
Originally Posted by
lots0
Well I guess I am not going to be convinced.
I still don't see any proof, no evidence... Just a bunch of accusations from people that won't show any REAL evidence when asked for it (forum postings do NOT constitute proof).
Come on.... Make the evidence public. What are you guys afraid of??
How is anyone supposed to believe your accusations without any proof???
I guess some people are gonna believe the accusations because the accusers just keep repeating the accusations over and over... Never showing any proof. Let me repeat that... NEVER SHOWING ANY PROOF.
I don't know how many times in this thread I have asked to see the proof that keeps getting talked about... However, not one single piece of real evidence has yet been shown...
When asked for proof, I get more forum postings, telling me they believe, giving me reasons why they can't present the proof.... but never showing any...
It is not about understanding poker... It's about understanding fairness.
Talk about a lynch mob mentality.
make the evidence PUBLIC? PUBLISHING (see the resemblance between those words?) the hand histories on a PUBLIC forum is not making it public?
there is more than enough evidence to show beyond reasonable doubt that cheating occurred. 90% of correct river decisions could be just ridiculous skill, but 99+% is beyond the skill of even the greatest demi-gods of the game.
what is proof? how would you be satisfied? does the cheater have to tell you in person that they cheated and explain precisely how? in a trial, evidence is taken to determine if there is proof BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that the crime took place and was committed by the accused. the accused is not forced to come forward with the methodology they used to commit the crime, or no one would ever be found guilty. the culprits won't incriminate themselves willingly.
seeing ~90% of flops, only folding when other players had pocket monsters. always successfully calling down bluffs with rags that beat the other players' rags. making a huge bet then folding to dump your chips, when even the lord of the donks knows you should be pot-committed.
that IS the evidence. not a definitive PROOF (which can only be demonstrated by the people responsible, who have a right not to be forced to incriminate themselves), but evidence showing BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that there WAS cheating, which equates to an effective PROOF.
just as with alleged casino rigging, you cannot PROVE 100% that it IS rigged, all you can do is give sufficient evidence showing it is INFINITELY UNLIKELY to NOT be rigged.
simple as.
+++ like a midget at a urinal, i was going to have to stay on my toes +++
. . . +++ if you can read this, well done you +++ . . .
+++ and don't call me shirley +++ ...R.I.P. Leslie Nielsen...
Bookmarks