standard.

I agree.

Respectfully, I disagree. I believe that if you fully understood variance, you would be much less inclined to entertain such notions. Here's the thread for it, in case you care to discuss it further.

forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28/internet-poker/great-poker-rigged-debate-collected-threads-edition-255990/

I already posted in there. How are you going to tell me I don't understand variance? I've played tens of thousands of MTT's and SNG's over the past 5+ yrs and never experienced anything even close to this. Plus I already said there is a case for variance, but at this point, it just seems the more unlikely of the 2 choices. So you respectfully disagree that there is even a possibility of cheating in this regard? If so, you need to brush up on your history of online poker...

The fact that you think experience insures understanding makes my belief even stronger.

No, I simply disagree with what you asked about:
Anyway, the thread I linked is a better place for such discussion.

You just contradicted yourself...stop arguing with me for argument's sake...
All I said is it's a possibility. I don't even understand what you're saying anymore once you agree it's possible...

P.S. I believe I understand the definition of variance as well as anyone here, given my past experience and the fact that I have a mathematical degree from NYU and am currently an actuary.

So it's standard to never win a 2:1 shot in 40 tries? While losing 2:1's nonstop? Cash game variance is different from MTT's, because you approach hands/board textures very differently. So if you have not played tens of thousands of MTT's/SNG's, do not try to be a smart aleck.

an actuary with a mathematics degree from NYU who claims he understand variance and yet still makes these comments? does not compute...

"sooner or later you will run worse than you ever thought possible"

online poker is not rigged. you're just running bad. play through it or take a break. never complain, adjust

make that money, don't let it make you

rabble rabble, squawk squawk

imo

Very possible I'm running bad. Simply noting that given the history of online poker (when at the time, people on UB and such sites thought it was just "run bad") and the timing of my run bad when Merge is already doing everything it can to keep deposited funds in hand, that it should not be 100% dismissed. This and the fact that another grinder in another thread recently brought up the same possibility independent of my experience as well certainly creates a notion that should be considered, however implausible one may believe it to be.

And yes I have a math degree from NYU. On the actuary note, no I am not yet a practicing actuary, but I recently completed the 2nd actuarial exam, which should allow me to have my choice of jobs in the field.

Instead of being too technical, just think of it like this. Take a die. Now try to avoid 1 and 2 and only hit 3,4,5,6 40 times in a row. Sure it's possible, but at some point you start to wonder if the die is rigged don't you?

I don't see the contradiction. Your original question was regarding if I would "put it past these guys". Your second was regarding if I believe it possible. I would put it past these guys (meaning I do not believe they would do it), but I do recognize the possibility that I am wrong.

Occam's razor suggests you have some error in your calculation. But since there is a possibility, however small, that you are correct, you can post in the appropriate thread and discuss it there. Then if your calculations and other evidence prove correct, you can post back here. Until then, it's best to keep the "rigged" posts out of here. Do you see why?

A. MaxCut recognizes the possibility of card rigging by them.
B. MaxCut puts the possibility of card rigging past them, i.e. it's not possible they would card rig.

How is that not a contradiction...

2nd, Occam's razor does not directly apply here, as the way it applies to probability is through Bayesian theory. With Bayesian inference, what would be your probabilities p and q and the binomial parameter a?

Final note would be you say to keep this discussion off this thread, which may or may not be the correct thing to do, but if you believe it is, why do you continue to post in here...

hell yeah im mad im still waiting on a check still getting the run around its been 10 weeks now and nothing but bs lies from rpm...

there are always players at all points in USA online poker's history who run worse than ever and it coincides with some significant point along said history's timeline. it's lol, and it's yawn all at the same time

not to mention we still do not truly know why they cut off p2p transfers

people can speculate all they want, just like they do with the lack of transparency on check delivery times and ways to acquire WU withdrawal as an option (which i still don't ****ing have) but the fact of the matter is we don't know everything, and they do

of course we're entitled to our opinions, and many of them are sound in logic, but again, one side has perfect information and the opinionators don't

of course i semi-think it's rigged when i have the most depressing session ever but statistically speaking it is pretty much never out of the ordinary

cheating is always possible. rigging is always possible. we play at our own risk. i know what my tolerance is. imo even in my massive run-bads i've never once considered quitting for fear that Merge is becoming insolvent and/or trying to **** me out of my money and the profit i regularly withdraw in any way, shape, or form other than to give out less rakeback, promos, and guarantees, but that's merely because Lock left and less grinders are out there generating rake for them now.

you're still whining? we're all aware of the "BS lies" bro. we're all waiting for checks too. do yourself a favor and stop staring at the screen with a hard-on to see "check approved" every morning. it will come when it comes, or never at all...you never had any control over it in the first place. like i said, either deal with it or don't

you're better served directing all your complaints and anger towards your locally elected official right on up to Obama and Holder

I did not put the possibility past them, I put the act past them. That is the second time you puts words in my mouth. By doing so, you lose credibility, so let's fix that up for you.

A. Max Cut acknowledges the possibility of card rigging.
B. Max cut puts card rigging past them, i.e., he would be extremely surprised to find out they card rig.



My application of Occam's razor is to the events "You made a mistake in your calculations" vs "Merge is card rigging". Without further evidence to the contrary, the first event is a much simpler explanation.

I post in here in the (obviously misguided) hope that you will take your speculation to the thread where it belongs. I will continue to discredit any such unsubstantiated speculation since it potentially damages the player pool (unless it is in the proper thread). If you're results are indeed alarming, you will be heard in that thread and validated, at which point I welcome the information. As a mathematician, you should be able to appreciate the need for proof. Now kindly spare us until then.

That's still a contradiction...I feel like you need a dictionary.

Mistake in my calculations? I haven't made any calculations. I simply kept track. Secondly, your use of Occam's razor in this scenario is ridiculous because honestly there is no way for you, an outsider, to know the possibility of rigging, whether it be 1% or 50%. It's just wild speculation by you. You say you put it past them as if you have special insight into their character, when the only fact we know for sure is that they skirt the US government in an otherwise illegal manner, which should be a huge red flag already. I do not understand why you cannot comprehend this.

And finally as a mathematician, I do not need to appreciate the need for proof here as I'm not trying to prove the impossible. In this specific allegation, I can only be proved right, never wrong if you haven't realized this yet. Simply recognizing the increased possibility of card rigging.

Oh ya, and the real reason you continue to post is much more mundane. Won't explain, but a neutral observer who sees someone post 1,200+ posts in 2 years with a location of "I drink it up!" surely comes to the conclusion that his posts are substantial and helps "discredit any such unsubstantiated speculation" for the sake of the poker community. Occam's razor suggests it's more likely that the vast majority of your posts are useless, including this one. Hope I used it right that time

OK, it is now clear that you have basic failings in reading comprehension and logic. I do know when to stop a pointless internet discussion. I'm sorry that you've run bad. Here's that link for you again:

rigtard thread

Explain 3 things that you have declared and I'll leave this thread.

1. On what basis do you put such acts past them? Share this special knowledge you have with us.
2. I obviously do not have basic failings in reading comprehension and logic. My attacks on your statements have all been substantiated. You are just now making baseless insults as you have no other option. Show me my mistaken calculations.
3. Define "possible". And then define "extremely unlikely." Those terms are not mutually exclusive.

1. That is a question for the thread linked. You either failed to read that thread or lack reading comprehension. Otherwise you wouldn't need to ask. One compelling reason is that it would be much more difficult to card rig and not get caught than other forms of cheating/scamming players. (Please don't start up a debate about this now.)

2. You choose to use specious arguments and distractions (such as your reference to post counts) rather than rational discussion.

3. It is disingenuous but correct to point out that they are not mutually exclusive. Duh. It's just as clear that "impossible" is a proper subset of "extremely unlikely".

[edit: fixed my wording error in #3]

You failed to explain to my liking. You have ZERO idea as to what it takes to card rig, you're the one who shouldn't bring it up. My mention of post counts was to play with the relevancy of Occam's razor in this argument, which of course went right over your head.

Also, it is not the least bit disingenuous as I said its simply possible and then you contradict yourself. You are also showing that you have no true character in regards to the health of the player pool, because if you did, you would have stopped responding since you stated it is better that this argument not continue. Yet you feel the greater need to post (alluding to 1200+ posts ) than stick to your original assertion. I was trying to prove this point as well, which again went right over your head. You post blindly with little substance.

Your claim that I lack reading comprehension is truly disingenuous when you contradict yourself at every point. I now realize I am speaking to a stubborn child who will not even allow for others to speculate on possibilities. Hence, I will no longer reply to you unless there is something I can actually gain from this.

You win, math degree. gg

On another note, has any Merge representative shed any light on their recent actions?

It's good that you edited your post, because an 85 BI downswing in MTTs is so unremarkable that it would be ridiculous to use that as the basis for suspecting anything. The fact that it took you 5 years to encounter such a downswing means you were fortunate or your volume wasn't very high.