The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition - Page 300 - Internet Poker

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.

But Josem, everyone knows that only Amurica can dish out sweet, sweet justice. All those other countries are full of "foreigners" who don't have laws of any sort.

Just look how successful America was at taking care of Russ Hamilto...never mind.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 08:17 PM

#7477

BucketFoot

grinder

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 500

Just got done playing a little under 100 hands and not 1 of them was a top 10% starting hand. How is that even possible. And before you shills laugh at that sample size realize that 0.9 to the hundredth is a very very small number.

0.9 ^ 70 = .0627%

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that I have been killing their sportbook, or that I'm a winning player on a different one of their skins.

Chances are very high that online pokers are not legit.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 08:35 PM

#7478

KingOfFelt

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,886

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucketFoot

I had 100 pocket aces in a row last night.

See how easy it is to say something without providing any evidence?

Quote

08-05-2009 , 09:37 PM

#7479

Josem

human chemical weapon

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 18,190

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucketFoot

Please post the hand histories.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 10:16 PM

#7480

DonkoTheClown

adept

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 741

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josem

You probably know this better than anyone on 2+2, but if the senior management Pstars or any other site was involved in running a program that was in fact changing some of the outcomes, for whatever the reason might be, could it be possible to keep the employees in positions below senior management out of the loop on this or would it just be too easy for everyone to know what is going on?

Quote

08-05-2009 , 10:46 PM

#7481

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucketFoot

So during my Stars session today, Stars dealt out ~3.4MM hands in 1.75 hours. So that comes out to about 46.5MM hands of poker dealt/day.

Assume 6 players per hand, we get 279MM hands dealt out to players. That gives us about 3.99MM subsets of 70 hands.

In one of these 3.99MM subsets, something with a 6 in 10K chance occured?

Shocking.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 11:35 PM

#7482

ben6killer

stranger

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7

if anyone posting on this thread is really interested in researching if you are getting true odds and a random shuffle online, here's an easy test to track it... When you go all in and you are the favorite to win the hand, make a note of your winning percentage over your opponent at the time you are all in, whatever street it is, at the end of the hand note if you won or lost the hand. only track the hands when you went all in as the favorite, that way you don't count the hands that you just played badly. average all these hands and get your winning percentage and compare it to what it should be. I just started doing this on pokerstars and don't have a large sample of hands yet but so far my winning percentage is 58% and the true odds are 72%. If this trend holds up over a large sample of hands, I have to conclude that it is definetly rigged. If everyone posts their results on this thread we can get a bigger sample.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 11:41 PM

#7483

ben6killer

stranger

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 7

Quote:

Originally Posted by ben6killer

of course if you don't get called You don't count the hand

Quote

08-05-2009 , 11:42 PM

#7484

Josem

human chemical weapon

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 18,190

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown

That's a good point - such issues are not just issues of programming software, but much more than that.

For someone to be able to cheat in such a fashion, and to repeatedly cheat customers, it requires much more than just a programming hole.

It requires:

a) A management culture that fails to care about the interests of players
One of the most impressive things about PokerStars in my eyes has been an absolute commitment to integrity from the very highest levels of the company. Part of my role is to act on various game integrity issues, and one of the most reassuring aspects has been that *not once* in my experience has PokerStars ever considered profitability or rake or income in adjudicating on a particular rules issue. This is not because the company doesn't care about profitability, but because (from my point of view) the management of the company appears to operate upon a core belief that if we do the right thing, the rest of the business will succeed.

b) A small staff who are good at keeping secrets
We have hundreds of staff across the world (mostly in London, Isle of Man, Costa Rica and Sydney) many of whom are active participants in the wider poker community. This does two things - when suspicious stuff happens, it'll be detected, and further, it's very likely that such activity will "leak out" anyway.

c) Staff able to play on the site
No PokerStars staff, or immediate family, or people living with a PokerStars staff member are able to play on PokerStars.

d) A software hole that causes such a situation in the first place. There simply is no evidence that this even exists - every test that has been applied has shown that the results meet expectations. The shuffle has been certified as fair by two independent auditors.

e) A lack of independent oversight and auditing
The Isle of Man Gambling Commission is appointed by an independent, democratic, government. They have rights of entry to our premises at any time, and various other key safe guards. You can read more about this online at http://www.pokerstars.com/iom/

f) All of the above to align at the same time
Not only does all of the above weaknesses need to exist, but further, they all need to align at the same time.

The fact of the matter is that the shuffling is legitimate: every test has been passed, and there's no reason to suspect that the shuffling is illegitimate.

Yesterday, I offered $100 for anyone to provide a link to any study that proves the shuffle is not legitimate: Of course, no one has. There is simply no evidence that the shuffle is illegitimate.

Quote

08-05-2009 , 11:46 PM

#7485

Josem

human chemical weapon

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 18,190

Quote:

Originally Posted by ben6killer

It's pretty awesome that you make this post as post #7490, when at post #7464 just above yours, someone has done this for 1,630,652 hands and shared the data:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spadebidder

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

08-05-2009 , 11:49 PM

#7486

Josem

human chemical weapon

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 18,190

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

I wouldn't even accept the claims of 'BucketFoot' that this happened until he provides the hand histories. He has a clear track record here (even just in the last 2 pages) of repeatedly lying and just making stuff up.

It's clear that he is either a compulsive liar, or has some sort of other affliction.

Quote

08-06-2009 , 12:13 AM

#7487

otatop

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 12,721

Quote:

Originally Posted by ben6killer

Or you could just look through PT3 or HEM for this...

Quote:

only track the hands when you went all in as the favorite, that way you don't count the hands that you just played badly.

Why would you not count the hands you played poorly? They'd prove the same thing, just in reverse.

Quote:

I just started doing this on pokerstars and don't have a large sample of hands yet but so far my winning percentage is 58% and the true odds are 72%.

How many hands do you have so far?

Quote:

If this trend holds up over a large sample of hands, I have to conclude that it is definetly rigged.

What do you consider a large sample?

Last edited by otatop; 08-06-2009 at 12:14 AM. Reason: already crushed by Josem/spadebidder

Quote

08-06-2009 , 12:56 AM

#7488

GrindMonsta

stranger

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 10

Out of an average of 100 players how many r just bad, drunk, pathalogical gamlers, on tilt or just bluffing almost every hand. At least 50%.

So put it random cards and mix in random actions what else but lotto outcomes atleast 50% of the time esp lower levels (even high stakes if u check the posts). If more people accepted fact that poker is more than 50% luck at they can just get on with their lives and hope to learn a more solid playing style - which still wont save u many days.

eg just saw hand at 3/6 NL raise reraise allin call
original raiser shows KQ caller shows QQ cards 4K786 pot $505.
Some1 on table prob folded a 5.

I recently played about 10000 hands on low limit 6 max and saw 33 quads dealt so about 1 quad every 330 hands i saw. I got 5 of them. What does it mean ? I got no idea.

Just dont play in the end if outcomes keep blowing u up cos u need more than good cards to last. The sites have a gold mine cos most hands will b 45-55 to start so accounts will be churned and rake massive. If u lose the 5-10 decent hands per 100 u get that ur well ahead its just -ev and even a 2% rake over time will eat your acct.

Those good and lucky can hold that small adv and build an account and repeat. The other 80% can just lump it in the end cos the sites to busy counting money to give a sht so being transparent for them is pointless as people r willing to keeping signing up or reloading.

They got every statistic u can imagine but they keep it all in house.

This post done just to keep confusing every1 including myself.

Quote

08-06-2009 , 01:25 AM

#7489

NFuego20

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 4,295

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrindMonsta

This post done just to keep confusing every1 including myself.

Success!

Quote

08-06-2009 , 02:39 AM

#7490

LetsGambool

banned

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 26,568

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josem

If he made it up its even more hilarious since its not even close to a data point that something is wrong.

Quote

08-06-2009 , 02:53 AM

#7491

otatop

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 12,721

Quote:

Originally Posted by LetsGambool

If he made it up its even more hilarious since its not even close to a data point that something is wrong.

It is if you don't understand statistics, though.

Quote

08-06-2009 , 10:05 AM

#7492

Markusgc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 8,788

Quote:

Originally Posted by K13

sounds about right. 70% fav is about 50-60% win

public schools have really gone downhill.

Quote

08-06-2009 , 10:25 AM

#7493

qpw

banned

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,019

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markusgc

public schools have really gone downhill.

And Edinburgh is not what it was.

Quote

08-06-2009 , 04:25 PM

#7494

toltec444

grinder

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 496

Is there a way to make an analisys of all ins correlating the results with the stacks of the players? Is there a way to see trough a stat analisys if the shorter stacks are winning more all ins than expected?

Quote

08-06-2009 , 04:40 PM

#7495

tk1133

veteran

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 2,221

I hear that US regulation is closer then we thought...

Quote

08-06-2009 , 05:22 PM

#7496

Josem

human chemical weapon

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 18,190

Quote:

Originally Posted by K13

sounds about right. 70% fav is about 50-60% win

It is pretty frustrating to see someone go to the effort of researching this (because, of course, the people alleging massive international fraud are too lazy to do it themselves) and analyse millions of hands, and then for people to say crap like this.

Quote

08-06-2009 , 05:57 PM

#7497

camelfoot

newbie

Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 22

Any doubts online poker is rigged? How about 3 quads and a royal flush dealt within 60 hands in a 6 handed S&G at Ultimate Bet?..transcripts below...U may go a lifetime of B&M poker and not see a royal, never mind 3 quads and a royal within 60 hands...

Stage #1816142331 Tourney ID 1857663 Holdem Single Tournament No Limit 10 - 2009-08-06 11:22:43 (ET)
Table: 30626083 (Real Money) Seat #1 is the dealer
Seat 1 - QUIXOTICFOX (1,535 in chips)
Seat 2 - CURMUDGUN1 (1,320 in chips)
Seat 3 - GOOSEBALL (2,560 in chips)
Seat 4 - IA PLOWBOY (690 in chips)
Seat 5 - BR00KS28 (865 in chips)
Seat 6 - ROCKJOCK111 (2,030 in chips)
CURMUDGUN1 - Posts small blind 5
GOOSEBALL - Posts big blind 10
*** POCKET CARDS ***
Dealt to QUIXOTICFOX [Ah 3c]
IA PLOWBOY - Raises 35 to 35
BR00KS28 - Folds
ROCKJOCK111 - Calls 35
QUIXOTICFOX - Folds
CURMUDGUN1 - Raises 105 to 110
GOOSEBALL - Folds
IA PLOWBOY - All-In(Raise) 655 to 690
ROCKJOCK111 - Folds
CURMUDGUN1 - Calls 580
*** FLOP *** [2c 9h Jh]
*** TURN *** [2c 9h Jh] [10h]
*** RIVER *** [2c 9h Jh 10h] [9c]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
CURMUDGUN1 - Shows [Jc As] (Two Pair, jacks and nines)
IA PLOWBOY - Shows [9d 9s] (Four of a kind, nines)
IA PLOWBOY Collects 1,425 from main pot

Stage #1816144527 Tourney ID 1857663 Holdem Single Tournament No Limit 10 - 2009-08-06 11:25:40 (ET)
Table: 30626083 (Real Money) Seat #6 is the dealer
Seat 1 - QUIXOTICFOX (1,525 in chips)
Seat 2 - CURMUDGUN1 (570 in chips)
Seat 3 - GOOSEBALL (2,485 in chips)
Seat 4 - IA PLOWBOY (2,460 in chips)
Seat 6 - ROCKJOCK111 (1,960 in chips)
QUIXOTICFOX - Posts small blind 5
CURMUDGUN1 - Posts big blind 10
*** POCKET CARDS ***
Dealt to QUIXOTICFOX [Qd 8c]
GOOSEBALL - Calls 10
IA PLOWBOY - Folds
ROCKJOCK111 - Folds
QUIXOTICFOX - Calls 5
CURMUDGUN1 - Checks
*** FLOP *** [7s 7c 7h]
QUIXOTICFOX - Checks
CURMUDGUN1 - Checks
GOOSEBALL - Checks
*** TURN *** [7s 7c 7h] [6c]
QUIXOTICFOX - Checks
CURMUDGUN1 - Checks
GOOSEBALL - Checks
*** RIVER *** [7s 7c 7h 6c] [Qc]
QUIXOTICFOX - Bets 30
CURMUDGUN1 - Raises 120 to 120
GOOSEBALL - Calls 120
QUIXOTICFOX - Calls 90
*** SHOW DOWN ***
CURMUDGUN1 - Shows [7d 3d] (Four of a kind, sevens)
GOOSEBALL - Mucks
QUIXOTICFOX - Mucks
CURMUDGUN1 Collects 390 from main pot

Stage #1816152621 Tourney ID 1857663 Holdem Single Tournament No Limit 20 - 2009-08-06 11:36:10 (ET)
Table: 30626083 (Real Money) Seat #6 is the dealer
Seat 1 - QUIXOTICFOX (925 in chips)
Seat 2 - CURMUDGUN1 (1,360 in chips)
Seat 3 - GOOSEBALL (2,815 in chips)
Seat 4 - IA PLOWBOY (2,060 in chips)
Seat 6 - ROCKJOCK111 (1,840 in chips)
QUIXOTICFOX - Posts small blind 10
CURMUDGUN1 - Posts big blind 20
*** POCKET CARDS ***
Dealt to QUIXOTICFOX [Jc Ad]
GOOSEBALL - Raises 60 to 60
IA PLOWBOY - Folds
ROCKJOCK111 - Folds
QUIXOTICFOX - Calls 50
CURMUDGUN1 - Calls 40
*** FLOP *** [6c 9d 3c]
QUIXOTICFOX - Checks
CURMUDGUN1 - Checks
GOOSEBALL - Checks
*** TURN *** [6c 9d 3c] [3s]
QUIXOTICFOX - Checks
CURMUDGUN1 - Checks
GOOSEBALL - Bets 20
QUIXOTICFOX - Calls 20
CURMUDGUN1 - Calls 20
*** RIVER *** [6c 9d 3c 3s] [Jh]
QUIXOTICFOX - Checks
CURMUDGUN1 - Checks
GOOSEBALL - Bets 140
QUIXOTICFOX - Calls 140
CURMUDGUN1 - Folds
*** SHOW DOWN ***
GOOSEBALL - Shows [3h 3d] (Four of a kind, threes)
QUIXOTICFOX - Mucks
GOOSEBALL Collects 520 from main pot

Stage #1816154763 Tourney ID 1857663 Holdem Single Tournament No Limit 30 - 2009-08-06 11:38:50 (ET)
Table: 30626083 (Real Money) Seat #4 is the dealer
Seat 1 - QUIXOTICFOX (705 in chips)
Seat 2 - CURMUDGUN1 (1,250 in chips)
Seat 3 - GOOSEBALL (2,140 in chips)
Seat 4 - IA PLOWBOY (3,050 in chips)
Seat 6 - ROCKJOCK111 (1,855 in chips)
ROCKJOCK111 - Posts small blind 15
QUIXOTICFOX - Posts big blind 30
*** POCKET CARDS ***
Dealt to QUIXOTICFOX [10c As]
CURMUDGUN1 - Raises 60 to 60
GOOSEBALL - Folds
IA PLOWBOY - Calls 60
ROCKJOCK111 - Calls 45
QUIXOTICFOX - Calls 30
*** FLOP *** [Kd Ad Qd]
ROCKJOCK111 - Checks
QUIXOTICFOX - Checks
CURMUDGUN1 - Checks
IA PLOWBOY - Checks
*** TURN *** [Kd Ad Qd] [2d]
ROCKJOCK111 - Checks
QUIXOTICFOX - Checks
CURMUDGUN1 - Checks
IA PLOWBOY - Checks
*** RIVER *** [Kd Ad Qd 2d] [8d]
ROCKJOCK111 - Checks
QUIXOTICFOX - Checks
CURMUDGUN1 - Checks
IA PLOWBOY - Bets 30
ROCKJOCK111 - Calls 30
QUIXOTICFOX - Folds
CURMUDGUN1 - Folds
*** SHOW DOWN ***
IA PLOWBOY - Shows [10d Jd] (Royal flush)
ROCKJOCK111 - Mucks
IA PLOWBOY Collects 300 from main pot

Quote

08-06-2009 , 06:12 PM

#7498

qpw

banned

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,019

Quote:

Originally Posted by camelfoot

Oh, well, that proves it then.

Quote

08-06-2009 , 06:13 PM

#7499

qpw

banned

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,019

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk1133

I hear that US regulation is closer then we thought...

Well as you thought it was about 2 months back ...

Quote

08-06-2009 , 06:18 PM

#7500

syncmaster

old hand

Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,588

Quote:

Originally Posted by camelfoot

Any doubts online poker is rigged? How about 3 quads and a royal flush dealt within 60 hands in a 6 handed S&G at Ultimate Bet?..transcripts below..U may go a lifetime of B&M poker and not see a royal, never mind 3 quads and a royal within 60 hands...

Yup, just some more examples of hands used to boast the rake. They made a killing off all those monster hands, just look at all the bets.

Quote

Page 300 of 3721

First

100 200 250 280 290 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 310 320 350 400 500 800 1300

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 300 of 3721

First

100 200 250 280 290 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 310 320 350 400 500 800 1300

Last