Yes you got what I was saying even though I did not convey it well or with technically correct terms.

It is not a matter of Run-Good / Boomswitch / Run Bad
More Like Run-Good / Bots learn your exploits / Get outplayed

(Wish Sites Would let us Change Screen Names)

Now you are really starting to make sense. But you could remove Bots from the equation and it's still true.

New player seemingly "runs good". After a time, other players (human or otherwise) learn their tendencies and adjust. Using hand histories or just being smart doesn't really matter. Then the new player who doesn't keep up and adjust too, stops winning.

Sounds exactly right to me.

You could also add that regs may hold back on challenging the new player too much until they gets some stats on them, amplifying the effect.

BOTboy, BOTboy, watchya gonna do, watchya gonna do when they come for you ...

I'm not sure what to search for to see what's been discussed re my question, but the way I think online poker software is rigged is toward giving two or more players good/great hands and/or good flops so that as much rake as possible is taken out of the pot. It's not necessarily that I feel as if I'm getting a bad beat every time -- but somebody is.

Does anyone else think this or is it my imagination? I'm only playing one table at a time, so it's not as if I'm getting that many more hands than live, but the "great hands" vs. "great hands" with 1 - 3 outers hitting seems to happen way more online than live.

I don't think there is collusion or someone is programming hands, but that the underlying software is made that way -- just so the host makes as much money as possible.

Yes, it's been discussed many times, and the answer is that your scenario does not increase rake for the poker site. Big pots and all-in hands decrease rake. Maximum rake is achieved by small pots (not hitting caps) going back and forth keeping everyone in the game breakeven until the site churns all the money away in rake. Players getting busted quickly minimizes the rake they pay on that buy-in.

So, not hitting max rake every hand makes more money for the host than hitting max rake? And hitting max rake doesn't increase rake, but possibly decreases it? I'll have to really think about this to figure it out, because it doesn't make sense right now.

(BTW, I don't mean all-in every hand, but hands and flops that entice players to put money in pre and/or on flop, at least.)

And what is your evidence, or is this whole thing based on your "feeling"?

Let me simplify it for you. The slower the money moves between players, the more money the site makes in rake over time. When players break even, only the site makes money. When players break even for a long time, the site gets ALL the money.

When players bust then that buyin only gets raked one time for that player, and if it was all-in then usually that one-time rake is capped. And even worse, some players don't buy back in, or get to the point that they can't. And winners might not ever put that money back in play, big wins tend to get banked.

LOL. If I had evidence of anything I wouldn't be asking on this forum. Do you have anything germane to contribute?

Isn't rake by pot, so the buying doesn't get raked, the pot does? So as long as there are enough players at the table (and there almost always are), the rake is going to be what it is -- whether someone just busted, is short, has a huge stack, etc.

Doesn't the money move slower when we see a flop and/or turn? I mean speed-wise, not amount-wise.

I'm going to have to "picture" what you're saying, which I haven't really tried to do. I can easily picture what I'm saying, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

Of course. But when a player loses his buyin in one pot that means he only paid rake on that money once, maybe 3% of it. If he churns that buyin for a while with small pots and breaking even, the house eventually gets it all from him.

But why does that one player matter when the next pot is going to be raked the same whether he's still there or not? Or, the majority of the time, even whether his seat is filled or not?

You've noticed something strange and you've already reached your conclusion. Evidence does not mean you can prove it, it just means that there is some sort of fact pattern that points in a direction. In time if you've acquired enough evidence your hypothesis starts being viable or even probable. At what stage are you?

If I need to spell it out; do you have a set of hand histories that support your hypothesis, do you even have a well defined hypothesis that can be tested?

Why are you being a jerk right away?

You're assuming there's an endless pool of players with an endless amount of money. There isn't.

I am sorry. I thought you were being a jerk right away. Honestly, if I had evidence that this was happening, I would not bother to post in this forum.

Can you help?


I'm not saying they gii every time or someone goes bust. I'm saying they get to the flop and/or turn. Enough to cap the rake. So, two or three hands are good enough to play pre and hit a flop that is good enough to bet -- possibly the other hand is good enough to call or raise.

Simple question: For the host, if the cap was hit every single hand, wouldn't that be ideal?

It might be if it was exactly hit but not exceeded. Action hands where people get stacks in exceed the cap and the extra money changes hands without the house getting some of it.

I think you're confusing evidence with proof. If you had evidence, I sure hope you would still post. If you had proof, I'd hope you'd be starting a new thread showing everyone.

Nope.

Exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Javanewt View Post
Simple question: For the host, if the cap was hit every single hand, wouldn't that be ideal?

Nope.

Why? You say "Exactly" that it might be if it was exactly hit. Isn't that a "Yep" to my question? There were no parameters. My question required a simple Yes or No (or Yep or Nope).

You guys are making me feel more confident about what I think is happening.

Ah so now the house also controls how much people bet.

Mind control ITT.

If you think that then you don't have the intelligence to take this conversation any further. Believe what you want, act accordingly. Nobody else cares.

No, I said "Exactly" to "It might be if it was exactly hit but not exceeded. Action hands where people get stacks in exceed the cap and the extra money changes hands without the house getting some of it."

Of course, it wouldn't be exactly hit but not exceeded most of the time in your scenario, and even if it was, I'm far from convinced that would be ideal for the poker site either.

be BOT a lula, she's my baby?

I just signed up a couple months ago to a big name site.. and just started to play their frerolls to get a feel for the players and the game play itself before throwing cash in it.
5 games in a row.. almost exact similar experience all 5 games..
only 1 orbit had gone by.. I wake up with KK on the btn .. a few limpers hop in.. I raise 6bb.. i get check-raised by mid position.. I shove.. they insta-call.. he has 52o .. he gets a set of 5s on the flop..

or i get in a game that has been very aggressive with lots of opens and 3bets.. I'm delt a big pocket pair in the BB... suddenly no one wants to play and it all folds around even the small blind.. .. .... ... really?..
.. something don't feel right.

What use is your post, to anyone?

belongs in BBV

I happen to agree with you. the shills are very quick to dismiss or denounce this theory. any seasoned poker player can sit for a hour as a spectator and watch the chips circulate among players.

maybe one maxed pot is bad for rake. but many maxed pots keeps the chips circulating and maximise rake. people are getting sick of bad beat random generated games. and in turn many sites have offered live dealers for their games. rofl many sites have been caught cheating with their live dealers. if the sites go as far to blatantly cheat with live dealers. what makes anyone think they wouldnt cheat in a rng online poker format wich is virtually undetectable.