Please, show me one example of such a statement made by me.

A lot of non-rigtards say they don't think OLP is not rigged.

They then make statements that demonstrate that is exactly what they do believe.

At such an extrem you are right. In more complicated matters open mindedness is preferable, IMO.
But there is even more of 'tards as well who don't make categorical statements. As I said, it's my observation. I don't insist it's 100% correct.
that was quite a purpose of this statement
I have some basic understanding of probability and statistic and I capable to learn futher. Could you please help me to find tools to analyse HH and set of statistical analyses already existing. I suppose, you have done this research that lead you to your so strong non-rigged position.

No, I don't think so. For you it is obvious that it is cosher, because you not only know this logic and evidence, but you trust this logic and evidence.
I cannot argue with you, because I don't know what a you talking about.
Please, point me to some samples of this logic and evidence that indicate it is cosher. That is exactly what I look for to ease my mind. This is kindly request, not polemic!

In meanwhile, it is not so obviouse for me.

Questioning something obviouse is evidence of ******ness. But unfortunately, there is very few truly obviouse things in this world. Usually, something obviouse to one group of people is not so obviouse, and often looks simply wrong for the others. Should I give examples? Cristianity and Islam, communists and democrats, many more and that never ends. Humankind should learn to be tolerant. Unfortunately, it's never gonna happen.

Read the post. I never suggested you made such a post.

Clue: a lot != all


You are trying to be too clever.

What you say above is simply untrue. Those of us who try to inject some sense into the 'tard's thinking simply say that it does not seem likely and there is no evidence.

That's it. It's not likely.


But 'tards are extreme. They hold a position when there is a vast amount of evidence available and none of it supports that position. That is intellectually extreme and also extremely daft.

Whatever that might mean.

In this instance the tools I was refering to are maths and stats tools. What you need is a good probability text and a good stats text.

It's no good looking at the output of programs if you don't understand the underlying maths theory.

I think even the most commited 'tard would change his position if he really understood the maths. As it is (for example) they just see some numbers, get annoyed that people are saying things that don't support their paraniod rantings and start shouting: 'shill'.

There is a great deal in this thread.

Just back up until you see the 'tards shouting shill.

A few posts above that there is usually a fairly serious piece of logical argument or some probability explanations.

Actually, that isn't true.

It's not the actual questioning that's ******ed.

It's the continued belief that an accepted idea is incorrect when all available evidence supports that idea.

For example, there was nothing stupid about questioning the idea that the world is flat particularly when such evidence as was available was not one sided.

There would be a gread deal more stupidity involved in questioning the approximately spherical nature of the planet now as there are vast amounts of evidence that is is, indeed, roughly 3 dimensionally round.

Start by searching for SPADEBIDDER's posts in this thread. There is detailed numbered analysis there. Now I suppose its possible that Spade is some shill who is rigging his results, or just faking the whole thing, but he puts together a good argument and we can only judge random people on the internet so far.

However, these random people have managed to expose some other problems in the industry and is currently the best that we have.

I like to say in my line of work that we have to deal with the best evidence that we have in front of us. We try to get what we can, and we should be prepared to alter our view should new evidence present itself.

Suspicions are fine. But the more people dig into rigging, the less there seems to be there. Suspicions are all the 'tards really have.

full tilt is rigged !

For silent running?

Here are some real numbers that I spent 3 weeks collecting. I did this because I thought i was seeing a very unacceptable trend at UB.

The following data collection is from every single hand played in a 30 day period. I had spent the last three months playing WSOP steps at UB. During this time, I played dozens of games against many of the same players. While reviewing my hands I looked for hands were I was ahead post flop and my opponent needed runner-runner to beat me. I did not count the hands where runner runner would give them a flush, but only incidents where a set, two pair, boat, etc.... was the result. In my calculations, I was very conservative in favor of UB. Basically, a runner runner with 6-8 outs should hit no more than once every 200 times. If you figure in the times there are only 3-5 outs that number goes to 1 out of every 800 or so. In the month of May, I found myself in 176 hands where post flop my opponent need runner runner with 8 outs or less to win. In those 176 hands, my hand improved 23 times, opponent hit one of the cards 96 times neither of us hit turn or river 43 times and opponent hit runner runner 37 times. Of the 23 times my hand improved, the opponent hit runner runner 8 times and won 7 of those times. Of the other 29 times he hit runner runner, he won 27 times and we chopped twice.

To sum up, when very conservative odds say that runner runner should hit .5% or once every 200 times, on Ultimate bet I saw it happen 37 out of 176 times, 21% of the time. That is to say that it happened on UB 40 times more often than the mathematical odds would dictate. And again, remember that the 1 out of 200 is a very generous number giving UB the benefit of doubt.

The numbers speak loud and clear to me. I can no longer say "oh, that's poker" or "just bad luck"

I won't play online poker for $$$ any more until the US legalizes, regulates and taxes it. Until then there is no reason for the current online gaming industry to be legitimate. US residents are nothing more thana giant cash cow to them. Future legal US gaming sites will be run by those already running brick and mortar casinos and they will not jeopardize their businesses with possible litigation, fines and gaming license issues from online scamming.

tell us how you came up with these figures. Show your work please.

extra points will be given for immdiately admitting youre wrong.

extra points will also be given if you can figure out the percentage chance of hitting a runner runner 8 outer, 7 outer and 6 outer. No extra points if you have to post asking for help in the math forum.

You play on the dodgiest site available and when you don't like it you give up real money OL poker altogether?

Good game.

In the interest of full disclosure, how many of you shills are being paid by Stars and the rest of the sites?

[x] being paid by stars and other sites
[x] being paid with your monies.

In the interests of full disclosure were you born a dickbrain or did you mother drop you on your head as a baby?

Yes, that's true.

They rig the RNG against a few selected players and then pay us the money they've purloined to come on here and make ludicrous claims that the RNG's are not rigged.

As if!

[ ] Data Collection
[x] Purely made up numbers to make bad beat rant sound more impressive

There's no way they could get away with 50% for more than a month. There are enough mass grinders on all the sites that would notice that suddenly they're all losing more over 50,000+ hands. Plus a site that was found taking half its customers money would lose a lot more than 20% of its players.

I went with 10% because it was at least somewhat realistic. 50% would have to be the stupidest company on earth. There are enough players who put in 50,000+ hands per month that they would notice any huge irregularities (like suddenly making half as much money) and gather their hand histories together as evidence, just like what happened with the AP/UB super users.

I used to believe that there's no way online poker is rigged. I told people in poker rooms that were your average "riggtard" how stupid they were for thinking online poker is rigged. However now with all the different scandals coming to light, I'm not so sure anymore.

You can't argue with the fact that "rigging" towards the worse player would be very beneficial to the sites.

Maybe the game of poker is rigged, and that's what we're really arguing about.

To what extent should I know math and statistic to understand results of statistical analysis? Is math in a volume of master degree program in Experimental Phisics OK? What I meant is applications for analysing HH and/or description of statistical analyses they can do. Trust me, I will try hard to understand. If not, I can consult my nephew who holds PhD in Mathematics from MIT.

It's pretty hard to find something in this long-long-long thread. Especially if you don't know what to look for.
You regulars should have a template with links to posts that you think prove your position best. May be, in case of riggtards it won't help. But it would be great for advanced riggedologists, like me. Otherwise, after couple of hours of digging in this thread and finding nothing, I got frustrated and started to think, there is nothing that backs up your believes.

I only finded Spades's post saying he is on the way to present something. I'm sure he had something more before, but I didn't find. Let's wait till his work is done.
Also, see above.

He did.

He posted it was rigged.

Rigged against him.

Because he knows it is rigged against him.

And because he saw the patterns.

Then he quit (correct choice).

None of his losses were his fault.


He was pretty clear on it once you ignore the made up data that he will never verify with an actual database of hand histories.

If you don't even know if the maths you've done is the correct sort of maths then it probably isn't.

I would go straight to him if I were you.

It's so much easier if you can get someone to explain it to you face to face so that you can immediately ask when you hit a problem.

lol yeah i was talking about his (erroneous) belief that a runner runner 8 outer is .5%

my standards are pretty low when it comes to rigtards, but they should at least have to know what the odds are _supposed_ to be before they claim theyre not what theyre supposed to be.

full tilt is rigged

I don't know you, you don't know me. But you speak to me as I'm a complete novice in math. I wanted you to have a clue when you suggest me something related to statistics.
In the course of Math I studied mathematical statistics as well, but only basics of it in application to experimental data processing. I think that's enough for understanding results of statistical tests. If you still think my math education is insufficient or of incorrect sort, then, please, explain what is needed, in you oppinion.

I would go to my nephew if I hit a math related problem. So far, I have problem with poker, or poker tools, or poker analyses. He is not a poker player and isn't helpfull. So, I came to you.

Full tilt is rigged ?

Wow! The first converted non-rigtard!

Post 4552

Thank you.
Even though this graph proves nothing in terms of random shuffling, it crashes funny theory that aces come more often on the flop.
Do you know why it is doesn't prove randomness? Because nobody can calculate EV of seeng each rank card on the flop. It accounts on too many factors. Am I right?
Anyway, this is something. More examples, please.