So, basically you woke up this morning and decided that you were going to be an arsehole.

Fair enough.

I suppose that some mentalities need to do that every now and again.

OK, let's see if you are an honest arsehole today.

About 6 weeks ago my 8 year old daughter came into our room complaining that she was having trouble falling asleep. I told her I had an idea that would help. My wife asked me what it was, so I told her that there were some PokerStar's shills on 2+2 that were the most boring posters on the planet and I wanted to see if our little girl would fall asleep after reading a few paragraphs of the boring tripe.

We've fixed up one of our spare bedrooms into a home office for me which is where I keep my desktop. I took my daughter into the home office and brought up some of your especially boring posts where you keep listing some 10 commandment crap over and over and over again. My daughter started reading your boring crap and sure enough within 5 or 6 minutes she was sound asleep. I picked her up and carried her into her bedroom where she slept soundly the rest of the night. I didn't think much about it even though my wife and I had a good laugh.

A funny thing happened about 2 weeks ago. I was surfing the net on my laptop while sitting in the airport waiting for my flight to board. Out of the corner of my eye I see a short balding man walking towards me and I'm thinking don't sit next to me. Well guess what? He sat right next to me. I couldn't help but notice that he was reading my laptop screen so I pulled up 2+2 and searched for one of your long boring posts. The short balding man took the bait. Within 5 minutes he was sound asleep and snoring like a log. I quickly and quietly got up and moved about 50 yards away to another part of the terminal. About 30 minutes later my flight started to board and I walked past my previous seat. Sure enough the short balding man was still sleeping like a baby. I hope he didn't miss his flight.

Yet you seem to enjoy frequenting this thread repeatedly. Do you enjoy punishing yourself or are you just stupid?

it's people like you who kept "Friends" on television for years and years.

nh, sir, nh.

If your read before you posted you would realise that people had already pointed out that the fundamental errors in his calculations made his post completely worthless.

I do agree, which is why you rigtards looking at your own accounts, analysing it from memory and then deciding it is rigged is absolute nonsense.

You wrote the little story about your daughter and then the one about the man in the airport but they were both so funny that you had to post them both. Are you sure your daughter didnt write the second one?

As I concluded from your posts, you strongly belive, that:
- all people who question poker sites legitimacy are rigtards, or proto-rigtards, or rigtard fellow travelers or ...
- as those, they are stupid.
- they either completely math illiterated, or have some knolwdge, but cannot put it in use in corret way. Otherwise, they inevitably would come to "right" conclusion (sure, that OLP is not rigged).
- taking in account all above, it doesn't worth your time to engage in discussion and explain them anything.
- it's just enough to dub them as idiots, paranoics, and so on. Then all audience should addmit you are on the right side.

I will not say something bad about all non rigtards. Many of them a reasonable persons. But those who share that oppinion ... are not so reasonable.

As of specifics of your post, there is not much to say.
But I concluded that you are even not a non rigtard. Because
Non rigtards OTOH can provide sound statistical and logical arguments against rigging,
but you cannot. Or, despite my numerous requests, could not so far. Especially, statistical arguments.
Or, you could, but was for some reason reluctant. I wonder what the reason it can be. If you are going to say "Because reigtards won't understand anyway", then this does not apply to me: I asked you several times, asserting that I have an ability and willingness to understand. May I come to decision that your cannot?

I'll give you one more chance.

Recently, I posted some my concerns about great (in my understanding) insentives for poker sites to manipulate games. I didn't see something like this before in this thread. So, it was not covered before I posted. (If it was, show me).
I read about advantage sites may have by helping weak players at good players expenses and some more similar theories. That is different story. I don't want to speak about those theories because I don't see any way to make any estimate to show if it would really give sites something.
I only want to be shown that my "theory" has major flaws.

Although my post was answered in some way by couple of people, I did not find sound arguments against my point that poker sites may have some insentives. I don't claim they do something. Just motives. So, you can, using your exceptional math skills, show me, where I was wrong. Don't hesitate to put in good use some statistical terms like p-value, confidence interval, chi-test, split-square method, whatever (don't ridicule my frivolous using of statistical terms, it's irrelevant). If I'm unable to understand, I will go to my nephew.

So, please, go crash my theory.

Otherwise, you should admit, that poker sites may have some motives.
I eargently ask you don't fall in idle word exchange. Please, be specific and at first hand discuss only my "theory", using your strong grasp of mathematics.
Then, you may show me that there are some reasons for them not to do that and that the reasons overweight possible advantage. You may choose don't try to explain to me what was said not once in this and others threads

But first admit the motives.

Am I logically sound? (This is a rhetorical question. I know, I'm not, in your oppinion ).
Unlike you, I don't command you to make search to find my post #5094. Here it is.

Good luck.

Wrong!

Only those who, after reading the logical and statistical explanations of why their pet theories are nonsensical continue to spout them without acknowledgement of the elucidated flaws.

Some are. Those that ignore any argument to the contrary (as opposed to showing a flaw in the argument.)

They do tend to be mathematically illiterate because those who understand some maths don't make the schoolboy mistakes that a lot of these people make.

They would almost certainly come to a belief that the probability of any major poker site being rigged was low.

Actually, that's not true.

I have often explained points but as the result, as I've told you before, is that they either ignore the explanation or respond by calling: 'shill'. So I don't give the explanations all the time.

All the non-rigtard audience, yes.

An interesting rigtard style viewpoint.

And, voila! you should now vanish in a puff of logic!

If you say that non-rigtards: "Non rigtards OTOH can provide sound statistical and logical arguments against rigging" then you obviously agree with the arguments and have no further need of enlightenment on your journey from rigtardedness to normality.

Well done.

I've told you. I'm not doing your research for you. The information in is this thread.

You may have such a sense of your own importance that you thinl other posters should stop what they are doing and action your requests.

I don't.


You shouldn't have bothered.

Really.

You shouldn't have.

Jokerstars

**** poker.

To be true, I didn't expect some reasonable reply. Just usual nonsencsical junk. All that you succed in is you caugth me on a mistaken highlight. Non rigtards OTOH can provide sound statistical and logical arguments against rigging were you words.

And again, you could not provide any logical or statistical evidence. You claim that you are very busy. What are you doing? I (and many others) see that you spend hours daily posting here approximately same gibberish. Can you put aside some of your valuable time and get yourself prepared to requests to prove your words?

Time after time you state that there are plenty of evidence but cannot show just one of them. This is one of the things you accuse rigtards in (I mean, saying something with no evidence). Non-rigtards should expel you from their community because you, by refusing to show something you claim existing, make rigtards to think that your evidences simply don't exist.

At same time they do exist. Just two of them:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...7dc4a7f?hl=en&
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...7010a4879f4c6b

They are not completely persuasive, leave space for argument, but yet exist. I hoped to see something new with your help, because your yelled more than others about this. I picked a wrong man. Sorry.
Save those links and use them later if somebody asks for evidence. This is in order not to look like ...

Don't bother to answer: you have nothing to say.
Really, don't

This is a very good sign that some people really work on the tools to analyze real HH. Great respect to Spadebidder!
I'm dying to here his work is finished and to see results of his tests.

How much math have you studied? I'm thinking I know much more math than you do.

And I'm a "rigtard."

I asked you shills a simple question which shouldn't be hard to understand for anyone with minimal intellectual skills. How many of you shills are paid by Stars?

Instead of answering the question you and the rest of the shills resort to personal attacks? Is that the best you can do? LOL

You intellectually and ethically challenged lightweights have lost the debate. You only have two chances to redeem yourselves, slim and none and none just left town. Game Over!

Misleading question.... zero shills in the thread, one poster paid by Stars. If you're going to ask trick questions that don't apply to the people you're speaking to, I'm not sure why you expect responses.




Is this one of those commandments where the rigtard states an opinion and declares it a fact? Does it count even if he doesn't believe what he's saying?

Well done.

You finally got off your backside and took responsibility for finding the information that you wanted to find instead of sitting there demanding that others do it.

Now, if you still have any specific concerns remaining by all means enumerate them and we'll probably try to address them.

What isn't going to work is whining that you're 'not sure' and then trying to make a case by whining some more that no one will do your research for you.

Specific concerns may well get you an answer.

Specific concerns with evidence will pretty much gyarantee one.

Hallelujah !!!



At last we have someone who has studied maths past degree level and is a self admitted rigtard.

Now we might get somewhere.

Just give us your evidence, then explain the maths you have used to come to your rigtard beliefs and this thread might make some real progress.

Did you mean 'slim just left town'?

LOL, well spotted.

So unintentional irony is still alive.

Tell you what.

You tell us when you stopped beating your wife and child and we'll answer your question.

I think OP is rigged because of what I ve seen. It was never really my argument that OP is rigged just because it could be.

I'm going to answer this post on the basis that I'm talking to an intelligent adult who actually has an interest in getting to the truth.

Believe it or not, Sooper, I get the feeling that things aren't right almost everytime I play.

One day I'll not be able to win with two pair. Another, everytime I get a three of a kind someone beats it with a flush.

These are things that are what any Rigtard worth his salt would call 'total bull****'.

But then again there are other days. Like the day I got three straights in 100 hands. And the royal flush I got on Monday (takes bow). There's also the fact that if, for example, I think I can't win with 2 pair and then examine the HH's, I'll usually find that there were a couple of uneventful 2P wins that I'd just forgotten about.

I'm sure the problem that the riggers have is that, like a runaway reaction, the more they think there's something wrong the more they focus on every minor (and statistically expected) statistical anomally and the greater their conviction that: 'something must be wrong'. The cycle continues until they are unshakeable in their belief and simply dismiss any contrary argument out of hand.

So whenever I examine some anomally I find find that there is actually nothing really very out of the ordinary about it. The only reason I do any analysis is because it invariable leads one to learn a little more about applied probability.

I also rely on the logic that no major poker room would rig the game because, even if they were corrupt scumbags who would like to, they would not risk ruining a reliable continuing revenue stream for a short term increase.

So I have no religious need to believe that no poker room is rigged. It would not surprise me enormously (it would surprise me a bit) if one of the smaller ones was one day discovered to be doing something not entirely kosher - as, indeed, happened with AP/UB.

I took out my one huge pot which was skewing my chart



PS rigged like expected.

Links I posted I've foung more then a year ago, not now. What I asked from you is more statistical evidence.
Those what I had, in some way, adress particular "rigged" theories.

Although it's theoretically imposibble to disprove general statement: "OLP is rigged", the more statistical data you have, the more such theories can be ruled out. Then something new would appear. You non-rigtards (and I would join you) had to rule out new ones.
I know, you already wrote that it's unwise to adress every nonsense rigtard would bring up. But if it was more or less scientifical discussion it should go as I said: all rigtard theories should be investigated. Surely, except very obviouse cases of nonsense.
Otherwise, you can pound on silly theories that easy to disprove even without statistic and avoid tough ones by statement: "burden of proof is on an accuser".

In above I partially explained why I still have some conserns. Specific concerns I have about statistical test referenced in my post, are:

1. Time of the research. They are form year 2003. Till year 2005 I even didn't care about rigging.

2. Source of samples. In the researches I referenced source of samples is anonymous.
According to modern rigging theories, "sites rigged to help weak players". Obviously, it should be against strong players. This is the only reasonable aproach, IMO.

To disprove this particular "theory" researcher must conduct two sets of tests: one on a data base with hands from "strong" players, and the other for weak players. Maybe, only "strong" players DB would be enough.
By "strong player" I mean long term consistent winner. Not self-proclaimed ones.

Now question: where I as a regular player can find DB of "strong" players?
Even if my self-assertion as a good player is reasonable (not sure), my individual DB of ~ 1 M hands would be insufficient, I suppose. Also, it's from a player who already complains about bad run of cards and as such is not a relyable source of samples. Bad luck streak of almost arbitrary lenth can happen to anybody without any rigging. Just because of varience.
If I make a request on a forum, I'm going to receive a bunch of HH not less anonymous then those in public data bases.

What kind of evidence do you expect? Is like this good?
BTW, in your response you are right. But, please, explain what kind of evidence would deserve your seriouse attention. Is it possible for an individual player to get an evidence of that kind? How?

The only thing that makes an excuse for you is at the end of your responce to my post.
Don't take this as an offence.
Let me do the same.

The difference between your actual results and expected results is smaller than the two biggest pots you lost. If you had won those two pots and the red line had been slightly positive you would have been fine with that I guess? So effectively you are saying it is rigged on the back of two hands?

For dsh_spb

OK, let me address the issue of what evidence would
be agreeable.

Let's say I came up with a standard theory that a site was boomswitching poorer players at the expense of better ones.

Firstly I'd go to one of the sites that sells HH's.

I'd buy a few million of these HH's. (Assumption: you trust these sites to provide real, played, hands.)

I'd then process these so that I could rank each player who'd played more than 10,000 hands according to their win rate.

What I would do then would be to plot 'stuff' such as the number of AA hands each player got or the number of times a player who had AA333 was beaten by a flush.

Then I'd do correlation tests on (n each event) v (overall winrate).

If there was a strong positive or negative correlation for any tests I'd (having checked the programming very carefully ) claim that the site was rigged.

I've actually done this for a few tests as part of other research.

One point to note is that the people running the sites know that there are many players with the expertise to perform these fairly simple statistical analysies. This is one reason why I don't think they'd be stupid enough to try it.

I'm sorry I've been taking the p1ss of your posts up to now but you must appreciate that there have been a number of posters who've started off sounding very reasonable but have, when their questions have been answered to the best of our ability, just yelled: 'shill' and stomped off.