I pointed this out yesterday and he said I misunderstood him, and then he goes and says the same thing again today.

hell disregard transit wetness reoblige played three.

well, I can't guarantee Stars' RNG is legit, but this Random Word Generator seems to be working fine for me n' Username!

Your random word is: obsession


Rigged.

I believe you have no idea what I am talking about and it is obviously due to my unclear explanation, for which again accept my apologies.

What I have been suggesting is that the sites delivers the winning hands to designated accounts. So why the delivery of let say 3d or 7s on the river that benefits the designated account can modify your large sample, if 3d or 7s is a completely valid card in the context of poker and even it could be the result of a random operaion? I am not suggestion the sites deliver more AA and breaks the 220:1 ratio of odds. What I am suggesting is that knowing the distributed hands winning flop, turn and river delivered to designated accounts. How it would such manipulation modify your large sample? It wouldn’t.

It isn´t about your form of expression. It`s about ignorance.

Way to many wallsofwords posts, riggedfolk are immune to logic. We need more ice cream and dinosaurs.

Maybe this will fit anyhow in your needs :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIZVdpjEu2g

Of all the classic rigtard material that's appeared since I last read read this thread, this sentence is my favourite:

I told my employers at Stars not to use these cards in their software or they would get caught out.



Of all the arguments against your collective rigtard conspiracies that you choose to ignore this post should be the easiest for you to understand

So many rigtards have particular sites which they think are fair (where they may currently be winning) and others which they are convinced are rigged against them (presumably where they lose). The fact that you cant agree on which sites belong in which category surely shows that you are deluding yourselves. Or are particular sites rigged against certain types of "good" players to the benefit of certain types of "bad" players?

If you provide some data rather than just making it up there could be no arguement

Well, knowing the software industry, knowing software professionals and understanding that on an unregulated environment the possibilities are endless if one deploys a malicious software components. If they would have, their operation would be transparent and all relevant policies that dictated by the regulation would be enforced.

I didnt said that i lose, but i run way above EV.

Almost there. The only thing is that you are focusing in big hands, like AA. It can be done with any hand, like J9o, 84o. Dont matter. As a matter of fact exactly because it can be done:

1. with any hand

2. at any point of the round

3. at any point of the time

that it cannot be detect.


For tournments I dont have a good theory.

Think the server bots is a good theory, and it would be very difficult to detect because if the bot changes nickname everyday it would be very disguising. No one would remember and no one would have time to make a good database on his game to even determineit is a bot.

that sounds like witchcraft for sure!

When have PS and FT intentionally failed to demonstrate that their system and integrity is not compromised by malicious components (and everything else you said)?

AFAIK I haven't posted one rant in the nearly 6000 posts I have on 2+2. Please link me to one of my "usual rants".
"Manipulation" will show itself in the long run. Good players usually get their money in with the best of it. If they're winning less or more than they should, then those tools will show it.

The part you're missing here is the players that need the help the most will still manage to make tragic decisions and lose the hand regardless of how much the site rigs it in their favor.

As far as the "it cannot be detect" (sic) part, well you haven't detected me in you bedroom with your wife yet, have you?

graphs and user names or it didn't happen

OK I think I'm starting to see your argument. The designated accounts get the cards they need more often than the non-designated accounts.

This would show up in an EV tool, as the non-designated accounts are not getting the cards they need as often as the designated accounts are, and are thus winning less than their share.

Because you cash game theory is rock solid is it?

So the distribution of cards dealt overall will be exactly as it should be despite them dynamically deciding what the flop, turn and river will be in order to move the pot to a player of their choice. This will be done on all tables to all players whatever the insignificant extra profit and the increased chance of being caught. All these adjustments will be undetectable by the thousands of people analysing databases and despite the resources required and the risk of being caught, this tiny, undetectable rigging generates enough extra profit to make it worthwhile? And yet you've discovered it without any actual analysis, just a hunch based on you being unable to accept losing a few hands?

When you move onto your tournament theory just make something up like it's gospel and some other rigtard will make up a contradictory theory which covers any angles you may have missed. I.e. if you go with the "awful short stacks always get lucky and double up to help them win and encourage them to keep playing on the site" someone else will cover the "big stack always wins to get the tournament finished quicker" theory

Alas, you do not know how to deal with the riggedologist faithful.

The simple riggedologist reply would be that the people behind the magical rigging know how that tool works and would subtly allow the results to fit within your search while at the same time having the results favor certain people.

All the while having no one who is behind these truly inspired bits of programming ever revealing what they know.


How exactly do you think your mere unbiased data and statistical analysis compares to the powerful forces that are behind the riggedologist followers?

So you would be able to see a statistical anomaly over a large sample size within these individual accounts then. This is still testable.

I didnt missed that, I said exactly that few posts ago. The rig model does not intend to favor this or that player neither cares who wins the hand or not, what the rigged system cares is to keep the money more time in the table. This is how it works:

1. The rigged software makes the favorite hand win less frequent than it would be expected. But note (this is very important) the favorite hand stills wins most of it, indeed almost in the right frequency.

That leads tothe conclusion that even if that software is running the better player will win money in the long run and the bad player will lose.

Note one important point, there is no sense in simply revert the equity of two hands playing HU. Theres no sense in making AA win 20% against 88. That would give no extra benefit for the poker room.


The ideal scenario for a poker room is that every hand played had 50% of equity, that would generate the maximum amount of rake possible.

Obviously they cant make that, because if they did no one would be profit and it would be easy to know something was wrong, so they try to aproximate the equities the more they can in the direction of that ideal 50%.In the previous example lets say, making AA win 60% against 88.

OK well that can still be disproven with the EV tools.

Not to try to get into a factual debate with a seasoned riggedologist, but

Your point 1 would be very easy to detect via statistical analysis if it was happening. Plus someone who programmed it would have told by now (with specifics as to what they did).

In general, the fact that there are a ton of players who constantly lose a ton and some players who consistently win pretty much invalidates the rest of your theory that the rooms try to make everyone break about even.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/54...8/index59.html

is a thread filled with all sorts of graphs to show this.


You are abandoning the roots of your riggedology beliefs by trying to engage in a discussion involving facts, since the ones you present are flawed and easy to disprove. I highly suggest returning to the more vague and sexy comments like "The Russians are behind it"

After all, no one can disprove that.

****ing rigged