People are collaborating to investigate all of his results here as well: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MCfupw2gOZSDj_qvfL0ndIUsyE_Nx7YLNTKVoQUR_VE/edit#gid=2044248290
Man, that was a lot of words to not prove the guy cheats. When only a couple dozen words vaguely imply how he might have cheated is hidden in within almost 3,000 words of side story, and other...
Man, that was a lot of words to not prove the guy cheats.
When only a couple dozen words vaguely imply how he might have cheated is hidden in within almost 3,000 words of side story, and other people cheating, I call that diversionary tactics.
He 100% cheated. He's like 700BB/100 or something, which is absurd. It's literally mathematically impossible unless he cheats. It's not "this guy is really good", it's "this is strictly not possible".
He 100% cheated. He's like 700BB/100 or something, which is absurd. It's literally mathematically impossible unless he cheats. It's not "this guy is really good", it's "this is strictly not possible".
Logically, I understand that. However, I have seen too many cases where logic just didn't apply. And I understood all the "he <may> have done this to cheat", but might have isn't proof. I'm not...
Logically, I understand that. However, I have seen too many cases where logic just didn't apply. And I understood all the "he <may> have done this to cheat", but might have isn't proof.
I'm not saying he did or didn't cheat. I'm saying that this article did bumpkiss to prove he did.
This was an interesting writeup on Twitter (unfortunately in the form of screenshots of text) with a good theory about how it could be done: https://mobile.twitter.com/vdthemyk/status/1179892447142449153
Also here's a great thread on this from /r/poker.
People are collaborating to investigate all of his results here as well: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MCfupw2gOZSDj_qvfL0ndIUsyE_Nx7YLNTKVoQUR_VE/edit#gid=2044248290
Yeah, that definitely makes sense.
Man, that was a lot of words to not prove the guy cheats.
When only a couple dozen words vaguely imply how he might have cheated is hidden in within almost 3,000 words of side story, and other people cheating, I call that diversionary tactics.
He 100% cheated. He's like 700BB/100 or something, which is absurd. It's literally mathematically impossible unless he cheats. It's not "this guy is really good", it's "this is strictly not possible".
Logically, I understand that. However, I have seen too many cases where logic just didn't apply. And I understood all the "he <may> have done this to cheat", but might have isn't proof.
I'm not saying he did or didn't cheat. I'm saying that this article did bumpkiss to prove he did.