[yokspot]

Irrespective of the specific rights and wrongs, I didn't like this character from the off.

Now, I like him a whole lot less.

"Cory, if they paid you, would you 'correct your karma' and pay back the books you've screwed?"

"No comment".

No kidding. That was a toughie.

What's a nice Irish lassie like that doing in Costa Rica?

[sharpcat]

"The odds of hitting 3 royal flushes in 8762 hands of poker is statistically impossible."

Doesn't this show "the expert" is just talking out his backside?

Obviously it aint impossible, as it was done in the logs he reviewed. Unless anyone is seriously suggesting the CoryBot creates it's own royal flushes.

I believe the expert stated that:

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.

From this I draw that he is not saying it is statistically impossible to hit 3 RF's in 8,762 hands

He is saying that it is statistically impossible to hit 3 RF's WHILE AVERAGING 17.6 HANDS PER MINUTE WITHOUT A SINGLE ERROR.

[sharpcat]

No one said it was alright to be a cheat and a crook. But yes the past is the past according to the law. The only time a person's history is taken into account is in sentencing, AFTER conviction. Hence the term "repeat offender". Every case is admitted a fair trial.

This is exactly why yes they should they should pay him even though his past is shady. That has nothing to do with the current case's verdict in which they cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he used a bot. Tis' the law my friend.

Actually as I understand it in a court of law a persons history can be brought into play if used to discredit their testimony. Many times an attorney will choose to not let his client take the stand knowing that the prosecution/defense will use his past history of dishonesty to have his testimony dismissed.

In this case Cory1111's testimony IMO has no credibility in anything he has said because even SBR admits he has a history of dishonest behavior, easystreet has every right to point to his dishonest past in order to discredit his testimony. IMO easystreet has offered expert witnesses and all Cory1111 has presented is his testimony and due to his history this does not mean squat to me.

At this point I would like to see Cory1111 and his defense either provide evidence that Cory1111 did not

A) use a bot (expert testimony suggests that he did)

B) play perfect strategy by using a bot (expert testimony suggests he did)

C) play 17.6hpm all while playing perfect strategy the whole time (expert testimony suggests he did)

If Cory1111 can not disprove these claims now that an expert has concluded that he did Cory1111 and his defense need to somehow discredit the testimony of the "expert" introduced by TheRX.


If these claims can be disproving by a qualified expert or Cory1111 himself or somehow the RX expert can be discredited as far as his qualifications I may lean more toward the side of the player.

I feel as if Cory1111 has made no attempt to defend himself. With $46K on the line I would have either proven that I could repeat similar results or I would have invested a little bit of money of my own in order to obtain a qualified expert of my own.

[PoweRay]

I have no agenda here at all and I apologize if I misunderstood an experts conclusion as being a fact. Have you reviewed every hand or even seen the log of every hand played to where you could better conclude otherwise?

Why is it that I be condemned for what I post on the matter yet you sit back and allow posters like Pokerplayer22 to run wild with fictional statements?

With the "expert" remaining anonymous, we really have no clue if its true or not. And the bad thing about paid "expert" testimony, is that therx could of went through a number of "experts" til they found one that sided with them. Some think the "expert" is EZMarvin. Maybe it is, lol.

[CallMeChip]

Actually as I understand it in a court of law a persons history can be brought into play if used to discredit their testimony. Many times an attorney will choose to not let his client take the stand knowing that prosecution will use his past history of dishonesty to have his testimony dismissed.

In this case Cory1111's testimony IMO has no credibility in anything he has said because even SBR admits he has a history of dishonest behavior, easystreet has every right to point to his dishonest past in order to discredit his testimony. IMO easystreet has offered expert witnesses and all Cory1111 has presented is his testimony and due to his history this does not mean squat to me.

At this point I would like to see Cory1111 and his defense either provide evidence that Cory1111 did not

A) use a bot (expert testimony suggests that he did)

B) play perfect strategy (expert testimony suggests he did)

C) play 17hpm all while playing perfect strategy the whole time (expert testimony suggests he did)

If Cory1111 can not disprove these claims now that an expert has concluded that he did Cory1111 and his defense need to somehow discredit the testimony of the "expert" introduced by TheRX.


If these claims can be disproving by a qualified expert or Cory1111 himself or somehow the RX expert can be discredited as far as his qualifications I may lean more toward the side of the player.

Sharp you're thinking of a person's past in an attempt to discredit a witness' testimony, not a defendants. The whole point of a trial is to try to discredit the defendant's testimony, but that is done through factual evidence given by witnesses and experts, hence why the defendant is generally not required to take the stand. A jury is meant to look at the defendant as a simple entity on which to make a judgement through the course of evidence brought to trial, they are not supposed to be swayed by the defendant's attitude, speech, appearance, etc...(usually why defendant's are instructed to remain emotionless until the verdict) That whole article you quoted has already been dismissed as that self-proclaimed "expert" used many personal opinions father than referring to exclusively factual claims. In this case, the most relevant expert testimony would be that of DGS in the fact that they are the most knowledgeable about the structure of their own system and how a player could implement the use of thrid party software. I heard somewhere I believe that they ruled in favor of Cory1111.

[warriorfan707]

this guy is obviously some kind of casino scammer

[sharpcat]

Sharp you're thinking of a person's past in an attempt to discredit a witness' testimony, not a defendants. The whole point of a trial is to try to discredit the defendant's testimony, but that is done through factual evidence given by witnesses and experts, hence why the defendant is generally not required to take the stand. A jury is meant to look at the defendant as a simple entity on which to make a judgement through the course of evidence brought to trial, they are not supposed to be swayed by the defendant's attitude, speech, appearance, etc...(usually why defendant's are instructed to remain emotionless until the verdict) That whole article you quoted has already been dismissed as that self-proclaimed "expert" used many personal opinions father than referring to exclusively factual claims. In this case, the most relevant expert testimony would be that of DGS in the fact that they are the most knowledgeable about the structure of their own system and how a player could implement the use of thrid party software. I heard somewhere I believe that they ruled in favor of Cory1111.

We heard that from Cory1111's mouth it was never stated by DGS or anybody else that I am aware of.

As you can tell I am no lawyer just somewhat familiar with the court system I am still trying to figure out who is the defendant here. I just do not see how we can take anything said by Cory1111 to be the truth and he has offered nothing outside of his word to disprove the claims made by easystreet.

Shouldn't Cory1111 be attempting to discredit the expert witness here?

Cory1111's only attempt to defend himself in this case has been to rally up an angry mob to stand outside of the court room with picket signs.

I do think it is unfair if TheRX will not allow him to defend himself or to allow any outside party like SBR to defend him.

[sharpcat]

I guess the lesson to be learned here is that offshore gambling disputes are not heard in a respected court of law so if you choose to be a dishonest player you should be very careful to assure that you are not violating the rules of the site you are playing with, or better yet don't be a dishonest player in the first place.

[PoweRay]

Cory1111's only attempt to defend himself in this case has been to rally up an angry mob to stand outside of the court room with picket signs.

I do think it is unfair if TheRX will not allow him to defend himself or to allow any outside party like SBR to defend him.

Rallying up Justin7 to be on his side, and also rallying up DGS to be on his side as well should be worth something, and thats worth a lot more than just an ngry mob. What a great "court" it was at the Rx in not allowing Cory to defend himself. What a mockery of a trial it was.

[CallMeChip]

I guess the lesson to be learned here is that offshore gambling disputes are not heard in a respected court of law so if you choose to be a dishonest player you should be very careful to assure that you are not violating the rules of the site you are playing with, or better yet don't be a dishonest player in the first place.

I gotta wholeheartedly agree with ya here Sharp. This guy really jacked up his chances at ever playing again at decent books with his stupid ********** antics. Just a really stupid and in my opinion, unnecessary, way to gamble

[PoweRay]

I'm sure he is still playing at decent books, using different aliases. Nothing will stop a true degen from gambling offshore.

[PoweRay]

Justin stated that DGS said they should of paid Cory:

The first expert that looked at it - DGS - told EZ to pay him. While the decision doesn't surprise me, the "expert opinion" does.

[pokerplayer22]

Bottom line...there is no "expert". If there was, Wilheim wouldnt be so quick to hide his info. Wil also stated that all questions for this "ghost expert" should be directed to Wil himself, and then he'll supposedly forward them on to the ghost. Seems pretty fishy to me.

Oh..guess what just happened, I talked to 6 different "expert" software architects/developers and they all contradicted Wil's so called expert's testimony....but should anyone here have any questions for my "experts", they should be forwarded to me and I'll pass the questions on because for some reason they all want to remain anonymous

[spoiledmilk]

Why is it that I be condemned for what I post on the matter yet you sit back and allow posters like Pokerplayer22 to run wild with fictional statements?

Sharpcat,

No one has proven he played with perfect strategy. The player has disputed that. Do not post this as fact, unless you have an agenda.

Justin7 are you ###**** kidding me......Enough Is Enough!

I don't care about this bullshit case one way or another I got no dog in the fight, but come on...your so slanted I am starting to think your Chineese....

It is common knowledge and pretty clear that this guy Cory111 is the biggest dirtbag in the industry and you sit here and try to justify that his past actions mean nothing...

Tell your top 10 advertisers that...He has scammed 8 of those guys out of $$$$..just ask them!

Your forum is unmediated... of course unless you advertise @SBR... I dont give a shit about EZ... but you allowed them to get blasted 24/7...

But anytime someone went to defended them.... or disagreed with you...your cronies blasted them.... saying they are EZ shills...well I can tell you I DONT work for EZ...and your site is a joke...

Anyone who goes against anything you say is scrutinzed while scumbags like pokerplayer22 get to blast anyone and everyone...


By the way Judie's interview was 10,000. times better than yours....

good job judie.

[Fishhead]

Why is it that I be condemned for what I post on the matter yet you sit back and allow posters like Pokerplayer22 to run wild with fictional statements?






Justin7 are you ###**** kidding me......Enough Is Enough!

I don't care about this bullshit case one way or another I got no dog in the fight, but come on...your so slanted I am starting to think your Chineese....

It is common knowledge and pretty clear that this guy Cory111 is the biggest dirtbag in the industry and you sit here and try to justify that his past actions mean nothing...

Tell your top 10 advertisers that...He has scammed 8 of those guys out of $$$$..just ask them!

Your forum is unmediated... of course unless you advertise @SBR... I dont give a shit about EZ... but you allowed them to get blasted 24/7...

But anytime someone went to defended them.... or disagreed with you...your cronies blasted them.... saying they are EZ shills...well I can tell you I DONT work for EZ...and your site is a joke...

Anyone who goes against anything you say is scrutinzed while scumbags like pokerplayer22 get to blast anyone and everyone...


By the way Judie's interview was 10,000. times better than yours....

good job judie.

Quite the attitude for somebody with 12 lifetime posts..........makes me go UMMMM????

[LVHerbie]

Actually as I understand it in a court of law a persons history can be brought into play if used to discredit their testimony. Many times an attorney will choose to not let his client take the stand knowing that the prosecution/defense will use his past history of dishonesty to have his testimony dismissed.

In this case Cory1111's testimony IMO has no credibility in anything he has said because even SBR admits he has a history of dishonest behavior, easystreet has every right to point to his dishonest past in order to discredit his testimony. IMO easystreet has offered expert witnesses and all Cory1111 has presented is his testimony and due to his history this does not mean squat to me.

At this point I would like to see Cory1111 and his defense either provide evidence that Cory1111 did not

A) use a bot (expert testimony suggests that he did)

B) play perfect strategy by using a bot (expert testimony suggests he did)

C) play 17.6hpm all while playing perfect strategy the whole time (expert testimony suggests he did)

If Cory1111 can not disprove these claims now that an expert has concluded that he did Cory1111 and his defense need to somehow discredit the testimony of the "expert" introduced by TheRX.


If these claims can be disproving by a qualified expert or Cory1111 himself or somehow the RX expert can be discredited as far as his qualifications I may lean more toward the side of the player.

I feel as if Cory1111 has made no attempt to defend himself. With $46K on the line I would have either proven that I could repeat similar results or I would have invested a little bit of money of my own in order to obtain a qualified expert of my own.

It would be hard to disprove your points when the hands haven't been released and so-called expert isn't named...

[pokerplayer22]

It would be hard to disprove your points when the hands haven't been released and so-called expert isn't named...

There is NO expert

[playersonly69]

Guys it is OBVIOUS that this guy was using a bot. 100% guarantee that he used a bot



I mean he wont travel to Costa Rica and prove that he can play. Only a dumbass would not go to Costa Rica and prove it and get paid

[Optional]

I believe the expert stated that:



From this I draw that he is not saying it is statistically impossible to hit 3 RF's in 8,762 hands

He is saying that it is statistically impossible to hit 3 RF's WHILE AVERAGING 17.6 HANDS PER MINUTE WITHOUT A SINGLE ERROR.

Nah. I posted a direct quote before; "The odds of hitting 3 royal flushes in 8762 hands of poker is statistically impossible."

Whatever though. The expert, Rx, EZ and Cory all sound like they deserve each other.

[LVHerbie]

There is NO expert

Obviously impossible to know this 100% but given the absurdity of claims 4 and 6 and the fact that it should be fairly easy to get someone reputable to analysis this and put there name on their findings I wouldn't put it past easystreet/therx to have invented it...

[PoweRay]

Guys it is OBVIOUS that this guy was using a bot. 100% guarantee that he used a bot



I mean he wont travel to Costa Rica and prove that he can play. Only a dumbass would not go to Costa Rica and prove it and get paid

If something were to happen to Cory down there, you would call him a dumbass for going, wouldn't you? Here's a relevant scenario, which happened to Bill Dozer and SBR employees:

Royal Sports.com has been the subject of caution flags at several watchdog sites this year after reports of payout difficulties, but this week the issue escalated to alarming proportions with allegations of attempted intimidation of a well known and respected watchdog site owner, John Walker and three of his Sports Book Review.com (SBR) staffers. Bill Dozer and colleagues at Sportsbook Review.com (SBR) had earlier downgraded his rating for Royal Sports to a dismal D+ and has been monitoring complaints about the payment and promo activities of Royal Sports for some months. Among issues SBR has studied is a restructuring project in an attempt to fix business weaknesses, and a case in a Dutch court in which an American player is alleging misconduct over a $50 000 claim which could now be heard in Costa Rica, where Royal Sports recently relocated from Curacao. Another case involving over $16 000 owed to an affiliate was also reported. The intimidation took place in Costa Rica, where Dozer was visiting his staff and went unannounced to the offices of Royal Sports on the same floor of the Oficentro Building as Virtual casino group owner Tej Kohli, an operator with a chequered reputation.

Kohli is alleged to be the owner of Royal Sports, according to Roberto Castiglioni, a senior executive who was previously the CEO of the site and who now runs a watchdog operation. This has been confirmed by Royal's current management. Apparently Kohli has denied ownership and asked for the chance to make a statement to this effect but then did not do so. Royal has not denied that Mr. Kohli is involved and current Royal management has not made a statement, but it is known that he is the majority, if not sole, owner from information supplied by the former CEO. Dozer was denied access to the Royal office, and the fireworks started when he and his companions went to a local restaurant and found their car blocked in by a large vehicle and some scary, gun-toting heavies.

Fortunately, someone sounded the alarm and these thugs were arrested without further incident by heavily armed Costa Rican police. The SBR report says, "SBR appreciates the remarkable response time and overwhelming force employed by Costa Rican police." Royal Sports has apparently now declined to issue a *corrective* statement as promised, leaving little doubt that the original report by SBR was correct and Kohli is involved in Royal Sports. The SBR report goes on to say that, "Tactics of intimidation threaten the industry and give critics of gaming in Costa Rica fuel for their argument that gaming attracts thugs, organized crime and other undesirables." When InfoPowa went to press it was not clear what had happened to the thugs arrested in this incident, and Dozer declined to comment any further than the information he had posted on his site saying, "SBR has made the decision not to speak about the incident in detail. We still have employees in Costa Rica and must consider their safety. This is a matter we are now leaving to the authorities."

[mikeanite]

Read the full SBR EasyStreet Report to accompany the video.

hahaha, why didn't they do this with other cases?

[McFly86]

Guys it is OBVIOUS that this guy was using a bot. 100% guarantee that he used a bot



I mean he wont travel to Costa Rica and prove that he can play. Only a dumbass would not go to Costa Rica and prove it and get paid

Why do you think he used a bot?

Why do you think he should submit himself to a polygraph test in a foreign country?

[KGambler]

Guys it is OBVIOUS that this guy was using a bot. 100% guarantee that he used a bot



I mean he wont travel to Costa Rica and prove that he can play. Only a dumbass would not go to Costa Rica and prove it and get paid

You are misninformed. The player offered to go to CR and show that he can play at that pace. Easystreetsports said that he must not only do that, but "pass" a "lie detector test" administered by some Costa Rican guy hired by ezstreet. So it is ezstreet who were afraid to stage the demonstration. That should tell you a whole lot.

[KGambler]

I believe the expert stated that:



From this I draw that he is not saying it is statistically impossible to hit 3 RF's in 8,762 hands

He is saying that it is statistically impossible to hit 3 RF's WHILE AVERAGING 17.6 HANDS PER MINUTE WITHOUT A SINGLE ERROR.

Dullcat, you never cease to amaze me. He was obviously talking about point #4, which was included in the quote you posted.

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).

You slam Cory for not immediately correcting a stastistical mistake while he's in the middle of a friggin phone interview, probably sweating bullets, but you are quick to accept as an "expert" a guy who clearly doesn't have the first clue WTF he is talking about?

Why are you accepting the word of this "expert" that Cory played perfect strategy? EZMarvin from easystreetsports was the first to make this particular false claim, right here on this forum. Then Shilheim kept repeating that Cory had played perfect strategy. Then it came out (from easystreet themselves ) that they had not looked at more than a handful of hands. Are we really supposed to believe that the third time is the charm? Although we caught EZMarvin and Shilheim in this same lie previously, we must accept it as 100% gospel now because an anonymous online gaming "expert", who happens to not know anything about computer SW nor the mathematics of gambling, has made the same old claim???

This is not the first time you have attempted to spread false information about this case. You repeated many times that Lou wrote that Cory did a ********** on Northbet after they paid him. He never wrote such a thing.

I really wish you would stop muddying the waters with your incredible stupidity.

[neverstoppers23]

agree but he still needs to be paid

History dictates behavior.....

[sharpcat]

Dullcat, you never cease to amaze me. He was obviously talking about point #4, which was included in the quote you posted.



You slam Cory for not immediately correcting a stastistical mistake while he's in the middle of a friggin phone interview, probably sweating bullets, but you are quick to accept as an "expert" a guy who clearly doesn't have the first clue WTF he is talking about?

Why are you accepting the word of this "expert" that Cory played perfect strategy? EZMarvin from easystreetsports was the first to make this particular false claim, right here on this forum. Then Shilheim kept repeating that Cory had played perfect strategy. Then it came out (from easystreet themselves ) that they had not looked at more than a handful of hands. Are we really supposed to believe that the third time is the charm? Although we caught EZMarvin and Shilheim in this same lie previously, we must accept it as 100% gospel now because an anonymous online gaming "expert", who happens to not know anything about computer SW nor the mathematics of gambling, has made the same old claim???

This is not the first time you have attempted to spread false information about this case. You repeated many times that Lou wrote that Cory did a ********** on Northbet after they paid him. He never wrote such a thing.

I really wish you would stop muddying the waters with your incredible stupidity.

GayGambler I was just thinking about you

Where did you come up with the figures for this 1 in 700 number you keep tossing around all over the forum?

Would you mind sharing the math on how you came to this number (and I do not mean a link to your stupid calculator that you do not know how to use).

I sure hope you are capable of coming to this figure yourself and that you are not just running around repeating things you read from other non credible posters like you continue to scald me for doing.

[playersonly69]

I have been around the offshore industry for well over 10 years and I have never seen a case this open and shut. I hate to agree with Wilheim too since he hates me so much, but he is right in this case.

Wilheim isnt known for his brains that is for sure, but he has a firm grasp of the facts in this case.


However, i do recommend that the player does deserve something. Maybe a lump sum payment of $5000 would be fair

[KGambler]

GayGambler I was just thinking about you

Where did you come up with the figures for this 1 in 700 number you keep tossing around all over the forum?

Would you mind sharing the math on how you came to this number (and I do not mean a link to your stupid calculator that you do not know how to use).

I sure hope you are capable of coming to this figure yourself and that you are not just running around repeating things you read from other non credible posters like you continue to scald me for doing.

Dullcat, instead of me holding your hand, let's bet on it.

[neverstoppers23]

Just watched the whole interview.
Its obvious, this guy is a cheater , why the hell is SBR dumping on easy street and killing their reputation all over this guy? Seriously, are you kidding me SBR, are you kidding me?

But i know everyone disagrees with me so i will just shut up.

[rick50time]

why did this cory guy bitch on here if he doesnt want to say anything

[neverstoppers23]

why did this cory guy bitch on here if he doesnt want to say anything

Theres something about this guy that I don't trust at all.

[sharpcat]

Dullcat, instead of me holding your hand, let's bet on it.

I am not a compulsive gambler like yourself I do not bet on anything unless I have a good estimate of the probability of occurrence and since I do not know you it would be impossible for me to put a number on the probability of you knowing the answer.

I have nothing to prove here just want to know if you can actually derive the same figure yourself because you posted a link to a binomial calculator.

I am assuming we are not children here so there is no reason to hide behind "you wanna bet?" nonsense if you can not show the math or the excel formula that you used to derive this number just say so. Only thing I ask is that you stop accusing me of quoting others when you are guilty of doing the exact same thing yourself, you got this figure from somebody else who you do not know at all and do not even know if it is accurate.

[KGambler]

Dullcat, instead of me holding your hand, let's bet on it.

:crickets:

That's what I thought.

Now go get your ******* shinebox.

[KGambler]

Dullcat, you state you are afraid to bet because you don't know anything about me...

Then you close by stating:

Only thing I ask is that you stop accusing me of quoting others when you are guilty of doing the exact same thing yourself, you got this figure from somebody else who you do not know at all and do not even know if it is accurate.

Dullcat, please just stop posting.