-
-
WHOA WHOA WHOA
Why do we keep messing these ROYAL FLUSH statistics up??????
Judie, you need to correct this.........a Royal is not hit every 650,000 or so hands like you stated, those are the odds of being DEALT a ROYAL FLUSH WITH NO DRAW.................the odds of hitting a royal flush(either with NO DRAW or a DRAW) are just a tad over 40,000-1.....................a huge difference.Comment -
Not a very useful interview. Cory not helping himself by the way he comes across.Comment -
Jesus, ye are always just ready to attack aren't ye? Sorry!Comment -
Wow. Seems like poor Cory is always getting screwed over by these books for things that are never his fault. Damn the luck!!
Get the fukk out.....
If this is the best he can do on a phone interview......good luck with all that!!Comment -
Did you ask about the chargebacks and his numerous other accounts that were closed because of fraud? Guy is a scumbag not saying EZ was right but reap what you sow.Comment -
what a sh*t interview....on cory's end. Didn't fkn answer anything !BETTING EXCHANGES, easy money.
Soccer Tipping: 5-0-1
Comment -
Slez streetComment -
Very poorly done interview on Cory's part. Didn't help himself one bit. Either way, isn't it already decided that he will not be paid ever?Comment -
banned from several books , that might explain a lot
Comment -
Cory1111 should have rehearsed his story 100 more times in his head before this interview
He is depositing $250 at a time and claims to be down overall in his career yet a $20,000 Royal Flush will not make or break him?
No comment on your history with Bookmaker?
How the FUKK does anybody get banned from Bookmaker?
If he did not use a bot why would he answer Judie's question about probability of a royal flush and not correct her when her figures were so incredibly far off? guy claims to be a recreational player yet he plays 17 hpm of perfect strategy without the use of a bot?
I am not saying he should or should not be paid but this interview definately did not help with my opinion of him as a person in any way, in fact it did quite the opposite. Really did Judie just imply that you are banned from Bookmaker????? You have to do some pretty fraudulent sh*t to get banned from them.Comment -
Judie,Judie,Judie:
You'll draw into a RF 1 in every 40,000 hands. So you'd expect 5 to occur in 200,000 hands on average (not 3 MILLION).Comment -
if a thief robs a ladies purse, and the lady catches up to him and grabs her purse back, is it fair for the lady to give her purse to the thief?Comment -
Other than the RF stat mistake, Judie did a great job of exposing Cory as a crook. We now know that he his banned from Cris Books and that he at least attempted a deposit scam at Northbet (unless you choose to believe it was an honest mix-up). TY, SBR Judie.
Comment -
I personally find it hard to believe that a player who is capable of playing perfect strategy at 17hpm would not have the wits to quickly correct her on that massive error especially when the sole purpose of the interview was to defend himself as being a skilled player. I am sorry but I personally would have corrected that error before she even finished her sentence.Comment -
cory really hurt himself on this interview if he was not a cheater why not answer the questions I am in favor of the sports book hereComment -
I seriously doubt he would answer any of those questions even now that the decision has been made. Cory1111 continued to state no comment and that his past has nothing to do with this case to which I disagree.
Cory1111 has amassed an army of supporters and any admission of guilt or wrong doing on his part would cost him 50% of his army. Cory1111 is dependent on his puppets.Comment -
this guys his obv a crook....and a cheater.
but EZ have to pay him .....they cant proof without any doubt he cheated....P.S. Im not good in english. I apologize for any error in my post.Comment -
Ok. Well, here's my take on this:
#1. This guy should never be a public speaker
He needs to understand that those who are in favor of him getting his money already know that he's been banned and has chargedback at other books, so there's no harm in revealing it, furthermore it would probably help his case to be honest about that. If a convict has been caught stealing 5 times and is framed on the 6th, you don't just say yeah this coksucker's an arch criminal lock him up throw away the key. That individual is still entitled to trial as each occurrence is an isolated incident as far as the law is concerned.
#2. While we all want to hear all the juicy details, I can understand him saying no comment according to things pertaining to Easystreet and the actual case. If he does not receive his money and decides to take any sort of legal action, he could irreparably damage that endeavor by speaking about the case in public. So that I can agree with. But when it comes to saying he won't comment on things that are irrelevant, hey buddy we're trying to make things right, if they're irrelevant and people already know about them there's no harm in admission of guilt from those past scams.
#3. The only reasons I think this guy is somewhat of a scumbag:
a) He did ********** at other books which is always a no no. Especially when you win.
b) He dodges the question about paying back the books he scammed if he is awarded the money because he knows that may be
binding in considering his future in online gambling and his ability to post up at any other online casino. He's afraid he may have to
give back a lot of the money if he agrees to that. (I would pay them back immediately to try to clear my name)
Even if the guy seems like the world's biggest sleaze(which is not much of a stretch), you still have to treat this as an isolated incident. So unless Easystreet can prove without doubt (which I don't believe they can, they obviously haven't after all this time), you have to pay the man his money. After that ban him from all operations, put his name out on the wire for no books to accept his money, warn any where he is a player, etc.. Tarnish his reputation, but as for this specific case, you still have to pay him. Just my $0.02.
Btw, anyone else totally dig this girl's accent
Comment -
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?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.
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?Comment -
My only problem with this video is that the telephone seems out of date.Comment -
smile on judie's face just before the 3 minute mark is priceless.
when she says "no cheating whatsoever???" and has to hold back the laughter
Comment -
he can count on his hands how many royal flushes he has hit in his life, but can't remember anything about his play on a night where he hit 3 of them??
this interview keeps raising more questions than it answers.Comment -
It is alright the be a cheat and crook and the past is the past
This time he played fair , so pay him even though his past is shady
Hope he never gets a dime
Comment -
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.
Comment -
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.
Law has nothing to do with online sportsbooks or gambling in general.
Just about every sportsbook keeps a record of these kind of people and they are found out sooner or later.Comment -
"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..Comment -
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.
Lets say you were booking bets and you took on a new player and he proceded to win big off of you. You then did some checking with other bookies and found out he stiffed all of them.
Do you go ahead and pay him since the past is the past ?Comment -
Yes!! That's a horrible analogy man. Of course I would pay, you're debating something on account of a hypothetical that hasn't even take place (him stiffing me). Your job as a bookie is to take bets. If you hear someone is stiffing people you have the right not to take bets from that player. If you haven't heard and you do take his bet and he wins then you MUST pay. Those are the rules of the business! That's common logic. If he loses on the other hand and stiffs you (you took the bet as credit), then you take measures to retrieve your money and never take his bets again. There is an extremely simple cardinal rule in gambling. If you lose you lose, if you win you get paid. The book doesn't have to take your bet, can ban you at any point from all future betting, can send your name out to a million other bookies warning them about you, etc... but for that bet that they TOOK ACTION ON, if you win you must be paid.
What is so difficult to understand about that?
BTW,
The law has to do with everything that takes place at any amount on the planet. Whether people choose to apply it according to their own laws is a different story.Law has nothing to do with online sportsbooks or gambling in general.Comment
