Let me get this straight. The player who always has position wins a majority of the pots they play and the player in the worst position the table loses a majority of the pots he pays? Also the more aggressive player wins the pot a majority of the time? This leads you believe it is rigged? I thought playing in position and using tactful aggression were considered fundamentals because they made players lose more

I'm sorry you are running as poorly as you are, but you'll need to make a stronger case than good poker wins more pots if you want to be taken seriously.

I feel like I'm playing more against the software then the player!

This can't be just variance... its way too common and happening to lots of people in the same manner.
Not saying it is rigged, but I'm definitely not ruling it out. If this was a U.S ran site I would definitely have a different opinion.
But who knows where this server is located? Someones basement? These sites are only here to make money. Their not here to make us happy or to mock the DOJ. They want our money only, so to say they couldn't have something in place that helps that along is just plain unrealistic.
If there is a way for them to write some unique code to make deposits happen more often, you better believe they are doing it.
There is no one regulating, watching, or caring what they are doing to the software. No One!!

Sorry, but this is the part that makes me chuckle a bit..."If this was a U.S ran site I would definitely have a different opinion"...regulation doesn't make things better. And certainly, the first thing that comes to mind is the 100% American owned and operated previous FULL TILT POKER. Enough said.

They don't even make money off a deposit directly.. Infact, it costs them ~10% for every deposit you make (to pay the payment processor) deposit 500$ = 50$ costs for them.

The only thing they make money off is rake, simple as. A site would theoretically make most money by making sure its playerbase is about equally good as possible (so no either extremes of bad or really good players, but rather all mediocre players: this would generate most rake.)

If you say their software is making it so that it trys to put as much bad beats as possible on a good player, then it would make some sense, it would indeed be good for their economy. That being said, a good player WILL by default statistically get most suckouts and coolers, because they'll most often actually have the goods when the money goes in (ofcourse).

I'm not saying it's "rigged", but I have never seen so many disgusting beats at incredible times on any site that I've played on since 2004.

As someone mentioned, I felt like I was playing against the RNG. It was constant and consistent 2 and 3 outers. Under pairs hitting sets and A-Rag hitting the rag vs a higher ace or hitting the ace vs a pair.

KK was an absolute nightmare to get dealt and the only way I could win with it was either vs AA or if everyone folded.

It wasn't just happening to me, it was happening to everyone at my tables.

I'm not saying it's rigged, but the site is just not for me.

Were the suckouts happening to the guy you got Kings vs aces with? There's always someone on the other side, i hope you see the fallacy. In th end the site gains nothing by making specific people win, they gain by rake, so why would they rig it?

Yeah maybe i could push when i have ace rag and hit vs kk ninty percent of the time etc. Changing your game isn't going to change your results. If you do change up and get it in bad as opposed to good you will just lose your money that much faster. There aren't as many winners as people think there are although you would think it was the other way around. I don't buy the more hands played thus more bad beats. Its when the big money goes in that the bad beats count and thats where online poker dosen't compare to live poker for instance imo. Variance my .......

Ive had plenty of bad beats llive so i realize bad beats do happen live just not at the rate they do online when all the money is on the line whether its in mtt or cash game. Much easier to win live then online at least for me.

Yes i realise your leveling with the deposits but people do really belive in the exploiting the rng theory when there really isn't any way to exploit the online rng.

Regarding KK, yes, the only time I was comfortable with them was when the other player flipped up AA cause I knew then I had a chance lol.

I'm not saying it's rigged, been playing online for 8 years now and have stayed away from rigged discussions.

I'm saying the site became a nightmare to play on for me. I stopped playing there based on it not being fun anymore and the fact I can't get my cashout.

I'd like to point out though that there is certainly motivation to "rig" the RNG. It's very simple, to keep the money on the site flowing from one player to another as to maximize the rake. I just don't think Lock is doing this, but the motivation is there.

I didn't feel this when Lock was on Merge and am playing on another skin on Merge and I feel just fine there. I noticed this after the move to the Cake network.

I'm happily playing on 2 other sites that don't have me punching my screen throughout each session.

I think variance is something very big the human mind can barely if at all comprehend, it can turn around any moment i think, but it also might not, simple as, especially in poker i think it's far bigger than most people think, but that's just me

I completely agree with you.

I also think it's perfectly ok for me to take my business elsewhere based on my own personal experiences.

I run really bad at Bellagio too, so I don't play there anymore either. I certainly don't think Bellagio is rigged.

Ofcourse it is. But realise it won't matter, as i said, your luck on any other site could turn around any moment just as much as it could turn around on Lock.

I hear you, though, this is just how the human brain works easy to talk as an outsider who isn't experiencing this.. I'd probably swap site aswell, even when i realise it doesn't actually change anything, so yeah..

Actually it changes everything for me.

I was miserable playing on Lock and now I'm back to my happy self.

Psychology is huge in this game and that site was literally driving me insane.

Where BCP?

Why is everyone getting butt Hurt over something so stupid lol... I'm in the same boat. I think I have only seen aces over aces over another počet face card two times or so.

Anyways, op, no online poker is not rigged at all. Utilize bankroll management and ur bad beats won't be as bad....

In reply to my other post. The numbers are not even close to being accurate. Btn maybe win 10-20% of showdown regularly and why should aggression factor have any direct relation to how a flop comes?

In reply to my other post. The numbers are not even close to being accurate. Btn maybe win 10-20% of showdown regularly and why should aggression factor have any direct relation to how a flop comes?

@LTT77

You did not understand what I wrote. The button and small blind did not win or lose the hand by playing better or worse. They had the best hand or worst hand at SHOWDOWN. For players who do not know what showdown means you can read the rules of the game. http://poker.about.com/od/poker101/ht/holdem101.htm

i have over 1,000,000 hand samples on Intertops poker which is on the Revolution Network (same network as Lock) and I am ranked 8th overall on the site. After multi tabling 20-30 tables, 8 hours a day I can tell you this site is rigged and the RCG is not random at all. After cashing out $20,000 in May of 2012 I have been unable to produce a winning month. I am over 100 BI under EV. If someone saw my profit graph compared to my EV graph that would be evidence alone of the legitimacy of this software. After losing about a steady $1000-$3000 a month (even after making over $3,000 a month just in rakeback and leaderboard money), I decided I had enough. I asked my brother who is a programmer getting his doc at UNH right now to help me and he got some buddies and looked over some stats using HEM2 and another program they created. Here are some statistics that make no sense. I took a small sample of 100,000 hands and these are the results. Btn wins 65% of time when 2 or more hands go to showdown. SB lost 68% of time on the same token. When measuring aggression factor we took a smaller sample of 10,000ish hands. Aggressor of the hand (player who raises preflop either 3-bet, 4bet whoever put in last bet) won SEVENTY EIGHT PERCENT of Pots. Not all of these went to showdown but 78? Is this random? There are many other stats I have I am not sharing because we are trying to come up with some way to get a lawsuit together if possible which it is probably not because of how protected these people are. However if anyone is interested you can email me at dayyuuuumx3@aim.com. I have had better results on the merge network and have made the full switch in the last month. GL at the tables although luck has nothing to do with it. ( Also when button shove with Ace rag and gets called by any bigger ace the dominated Ace won 80% of time). Math make sense there?

ORLY? Post all hands for the lolz.
Are you from the US? Best of luck with filing a lawsuit regarding online poker.

This really sounds more like an argument for the power of position than proof of a non random number generator.

Btn has more information throughout the hand and can thus make better choices.

I strongly suspect that if we could filter a large enough database for only times when Btn tried to steal with 27o and SB defends with AA, that the small percentage of times such a match up would go to showdown, that 27 would win the majority. Why? because Btn playing 27 is not going to let to showdown unless they have hit a well disguised monster, and the sorts of boards that are going to hit 27 are going to look quite safe to AA.


Hardly surprising, the last person to raise is either in position, or is holding a monster. Most hands aren't going to make it to showdown, and those that do are going to be won by the best hand. And usually the best hand going in is the best hand at showdown.

Now, if you could show that the times you bluffed with bad hands had a higher than expected rate of hitting the board in a big way... now that would be interesting.

i think he's probably more referring to when say a raise comes to the button w/85o who goes all in with an amount equal to, heck i don't know, $1 more than whoever raised need to call, and magically something like A8s loses on the river to the inevitable 5 that came...

Ooh, now there is a condition with which it would be easy to document that something was amiss. In fact, I can be pretty certain that if anyone were to ever come forward with a decent sample size of documented cases where players going all in with worse hands hit their outs at statistically improbable rates then the bulk of the two plus two community would rise and agree that something was amiss.

Of course the keys here are decent sample sizes of verifiable cases.

lord have mercy, do you fail to see an imaginary example for what it is...& by the way, in the silly one I gave the "going all in with obviously the worst hand" would actually make no sense what soever...go troll someone else, I will completely wear your silly self out, guaran-freek'in-teed

only 2knl and higher has set ups

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha, stake me...i'm such a fish, I couldn't possibly miss then!!!

Way too funny!

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...dition-255990/