Hahahahahahahaha, awesome.

Proper English I no know

I step away from this thread for a few hours and feldzpar goes off the deep end. Or perhaps that happened on his first post. Maybe it's the fact his barely readable rants are typed all in bold, but I actually kind of feel for the guy. Hopefully he takes his pills soon.

Since we are using the Urban Dictionary

http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...erm=PokerStars



1. PokerStars 90 up, 25 down love it hate it

Pokerstars is a place where someone can go when they are just too relaxed. Within seconds of entering PokerStars the relaxation will simply melt away as you quickly became frustrated beyond what you thought possible. While at PokerStars you can pretend like you are playing poker, but truly your fate has already been decided by the time you sit down at a table. You can be sure you will get a lot of great hands, but there will always be a better hand so that PokerStars can take in their fabulous rake.

I went to PokerStars yesterday. So I had AA, and this other guy had AA, and two other guys had KK. We all went allin, and the board made 34567, we all split and lost money because of the rake.
get this def on a mug Mug
by Your Mom Jul 12, 2004 share this
2. Pokerstars 61 up, 21 down love it hate it

A place associated with bad beats in poker. A pokerstars may be rigged, but most likely is not. A typical situation at a pokerstars will occur when you are tricked into playing hands where you have a huge advantage, but doing so will simply increase the pot, thereby increasing the rake the pokerstars will take in as profit. You will lose most of the good hands you play. A pokerstars will allow you to make a few final tables in big tournaments, and then give you bad beats so you don't make at least a dozen more final tables that you deserve to have made. A good site overall, but the stress a pokerstars will cause you is outrageous.

Person #1: I was playing poker last night and I went allin on a flop of AK5 with my pocket 5's, and someone called with 910! Turn was a J, river a Q and I lost! Someone else in the hand even had pocket queens, and a fourth person even had AK!
Person #2: What a pokerstars hand!
get this def on a mug Mug
by I want my money Jul 11, 2004 share this
3. pokerstars 45 up, 16 down love it hate it

An online poker site full of bad beats from left to right. You will come in with the best hand, and some nub will get runner runner nuts. Then you end up putting more money on the site and say you wont let it happen again.

you are first to act and have AA and raise a good amount, everyone folds, big blind calls with 7 2 because hes a nub, flop is A 2 2, all the money goes in, and the river is a 2. "WOW, what a PokerStars hand!"

lol, unfortunately the first urbandictionary reference was actually based on facts. Rampid is not a word.

I had no idea rigtards were so rampid on the site though!

What are those reasons?

How about engaging in a proper discussion rather than just typing at people?
What are their intentions? What evidence do you have of their intentions?
But the RNG isn't illegitimate. Every test that people have applied has found the results to be legitimate.
But tournaments are not "sped up" and there are no action flops in cash games.
Please provide the names of these cheaters.

Given that every estimation of the number of winners backed by real data shows that around 30% of players are winners, it seems like you're just making excuses for your own failures.
It sounds like you should go get a blog - 2p2 is a discussion forum, for discussions. If fyou just wanna shout and pretend people care what you say, you should get a blog like everyone else with that desire.

If you google the term you will get ~28,000 hits only two of which are Wikipedia.

Yes but the problem with your argument is that even someone highly intelligent and extremely well educated will not necessarily be a great poker player unless they have 'a few' hands under their belt.


Yes, but unless you are saying you know nothing about poker, maths or probability theory that is not the case here.

You should not need to appeal to respect.

Surely, if you are presented with two groups of people, one group saying:

We believe that OLP is definitely rigged despite there not being scrap of evidence that it is.

and another saying:

We believe that OLP is probably not rigged because there is not a scrap of evidence that it is.

You do not need to know the educational credentials or the win rate of the members of the two groups to decide which one you will side with.

Or, do you?

I don't think a losing player's opinion is worth as much as a winning player where they simply state an opinion.

But if a losing player makes a logical argument then his or her argument will gain just as much of my respect as if it were made by a winning player.

To fail do adopt that approach is an example of the logical fallacy mentioned above.

If an Oxford mathemeatics professor tells me that 2 + 2 = 5 and a burger flipper tells me that 2 + 2 = 4, then I will believe the burger flipper*.



* Except for very large values of 2.

The US government are going to enforce illegal activities?

You mean they are going to make it mandatory to break the law?

Good grief!

Except that that is complete and utter bull****.

The US government have an issue with banks dealing with gambling outfits not the gambling outfits themselves.


BTW, you should get together with tk1133. He seems to be reading from exactly the same hymn sheet as you.

Wasn't there a study a few years ago that determined pokerstars had a "house edge".
That more pots ended up being split, and action hands increased the rake.
I swear I remember hearing something like that.

No, I don't think that any such study exists.

In reality, "action hands" would actually mean that fish would go bust faster, and thus, it would reduce the rake.

You see, that's the fundamental problem with these random unsourced claims: they're self-evidently internally contradictory. You can't simultaneously claim that more pots are split, and also claim that there are action hands. You can have one or the other: not both.

It's like someone saying that 1+1=3 and that 1+1=4. Both are wrong, and they're not even consistent.

That's like saying the DEA doesn't care about big time drug dealers or the drugs they sell, they just try to bust the guys who are hooked.

I'm pretty sure they have a huge issue with Americans shipping away there money overseas, but the only thing they can do is go after the banks.

Also, wtf is a "house edge" in a game that the house doesn't play?

I'm willing to pay $100 to anyone able to find such a study that actually proves such a thing. You don't even need to conduct the study: just find a link to a study that proves the shuffle is not random.

If the American polity feels that online poker is so evil, why isn't there a law against online poker?

I see there's no end to your pattern of making things up.

What complete and utter bollux!

It is illegal to buy or sell controlled substances in th US just as it in in most other countries.

This applies irrespective of the turnover of the dealer.

You really are quite ignorant, aren't you?

In the first place there is, AFAIA, no evidence that the net movement of poker related currency is out of the USA.

In the second there are many companies and individuals who, together, ship billions out of the USA.

Similarly there is traffic the other way.

It's called 'international trade' and it's something the US government is extremely keen on.

Ive experienced the same frustration many a time on PS. Too many hands where after you think WTF! what was the opponent thinking? Did the opponent know what cards were coming?

I strongly suspect that there are a number of people working for PS with access to hole and board cards creating new accounts every day winning hundreds and thousands of dollars to skim off the top. Given the massive player volume this would be incredibly easy to do whereas on a smaller site like Pitbull with a small player base it would be difficult to go undetected by the players as seen in the Pitbull thread.

I d be very interested to see a list of all the players/accounts that have ever played on PS. It wouldnt surprise me at all to see literally hundreds of thousands of accounts that have only ever played for a few hours at say NL50 and other low limits and low buy in tourneys and have made off with hundreds of dollars then never played again or have come back months later for a similar short period of time.

I mean who really cares about losing 25 or 50$ in a strange beat. No one is gonna start an investigation for pocket change.

Perhaps the RNG really isnt flawed but instead we have superusers who know when to play that 6 9 offsuit or when that straight and flush are coming giving the impression of a flawed rng.

Or, perhaps, (and a more likely explanation), you and others are just using selective memory to convince yourself that there is something untoward happening when it is really just your own incompetence at poker.

If there really were 'superusers' performing the shenanigans you suggest then the key do their continued success would be that they kept the level of operations sufficiently low that they were not detected.

LOL!

Are you REALLY this stupid?

REALLY?

Something like this could be so easily investigated it's laughable. You wouldn't bother to try though, would you?

There simply isnt any point discussing/debating with a shill like yourself or qpw so Im not going to.

That's because you've demonstrated time and again that you're only capable of coming up with crackpot theories and not taking the time to do the simplest of investigation into them.

Nothing new.

I mean seriously, if this stuff is out there like your delusional mind thinks it is, by all means, blow the roof off of it! I for one would be the first to get behind you if you actually bothered to demonstrate it.

Hell, I'll help you put together a plan for testing it if you want. But, I'm a shill, and you're not interested in any form of real work to prove your delusions of grandeur.

And people wonder why cretins like yourself get insulted.

Clue: It's not because you have doubts about the legitimacy of online poker, it's because you are an irredeemably lame brained idiot.

LOL!

Also, I believe that some heros find that often, when there is a very big pot, other people have very good hands which causes the hero to lose.

Obviously rigged, IMO.

100%

Can we get a list of all of the users on pokerstars with enough info to find out how long they have played and how much they have won or lost?

I doubt it...This would be good information to look through. I wonder if this is why Pstars is giving Official Poker Rankings such a hard time about collecting stats on all of the players? Although, they are veiling it with the "Dont use the information to make our players feel bad about their ROI". I am not buying this reason for even a nickel.

This is what I am talking about when I say that the auditing needs to be transparent. A site like Officialpokerrankings.com could be a useful tool for looking at more details about players and sites. If the sites are going to fun interferance, then that sends a red flag up for me. "TRANSPARENCY" not "DECEPTION". By the way, I dont have proof of deception and I am not interested in spending half my day becoming a detective on this. I am hoping someone out there is...