Ah, this is the stuff!

OK, now you need to ramble about what makes people ( I assume your opponents) "designated players" and explain in glorious detail why Stars would insert these to harm you in 3 buck tourneys.

PokErasmus are you the new TPTK22, he was dreamy.

Um, no.

Yes, of course they do. Sites like FT and PS obviously utilizes the simple concept of bots in order to take out some cash. They unregulated, uncontrolled so why they would not do that if they server sits at a Caribean data centre?

I design software for a financial organization, but if I would happen to be the software engineer of a jewish or russian maffia operated doggy poker business than I would have to write that simple software module that takes some cash.

I think you don't have talk from the high horse. I can send you the source code of some RNG that I wrote for random password generation for example. It complies with IEEE standards and financial regulations and I am sure it produces your f...g random deal.

PokerErasmus, how can you whine about online poker being rigged if you are noob ?

P.S to make it more interesting, I still say that spadebidders analyzis is useless.

I know it would, because you believe:

So I can write software that gives me AA every hand, and that's random. Cool!

Explain how this bot makes them money:
For God's sake, it's "dodgy".

They don't need a "dodgy" software module to take cash, they have one right out in the open called rake. You said that being dealt AA 12 times in a row could be considered random, which is true, because in the short term variance can be some crazy ****. In the long term, though, in a sample of millions of hands, people getting dealt AA more than ~1 in 220 times will be suspicious.

You may understand short term randomness, but what you've said implies you don't understand it over a larger sample.

Your are so wrong in this, this is actually what you believe not him.

To get let say 5% or 10% or whatever percent from every tournament regardless the entry fee is $3 or $330. It's simple, no-risk, steady revenue.

Crime. That's what software criminals do in financial, transport, health any virtually in any businesses where software operates. And you bunch of poker site defending activists beleives and claims that crime is everywhere, but it can not happen in the unregulated, uncontrolled, partly maffia operated gambling industry.

It really does not make sense what are you try to achieve here you guys by defending in 24/7 something (the software operation) which 1) you have absolutely no idea how it works 2) it works unregulated, uncontrolled manner

So, if i get AA 12 times in a row, and further dealing proceeds being totally random, shoudlnt i have the same percentage to get AA next hand as i had before ? Even in a long sample, I think logically thinking that the outcome witch has more percentage to win a hand, would win it more than it is expected to, becouse each time it has the same chance to make a winning combination as it had before and in long term AA vs PP should be holding more than its expected to. And what spadebidders analyzis proved is that Certain EV situations holds up less than it should be witch is completelly contradicting. Spadebidder done really hard work, but its the same as take 10 riiged coins, 5 of them would flip heads 75% of the time, and other 5 would flip tails 75% of the time, combine results and compare the outcome.

Point1=the top 20% of winning players on a site keep that site in the black and at higher levels provide most of the liquidity of said site. As a business can you rely rely on RANDOM events to keep you from going bust.

Point2=Yes meny of these sites are not regulated and integrity is an issuie as i have said in previous posts there are meny ways a site could take your monies.

Point3=As a i am fairly intelligent and have been involved in numerous network transfers ie analouge to digital and have set and monitiored 3g revenue generating servers
I can say 100% that anybody looking after theses servers for said site could implement meny ways to take your monies if so inclined.(plus they are always side by side wi
th programers for said software)

Point4=Some things that happen online are so mathematicy incorrect but can be put down to varience(a word that legitamizes blatent corruption) that if you belive this is truley random you would never leave your house as you have a better odds of being killed in some freak incident or your trifecta hitting on every race.

Point5=I left a certain site because the software(rng) was plain wrong.. what was goin on was unreal and I am at a site that is regulated and run from the U.K.Bad beats yes but no were near as bad as other site and at the levels i play sometimes
this can mean losing or winning a few months wages in hands and i would rather not have the software and the other player against me.

It sure seems like some of you guys have a full time job defending online poker sites,seems to me if you are so sure its not rigged you would not bother to spend all day trolling this forum.

If we're sure it's not rigged, we wouldn't spend time telling others that it isn't? What might be wrong with this line of thinking?

I have never said that the final beneficial would be that account. I guess that was routed from that sucker to the bot at same stage. Anyway, lets don't get into the technicalities as me, you or anyone would be able to come up with a system that distribute some cash to designated accounts.

Why would you need to break the mathematical odds and giving more AA than 220:1 in order to distribute a winning hand? To distribute the winning card to designated accounts is not going to break the odds ratio.

in London it is doggy :-)) and I am not an English speaker anyway as you can see that I am sure.

Randomness : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbrwudqOEmg

Now, listen to this and watch durr playing. Either he knew this before anyone other did, or he figured this out by him self, in his mind without even knowing it

This line of thinking is that you would be playing poker and making money instead of wasting your time witch would cost atleast 5$ to write each post if your a mid stakes regular instead of replying to all riggtards.

I'm not here defending poker sites (dont know if they're rigged or not), just waiting for you riggedfolk to bring the hammer down on those foreign scum with your awesome proof.

rigged posters drive people away from the game and cost the poker community money, thats the only reason anyone needs to post here.

Pokerstars is rigged.

Yes, confirmed:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.10 BB (6 handed) - Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

SB ($10.90)
BB ($16.70)
UTG ($5.55)
MP ($10)
Hero (CO) ($14.60)
Button ($16.05)

Preflop: Hero is CO with A, J
2 folds, Hero bets $0.40, Button raises to $1, 2 folds, Hero calls $0.60

Flop: ($2.15) 3, 8, 6 (2 players)
Hero bets $1.90, Button raises to $15.05 (All-In), Hero calls $11.70 (All-In)

Turn: ($29.35) 6 (2 players, 2 all-in)

River: ($29.35) 3 (2 players, 2 all-in)

Total pot: $29.35 | Rake: $1.45

Results:
Button mucked 5, 7 (two pair, sixes and threes).
Hero had A, J (two pair, sixes and threes).
Outcome: Hero won $27.90

Yep. Getting AA an extra 11 times in a decent sized sample will still be within the expected range, just like people who get it a few times less than 1 in 220.

Sort of like how if you flip a coin 10,000 times you'll get a few long streaks of heads or tails, but in the end it'll be very close to 50:50.
So how many bots are they filtering the money through, exactly? I suppose they also make sure to break the tables so that the "losing" bots can proceed to lose their chips to the "winning" bots, right? Not totally clear on what you're saying here, but now I guess you're going with AA winning more often than it should, when your previous argument was that people could get dealt AA 12 times in a row and it would still be "random".

I dont understand why are you asking for proof all the time, you know that noone cant provide it. People come here to share their opinions and not to be accused and riddiculed. Why can´t you face the fact that non you riggtards or non riggtards have any proof of OLP being rigged or not, and instead of fighting and riddiculing each other you could make statements, and if someone is new in this game and comes here just give him a simple explination, maybe some links so the person could make a basic idea of what is variance, and how the random deal should look like after certain ammount of hands played. You can post even some of your bad beats or something and prove that you still have winning results in the long run.

Now again, we are going into same bst. Can`t you put some kind of clear explination to him ? The guy is knew in this, and he has no ****** clue of what he is talking about. I remember when i first saw 44 beated by A2 when the board double paired i was so shocked that i even stoped playing for 3 days, but now there is just nothing new i can see. And i do admit that there is some poker rooms where it happen more than it should. And after huge amount of hands played in it, after going all in pf 1 on 1 And seeing my opponents cards, i just know that he will win.

Um, what?

I quoted him exactly, so I eagerly await your explanation of where I was wrong.

Clear explanations get explained away as shilling.

I also don't know exactly what I'm supposed to clearly explain. That it's almost impossible for a site to have a bunch of bots in every SNG? Ah, but he knows that it's rigged. I'm just trying to find out how he "knows" that. And yet your only proof is this post. Should be pretty simple to show actual math for it if you can just "see" it.

The *ONLY* reason people can't provide proof that it is rigged is because there's no evidence (evidence being something "beyond reasonable doubt") for it being rigged.

And all rigged theories are created individually, and thus must be debunked individually. There can't really be a "one size fits all" proof that online poker isn't "rigged".

Also, stupid people make me angry, yet I keep coming back to this thread.