Monteroy, I have no reason to trust the sites so I remain skeptical. I do not know for a fact whether any site is or has been rigged and in fact, I doubt I'll ever know. It's not really relevant to me, anymore at least. But since I don't blindly trust the sites, you again try to label me as a "riggedologist". It's just kind of paranoid behavior on your part. You want to claim this is part of some "personal agenda" while I have nothing but the utmost thanks to the sites - they've provided a great life for myself that I don't think I could have obtained in any other practical manner in such a short period of time.

In the end, it would extremely difficult to prove if there was ever any sort of deal manipulation. And for the typical uneducated "defender" or "riggedologist", it would be completely impossible to engage in a meaningful discussion. The "defenders" would deny even multiple sigma abnormalities as simple variance, and the "riggedologists" would jump on even the most minuscule deviation as indisputable evidence of rigging. And for what end? Nothing changes if you prove some site is rigged. Nothing changes if you could somehow prove no sites are rigged.

For one who likes to so quickly call people idiots, you seem to full of somewhat less than intelligent responses substituting meaningful content with ad hominem and various fallacies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Of course it is everyone’s interest to get the clear picture about the integrity of online poker and to understand which site operator is actually fully audited and does actually complies with the regulations. As players’ confidence in online poker is so low (see the UK based survey which I referred to yesterday) any credible information from sites operator that indicates fair operation would increase consumer confidence immediately, which would results in increased number of players, which is obviously should be the interest of any sane current poker players.

The 5-6 ranting site defender here are interested in maintaining the status quo that allows a possible rigged operation instead of having interest in a transparent operation that opened to public scrutiny. They must be shills and not poker players - there is no other rational explanation for their ignorance about the necessity of transparent online gaming.

The handful site defender shills here are scared to death and take it as a personal offence if someone dare to ask evidence from sites that their operation is indeed honest as they claim it in the first place. Their reactions were maniac, bizarre and childish yesterday when I was dare asking from PS employee Josem evidences about the integrity of PS here. I wonder why?

Being skeptical in and by itself is fine and probably healthy, the next step is where you take that.

On crypto in the day for instance, I was extremely skeptical with how their software handled tournament entries, since it was obvious that one could register for the tournaments from various sites. When a player bragged about how they finished 1st and 8th in the same tourney (which had an overlay value of $50 per player) I was not happy to say the least.

Did I think the site was in on it or rigged? No, because going that route would just be silly and distracting. Did I think their software needed to be updated to fight this and their terms and conditions needed to specifically ban this behavior? Yes.

So what did I do next? I inundated the rooms with my standard long winded emails telling them of this problem. I included chat logs and screen shots (of tournament results) as proof. They shortly after changed their terms and conditions.

I had concerns, I identified them, proved them and changes were made. Then the network collapsed

Josem used a similar approach to do a much more significant piece of work in catching the super users on UB/AP.

That is when and how being skeptical produces results and change.

You tend to go about it in a much different way. You do not identify any specific problem and then prove it is a problem. You speculate on how the sites can be doing bad things. You create problem scenarios based on feelings not facts, and then you never prove anything.

That's skepticism that is based on paranoia. Now while you are certainly brighter then most riggedologists, all pretty much use the same construct in forming their beliefs. Create scenarios that do not exist or have never been proven, and then stop at that point.

As I said, standard paranoid conspiracy stuff.


If it was not relevant you would not bother posting your beliefs. If you want to believe the sites are rigged that is your right. However, expect others to ask for proof. Is that really that shocking?

Here is a definition of paranoia.

Paranoia is an unfounded or exaggerated distrust of others, sometimes reaching delusional proportions. Paranoid individuals constantly suspect the motives of those around them, and believe that certain individuals, or people in general, are "out to get them."

I do not think you are out to get me, so I am not sure where you see me as being paranoid. A lot of riggedologists believe the sites are out to get them. That IS being paranoid. Your innate distrust of the sites based on vague superstitious like beliefs is also being paranoid.





People who know stats a lot better then you that have no agenda say otherwise. I believe them. Sorry.

It's just a standard paranoid conspiracy side chatting with a "lets see verifiable proof" side. Google for 9/11 threads you will see the exact same pattern of debate.

Well it must be rigged then cos I ain't getting a every 7-8 hands!!

Very good post, you have managed to repeat your paranoid thing seven times which is close to your paranoia-constant.

Having said that, no useful purpose will be served by labeling everyone with whom your disagree as paranoid except that it indicates that you are a very insecure individual, probably quite paranoid one.

Try to put together a post without labeling and talking about your paranoid domain and I can ensure you that rational, reasonable individuals who are interested in transparent online gaming will start to take you seriously.

+1

There is literally no other rational explanation for the behaviour of the like of qpw and Monteroy other than the being shills.

OK, Einstein, where have I used a straw man argument?

And, I don't substitute meaningful content with ad hominem and various fallacies I augment meaningful content with the odd, well deserved, ad-hominem.

The subtlety being (although I'm 99% certain that it will be lost on you) that no augment of mine is based or dependant on ad-hominem.

e.g.

I don't believe that on line poker is rigged because there is no evidence that it is. Also you are an idiot.

NOT

I don't believe that on line poker is rigged because you say that it is and you are an idiot.


There's a world of difference. DUCY?

Want me to do a similar Michael Moore style out of context chop edit of one of your posts as well to give a totally misleading result? That could be a fun competition I guess for a bit.


What word would you prefer to describe people that have beliefs in unknown, unprovable conspiracies? Would truthhunters be better and sexier?

OK, how about this.

Prove a single theory you have.

EMail any of the sites you think are rigged and ask them your security concerns and post them here. You say you want transparent gaming but you will not even take a minute to act on your wishes by emailing the sites and getting what they have to say on the matter. Sure you can dismiss it later as "they are in on it so lying etc etc" but at least go to the minimal effort to pursue your cause.

Break down how all of the criminal activity can exist in this industy (mafia controlled I believe you said) without anyone ever catching them to date. Except you I guess.

Show me facts. Show me data. Show me proof.

Do that and you will be taken seriously.


Show me more thought experiment concepts on mafia controlled entities that use mystical software, and you will be taken less seriously.

That simple enough for you. Now get to work


Ahem. Please use the proper new term "proponents" when creating your new paranoid belief structure about me as it makes me sound much more looming.

I suppose we are talking about different things?

The calculations I posted show the odds of a pocket pair hitting a set on the flop, not the odds of you being dealt a pocket pair *and* having that pocket pair become a set on the flop.

The second is more difficult to calculate. You are dealt a pocket pair 1 in 17 of the time which becomes a set 1 in 8.5 of the time if a flop is dealt. However, not all hands have flops dealt, and there is some card removal effects to take into consideration (i.e. if you are allin with 1 opponent and you hold AA, it may be more likely that he holds one of the other two aces than a random card - if he would stack off with AK but not 7-2 for example).

It is difficult to give any precise answer for this second question - we can't say that '1 out of (17 * 8.5)' of the times you saw a flop you will have a pocket pair that made a set, because of course the hands you see a flop with are heavily weighted towards containing pairs assuming you are not playing randomly.

All we could create a pseudo poker game where everyone always plays every hand to the river then it would be correct to say that for a given player, 1 in 144 or so of his hands are pocket pairs that flop sets.

I'm not sure if that's any help to you or not, I can't see what you were originally intending to do with these statistics.

Once again because you alway ignore it:

You are certain that on-line poker is rigged despite any evidence for that belief.

I believe that online poker is probably not rigged because there is no evidence that it is.


Any rational, disinterested observer will immediately see who has the more sane view of things. DUCY?

again, your ignorance regarding this is shameful - I've stated many times it's healthy to question these operations, but it's not ok to make silly accusations without a shred of evidence. however, this nonsense implying that I might have any influence on whether or not an atmosphere of dishonesty in which cheating is rampant continues or not is simply ludicrous.

furthermore, it's a fairly exclusive club of incompetent poker players and social misfits who even consider the possibility of an evil plot to steal additional money on top of the enormous profits they're already pulling in. the general public (your poll be damned) isn't demanding this type of oversight.
I think you're really having trouble with the true nature of "rational explanations." This is a tragically ignorant statement, as I'm all for more, regular audits of poker sites so I can continue feeling comfortable spending my money with them. The "only rational explanation" for you to share such inflammatory speculation presented as fact is to work your Rigtard Brethren into a frenzy where anyone who disagrees with your warped view is the enemy. (The Third Reich used similar propaganda tactics, splendid role models, btw.) But your proclamation that the only possible reason I don't take your cause seriously is because I'm employed by those your rail against, especially when I do agree with this little corner of the Rigtard Manifesto, is utterly disgraceful behavior, and you should be thoroughly embarrassed by it.
this is just plain ******ed, but I'll reply anyway...
I'm neither scared nor offended by your requests for "evidence from the sites." I am a little offended that you are unable to take the data which you can collect and analyze yourself to determine if something is amiss. Personally, in about 3 years of fairly steady play, there has been nothing which alarmed or concerned me about being a possible victim of these greedy corporations. I'm also a bit sad that somehow you've managed to sneak into the same species as me, when clearly some basic common sense is lacking within your gene pool.
this belief that your poor poker results are due to some conspiracy which has targeted you is childish and bizarre. certainly on par with the rantings of a maniac. also, did it not occur to you the reason people may have been a little rude about your request for "evidences" is because he's provided it several times? Are you really under the impression that you're covering new ground? You pointed it out yourself, there are over 6k posts in this thread. You thought you were the first guy to ask Josem for that stuff? The only reason you even know who he is at all is because he's been here forever trying his best to satisfy mentally-ill crybabies who refuse to accept personal responsibility for their failures.

Now, I'm sure you'll go on and accuse me of ranting or insulting you and your gang, but I think most people would agree that this has been a polite response to your rabble-rousing. Not that you'll ever admit it.

Hi guys,

I know I'm going to get the usual flaming for this but I'm not here to whinge about a bad beat or to complain about the ridiculous downswing that has obliterated my roll etc...

I have become increasingly aware of a trend on Pokerstars whereby a player with a larger stack is favoured over a player with a smaller stack, especially when AIPF. I do not believe that I am noticing this due to selective memory. I also believe this is more pronounced during turbo tournaments, or when the tournament gets deep / on the bubble / etc... basically I feel that it is in Pokerstars interest to get tournaments over as quickly as possible (so people go register in the next one and Pokerstars earn more rake per time period), and I feel that there are therefore situations where this occurs (deliberate bad beat for the large stack over the smaller stack). I have seen countless bad beats in these situations where the big stack should not even be in the pot yet miraculously catches runner runner or the 1 out he needs. I certainly feel that a big stack sucking out over a small stack is MUCH more common than the other way round, and have also noticed that when there is a multi-way AIPF the largest stack will prevail, resulting in the elimination of the other players. I have a friend who has also noticed this independently of myself (he is very very average at poker) and has now started calling AIPF from small stacks with any 2 cards when he has a much larger stack. He actually believes this is a profitable strategy on PS.

What I want to do is somehow do a proper study into this. I want to look at a huge sample of AIPF hands played on Pokerstars during tournaments where the field size is down to <20% of the starting field size to look for any statistical irregularities in the outcomes. How would you guys recommend doing this?

Please keep the stupid comments and sarcasm to a minimum (not likely on this forum huh). If you have constructive comments then I do want to hear them... have you noticed this? Do you think I'm just imagining it? Like I said this is something I'm very interested to see the results for and I'm not here to have a cry about it, I'm just very intrigued by my observations and the observations of others.

Also, is it possible to get statistics from Pokerstars similar to Pokertracker? i.e. stuff like how many times you've won/lost with AA when AIPF etc etc...

1) datamine a statistically significant sample
2) perform statistical analysis
3) discover that if the big stacks are winning more than the equitable amount of AIPFs, that it is not s statistically significant amount above the mean
4) cry self to sleep

Alternativally, just do the first 2 parts, and then draw your own conclusions.

Well, as long as you're not here to whinge. I ****ing hate people that whinge. Great idea for a thread, too. I've never even heard anyone say Pokerstars is rigged, so this is hopefully going to be some groundbreaking stuff. Good luck!

I'm convinced. I always suspected something but OP kudos for finally convincing me

Instant sarcasm as expected. <3 this forum. Same thing happened when the UB cheating was first suggested.

Gramuel - help with 1 please? How can I get this data?

PS and FT and Bodog deserve to be tested and if we get enough people together with proven bad variance we can start to show that things are skewed a certain direction.

I think you want the Internet Poker Forum... they are familiar with your claims.. in fact there is an entire thread for what you are talking about here... gl.. you'll need it.

link to the "poker is rigged" thread is definitely where you'll get the information on how to do your analysis.

As for where you can get the data - send an email to stars, they'll send you EVERY hand you've ever played. From that you can do any analysis you want.

You can't get data "legally" on hands you haven't played yourself.

OT

Great. Thanks for clarifying that you maintain interest in transparent, regulated online gaming. This is a great step forward and we can stop to worrying about who said what in this debate as the only relevant substance in this debate is some kind of evidence about the integrity of PokerStars which has never appeared yet in public domain.

Now, we just have to wait that Josem security expert from PS would publish information about the full system audit of PS which proves that the game is indeed fair. That would be quite an event in the history of online gambling as the multi billion enterprise PS that takes users money by promising game integrity has never published any credible information about full system audit and has never proved that their full operation (including software development, source code control, system maintenance, software deployment, software updates, etc) at the Isle of Man, London and foreign based data centres under the full control of the tiny Isle of man gaming authority.

One more thing: if you know some secret source where a full PokerStars system audit is available please let us know. If such source does not exist please stop misleading here by claiming that Josem or PS has published a full system audit information that proves their integrity – it has never happened and the public has never experienced with such material.

I'm sorry, are you under the impression that YOU get to inspect every corner of their operation? Like they're gonna just let ya dig around their proprietary software because you're not completely convinced they're running an honest game?

I hate to be the one who breaks it to ya*, but that's never gonna happen, at Stars or even your local grocery store.






*I don't really hate being the one.

I happen to agree the RNG in turbos is designed to speed things up for a winner. I also notice certain situations where if you have lees then the average you can pick a decent hand (suited high cards) and flop a million outs that force you to get it in only to lose and the the table insta breaks and the screen stays frozen unable to close with nothing on it. I also notice a fair amount of odd named people from middleburg and obscure eastern euro countries that seem to have a redic suck out advantage playing about as horrible as possible and winning....then late in the tourneys seem to get it in act ahead only to be felted and never make the bigger money. I play these so not a true complaint that it is rigged and stay away but def a noticeable pattern.

If it keeps all the whining centralized, it should be a five star thread on value alone...

Wow I spell pretty awfully. Obviously I meant "Alternatively".