Huh? I thought you didn't think it was invisible. Don't you believe its blindingly obvious?

Not invisible to me or many, many others no. Just playing along with the "shill" tactics like their "HH's shows nothing" crap. And the ever popular "its just variance". In other words saying there is no evidence of manipulation.
Again, said this many times, you need to have played the game before getting into this discussion.

Oh great master who has played zillions of hands, lead us to the light and provide specific evidence that online poker is rigged. Oh wait, you can't. You just continue to bash everybody that isn't your opinion. Cya.

It's like asking him to tell you what color the sky is.

If you can't see for yourself it's obviously green, how can he help you?

It always comes back around to the obvious patterns that riggies can see with their own eyes but that are inexplicably completely invisible to any real mathematical analysis of those exact same hand histories. It's like they have super powers or something.

And I have a problem guys who act like its a 50/50 proposition - you can trust these guys or not trust these guys as if both choices are equally rational. You are simply ignoring the overwhelming evidence of criminal activities by the parties involved in the industry. You see a need to separate the issues. I, as a rational consumer, do not need these a-holes proven guilty in a court of law or give them a "beyond the reasonable doubt" standard of a criminal trial to not fork over my cash to them....to "trust me" (wink, wink) place it in an "account."

Unless you were a banker in Texas in the 80's, how many financial accounts in the U.S. do we allow to operate in this fashion without gov't oversite. Not ****in many.

And quit acting like looking in the hand history's is the method to prove rigging. 99.99% of the slackers that play poker aren't qualified to do this. I am sure the guys smart enough orchestrate the growth of the big online poker companies are smart enough to out program a bunch of basement dwelling kids with HUDS.

If a site is rigging, it is doing it to increase profits and revenue to the company. There are inconsistent theories how do so, but if they would have to increase rake or deposits. Show me some study of that....other than the alderney gaming commission's financial audits for the last three years..... and I will believe the game is fair.

You misread me. I'm saying its rational to say that I won't give them my money because I don't trust them. It's not rational to say: I don't want to give them my money because its rigged. Just because I don't trust them doesn't mean that I believe any allegation made about them.

That may be so, but that doesn't mean its not the way to do it. And there are enough people around here willing to offer help to a serious person. Laughing Assassin has offered to work with people, for example.

But what you're really saying is that 99.99% of people aren't qualified to suspect its rigged in the first place, since they are deducing it is rigged by looking at HHs (ie; the hands they are playing)

there are some pretty smart basement dwelling kids with huds. This isn't an argument: the proof is I have no proof because they're so brilliant? C'mon.

There are so many factors involved in how much rake a site brings in that it would be hard to isolate what data relates to rigging, and what data relates to other factors. No. Card distribution is the way to go. you can't rig without manipulating card distribution.

He hasn't called me a shill yet though, I feel so left out.

Correct, and either can the rest of the 99.99% deduce it isn't rigged by looking at HHs, even a critical thinker should see the flipside of his argument.



Agreed. You expect them to figure out what the Alderney Gaming Commission couldn't? C'mon. You have to be ****ing kidding me.

Right, why look at the money or any other of the so many factors....look at the incomplete information without factoring in rake, potsize,etc.... Critical thought in motion.....

Explain why he's wrong about card distribution.

He is not wrong. He is just least right of choosing a method of proving cheating by a site.

Ok, then the default should not be to believe its rigged.

If you can come up with a test that would analyse financial statements and parse out some evidence for rigging from that, then I'm all ears!

What's your hypothesis, and how can we test it?

Ok thanks for answering. Now my next question is what is the magic number to catch a rigged site +/- maybe 5 % (Im guessing) anything less is probably variance?

Why can't I assume that the cheating ****s are cheating me with the rake too....somewhere doesn't someone in the accounting ask why a 5% owner is withdrawing 40 million dollars.


I don't know what financial statements you are referring to. The charter of the AGC says they have the right to examine all records, software and data of their licensees on demand. I presume this power was broad enough to identify outright theft from the players, won't you agree?

Go and look at my posts in the BQ forum if you doubt my newbieness. There's plenty, of you know, evidence that I'm a real player. I'd show you my PTR graph, but it's a bit embarrassing since it's missed a lot of my recent hands where I've gone from losing to profiting. (When I started on Stars, I lost for the first 4 weeks, then started winning after I learned how to play better! Who'd a thunk it? Boomswitch in reverse? You be the judge.)

How long does this "full cycle of the scam" last, by the way? When will it become obvious that the game is rigged? You wrote "You can avoid the rig for so long". Do I have to play as many hands as nanonoko?

I don't know the exact numbers (I haven't done stats in about 8 years), but I think 5% is too high a number. spadebidder's bet for a rigging system that would increase rake was a 5% rig, and I recall him saying it'd be far too obvious.

You know a guy who knows a guy who you can pay to turn on your boomswitch?

I did get back to you (via PM). I was extremely patient with you. I looked into my database to find every single time that I'd won with TPTK vs. TPWK. If I remember correctly, it had only happened twice in about 25,000 hands. I remarked about the sample size being too small to have any statistical meaning.
As you write above, the situation is "seemingly standard". This is confirmation bias. It seems standard, but doesn't actually happen very often.
In case you hadn't noticed in the last few years, online poker players have become a bit better than they were a decade ago. There aren't as many calling stations. Winning players try and avoid playing dominated hands. They don't don't often call three streets with TPWK, as much as you want them to.

In the past you might have been able to win money by value-towning people with TPTK. In my database, TPTK doesn't even break even at showdown. It loses money. I've been overvaluing single-pair hands. It's a leak in my game. I'm trying to fix it. You're not fixing a leak. You're complaining that either calling stations aren't paying you off, or that the game is somehow rigged against you when you have top pair.
Get a grip.

Heheh. Freudian typo, now fixed.
I wish I did know someone I could pay to boomswitch me. Stars is getting a ton of rake from me while I try and clear my deposit bonus. :/

This sounds very realistic, and right in line with how the events unfold. Of course you dont win immediatly as a new player, never said that. Cant win when you dont have a clue of how to play. But once you start to learn and play smart, the software kicks in and gives you a huge advantage to get you hooked. (Your tracked by your IP address.)
Eventually, depending on profits accumulated,etc., those winning hands start to drop off considerably. Sooner or later your profits will be gone along with your initial deposit. But believe me, you WILL redeposit. That is why its rigged the way it is, that redeposit is KEY.
You wont believe this now of course, but, if youre really not an affiliate/promoter, etc., you will.

Looks like I just wasted my time with my last post to you. How would you know about the play of a decade ago?

Right....
So if link you to some players who have graphs covering more than one million hands and the graph goes constantly upwards, then... what?
The simple fact is... players that play more hands usually do so because they are good players. Their profits don't suddenly stop at a pre-determined point. The best players' graphs go UPWARDS.
Your graph didn't go upwards, because you're not a great player. Is that really hard to understand?

Here's your big chance to prove your theory. Find me ONE player who played a million hands of profitable poker and then suddenly stopped making money at his usual stake level.

You can't find a single one, because there isn't a single player this has happened to.
You are telling OBVIOUS lies. Again.

live poker full of crooks and liars therefore it is rigged. if you disagree, you're a ******!

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/28/showbi...html?hpt=hp_t2

And what time period are we talking? It might go on for some time, but eventually a complete reversal WILL happen. Lets see one of these graphs.

Well, you know, I've got eyes and ears in my head. I pay attention to the world I live in. I listen to people that talk sense. I wasn't alive in 1945, but I know who won the war, ldo.

Just last night, I was watching a Chris Moneymaker interview during the PCA tournament. He said that winning the PCA would mean more to him than winning the WSOP, because players are so much better these days. He said his game is so much better than it was in 2003, but that he finds tournaments much harder to win in 2011. (He hasn't won a major in 8 years, despite being a world champion. Maybe the games are rigged!)
On the same show, Daniel Negreanu talked about how he "invented" the smallball min-raise play (instead of 3x-ing) in tournaments. It's partly how he became the biggest winner in history. Now every decent player uses the same tournament strategy, Negreanu's lucky if he cashes.
I wish I'd been playing in 2003, before the Moneymaker effect kicked in, but I wasn't. I have to do my best against the tougher players of today.