Please post the screenshot, as promised.

Where do you add attachments

You don't.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/55...s-more-285800/

So I take it this statement is true? Seems if wpn said it was false it would of been taken down? This would mean wpn is rigged would it not or am I just being a rigtard here? Suprised this isn't getting more attention.

Wow, screenshot please. If they really posted this I am not playing on the site anymore.

You are actually considering that ACR made a post casually stating that they are using a rigged RNG? You're kidding, right?

I saw the same post, not sure what they were trying to state, but they removed it rather quickly.

Edit: are you denying this existed, or do you think it was a poorly worded mistake.. ?

Edit: oh wait, you think the site could have been hacked and the article could have been planted without ACR's knowledge... ?

yikes, im not, I actually was surprised and I like your critical thinking.


but, hmmmmmmmmmm

no not sarcastic, just thinking.

peace

Boom.

More like thud.

The nonbeliever

Wpn is a fly by night poker site for sure. Wow

I'll go ahead and take a stab at it... The paragraph right after the one that states that they have registry permissions to monitor illegal software isn't referring to codes/algorithms that they implant onto your computer to affect the outcome of your game. I think they're saying they have codes/algorithms on their end that can determine whether or not a player is running way above expectation (i.e. a super-user). It's definitely poorly worded though.

I took this as they put codes in there software to lower win rates. U think its to detect super user. Lol

Very poorly worded. I can see why in a vacuum that statement looks like they're saying they rig your results, but I can also see where it's not saying that and is just worded super bad. I think the meaning was they have algorithms to detect when a player's winning hands don't correspond to normal statistical distributions. For example, in the case of the superuser accounts on UB. You might hero call someone every once in a while with Q high because you have a strong bluff read, but it will be very rare and sometimes you'll be wrong. A superuser that can see the hole cards might make calls like this with a much higher frequency and be right all the time. That's the kind of thing they're looking for.

The other supporting evidence this is what they are saying to me is that the entire thing is embedded in a larger text about what they do to catch cheaters and protect the integrity of the game, and this sentence:

This sentence makes sense for my interpretation. If the real meaning were that they rig the deal or outcomes then this sentence essentially would be saying they rig it in a way to make it come out statistically normal/random? Almost like saying it's rigged to be fair. lol

I think a critical analysis indicates they are not saying they rig the deal or control win rates, but it is certainly very poorly worded and thanks for posting it... when there is any doubt we should all be having a careful look imo.

I don't operate on belief systems.

That image is still only about half the article. The actual article states that the threat from cheaters comes from players who collude, players who use multiple accounts, and players who use multiple HUDs. Then it summarizes by stating how the cheaters can be stopped.

Those final paragraphs that were earlier posted were taken way out of context. Reading the entire article, it is very clear that the players that the article is referring to when it says, "The poker site uses certain codes & algorithms that can prevent players from dominating a cash game or tournament" are cheating players. Cheating players are the only players that are talked about throughout the article. Those are the only players that are being referred to in the summary.

The riggies in this thread are simply reading what they want into the summary. That all the networks use statistical norms, etc. to keep the games honest is common knowledge and isn't stating anything that we don't already know. There is absolutely nothing in that summary that suggests that they are referring to the RNG. It is beyond absurd to think that they are admitting to cheating themselves, considering that it would conflict with the purpose of the entire article.

That final sentence about suckouts could have used a little more elaboration but it really hits on exactly what separates the riggies from the non-riggies. Non-riggies are perfectly aware that bad beats and suckouts are a normal part of the game. Whereas riggies believe that bad beats and suckouts are an indication of a rigged RNG. All the writer was stating was that games that operate within statistical norms have bad beats and suckouts. A game without bad beats would actually be an indication of trouble. It was an aside by a writer who clearly forgot that the terms "bad beats" and "suckouts" trigger a Pavlovian response in riggies.

Dredging up an article from 7 years ago that didn't cause much of a wave back then and expecting it to be some kind of smoking gun today is a bit silly.

Going back to look, I think that I misread something about it being 7 years ago. I stand by the rest of what I said though.

The URL shown in that screenshot doesn't exist on that web site. Google is also unable to find any reference to that URL.

http://www.americascardroom.eu/onlin...ne-poker-scam/

Using 2 huds is cheating. I was using 2 with no problem. Didn't know that was cheating.

I can't figure out what they meant by 2 HUDS. My best guess is that they were talking about players who essentially pool their HUDs through shared or datamined stats.

The article started by briefly discussing collusion, followed by multi-accounting, followed by that 2 HUD thing.

Same here. You can use all the HUDs available on the market, as long as you are using only your own data base.

Again, extremely poorly worded article.

Santa Cruz,
Your statement about belief systems was non-applicable to anything anyone said. No belief systems were put forward. Were you saying you don't believe anything ever? Did you just want to come out of the atheist closet? Maybe I missed something, but I'd appreciate it if you left the brain rotting blathering out of this thread. There is enough of that already. I'm not asking you to "believe" in rigging. I f you wish, you can keep insulting people and denying facts, but it's unbecoming of an intelligent adult.

I responded to your post that said, "The nonbeliever", in which you were referring to me. If you want to go on some idiotic rant about atheism you should really find some other subforum to do it in.

Got excited there was something new on this. The article posted proves nothing. Don't we have a separate thread for the rigged RNG stuff anyways?

Was a good chuckle again anyways per the original thread

Yeah I got excited when I saw this thread. Thought new developments someone just randomly bumping the thread beating a dead horse back to life.

I only mentioned the word once. The point was, mentioning belief systems was a douchebag comment, ignorant, and unrelated to anything anyone said. No one put any belief system forward. If you want to argue belief systems, this is the wrong place. You should find the proper forum. Alternatively, don't say dumb **** pretending you're not a douche. Wow, this name calling, trolling is fun. Thanks for introducing me.

And all I said was that I don't operate on belief systems. I didn't say another word about belief systems, which, incidentally, was something you brought up. Judging from your mountain of posts in the riggie thread, you operate on the voices in your head.

This thread deserves a better death than this nonsense.