On this page
Absolute Poker Warning
Introduction
On September 24, 2007, I received reports of cheating at Absolute Poker from a confidential informant. It was claimed that a player named POTRIPPER had the capacity to view the hole cards of other players. Having previously exposed instances of unfair play in blackjack, roulette, and video poker multiple times, I've taken on the role of a guardian for fair play in online gambling. You can review my previous investigations on my Online Casino Blacklist. Since gaining this reputation, I have been contacted by countless frustrated players who, after unfortunate losses, have made claims of cheating; often these claims are based solely on emotionally charged narratives without solid evidence. Moreover, when some numerical data were presented, they frequently pointed to pure bad luck rather than deceit. Therefore, it takes compelling evidence for me to believe that losses are due to cheating rather than luck.
Upon hearing the cheating allegations, I checked the forums and found the evidence lacking. Initially, I encountered a few questionable hands shared on the site, along with a lot of discussions. While I did find some of the hands suspicious, the evidence wasn’t strong enough to draw firm conclusions. After all, bizarre circumstances do happen. Nevertheless, the intensity of the situation escalated.twoplustwo.com On October 8, I was given access to several tournament log files involving POTRIPPER. Although many were in a format that was difficult to interpret, I was able to examine a tournament held on September 13. In that event, POTRIPPER participated in 41 hands, with an average of six players per table. If we assume all players had equal skill levels and strategies—which is a big assumption—he would typically be expected to win approximately 7.28 hands. In reality, he won 25 hands, which is 7.29 standard deviations above the expected outcome. The odds of achieving such a result are 1 in 6.6 trillion, assuming all players are equally skilled. Remarkably, it would be 469,000 times more plausible to win a standard 6/49 lottery. This surely raised my suspicions, although I remained concerned this could have been a case of chip dumping orchestrated by other players. This practice is a common method of scamming if someone manages to access another player's account credentials, for instance, through a keylogger. While this is a serious concern, it falls outside my focus on gambling-related misconduct.
The next pivotal moment occurred on October 15 when I was informed about an animated replay of another tournament involving POTRIPPER. This tournament can be found on pokerxfactor.com. Although the link requires a password for access, signing up is straightforward. Interestingly, the playback reveals the cards held by every participant. Reportedly, Absolute Poker supplied this file to the player CRAZYMARCO after he leveled accusations of cheating against POTRIPPER. The file was initially formatted in a confusing Excel style, and it took some effort to organize it so the playback feature on pokerxfactor.com could effectively display it. Even then, certain hands and events within those hands appeared slightly out of sequence. Nevertheless, it was relatively easy to follow the action of each hand. I found it quite surprising that Absolute Poker provided this data, as, in my opinion, it serves as compelling evidence indicating potential wrongdoing beyond just chip dumping.
Although the playback contains 130 hands, only the initial 93 show the cards of all players. At hand 94, however, it seems to transition into a different tournament, revealing cards only for CRAZYMARCO unless other players were compelled to show theirs. Below is my analysis of the first 93 hands.
Performed a check-raise on the flop with a weak hand, anticipating SCOTT_NZL would likely fold.
D-4
Total Players: Indicates the total number of players engaged in each hand.
PR Position: Specifies POTRIPPER's position - BB for Big Blind, SB for Small Blind, D for Dealer, D-n for the number of positions behind the dealer.
PR Pre-flop Action: Details the very first action taken pre-flop by POTRIPPER.
W
Explore the Top Online Casinos Available in Your Region
Calculator for Assessing Lottery Jackpot Ticket Sales
Raise
Slot competitions offering large prize pools44 On September 24, 2007, I received tips about potential cheating at Absolute Poker from an anonymous informant. The claim was that a player known as POTRIPPER could see his opponents' hole cards. Having exposed inconsistencies in games like blackjack, roulette, and video poker before, I have somewhat taken on the role of an unofficial watchdog for integrity in online gambling. You can find my previous investigations on my
Since earning this reputation, I've been contacted by countless players lamenting their misfortunes, often accusing others of cheating without substantial proof, relying solely on emotionally charged tales of their defeats. When concrete numerical data is presented, it frequently points to simple misfortune rather than any foul play. Thus, I remain skeptical and require compelling evidence to believe that losses stem from cheating rather than just bad luck.
Upon hearing the cheating allegations, I turned to online forums, but the evidence presented was somewhat lacking. Initially, I came across a handful of dubious hands shared on the boards, along with a lot of side discussions. While I had to admit that some of those hands appeared questionable, there simply wasn’t enough to draw any firm conclusions. Oddly enough, stranger situations have occurred in the past. Nevertheless, the controversy began to escalate.
On October 8, I received various tournament log files involving POTRIPPER's gameplay. While many of them were in unreadable formats, I managed to analyze a tournament dated September 13. In this event, POTRIPPER played a total of 41 hands, in a setting with an average of six participants at the table. If we assume all players shared the same skill level and usage of strategies—a significant assumption—I could calculate that he would typically expect to win approximately 7.28 hands. In reality, he secured 25 victories. That performance was 7.29 standard deviations above what one would anticipate, akin to winning a lottery with odds of 1 in 6.6 trillion, given equal player capabilities. In fact, it would be 469,000 times simpler to clinch a 6/49 lottery win. This raised my suspicions considerably. Yet, I remained wary that other players might have engaged in chip dumping—a known tactic for swindling money if someone had gained access to a player’s credentials, perhaps through a key logger. While this represents a serious issue, it falls outside my typical realm of casino-related foul play.
A pivotal moment occurred on October 15 when I was informed of an animated playback of another tournament that POTRIPPER participated in. This playback is available on pokerxfactor.com. Accessing the link requires a password, but it’s straightforward to sign up for entry. To my surprise, the playback showcases the cards from each player involved. Allegedly, Absolute Poker provided this file to a player named CRAZYMARCO after he made his cheating allegations against POTRIPPER. The original file was in a disorganized Excel format, requiring some effort to tidy it up for compatibility with pokerxfactor.com’s playback feature. Still, certain hands and some events within those hands were a bit misaligned, although the series of events was relatively easy to follow. I was taken aback that Absolute Poker would release this file, as it seemed to provide the crucial evidence this case needed to suggest there was something more devious than simple chip dumping happening.
While the playback comprises 130 hands, only the initial 93 reveal all player cards. Oddly, starting from hand 94, it shifts to a different game setting where only CRAZYMARCO's cards are visible unless forced reveals by other players occurred. Below is my summary of the initial 93 hands. n/a Attempted a check-raise on the flop with a weak hand, anticipating that SCOTT_NZL would likely back down.
Initiated a pre-flop raise against hands presumed too weak to call. D-5 Executed a substantial raise on the river, holding two pairs, which ended up being the winning hand.
Made a sizable raise on the turn despite having a weak hand, expecting JOSIAHW to fold. L .
Fold
Raised pre-flop, anticipating that POTROAST would most likely not call.
Chose to fold on the turn against SCARFACE's strong hand.
n/a Decided to fold pre-flop with a poor hand in the face of a significant re-raise. BB Opted to fold pre-flop with a weak hand facing a hefty raise.
Raised on the turn with a weak hand, expecting SCARFACE_79 to fold.
W
Fell back on the river against two hands that were stronger.
Call
Raised on the flop boasting a stronger hand, causing DZOONUTS to fold.- Raised pre-flop with a strong holding, leading the opponents to concede.
- n/a .
- SB
- W Performed a pre-flop raise with a weak hand, fully aware that opponents would likely retreat.
- Executed a substantial raise on the turn with a poor hand, presuming the opponent to be likely folding. Raise