Ummm, it will happen a ton, actually. You do realize that 70/30, although a great edge to have in poker over the long term, is actually very close, short term?

You can, surprisingly, work out the amount of times it should happen, and the answer is not "very rarely".

Right to me when you say rigged i do not automaticly think of RNGs(although on this site there have been some good litriture about juicing the RNG from respected authorities)

Like in the UB scandel When i say RIGGED i tend to mean any way they can use to releive of your money dishonestly or an slight edge(if they wish and there are ways).As said before there are meny ways a site COULD(not goin in depth here) try this. Do they(is it rigged) well thats the whole point of thread i belive.
thankyou and good day sir

****** ALERT

This is not proof or evidence, just a strange what if scenario. You can use the exact same "logic" to explain how people secretly have super powers like flying and mind reading, but they keep it a secret because it is in their benefit to do so.



Let's say someone learned how to fly and be invisible. They could save all sorts of money in travel costs and could get into events for free from time to time.

If I said this I suspect even you would ask for proof since all it is is a fanciful what if scenario and nothing more. Yours falls in the same category even if to you it seems to make sense. You need to prove it otherwise all it is is a "what if" crime based scenario and we could have a whole thread of similar what ifs regarding online poker or anything.

Proof is not "if someone could do this, they would do it in this way." That is conjecture.




Edit: Bonus hand for rigtards to use in future

PokerStars Game #27183900257: Tournament #156548352, $10.00+$0.40 Omaha Pot Limit - Level IV (50/100) - 2009/04/17 8:09:52 ET
Table '156548352 1' 10-max Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: MightyBishop (1395 in chips)
Seat 2: thekendziors (1360 in chips)
Seat 3: skeet1000 (2365 in chips)
Seat 4: dokonoko (3160 in chips)
Seat 5: koster25 (2885 in chips)
Seat 7: Monteroy (1000 in chips)
Seat 9: seehase (1415 in chips)
Seat 10: papamarco83 (1420 in chips)
papamarco83: posts small blind 50
MightyBishop: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [Tc 9d 3h 4h]
thekendziors: folds
skeet1000: folds
dokonoko: calls 100
koster25: folds
Monteroy: folds
seehase: folds
papamarco83: calls 50
MightyBishop: checks
*** FLOP *** [Ah 5h Qs]
papamarco83: checks
MightyBishop: bets 200
dokonoko: calls 200
papamarco83: folds
*** TURN *** [Ah 5h Qs] [Qh]
MightyBishop: bets 200
dokonoko: raises 1100 to 1300
MightyBishop: calls 895 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (205) returned to dokonoko
*** RIVER *** [Ah 5h Qs Qh] [Jh]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
MightyBishop: shows [Qc 8h Qd 4c] (four of a kind, Queens)
dokonoko: shows [8c 7c Th Kh] (a Royal Flush)
dokonoko collected 2890 from pot

Yeah, you're right, I just get so tired of that being used as the example of a "rigged" poker site. It's a shame they hurt the reputation of online poker as a whole, which by and large is operated fairly.

less hands live = less bad beats.
more hands online = more bad beats.

tl;dr

Ah, the old "I don't think it's rigged, but...."

The funny part is where you admit to playing 5x more hands online than live, then wonder why you get more beats/monsters online.

OMGZ 10k hands! Please update us after you have played another week.

feel free to start being stingier with your ideas, lenny.
is that "le rig du jour" ? because some rigtards have implied that the (w)hole cards folks are dealt are how the sites are doing it. others seem to think that miracle rivers based on what fish need to win a big pot as opposed to go broke are the route they're taking. and then there's the "big stacks always win in tournaments" school of thought which is gaining steam. finally, sooperfish is behind the "small stacks win more than the should in cash games."

y'all need to get organized. us shills have a union and good benefits. you guys keep losing to those of us with goldern accounts and newbie fish. so, a la Nelson, I give you a hardy



anyone who is abusing some flaw (and a flaw isn't "rigging" btw) had to find evidence of it existing. do you know someone with it, or are you like that fool who says he saw his friend win like 7 hands? his friend told him he can't lose and it seems he's convinced. it's like this example:

Omfg,havent laughed so much lately luuul.Running from 100$ to 15k$ in limit poker.

[ ] Running hot in limit.
[X] On the couch laughing

live is so slow it could take you years to realize you suck. online it becomes apparent
much faster.

This is exactly what happened with PlanetPoker back in like 1999 and people reported it. This is also why all major sites have third party auditors.

tl;dr

bai

I'm actually a bot myself. My maker is paid by one of the biggest online poker sites for me to play 24hrs a day and post automated responses such as this on poker forums such as P2P.

you cant quit. nobody can.

I do that too sometimes.

qft

[ ] P2P
[ ] rigged
[x] OP is running hot live

It's not going to matter in about a week. Well for the USA that is. If the UIGEA doesnt get overturned online players will gradually be pulling their funds off their poker sites. If it does get overturned you can bet you bottom dollar there will be "software changes." All in all this thread is just giving bad press...reguardless it's irrelevent to the US players at this particular time.
"What do you mean software changes?" I know that's what's going to be asked and even though it doesn't deserve an answer I will respond. If the UIGEA is passed that calls for regulation of online gaming. Regulating, taxing, monitoring, policing...If the Gov't passes a bill like this that means Gov't involvement. You can fill in the blanks for yourself...I'm sure there are plenty of threads that will cover this topic.
Here's what most of you haven't figured out yet. Most of these users come here looking for a fight. How many posts have you seen people write saying, "Hey I'm a regular here but this is my first post."? Too many to count. Try neglecting instead of provoking. If nobody's around to listen, who's going to show up to talk?

Amen

You do understand that if you are a 70/30 favorite, you will lose 30% of the time, right? This is actually quite often.

Let's say you played x hands, and from those x hands you drew 10000 hands in which you were precisely a 70/30 favorite. You can expect to lose 3000 of those hands when your opponent outdraws you with a standard deviation of about sqrt(10000 * 0.70 * 0.30) = 25.1 hands. That is, 99.7 percent of the time you will lose between 2924.7 and 3075.3 hands over that sample. If you reported losing significantly more, you can suspect foul play, but I guarantee that you won't find such an abnormality.

On another note, of course you will see more funny stuff in online poker. As your sample size increases (hands played), the variance increases proportionally.

Yeah, forgot to comment on this, but this is a very unrealistic outlook. While a few people might keep something a secret (casino whoring in the day was an example of this), the reality is that most people would tell either for moral reasons (some do have morals) or just to show off how special they are that they know something.

Look at all the people here who seem to think they know how the system is flawed, ie: they play the system not the math. Sure, most of them are losing players in deep rationalization mode, but they are willing to openly share what they believe to be wrong in the system.

That's one of the ironic fallacies in the "it's so good, no one would talk" logic. Realistically someone would talk, and the lack of any fact based talk in this area helps prove the system is more fair.



This is fairly standard doom and gloom end of the world beliefs. People have been saying variations of this about online poker for years and will continue saying them until the end of time.

Lots say the same thing about human life in general.

The week will come and go, nothing will dramatically change as you predict, but you will likely still believe that something big will happen. Here, read about how the world will end in 2012. When it does not, there will be a new theory of the world ending in 2016. That's how it works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Doomsday_Prediction

can we make a subforum in BBV called "OMG POKER IS RIGGED" and we can direct the crazies there?

You really do talk some complete and utter bollox, don't you?

This gibberish is not even internally consistent.

It's such nonsensical waffle it's not even worth commenting on in any detail