Aside from the spelling, what part of that statement is not completely correct?

I guess if you repeat it often enough in a derisive manner some people may start to doubt that you'll see more bad beats when you play more hands, but I think most people agree with the above statement.

My question was more related to whether people remember their early results more favourably because the bonus padded the results.

Soop: didn't you read my earlier post? I've confirmed I'm not a shill!

Why not address the above post by ianonabeach.

Well, I think others have addressed it already, but I would say what I've said in the past: provide the handhistories, etc. And do some analysis. From the way he built his roll on the upswing, it sounds like he's playing way beyond his bankroll to increase an initial deposit by so much in such a short time. Short term runs in either direction are to be expected.

Basically, there is nothing to address until he provides some real data.

Of all the potential ways to rig a site, wouldnt rigging it in favor of new depositors be one of the most detectable?

Sure. You demonstrated your actual poker skill and knowledge a week ago or so when you posted some specific hands you played (which was shockingly worse than I ever expected).

Now, in retirement from a game you were never even average at you sit by and cling to any random rigged beliefs any new/gimmick account will post. You do this to lash back at an industry and game you were hopelessly inadequate at.


Ever seen a drunk guy get tossed from a bar then stand outside for a while yelling at the bar and the people going in the bar at how bad it is? That's you .

Hope that explanation helped.

Regarding the post you quoted from that other random guy, since you think that is actual proof of something (new deposit boomswitches), then you and he should go at it full blast.

Since you know it is rigged in that way you need not worry about trivial things like bankroll management. Just deposit $2000 or so and head to the 5/10 NL games. This way you have 2 buy ins in case anything does go bad, and that should be enough.

Play for a couple hours, make thousands from the boomswitch, cash out.

Repeat over and over in new rooms and skins until you make millions.

SUch an easy plan and it is foolproof (unless of course the rooms are not rigged, but you know they are so not an issue).

I have provided an explanation for your behavior, and a very simple explanation/business plan that you and that other guy and any riggedologist can do to make millions based on your boomswitch rigged beliefs.

Now it is your turn to explain. Why are you still working a minimum wage counter job instead of making millions using this foolproof system based on your beliefs?

All the best.

hey, at least he doesn't steal from the customers, even though it would be profitable. that's due to his moral "conscious."

i wish i could make bets on pre flops all ins with equity odds.

What is wrong with you?

This isn't even debatable. Although, I'm sure you'll try. And Failboat the whole thing as usual.

taken from: http://messages.yahoo.com/Games/Card...41&tof=1&frt=2

DRAFT / ABSTRACT

A major university recently completed a study of the on-line poker site FullTiltPoker.Net, the “free” side of Full Tilt Poker.

Over the course of the one-year study students entered into, but did not play in, over 10,000 9-person Sit & Go No Limit Hold’em 250 (play money) tournaments. Player stats were recorded, and later analyzed. Over 57,000 individual hands made up the study sample.

The study revealed that the dealing of cards at Full Tilt Poker is not random. The site has a tendency to deal a statistically abnormal amount of “big” hands, including straights, flushes, full houses, four of a kind, etc.

The odds of “hitting” a particular hand when seven cards are dealt from a 52-card deck are easily calculated. We won’t go into the gory mathematical details, but you are certainly invited to look them up for yourself if you don’t believe us.

For example, when seven cards are dealt from a 52-card deck, the odds of hitting a royal flush are approximately 500,000 to 1. That’s why you don’t see very many of them in the real world, let alone get one yourself. Yet, on Full Tilt we saw a royal flush in approximately 1 out of every 4,432 hands dealt, over 1,000 times as often as statistical probability would dictate. Several of our players were dealt more than one royal flush over the course of the study.

Oddly, a non-royal straight flush came up in 1 out of 7,203 hands during our study. With a random deal, the probability of hitting any kind of non-royal straight flush is approximately 83,000 to 1. That probability is multiplied by a factor of 10 at Full Tilt.

The most common winning hand in our tournaments at Full Tilt was 2 pairs. It came up on average 1 out of every 13 hands, about twice as often as statistical probability would dictate. With a random seven-card deal from a 52-card deck, a 2-pair hand should come up every 21 hands on average.

Likewise, all the other “big hands” occurred far more often on Full Tilt than one would expect from a truly random (and honest) deal. A straight came up in 1 out of every 54 hands dealt. Normal odds for a straight are 1 in every 283 seven-card hands. Likewise, a flush came up in 1 out of every 54 hands, the same as straights. In the real world, we would expect to see a flush in approximately 1 out of every 500 hands, or about half as often as a straight. On Full Tilt straights and flushes come up with almost equal frequency, yet another statistical anomaly.

Interestingly, the most common straights on Full Tilt are the ace high straight and the five high straight. They came up more than four times as often as any other kind of straight. This, in and of itself, represents another glaring statistical anomaly.

Hands with three-of-a-kind were observed in 1 out of every 27 hands, almost twice the 1 out of 47 hands one expects to see in the real world.
A full house came up on average 1 in every 71 hands dealt. This far exceeds the 1 in every 694 hands you will see in the real world.

Hands with four-of-a-kind occurred on Full Tilt in one 1 of every 281 hands, far more often then the 1 out of every 4,166 hands one expects from an random deal.

We can only conclude that Full Tilt does not deal cards randomly, but is programmed to produce big hands. Perhaps this makes for more “exciting” play, but it is less than honest.

Oh yeah? Where's the study? What university?

Never verified but still interesting.

he just said its at a big major university. im cashing out my playdo right now i suggest you do the same

I see is this the spam thread on 2+2 ?
What kind of a debate would this be.Even if its rigged its the same for everyone.So basically rigness involved is the same % for everyone and u should still be a winning player in the long run


A 57k sample is just ridiculous tell em to do a 500k+ imo

There's only one kind of bull**** I find interesting.

In spoilers for profanity:

I suppose there's something wrong with me. I only find verified data to be interesting. If it's going to be fiction then it needs to be more creative to capture my interest.

Given this claim, it's pretty then ******ed for the writer to misstate the odds of hitting pretty much every hand in a pretty horrific fashion.

The various odds are published online here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability

It is easy to see that the writer is wrong repeatedly.

False. Straight flush odds are 3,216 : 1

False. 2-paid odds are 3.26 : 1 - once every 3.26 hands.

....and so on.
Fixed your conclusion too.

I read 2-3 pages of this thread and honestly i m amazed that there are still people trying to prove that online poker isnt rigged.... whats the point .The "poker is rigged" guys are providing so many weak arguments its not even worth answering

Please. This is old news with several threads about it, and it is a poorly done attempt at a level. It's entirely made up, there is no such study, and even all the included math and odds are wrong. The jokester didn't even know enough to make it realistic, i.e. make it "look" like some educated researchers could have written it.

Epic Fail.

Interesting theory. I've been playing poker for years, and I'm hugely up overall, but I must say that I don't want to be like so many others here and assume it's all 100% clean, and call people idiots for thinking it's even remotely possible that at least some sites might have dodgy RNGs. Same way I don't believe in God but can't disprove his existence.

I started on Party Poker about 5 years ago. I started with FLH and flopped a royal flush within a few minutes of sitting at my first ever real money table. Sadly I only won about $5! Continued to run well and soon moved on to $25 NL and was busto very quicky, of course. But if I hadn't run so well at first, I doubt I would have stepped up the levels so quickly. If you multiply me by however many hundreds of thousands of players there are on a given site, the motive is definitely there. The question is can they rig the RNG to make a disproportionate amount of bad beats and miracle hands happen, whilst still meeting all randomness requirements defined by the auditors (and still making sure that really solid play won't lose in the long run). I honestly don't know. Either way, I'm happy to keep playing, because I win! But anyone who tries to claim they've never felt like it's rigged is kidding themselves imo.

And to clarify before you call me a moron etc, I'm not saying I think it's rigged, but I'm not prepared to say I'm 100% sure it's not. Same way I try not to piss God off, even though I don't believe he exists! I'm 'rigged-nostic'

Who is assuming or doing that?

False. 3.26:1 = once every 4.26 hands

... and you were doing so well!

Penn & Teller's Bull**** is Bull****. I use to watch the show all the time. I use to love it then realized they're just as bias as the subjects they debunk.

The difference is that they admit it on a regular basis.

[ ] Someone in this thread has said they are 100% sure no RNG is rigged.