-
Comment -
This can't be right, could it?
Site Information for therxforum.comGet Details Alexa Traffic Rank: 46,004 Traffic Rank in US: 13,536 Sites Linking In: 87
Site Information for sbrforum.comGet Details Alexa Traffic Rank: 10,686 Traffic Rank in US: 4,067 Sites Linking In: 263Comment -
Yeah that sounds about right based on the other numbers shown.
steve - you seem surprised. Did you think therx was bigger than SBR as far as traffic went?Comment -
WTF.. Looks like COVERS is the king.. Based from Alexa ranking..
Attached FilesLast edited by daimoshokage; 04-09-11, 04:21 PM.Comment -
-
Covers is pretty bigComment -
Done a (long) report. Google "easystreet confiscates $46000" if interested.Comment -
depends on how you define leading. the RX isn't bogged down with questions about getting ****** up the arse or pointless debates such as this
the RX is the FOX NEWS of gambling forums: Fair and unbiased!Comment -
-
Comment -
-
The latest from Shilheim:
The "Poker Website" he is referring to is the WizardOfOdds. Yes, head moderator at theRX thinks that the WizardOfOdds is a "Poker Website". Where the **** did they find this clown?I just spoke to the person we refer to as the Expert and due to the fact that he has been traveling for work related reasons for the past three days he did not get home until only recently. He will be explaining further how he did come to his conclusions in a new post today. I have not mentioned his name because it is Rx policy not to mention real names of individuals unless they are public figures or are well known in the industry by one name or another to the point that their name is their handle - Spiro for example.
The new information I receive from the expert will be posted verbatim. I will add just one note: His investigation did not include anything that is contained on the March 1st only hand history that is posted in this thread. In fact he never knew it existed, which didn't matter anyway as he had access to the complete actual cards dealt, discarded and drawn etc hand history while making his report here in Costa Rica.
You can blame me for the simplicity of his original report as I asked him to make it reader friendly for the many non-expert level individuals that have been commenting on this dispute. Now apparently a Poker Website has chimed in which is none of my business so I will not comment on anything they have to say...
I am going to delete the link to their website as per forum rules but not the name of the site as a favor to anyone who wants visit the site.
Thank you, wilheim
And of course he refuses to look at the findings of an actual expert, which is "none of [his] business"... He has probably IP banned them by now...
I find it hard to believe that Shilheim's "expert", who is constantly travelling the world for his job, decided to work in CR for FREE. That's right, Shilheim actually makes the claim that the "expert" was not paid for his investigation. Shilheim's stupidity and incompetence really are mind boggling. Is he new to shilling? How is he such a bad liar?
Comment -
why would he care about what some dang ole poker website thinks? he was asked to make a dang ole deceision and he made it.....the dang ole case is closed, guess some just don't let it goComment -
Our expert has returned. My comments:
An expert cannot distinguish between "unlikely" and "impossible"?The word impossible should really be improbable (or highly unlikely).
Did he think it didn't matter?
An opinion????The probability of a player playing at that rate of play for that amount of time with perfect strategy (or at the least no discernible deviation in the strategy being used, whether it's perfect or not is, of course, purely an opinion) is very unlikely...
The expert does not even understand the concept of non-fixed odds gambling?? Perfect strategy is not a question of opinion, but FACT. It is a FACT that you drop suited 10 from a king with a 9 and flush penalty cards in JOB. It is not OPINION.
And what does "no discernible difference in the strategy being used" mean? If he cannot define the strategy - and he stated that he could not - how does he know whether or not it's being "deviated" from?
He's still arguing statistical improbability? This is a nonsense. Noone has suggested the play circumvented the natural odds of the game. Has he not understood this yet? And if it WAS in question (which it wasn't), then 1 in 700, if that figure were relevant (which it isn't) is not "unlikely", because "unlikely" is also an irrelevance. It's within perfect statistical probablility. Period.The 3 royals worked out to roughly a 1 in ~700 chance (I believe this has been stated elsewhere as well). Once again, highly unlikely (or improbable) is a better way to say this and I apologize for the use of the word impossible.
It's my opinion that he was. And I think, frankly, that my opinion is more informed than this fellow's opinion.It is still my opinion, after reviewing all of the information available to me at the time, that the player of the hands in question was not human.
I notice that our expert failed to address the question about "overwhelming the RNG". Would he care to explain how this happens, and how, when it does, the "overwhelming" causes the odds to turn in favour of the player?
I'm sorry, but this response is an absolute nonsense.Comment -
I think the "expert" is their IT guy, and maybe is a freelancer that handles several gambling websites.
But whatever expertise he has in running a website computer system has no relation to an understanding of gambling math, probability, etc.
However, working on computers at gambling websites may contribute to the self delusion that he has an understanding of gambling math, while in actuality he is clueless on that subject.
Much like Shillheim's having worked in a b&m casino servicing machine players, yet hasn't a clue of what the paytables are for J or Better vp.Last edited by Scooter; 04-09-11, 11:17 PM.Comment -
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The RX's expert is a "World Champion Expert" who won the last three Hilton Expert Contests. He hits 85% of his late expert releases, and he specializes on Monday Night Stats, where he parlays the mean with the variance and wins at a 78% clip ... and it's all documented.Comment -
^^^ LOL dumbassesComment -
them dang ole dumbasses
taking my points to play some dang ole VPComment -
Covers is the traffic leader currently. SBR is closer than it might seem because our sites are spread out over multiple web sites and therefore not included in the numbers of SBRForum.com vs Covers.com. So if the traffic stats for SBROdds.com, Sportsbookreview.com, SBRContests.com, SBR.TV, SBRPoker.com, ect., were added to the SBRForum.com numbers it would be a lot closer.Comment -
Comment -
Good post yokspot. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the "expert" was not qualified to be involved in this investigation. In fact, it looks like they invented this guy's resume. Scooter's post on this issue seems about right...Comment -
This thread should be stickied to every forum for like a month. Make a point to screw over people who knowingly steal from people.
The guy hit the royals, and they ****** himmmmm.Comment -
that's what you're worried about in this thread? like, i understand this is your business, but in a thread where a player got ****** over for $40k+ when you run a website that tries to help players to not get ****** over probably isn't the place to debate why/why not you're losing a traffic battle.
right?
love this place, but if you're promoting yourself as an industry watchdog, and in as big of a spot as this you have literally no influence on the outcome, you probably should be doing a lot of things other than debating why your site doesn't has as many hits as another.Comment -
This is the "expert's" response to some selected questions which were posed to him in a thread over at theRX. Shilheim promised that all reasonable questions would be answered, but that was just another lie (along with his promise to provide the hand histories).
B. It is clear he does not even know what perfect strategy is for JoB Video Poker. This is an actual admission that easystreetsports.com still does not know whether or not Cory played perfect strategy, although they have been pushing this particular piece of propaganda from the very beginning of this dispute.A few points, which I'll try to answer in the order that they are generally posted:
A) It's come into question if I reviewed the purported 22k total hands that the player played. It's clearly stated that I reviewed 8762. I reviewed the actual hands the player was dealt, what he kept, what was drawn, the avg screen draw time, the actual execution time, player response time, etc. The spreadsheet that was posted is obviously missing this information, but my review was on-site, in front of a management terminal, and with access to other pertinent information to base my decision on.
B) The word impossible should really be improbable (or highly unlikely). The probability of a player playing at that rate of play for that amount of time with perfect strategy (or at the least no discernible deviation in the strategy being used, whether it's perfect or not is, of course, purely an opinion) is very unlikely, improbable, etc. I apologize for the use of the word impossible, once again, it should have been highly unlikely, improbable, etc (I've incidentally never seen it happen on any video poker machine in any casino or casino bar in las vegas, laughlin, pechanga, or anywhere else I've worked, advised, contracted, etc.)
C) I play 20+ hours of poker a week on avg, video and table based poker for my job AND personal recreation, and in ~10 years of playing, I've never seen it happen. It's not impossible that it happened, but it is highly unlikely.
D) The 3 royals worked out to roughly a 1 in ~700 chance (I believe this has been stated elsewhere as well). Once again, highly unlikely (or improbable) is a better way to say this and I apologize for the use of the word impossible.
E) In reviewing the logs of the player, and the logs of other players, I still believe that the player used a bot to obtain his rate of play for the period of play in question. If it was in fact a human that played at that rate of play, with that strategy and no discernible signs of fatigue, my hats off to him or her. I've never seen anyone play that fast, for that long, that well. I was asked to determine if the player was human. It is still my opinion, after reviewing all of the information available to me at the time, that the player of the hands in question was not human.
C. No idea what the hell he is even talking about, but it is clear this guy is not an engineer in any way, shape or form.
D. It is clear that he didn't know it was 1 in 700 at the time he produced his report. Now he is trying to claim that he knew it was 1 in 700 and that he just went a little but over board calling this "statistically impossible" (ya think?).
E. He has an opinion, but no proof. They have not presented even one shred of proof which actually supports their case.
And Shilheim's comments:
I will leave this thread open but as far as myself, and The Rx.com is concerned this matter is now closed..My decision remains the same. I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that a human being - one Cory1111 or anyone else did not play the aforementioned 8762 hands of Video Poker at perfect or near perfect strategy in 499 minutes in the EasyStreetSports.com Casino on their Jacks or Better Video Poker game on the dates of February 28th and March 1st of this year. Which is a breach of clearly posted EasyStreet Casino Rules.
I am not going to take any further questions. Everything that I feel necessary to convey to justify my decision regarding this dispute is contained in this thread or the other thread on the topic on this forum titled "<A href="http://www.therxforum.com/showthread.php?t=768502" target=_blank>EasyStreet".
I know some of you are dissapointed in my decision but I did make it after as complete an investigation as I am capable of making. I tried to be as fair as possible at all times, with that in mind I have no regrets concerning my decision.
This was a difficult dispute to mediate as one side after originally seeking my assistance turned hostile. Despite that I did not consider it when making the final call. I cannot help it if some of you don't believe that. My called was not influenced by EasyStreet being a sponsor here or by Rx.com Upper Management in any way and the players hostility towards me was also not a factor in making the final decision.
I can honestly say if I had any doubt about my decision, I would have worked as hard and as long as possible to get the player his funds. Something I have done hundreds of times in the past in other disputes..Like it or not sometime the player is in the wrong.
Thank you for your patience, wilheim
So there will be no hand histories released... They will not be releasing the (probably mythical) "highly technical" ten page report... In fact, they will not be releasing a single shred of actual evidence, despite promising countless times to do just that.Last edited by KGambler; 04-10-11, 12:35 AM.Comment -
I dont think he was debating about why the hits isnt as much as the others he just thourouhly explained why the graph is a lil skewed since the graph on represent one sbr url. I think Justin did much as he could to help this player but that is all he can do since this book is not an sbr sponsorbook. THATS Y PEOPLE PLAY SBR Sponsor books if u want ur money be safe. If u really want to know who is the top of the top, look for the value of the site and u'll be surprised on how much this site is worth.Comment -
Funny post from theRX in response to the "expert's" latest nonsense...
Funny because it's true...So in summary the expert says it's not impossible to play that fast, not impossible to get dealt those royal flushes, and not impossible to play that well, and that he can't prove it was a BOT playing the hands.Comment -
Covers is far more seasonal (NFL/NCAA/NBA peak, MLB quiet) whilst SBR seems consistent - any reasoning for that?Comment
