Talk:Absolute Poker

Added Post
This was an ongoing issue and I felt that this might be necessary to add as a footnote in regards to Absolute Poker. I am trying to remain impartial to the issue (I have never played on Absolute Poker but I am involved with the online poker communities and have been watching the situation). If you feel that this is biased, please help me improve it rather than remove it.

Thank you.Yoryx 08:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As of right now there is no reliable source to cite in regards to this information. Until something is actually proven and then reported on by a reliable source, we can't treat rumors of superaccounts and cheating as fact. ♣  ♦  SmartGuy  ♥  ♠ 15:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, this in an encyclopia, not a rumor site. If some people want to accuse the Pope of being on the grassy knoll, it's not going to be added to articles, and certainly not as a "fact". WP:BLP requires this sort of malicious content be removed on site. Please don't add it again. 2005 21:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone went ahead and got an official source. Please be a little more nicer and exercise a form of patience. Yoryx 19:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BLP and in the future follow it because it is the policy of the encyclopedia. Adding slanderous material is never acceptable and needs to be removed on sight by any other editor. 2005 22:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite tag
I removed the prod tag since it is one of the 5 largest online poker rooms. I added an advert tag and the rewrite tag because the article needs a LOT of work. It's currently horribly written. --Storkk 16:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Title needs to be changed, too. --Storkk 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you suggest I edit it to make it acceptable?? ty

i think the article is looking good now, apart from the image. if someone could incorporate that into the article successfully for me, i think it would be leet. ty Melofetehgold 17:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC) melofetehgold
 * It's OK now... please see WP:NOT, WP:CORP and WP:WEB to see why the state that you left it in was unacceptable. --Storkk 23:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

New Source for 4th largest
I'll search tomorrow for a better article that can be the source for the "4th largest" claim. There are literally hundreds of them around, but I'm exhausted. Card Player is a good source, but the article cited (which I gave the source for) does read like a PR piece. --Storkk 23:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Try the site PokerPulse.com (if it is still in operation - I can't access now from work). SmartGuy 15:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fourth largest is really a bogus term, as PokerPulse and others basically consider several of the cardrooms tied for fourth largest. They are bunched close enough together that any disinction between fourth and sixth is really meaningless. I suggest changing the text to "one of the largest" which is accurate and the current cite confirms that, although I'd suggest we get rid of the cite. 2005 22:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad Beat Jackpot

 * My first discussion so sorry if goes wrong. The website has had both the largest bad beat jackpot win on the internet with over $800k being given out at one time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 00Doug (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's Potripper not potdripper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.4.11.44 (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

2007 Cheating Scandal
Folks, please do not make edits about the cheating allegations at Absolute without citing a reliable source. To date, no solid proof of cheating has been reported in the mainstream media, and the Bluff article that covers the allegations is already cited. The issue has been discussed and debated extensive on 2+2, Pocket 5s, and other message boards and blogs, but these are not considered reliable sources. ♣ ♦  SmartGuy  ♥  ♠ 17:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been written about in the NY Times and CONCLUSIVE proof has been posted all over the internet! Cheating DID INDEED occur at AP!!! We don't know who did it and if AP was aware of it, but it DID occur!!! Please correct/expand this article!!!


 * You are missing the point. Of course the matter has been discussed all over the internet.  The NY Times "articles" are actually blog posts; the author of the blog cites various posts from the 2+2 message boards as his primary information sources.  Blogs and message board posts do not qualify as reliable sources.  Please read Reliable sources for more. ♣  ♦  SmartGuy  ♥  ♠ 22:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I left the one blog cite because it just says the investigation has been reopened, but in general those blog links (which are opinion, NOT NY Times news articles) are not reliable sources, and removing them is probably better than leaving them. If that announcement by AP about the gamingassociates investigation appears on a reliable source, that is what should be sourced. 2005 00:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This incident has been mentioned in the mainstream news several times today, but every article that I can find directly quotes the NY Times blog (see here for example). ♣ ♦  SmartGuy  ♥  ♠ 19:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I upgraded the link to an eGaming review on that doesn't quote that blog, and that link also links to the 32 minute youtube replay of the hands. 2005 22:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolute Poker has finally admitted they were compromised and cheating was going on. I have inside knowledge of this (the message board rumors on P5 are true) and they will be releasing an official statement shortly. Be on the lookout and get ready to update this wiki entry!


 * This e-mail is being sent out by AP to players who were cheated and those contacting security regarding the incident:

"Dear Valued Player,

Absolute Poker has identified an internal security breach that compromised our systems for a limited period of time. The cause of the breach has been determined and completely resolved. In addition, all necessary resources, both internal and external, have been engaged to ensure this does not happen again. Our investigation is not fully concluded, and we wish to thank the extended poker community for any and all assistance related to the matter.

Game integrity has always and continues to be of the utmost importance at Absolute Poker. The Management of Absolute Poker is appalled by these findings, and is committed to our players and to the integrity of our site and the online poker industry.

All players affected by the security breach will be identified during the audit process that has been initiated and all funds, including interest, will be returned. Absolute Poker would like to apologize for the recent events and is committed to diligently working with outside security firms, auditing firms, the extended poker community and the Kahnawake Gaming Commission to ensure the situation is entirely resolved.

A comprehensive statement will be forthcoming shortly providing more details of the situation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.171.250 (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to write that it's ridiculously unlikely that the leak of the complete history was an accident - it seems like intentional whistleblowing - but can't think of a good, NPOV, cited way to do it... Evercat 23:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On the 2+2 and pocketfives players have posted to recieving such an excel file previously (months ago) when complaining about some hand history or cheating thing, so it seems very likely to have been an accident. 2005 23:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you've followed this story since it broke, it's impossible that this was a single "rogue hacker" who was only trying to prove a point. The facts are inconsistent with that, so something is awry here. Now this is NOT the most reputable source, BUT this comes out today:

http://www.point-spreads.com/poker/102207-absolute-poker-super-user-scams-7-million.html

While it's not the most credible source, I wouldn't be surprised if that turned out to be true either. Again, speculation but it would make MUCH more sense than a "rogue hacker". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.171.250 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)