Got this from another thread.

Not Evidence of rigged though obv.

Obviously just bad luck/variance.

Not rigged IMO

Correct.

Correct.

I do believe that you are finally learning to understand that 2 HH's will never be even a vague indication of rigging.

Well done!

Yeah maybe your right its extremely plausable to be walking down the street and get hit by a meteorite then a minute later get struck by a bolt of lightning. Its obviously just variance, especially in the late stages of a large tournament.

So your a systems architect eh. Not for a Poker site by any chance. You havent been asked to sit all day and respond to negative posts by your employer eh?

Q-Q losing to K-J is as likely as being hit by a meteorite? T-T losing to 3-3 is as likely as being struck by lightning? It's a wonder there is anyone left alive....

Here's a better analogy. Several hundred thousand players are walking down various different streets. They have been doing this for something like seven years now. On one occasion, one of them had something unlucky happen to him, then shortly after had something even more unlucky happen to him. He posts it on an internet forum. Someone with a brain the size of the pea comes along and decides the anecdote is proof that there is a malevolent spirit out to get people.

My story isn't as exciting as yours, it's the completely idiotic hyperbole that makes it so good I guess

I am.

Glad you're finally coming to understand that.

Yup, well done.

You really are beginning to show the signs of emerging intelligence.

That's correct.

No, I've never designed a poker system.

Why would they want me to do that?

It would be a very eccentric request since their business has nothing to do with gambling of any sort.


Hope you manage to keep up the progress you've made so far.

I was thinking that at first, but then I realized this required Scooper to actually go deep in a tournament for this to even happen. The meteor and lightning strikes combined as a 1 in 12 event seemed more reasonable after that.

Bitter, losing players and math are a fun combination to watch in action.

Oh, Scooper - you never gave a specific reason why you do not rob from your customers in the store where you work at the counter. Why is that?

You look at the hands very different from me.

The first hand on the flop the Villain has basically a 10/1 shot of making his straight assuming no tens are already folded.

Why is he even calling off practically all his chips pre flop deep into a satellite for a MAJOR tourney with K J off?

The second hand is the longest possible odds on the flop 1000-1 yet he makes it again calling pre flop with 33 on a 9-10 man table.

3 outer + 1000-1 shot + ludicrous play + near consective hands + deep in satellite to Major tourney= RIGGED

Why? because I consider myself to be a man of concious and integrity.

You can multiply up nonsensical probabilities as much as you want.

Amazingly the more stupid conditions you add the less likely the situation gets. If you wanted to study whether it was rigged you could say, well, do 3 outers + pair against overpair where the overpair flops a set occur more or less often than expected at the end of 50 FTP satellites? So far, you have 1 data point. If you want to go and do a study then post your results I'm sure we eagerly await them.

Oh, I think we can all probably agree that you're just about concious.

(Well, the lights are on, anyway.)

So which one is it: Multi-accounting? Bot using? Colluding? Is your vendetta against online poker due to the fact that you had your roll taken away after being exposed as a cheater?

if not a master of vocabulary...

but if you have a conscience, why isn't it bothered by people making accusations without proof? surely someone with as much integrity as you can see that's wrong.

also, why isn't it possible that the purveyors of these sites are as morally enlightened as you?

+1

awesome post.

etc.

The last hand I played I was dealt 9c 8s. The table cards were Kc 2d 6d Jh 5c.

Do you know what the odds of getting that hand are?

Well, do you?

I'll bet you don't, so Ill tell you:

The odds of getting those cards in that order are: 687,495,244,800 to 1 against.

AND YET IT JUST HAPPENED!!!

Do you realise that you would normally expect to have to play a thousand hands a day for nearly 2 million years before seeing that hand?

ZOMG!!!

Should I call the Guinness Book of Records?

Pokerstars isnt rigged...

Hello Daniel,

Thank you for your follow up email.

We appreciate your positive feedback, thanks for the encouraging comments!

There is one aspect of tournament play that I will like to comment. It is
how the nature of tournaments is that you will often go out with the best
starting hand. In any tournament you have to win a lot of showdowns to
survive to the end and have to get very lucky to do so.

Think about it this way. Let's say you're lucky enough to get big pairs
four times in a tournament, and that you're even luckier to get all-in each
time against an under pair. Sounds great, right? However, losing any one
of those hands eliminates you so you need to win all four. Although you
will win each of those confrontations about 80% of the time your odds of
winning all four is .8x.8x.8x.8 = .4096 -- you're roughly about a 2:3
underdog to win all four! They're all "critical" hands (you're all in),
but you only need to lose one to go bust. And that's a *good* example,
where you're a big favourite in every hand. Throw a couple of coin-flips
in there (your pocket pair vs an opponent's overcards for example) and the
percentage drops dramatically.

This is why tournament players experience long losing streaks. You do have
to get lucky to win, even if you hold the best starting hand every time.
All you can do is try and get your money in when you are ahead and hope
that it holds up. If it does not, well, that is just poker; and it happens
to every single player on our site.

Thank you for choosing PokerStars.

Regards,

Julio
PokerStars Support Team


----- Original Message -----
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent:
To: support@pokerstars.com
Subject: Re: PokerStars Support - Site Integrity

>TY for response, wasnt expecting one, you must get tht all the time lol.
>
>Was just blowing off steam after another horrible beat.
>
>I think TOURNAMENT poker in general is indeed rigged (against me by god)
not your number generator.
>
>Maybe just one day i might make a final table in a huge fielded tourny, i
knw il sure keep trying!
>
>Luv the site/support, keep up the good work!
>
>
>Dan
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: PokerStars Support <support@pokerstars.com>
>To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Sent: Friday, 24 April
>Subject: PokerStars Support - Site Integrity
>
>Hello Daniel,
>
>I thank you for taking the time to contact PokerStars with your concerns.
>PokerStars takes questions regarding our integrity very seriously, and we
>appreciate the opportunity to respond.
>
>It is worth noting that we make our money purely from rake and tournament
>fees so there is no sensible reason for us to manipulate the deal. There
>just is nothing in our software that would make you win nor lose. We just
>deal the cards and allow our user's to fight it out on the tables.
>
>The truth is that our shuffling system does not favour, or disfavour any
>player. You can see the description of the methods we use to deal the
>cards here:
>
> http://www.pokerstars.com/security.html
>
>We have given the source code of our shuffle to two independent auditors
>who reviewed our shuffle algorithm and found it sound and random... You may
>read the analyses of these auditors at:
>
> http://www.pokerstars.com/rng_audit.html
>
>So far we have dealt over 27,000,000,000 hands, and freely give out real
>money hand histories any time somebody chooses to request them. Not once
>has anybody found any indication that our shuffle is not 100% random, and
>many who have undertaken such studies have posted their findings to the
>Internet. You may find just two of them here:
>
> http://************/32ajma
> http://tinyurl...com/2wu99w
>
>To answer your question regarding statistics on previous hands, we have
>are able to send you a copy of every single real money hand you have
>played on our site (100,056 hands) so you may analyse them using programs
>like PokerStat or PokerTracker. This offer in itself makes our deal
>transparent because if there was anything amiss, one of the many thousands
>of players analyzing their hands would have picked it up by now.
>
>Please advise us if you would like us to send you these hand histories or
>if you would like to discuss anything further.
>
>Thank you for choosing PokerStars.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Andrew
>PokerStars Support Team
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: xxxxxxxxxxx
>Sent:
>To: support@pokerstars.com
>Subject: Re: PokerStars Hand History Request - last 1 week of play
>
>>Can someone please have a look at my last 2 years of tournament history
>and see what is wrong with your RNG? I believe if you look carefully u
>will find some REAL problems there.
>>
>>Your tourneys r rewarding the worst hand all in on me FAR 2 OFTEN, as you
>can see from my tounrey NL results.
>>
>>80% of time im all in I have best hand, this isnt good enough apparently.
>>
>>I have even sent KidPoker $1 to improve my all in luck, but no I
>continually get reamed up the arse from your ****ed up number generator
>rewarding the monkey idiots.
>>
>>Y am I up after 1000s of tounreys on Full Tilt and not here, seems
>wierd.!!!!
>>
>>Arrgggggsgsgsgsgsgs
>>
>>Thanks for your time.
>>
>>Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>From: PokerStars Support <support@pokerstars.com>
>>To: xxxxxxxxx
>>Sent: Friday, 24 April,
>>Subject: PokerStars Hand History Request - last 1 week of play
>>
>>Transcript for last 1 week of play requested by Hero
>(
>>*********** # 1 **************
>>PokerStars Game #27429292271:

>>Table '157110476 152' 9-max Seat #9 is the button
>>Seat 1: manager58 (6775 in chips)
>>Seat 2: SoCalJayhawk (2355 in chips)
>>Seat 3: billybob1999 (7465 in chips)
>>Seat 4: F X 4_91 (19888 in chips)
>>Seat 5: GOLIATH26 (7820 in chips)
>>Seat 6: Hero (6095 in chips)
>>Seat 8: gtlead (3590 in chips)
>>Seat 9: Dragstar 1 (1907 in chips) is sitting out
>>manager58: posts small blind 75
>>SoCalJayhawk: posts big blind 150
>>*** HOLE CARDS ***
>>Dealt to Hero [Jd Ah]
>>billybob1999: folds
>>F X 4_91: raises 150 to 300
>>GOLIATH26 has timed out
>>GOLIATH26: folds
>>GOLIATH26 is sitting out
>>GOLIATH26 has returned
>>Hero: raises 811 to 1111
>>gtlead: folds
>>Dragstar 1: folds
>>manager58: folds
>>SoCalJayhawk: folds
>>Dragstar 1 has returned
>>F X 4_91: calls 811
>>*** FLOP *** [8s 3h 8h]
>>irvin.7777 is connected
>>F X 4_91: checks
>>Hero: bets 4984 and is all-in
>>F X 4_91: calls 4984
>>*** TURN *** [8s 3h 8h] [Th]
>>*** RIVER *** [8s 3h 8h Th] [4c]
>>*** SHOW DOWN ***
>>F X 4_91: shows [Ts Qh] (two pair, Tens and Eights)
>>Hero: shows [Jd Ah] (a pair of Eights)
>>F X 4_91 collected 12415 from pot
>>Hero [observer] said, "wow"
>>*** SUMMARY ***
>>Total pot 12415 | Rake 0
>>Board [8s 3h 8h Th 4c]
>>Seat 1: manager58 (small blind) folded before Flop
>>Seat 2: SoCalJayhawk (big blind) folded before Flop
>>Seat 3: billybob1999 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
>>Seat 4: F X 4_91 showed [Ts Qh] and won (12415) with two pair, Tens and
>Eights
>>Seat 5: GOLIATH26 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
>>Seat 6: Hero showed [Jd Ah] and lost with a pair of Eights
>>Seat 8: gtlead folded before Flop (didn't bet)
>>Seat 9: Dragstar 1 (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)

Thanks for letting us know.

A lot of us here have had our suspicions for quite some time but it's always good to get confirmation.

The odds of getting to the river with those cards are: 687,495,244,800 to 1 against - Guinness is waiting, lol. Obviously your post is good, qpw.

Yes, most of us look at 70/30 all in preflop situations as 70/30 situations. You seem to look at it as a 10-1 situation which also are the odds of being hit by a meteorite in your world.

You also look at a 4-1 situation as a 1000-1 situation and also the odds of being hit by lightning.

Indeed, you do look at math differently. Probably why you had to "retire" from the game.



He isn't. He did a routine re-steal and ran into a hand that had him dominated which even so all he is is a 70/30 dog (in the real world).

The fact you think he snap called an all in, when he did a 3 bet shove is probably another reason why you had to "retire" from poker. This was not a complicated play.

He never "called." He shoved to your stupid complete of the sb with 10 10 and a 13 BB stack. By doing so he had fold equity and a hand that played fine against all but bigger pairs.

You had a bigger pair so you were a 4-1 favorite (or in your world a 1000-1 favorite).

By the way, he played the hand better than you.

Probably another reason why you had to "retire" from poker.


Crazy made up math and an inability to interpret simple hands in terms of the betting action. You chose the right path with the riggedology as your game had so many gaping holes it would have been impossible to fix.


That is what dishonest people say when confronted. Basically this proves you lie. Also proves that lightning will hit you.

All the best.

You count the number of players at a table very differently to the way I do. What I did was look at the hand history, count the number of players dealt cards, see that there are two, then conclude that there were two players at the table.

If this method is too complicated you can look at the hand history you posted, see that the button is in Seat 4, notice that Seat 4 is also the small blind, and conclude that they are playing heads-up.

The first method only involves counting to two whereas the second method involves some understanding of how poker works so stick with the first one until you are comfortable with it.

I think supperdish uses the 'count the number of chair legs and divide by four' technique.

Works quite well if:

1) All seats are occupied
2) No one is sitting out
3) You can count to 40
4) You can divide by 4

The last two might be a bit of a stretch for poor old supperdish.

It isnt so much the hands themselves but the way they are played.

Someone explain what the Q 10 guy is playing at here?

Poker.

Texas Hold 'Em.


Come on, supperdish, even you must recognise the game.

I will give it a go. He isn't a very good player. He overvalues weak broadway hands considerably, even when out of position. He doesn't like to fold flops when he has overcards and some back-door draws, even if he has nowhere near the right pot odds to call.

I sharkscoped him and saw that he had -20% ROI at games with average stake $1, which would tend to back up my theory that he isn't a very good player.

Can I have a go at your explanation as well for amusement value? The player had just deposited so the software decided to let him win a few extra showdowns. You can see the spike in his graph at around SNG 12 or so - this is the boomswitch. However, he then foolishly decided to cash out, and the boomswitch was turned off (presumably the doomswitch does not need activating when he plays this badly?) He then went on a losing run which has pretty much continued to this day, but god save us all if he makes a large deposit any time soon.

How did I do?

Not at all bad.

You should run riggedology master classes!

Wow. Scooper's stupidity continues to astound me, in levels I didn't think possible. Is it possible he's leveling us? Apparently now other people being idiots at the poker tables (something that has existed since the beginning of poker and makes us money regularly), is all a part of the big conspiracy.