If you mean this particular thread, the only "solution" I can see to that would be to not allow any discussion of poker sites being rigged. But all that would do for the hard-core rigged believers is harden their belief that there's a big conspiracy against them, and much more importantly, has the possibility of there being a real case of rigging and it not being discovered as quickly because of the lack of discussion. Despite what some might believe, the last think I'd want to see is a real case of rigging covered up.

But really, I don't think this thread is all that harmful. To be honest, I think it mostly serves as an echo chamber to many. Those with closed minds who instantly go to the possibility of being cheated when things don't go well for them in many aspects of life are never going to be convinced otherwise. And those who play and believe that all is on the up and up certainly aren't going to be convinced by those with their evidence-free rants. As for the open-minded who look at the arguments logically, I think most of them can sort out the sensible posts from the nonsensical.

I can see your point, but as I've seen multiple studies, analyses have been made that show that there isn't shady stuff done in terms of the RNG riggedness allegations. The people who rant there is shady stuff done seem to not take them into consideration at all. Basically, I think if let's say Pokerstars would take them personally and show them how the RNG works and prove to them by statistics that there isn't any wrongdoing, they would still believe something is wrong.

And, I agree with you, if there is any riggedness going on, it would bug me if it remained uncovered.

Safest way to go, I advise people to play at the top sites.

If u tall to may site site they will tell u it's impossible. There is no way to control any cards. I have hear this from many sites. The fact is it is possible. So why do they say it's impossible?
And I always find it funny that people day if a site rigged hands their business would be done. Lock poker basically stole money, people knew they were never going to get their money out and they still played there. It's was a for gone conclusion thst no one was ever getting paid and people were still grinding 10 tables. People will not quit poker. If a top site came out tomorrow and admitted they rigged games people would still play

Probably because they've set up their software so that it can't be done, much like most sites aren't stupid enough to have a capability of seeing hole cards in real time like UB and AP did.

Or it could be because the way you communicate, it's quite possible they have no idea what you're talking about.

But really...who cares? Whether a site rigs an RNG or has a clean RNG and then manipulates the cards afterwards changes nothing. Absolutely nothing. Absolutely, positively, nothing.

Lock isn't the best example, because people slowly did stop playing there, which is probably why they finally ended the scam and took everyone's money. A better example would be UB and AP, where people kept playing there in spite of the super user scandal and other shady behaviour. It definitely hurt their traffic, but not to the effect that it should have. Some people didn't hear about it, some people did but they were making money so they didn't care, or they played lower stakes and thus figured it didn't affect them, etc. If a site were found to be rigged, yes, it might be a similar result. But I expect it would definitely negatively impact a site; very much so.

Has anyone posted a clip of a particular Samuel Jackson line from toward the beginning of Pulp Fiction in this thread yet?

I assume you mean: (not embedding it because there's a naughty word in the title)

****

Yes, this is what I meant.


NSFW

I thought it looked liked a very, very drunk man had written it.

You still haven't posted your results. Or at least a screen name so we can go worship a god. I'm willing to pay you 70% of my profits if you PM me with the way the rig goes, at what site and if it does work, I promise you, 70% of my profits are yours.

Changing the run out of the cards does nothing?
No way a site could rig a deal and get away with it long term? Imo option you are wrong. If you control the poker room you can do whatever you need to do to make things right. So you dont get caught. Like change names on a regular basic. If you look at jungle hand history you will find nothing cuz it is very hard to show proof of a rig when it only happens when they want it too. If it always was rigged than yea easy to spot.

This thread imo is a cover up. Nobody can talk about a potental rig cuz their post gets put in here and torn apart by all 2p2 employees. I understand you got to protect online poker. You think a employee going to rat a cheating company out that is in costa rico. I think everyone that lives there are already on the wrong side of the law. Heard it is pretty cheap to kill people there too and you think someone going to rat out a company for cheating poker player.

I'm pretty new to this forum, but if you take the time to search this thread sporadically, you would see that the people you say are protecting online poker( regardless of what is going on ) have actually tried to help uncover rigging in the past ( the superuser scandal, bots at Ipoker ). The only thing that they ask from people who say it's rigged is evidence. In other words, the motive/s on which they base their statement.

I think it's pointless to say that most of the alleged rigged theories are bonanza.

Now, I think that Bobo was referring to the fact that if poker sites where to alter their deal, that thing will come up in the analyses of HH's. You seem to disagree with this. Now, I think we can both agree to the fact that with a random deal, the percentages would add up close to the odds expectancy with a large enough sample. ( example : you lose with aces all in preflop 30% more than you should ). Again, you seem to disagree with this logic.

Now, while I do agree that if the site picks like 1 hand in 1000 to rig or something close to that ( I don't know the exact number that would have such a low statistical significance that wouldn't show up in a study ), the problem with this is, why do that ? The increase in profits would be so slim that it isn't worth the risk. Not to mention the fact that how would you choose the hands that would again, basically bring you no much more in profits ? What would be the criteria ?

Now, if a site where to rig more of its hands, anomalies would show up in HH's. So, the question that a site needs to answer to itself when pondering such a foul play is what is the exact percentage of hands to rig in order for them to not be discovered by analysis and to still bring a worthwhile profit to the company. Not to mention that this rig actually needs a lot more things taken into consideration, the effort, resources and time that would need to be put in to this sort of rig is too big and again, it's not profitable to the company. At least IMO, if others disagree, please do so and explain why.


I for one I pretty much disagree with this thread because of the nature of the riggie posters. If there were people who were posting like this for example: I believe Bovada Poker is rigged. Here is my hand history sample ( assuming that the sample is not 10 hands but decent enough ) I find anomalies in my hands, can somebody better than me at statistics check them out and see if there is something sketchy going on ? Instead of : " It's raining outside, that means Pokerstars is rigged today and 6 2 offsuit is the hand to shove with".



And as a sidenote: I play on Pokerstars. They use a static shuffle as far as I know. That means once the cards are dealt, they cannot be changed, the shuffle happens before a hand. They use hardware RNG's with player actions ( mouse movements ) and beams of light as sources of entropy to ensure true randomness. That shuffle was proven to be random by authorised 3rd parties and by players alike. I know that Full Tilt uses the same and I'm pretty sure other top sites use this method as well.

Also chemtrails and lizard people

Lol, didn't know of the chemtrail conspiracy. Good one. I'm gonna buy a 1945 german AA gun and shoot down those bastards as often as I can.

I am not saying they are all rigged but it is very hard to prove and bobo knows this that why he says what he says. I just made a point that you cant prove it. Lol at not making alot of money cheating. If they let the winning player destory the fish the site dies and no more rake. If they just rig couple hand in a tourney and say win 200,000 for rigging a couple of hand thats pretty good money.
Plus if you have a small winning player and every once in awhile you take a stack from him he cant withdraw. All you got to do is set up a hand and boom he or she is now a break even player. For people to think poker site has no reason to rig are just clueless. Small sites have a bigger reason to rig than others. Some are just stupid or greedy. It has happened before and just like the ceo of wpn has said publicly. (They have learned a ton from the lock poker room) What about the people that got caught at ub and ap. You think their isnt other people just like them. There are many problems that online poker sites face that can be fixed by just fixing the outcome once in awhile and go without notice.

I only post my results when money is put up. Many here think I am a losing player and if they want to put up money then I will post my results. Until thst time u see nothing. It's also only cash games as I don't play multi table tourneys.

So take these points.
If they rig 1 hand per 1000 no one would not notice but the increase in profit is so small right?
Take this scenario. Pokerstars deals like say 10,000 hands per hour for example. So they would rig 10 hands per hour. Small results. But say those hands they rig stop 10 players from going broke with the last of their bankroll. Now that player maybe plays 10,000 more hands X 10 players for 100,000 more hands played then they would have before if they had gone broke. What money do they make on 100,000 hands? Probably not so small now right ? So over the course of a day they could rig 1 in 1,000 and maybe get an extra 100,000 out of those rigs multiplied by 24 hours in a day. That is alot of extra hands by players who may have busted their accounts are now able to play.

So a never-gonna-happen bet to stroke your ego is more important to you than exposing cheating?

Even if someone agrees to bet on whether or not you're a winning player you refuse to escrow with anyone but random friends of yours or something, so you expect someone to just take your word that you'll pay them. Please explain the bolded. How is someone being saved from losing their last buy in going to miraculously play 10,000 more hands with that one buyin? What would actually happen is the fish Stars chooses to bail out that one hand is going to play maaaaaaybe 100 more hands before pulling another dumb fish move and getting stacked.

That's the problem with any of these oh-so-clever rigs that only rig .1% of the hands, there's literally no point to it and the sites might maaaaaaaybe get to rake a few more hands.

Increasing tournament rake by a tiny amount is infinitely more profitable, and it's also infinitely easier.

For that matter, so is raising rake in cash games.

It also makes the fish feel like he or she has a chance so they deposit again. It not really bout the money they make on rigged hand but about long term. Some sites will favorite you if you just got done depositing. So when you start losing you remember when you were winning and keep playing and depositing. Some sites with give you money back after a period of time just to get you to comeback to the site.

It is also very obvious and they may lose player over it.

Yeah, that's why Pokerstars would never increase rake. Oh. wait...

Ah yes, the mythical fish who decide to deposit because they managed to win their last hand before busting that one time. You're of course exploiting this for insane profits, yes?
90% of fish don't even know rake exists, let alone notice increases to it. The sites are good enough at hiding their rake increases it takes regs doing actual math to figure out the increase sometimes, I have to assume those instances go completely unnoticed by fish. Hell, Stars switching from VPPs to Stars Coins (or whatever they're called) was effectively a rake increase but it probably made fish in general happy.

lol I personal like pokerstar and wish I could play there. I just was responding to my buddy bobo's post. He or she obviously has no clue and doesnt even play online poker! I also think grouping all rigged messages in one thread and than flooding it with 2p2 long post is just wrong imo.

Who are u going to escrow with? Random friends of yours?
I have seen many times a fish catch a 2 or 3 out river and should have gone broke and turn $25 at the table into $200. Ya maybe he goes broke the next day mayer he doesn't. Pokerstars had 70k players on sometime. If 5% get saves thst is 3,500 people.
I have many times ran $1 on sites to $200 or 300 and it took lots of hands to do it. I am koto saying in every case but if it happens half the time then it works out to alot of money

I have but not for lots of money and not on poker. Once they notice what you are doing they take away your withdraw options. Fish to reg ration is what? Reg pay the bills not fish. Regs dont play without fish in the game. Fish dont play without regs. Some site are really bad with the reg to fish ration which mean they got to work hard to keep the regs happy. You obvious are here to defend pokerstars. I like them to but this thread is a joke.

QUOTE=DustinOGCharger;51910902]
I am not saying they are all rigged but it is very hard to prove and bobo knows this that why he says what he says. I just made a point that you cant prove it. Lol at not making alot of money cheating. If they let the winning player destory the fish the site dies and no more rake. If they just rig couple hand in a tourney and say win 200,000 for rigging a couple of hand thats pretty good money.
Plus if you have a small winning player and every once in awhile you take a stack from him he cant withdraw. All you got to do is set up a hand and boom he or she is now a break even player.For people to think site has no reason to rig are just clueless. Small sites have a bigger reason to rig than others. Some are just stupid or greedy. It has happened before and just like the ceo of wpn has said publicly. (They have learned a ton from the lock room) What about the people that got caught at ub and ap. You think their isnt other people just like them. There are many problems that online sites face that can be fixed by just fixing the outcome once in awhile and go without notice.[/QUOTE]



What point did you make when you say they can't prove it? And where did Bobo say that rigging can't be proved if the sites rig the RNG to do the sort of rig that you imply?



Again, for the site to be making a lot of money cheating they would have to rig a pretty big bunch of their hands. Those rigs would come up in the HH's. I remember, if I'm not mistaken Lock Poker had those type of problems but instead of giving HH's to be proven or not cause the suspicion was already there by some analyses did on some previous samples they chose to disappear. Big sites nowadays release HH's. You can check them, if there's any rigging taking place, it will be discovered. Again, I'm talking of consistent rigging. If you say that the sites rig 1 in 100000 hands, I'm going to back you up on that cause there is no way we can prove it and basically it would only MAYBE bring the site a few extra cents.



How can they win 200000 thousands dollars by rigging a couple of hands ? How ? explain to me.



And these small winning players doomed to be break even players forever, how are they selected ? And why would the sites make them breakeven ? What would they gain ? You do realize that there are a good bunch of solid winning players out there, no ? Which at some point were small winning players themselves. Did they just got lucky not to be selected by the site?



"If they let the winning player destory the fish the site dies and no more rake".
On the long run, the winning player will always destroy the fish. This is common sense. Again, if you want to imply that they are rigging one hand here and one hand there for keeping the fish alive, ok. I'll go along with that.
But there's a problem with this theory. The risk vs reward problem. A fish is a fish. You rig one hand and keep him alive, he feels good, he plays some more, 100 hands later ( at best ), the fish is bust. They just raked a few more cents from a fish. And of course this is the scenario where the fish doesn't go bust quickly after the rigged hand. Is it worth it for a company to take the risk of being caught rigging the games ? Again, I'm talking the big companies here.



Considering how many fishes are out there, if you rig hands for them constantly to keep them alive you might make some profit, but it will start to become obvious in the HH's that something ain't right.
Bottomline is, it isn't good, business wise for the companies to rig the hands for the fish. They will bust their bankrolls sooner or later by themselves. The ones who would reload will do so with or without help by one rigged hand.


What did the CEO of WPN say publicly?

UB and AP were superusers, not rigged RNG's.


" There are many problems that online sites face that can be fixed by just fixing the outcome once in awhile and go without notice"

Like what and how would they go without notice?

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/escrow.asp

One day perhaps you'll understand the concept. It doesn't happen half the time or there would be actual evidence of it, not dumb speculation.

Of course, because I don't take your posts at face value I am "defending" Stars. Well yeah, it's just dumb speculation (often times contradictory speculation at that) contained in this thread so the rest of the forum isn't filled with ****ty threads with no evidence.

I guarantee if you actually post proof of any kind of rig, it will stay a separate thread.

Note that saying "You win right after you deposit" isn't proof, a graph showing times you deposited with winning streaks at the same time is.