Ok Steven Baldwin, are you going to baptize him now? Please post the time and date so we can all attend. Your a great person for all that you do for online poker. I smell a promotion in your near future.

I stand by my theory the villain's play was very likely influenced by his reads on the hero. I can't prove it, but proof is hard to come by ITT.
You don't get calling a $79 bet to win a $338 pot?
exactly - clearly folding pre-flop > calling, but putting the hero all-in at that point > flat-calling. Calling the flop shove was basically the same.

you said it exactly .. EVERYTIME YOUR IN A BIG POT THERES A COOLER. SET OVER SET LIKE ITS VERY EASY FOR IT TO HAPPEN. I mean come on people face reality. SMALL STAKES IS RIGGED UP THE ASS

Oh jeez, another overexcited teenager who doesn't have a clue about probability maths.

Oops, you pointed out my typo, I meant 989 not 998. Worst bad beat in holdem.

Fortunately I've never experienced one (where the money went in on the flop).

I would lay good odds that you have no idea how often set over set is expected to happen. It can be over a thousand times a day on a busy site, with an honest deal.

I often see on poker forums people say they win big live but lose online. I read only once a guy said that he does good both. But he didn't specify how much he wins.
I know, some big name players win online.
What I managed to make last 2 years is 30k and 20k which is pitifuly little for playing 1200 hours per year. I just wonder can regular player like me consistently win decent money online.
So, I'm not a loser, nor am I a rigtard. But there are some arguments that question online poker legitimacy. They don't prove rigging. There is no evidence, I know.

Regulars on this thread say that almost all rigtards are losers. That implies they are consistent long term winners. Yet nowbody said this explisetly.

I'm dying to be convinced online poker is not rigged. But I would give more credibility to those who not only 100% confident that online poker is not rigged, but can back it with his own success.
That's why I asked people to tell their poker success stories.
That's exactly my point.

You have it backwards.
Every time there is a cooler, you get a big pot.
Isn't that obvious? (it seems almost like the definition of cooler to me).

You guys are saying different things.
Obviously if there is a cooler there will be a big pot, but there should also be big pots without coolers.
Every insect is a bug, but not every bug is an insect.
And I'm almost certain that RNG's are rigged in some way or another.

lmao

something very hard for many people on this board. they are hooked like fishes (no pun intended) to online poker. happens to the best of us, i guess. some learn quicker than others.

The Merge Network (carbon, nordica) is full of cheats that can see your cards. I would post hand histories but the site doesn't have complete hand histories available.

Beware!

Of course there's a cooler every time there's a big pot. That's why there's a big pot, ffs.

People don't get all-in with stone cold bluffs very often.

Logic fail. In spite of that, I would agree that most of the non-rigtards are at the very least somewhat profitable online.

I've made the vast majority of my income from online poker for the past three years.

Can you explain the logic behind that remark?

Apart from the money you put in yourself why on earth would others significantly contribute to the largeness of the pot unless they had, like, 'good cards'.

From your perspective of not being able to make money very quickly despite being a consistent winner then the one form of rigging we all agree on will easily account for the paucity of your income.

It's that annoying little thing called rake.

As you seem to be a full time loser yet also seem to keep playing I suppose that make you one of the slow learners.

I consistently make good money and I believe that is because I'm a fast learner and took the trouble to learn probability maths (at school) and how to apply it (whilst playing).

If you spent as much time with a maths text book as you do whining on here you might become a winner, too.

Lifetime (approximately 5 years of online play over three sites) I've made a bit over 6 figures. And I consider myself average at best for a regular player. I have plenty of friends who play many more hands and many more tables, enough to play close to a million hands a year who earn that just about each year. If you play enough hands you'll see just about everything, and if you play tournaments you'll also see a lot more of it simply because the blinds force the action and people get all in against each other a lot more often.

That said, winning isn't going to happen automatically, and its easier for some people than others. Being a winning player though has a lot more to do with studying the game and very little to do with dodging bad beats. Bad beats are a part of the game and always will be. A certain percentage of the time your opponent is going to get there with the worst hand. That's life. Too many of these conspiracy theorists in this thread are looking to use those bad beats as a reason that they're unsuccessful, which is a complete cop out.

Most of the people complaining probably have no idea what kind of volume of hands is required to allow variance to work itself out and allow your true winrate to develop. A lot of us probably haven't played nearly enough hands for that to even happen. It's particularly funny when people point to one hand as "evidence" of rigging.

Thank you NFuego,
Your words about plenty of friends who make about six figure a year make me feel easier. The rest of your post about bad beats, etc., is not for me. I never paid too much attention to bad beats, even if they went in a terrible streaks, like 20 times in a row. That not only can, but must happen in a long run. Variance, you know...
Like you, I've been playing online poker for about 5 years and made slightly more then $200k overall. Unfortunately, most of those winnings fall on the first 2 years, when I even didn't use rake back, like now. That's why I think I should win more now.
I agree, average level of online players went up dramatically since then. But I learned poker too. My poker library consists of about 20 books. I spent hundreds hours analyzing my hand histories. I'm not near that rookie who I was 4-5 years ago. Yet winning rate goes only down.
Well, maybe I am on a long, long losing streak. After all, statistically speaking, somebody must suffer terrible downswings. Also, well may be, that I am not so fast leaner as others and not so good at poker to win more. It hurts my self-esteem but I can live with it.
Non-rigtards, sorry, but I cannot throw away possibility of rigging. Among piles of garbage about bad beats and so at "rigged" threads I've found some nuggets of interesting information. There are three things that bother me a lot

1. By manipulating their games poker sites could gain awfull amount of money comparing to their legitimate earnings. My estimate shows that the ratio may be up to 10 times. If I were them, I woldn't miss this opportunity. At least, it would worth trying.

2. AbsolutePoker and UltimateBet scandals showed that even caught redhanded poker sites can easily get away. After the scandals thay are stll in busines and doing well.
I know, that was a former high rank emploee who cheated at AbsolutePoker. But he wasn't prosecuted, convicted and put in jail as it would definetely happen if poker sites were regulated by reputable authorities, like Canada, England, Australia or others big eastern countries where online poker is legal. Then I can suppose that poker sites themselves will not have to stand any kind of trial in court even if rigging would be proved somehow.


3. Despite long-lasting debates about rigging, poker sties did not give any statistical evidence of their legitimacy yet. Unlike you or me, regular players, they can do that. They have access to all hand histories. Full hand histories, including hole cards of all players. They have financial information about everybody, so they can compare statistical performance of winning players vs. losing. They have resources to develop software and test that prove random cards distribution. They can hire independent audit company with assignment not only to test their RNG, which proves nothing, but check their real live hands history, say, every year. For unknown to me reason, they do not do that, thas making thousand, or hundred of thousand, players to doubt. I know, some rigtards will question audit company independency, would still whine about bad beats. But majority, I believe, will take it right. Indeed, I didn't heard much about rigging in real life poker.

I could agree, that my logic may be faulty. Maybe, there are strong reasons for poker sites to act this way and not another. So far, I don't understand why.

That's why I am happy to hear from you, NFuego, that you personaly know many people who wins relatively big onlin. For me, this is a kind of proof. Wold be nice to have some more of proof, but still that's good.
Regards.

Great post until the last paragraph lol

WAT

Where in the world does this figure come from? Good to know that if you had the opportunity to scam people, you'd take it.

They definitely took a big hit in business, which I'm guessing has cost them more than the perpetrators ever stole (not to mention that they theoretically gave all that money back).
This is indeed a good reason for more regulation. Hope you all guys are members of the PPA and visit the Legislation forum on 2+2 every so often to figure out what you can do to help.

Isn't PokerStars audited by two different companies? Cigital and another one that starts with a B I think...

I personally know two others who have made 6 figures from online poker, but there are PLENTY of people on here that have.

In regards to your winrate dropping, online poker is ridiculously harder than it was a few years ago. Yet another reason for more regulation (at least for the U.S.)

Great post until the start of the text.

Untill 2007 poker was a game that you must play, after 2007 its waste of time for the most people. The difference in BB / 100 only from changed RB / Bonus is easy 5 BB / 100. Thats alone is a big handicap for the most players.

I never was able to beat high stakes so this 5 BB / 100 handicap make poker total worthless. Added software, bots, collusion and the new RNGs ( good ammount away from 2004 ).

Poker is simple = deposits-rake = possible winnings

I am glad with my old winnings but are not longer interested in todays poker.

Can you expand on that?

Do you mean so that it would be legitimised and vast schools of fish would swim into the (legally speaking) safe waters?