Lol more people think your a shill qpw.

Try asking qpw to post a HH or state where he plays poker and for what limits, or what he does for a living. He wont answer.

Very nice post mate. You should try this on other sites namely Stars and FTP.

I notice that no one is discussing this and the only one's who have threw in accusations that it's BS.

What do you make of this shills?

Let me guess your comical responses.

1. It's a BS study, the guy is lying.
2. He just ran bad. The coin flip argument or Variance.

I don't know you but I can see that you are - whatever denials you may make - a rigtard fellow traveller.

It's a ploy that has been used before by the slightly more intelligent proto-rigtard; come here and couch your paranoia as if it was an open minded question. Then try to put forward the idea that rigtards and non-rigtards are two sides of the same coin.

They are not.

A rigtard has a very strong belief that has no supporting evidence and where there is much logic and evidence that are strong contra-indications of rigging.

Non rigtards OTOH can provide sound statistical and logical arguments against rigging.

Another of the rigtard ploys is to demand explanations and, when told that there are plenty already extant in this thread say they can't be bothered to read it and expect others to repeat their work over and over again.

I would think that's enough and the fact that you are still having problems is because you are not thinking about the 'problem' in the correct way so that you can use your maths knowledge to calm your fears.

Very flattering but I'm afraid I haven't the time to continually repeat what I and others have already covered (often many times) in this thread.

I'd suggest that you:

1) Read the thread.

2) Think (hard) about the problem.

3) Apply the maths skills you have.

If you then have any very specific problems that haven't been covered come back and ask.

For anyone new reading this thread.

Sooperfish is a known idiot.

He repeats this daft question again and again but has never explained (and he has been asked often enough) exactly what he'd do with such information if he had it (let alone how he could verify its veracity).

His main purpose on this thread - and indeed site as a whole - is for comic relief.

"Someone would have told by now"

Why? Only a few people would have to know and if they were compensated monetarily then you are relying on their moral conscience taking them over? Possible but you can hardly claim that it definitely would have happened. Why would it necessarily would have happened? because everyone in the world is a good person?

"Even if it is "easy" it is completely impractical. Stars for instance deals a couple of thousand hands per second."

You think that they have a computer that deals random cards. They don't because that is theoretically impossible. Computers cannot do anything, but they can deal non-random cards thousands of times per second and they could do so according to any algorithm that any computer science student could write. Please no more of this argument, that it is some technical feat to rig a computerized deck of cards.

"That is ignoring the fact that people who are genuinely good at freaky stats stuff (unlike you or I) have said it would be caught as well by players adept at this type of analysis"

But they would need access to data across many players- millions of hands. Nobody has that access. You really can't look at just 1 account to see if the RNG is approximately random. Agreed?

"I did not have the patience to separate further your huge block of manifestospeak, but I assume it is basically declaring your beliefs completely unflawed and those that disagree to be naive etc."

My point is just that this discussion needs to get beyond debate about opportunity and motivation. There is opportunity as well as motivation. This discussion should focus more on what is coming out of the black boxes referred to in this thread as "random number generators". We should at least agree that rigging is possible and look at whatever statistical analysis is out there to find out what in fact is the case. We should be able to agree to at least some basic, reasonable premises.

The only legitimate response to such a claim is to ask the claimant to provide the details and method that they used to come to their conclusion.

If it's legitimate, it's going to be repeatable and verifiable.

Eh, lol?

So all the hundreds of tests that the Intel hardware RNG passed showing that it is random were wrong? Here are some of the tests that were done:

ƒ Block Means Spectral analyses
ƒ Random walk test
ƒ Block Mean correlations, 1-129
ƒ Block means
ƒ Periodogram
ƒ Spectral analyses; hi, med, lo smoothing
ƒ Spectral analyses, adjusted for correlations
ƒ Autocorrelations, blocking and no blocking
ƒ 8,16-bit Maurer test
ƒ 4,8,16-bit Monkey test
ƒ 4,8,16-bit Goodness of Fit
ƒ Komolgorov-Smirnov test of trend
ƒ CR/LF test
ƒ Overall mean
ƒ Column means
ƒ Run length variances
ƒ FIPS 140-1 test suite

Since you seem to know a lot about what is theoretically impossible, perhaps you have some other randomness test that the Intel-RNG is sure to fail...

Ah, but don't you see?

It's not the actual randomness per se, it's the timing.

That and special patterns that computers can never detect but rigtards perceive with consummate ease.

Yes, it is a hand history database, and hole cards are known for at least one player in every hand if it was a player-submitted hand, and all that went to showdown are known. Is your question about evaluating the randomness of the deal to each player individually? That can be done but you have to have a significant sample for each player that you evaluate (to have a reasonable confidence interval). Some of the ones in the database would be sufficient, some would not. You could simply sum up the number of each card dealt to the player, and compare that to 1/52, and then do a t-test or f-test for each card, and something like a chi-square on all the bins. I think it also would be feasible to make a collection of all the hole cards for only the player who submitted the hand, and evaluate those, since they aren't subject to any bias. Some of the hand histories are player submitted, but many of them are data-mined and so wouldn't qualify.

No, with 8 outs needing two of them runner runner, assuming you don't have one of his outs, the chance is 1 in 35. With 6 outs, it's 1 in 66.

No, with 5 outs needing two of them runner runner, assuming you don't have one of his outs, the chance is 1 in 102.



Considering the magnitude of your math errors, I don't have much confidence in your reporting either.

What do you do for a living now Scooper now that you have retired from rigged poker after losing a lot (guess you were one of the losing players riggedness did not help).

That being said, I wonder if qpw plays at times as well


If he is not lying then he should make his hand history database available for confirmation.

Otherwise, he is lying (even if he thinks he is telling the truth). This is such a basic human behavior that it is amusing to see you (who seems to have a bit more IQ then the other riggedologists) blindly support anything they say when they have no documentation for it at all.

Do you believe everything in life that easily? If so cool, I have lots of bridges to sell you cheap. Trust me, I am telling the truth because I say it is the truth. If you don't believe me because you do not like me that is fine, I understand. In that case, I will create a gimmick account, say online poker is rigged, earn your trust, then offer to sell you a few bridges.


A few people? Think about it. There are literally hundreds of poker rooms out there. There have been tons of poker rooms which have failed over the years as well.

If they are all rigged in the manner you suggest then there would be hundreds or thousands of people "in on it" even if somehow only a couple were "in on it" for each room.

Many of these people have moved on or lost their jobs when the rooms they were working for failed.

I realize riggedologists live in a world filled with could have and maybes, but eventually some common sense needs to be used.

Is it possible that thousands of people in on it, many of whom are no longer in the industry, are keeping this dark secret? No.



Even if we pretend you know what you are talking about you need to show how this non randomness translates into anything that causes issues with players.

A simple example - if I always pick the number 72 when choosing between 1 and 100 and I ask people to guess my number - if they have no idea that I always pick 72 then that non randomness is meaningless.

Sure many have claimed they have discovered the hidden patterns on Stars, and yet they all tend to be losing players. Why are they not making millions yet with their discoveries?


When spade is done his billion hand study, you know what impact that will have on riggedologists like you and Scooper? None. You will still assume it is all rigged against you after you have a bad beat.

I actually am looking forward to seeing his research, mainly because it will be interesting to see in and by itself and to a lesser degree it will be fun to see how riggedologists adapt their theories to account for the study (I have faith we will see some fun stuff in that regard).


No one is disputing that anything is possible. That is not the approach you and fellow riggedologists take though. You guys say it is definitely rigged even though none of you have actually shown any actual data or proof. That is called an opinion, nothing more.

You are free to believe whatever you like, and you will see for yourself that no amount of studies or data that may show your beliefs to be incorrect will change your opinion.

All the best.

There are many, many, tests you could do if you had a really large HH base (as I believe you do) but I fear that it is pointless.

If you show that everything is as expected in any particular ways the rigtards will modify their whining along one or more of the following lines:

1) They will claim that the HH base is unreliable. How can you prove that it is reliable?

2) They will claim that the testing software is unreliable. How can you prove that it is reliable?

3) They will say they have no way of knowing that you haven't falsified the results. How can you prove otherwise?

4) They will come up with even more daftly contrived ways in which the sites are rigging the games in order to explain their own poor performance.

These people are virtually professional idiots.

If you manage to nail their BS at any point they will either:

a) Completely ignore your post and lay off for a few days and then start up again with exactly the same BS.

b) Accuse you of being a shill for the sites.

c) Demand an explanation as to why you are so concerned at their BS (and promply ignore any explanation given).

d) Complain that they are as entitled to their viewpoint as you are to yours (as if a belief that 2+2 = 5 is as valid as one that has the outcome as 4 ).

I think these tests you are doing are interesting but, sadly, if the show up everything as being perfectly normal I don't think it will make a scrap of difference to the rigtards posting here (although the current crop may well get new gimmick accounts).

Good luck, nontheless.

Well, over the course of the last month I have actually posted quite a bit less in this thread than you so I suppose I have more time available to play poker than you aere able to spare.

The source code will be publicly available. The database is also available to some researchers, and the sources of it are published. See pokerftp.com.

I'm not, it's an interesting project on it's own. The purpose is not only to show the randomness of the deal, it is also to dig out any interesting effects, such as the known removal effect which causes the board to be very slightly weighted to low cards over high cards. There are surely other effects that can be found which would be brand new discoveries and interesting for their own sake. Other users of the database are doing game theory and AI research (like the folks at the UofA.)

I have a job running a small business with good salary and profit share.

I'm unlikely ever to deposit money to play OP ever again given my rigged beliefs.

I know you wont believe me but I wasn't a losing player and can prove that using sharkscope and my database, its just that too many ridiculous things happened over the years. I was perhaps a losing player in cash games on Party when I started playing in my pre BR days though overall I was in the green on Party from having 3 +$1000 tourney wins.

Overall I have profited from OP but not very much in the grand scheme of things.

Cool. What is your Stars screen name then? You can always search for me online or check my results, so I am sure you are in the same category, right


I can believe anyone was a net winner a few years ago when bonuses were all over the place. ALso, many get early scores like you did and assume they are much better then they really are.

For the small business you run, I assume you cheat customers. You would get more benefit doing so, right?

IF IT CAN HAPPEN IT WILL

Why do you think I play on stars?

I've stated before that I have no intention of ever revealing my OLP screenname unless I want to for some reason.

I hope you aren't going over to the dark side and getting worried about where people play, how much they play, what stakes and what they do for a living. It's bad enough the 'tards obsessing about such irrelevancies.

Yes, but this won't satisfy the rigtards.

I agree that it's an interesting project.

I just hope that you don't discover and reveal a couple of facts that I have found from my own research but which I'm keeping to myself as they give me a useful edge.

Hardly. Just showing that if you are going to imply a comparison between us in terms of play, you should be willing to show what and how you play. What I do is out in the open in that regard.

Basically you unintentionally took a riggedologist form of attack in your last post directed to me (ie: a claim without being willing to prove it), and I had a little fun with it. That's all.

So you are joining supperdish and tk1133 in diverting attention from discussions of possible rigging to off topic matters that have no relevance to rigging.

Why?

Except that you got it wrong.

You said you were wondering if I played.

I claimed that you had posted more in this thread than I had over the last month - which is easily provable; just count the posts.

So for all other activities I had more time than you did (unless you want to get into childish arguments about typing speeds).

If you want to join the rigtards making stupid comments about irrelevancies it's up to you but I would have thought you would have a little more sense and better things to do with your time.

Change of pace.

My amusement.

A break from you responding to every post and calling everyone a ****** while they call you a shill is nice once in a while.




I do because you blow a lot more wind overall then even most riggedologists. Oh wait, not in a specific 2-3 week period a little while ago. My bad on that.


Shrug ok. How about posts overall on the board and this thread. Does this matter in some way, you seem to be implying it does. All I am saying is think out your attacks for a few seconds before spew typing, then doing a ton of explaining/rationalizing later.

Ah, so this was your point I guess. Well, I usually add a couple posts here with my coffee before I start and a couple between sit and go/tournament blocks, so it is a fun use of a bit of spare time I guess.

Congrats on spending less time in this thread for a couple weeks this past month then I did? I assume that is what you want to hear?

In future, just call me a jerk, it is quicker and probably more accurate then your strange, subtle implied insults. You really are a riggedologist when it comes to trash talk at times

I post in this thread for entertainment purposes. This chat is a variation of that to me, your imposed value judgments notwithstanding .


And while I think the riggedologists calling you a shill is silly and mundane, there is a point to the fact that you will not show at all what or how you play. You know how you treat people like that who will not show any data when they talk about all their crazy rigged theories.

Anyway, done the break! Have fun today, I may rejoin it later when I have time. I yield the final word in this mini chat to you as I know you have to have it, so at least take a little bit of time and make it a good zinger!

All the best.

Lol I see what you did there thats very clever. It's a shop so customers come in and pay for the product face to face. If I were an internet business selling fake concert tickets however I could see the comparison.

qpw prove that you play will you. You dont have to post any screen names or anything just post a couple of big pots you ve been invloved in recently. I dont think you can though because you dont even play Online Poker do you.
You must be a shill the way you throw around childish insults in this thread or perhaps just plain ignorant.

Then just give the customers that pay cash a little less change then they should get. A quarter here, a dime there - most will not notice and those that do you can say it was an honest mistake. Or those that pay by credit or debit card, make a bit more by inverting some digits "by mistake" or if it is automatic, you program your cash machine to add a little bit once in a while without showing it. Those computer things are easy to program after all.

I assume you do all of this because you would gain a bit more money. That is the only thing that matters when running a business, right?

You can certainly deny these true facts, but if you do I would be curious what reasons you could possibly give to not make this extra money. Why are you defending this business you are in so much?

Oh, and congrats on figuring out what I am doing here, as it is deeply complex and subtle. Feel free to avoid directly answering any of the facts I stated above as well, it will only confirm you steal (did it again...)

All the best.

Sooper, do you believe there is an ethical code among "shills" that prevents them playing online? Can they play on sites they don't work for?

Also, I laud you for your consistency on what defines proof. I know qpw is busy suppressing negative views of OLP so I dug up one of his HH for you.

I assume that you are now satisfied.