Actually, no.

As opposed to the normal way of responding which would be what?

Whatever you can't come up with?

How would that work?

Erm, you were the one who needed the term 'evidence' explained to him.

Is that a promise?

If there was ever a more perfect example of a pot calling a kettle black ...

congratulations, you have succeeded at bsing your way through answering my question. you have been arguiing this topic for about 4 months now on and off and you obviously don't even know what you were arguiing about the whole time. all i asked of you was how you classified the term EVIDENCE in this topic? What type of evidence would you like to see?

And your response was the definition of the word evidence. I then repeated the question and you responded with:
??? GG man

I cant believe I read this whole ****ing thread

OK, R4R, since you are clearly too stupid to work this out for yourself:

What we need from you is two things:

1) A statement of exactly what you believe has been done to rig the deal.

2) A contiguous sample of your hand histories clearly showing the date, time, screenname and site. About 20,000 hands should suffice.

Once we have these we can perform an analysis to determine if what you allege (e.g. 'every time I get x someone else beats it with y on the river').

If that analysis shows up any anomallies we would then purchase a set of HH's that include those you supplied from one of the companies that supplies such things.

If your supplied HH's match the purchased ones the information would be published and the analysies would be checked and repeated by others and some very difficult question asked of the site in question which would doubtless lose a very large proportion of its customer base.

So, there you have it.

The solution to your problem lies in your own hands (or the hands of any other rigtard): Simply provide a contiguous sample of 20,000 of you hands together with a statement of what you believe is wrong and you will have taken the first step to blowing the lid on the corruption that is online poker - assuming, of course, that your case has any merit.

Have a nice day.

Round I'll help you. Since I was once a rigged one and have been proven otherwise. Q will be more than happy to help if you have anything that can be used to prove sites are rigged. That includes hand history's, data etc. Asking for what proof you need means nothing. If you have something, even if it turns out to be nothing, at least you started with something. Not just a theory with out facts.

Are you serious? Did you really notice that?! OMG! Shooooot me in the head, PLEASE!

Me too.

Summary/Conclusion of this thread:
People who think online poker is rigged are brainless.

This thread has gone the way I expected to given the general attitude on these forums. As you can see from my first post, I was very correct to predict the ******ed attitudes of the ignorant, and by ignorant I mean those who take every word that Pokerstars and FTP throw at you. So they had their RNG audited by company xyz and company xyz decided it was fair, case closed? Please.

I am a compsci graduate, I have done many many hours of complex multithreaded coding and I assure you that if these guys wanted to make the RNG slightly less random, or skew the outcomes of pots in certain circumstances they would be able to. And they would be able to get away with it and pass these "audits". Similarly, there is a also a good chance of an unintentional error in the programming of the RNG being present, which could also compromise the integrity of poker "randomness". I'm talking about something like a threading issue whereby I get dealt the exact same cards and suit in the exact same order at the exact same time when 2 tables i'm on begin the deal within a close enough time period.

Can I refer you guys to the race condition that was uncovered on UB where Phil Hellmuth lost but was shipped the pot due to the fact that a showdown and a connection drop for the winning player occurred within a close enough time period. Multithreaded progamming is very very complex and it is very very easy to make a "mistake" that goes "un-noticed".

Again I reiterate, I'm not here to say online poker is rigged because I lost a big pot on the FT bubble. All I am suggesting, or rather asking for help with is to do a proper statistical study. Similar to what happened when people thought they were being cheated on UB by Hamilton et al. Go and read that thread. The first few pages are the same sort of vibe, ignorants with their sarcasm about rigged online poker. Look at the outcome.

Who the hell cares if youre a comp graduate. Go get the data then, do a hypothesis test etc and come back here with the results. Its not ****ing rocket science.

anyone else think it's funny how stevie-boy keeps making references to High School?

Thanks for your input moron. Your mother must have molested you.

Not really.

It's quite natural to reference things to your own normal environment.

Don't know why he doesn't mention his mum and dad more. Od course they probably keep him on a tight rein when he doesn't sneak onto his dad's computer to troll on here.

That's a logical conclusion.

Actually, based on the fabric of his post, I feel that it is.

Obv ur bein sarcy, but great book in your av.

No this one's actually pretty easy and I certainly don't need an equation for it ;p

Thank you, this is actually what I'm after. A few pointers and get the ball rolling. Obviously the sample sizes is the factor that i envisage giving me the most trouble. Sure I can get all hands I have played, but that's not going to be enough.

Thank you for this reply, good to see some people actually put intelligent thought into their responses. You raise some very good points. I actually remember the very very first time I deposited on pokerstars years and years ago as a complete and utter donk who had never really played poker before. At the time they had a funky bonus deposit match thing but you couldnt cash out until you had hit a certain level of amount wagered... well I had an unbelievable run and made quite a bit of money, and this made me think I was a good player. It all went before I was able to cash it out, and therefore I redeposited to try and win again... which would have been exactly what they wanted right?

Yes they have a reputation to uphold and yes the consequences would be disastorous for them. This is a solid point and a solid argument as to why they wouldn't try and get up to anything dodgy. At the same time, corporations are scum who are only interested in making money. As I have previously said it is very possible for them to tweak RNGs or whatever other code very very slightly, so as to be undetectable by "audits" or what have you. Even if this only generated an additional 0.01% premium on rakes (by busting ppl so that they re-register), that would amount to a considerable sum over a period of time. I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS DEFINATELY HAPPENING. I'm saying it's a possibility that everyone should be aware of and not just dismiss with an assumption and absolutely zero actual knowledge.

Moron.

A very good point for the argument against. You may well be right. But I think that it happens too much to be attributed to variance.

Thanks for your post, especially your one liner regarding dismissal of improbable occurrences. This is exactly what tilts me about ppl, complete ignorance. I'm going to say it again - UB/Hamilton scandal.

Great point from someone who clearly understands what I'm talking about. I don't care that on Pokerstars you will hit your flush the correct ~35% of the time after the flop assuming you have 4 flush cards on the flop. This isn't the point. The last sentence here is key, rigged dynamics on certain inflection points.

Dude youre a ****ing moron trying to make a debate out of something that simply isnt debatable. As I said before, it just boils down to hypothesis testing whatever you think is rigged. Do that instead of all this bs debate.

WHERE IS YOUR *&^%ING DATA?

This is quickly becoming a 5-star thread, IMO.

This is what I need the help with... how can I get a statistically significant sample? I mean I am not looking at what a normal audit would look at, I want to look at specific situations.

For example, I wanted to make a start by looking at a good sample of AIPF hands in turbo sng's (particularly stars 2.2, 7.7 and 12 180s), but where the field size is down to 40 or lower (approx 2x bubble size).

I don't want to look at the hands for the rest of the tournament. Like myself and others have said this is a situation specific issue.

So how can I get that data? You tell me, I'll do the analysis.

[ ] poker is dead

Rigtard threads are so ****ing annoying, just report this bull**** and get it moved to Internet Poker.

I love the way that the people who think poker is rigged are the ones calling those that don't ignorant.

This^


Yes because there is no way to prove it is NOT rigged. So how can you be so sure it's not rigged, please, explain???

The reason we cannot yet concretely prove it is rigged is because the average Joe does not have the resources to obtain the data. In order for evidence to be credible, we would need atleast a hundred million hand histories and be able to prove the theory of "timing" (well atleast that's what I believe).

ONE MORE QUESTION:

Do you really think if these sites were rigged that their programmer would make it so easy to be detected.. I mean, come on now. Everyone keeps yelling evidence!evidence!evidence! because they can't have any logical discussions and don't realize the reason for the inability to collect such evidence.

I have been playing pretty seriously for the last 3 months on Stars and FT.

Stars seems the worst for the 1 card suckouts. If you are short stacked and all in I have lost count the amount of times I have said to my flat mate the cards that will come out when I call the all in. I am ahead maybe 75% of the time aswell.

It just seems that Stars wants the tourney over and done with so you get pissed off and immediately register for another tourney so you are paying rake quicker than if you had one. Chasing is part of a gamblers make up and if they are sure that they are getting the money in ahead and feel hard done by then they will quickly try and get that money back.

I understand bad beats are part of the game, of course I do but is it part of the game to always give the short stack the bad beat?

I'm still beating the games though so I am not going to stop playing but I feel that I should have been making more money than I have. I absolutely kill live poker whenever my casino does tourneys or cash games yet struggle to get as good a win rate online despite playing more games which should increase my win %.

I guess I am just pissed off and maybe looking for things which aren't there. I dunno.

three WHOLE months?

but seriously...
this.

if you keep at it, bad beats will become so ordinary you won't dwell on them for an extra minute.