Lizard people are silly (or are they...), but it helps demonstrate the flawed nature of your "disprove a negative" way of thinking - which to be blunt is common in paranoid people.

Nobody can prove to you that something is not secretly corrupt in ways that cannot be seen. Similarly no one can prove that Lizard People do not exist. Both are equally flawed experiments to start. Lizard People happen to be cooler.


The industry provides complete hand histories for anyone who wants. All the hands are easily stored in database programs. Even if you wildly assume there is no checking mechanisms on the software, all the proof is out there in the public hands they deal that can be studied however you like.

How can they prove that superbots do not exist or that ADD based mouse clicking to set up hands (cool new theory posted) do not exist? Or that Lizard People do not exist?

They cannot, because it is a flawed form of reasoning.

The burden of proof is on you.

If a site refused to allow hand histories to be saved and stored THAT would be a cause for concern because that would the site's responsibility to provide.

You want them to disprove Lizard People. They can't. Sorry.



Control is better than trust?

Dude, open a dictionary and look up paranoia.







This did make me laugh even though that was not the intent.

That is true if we are just looking at very narrow range of possibility. If a site is rigged, it would not be smart for them to adjust the show down percentages too far from probability or someone with a tracking program could figure out something is wrong. It would probably need to be a rig that is opportunistic and covert so that it could be explained away by variance and also be very difficult if not impossible to prove. This is why the only way for an online site to shut the players up who are crying foul is to bring a system of supervision in that is as indisputable as possible. Of course, no matter what, there are going to be players who still make their claims, but I would think that a site, if they are in fact legit, would want this population to be as small as possible because business can be hurt by public opinion.

You are just making this up to get spade (who has a tad more expertise in the area than you) to say for the 100th time in detail why this would not be possible to pull off aren't you?

Solid piece of trolling, tk can learn from you.

LOL!

This is starting to get fun again!

The Lizard People are not going to like that!

So long, Monteroy and thanks for your contributions to this thread.

So the only set of circumstances that could explain occurances the OP is describing is either a random patch of variance, selective memory syndrome or programming set up by someone who works for Pstars correct? We should see the larger sample size if your friend is willing to post it. That should lead to more productive discussion I hope. Although, the sample is going to have to be large enough to show that the occurances are well outside of the population mean or we are going to be back to square 0 again.

My cat used to drag lizards into the house and let them go. I would catch them and release them in the neighbors yard. My cat disappeared and ended up dead. Monteroy should not poke fun at the lizard people, they really do exist, my cat saw them...

/this gheyya$$ thread

your fate has been sealed.

LoL, of course the same people are bashing the same posts...lol. Imagine how stupid PB poker feels for not hiring shills....

There's no such setup. If it's 3 random professors, the "concerned" players would simply say "Those professors weren't random, they're shills!" If Stars had a live feed of the RNG hardware, they'd say "That's just random hardware setup in a secret location 25 miles under the earth's crust! Stars's rigged computers aren't on amera!" Already been touched on, but none of these have to do with the RNG. Which law would that be? UIGEA is about bank transfers and applies to banks. So because a whole bushel of apples was spoiled, we need to check the integrity of oranges? PokerStars is regulated in the UK/the Isle of Man. Nope. If winning players lost 50% of their winnings, it would be ridiculously obvious to anyone with tracking software. You can't "skim" half of someone's winrate. Your mother was a prostitute and you beat your spouse, and if you want me to believe that's false I'll need notarized documents from 3 randomly chosen professors claiming otherwise.

LOL, tk adding more useless crap to the thread. How original.

Yeah, it doesn't say anything like "a player's mouse input is used to randomize their own hole cards", the only way the scenario discussed in this thread could have any relationship to reality. Using a player's own mouse input to determine their own cards adds zero to the entropy pool, because each user knows exactly what their own mouse input is. It only makes sense if you aggregate user input, in which case a player's mouse input can have no discernable bearing on what cards that player gets, but rather an infintesimal effect on what cards everyone gets.

This is perhaps the dumbest theory I've read on 2+2. At least the typical 'rigged' stuff deals with some motive for a conspiracy that the sites somehow would want a certain player to lose for whatever reason. This one is, "I move my mouse differently than other people therefore I lose."

Dude, you lose because you aren't playing well. Period.

Can everyone just stop making up other random excuses for why you lose? You lose if you aren't as good as the other players at the table. OR if you happen to be on one of those unlucky stretches where you catch some beats. But you don't go on unlucky stretches as much as you think you do. And just because you've beaten some donks in a live game (probably over a smallish sample of 20k hands or less) doesn't mean you are as good as you think you are.

If you aren't winning then you aren't winning and it has nothing to do with the way you move your freaking mouse for crying out loud.

Why is it that the largest stacks at a table are usually some unknown fish, who you are unlikely to ever see again.
I see less and less regs on FTP and more and more unknown luckboxes.

As customers, how is the burden of proof on us? We should trust millions of dollars in investements on faith?

What's wrong w/ beating your spouse? And QPW, do you beat your husband after suffering a losing session?

I'm currently in the makes of getting a hold of David Icke, to comment here so we can move on to other important issues...

So the "reptoid"(I'll be P.C. since perhaps reptillian humonoids might troll this thread) killed your cat so the evidence of the reptoids can't be proven if your cat is no longer alive to prove it. Lizard people are telepathic so if your cat would catch lizards and let them go and not kill them I'm sure the reptoid showed mercy on your cat. Personally I think your an awful cat handler and maybe if you showed more responsibility your cat never would of been in a position to be taken by lizard people. BTW do you live in LA? Perhaps you could search the tunnels for your kitty. I hope you find it, b/c lots of us are waiting for a witness to come forward...

Perhaps you could email the sites concerned and ask them?
Your claim here is false, and has already been proven false in this thread.

For example, PokerStars operates under the very strict Isle of Man leglsiation, and fortunately, the strict legislation that regulates PokerStars has thought of this eventuality. You can read it at http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/gambling/...ionact2001.pdf under Section 16, where it gives the regulator rights to enter the PokerStars premises at any time.

It seems to me that "well informed" is a synonym for "agrees with me" when used in this context. There's no indication that he is at all well informed that I can see. He may well have some sort of credibility on these issues, and he may well be an expert on this stuff, but it seems odd that if this were the case that he would announce his findings through an otherwise anonymous comment on TMZ.com.

Like, seriously. Surely there are more credible "experts" that support your views on this issue than anonymous commenters on tabloid news websites?

Further, every issue that you raise is associated with an online poker operator that is regulated by the KGC. It sounds to me, therefore, that your problem is with the KGC, not with online poker in general.

I don't understand what you're claiming the "point" is, because as I understand it, it is fundamentally wrong. Over time, there should be an increase in difference between expected and actual performance: that's why standard deviation is proportional to the sample size.

To use a simple example, if you flip a coin once, you end up with either 0 or 1 heads. Thus, your result is only going to be .5 away from the expected result.

By contrast, if you flip a coin a hundred times, you can end up with any result from 0 to 100. Thus, your result can be up to 50 away from the expected result.

Quote:

If there is a bug in PokerEV I am sorry for questioning the integrity of the non-government controlled online poker industy situated in countries with limited law enforcement.......

There is no "limited law enforcement" in countries like Australia, England, Isle of Man, and so on.
You base your accusation on a series of false statements: there is control at the leading and credible sites, they operate in compliance with the law, and have no prospect of earning significantly more money if they fiddle the shuffle.

Love this.... You guys take this too serious

Regs don't like playing deep? If "I only see fish with big stacks" is your "proof" then live poker must be rigged off its balls too. How awful to see fewer regs and more randoms online. How can the nitfest go on that way?
The sites all provide you with information about how they're run and who they're regulated by. When you basically call them dirty thieving liars, yes, the burden of proof is on you. That's kind of how it is with anything.

FWIW, I don't think you should place blind trust in online poker operators.

I think you should contact the site you play on and question them about their procedures and seek details to satisfy you. I think you should post their responses here.

In huge MTTs loose play early will lead to huge stacks or often times early exits. Some good players know this and play quite loose, though well. Bad players do not know this and just play loose.

Play the $3 rebuy on Stars with 9000 entries and a few thousand will be bad to extremely bad. A ton of those will lose as they always do (with their long term deep negative ROI) playing A6o and QJ and 22 as if they are the ultimate nuts.

However, just based on math some of these bad players playing badly will get lucky and those will be the ones sitting there with the mega stacks and people wondering why on earth a player that bad has so many chips.

What they forget are the tons of other bad players who did their dead money role properly.

It's just math. Bad players get it in bad a lot, but a few of them will defy the odds and get lucky. Think of it as putting 3000 donks in a room with a 6 sided die. Only those that roll a 1 or 2 move on, all the others that roll a 3,4,5 or 6 leave the room.

5 rolls later you will still have a dozen donks with mega stacks that cannot seem to lose even though they are always dominated.




While the 9/5 players may whine, how exactly can they get a mega stack playing so tight?

I think Bob was just being honest.