Busted! Or did good2cu give you his database?

I see you're now just backtracking and trying to weasel your way out of actually doing something that would prove your strange hunch.

No genuine poker player will have the slightest difficulty in providing 20k hands.

If you won't do that we can only assume the either:

1) You are not a genuine poker player but simply a paid shill for RealDeal.

2) You are a poker player but you know perfectly well that your hand histories will turn out to be entirely within expected limits for a fair deal and you would ten have to admit to yourself that your continued failure to win is (asmost other people here have surmised) [b]because you are completely useless at poker).

Which is it?


Have a nice day now, y'hear?

No, I admit most were found randomly through the internet, absolutely. That does not knock their credibility

Let's get you hand histories so we can see what's really happening when you play.

You do play, don't you?

Erm, yes it does.

I seriously do not get why if he was banned before he is not banned now. Is this a general message board policy? He is a zealot turned troll who is just seeking attention after I assume the room he was affiliated with collapsed. So he walks around all day obsessed about online poker rigging, good for him if that's what keeps him going.

I am pretty disappointed with how he is being handled (as I said before he bores me for the most part as most ultra wacko extremists do). If banned means "banned till you create a new account then all is good" then that should be posted as a rule of the message board.

Guy wants desperately to be a martyr anyway as it will validate what he says in his mind if he is banned, so why not do it. Win/win then for everyone.

LIE. and FAIL.

OK.

Variance.

Of course he lied. Zealots like him lie about everything because only their cause matters. They lie so much they lose track of when they are lying and probably believe themselves a lot of times when they do. That's why talking in any way with them is a complete waste of time.

What I still do not get is why a banned poster is allowed to post again under a new name (assuming it is the same person). That really seems like a bad behavior to encourage, which talking to him does in effect.

I can't wait to hear how this graph shows poker is rigged.

But yeah, this was Stephen Meares MO too. He's too dumb to realize that he can't steal something from somewhere else on the internet, then claim he did it himself. He got caught doing this before because he didnt realize that his profile shows which threads he's viewing. Went to an old thread which could be seen in his profile, found something, claimed it was his experience. Whoops!

Usually when people crave attention this much it means there is something missing from their lives, so I don't feel bad about giving them attention. At least it means they arent killing themselves.

Why not PM one of the mods and ask?

I'd be quite interested, too, but I'm feeling lazy.

I'm a bit of a graph noob: just taking those graphs as they are, can a stats guy explain what they really tell us? From what I could tell, most of these graphs were not filtered - that is: they showed every hand. Or does this kind of graph just show the All-in hands on both lines?

R4R: are these graphs the extent of your evidence, or is there more? Are any of these your own personal graph?

LOL

I don't have time to lie to people I don't care about.
Maybe you misinterpreted this but I did exactly what I say:
I didn't personally convert them, no. (If that's what you mean)

The reason you people think it's rigged is because you never remember the times when you hit that runner-runner or 1 outer for yourself while being the short stack. Do me a favour, next time when you are all-in (not as the bigger stack, but as the smaller stack), tell us that even you can suck out. I'll give you something from my memory:

I can recall tons of occasions when we were on the bubble in an MTT. The tourney was going on average speed but once we got to the bubble, it took us an extremely long time to get to the money. I can seriously recall at least 15-20 times when we had an all-in situation and the shorter of the two won and doubled up, therefore still keeping us at the bubble. What about times like these? If the RNG was rigged, it would've ended that within the first 3 all-in confrontations. If it was rigged, the bubble would be the perfect moment to end someone's tourney ASAP because it would tilt them the most and almost certainly make them join a new tourney. Not just that, but after the bubble, it still went on and the shorter stacks would almost always end up doubling up. You see, if you really think about it, you will start remembering times like this too, that is if you have even played poker for more than 2 days total.

Even in live poker, I've seen this "trend" happen too, but I've also seen it the other way around. It's just that nobody remembers when they were the short stack and came back to win it all.

My former co-worker would start noticing the same thing you morons are noticing and was telling us that every time he got late into a tournament, if he got dealt Q-Q or K-K, he'd just fold it. Man that tilted the **** out of me!!! Are people seriously this ******ed?

Well you know what? We (normal people) shouldn't care because it obviously gives us more fish. These idiots who think it's rigged, guess what? They still keep playing. Only this time, they play even worse, folding QQ and KK just because they fear the RNG. LMAO if you ask me. Absolutely lovely. Poker is so generous, it just brings us more fish than we can handle.

But you didn't collect the hand histories.

You stole the graphs ready made.

When are you going to arrange to provide a verifiable sample of your own HH's so that we can really get this investigation going?

I cannot inderstand why you're stalling as this will give you exactly what you want.

And you're some sort of a "smart" graduate from some "genius" school? Yeah, I can tell...

Play poker.

Well said, sir!

None of them are his graphs

There are a couple of different types of graphs there. The all-in expected value graphs are just calculating what you won vs what you should have won on all all-in hands. The ones with Sklansky bucks (I believe) do all hands.

Its possible to analyze the graphs and figure out the chances these results would occur if the deal was fair.

You also have to account for the fact that there are tens of thousands of players playing on the sites, so someone is going to end up as the outlier (i.e. if there are 10,000 players on the site that play x amount of hands, 500 of them would be expected to have a graph 2 standard deviations or more from the expected result, therefore finding one graph that is 2 SD's or more from the expected result does not lead us to reject the null hypothesis that the deal is fair)

Anecdotal data doesnt tell us anything in and of itself as posters are much more likely to post graphs that show abnormalities then a graph of themselves breaking even. Poker players are also much more likely to post graphs of them running bad (woe is me, Im really good at poker but Im unlucky) than graphs of them running white hot.

In short, these graphs provide no evidence that poker is either rigged or not rigged. Its cherry picking, you learn it about the third day of Stats 101. The way to test whether the deal is fair is to get an unbiased hand sample, then test that sample for abnormalities.

My man this investigation was lifted off the air 400 pages ago. If it hasn't, why are you still here?????????

My hand histories don't have anything to do with online poker being rigged as a whole. I'm a single person, why do you have so much interest in me and my personal life?

If you had any know intellect whatsoever those hand histories i provided should really start popping questions in your head. If not, GTFO you shouldn't be here.

My guess is that your hand histories really would be a "random" sample. Whereas cherry-picked graphs found on the net probably by people posting about their bad luck are not random at all. As LetsGambool was kind enough to point out, there are always going to be those at the fringes, just like there will be some people who run way above ev for a lot of hands.


You haven't said though, is that the extent of your evidence or is there more. I, for one, would be interested to see it.

What does that gibberish mean?

Wait.

Are you now saying that hands you have played have not suffered as a result of deal rigging?

Are you saying that you are just hanging on to the coat tails of other rigtards who have actually played poker and are deludued into believing the deal is rigged against them?

Idiot!

Your hand histories are not your 'personal life'.

I have no interest in which institution you parents deposit you when they get tired of you nor am I interested in what your boyfriend had for breakfast.

Que?

I've told you what we need to do a proper, thorough, investigation into whether or not you have suffered as a result of a site rigging the deal against you.

It is the simplest thing in the world for any genuine poker player to comply with.

Why are you backtracking and making excuses?

Just provide your verifiable HH's and we can begin the investigation.

A certain dose of skepticism is always healthy. But this doesn't mean one has to believe improbable events are likely to happen. They are unlikely, sometimes very unlikely but also very possible.

Same goes for online poker being rigged. I find it very improbable that it is rigged but it is certainly not impossible.

So it is so unreasonable for poker sites to cooperate in what would be an independent study of the matter? Well maybe. It might be a genuine problem for them to allow investigators to look at their system in the sense that it might contain sensitive information that the poker room has every right to keep confidential for legitimate commercial reasons.

Most people understandably refute conspiracy theories but the fact is, conspiracies exist! Last year I came across an interesting psychiatric condition (or rather the possibility that some supposedly delusional people are wrongly diagnosed because their claims seem too outrageous)

This was called the Martha Mitchell Effect, named after the wife of Nixon's Attorney General who claimed the White House was engaged in illegal activities, was diagnosed as mentally ill but later vindicated when the Watergate scandal broke out.

Exchanges of opinions back and forth aren't ever going to prove or disprove anything (although it is useful to get some facts so that one's opinion be an informed one). But not a single soul on either side of the argument has anything that would prove things one way or the other. Only poker sites have those elements. The rigged conspiracy theorists are breaking their balls to post what are nothing more than anecdotes, while the ones who believe online poker isn't rigged are just taking the leap of faith. They may engage in a little bit of flaming of the rigtard in order to cement that faith (supported by a good dose of peer support).

One more note. This probably has already been discussed. The problem with conspiracy theories of this type is that implementing the fraud required a large number of participants or accomplices across countless poker rooms. The rigging would be discussed in board rooms and would require poker rooms to get large teams of computer programmers into the fold. You may be talking about hundreds, maybe thousands of insiders with information about the rigging.

How do you keep these people silent? It has to be all of them. Surely a newspaper would pay millions for verifiable information on this, yet no insider ever seems to be tempted to blow the whistle. Maybe some did and found their fate in a series of very unfortunate road accidents in the Isle of Man. Although I have heard of no such suspicious accidents involving poker executives and programmers.

You're being asked too many questions now aren't you R4R. Don't worry, you can switch to one of your other gimmick accounts tomorrow to avoid answering them. All the questions posed to that gimmick days ago will also be ignored / forgotton and the circle of life will continue.

ZOMG NO WAY. Showdown expectation vs. showdown results is WAY too close!

(Might I remind some people who remember FGators that he thought he was the unluckiest player in the world and it was so rigged, then he posted that graph which shows that he really isn't that unlucky at all)

Does he even realise he posted a graph of a player running almost exactly at expected equity in all-in situations?
Is he surprised that people who post graphs whining about their luck tend to be running below equity?
Does he realise that roughly 50% of all players will be running below equity to some extent?
Will he notice that the expected winnings and showdown winnings diverge rather than converging in absolute terms?

Stay tuned for (a small chance of) answers to these and many other questions.....

Actually that fgator's graph shows him running below equity by somewhere around $15,000 or 75 buyins at $200, most of that dropped in about 400k hands. It's just that the scale of the graph is so massive. For somebody who was almost certainly just a break even player when running normal, that's going to absolutely destroy your game and mentality.