UB Scandal part 2 Phil Hellmuth - Page 4

On December 21 2008 22:48 asdf2000 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2008 22:43 Nazgul wrote:   On December 21 2008 22:41 asdf2000 wrote: maybe it is their fault.. it probably is. all we are saying I think is innocent until proven guilty They have been proven guilty before. Fuck them. Nothing even happened to them for the superuser incident. The odds are stacked against them and I'm not going with the underdog on this one. Besides, if it's a genuine mistake they are obviously incompetent as hell and shouldn't be running a poker room no matter what. And "innocent till proven guilty" let's say a guy murdered his wife and was proven guilty but is released due to a mistake in the system. 6 months later he is found with a bloody knife and a dead child. Yeah, who knows maybe he is innocent. what are u saying? ur actually against "innocent until proven guilty"? the situation you described has entirely different repercussions.. I don't think they should be compared. taking money is not like taking a life..

The difference in repercussions is that they have been stealing money from people for the longest time and have received no punishment for it. Why WOULDN'T you be against innocent till proven guilty when it's about UB. We aren't judges that need to sentence people and thus need to be 100% sure of things. There's a 99% chance this proven cheater has once again been stealing money from people and you are trying to hold on to that 1% just because it says so in your law. The owners of UB should have been in jail a long time ago can not be trusted and the phrase innocent till proven guilty should not be applied to an already proven cheater that got away with it.

what are you talking about, I never said I trust UB or anything.
why do people do this every time i post in a thread like this. I am not saying they aren't cheating here. and I am not saying people should trust them. where did you get this from?

death sentence imo

Even in a real court there is circumstantial evidence, and in this case there is so much circumstantial evidence that they would be convicted unless the judge was retarded

On December 21 2008 23:10 asdf2000 wrote: what are you talking about, I never said I trust UB or anything. why do people do this every time i post in a thread like this. I am not saying they aren't cheating here. and I am not saying people should trust them. where did you get this from?

so dont trust ub even though they're innocent?

"Earlier today we learned about a poker hand where our system paid out the losing player instead of the correct winning hand. The hand number is #1162170993.

We are investigating this software malfunction as our absolute top priority.

This is the first incident of this kind we have encountered.

We are currently examining the poker system and the application logs in order to pinpoint the cause of this malfunction.

Paul Leggett"


First incident ? And it has to be Hellmuth playing the hand ? Gimme a fucking break, i'd rather think Santa is real than this being a coincidence, i'll NEVER put 1 cent on this site and FFS someone sue these bastards and make them close, they're like the cancer of online poker.

WTFFFFFFFF i'm so tilted now, it's like they deal hundreds of thousands of hands every day (it's limit HE hay not razz or stud) and this is the FIRST incident and Hellmuth is dealt in the hand ??? Woohoo way to go buddy, make it more obvious. w/o his statement there was like a remote chance it was a real incident but now it's SOOOOOOOOooo obvious wow.

On December 21 2008 23:18 Nazgul wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2008 23:10 asdf2000 wrote: what are you talking about, I never said I trust UB or anything. why do people do this every time i post in a thread like this. I am not saying they aren't cheating here. and I am not saying people should trust them. where did you get this from? so dont trust ub even though they're innocent?

I never said they were innocent. I said "innocent until proven guilty", which means to reserve judgement for once you know what actually happened.

lol that's just ..

im not sure what to believe. if we suppose it's a bug, why does he react in the way he does? his table talk seems really suspicious.

Yup the board was JKK29 my bad, makes sense for his river call :



Stage #XXXXXXX: Holdem (1 on 1) Normal $200/$400 - 2008-12-20 04:15:23 (ET)
Table: FIR AVE (Real Money) Seat #4 is the dealer
Seat 4 - PHILHELLMUTH ($4495 in chips)
Seat 6 - DOUBLEBALLER ($7494 in chips)
PHILHELLMUTH - Posts small blind $100
DOUBLEBALLER - Posts big blind $200
*** POCKET CARDS ***
PHILHELLMUTH - Raises $300 to $400
DOUBLEBALLER - Raises $400 to $600
PHILHELLMUTH - Raises $400 to $800
DOUBLEBALLER - Calls $200
*** FLOP *** [Js Kc Kh]
DOUBLEBALLER - Checks
PHILHELLMUTH - Bets $200
DOUBLEBALLER - Raises $400 to $400
PHILHELLMUTH - Calls $200
*** TURN *** [Js Kc Kh]
DOUBLEBALLER - Bets $400
PHILHELLMUTH - Raises $800 to $800
DOUBLEBALLER - Raises $800 to $1200
PHILHELLMUTH - Calls $400
*** RIVER *** [Js Kc Kh 2h]
DOUBLEBALLER - Bets $400
PHILHELLMUTH - Calls $400
*** SHOW DOWN ***
DOUBLEBALLER - Shows [Kd Qh] (Three of a kind, kings)
PHILHELLMUTH - Mucks
PHILHELLMUTH Collects $5599 from main pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total Pot($5600) | Rake ($1)
Board [Js Kc Kh 2h 9c]
Seat 4: PHILHELLMUTH (dealer) (small blind) won Total ($5599) HI: ($5599) [Mucked] [2s 10s]
Seat 6: DOUBLEBALLER (big blind) HI:lost with Three of a kind, kings [Kd Qh - B:Kh,P:Kd,B:Kc,P:Qh,B:Js]

On December 21 2008 22:24 FrEaK[S.sIR] wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2008 22:21 TenBagger wrote: and you would have to be literally mentally retarded to use a superuser account so obviously like nionio and the other crooks did... You can't see how using a superuser in a blatant fashion and shipping the pot to the wrong player are on completely different levels? At least as far as how stupid you'd have to be to try to get away with it. I mean, we needed a TON of evidence for the superuser thing to go anywhere. With this you'd just need to be like "uh...yeah, the pot went to the wrong person? WTF is wrong with you?"

I am making no judgement as to what is going on here. However, the point that I'm trying to make is that the "it can't be hellmuth cheating because doing it so obviously is so stupid" defense is a type that has failed many times over in many different scenarios. As Naz said, the law of common sense would dictate that Hellmuth is smart enough so that if he really wanted to cheat, he would cheat better. Well, history has shown that even very smart people do very dumb things and there are countless examples of cheats and frauds doing incredibly dumb things.

I am not in the slightest way saying that hellmuth is guilty of anything. I am saying that eliminating the possibility of his guilt by that logic is invalid.

why would phil be involved in something like this with all the sponsors and money he has already???

yes that might be the case, but this just seems unbelievably dumb too do. on the scale 1-100 in stupidity this probably reaches 1000. it's just too obvious and will be detected pretty much every time.

why would a well respected multi millionaire engage in a ponzi scheme which by definition will be eventually detected pretty much every time?

seriously, I could pull up hundreds of examples of people doing very dumb things. People that are otherwise intelligent and with more wealth and prestige than hellmuth committing crimes with a very high likelihood of getting caught.

Again people this is obv not a cheat working properly, but either making a human error while cheating, or the client is bugged in the cheat, that is extremely evident.

On December 21 2008 22:40 Nazgul wrote: Show nested quote + As if people aren't going to notice pots getting shipped the wrong way?   You can't see how using a superuser in a blatant fashion and shipping the pot to the wrong player are on completely different levels? At least as far as how stupid you'd have to be to try to get away with it. I mean, we needed a TON of evidence for the superuser thing to go anywhere. With this you'd just need to be like "uh...yeah, the pot went to the wrong person? WTF is wrong with you?" The argument against that is obviously that the bug is not in hand strength, but the bug being in the superuser cheat. It seems silly to argue a software bug and not acknowledging the possibility of a bug existing in a cheat. They are equally likely. Both bugs being possible, question remains do you give UB who magically ships a pot to their owner and has been known for superuser accounts the benefit of the doubt.

I am acknowledging it. = I already said that I'm not denying that something shady is going on. I'm just not going to say it's for sure one way or another because I don't have enough evidence either way. Nor do I really care, I think UB is a piece of shit site anyway.

ASDFAFSDFSA

Can anybody point out where I said absolutely nothing shady was possibly happening?

I'm saying it's possible it's not and that a bug is possible. Only reason I posted was because people were completely discounting the possibility of a bug because they thought it wasn't possible or that this is the first time something like this has happened.

Bug is possible and this kind of thing has happened on several other sites. That's all I'm saying.

I just said possible like 8 times in an equal number of sentences. I need a thesaurus