Ok, is this some inside joke? Why the flame Mark? While I won't hold my breath waiting for the results (like I am for QPW's, why you still leavin' us hanggin?) he does seem to want to contribute to this thread in a more productive way. We should encourage him, not chase him away.

I'm sure your study will be completely without bias.

Did you see his last post though where he goes off on some sort of memory powers he has? I don't think encouraging those type of studies is important.

I think we should encourage everyone who thinks something is amiss to actually look through their hand histories to see if their memories are to be trusted or not. Whatever the results.

Yeah, but he's already made his decision. Look at his posts...almost every single one is about how it's rigged. He says he has the hand histories and looked over them already. He also quoted Nickelback in his first thread vowing to "Never Again" play online poker. I agree that everyone who can should analyze their hands and look for logical conclusions, but we can't
pacify every crazy out there.

betsafe is apparently hosting a rigged live tourney, possibly to counterbalance all the riggedness of online play...

https://www.betsafe.com/poker/tournaments/riggedinriga

Yeah, he's excitable, but so are a lot of the rigtards. I'm just saying: let him put up or shut up. He says he's going to analyze his handhistories, we can critique his work later if he produces it or flame him if he doesn't. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Unlike K13, who is far beyond his "best before" date.

He's been around calling rigged I believe just as long as K13, but just not in this thread. Check out his posting history.

Hey King bite me. That was/is my belief. I can believe w/e the *** i want, last time i checked. Now we will see if any of it stands some scrutiny. Whatever happens I will continue trying to get better. Online isn't the only place to play poker.

Of course you can believe anything you want, don't let me stop you.

Is it safe to say then you've taken back your statement that you were "never again" going to play online poker? And if so, why would you if you are convinced that it is rigged? Why not just constantly take trips to Shreveport and rake in the money?

Who said I don't... I may play 1/2 and not be a god, but i can make enough live or online to justify to the spent brain cells. It's not about the money man. It's about winning!


I could play higher stakes and bigger buys online, I just want to start from the bottom and be left alone.

I feel their could be a number of players who are being minimized, for some reasons i hope to find.

I feel like you aren't very smart, for reasons that I have already found.

this

Wait, I thought the short stacks always lose. I can never keep up with these damned theories.

Just for ****s and giggles I looked at a random stretch of hands focusing on PP's only. The board textures in my mind( which im a dumbass like a poster pointed out a few posts ago) with mid/low pair sometimes seem cookie-cutter, either a paired board or one with two suits. Lets look at a very small sample. I gave it a 1 if the flop was either paired or two of the same suit, I gave it a 2 if it was both. I started in a random patch, hands #2381 through #1921. These are not cherry picked. This is the exact order.

Something in my rigtarded brain is telling me there is too many times a flop comes down Asxs and Jsxs or Qhxh Thxh etc, fighting broadwayish draws and flushes. I expected to not get very far before the 1's started running out and my rigbrain had to reboot... Now im really looking forward to the full endeavor. I'm gonna have tons of rigtarded things to share and will enjoy bugging the **** outta each and every one of you.

Oh i forgot to mention getting a PP usually means someone else is packing too, so along with all of the rigors of the board, you must now worry about being mined and play the guess who's bigger game. We can save board str8ing theory for the next lesson.



2381- QsQd- (7h-7d-8h-9d-jh) 2
2379- 5h5d- (3h-kd-8h-5s-Kc) 1
2353- TsTc- (3h-Kh-5d-Ac-3s) 1
2349- 5c5d- (Js-Jc-Ks-?-?) 1
2319- 5d5s- (Kd-4d-Kc-Qh-Th) 2
2305- 9d9c- (Jh-9h-Kd-8c-Qd) 1
2302- 6c6s- (As-6d-5s-Qh-8s) 1
2249- 2h2d- (7c-3s-4h-Js-4d) 0
2242- JdJh- (9s-4c-Qs-6s-Qh) 1
2228- TdTh- (7c-8c-4h-Js-8d) 1
2222- 6s6d- (3h-Ks-Ah-7s-8d) 1
2195- 3s3d- (Ac-4s-As-Td-Qd) 2
2149- ThTc- (3h-2s-Js-?-?) 1
2097- QdQs- ???
2083- AhAd- ???
2069- AsAc- (6d-Qc-Ts-?-?) 0
2015- JsJc- (2h-Ah-5c-3s-Tc) 1
2006- KhKd- (7c-Jd-5d-4s-?) 1
1991- KdKh-( Kc-Jh-8s-Ad-?) 0
1972- 9h9s- (Jc-7c-2h-4d-?) 1
1971- 8s8d- (4h-Jd-Jc-4d-5c) 1
1966- KhKc- (Jd-9s-6c-?-?) 0
1957- 5s5h- (Tc-Ac-7c-?-?) 1
1956- 3c3d- (Kc-4c-5d-?-?) 1
1929- 2c2h- Th-3h-8s-7h-As) 1
1921- TsTd- (7h-Ah-5h-??) 1

You won't get me.

You realize one or both of your two conditions will be true over 70% of the time. No, I don't suppose you did know...

yeah right.....

practice lol what are you stupid?

im sure the bad players lose as often as they should.

That's the thing. I don't mind going multiple bets each street with a set of queens on a KQ3r flop and losing to T4. Really, I don't mind. But why does it take so long to get this guy's money? In fact, I often never get it because he'll usually go broke before I can get enough hands against him.

I'm not complaining it's rigged, but I genuinely don't understand some things. I do win online, just not what I think I should. I don't get how I can be even or up on almost every regular pro I have many hands with, yet still can't reach 1bb/100 in LHE games.

I suppose it has to do with losing edge to multi-tabling, and that the rake is so HUGE!!!! Geez, when I look at the rake I've paid vs. what I'm up, I wanna puke. I'm torn between playing the high stakes games against MUCH tougher competition, and staying where I am. It's either lose edge to rake, or lose edge to tougher opponents. Whatever the deal with online is, I find it to be a very tough environment. I think many people here don't realize how tough it is, b/c they've never played much live poker. Certainly, not back when the games were much easier. I guess if you don't know anything else, it makes sense how online would seem perfectly normal without anything to compare it to. I miss the old days.

HI, Yes this is my first post and I am ready for you bashers. Anyway I am a graduate student at the University of Colorado, my major is Mathematics with a minor in Statistics. I have been playing online for about 6 years regularly. I have done the tests and found the data you all said to "go get and test". My sample size at this point is about 100k hands at UB. I know i can buy more data at like POker Table Ratings or wherever else to get larger sammples. But my SRS of 100k brought up some nice information. I want to hook up with someone interested corresponding and brainstorming what to do with this data. Especially someone who may be fluent in HM or PT3. I do fall short with these software products but I am getting better. From here I would actually like to use my information to possibly exploit the RNG. This would consist of making odds adjustments. I really dont see what bringin this public would do. Maybe I will just go public. But my tests are at an early stage so I would need a decent report analysis to do so, which again I would need help with the PT3 and HM to do so. So please serious inquiries only email if you want to brainstorm with me. Knowledge in Math or Computer Science would be more desirable but I am open to whatever you may bring to the table.

With that said Bring it On Bashers!

So you intend to prove that online poker is rigged/not rigged by using hand samples from one of the few sites that is already confirmed to be crooked..?

That makes sense.

Wow, and the first half of this post seemed so promising. Wish you the best of luck exploiting the RNG!

Oh, right. I didn't bother reading past the ub part.

This is very doable, and in fact many players already do so. Simply incorporate the expectations into your playing decisions. Use pot odds, EV calculations, starting hand frequencies, equity, etc., all according to the random distribution of the deal.

Oh wait... there's even a name for that: fundamentals.

Hahaha, nice.