The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition - Page 299 - Internet Poker

Donko, some of your longer posts are unreadable because you are not closing the 'quotes'.

For every [ quote ] you must have a corresponding [/quote] otherwise the quote is not displayed correctly and it's so hard to work out what's going on that people won't bother.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 01:10 PM

#7452

DonkoTheClown

adept

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 741

Quote:

Originally Posted by qpw

Donko, some of your longer posts are unreadable because you are not closing the 'quotes'.

For every [ quote ] you must have a corresponding

otherwise the quote is not displayed correctly and it's so hard to work out what's going on that people won't bother.[/quote]

Thanks! I will fix these.

Last edited by DonkoTheClown; 08-05-2009 at 01:22 PM.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 01:11 PM

#7453

feldzpar

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 985

http://www.eruditesys.com/PokerMate/...ker-stars.html

Quote

08-05-2009 , 01:12 PM

#7454

feldzpar

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 985

http://www.tightpoker.com/online_poker_cheating.html

Quote

08-05-2009 , 01:13 PM

#7455

feldzpar

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 985

http://www.****onlinepoker.com/cheaters.html

List of Online Poker Cheaters
Nick Niergarth gbmantis
Brian Townsend sbrugby
Mark Teltscher TheV0id
Chris Vaughn BluffMagCV
Sorel Mizzi Imper1um
Mark Seif Absolute Poker
Justin Bonomo ZeeJustin
Josh Fields JJProdigy
Scott Tom & AJ Green POTRIPPER

Quote

08-05-2009 , 01:32 PM

#7456

spadebidder

Actually Shows Proof

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,905

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown

- Research the information for patterns that look outside of the statistical norm to me at my current level of understanding.

I applaud you for this effort. You should also research statistical methods (which are not difficult) because it isn't a subjective judgement, so don't worry about how something "looks" until you get some practice. When comparing any given sample to expectation, you need to compute a couple of basic things first. For any given test first figure how much the mean value of the sample differs from the population mean (the expectation), in units of standard deviation. You can do things like a T-test or Z test for this. And the other thing is the significance of that difference, which is calculated from the sample size. You can use critical number tables for this. Then you could also do things like a chi-square test on your whole test set to see if the cumulative deviations (to some significance level) are within the expected number for the set size.

My main point is don't make the mistake of trying to judge how a result "looks" until you have a feel for what that means mathematically.

Here's an example of the kinds of tests I mention, for a test of preflop all-ins with 1 caller, broken down by equity brackets. These hands are from Poker Stars (cash games).

Code:

Site #0, 2 to 10 players, NL Hold'em, all stakes combined
Using 25 equity bins.
Number of hands analysed: 1630652
Preflop heads-up all-ins: 10149 (Once per 161 hands).

FAVORITE'S
Preflop equity  Mean%  Hands   Wins   Ties  Actual%  T-Test  5% Sig

[0.98 - 1.00]    .         0      0      0     .   
[0.96 - 0.98]    .         0      0      0     .   
[0.94 - 0.96]  94.23%      7      7      0  100.00%    0.68    2.45
[0.92 - 0.94]  92.92%    217    200      3   92.86%   -0.04    1.96
[0.90 - 0.92]  91.20%     37     34      1   93.24%    0.45    2.02
[0.88 - 0.90]  88.61%     21     19      1   92.86%    0.62    2.09
[0.86 - 0.88]  87.18%    147    131      2   89.80%    0.96    1.96
[0.84 - 0.86]  85.00%     68     57      1   84.56%   -0.10    1.98
[0.82 - 0.84]  82.52%    288    229      6   80.56%   -0.88    1.96
[0.80 - 0.82]  81.30%   1788   1439     31   81.35%    0.05    1.96
[0.78 - 0.80]  79.38%     73     59      2   82.19%    0.60    1.98
[0.76 - 0.78]  76.89%     28     21      0   75.00%   -0.24    2.05
[0.74 - 0.76]  74.71%    581    407     34   72.98%   -0.99    1.96
[0.72 - 0.74]  73.07%    481    316     38   69.65%   -1.74    1.96
[0.70 - 0.72]  71.07%    740    511     33   71.28%    0.13    1.96
[0.68 - 0.70]  69.15%    677    425     46   66.17%   -1.71    1.96
[0.66 - 0.68]  67.28%    387    254     10   66.93%   -0.15    1.96
[0.64 - 0.66]  65.09%    348    225      9   65.95%    0.34    1.96
[0.62 - 0.64]  62.92%    255    165      4   65.49%    0.86    1.96
[0.60 - 0.62]  60.96%    230    136      5   60.22%   -0.23    1.96
[0.58 - 0.60]  59.12%    258    155      6   61.24%    0.70    1.96
[0.56 - 0.58]  56.88%    895    487     16   55.31%   -0.95    1.96
[0.54 - 0.56]  54.91%    913    472     17   52.63%   -1.39    1.96
[0.52 - 0.54]  52.98%    853    347    194   52.05%   -0.61    1.96
[0.50 - 0.52]  50.74%    505    146    212   49.90%   -0.49    1.96

[    ALL    ]  67.94%   9797   6242    671   67.14%   -1.75    1.96

   Using 23 valid bins, expected T-test deviations at 5% sig = 1.15
   * Observed individual T-test deviations at or over 5% sig = 0
   Chi-Square for Favorite  =  4.22 w/ 22 degrees of freedom
   Critical numbers (.10 .05 .01) = 30.81   33.92   40.29


UNDERDOG'S
Preflop equity  Mean%  Hands   Wins   Ties  Actual%  T-Test  5% Sig

[0.48 - 0.50]  49.26%    505    147    212   50.10%    0.49    1.96
[0.46 - 0.48]  47.02%    853    312    194   47.95%    0.61    1.96
[0.44 - 0.46]  45.09%    913    424     17   47.37%    1.39    1.96
[0.42 - 0.44]  43.12%    895    392     16   44.69%    0.95    1.96
[0.40 - 0.42]  40.88%    258     97      6   38.76%   -0.70    1.96
[0.38 - 0.40]  39.04%    230     89      5   39.78%    0.23    1.96
[0.36 - 0.38]  37.08%    255     86      4   34.51%   -0.86    1.96
[0.34 - 0.36]  34.91%    348    114      9   34.05%   -0.34    1.96
[0.32 - 0.34]  32.72%    387    123     10   33.07%    0.15    1.96
[0.30 - 0.32]  30.85%    677    206     46   33.83%    1.71    1.96
[0.28 - 0.30]  28.93%    740    196     33   28.72%   -0.13    1.96
[0.26 - 0.28]  26.93%    481    127     38   30.35%    1.74    1.96
[0.24 - 0.26]  25.29%    581    140     34   27.02%    0.99    1.96
[0.22 - 0.24]  23.11%     28      7      0   25.00%    0.24    2.05
[0.20 - 0.22]  20.62%     73     12      2   17.81%   -0.60    1.98
[0.18 - 0.20]  18.70%   1788    318     31   18.65%   -0.05    1.96
[0.16 - 0.18]  17.48%    288     53      6   19.44%    0.88    1.96
[0.14 - 0.16]  15.00%     68     10      1   15.44%    0.10    1.98
[0.12 - 0.14]  12.82%    147     14      2   10.20%   -0.96    1.96
[0.10 - 0.12]  11.39%     21      1      1    7.14%   -0.62    2.09
[0.08 - 0.10]   8.80%     37      2      1    6.76%   -0.45    2.02
[0.06 - 0.08]   7.08%    217     14      3    7.14%    0.04    1.96
[0.04 - 0.06]   5.77%      7      0      0    0.00%   -0.68    2.45
[0.02 - 0.04]    .         0      0      0     .   
[0.00 - 0.02]    .         0      0      0     .   

[    ALL    ]  32.06%   9797   2884    671   32.86%    1.75    1.96

   Using 23 valid bins, expected T-test deviations at 5% sig = 1.15
   * Observed individual T-test deviations at or over 5% sig = 0
   Chi-Square for Underdog  =  9.96 w/ 21 degrees of freedom
   Critical numbers (.10 .05 .01) = 29.62   32.67   38.93


NO FAVORITE HANDS
Preflop equity  Mean%  Hands   Wins   Ties  Actual%  T-Test  5% Sig

[exact 50/50]  50.00%    352      5    347   50.71%    0.27
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Last edited by spadebidder; 08-05-2009 at 01:45 PM.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 01:47 PM

#7457

Lestat

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 10,998

qpw,

I think we agree on more than we disagree and are simply quibbling over minutiae at this point. I just tried to make a few sensible points each of which you found something to take out of context and nitpick on.

*All else being equal, those with the highest level of education and intelligence are more likely to be right about a given subject where neither has expertise, or both have expertise. Period.

*If two people are aspiring to become winning poker players and one has an IQ of 138, while the other has an IQ of 98, I will back the person with the 138IQ every time. I'm not saying it's impossible for an idiot savant to become a great player. But the likelihood for success is much greater the more intelligent that person is.

*There are some on this forum who bash rigtards that add as little conversational productivity as the people they are bashing. They bash simply to feel a part of the "winning players club" and give themselves the image of being a winning player. I never said that everyone who bashes rigtards are losing players, but some of them MUST be.

*Conversely, many people who claim that sites are definitely rigged are undoubtedly losing players, but not ALL of them are.

I think these are all reasonable assumptions. This dialog between you and I got started because I responded to someone who complained that bashers almost seemed to gloat whenever a rigtard related their opinion. I was just trying to explain why some of them are like this. Lastly...

Quote:

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*.

This is only because you already know the answer. If you had to make a decision about where to stand so a shot bullet of a given weight, traveling at a given velocity, based on a given trajectory, misses you by mere inches, I'll bet you'd go with the Oxford professor rather than the burger flipper.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 02:00 PM

#7458

DonkoTheClown

adept

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 741

Quote:

Originally Posted by spadebidder

Code:

Site #0, 2 to 10 players, NL Hold'em, all stakes combined
Using 25 equity bins.
Number of hands analysed: 1630652
Preflop heads-up all-ins: 10149 (Once per 161 hands).

FAVORITE'S
Preflop equity  Mean%  Hands   Wins   Ties  Actual%  T-Test  5% Sig

[0.98 - 1.00]    .         0      0      0     .   
[0.96 - 0.98]    .         0      0      0     .   
[0.94 - 0.96]  94.23%      7      7      0  100.00%    0.68    2.45
[0.92 - 0.94]  92.92%    217    200      3   92.86%   -0.04    1.96
[0.90 - 0.92]  91.20%     37     34      1   93.24%    0.45    2.02
[0.88 - 0.90]  88.61%     21     19      1   92.86%    0.62    2.09
[0.86 - 0.88]  87.18%    147    131      2   89.80%    0.96    1.96
[0.84 - 0.86]  85.00%     68     57      1   84.56%   -0.10    1.98
[0.82 - 0.84]  82.52%    288    229      6   80.56%   -0.88    1.96
[0.80 - 0.82]  81.30%   1788   1439     31   81.35%    0.05    1.96
[0.78 - 0.80]  79.38%     73     59      2   82.19%    0.60    1.98
[0.76 - 0.78]  76.89%     28     21      0   75.00%   -0.24    2.05
[0.74 - 0.76]  74.71%    581    407     34   72.98%   -0.99    1.96
[0.72 - 0.74]  73.07%    481    316     38   69.65%   -1.74    1.96
[0.70 - 0.72]  71.07%    740    511     33   71.28%    0.13    1.96
[0.68 - 0.70]  69.15%    677    425     46   66.17%   -1.71    1.96
[0.66 - 0.68]  67.28%    387    254     10   66.93%   -0.15    1.96
[0.64 - 0.66]  65.09%    348    225      9   65.95%    0.34    1.96
[0.62 - 0.64]  62.92%    255    165      4   65.49%    0.86    1.96
[0.60 - 0.62]  60.96%    230    136      5   60.22%   -0.23    1.96
[0.58 - 0.60]  59.12%    258    155      6   61.24%    0.70    1.96
[0.56 - 0.58]  56.88%    895    487     16   55.31%   -0.95    1.96
[0.54 - 0.56]  54.91%    913    472     17   52.63%   -1.39    1.96
[0.52 - 0.54]  52.98%    853    347    194   52.05%   -0.61    1.96
[0.50 - 0.52]  50.74%    505    146    212   49.90%   -0.49    1.96

[    ALL    ]  67.94%   9797   6242    671   67.14%   -1.75    1.96

   Using 23 valid bins, expected T-test deviations at 5% sig = 1.15
   * Observed individual T-test deviations at or over 5% sig = 0
   Chi-Square for Favorite  =  4.22 w/ 22 degrees of freedom
   Critical numbers (.10 .05 .01) = 30.81   33.92   40.29


UNDERDOG'S
Preflop equity  Mean%  Hands   Wins   Ties  Actual%  T-Test  5% Sig

[0.48 - 0.50]  49.26%    505    147    212   50.10%    0.49    1.96
[0.46 - 0.48]  47.02%    853    312    194   47.95%    0.61    1.96
[0.44 - 0.46]  45.09%    913    424     17   47.37%    1.39    1.96
[0.42 - 0.44]  43.12%    895    392     16   44.69%    0.95    1.96
[0.40 - 0.42]  40.88%    258     97      6   38.76%   -0.70    1.96
[0.38 - 0.40]  39.04%    230     89      5   39.78%    0.23    1.96
[0.36 - 0.38]  37.08%    255     86      4   34.51%   -0.86    1.96
[0.34 - 0.36]  34.91%    348    114      9   34.05%   -0.34    1.96
[0.32 - 0.34]  32.72%    387    123     10   33.07%    0.15    1.96
[0.30 - 0.32]  30.85%    677    206     46   33.83%    1.71    1.96
[0.28 - 0.30]  28.93%    740    196     33   28.72%   -0.13    1.96
[0.26 - 0.28]  26.93%    481    127     38   30.35%    1.74    1.96
[0.24 - 0.26]  25.29%    581    140     34   27.02%    0.99    1.96
[0.22 - 0.24]  23.11%     28      7      0   25.00%    0.24    2.05
[0.20 - 0.22]  20.62%     73     12      2   17.81%   -0.60    1.98
[0.18 - 0.20]  18.70%   1788    318     31   18.65%   -0.05    1.96
[0.16 - 0.18]  17.48%    288     53      6   19.44%    0.88    1.96
[0.14 - 0.16]  15.00%     68     10      1   15.44%    0.10    1.98
[0.12 - 0.14]  12.82%    147     14      2   10.20%   -0.96    1.96
[0.10 - 0.12]  11.39%     21      1      1    7.14%   -0.62    2.09
[0.08 - 0.10]   8.80%     37      2      1    6.76%   -0.45    2.02
[0.06 - 0.08]   7.08%    217     14      3    7.14%    0.04    1.96
[0.04 - 0.06]   5.77%      7      0      0    0.00%   -0.68    2.45
[0.02 - 0.04]    .         0      0      0     .   
[0.00 - 0.02]    .         0      0      0     .   

[    ALL    ]  32.06%   9797   2884    671   32.86%    1.75    1.96

   Using 23 valid bins, expected T-test deviations at 5% sig = 1.15
   * Observed individual T-test deviations at or over 5% sig = 0
   Chi-Square for Underdog  =  9.96 w/ 21 degrees of freedom
   Critical numbers (.10 .05 .01) = 29.62   32.67   38.93


NO FAVORITE HANDS
Preflop equity  Mean%  Hands   Wins   Ties  Actual%  T-Test  5% Sig

[exact 50/50]  50.00%    352      5    347   50.71%    0.27
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks Spadebidder. I am going to print this post up because I have a little work to do on understanding how to use the math. Do you recommend a specific program for collecting hand histories? I want to start collecting my own histories instead of emailing the site for them. I want to quarantine my own library of information so that I am absolutely sure that the data is not manipulated in any way. Also, do any of these programs have features that will help someone to better understand what they need to be seeing to be within the ranges of statistical norm? Sorry, I am new to the math part of this particular subject. I am also not terribly experienced with math. My job the last 7.5 years has been in the area of counseling.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 02:11 PM

#7459

spadebidder

Actually Shows Proof

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,905

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown

Do you recommend a specific program for collecting hand histories? I want to start collecting my own histories instead of emailing the site for them.

On any major site your poker software has an option to save all the hands to your computer as you play them.

Quote:

Also, do any of these programs have features that will help someone to better understand what they need to be seeing to be within the ranges of statistical norm?

You can do some things with PokerTracker and Holdem Manager, but to do advanced analysis you'll need to create your own software or scripts. If you know how to write code, you could get started by seeing this thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...h-beta-452536/

You can also export result sets from PT or HM into a form that you can run a custom script against. PT is just a standard database, which you can do whatever you like with. I'm not familiar with the HM database.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 03:00 PM

#7460

otatop

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 12,721

Quote:

Originally Posted by feldzpar

No way, people have cheated in online poker before!? This is groundbreaking news here, and also completely on the topic of online poker being rigged.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 03:39 PM

#7461

DMoogle

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFuego20

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?

I stopped being surprised at how stupid people can be, and how many people are stupid a long time ago.

It still makes me sad and drives me crazy though.

Last edited by DMoogle; 08-05-2009 at 03:59 PM.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 03:44 PM

#7462

Monteroy

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 16,729

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown

That does make sense. I dont think that I am specifically being targetted, but I do suspect that if there is something going on, it is to maximize profits.

Then you have to come up with a theory as to how and why that would happen, and of course if you really are different from other riggedologists you have to NOT ignore the significant issue of what happens if a room gets caught cheating in this manner.

Also, do not ignore the fact that many people would need to be involved in this at all of the rooms and that makes for a ton of people (including people no longer employed by defunct rooms) all keeping this a secret. How realistic is that?

You said you felt cheated. How exactly were you cheated by the room if they were not specifically making you a target?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown

What I have gathered so far here and 2+2 is that I need to do the following:

- Collect a very significant amount of hand histories on my play.
- Research the information for patterns that look outside of the statistical norm to me at my current level of understanding.
- Share the results here with the community to see if what I am seeing and thinking makes sense to people with more understanding and experience on this subject
- Take the necessary steps to bring myself to a conclusion based on the outcome

This is my "Action Plan"

Those that have done this have pretty much confirmed that the rooms deal is fine. Now, plenty of riggedologists have said they will do a grand study, but to date none have ever actually done the actual work, so realistically I doubt anyone will be holding their breath while waiting for your results.

Still, if you are serious about it and do some work, feel free to show your data.

Good luck.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 04:29 PM

#7463

tk1133

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,221

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown

It is hard to tell what peoples motives are in some of these threads. I am just doing some research on the subject of "Rigged Sites" because I feel like I may have been cheated. I didnt realize that I was going to be running into pokersite shills and others who dont have better things to do with their time than try to make sport of those who dont understand or have as much experience on the subject. I dont mind some of these people getting sarcastic though, some of it is pretty funny. I enjoy a good laugh. If I get nothing else out of it than that, I at least still got some laughs out of this.

I still got your back don't worry...Your correct

Quote

08-05-2009 , 04:48 PM

#7464

tk1133

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,221

Well, I don't "google" and spell check what I write...I wrote..."1963"?" for a reason...not sure if I was correct, I'm still trying to understand what your motives are for personally attacking people when you have no stake or no business motives involved? You see why people think Spade and QPW are shills...not to mention one belongs to a poker website that produces illegal programs for online poker...And what the hell does FYP and IMO mean...2 years and i still don't know...

Quote

08-05-2009 , 04:52 PM

#7465

DMoogle

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk1133

one belongs to a poker website that produces illegal programs for online poker

Unless you took it to PMs, you never explained this.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 04:56 PM

#7466

DonkoTheClown

adept

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 741

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monteroy

I would like to work from the symptoms to the problem instead of coming up with some grand theory that I dont even know is true.

Quote:

Also, do not ignore the fact that many people would need to be involved in this at all of the rooms and that makes for a ton of people (including people no longer employed by defunct rooms) all keeping this a secret. How realistic is that?

I could let my imagination run freely on how they could minimize exposure on this.

Quote:

You said you felt cheated. How exactly were you cheated by the room if they were not specifically making you a target?

In tournaments, experiencing the amount of miracle river bad beats I was receiving over and over again, witnessing the same thing happening to players who were playing solid and complaining about the same things happening over and over again to them, and then comparing this to how I have run playing a very significant amount hands live, the red flags started popping up for me.

I dont have proof, but I could come up with all kinds of theories about why this could be happening. The most obvious is that I have been running very, very terrible. The rest of the theories are connected to greed and maximizing the bottom line for the sites.

Quote:

I believe you because this is a big undertaking for someone with not a lot of time or for someone who may not understand how to put the information together and even make enough sense of it to come to a conclusion that can be shown to a hostile 2+2 environment. These poor "Riggedologists" may not even be qualified to understand the game itself. So sure, you are not going to see anything of quality.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 05:08 PM

#7467

Monteroy

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 16,729

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown

I would like to work from the symptoms to the problem instead of coming up with some grand theory that I dont even know is true.

You may find this tricky as many people believe in some "symptoms" that are completely opposite of other "symptoms." You will have to explain your logic behind whatever theory you believe in, but realize that likely someone has said it before (without proof) and someone likely has said pretty much the opposite (also without proof).

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown

I could let my imagination run freely on how they could minimize exposure on this.

One person presented the option that they forced all of them to live in a cave. Sadly, that pretty much was the most reasonable explanation as to how thus far hundreds or thousands of people, many with no incentive, have kept this big secret.

You better be creative in your theory on this as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown

Why would the sites create drama based river beats that attract attention instead of doing it in a way that attracts much less attention? Seems a really poor way to run an evil scheme, unless they are trying to remake the Austin Powers movies in some ways.

I am ignoring the fact that your theories are based on your memory of selected hands from live and online. Needless to say, that is not the strongest foundation for a statistical analysis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown

dont have proof, but I could come up with all kinds of theories about why this could be happening. The most obvious is that I have been running very, very terrible. The rest of the theories are connected to greed and maximizing the bottom line for the sites.

Read this whole thread. There are hundreds of theories. Timing, entropy, deposits, player location, action flops, non action flops, mafia. You name it and it has probably been suggested. ALl they have in common so far is none have been proven.

Still, if you come up with something new and creative I will give props fopr a good imagination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown

Riggedologists in general are a ton of talk and very little in way of actual work/proof/data. That is what makes this thread fun. If they ever actually proved something it would have to be accepted

Good luck on your adventure.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 05:30 PM

#7468

DonkoTheClown

adept

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 741

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk1133

I still got your back don't worry...Your correct

I appreciate that.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 06:06 PM

#7469

tk1133

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,221

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMoogle

Unless you took it to PMs, you never explained this.

He knows what I'm talking about...I guess I'm not allowed to "Spam" the site....

Quote

08-05-2009 , 06:07 PM

#7470

DMoogle

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 7,243

But what use to it to us if we don't know what you're talking about?

Describe the site/illegal software, or PM me what it is.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 06:12 PM

#7471

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

I think he's talking about getting the billion hand summaries from IndianaV8 (or whatever his screename is) who also has a botting site.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 06:29 PM

#7472

DMoogle

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 7,243

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arouet

I think he's talking about getting the billion hand summaries from IndianaV8 (or whatever his screename is) who also has a botting site.

Ah, found it. Yeah, I don't like that at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk1133

not to mention one belongs to a poker website that produces illegal programs for online poker

From my understanding (based on the posts the last time you brought this up), he got the hands from a website that is run by the same person who runs the botting site. Spade claimed that he does not belong to the botting site. Can you show otherwise?

Quote

08-05-2009 , 06:35 PM

#7473

NFuego20

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 4,295

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown

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...

I do believe that sites like OPR and Tableratings are good for this purpose and personally I have no problem with their existence because it's a very easy way to find outliers in winrates and investigate potential suspicious activity. I see the sites argument too though and understand that if they have taken measures to stop people from datamining and gaining an unfair advantage they also don't want to allow people to use the sites to take advantage of that.

All that said, the sites DO exist currently and CAN be used to look at results if you think somebody's results are fishy for whatever reason.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 06:39 PM

#7474

NFuego20

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 4,295

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk1133

Well, I was @ a very italian and very fancy high end "reception hall" in Cleveland. Where probably 75% of the pro's from the Cleveland area play every week...Funny, I didn't see you there....Do you know what they think about online poker...? lol funny you think your expressing the general public opinion.....

If you did see me there, how exactly would you know?

Secondly, if you're implying that they are a bunch of rigtards, and I'm not sure how that would change anything?

Great, poker players who have no basis to believe that something is corrupt believe something is corrupt, so they're only willing to play live. They have that right and I have no problem with that. They're likely wrong however.

Personally I don't like playing in corrupt underground poker games that are illegal in the state of Ohio.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 06:59 PM

#7475

Josem

human chemical weapon

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 18,190

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk1133

What would happen If UB, AP, Pokerstars, and FTP all decided to say F@$% the USA and seized everybody's poker funds and didn't want to pay any US players? Who could enforce "anything"?
This isn't a rhetorical question...Really would like an answer....

In the case of PokerStars, I imagine that the owners and senior management would go to prison.

As has been discussed in this thread, I work for PokerStars, and I have no doubt that if I was somehow involved in cheating a player, that I would go to jail. That's how the Australian legal system works: if you steal from someone, you get punished.

Quote

Page 299 of 3721

First

99 199 249 279 289 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 309 319 349 399 499 799 1299

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 299 of 3721

First

99 199 249 279 289 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 309 319 349 399 499 799 1299

Last