He ignores it over and over to generate that type of response from you and others. Just put him on ignore. I never understood why people get so worked up over him. He is kind of boring.

I am getting the hand histories now for the past week. Let me go through them and see what they yeild. Again I do not like conspiracy theorists, but if the numbers show this then so be it. I am committed to checking this out further in a serious manner.

I did find him entertaining at first, but now the only thing round about him are his arguments.

I never understand why people think anyone's getting worked up.

It's far easier to respond to his moronic drivel by telling him he's a moronic cretin than it is to respond to someone who asks an intelligent question.

And quite fun, too.

Yes, he's certainly approaching his sell-by date.

I am simply reacting to "the odds are one in a million therefore it can't be". Of course it can be. Those hands you play are unrelated events (just as my examples in every day life) so the probabilities are multiplied.

LOL. ya know, qpw, for an anti-social child you sure can say a funny thing once in a while, i guess.

I didn't ignore the question because I was discussing it with you before, stop making things up, again.

MONTEROY:

So this is your answer? I did state a theory - the theory of "TIMING". I then went on to explain why the average player does not have the resources to obtain such data to be considered "EVIDENCE". Proper mathematical manner?? ELABORATE. Once again - you tiptoed around the question and used broad generalizations to justify your response as an "answer".

I understand we need statistics and math, monteroy, I think that's a bit obvious by page #500.

I think you also missed this:

When we talk about online poker we are not just talking about a piece of software.. we're talking about a complex business model. Do you really think this billion dollar company would make it so easy to detect their manipulation of the game that a random guy on a poker forum could do it and bring down the whole operation? You guys are smarter than that... Aren't you???

Please explain again.
Knowing the "proper mathematical manner" can be found by posting in the Probability forum about how to produce results that are "beyond reasonable doubt". Surely a rigtard can do that?

Lol I barely post in this thread now, I ve said my piece and now I mostly lurk and read other people 's post's to see what they think is going on.

Monteroy and qpw are here day in day out in their "valiant" defence of Online Poker posting their nonsense, especially qpw with his insults and Monteroy constantly blabbering about some kind of "Lizard people".

At least when I do post it's on topic.

If you want to talk about the existence of a higher being you can discuss faith and the value of it to people.

Online poker has immense data that can be tracked and studied, which means when you present your master theory and it is impossible to prove in any way and is based on faith that it happens, then you are not suggesting anything other then a belief you have.

You are entitled to believe whatever you like, but if you want to actually prove something in a math/stats based industry you will need to do more then that to be taken seriously.

You also need to be prepared to answer questions directly. Such as:

Exactly how is your timing theory implemented. By whom? Do all sites use it or only some? How many people per site are required to pull off this timing thing? Why have none told yet? How if you know it exists is there no way for you to prove it exists?

You need to explain every component of your theory, answer any reasonable question (as the above are) and even if you cannot prove it mathematically somehow, you need to explain exactly what you think is being done, and how, and why no one has ever been caught to date.

If you just stand around and scream "TIMING!" you are the same as the guy who screamed entropy effect and the guy who screamed mafia. Basically, a joke.

Now, you probably just enjoy yelling at people which is ok for a message board as well. That can be fun and you seem to be good at trolling. If you want your life's work theories to be taken seriously at all, you need to do a lot more actual work and provide a lot more details that make real sense.

No one really expects you to do that, but it is what is needed.

This really is my final reply to you as I am putting this new account of yours on ignore (you genuinely are boring/tiring as most zealots are) , so good luck if you actually do any of the work I suggest.

All the best.

1) I don't have Showtime/Hbo

2) my family is dead...so that would be weird

3)Curry is not allowed

4) I live in the woods

See so it MUST be rigged

R4R: please remind us exactly what "timing" is. I'm assuming that it refers to doing something within a certain time leads to a rigged card: ie: waiting to bet, cashing out, etc. Whatever the mechanism of the rigging, its going to affect the distribution of cards right? It should show up in your database to at least some extent. It should show up in spade's database to a larger extent.

As spade has suggested however, even if the rigged card was put in to benefit someone in one spot, and then taken out from another spot, this would still reflect in the stats.

Not only should each card be expected to fall evenly in deals, certain made hands should be expected to fall: Ie: there should be a calculable number of straights, full houses, royal flushes, etc.

What is it about "timing" however it is defined, which would make it immune from this type of analysis? Further, every poker player with poker tracker should be able to do their version of a study: clearly it will be only accurate within a certain degree of error, but certain trends should show.

The fact is: users on an internet board are exactly the one's capable of assembling the requisite data since it is so easy to share information. Certain users have the statistical knowledge and the computer knowledge to get a reasonable idea of what's going on behind the cards,

well I thought maybe since FT allows sharkscope that my opponents skill distribution might be weighted toward bad players who are less likely to avoid me (since they are presumably less likely to use sharkscope). But really at FT it feels like I win half of flips, lose half of flips. On stars it was just like lose flip, lose flip, flop trips auto lose, pocket Kings auto lose, flop top and bottom, auto lose to top two.

Maybe some people in this forum should learn something about sample size. 300 trials is plenty.

Standard.

You'll get hit by lightning every week on stars. keep playing.

How many games did you play on Stars? 300 SNGs is less than a week's worth for hardcore grinders.

What makes you think that 17% is closer to your "true" ROI than 6%?

Just quickly checking SharkScope's leaderboards, their number one SNG grinder is PureCash25. He's made $508k in 5,037 games on FTP, care to guess what his ROI is? Number 2 on the list is diBasio on Stars. He's made $386k in 17,778 games. Care to guess his ROI?

Hint: Both are closer to 6% than 17%.

That's because they play higher stakes.

But yeah, 300 games is nothing.

Coolerstars.


You were prolly in against bigger stacks and stars wants to consolidate tables and sends yous on yous ways to teh next ones. Stars no likey mtt nits, and will set yous up/

Yous get total garbage until the bubble setups come. Then teh RNG starts clearing like a nukes. Then they laugh as they know your a smallfish and will never have the ability to prove a random game. errrrr. pseudo-random. deposit more nub. and quits withdrawing.

DEM FOREIGN FOLK GUNNA GET YOUSE

Were these the only 10 all-ins that you had all week?

He already claimed that he gathered all the hand histories himself. He's not interested in debate, he's interested in attention. Again, just be glad he's here and getting attention and not out killing himself.

Yeah but they are playing high stakes (right?) I would asume. Winning high stakes players have lower roi than winning low/mid stakes players. 17% is probably impossible at their stakes.

I've played a little over 2000 on stars.

Look you guys obviously don't play on stars. I can tell you how many times I have flopped trips and lose with them. If I am around other poker players when I get KK I waive them over and say watch if they get in this pot they will win. And it happens and we laugh because getting cold decked is predictable at stars.

I have posted truthful accounts of my runs on stars and the true RNG faithful said I was lying which means if they saw what I saw they would not believe it came from a fair game.

Maybe my true ROI is 9 at the worst. But with a 300 game sample I don't think it's truly 6 which is what it is at stars. For all you probablity masters what is the chance, with a 300 game sample, that my true roi is 6 or less given that it is currently 17?

There is not a single word in the above post that's on topic.

supperdish, you need to be insulted.

Failure to insult you is an abomination to God.

Honestly man... you need some counseling.

Hi, R4R

I see you can't recognise parody - not too surprising, I suppose.

When are you going to supply your HH's so that it can be proven one way or another whether you are suffering from a rigged deal?

You've been whining like a snotty nosed little girl for some time now and have been asked this question several times but repeatedly ignore it.

Are you going to actually do something to try and prove your allegations or are you just going to keep up your pathetic caterwauling from the sidelines?

You're a pretty miserable specimen of a human being but you could at least make some attempt at acting in an honourable manner and backing up some of the libels you have uttered.

If he's Rounding4Rent, he must live outside.

Couldn't resist. I'm feeling very qpw atm.