GL with your top sets.

wow

Ha... HA!

Here's the interesting thing (maybe?) about this one: I've played with this guy a fair amount. I considered him to be bad, and to run good. His stance is that there's a slight rig to protect bad players (which, to be fair, at least makes sense on one fundamental level, in that numerous networks have claimed they don't want players losing too fast; I was a 'victim' of the fairplay segregation thing on Lock/Cake/Intertops back in 2013) but he doesn't define this in relative terms. He looks at players he considers bad but doesn't consider how he might be considered bad compared to others, and thus the beneficiary of the potential rig.

That's what I was getting at in my previous posts about wanting to see graphs. Before we can even get to potential rigging, I just want to see somebody who claims rigging to actually be running bad! That seems like the step 1 prologue before you can even start the rigging conversation.

Like, a month or so ago had a hand go like this: O8, guy open limps utg with 233J, another raises, I 3bet with AA25, flop is A33 and I miss my one outer and low. Ok, fine. But this same guy constantly talks about 'house players' (whatever that means) and the game being rigged. Are all riggies actively trolling? I can totally see it online while playing, for image purposes, and I actually do this quite a bit, but in this thread also? Do people post and think "Ha, they're all gonna think im a losing fish because I claimed rigging in that thread"?

Gee, thanks. Favour him over my flush draws.

Do you need help with filtering PTO/OM and/or uploading images?

Absolutely not. I'm sure we have some that do, but I believe the majority aren't.

For starters, I'd be surprised if the thought hasn't at least briefly crossed a lot of players' minds - even some of the so-called "shills" ITT.

I remember that a few years ago when I was clearing a monthly video poker promo, I ran so horribly for a few months that I was starting to question everything including the RNG. But like most logical people, I went for the simpler explanations first. Started by checking to make sure I wasn't making any strategy errors, but all seemed to be well there. Then I took a closer look at the odds, and realized that with so much of my EV tied up in royal flushes, high variance might not be that unexpected. Kept at it, and of course everything righted itself. I didn't just start running at EV, but was lucky enough to run far enough over to end up at or slightly ahead of EV over the whole period of play - before they changed the terms and the promo was no longer worth playing.

I have a good friend that while not a genius, is a reasonably smart guy. In spite of that, he simply can't be convinced that what the player in the "anchor position" at a blackjack table does has no bearing on his results in the long run.

Ever get a new car and then notice there are a lot more cars just like yours on the road that weren't before? There aren't, of course.

How often do you hear people attributing things to "Murphy's Law"? Or claim that bad events always happen in threes?

My point is this - the human mind is a funny thing, and makes us see patterns that simply aren't there. It doesn't surprise me in the least that there are lots of people that are utterly convinced that their poor results (whether they are losing, or not winning as much as "they should") are a result of something being amiss with the RNG.

hey sorry, but remind me one more time if you voted yes or no to online poker being rigged?

Sure makes the people who point to the number who voted "yes" as being indicative of something look silly, doesn't it?

Oh wait, did you also think his vote was serious?

Doesn't matter what I think or what he thought, all I know is that he voted yes.

Monteroy, your anthology is amazing.

If you think "Online poker is not rigged" then just play one weak live poker and one weak online poker and compare them.

Sometimes people get a weak week, so the consideration should be done through more than just the weak one week sample size.

The very fact you suggest doing one week tells us all we need to know about the thought you've put into this subject. Your test would be utterly meaningless.

OK, done. Now what? Because there must be a step 2...right?

There are lots of differences, but the deal of the cards isn't one of them.

It's a step up from the sample for their previous theory.

Take an apple and take an orange and compare the two. I think that it will be obvious that they are suspiciously different.

Yeah, I commented on that one at the time. The short-stacks always lose riggies must have had a fit at the idea of folding anything, let alone a premium hand.

Why would you assume, in a forum full of poker enthusiasts no less, that people have never played live poker? There are casinos and home games running all over the place nowadays. Believe it or not, Id suspect the vast majority of players in this forum have played poker both online and with paper cards at one time or another. So no, you aren't privy to some special experience that allows you to see the truth that all us ignoramuses just haven't seen.

Pffft...who do you think you're kidding? We all know that the regulars in this thread live in their parents' basement and only see the outside world once or twice a month - at most.

Well, yeah, maybe.

How is this still a thread?? This must just be a bunch of live players that haven't accepted that they are bad at poker.

Deposited again, ran it up to 4x with villain usually hitting 2nd nut, then around 90% 'step' completion just hit a wall couldn't hold any 75-85% spots. Got tilted so didn't care about kicker here and saw the worst hand of my life against this goon. Seems like accounts marked likely to redeposit are targeted before any bonus or FPP is released, the new steps system definitely ensures that.

If the screenshot is legit I'm baffled how the money all goes in on that flop from him for sure, and even perhaps from you too depending on how the action went.

As for the whole steps and re-deposit rig. Yep, cus they make so much money each time you re-deposit. Seriously, if you have to keep putting money on, either you aren't as good as you think, are playing a game you aren't good at in general, or are playing the wrong stakes. Or quite possibly a combination of those.

I lost my first two deposits when I started playing online, but it was never because of a rig. I've looked back at hands from my first online play and cringed at some of my play. If you're lucky one day that will be you too. Or it will be you never learning anything and just whining that it must be rig for you to be losing.

TylerDegen,

You say it's rigged, yet you keep playing and depositing. How does that make sense? If you buy groceries and they charge 20% extra every time, would you still go there?

It's funny that you're totally fine with this happening, but then when you lose it's 100% rigged. huntsman41 already covered this, but it costs them more money to do this than it does to just release the bonus. They're much happier just gobbling up your rake and giving you ~20% of it back through a bonus than they are having to pay 3% of your deposit plus the bonus. I have to give you credit for one of the most legitimate beats posted ITT.

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

820 trials (Exhaustive)

board: 9 6 9

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
Jh 7c 9s Td	97.68%	801	0
7s Qc Js 5s	2.32%	19	0

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

741 trials (Exhaustive)

board: 9 6 9

dead cards: 3 4

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
Jh 7c 9s Td	98.38%	729	0
7s Qc Js 5s	1.62%	12	0

I'd want to punch a baby if that happened to me.