If they helped weaker hands win, why are you telling us instead of playing 52o and raking in the millions?

I don't fully understand this juicing concept if within it bad players lose and good players win long term, and no difference can be noticed since the rig does not target anyone. That means proof of your juicing theory is that we can see no proof of juicing?


If you are saying specific hands win too much that would take about 30 seconds to prove with any reasonable database of hands and a program called Holdem Manager which more than a few people own, so I assume your beliefs are a bit better than something that simple to disprove.

Wow, I see a few marked improvements ITT, Bingo Boy's posting pics and BR learned how to multi quote.

Who said anything about 52o winning money?

It just loses at a slower rate than it should (IMO).

@Monteroy, it would take billions of hands to get anywhere near the amount required to prove anything because you don't have hole card info- you can't determine anything if people fold- if I think someone is getting flush draws too often, how can I tell he had a flush draw if he folds the river when he might fold a flush draw but also top pair or he might have a missed straight draw etc.

Just to get an idea of how hard this rig is to prove- from my 200,000+ sample at Ongame, if I set the filters as PFR, board texture as 2 of one suit, did see showdown and @ river flush was possible, I only have 1,112 instances (not all in before river this is). So I'd have to play millions upon millions of hands and even then, those results could be a statistical blip or classed as 'variance'.

The only way to prove a rig is to see it in action, get 6 players at a table sharing hole card info-

MP limps, BTN raises, BB call, MP calls. Both check to BTN who c-bets, all check through turn and river. If you did this at FTP or Entraction, you would see the rig in real time. Turn and river cards enticing action at an unnatural rate.

For the record, from those 1,112 times, I can see cooler after cooler, both in my favour and against, just seemingly action induced over and over.

I included the last part because I know someone will take the bait

All the best,

This was up to when Ongame stopped HEM seeing showdown hands also, quite obvious why they did that really given the crap I'm seeing here

Just looking at the hands, it's incredible how often when I flopped a flush draw myself vs a bad player that they had a weak made hand to rival it.

What I notice is a tendency for many players to be prepared to call down at least two streets with bottom pair when PFR has a flush draw. Standard given opponent is a fish.

PFR flops two pair or better, and these same players are flopping more draws in these situations, rather than the much wider, weaker made hand ranges which we know they are capable of calling with.

Wow, it isn't until you look at the smaller showdown pots that you can see the rig in full flow, there is no wayon earth I could accept these Ongame hands are not juiced up to help weaker hands along. Just isn't possible, the only blank hands seem to be when AK loses to 55 in a non event hand or something like that.

I'[m not suggesting the fish suddenly sould read and put you on a draw and call with light made hands such as TPWK or bottom pair as bluff catchers, what I'm suggesting is that the rng is setting up these situations, and when the PFR does flop big, the fish tends to no longer have his full range as it should be, but rather it leans towards draws and much stronger overall hands at a higher % when they give you action.

And just skimming over my 888 stats over the same filters, it just looks a lot more random, with many fish calling off river bets with dominated hands, such as A5 vs my QQ, board is JT475 (c-bet, check turn and bet river), I cant find anything like this at all with my Ongame stats. Incredible.

Sorry to interrupt the strange conversation you are having with yourself, but you can also find one of the hundreds of people in on it among the hundreds of rooms (active and defunct) to reveal what they know. Just saying.

I still have no idea what to even say about your "me and 5 buddies could prove a site is rigged in a few hours" concept since nobody can be serious when they say that. However, to humor you, just hire 5 dudes at $25 each to share all data at 1/2 cent games for "a few hours" get the data you need and if you can genuinely prove the games are rigged in a verifiable way I will send a grand your way for the benefit you will bring to the industry with that discovery.

$125 investment for you and a few hours to make a grand, and as a bonus you meet 5 new buddies (since for some reason you seem to have none to help you as of yet) Should be an easy choice on your part, right?

Another option is to hire a HEM expert who will be able to filter and prove or disprove the rig you are imagining and pay him the $50 or so for him to do the 10 minutes work or so needed to do just that. No offense, but I do not trust your work since you are working toward a goal in terms of results.

There you go,three relatively easy ways for you to prove what you believe, but do not worry as nobody expects you to actually do any of the above 3 options.

If this fulfills your bait tossing needs that's cool, though it is a bit of a shame an actual player wastes so much of his time in such a -EV manner as you do with your obsession. Your choice I suppose.


All the best.

I am afraid only one way to 100% proof is declaration from someone who invents system, what is improbable, otherwise variance can explain everything.
Up to time hardcore regulation by law and effective control of all process of dealing there is no chance. To much $ in game.
Btw who has interest enforce such a law ?
Government ? No, they only like taxes.
Donks ?
FPP pros?
Poker industry employees?
Only few unsuccessful players (and many of them are really bad).
There is also question about influence of such law to traffic. Nobody will only lose and lose and deposit. As slots inventors know, you must win first to lost more.

Nice to see someone understand whats (most likely) going on.

I dont think it has so much to do with the hands, but the players and their recent history so to say. How much they played, won, lost, how much money they have left, how much and how often they deposited or withdrew and so on. All these factors and many more even has an important role in each and every players psychology. And so does the outcome of the next game/session. It determines who will lose some interest in playing and who will gain.

Obviously this gain or loss of interest is much bigger for rec players than for mass volume players. A site can take (and I think they do) much from the big volume players since they sort of prove they play no matter what. There is no doubt that the mass volume winning players as a group run below EV in OLP! Obv I cant prove that, but if these players just started putting their graphs together you should see it. Question is how many players it would take to do that before you would start believing it.

Think about all the fish players out there. How much difference could you actually make by rigging the games to make them help the poker economy as much as possible. And I am not just talking about rake. Because, you need to look at how much money they give to the big wheel of other players that is the poker economy. The more money in the wheel, the more rake. The more players in the wheel, the more rake.

Most people has high hopes for when they start out playing online poker. They want to win. You dont have fun if you lose. If you start out by losing you dont like OLP. If you start out by winning, you like OLP. And once you have felt how its like to win, you will remember that feeling when you eventually goes busto. Therefore you redeposit... maybe win some more, and then busto again. But losing real money in OLP is not just a bad feeling, the human urge to want to win back is extremey important. This makes people go crazy and play even higher than before. Fish gets a few very lucky days to win a lot, only to let him lose and trigger an urge to redeposit and win it back.

You can get so many times more out of a player by rigging the game than letting it be up to the coincidences. And everytime it is a so little hand sample that everyone explains it as variance.

How easy isnt it to get away with doing stuff like this?

And for those who thinks that million of hand samples proves anyting: Dont you think that when mr Fish sucks out on mr Reg that the "incidents" will be made up for so that mr Reg dont eventually get an abnormal number of suckouts in is HHs? Do anyone really think they would rigg it so hand samples could actually prove what they did....?

"Oh, I have reicived Aces 1253 times. And when I do the math that seems about just right. Nothing dodgy going on here, thats for sure!"

Yes, to 100% prove it you would need such things happening. But it should be possible to show patterns. But I dont know how much you would need to "prove" patterns.

I know you have written here for years. Now thats an obsession. May I ask what your motivation is?

Name one way a site could figure out these players' tendencies and do these calculations on the fly to keep themselves profitable. "There's no doubt this is true, but I can't prove it" makes it seem like there might be juuuuuuust a little doubt. Well, that's one way to get around the differing ideas of new players winning or losing a lot: they do both. Makes perfect sense, really. Which, of course, is why B&M casinos that deal faaaaaaar fewer hands than any site does per day have long gone out of business, right? So your "simple" method is just that they keep track of every single player and how many times they lose with exact hands, just so that sometime later the site can balance out that exact loss so that over a 1 million hand sample everything looks ok?

How would a site be able to keep track of such a ridiculous amount of information and still boost their profits?

Actually, with the power and storage capacity of modern computers it would be trivial.

Still a completely dumb idea, though.

BR's sudden quoting prowess is a little puzzling. I suspect the usual BR has gone on holiday, and this is a stand-in BR.

I still maintain that he's not the complete moron he makes out to be.

Seriously, who does more to destroy the riggie cause?

The so called 'shills' or someone who continuously posts inane drivel and makes the riggies look like demented idiots.

Imagine if all the riggies were like TPTK27. Anyone coming to the thread would see two sets of people engaged in reasonably logical debate.

As it is they see blatantly******ed and others of his ilk spewing garbage and refusing to undertake sensible debate and give up on the rigged 'cause'.



It really is time that blatantly******ed told us which site is paying him.

And how much.

With regard to online poker? Money.

With regard to posting in this thread? Part of it is money related (recruited nearly 10 people so far from this thread, though obviously we have more direct success in the staking forum and advertisements in the coaching forums).

Other part is that it is sort of fun to debate paranoid conspiracy guys once in a while to see what makes them tick.

Look at your long post which creates this seemless model of rigging based on expected human behavior. Other than cliched sci-fi movies, such a program simply does not exist on the scale it would need to for any of these rooms, yet guys like you create the worlds in your mind where they simply magically happen.

I do find the process guys like you create those worlds fairly interesting and entertaining and that is why I encourage riggies to be creative with their faith. I do ask that they create theories that would make money (most do not) and would at least be hard to disprove (your crazy AI beliefs are similar to super bots so they are impossible to disprove but many riggie theories would take 15 seconds with HEM or apparently an hour with 5 buddies to prove/disprove).

I also find it interesting how some of the anti-conspiracy/rigging guys react as well. Look at how blatantdude still works people up even though he is barely trying these days and even the other riggies avoid him.

Hope that specifically answers your question, I like to do that once in a while to try to show riggies how a question can be specifically answered (not that I expect it to change riggie future behavior).

All the best.

@Easyonkemp, the idea that a site would target individual players based on their depositing history and win rate etc is quite a complex one, I would imagine it woule be pretty difficult to run this through the RNG.

I can certainly see some sites running house players to **** over someone who has recently withdrawn a good amount of profit, the sites certainly monitor how much you win because Ongame's Essence system is based on your past 3 months results.

It would be very interesting to get a reliable stats guy to look at a players' first 50,000 hands when new to a network and the 50,000 hands after a withdrawal of profit- and compare the kind of stuff going on.

Every new network (not skin, but first time at Network), I have always won. When Betfair moved to Ongame I was like 11bb/100 at NL20 for over 60,000 hands, after 3-4 months I had to drop to NL10 and I just couldn't win for quite some time. TP was never holding to showdown, a lot of weird things but with the sample sizes you could put it down to variance.

I since bonus whored the Ongame network for a while and I don't think they are dealing a legit deal. That's just my opinion. Given the Esssence system and what that does, you could even be right. The Ongame network is very perculiar.

If you look at the top winner's by month, you will see the majority of them are year old apprx accounts, almost as if each account runs in cycles- just look for yourself at the NL20 or NL20 top winner's by month, very, very suspect IMO.

I've just checked this for like the top ten winners for each stake (NL10 and NL20), each account is either created since around July 2010 or is a very recently created account.

Why are non of the top winners with accounts created in Feb 2011, or March 2011? Strong indication the accounts are running in some kind of cycle IMO.

I really have no idea if what you are saying is the case but there should be some correlation between the age of an account and how he does on this '20 NL leaderboard'. An average brand new account will do less well as there is some chance that it is a brand new player (ofc could be an experienced player moving sites). An average 5 year old account will probably not do well as by that time either a) the player is a hopeless case and never going to beat 20 NL, or b) the player is competent and could do well on the 20 NL leaderboard, except he has long since progressed to higher stakes. Somewhere in the middle there will be an an 'age' that is most likely to do well on the 20 NL leaderboard, maybe that age is 1 year?

Of course, that should just give a very loose correlation, which might only show up after months of looking at the leaderboard. If it is literally the case that most of the players on there are very close to one year old, then something is strange.

It's an interesting observation at least, where can we see the leaderboard and the dates the accounts were created?

Can you specify what you checked and where and for which networks, and give some specific examples.

If your data is for networks like Ongame or ipoker the easy answer is that many hard core players bounce from skin to skin on those to bonus whore the various sign up bonuses. We get stake apps all the time and some of these guys have over 20 user names.

I actually do appreciate the very creative world of the paranoid mind that discovers and creates all sorts of artistic patterns in the world, but often time plain old boring common sense is behind what you see.

I'm saying over 90% of the top winners at Ongame this month (NL10 and NL20) have been tracked since July 2010 approx. Almost all of them have been break even or slight winners/losers and then hit a huge upstreak for those specific stakes around July this year and it has continued. Pretty much every graph is similar.

My graph also is the same - but it was last July/August where I hit an incredible hot streak. Maybe just be coincidence.

That said, I have tracked this on and off and during Christmas time to March, the majority of top winners by month were newly created accounts running hot.

It's just what I'm seeing and noticing, I asked PTR to look into this a few months ago and they never got back to me- if a site was going to create back and forth money, this would be an ideal way to do it.

I might even load up an Ongame skin and see how I do hahaha

Imagine how much you could make if you worked on your game and analyzing your opponents game instead of looking for mysterious boomswitch/doomswitch network based patterns that if true you could make millions by exploiting (which given you play 10 NL I assume you are not quite doing as of yet).

Ever thought of taking a couple months off the paranoid plan and just working on your actual game to see if any difference happens?

No, you spelt it incorrectly.

But given your knowledge of how the rig works you can exploit this, can't you? You play it much more frequently than you 'should' because it will flop big more often than it should? You know that when you flop a draw against a good player that draw will hit more often and you will likely be up against a strong made hand, right?

If they can be explained as variance it is because that is mathematically true. You are insisting the results are not variance for what reason?

I don't know. Thats what you insist is happening so why don't you tell us how you know?