Threads where cheaters complained, protesting innocence

[Orpheus]

There's a tendencey here to assume (with some fanaticism) that the major poker sites are always square dealers.

Don't get me wrong, I believe they are (almost always) fair and responsible. However, I know I have a bias: as a mere middling student of the game, I'd like to believe that this hobby will continue to be "safe" and profitable for years to come. that "that will never happen to me" because I don't play bonuses exclusiely, collude, have gnome accounts. Such implicit faith is only human: life becomes a minefield if we dwell seriously on every risk.

However, most of the arguments against rigged games (again, I emphasize that I don't believe on-line poker is rigged) would apply equally to the many sites that are known to have cheated by various means. The major difference in the magnitude of scale. This Big Monkey Fallacy ( i.e. "bigger = higher status, and therefore more reputable") is a folktale of Western capitalism: by thess "why mess with a good thing" arguments, Citibank and other huge international banks would always play square, because they rely on customer trust -- yet Citibank (just a random example) has been involved over a dozen major banking scandals in the past 30 years (e.g. the foreign currency and soybean scandals) and countless minor scandals, usually ending quietly in consent decrees with various Attorneys General that barely make page 6 of the WSJ. The same applies to too many megacorps to list.

There's no shortage of site know to have treated certain customers unfairly, and the blacklists haven't stopped growing in the past year. Indeed, I'd guess that the average 2+2er would consider it unwise to blythely deposit to some random poker room they'd never heard of, without checking it out -- we KNOW unfair practices still exist. (The recent Empire closures have caused a furu -- though personally I haven't yet formulated my final stance on it)

Similarly, I've seen many threads in the various subfora accusing posters of lying about their high BB/100, saying that such numbers have never been seen and confirmed on this board, or in the member databases--yet I see at least as many threads where many 2+2ers have asked questions about other players with astronomical BB/100s and having recently reviewed my own PT database (admittedly I only mine the lower stakes)

So here's my question:
Could we compile a list of good examples of demonstrable cheaters insincerely proclaiming their innocence. I've certainly seen a few (e.g. a self-admitted chip dumper sour graping) but not nearly enough for me to justify the automatic dismissal of every complaint posted in this forum.

If nothing else, this could be a valuable resource thread.

Again, I don't happen to think that the online poker rooms I play are rigged. I just thought a one-stop resource might be useful when replying to future posts along this vein.

(I am in the midst of slowly compiling "outrageous BB/100" threads -true and false- with the intention of starting a separate thread on that issue. Please save your favorite outrageous BB/100 theads for that upcoming discussion)

[Eder]

Add me to the list since I bonuswhore so much my bb/100 is pretty scary. (Real rate is the norm however)

[solucky]

rigged is possible cheating is 100% sure. In fact anyone here that use any kind of softwarehelp like PT GT is a cheater in my opinion....including me