Comments on: More Problems at UB? Hellmuth shown to have won without winning http://pokerati.com/2008/12/20/more-problems-at-ub/ Poker News, Poker Skills, Poker Laws, Poker Lives Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:06:40 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Pokermario http://pokerati.com/2008/12/20/more-problems-at-ub/comment-page-1/#comment-162985 Pokermario Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:45:40 +0000 http://pokerati.com/?p=4939#comment-162985 So weird the way the hand plays out with no showdown UB really dropped the ball big time here software glitch huh? I've honestly never seen a computer make a logic error before....sounds really fishy to me So weird the way the hand plays out with no showdown UB really dropped the ball big time here software glitch huh? I’ve honestly never seen a computer make a logic error before….sounds really fishy to me

]]> By: Pauly http://pokerati.com/2008/12/20/more-problems-at-ub/comment-page-1/#comment-162391 Pauly Sun, 21 Dec 2008 19:57:17 +0000 http://pokerati.com/?p=4939#comment-162391 You can't be serious, Cereus? You can’t be serious, Cereus?

]]> By: Kevin Mathers http://pokerati.com/2008/12/20/more-problems-at-ub/comment-page-1/#comment-162388 Kevin Mathers Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:58:04 +0000 http://pokerati.com/?p=4939#comment-162388 If you look at the hand at tableratings, it doesn't show his hand. If you see the thread as it initially appears in the 2+2 thread, the hand shows he had 10-2. If you look at the hand at tableratings, it doesn’t show his hand. If you see the thread as it initially appears in the 2+2 thread, the hand shows he had 10-2.

]]> By: DanM http://pokerati.com/2008/12/20/more-problems-at-ub/comment-page-1/#comment-162386 DanM Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:38:40 +0000 http://pokerati.com/?p=4939#comment-162386 I woulda thought a flat-out hoax might be possible ... but Leggett's response on the UB Blog pretty much disqualifies that. Yikes-yikes ... very bad, no!?! I woulda thought a flat-out hoax might be possible … but Leggett’s response on the UB Blog pretty much disqualifies that.

Yikes-yikes … very bad, no!?!

]]> By: DanM http://pokerati.com/2008/12/20/more-problems-at-ub/comment-page-1/#comment-162385 DanM Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:36:49 +0000 http://pokerati.com/?p=4939#comment-162385 Oh, wait, now I'm confused ... I thought the pot was shipped to him WITH his hand shown down, meaning everyone saw his blatantly losing hand. That's what would seem like a true technical guffaw. But the fact that his cards weren't shown? Yikes, not good ... Oh, wait, now I’m confused … I thought the pot was shipped to him WITH his hand shown down, meaning everyone saw his blatantly losing hand.

That’s what would seem like a true technical guffaw. But the fact that his cards weren’t shown? Yikes, not good …

]]> By: DanM http://pokerati.com/2008/12/20/more-problems-at-ub/comment-page-1/#comment-162367 DanM Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:11:58 +0000 http://pokerati.com/?p=4939#comment-162367 It's SOOOO blatant and the chatter suggests to me it had to be some sort of disconnect issue. You know, some tables people choose to play on are not disconnect-protected ... so a disconnect is an automatic fold. That's the only <i>plausible</i> reason I can come up with. BTW, this is not Phil's first online poker boo-boo, you may recall: http://pokerati.com/2005/10/02/online-poker-pro-scandal/ It’s SOOOO blatant and the chatter suggests to me it had to be some sort of disconnect issue. You know, some tables people choose to play on are not disconnect-protected … so a disconnect is an automatic fold.

That’s the only plausible reason I can come up with.

BTW, this is not Phil’s first online poker boo-boo, you may recall:
http://pokerati.com/2005/10/02/online-poker-pro-scandal/

]]> By: California Jen http://pokerati.com/2008/12/20/more-problems-at-ub/comment-page-1/#comment-162333 California Jen Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:49:44 +0000 http://pokerati.com/?p=4939#comment-162333 Is ANYONE shocked by this? Is ANYONE shocked by this?

]]>