Official Poker Site Data Analysis and Discussion Thread - Page 3 - Internet Poker

MyTurn2Raise · 07-30-2008, 11:15 PM

and it's not like we have much of a choice to play elsewhere MB... I'm willing to tolerate a little manipulation compared to the rest of the market

gfire3245 · 07-30-2008, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise

it's not like we have much of a choice to play elsewhere

I'd believe it would be same elsewhere.

MyTurn2Raise · 07-30-2008, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gfire3245

I'd believe it would be same elsewhere.

I'm not sure... after UIGEA, the choice was FTP or PStars for available games at my limit
looking at the bot farms on FTP, I chose Stars

BiggieFats · 07-30-2008, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise

and it's not like we have much of a choice to play elsewhere MB... I'm willing to tolerate a little manipulation compared to the rest of the market

IOW, complain, whine and moan, but continue to play somewhere you think is cheating you. Makes perfect sense.

MyTurn2Raise · 07-30-2008, 11:51 PM

I would think the preponderance of evidence would mean anyone that believes an online gambling site is on the up and up is the 'downie'

Devilboy666 · 07-30-2008, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise

I would think the preponderance of evidence would mean anyone that believes an online gambling site is on the up and up is the 'downie'

Evidence? Where?

danxxx1 · 07-30-2008, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronL

Easiest solution is to play at another site if you think one is rigged...

There is also software that will compare you return when all in versus the expected value... get enough hands and you will be able to see if it's "rigged" or not... I'm not going to waste anymore time on this... as long the players who think a particular site is rigged (but really just suck at poker... op?) but keep playng then I'm happy...

what software does this?
It's not Poker Tracker...I don't think there is one that will tell you expected value...but if there is please let me know!

**Bobo Fett** · 07-31-2008, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise

I would think the preponderance of evidence would mean anyone that believes an online gambling site is on the up and up is the 'downie'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devilboy666

Evidence? Where?

Um, yeah. MT2R, I know you're well-respected as a player, and you seemed a nice enough guy when I met you in Vegas, but posts like these make me scratch my head a bit. While I'm not convinced every site is definitely on the up and up, lacking evidence otherwise, I believe I'm getting a fair shake. Am I the 'downie'?

MyTurn2Raise · 07-31-2008, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo Fett

Um, yeah. MT2R, I know you're well-respected as a player, and you seemed a nice enough guy when I met you in Vegas, but posts like these make me scratch my head a bit. While I'm not convinced every site is definitely on the up and up, lacking evidence otherwise, I believe I'm getting a fair shake. Am I the 'downie'?

I would say "Yes. The default should be that it is all rigged, and they have to go out of their way to prove otherwise."

Given the lack of transparency from Poker Stars and some curious data, there is no way I would believe I'm getting a fair shake.

Devilboy666 · 07-31-2008, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise

I would say "Yes. The default should be that it is all rigged, and they have to go out of their way to prove otherwise."

Given the lack of transparency from Poker Stars and some curious data, there is no way I would believe I'm getting a fair shake.

Where is this 'curious data' and other evidence you keep talking about?

MyTurn2Raise · 07-31-2008, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devilboy666

Where is this 'curious data' and other evidence you keep talking about?

I already said it and told how to look yourself

Devilboy666 · 07-31-2008, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise

I already said it and told how to look yourself

So the evidence is out here but you won't point us to it? Please help someone I can't see it.

allurit · 07-31-2008, 12:54 AM

I still don't have my hand histories from Stars but a Game Security Specialist sent me a PM and said he is going to get them for me. If anybody would be willing to examine my stats for me I'll gladly provide my HH's via email. I myself am not statistically adept enough to know how to do this and come out with the damning evidence that surely lies in my stats.

allurit · 07-31-2008, 01:00 AM

MicroBob and BoboFett,

I still can't get over your attitude here. Given what happened with UB and AP and the central role that 2+2 and our 'internet detectives' played in uncovering the cheating there, 2+2 has become the defacto 'independent 3rd party audit' for the online poker world. It is clear these sites are not going to police themselves so it is our job to do it for them. All the OP is asking is that we perform such an audit of PokerStars.

I'm fully willing to accept that my claims may be false. But you should be also willing to accept that perhaps I am correct. If even a 1% chance that I am correct exists, the examination needs to take place. Given the corruption we have found at other sites and the fact that Stars is the largest site in the industry with millions and millions of dollars in 2+2 deposits, the only mistake to be made is blindly trusting them.

**Bobo Fett** · 07-31-2008, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise

I would say "Yes. The default should be that it is all rigged, and they have to go out of their way to prove otherwise."

Given the lack of transparency from Poker Stars and some curious data, there is no way I would believe I'm getting a fair shake.

OK, I'll have to agree to disagree with you on this point, but I understand where you're coming from. We're actually not all that far apart, in some ways. You are sceptical of all the sites, but you make money and you don't find them so rigged that you won't play. I continue to make money playing as well, so I tend to give the benefit of the doubt until I see something I think is questionable. Also, being a limit bonus whore, I'd probably notice if I was getting screwed out of a bonus before I spotted a super user.

Quote:

Originally Posted by allurit

You forgot the 3rd type. The shill's who blindly trust online poker sites and seek to poke fun at and dismiss any and all allegations that everything is not on the up and up, and who refuse to even entertain the notion that the sites may be rigged until 100% lock down proof is put in their face. What these fools don't realize is that nothing would ever be proven if everybody took this approach. If everybody blindly trusted UB and AP then nothing would have been proven. A few people were curious, questions were asked, and then more, and now we haz tha proofs. Time to do that for PokerStars. Maybe we come up with nothing, and your hunch will be proven correct. But maybe we come up with something, and then some positive change can be made.

Did you read the whole post? You may have dozed off at the half-way point; I'll admit it was a little tl; dr. You're talking about the first type of "rigged sceptic" I described.

Quote:

Originally Posted by allurit

MicroBob and BoboFett,

I still can't get over your attitude here. Given what happened with UB and AP and the central role that 2+2 and our 'internet detectives' played in uncovering the cheating there, 2+2 has become the defacto 'independent 3rd party audit' for the online poker world. It is clear these sites are not going to police themselves so it is our job to do it for them. All the OP is asking is that we perform such an audit of PokerStars.

I'm fully willing to accept that my claims may be false. But you should be also willing to accept that perhaps I am correct. If even a 1% chance that I am correct exists, the examination needs to take place. Given the corruption we have found at other sites and the fact that Stars is the largest site in the industry with millions and millions of dollars in 2+2 deposits, the only mistake to be made is blindly trusting them.

I can't get over your interpretation of my attitude. Why do you think I'm unwilling to accept that you could be correct? I just ask for some kind of evidence.

My assumption, with yours being about the 20th "poker is rigged" thread this week, was that you were trolling. For the moment, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt again, and assume you're serious. What do you propose to do? I'm not sure what kind of positive response you thought you would get when you start with something like "Stars is rigged, let's prove it", but here we are. So, any ideas?