the kicker is that Cory played 23,000 hands at easystreet, not 8,762. They ignored the hands from all of the sessions where Cory did not hit a royal.

    This entire report is full of extremely crude and easily disprovable propaganda.

  24. #24
    pokerplayer22
    pokerplayer22's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 05-09-09
    Posts: 1,207

    Quote Originally Posted by McFly86 View Post
    "6) Based on my review of the play logs, research of the EasyStreet system, and discussions with other industry professionals; it is my professional opinion that the player used a bot or some other form of machine augmented assistance to play the hands at a rate fast enough to attempt to overwhelm the RNG and provide favorable odds to the "player"."


    Wow, this tops the cake. He is now alleging that Cory was able to "overwhelm" the RNG?? What is the software designer's evidence on this point?
    To be honest, I dont think there is any "expert". I think its someone Shilheim made up in his head to make his ridiculous decision seem more beliveable. Why else wouldnt he release any info on this "so called" expert. The only software expert's opinions that are relevant are the opinions from DGS themselves and they've already said there is absolutely no evidence of bot usage....and they are the ones that designed this damn software and reviewed the play.

  25. #25
    McFly86
    McFly86's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-15-11
    Posts: 149
    Betpoints: 1971

    "
    5. I asked him to provide for me a detailed report as brief but thorough as possible which could easily be understood in layman’s terms.

    I submit that report now as my final reason that convinced me that EasyStreet's clearly posted rules were broken by Cory during the 499 minutes of play mentioned above."


    Where is this mysterious report?

  26. #26
    Chopsticks
    Chopsticks's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 06-30-09
    Posts: 1,057

    Quote Originally Posted by Easystreetsports.com@therx
    Now that we have a resolution of this issue, EasyStreetSports moving forward is pleased to announce that we will be having a CR VIDEO POKER CONTEST

    The reason for this contest is to show the public that this was never about the money, but the principle of running a fair operation for all players.

    This contest will be held in Costa Rica at an announced venue and the chosen contestants will have their expenses paid.


    Total cash awards could exceed $46,000.

    Full details of the contest and the rules will be posted soon, so please stay tuned.
    Wow what a smug son of a ....

  27. #27
    pokerplayer22
    pokerplayer22's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 05-09-09
    Posts: 1,207

    Quote Originally Posted by McFly86 View Post
    "
    5. I asked him to provide for me a detailed report as brief but thorough as possible which could easily be understood in layman’s terms.

    I submit that report now as my final reason that convinced me that EasyStreet's clearly posted rules were broken by Cory during the 499 minutes of play mentioned above."


    Where is this mysterious report?
    In his head

  28. #28
    McFly86
    McFly86's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-15-11
    Posts: 149
    Betpoints: 1971

    "3. Cory1111's outright refusal to take a polygraph, that would in no way be designed to incriminate him for any of his past transgressions but simply be focused solely on only the events at hand and also would be detailed and predetermined on a legal document prepared and agreed upon by all parties prior to Cory taking the polygraph."


    Wilheim sounds awfully silly when he tries to use legal terminology.

  29. #29
    KEdge2k
    KEdge2k's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-11-09
    Posts: 240

    Quote Originally Posted by KGambler View Post
    First of all, hitting 3 royals in 8,762 is nothing close to statistically impossible. Someone did the math and came up with about a 1 in 700 chance. But the kicker is that Cory played 23,000 hands at easystreet, not 8,762. They ignored the hands from all of the sessions where Cory did not hit a royal.

    This entire report is full of extremely crude and easily disprovable propaganda.
    Selective manipulation of the data is shady if true. 3 times in 23,000 is one thing -- presenting it as 3 out of 8762 (even if true, as the 8762 was part of the 23000) is deceptive.

  30. #30
    KGambler
    KGambler's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-09-09
    Posts: 2,404
    Betpoints: 66

    The chance of hitting 3 royals in 8,762 hands is about 1 in 672.

    http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspx

    I'd like to mee the "expert" they hired. Anyone want to take a polygraph test with their "Costan Rican polygraph expert"?

  31. #31
    Fishhead
    Fishhead's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 08-11-05
    Posts: 40,178
    Betpoints: 11769

    HORRIBLE decision.......expecailly give the reasons.

    I will do my best to state my disbelief in the decision..........hopefully I will not get banned or put on post review.






    THE FINAL DECISION IS ABSOLUTLEY ABSURD.




    SAD DAY FOR THERX

  32. #32
    KGambler
    KGambler's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-09-09
    Posts: 2,404
    Betpoints: 66

    Quote Originally Posted by KGambler View Post
    The chance of hitting 3 royals in 8,762 hands is about 1 in 672.

    http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspx

    I'd like to mee the "expert" they hired. Anyone want to take a polygraph test with their "Costan Rican polygraph expert"?

    The chance of hitting 3 royals in 22,000 hands is about 1 in 13. Cory played more than 22,000 hands at ezstreet. Again, they left out the hands from the sessions where he did not hit a royal.

    The whole report is ridiuculous, from top to bottom.

  33. #33
    pokerplayer22
    pokerplayer22's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 05-09-09
    Posts: 1,207

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishhead View Post
    HORRIBLE decision.......expecailly give the reasons.

    I will do my best to state my disbelief in the decision..........hopefully I will not get banned or put on post review.






    THE FINAL DECISION IS ABSOLUTLEY ABSURD.




    SAD DAY FOR THERX

    Its amazing what money can buy...But FH..at least you get to see Wilheims true colors

  34. #34
    Fishhead
    Fishhead's Avatar SBR PRO
    Join Date: 08-11-05
    Posts: 40,178
    Betpoints: 11769

    Quote Originally Posted by KGambler View Post
    The chance of hitting 3 royals in 22,000 hands is about 1 in 13. Cory played more than 22,000 hands at ezstreet. Again, they left out the hands from the sessions where he did not hit a royal.

    The whole report is ridiuculous, from top to bottom.

    Complete farce...........in SO MANY WAYS.

  35. #35
    dark_knight
    dark_knight's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 07-03-09
    Posts: 112

    So much for innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on EasyStreet, not on Cory1111 to "prove his innocence".

1234 ... Last
Top