That part is true, but he was never proven to have superused was he? If he did not actually superuse he most likely really believed it wasn't possible.Originally Posted by Steve-O
He did constantly say there was no scandal, and what people were saying wasn't possible with the software and such. So he is a bit of a "fraud"
If he is put on for this though, Phil Hellmuth should also be included. I'm pretty sure PH said cheating wasn't possible himself.
(•_•) ..
∫\ \___( •_•)
_∫∫ _∫∫ɯ \ \
Yeah, this was my point earlier, the list seems a bit biasedThat part is true, but he was never proven to have superused was he? If he did not actually superuse he most likely really believed it wasn't possible.
If he is put on for this though, Phil Hellmuth should also be included. I'm pretty sure PH said cheating wasn't possible himself.
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
Here's a name from the past:
fminc
How the fuck did Jungleman not get listed? Stoxtrader only for making the 2nd acct not for softplaying Kinetica is wasnt against the rules. If you broke down all the hands of any regs you would find softplay on all of them which is why it wasn't against the tos.
Ha ha ha... awesome..I've Been trying to learn Photoshop for a few weeks now, this is good practice
Glad you started the thread, I had to take off early so I missed the last half of the show and see that the idea took off. I caught up in the arch-ives today.
Suggestions - Include the websites by themselves doesn't just have to be individuals. PFA new logo on the back of the cards. Steve-O to do the bio's and write-ups on the cards themselves.
Templar rookie card to come out next week possibly???? Wait, too soon..
Another idea I had was make them like Magic the Gathering, you could make them into a game with groups not just scammers...
There should also be a Druff card for taking down the scammers, and any others who take them down (e.g. HH, Steve-O, etc..)
Include Snake in the grass QJ Radio, Description: bababababababababababababababanababababa
Last edited by hotshott74; 07-18-2012 at 05:54 PM.
He did cheat. There was just no smoking gun proof because the hand histories were deleted.He did constantly say there was no scandal, and what people were saying wasn't possible with the software and such. So he is a bit of a "fraud"
The victim was Mike "reggiman" Reed:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...0&postcount=24
This former tennis pro: Nick Rainy.
http://nickraineyisathief.com/
I was under the impression that Mr. Rainey cleared himself of his debts.
TRUMP 2024!
Well said shoe eater. If you clear your debts, no matter how long it takes, then you are a good guy in my book.
WOW!!!! Druff vs Seif.He did cheat. There was just no smoking gun proof because the hand histories were deleted.
The victim was Mike "reggiman" Reed:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...0&postcount=24
That must have been before I had even heard of Neverwin Poker.
rawpoker doesn't have either of those videos up,
I found Seif's where he threatens Todd w/legal action on youtube,
Sounds like he destroyed him in the rebuttal, but I can't find that video anywhere.
anyone have it downloaded or anything?
Last edited by JimmyG_415; 07-18-2012 at 08:05 PM.
Does Micon get inclusion for the inevitable bedshit of Seals With Clubs? Maybe him with a jester hat as the joker.
Don't take this thew wrong way, but this is exactly why you shouldn't make these cards. You can't separate allegations from facts, and you jump to your own conclusions.He did cheat. There was just no smoking gun proof because the hand histories were deleted.
The victim was Mike "reggiman" Reed:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...0&postcount=24
If I remember correctly, The consensus in those posts was that based on this 100-hand session Mark Seif bascially shows everyone he could superuse them because he was tilted??? A guy who had the capability to super-use and make any amount he wanted to decides to only use it once to win $12k because he didn't like the other guy. Yeah that's more plausible than a strong, but outclassed, poker player running super-hot for 100 hands...
Regardless of which of the above is correct, neither can be proven so neither should be hoisted-up as truth. Stick to facts with this project; there are plenty of admittances and conclusive evidence to out people.
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
Not that I disagree w/ the first paragraph or 3rd paragraph, but I just went through this thread, that certainly wasn't the consensus, in fact I only saw one guy sticking to this point and he was getting his ass handed to him on 2+2 , which was not a pro druff crowd.Don't take this thew wrong way, but this is exactly why you shouldn't make these cards. You can't separate allegations from facts, and you jump to your own conclusions.
If I remember correctly, The consensus in those posts was that based on this 100-hand session Mark Seif bascially shows everyone he could superuse them because he was tilted??? A guy who had the capability to super-use and make any amount he wanted to decides to only use it once to win $12k because he didn't like the other guy. Yeah that's more plausible than a strong, but outclassed, poker player running super-hot for 100 hands...
Regardless of which of the above is correct, neither can be proven so neither should be hoisted-up as truth. Stick to facts with this project; there are plenty of admittances and conclusive evidence to out people.
Wasn't this the allegation of Reggiman and the guy who posted for him; that Seif superused him out of spite? I don't think I followed it on 2+2 either, but I have no idea where it was, it was such a long time ago, so I'd probably have to reread the thing. 2+2 does have a knack for "Druffing-up" an allegation and jumping to their own conclusions. Honestly, anyone that reads through the important posts in the Girah thread and thinks DiH is more guilty than Jungleman needs their head examined, but the consensus on 2+2 is that DiH needs to be ostracized and Jungleman can simply go about his business.Not that I disagree w/ the first paragraph or 3rd paragraph, but I just went through this thread, that certainly wasn't the consensus, in fact I only saw one guy sticking to this point and he was getting his ass handed to him on 2+2 , which was not a pro druff crowd.
Paragraphs 1 and 3 still stand however
I write things about poker at my Poker Blog and elsewhere on the Internets
Seifs avatar actually changed too after he said be back in 10 mins, it still said his sn the same but I am pretty sure he had a new avatarDon't take this thew wrong way, but this is exactly why you shouldn't make these cards. You can't separate allegations from facts, and you jump to your own conclusions.
If I remember correctly, The consensus in those posts was that based on this 100-hand session Mark Seif bascially shows everyone he could superuse them because he was tilted??? A guy who had the capability to super-use and make any amount he wanted to decides to only use it once to win $12k because he didn't like the other guy. Yeah that's more plausible than a strong, but outclassed, poker player running super-hot for 100 hands...
Regardless of which of the above is correct, neither can be proven so neither should be hoisted-up as truth. Stick to facts with this project; there are plenty of admittances and conclusive evidence to out people.
I think Druff should do the cards provided he's sure he would not leave himself open to some kind of law suit. As far as him using his own bias or selection criteria, it's his site so why would he do otherwise? He can also use this thread to discuss the merits of certain people, perhaps he is open to discussion and might leave people off based on criticism here. Saying he just can't do it is a bit much IMO.
What about a parody type trading card with an illustration like the old garbage pale kids cards? That may be a way to avoid any legal actions...
Anny Puke
Ray Bitarful
Howie Stolderer
etc
hilarious idea. Could details of whatever their scam was also be outlined in a funny way on the back? Obviously something like this would be great advertising for the site.
I was very close to this situation for several reasons:Don't take this thew wrong way, but this is exactly why you shouldn't make these cards. You can't separate allegations from facts, and you jump to your own conclusions.
If I remember correctly, The consensus in those posts was that based on this 100-hand session Mark Seif bascially shows everyone he could superuse them because he was tilted??? A guy who had the capability to super-use and make any amount he wanted to decides to only use it once to win $12k because he didn't like the other guy. Yeah that's more plausible than a strong, but outclassed, poker player running super-hot for 100 hands...
Regardless of which of the above is correct, neither can be proven so neither should be hoisted-up as truth. Stick to facts with this project; there are plenty of admittances and conclusive evidence to out people.
- I played on AP very regularly from 2005 to 2007 at the highest limits they offered in limit hold 'em.
- I played many hands with Mark Seif, and the consensus among the online pros (and my own personal opinion) was that he sucked. He wasn't awful, but he was bad enough to where he was an expected (and actual) loser, even if there was a fish in the game.
- I one of the first people to suspect and call out superusing on AP. This was before the UB scandal was known, and was before any kind of superusing was legitimately suspected at any site. I was also personally victimized for 12k by the AP superusers.
- I was one of the loudest and closest followers of the AP scandal, and spent a lot of time trying to expose it. (This was especially true before the infamous POTRIPPER hand removed all doubt.)
- The guy reggiman called to watch the match against Seif (icfishies) was/is a close friend of mine, and reggiman himself was a friendly acquaintance of mine at the time.
- I witnessed Seif's epic chat tilt against reggiman the night before.
This match occurred in February, 2006 -- 18 months BEFORE the AP superuser scandal began. Note that it is believed that the ability to cheat on AP always existed, but it just wasn't utilized regularly until August, 2007.
At the time, I agreed with icfishies that there was something VERY suspicious about what happened -- enough to where I never was going to play Mark Seif heads up ever again. However, we both knew that it was impossible to prove. I also wasn't completely certain Mark had cheated. Since there had been no previous reports about superusing on AP, I dismissed it as "suspicious but too hard to prove." I should have asked reggiman to post his hand histories at the time. I don't know why I didn't.
However, AFTER the superuser scandal occurred, obviously this shed new light on the situation, and I felt it was very important to revisit this story. I brought it up again on 2+2, and Seif freaked out.
While it was impossible to obtain smoking-gun proof here without the hand histories, the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming:
- Mark was known by many to have a bad temper and to act irrationally when angry.
- In February, 2006, Mark Seif had a major chat fight with reggiman and several others while playing on AP. Mark got super angry and flew off the handle, even at one point strongly implying that he owned part of AP -- something that he always kept secret in the past. The railbirds were all on the side of the other pros, and everyone was laughing at Mark. You could almost see the steam rising from his ears through the computer. This chat battle was notable enough that reggiman actually posted part of it on NWP at the time: http://www.donkdown.com/forum/post182785.html
- Just a few days later, reggiman (STUCKINPGH) played Seif heads up, and the trash talk was even worse. reggiman was also beating him, to add insult to injury. When he started to suspect something was odd, he called icfishies to "phone rail" the match, where he would tell icfishies his hole cards, and a fresh (and unemotional) set of eyes would watch and give his opinion. icfishies agreed with reggiman's assessment, especially after that infamous K9 boat hand, where Seif folded out of turn after capping pre-flop. http://internettexasholdem.com/poker...as-t34808.html
- In the heads up match, Seif first busted what he brought to the table, then said something like, "One second punk", left the table, then came back with a new avatar and said "I'm ready to take you down." He then went on to destroy reggiman, making zero mistakes, only giving action when he was ahead. The new avatar is significant because all avatars had to be approved by someone at customer service prior to taking effect. It is assumed that Mark contacted someone to help him access the superuser tool, and at the same time, said, "Hey, I have a new avatar waiting, can you approve that while you're here?" Basically, it shows that someone with admin power touched Mark Seif's account in those few minutes, which would be highly coincidental to have happened on its own.
- After undeniable evidence of the superusing came out in the fall of 2007 (the POTRIPPER video), Mark publicly came forward and said that he watched the video and "wasn't convinced" that there was cheating going on. He was the only poker pro in the world to come up with such a conclusion, as the cheating was obvious to anyone with the slightest knowledge of poker. This proves both Mark's dishonesty and his desire to cover up the superuser situation. While it could be claimed that he was simply protecting his investment in AP, it could also be assumed that he would especially want the superuser suspicion to go away if he had been guilty of it himself.
- When I brought up the fact that the February, 2006 allegation against him should be revisited, Mark acted outraged and threatened to sue me. He refused to understand how anyone could be suspicious of 2006 superuser allegation against him when superusing on the site was PROVEN in 2007! You know the phrase "He doth protest too much?" Totally applied here. He didn't just deny the allegation -- he went over the top, acting insulted that anyone would dare bring the situation up again.
- AP "lost" the hand histories, and claimed they were lost in the "server move". It was later shown that the server move occurred in 2005, and could not have affected those hand histories.
- Mark had his conversation about the hand histories being lost in CHAT, rather than over the phone. He conveniently captured the whole chat, complete with obviously feigned outrage about the hands being lost. This occurred just days after Mark promised to provide the hand histories. So Mark promised the hand histories, supposedly without knowing they were lost, then suddenly got the news that they were gone, and conveniently had a chat capture of the conversation where he was informed of it.
- Mark "left" AP for unknown reasons in 2008 or 2009, and then was suddenly wearing AP gear again in 2010, with no explanation. It is highly likely that Seif owned part of AP.
To me, it looks highly likely that Mark was making an assload of money owning part of AP, and didn't feel the need to superuse. It wasn't worth the risk. Why potentially destroy the cash cow? I imagine that he didn't even know how to use that tool, but decided to "just do it this once" to teach a lesson to someone he hated.
Read all of the above and try to honestly tell me that Seif wasn't guilty. I mean, pick your poison here... the changing avatar, the K9 boat hand folded out of turn, the denial that the POTRIPPER video was proof of cheating, the overblown outrage at my asking him to post hand histories from that match after the superusing at AP was proven, the "lost" hand histories and the highly convenient chat capture of him finding out about it....
So honestly, Steve-O, do you think this was just all a coincidence, or do you think that an owner of AP might have superused one time against someone he hated?
As playing cards, you should probably keep the backs standard/same. But I like the idea of providing 'details' -- perhaps an insert could come in each pack that provides said details.hilarious idea. Could details of whatever their scam was also be outlined in a funny way on the back? Obviously something like this would be great advertising for the site.
Mark UnSeif.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
