The part about sex with under eights. Just seemed jerky to me. Maybe I misunderstood.

The point I was trying to get across was that if you are going to say that it is acceptable to argue that there is a reasonable chance that something is the case despite there being not one shred of credible evidence, you need to be aware of where that could lead.

fair enough

problem solved !

more and more poeple can see the riggedness of online poker . its just a matter of time untill the poker population dies off online

Now this is old school riggedology end of world stuff, refreshing to see. People have said this pretty much for the past 10 years, but that is the beauty of "matter of time" or "one day" statements. They may never happen, but people can always believe they will happen in a "matter of time."

For what it is worth, many rooms have come and gone, some were big and crashed, some were small and grew. Basically, a typical market maturation process.

The only real thing that will destroy this industry is if new laws kills it world wide (pretty unlikely). If all the sites were as crazy rigged as people believe we would have known by now, especially about all the rooms that have shut down.

fyp

Oh, mine is WAY better than that. Probably. If I didn't miscalculate. I'm getting 3.7 standard deviations below expected for flopping a set or better when I see a flop with pocket pairs. Here are the numbers I used:

1260 flops seen while holding a pocket pair
105 sets (or quads) flopped
0.118 probability of flopping a set or better

I know 105 is low, but I'm not sure if I calculated the standard deviation correctly so I don't really know how low. Care to check?

Should probably consider only pocket pairs of say, 9's or smaller. Presumably if your holding pocket T's or better it's raised preflop. And in order to get callers the deck is going to be short the very broadway cards you'll need to hit the sets or quads.

Good point. Card removal effects could skew the results somewhat. The new numbers (for pocket pairs 9 or smaller):

673 flops seen
58 sets or better
0.118 (unchanged, obviously)

That improved things quite a bit. Now I'm only getting 2.6 standard deviations below expectation. Actually, that almost looks like too much of an improvement. I wouldn't have expected card removal effects to be worth a full standard deviation, would you?

<Deleted post>Made a false accusation....

I couldn't tell if the question was directed generally or at me in particular. But I don't think that:

A) There's enough information to answer the question. It depends on the particular game you're playing - big difference here between heads up/no-limit/high stakes vs low stakes/full ring/limit, the behavior of your opponents, and your play - or at least how your opponents perceive your play.

B) I'm qualified to answer the question even if there was enough information.

To adapt an earlier post on the issue:
If you use the word "possible" to describe cheating here - despite there being no evidence or reason to suspect it - makes the word "possible" meaningless. It's like saying it is "possible" there are lizard men around. Sure, it is "possible" but it is not likely, reasonable, and there is no reason to suspect it.

On the other hand, I agree with this. What would you like the poker rooms to do in this regard?

I want to say its rigged, but its obviously not

I wish they were too, because it's obvious that every pokerroom I've been to has rigged in my favor (I think they must have some secret list they share amongst themselves as to which people they rig it in favor). If I thus believed they were rigged I could stop puting in the hard work of working on my game and just have faith that no matter what I do the "fates" of the computer code have preordained me to get my winnings. I should just go up in stakes, play all day carelessly and carefreely, and buy a yacht.

Yep, I want to say they are rigged, very badly.

Lizardmen and corporate cheating are far ends of the possibility scale. Corporations are found cheating all the time. It doesn't imply ALL corporations cheat. Don Imus is the only true lizardman I've ever seen.



I'm not sure what the Poker rooms could do as a whole, but htey certainly need to do more than they are currently doing. For Fulltilt, I would like better customer service, and quicker cash outs. It doesn't leave anyone feeling confident when you have a money issue, and no response or a poor one.

Perhaps consenting to random audits by an indepent 3rd parties, would help give the public some more faith, and help the US players with their fight to legalize online gaming.


The problem isn't with winning players being convinced, it's getting the casual player feeling more confident.

You know I thought of the naysayer turds in this thread the other day. Kinda funny, as originally all I could think of was "what a bunch of pompous asshats" and cheerfully promptly forgot about them.

The other day Poker Stars posted this job description for an opening they have:

While I realize that some of the self-professed seasoned "pros" won't admit it, or will have their heads stuck so far up their asses they won't be able to read that..

What it means is that they absolutely do, definitely, and without a doubt have the means to rig a game in their best interests, those best interests being analyzing playing habits and converting the play money player to real money. How do you convert someone or retain them? By making them think they actually know how to play poker. And how do you do that?

...By fixing the outcome.

The longer you play without spending a dime, the more bad beats and ridiculous crap you can expect to see. Expect to be the repeated victim of action flops, ridiculous calls, etc. (I've actually personally witnessed it from a player that dropped from 13M to 4M chips over a period of time because they've never dropped a dime in real money on the site... simply because the credit card vendor would not allow their card to be used at an online gambling site and blocked the transaction). There's no sense in allowing you to consistently win/dominate tourneys when new "suckers" enter the arena all the time.

Since they have that ability for the play tables, they can easily have it for the real money tables too.

But that's ok. Carry on thinking you can actually play poker.

Wow... I so am not hiring you to interprit anything for me. Your comprehension skills need work.

So is skepticalatbest the first to suggest that the play money tables (lol) are the most rigged of anything?

I have to admit, I've neverheard that one before.

Actually, corporations are not as a whole found cheating all the time in the way riggedologists believe poker rooms cheat. All business and industry would collapse if that was somehow reality.



Level of customer service is a very valid concern, and you should contact the rooms about any concerns or suggestions you have in this area.



Realistically this will not mean much to nearly all players. Most do not care/worry about this, and the few that think that superbots are doomswitching them with timing effects when they complete a bonus on their laptop will believe that no matter how many audits are done.


Casual players do not wake up and think "hmm, what is the RnG auditing procedue." They worry about how they can deposit, withdraw, what promotions they can get etc.



No, what it means is you cannot read basic business speak. It's basically a brand management job, with one of the functions to increase the amount of play money players who become real money players.

Yeah, sinister - a company thinks of strategies to make more money. Wow. It has nothing to do with rigging the games, but finding strategies that would entice consumers to taking the next step (real money). Every company does this, what a weird thing to mis-interpret. Next time you see people/company giving a free sample of a product to try be sure to ask if they put heroin in it to addict the users...

In your world, the play money marketing manager would also be in on the whole rigged RnG thing. More people for the cave I guess.

No, it does not mean this at all. The utter shamelessness that you have in simply manufacturing bull**** and spewing it out like some sort of authority is amazing.
This is a reflection on your own thinking, not that of online poker sites. The fact that you take that job ad, and interpret it as a method of stealing from people says a lot about your total lack of integrity and your conniving mind, and nothing about PokerStars.

The fact that you have the mind of a thief and appear to be lying liar that lies is no evidence that online poker is rigged.

There is already scope for this in the IOM legislation, as posted in this thread a couple of times.

I do not know what regulations the Kahnawake have on this issue, but the fact that PokerStars moved from the KGC to the IOM seems to indicate that they already abide by this demand.

Thread is coming back to life.

Do you think when they hire the playmoney marketing guy, they then train them on the job on how to rig/program an RNG?

And no, this isn't the first time its been suggested that play money is rigged, although I'm too lazy to search for it in the thread now, but its there somewhere.

Back to the topic: jeez: 13M to what, 4M? Definitely worth investigating.

Conversion and retention exists in many types of online businesses. You obviously don't understand how this works.

QFT Any way to make this a banner for this thread?