I said nothing about respect. I said credibility. It probably helps when you're going to make generalized posts to at least have the facts straight. In your first hand it was 81/19 assuming no flush draws were involved, which is quite a bit off from 90/10.

And if you're putting your entire roll on the line in situations like that, I strongly suspect you haven't played nearly enough hands to have any kind of decent sample size. In that case all it takes is one bad beat to bust you. Not very wise. Have you ever seen a pitcher get a base hit in a baseball game? Was it rigged for him when he did? What you are providing is not evidence, so like all the other rigtards out there you point fingers without a shred of proof. You are a conspiracy theorist.

I bet you didn't know this, but 10% of the time you are a 90% favorite, you will lose.

No, I was suggesting how you can analyse the AA hands you described.

You may be referring to what I was editing and I deleted another thought I had. But if they go to showdown, of course you can, you just compare preflop showdown equity against showdown wins. The board cards don't care what bets were made and they fall the same as they would on a preflop all-in. You just can't count the times you win (or lose) before a showdown. There may be some special cases where another player was in the hand to the flop or turn but folded before showdown, I'll have to think about that one some more and see if it affects anything.

There´s a lot of situations when a good player with good reading skills will fold the hand before the showdown. For example I get AA raise and get 1 caller Cbet and get reraised, choose to fold putting him in a better hand and he shows 2 pair. In these cases if he does not show the hand it will be impossible to be sure the favorite hand at the flop, lets say, was cracked in the turn or not. So would be impossible any statistical analisys.

This.
You're looking at this the wrong way. If, for example, an opponent only gets to showdown with two pair or better, and you never fold your aces, then you'll be winning far less than 85% of the time, even less than 50% of the time.

When I used to play online, I would lose with the best hand both preflop and flop 70 percent of the time.

People who play online are ******ed. If profits are not big enough for you at a live house play higher limits. Anything is better then a stacked deck.

Let's all bask in the intellectual genious that is NFUEGO20. We all know that the sharpest minds in the world come from OHIO.

Must be all that rust and unemployment there.

By the way. It's rather fitting that your avatar is of Kermit the Frog, since your intelligence level is most likely on par with those who watch Sesame Street.

No, you're stupid. Thats why you play online poker for a living instead of having a real job.

...

[x] terrible bump
[ ] playing online poker means we don't have a job
[x] you are a troll

lol, there's a good new approach... disqualify an argument based on where a person is from. I'd come up with something intelligent in response to this post, but you've pretty much buried yourself with it.

I have a college degree and spent several years working for Big Four accounting firms. Of course, my perfectly logical post does not need to have any kind of educational background behind it. It makes sense on its own.

And Kermit is a muppet. You also are a muppet. See how well that works?

Also.... some irony here...

Please let us know where you're from so we can give your location a bad name.

if you can provide HH's to back up that claim that would go a long way.

thanks in advance,
mark

I think you're correct, I've been working on that problem, and it turns out preflop equity comparison vs. wins seems to only be valid when you are all-in and have exactly one caller. I'm still thinking about it.

toltec444 - if this is correct, you need to further filter your sample to preflop all-ins with one caller only to have a valid comparison. That's what I've done with my larger analysis, I was just working on the issue of whether other hands can be analysed similarly.

http://www.thepokerbank.com/is-online-poker-rigged.html

Theory: The online rooms fix the cards so that the bad players will get luckier to stop them from losing too much money and leaving the room. The rooms want to keep as many players as possible so that they generate more rake, so by fixing the cards to make it ‘fairer’ for the bad players, they will able to make more money for themselves.

Explanation: The chances of a room fixing cards to help the bad players save money are almost non-existent. Only when you start to think about the side effects of such a system can you appreciate the absurdity of such a theory. If a room is helping a bad player from losing money, at the same time the room will be taking this money from the good players to compensate. Therefore there would be no such thing as the online pros that make a living from playing online poker, because they will find it too difficult to win money due to a ‘fair’ system.

In addition, the site would have to scrap the use of its RNG and design a system that is able to detect a losing player and be able to deliver ‘good hands’ to those players. Not only would this be incredibly difficult for the sites to create, but it would also be illegal. If a site were found to be utilizing such a system to help make them more money, they would incur a staggering amount of fines and be heavily prosecuted. The poker rooms know this and so it would be dangerously unwise for them to even consider using such a system.

i think NFuego20 is just sour because his mom made him clean his room ..
or maybe he's angry because he lives in Ohio .. i would be too ..

online poker 2003-2018 R.I.P.

I'm still here! Not banned yet! What's wrong with Ohio?! "The Great State..."

Isn't this whole debate pretty much nullified if everyone were to only play tournaments?

Mostly, yes. Except the hard core rigtards will say the site wants to help donks to get deeper in tournaments to make them stay around longer thinking they will win the the next one, and not give up and go away. And help them win a SnG sometimes to keep them around. Whether that can somehow be translated to any actual profit increase for sites, I leave to the riggedologists to show.

That must be a ridiculous challenge to code, when stack size and bet size have to be taken into account.

I would expect the sites get lots of angry email about rigged play money tables.

Riggedology is a faith that will always be able to adapt to any conditions, since it premises are based on vague beliefs and requiring others to disprove negatives.

Like most religions IMO.

Similar belief structure but they are not the same.

Most organized religions are based on faith of something that is supreme and unknown and beyond the scope of mankind. One can debate it, but faith in and by itself in this sense is not always a bad thing as it brings comfort and stability to many people's lives.

On the other hand, the Riggedologist faith is based on a quantifiable crime committed by other humans, so while they may preach the same belief in the unknown (ie: the rooms just magically rig it somehow), the reality is that these beliefs are based on actions that can be proven true or false.