The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition - Page 201 - Internet Poker

Username^^ · 05-01-2009, 10:41 AM

You are right proably, anyway. I had an upswing not long time ago. And actually, i figured out that only limits i cant beat are the lowest stakes, and super turbo tournaments. I have played over 500 sngs in past 10 days in 5$ limit (it is not high, but definetly different playing style than 1$) And i played them with 25% ROI. I was also playing 7$ super turbos, i played around 30 tournaments, and finished them with -50% ROI. I Finally got my decent MTT wining putting me in overall positive ROI and overall $ winings. I had enough br to play 10$ sngs, i played around 50 (-10% ROI) But i am possitive that i can beat them in the long run. Anyway, it was fun to discuss with you guys, and as i always said i never thought that OP was rigged. I just dont have enough proves that it is not.

I am glad that you bothered your selfs in such researches, and i am kind of proud that next person that presents it self here will get real proof, and will have to stfu.

spadebidder · 05-01-2009, 11:15 AM

A convert!!

cue big band

Username^^ · 05-01-2009, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spadebidder

A convert!!

cue big band

I dont understand very well what are you trying to say, but while you was calling me a rigtard, other side of debate was calling me shill. :-| I not one or other, i dont defend one or other side of debate, i just know that there is no suficient proof to prove one or another, and i will defend or deny any argument that looks logical to me. Today is friday, and i am drun as hell, after almos 48hrs poker session and another 12 of clubbing i still cant get no sleep ( drugs sex clubs and techno music)

K13 · 05-01-2009, 12:39 PM

KJ vs KK , damn I feel good, my two jacks are coming.
JJ vs A10, oh I'm ****ed, here comes the ace.

otatop · 05-01-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by K13

KJ vs KK , damn I feel good, my two jacks are coming.
JJ vs A10, oh I'm ****ed, here comes the ace.

Wow, what exciting new evidence you've brought to the party.

You might as well just type "it's rigged" and move on, because it accomplishes the same thing.

qpw · 05-01-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by K13

KJ vs KK , damn I feel good, my two jacks are coming.
JJ vs A10, oh I'm ****ed, here comes the ace.

I think there's no doubt that you are a regular who's using a gimmick account to take the piss out of rigtards by parody.

Congratulations.

Very good.

Sometimes it's the most effective way.

spadebidder · 05-01-2009, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qpw

I think there's no doubt that you are a regular who's using a gimmick account to take the piss out of rigtards by parody.

Congratulations.

Very good.

Sometimes it's the most effective way.

qpw - it's a nice thought, but a look back through K13's post history will probably change your mind. I think they are a regular, perhaps a winning online player, but they seem to genuinely believe that the sites juice things by fiddling with the deal. Yes, they use humor and sarcasm, but just to make fun of what they believe to be true.

I know a number of players who think this way (one who is a good friend I play live with), that they can beat the games on FT and they have no intention of quitting, but that those bad beats just can't possibly be random. They are smart enough to understand all the logical reasons and statistical proof in the world, but it won't get rid of their skepticism and belief it is just something you have to put up with. K13 is like that.

DMoogle · 05-01-2009, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spadebidder

qpw - it's a nice thought, but a look back through K13's post history will probably change your mind. I think they are a regular, perhaps a winning online player, but they seem to genuinely believe that the sites juice things by fiddling with the deal. Yes, they use humor and sarcasm, but just to make fun of what they believe to be true.

I know a number of players who think this way (one who is a good friend I play live with), that they can beat the games on FT and they have no intention of quitting, but that those bad beats just can't possibly be random. They are smart enough to understand all the logical reasons and statistical proof in the world, but it won't get rid of their skepticism and belief it is just something you have to put up with. K13 is like that.

That must be absolutely infuriating. I hate people who ignore logic.

qpw · 05-01-2009, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spadebidder

qpw - it's a nice thought, but a look back through K13's post history will probably change your mind. I think they are a regular, perhaps a winning online player, but they seem to genuinely believe that the sites juice things by fiddling with the deal. Yes, they use humor and sarcasm, but just to make fun of what they believe to be true.

I know a number of players who think this way (one who is a good friend I play live with), that they can beat the games on FT and they have no intention of quitting, but that those bad beats just can't possibly be random. They are smart enough to understand all the logical reasons and statistical proof in the world, but it won't get rid of their skepticism and belief it is just something you have to put up with. K13 is like that.

You may well be correct.

I just don't see how anyone can post a couple of imaginary hands that do not mean a single thing in support of some daft rigged theory.

DRybes · 05-01-2009, 09:15 PM

I'm not prepared to check two and a half thousand posts to see if this has been posted before, but here's an interesting demonstration that nearly all "theorists" approach the wrong way the first time. If you can understand the solution to the problem, you will suddenly see which way of thinking in the rigged argument actually has overwhelming evidence supporting it.

The reason I provide it is because it has nothing to do with poker, detaching it enough to potentially change a mind or two instead of create such a conflict.

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson3.html

PeaceFr0g · 05-01-2009, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spadebidder

qpw - it's a nice thought, but a look back through K13's post history will probably change your mind. I think they are a regular, perhaps a winning online player, but they seem to genuinely believe that the sites juice things by fiddling with the deal. Yes, they use humor and sarcasm, but just to make fun of what they believe to be true.

I know a number of players who think this way (one who is a good friend I play live with), that they can beat the games on FT and they have no intention of quitting, but that those bad beats just can't possibly be random. They are smart enough to understand all the logical reasons and statistical proof in the world, but it won't get rid of their skepticism and belief it is just something you have to put up with. K13 is like that.

Does your friend have a strong background playing live? Until recently, most of my play has been live and as I've mentioned elsewhere, my mindset is not much different than that of your friend. But as long as I'm making an hourly rate that I deem worth my time, I continue to play. Even though something doesn't seem right to me about online Vs. live play.

senjitsu · 05-01-2009, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRybes

I'm not prepared to check two and a half thousand posts to see if this has been posted before, but here's an interesting demonstration that nearly all "theorists" approach the wrong way the first time. If you can understand the solution to the problem, you will suddenly see which way of thinking in the rigged argument actually has overwhelming evidence supporting it.

The reason I provide it is because it has nothing to do with poker, detaching it enough to potentially change a mind or two instead of create such a conflict.

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson3.html

im ashamed to say my first instinct was wrong (though it only took me a minute to figure it out), even though i know about false contrapositives.

spadebidder · 05-01-2009, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRybes

I'm not prepared to check two and a half thousand posts to see if this has been posted before, but here's an interesting demonstration that nearly all "theorists" approach the wrong way the first time. If you can understand the solution to the problem, you will suddenly see which way of thinking in the rigged argument actually has overwhelming evidence supporting it.

The reason I provide it is because it has nothing to do with poker, detaching it enough to potentially change a mind or two instead of create such a conflict.

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson3.html

Black Swan thesis. Also see Taleb's Fooled by Randomness.

Is your point that solid confirmed evidence can immediately disprove the statement "online poker is not rigged", but no amount of anecdotal evidence of "not rigged" will ever prove the statement? That's kind of obvious if it is indeed what you are saying. I've said before no one is trying to prove the negative.

Most rational players realize that there certainly could be some rigging going on somewhere and no one is trying to prove the quoted statement in the first paragraph, even if we haven't seen any evidence to disprove it. But as long as the statistics continue to confirm the "not rigged" idea, it doesn't much matter if there is some rigging going on somewhere that is a black swan waiting to be discovered. Poker is about probabilities, and if the statistics say the game is fair, then the game is pretty much fair. At least where I play.

So I guess I missed your point.

repcorpus24 · 05-02-2009, 01:53 PM

Was looking for anyone who has played at least 1 mil hands on bodog and pokerstars who actually thinks the rngs are truly random. Maybe I am a rigtard but for those who are not you have no proof either. I am saying that there is absolutely no way the RNG's are the same. Bodogs RNG is different than pokerstars plain and simple. TY

philsrightthere · 05-02-2009, 02:02 PM

ok so? switch to pstars then