Those 911 posters are downright scary, and I'm not even joking.

I respect your privacy...I don't believe that, and it's all good, but I'll ask: What do you do?

On this site? I'm bout to go look...

Nor do I intend to. You have the burden of proof backwards. I have made no claims about the fairness of the deal. I personally believe it is fairly dealt. Some people have claimed it has been rigged this way or that. When such a claim is made the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

If you must have one though, how about the reality that no matter how many times the dataset is tested, no matter how deeply, and in no matter which way the result has always been the same: the deal appears to be fair? It's certainly a higher degree of proof met then your meandering thoughts ungrounded by evidence.

First off, you don't have everything quite striaght, and secondly the facts you do have apply only to a small subset of on-line cardrooms.

Why would we want to do that?

You seem to want me to argue for trusting the companies rather then in testing the data. Yet you earlier claimed to be a scientist. What kind of a scientist do you claim to be, sir?

I'm referring to all of the sites.
Money laundering happens at these sites. That's a fact.
Wherever there is money laundering, there is the mafia.

I'm all here, and normal, educated, etc. etc. I'm not a tin foil conspiracy nut. I'm not a "truther". I enjoy logic and reasoning.

Now, to the scientist AaronT who judges science fair's, I just want one logical and reasonable explanation of why I should trust Pokerstars, Fulltilt, or any internet poker site. This logical reason needs to be greater than the negative reasons which have already plagued online poker. As Mark Seif himself so eloquently stated in his defense of UB/AP..."this could happen anywhere. It could happen on pokerstars. It could happen on Full tilt."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kuY6r-R0SY

Well Seif, I actually agree with you there. He seems like a logical person doesn't he? Lawyers are gifted with such skills. He sure as hell made sense when he said that. Why should we ignore that?

There are many ways to rig something. It doesn't have to involve a rigged deal which, over a large sample, wouldn't even show anomalies if the "rigged deal" occurred under a certain frequency. I make no claims about having proof that online poker is rigged at sites other than UB/AP. I really don't. The only thing I'm doing is using logic and reasoning to extrapolate the results we've already seen. When I say results, I don't mean results from UB/AP only. I mean results from ANY industry which is unregulated and involving large sums of money(wall street, old school Las vegas to name a couple). There is corruption. It is human and expected. To ingore this would be ******ed, and I use that word because when you people claim others as "rig-tarded", it's actually completely opposite to assume that big money and no regulation = not rigged.

We get it though. We know internet poker is your cash cow. I don't blame you for defending it either. Just treat the people that have legitimate concerns with more respect, and that way, you can continue to do what we all know you're doing, and we can continue to do what you know we're doing. Capiche?

In before merge....

Great then you won't mind providing some proof since it is a "fact". And I don't mean take an example of once it happening in a small rinky dink site somewhere. You used a blanket statement so back it up as a blanket statement.

Also, for the record, money laundering is not restricted to "the mafia". It goes on all over the world. Not that it matters, but it does illustrate how warped your mind seems to be.

This is clearly false.

You're right. Thinking that these unregulated sites are corrupt would be so far in conspiracy land that I need a straight-jacket strapped onto me right now

Even though two major online poker sites were caught cheating, I would still be a a complete wacko to think that could happen anywhere else.

Do you trust energy companies? Would it be justified if I didn't trust ANY energy company regulated in the USA because of Enron?

Also, I noticed you conveniently ignored the first part of my response about proving the money laundering accusation you made.

Additionally, your reading comprehension of the thread could use some work. No one is saying that it couldn't happen somewhere else. But we also aren't lunatics that think every site is out to get us and we can actually see that there really isn't any evidence of any of the notable sites doing anything wrong.

In fact, it is funny you keep bringing up AP/UB as Josem was a key player in bringing those issues to light. You ever see the 60 Minutes report on it? He was in it.

I think prima is rigged, that site is dam tough.

False. Making an unsubstantiated assertion does not make it true. No matter how small the rigging, any deviation from a fair deal will show up in a large enough sample. The smaller the deviation from a fair deal, the larger the sample must be to distinguish the rigging from randomness, but any deviation whatsoever will show up. This is just a mathmatically reality you cannot escape.

Forget proof, how about the smallest shread of evidence?

Wallstreet at any time past or present is just about the most regulated bunch of transactions on the planet. I'm not sure they fit your criteria of an unregulated industry.

And once more, you keep stating that online pokerrooms are unregulated. That is false. You might make the claim they are underregulated, but that would still be an opinion. But you cannot expect your false "facts" to be stated time and time as support of your position. You cannot base conclusions on false facts. That will not work.


Assumption maskerading as fact. If you have evidence, then provide it. Otherwise you need to phrase it as the belief that it is, such as "I believe the sites are corrupt." As it stands it makes you not the site out to be the unethical one, because that is slander.

Conclusion based on false facts, unsubstantiated opinion, and conclusions not following from assumptions.

Appeal to motive fallacy.

When they do, I do.

Rigging in this thread has been defined as rigging the RNG. This thread is not about the other ways that sites/people can cheat in online poker, such as superusers, bots, cashouts, etc. These are all serious topics and there are plenty of threads about them. This thread only focusses on rigging the RNG.

There is no-one here who has called the online poker sites angels. It's just that there has been absolutely no reliable evidence that any of the major sites are rigging the RNG.

Maybe stars is rigged, or FT also.
I don't know, is there a thread on 2+2 regarding this issue?
I think not... Cmon OP time to make an ''online poker is rigged'' thread!

I'll go ahead and draw on occam's razor to answer your laundering question. When there are two competing theories, the simplest explanation is usually correct. You claim that money laundering doesn't happen even though it would be easy to do so in online poker. I claim money laundering does happen because it would be easy to do so in online poker. I guess I really don't have a fact for you. A little logic sprinkled over reason and a dash of occam - but no fact.

The Enron/energy scandal is a horrible analogy. The difference in the Enron scandal and the UB/AP scandal is that the people from Enron were brought to justice and punished for what they did. That's at least a deterrent to other companies not to repeat the behavior. There was no justice brought for the crimes at UB/AP, and thus there is no deterrent at all.

Money laundering is very likely going on in online poker, and most likely takes the form of chip dumping. This is very different from rigging the RNG.

Occum's Razor is an excellent tool, but you don't quite have it down yet. Let's look at the two models and see which is the simplier model:

1) Operational poker site doing A,B,C,D,E,F, and G.

2) Operational poker site doing A,B,C,D,E,F, G, AND money laundering.

Assuming the evidence does not distinuish the cases, Occum's Razor calls for the simplier model, which is clearly 1).

You've misapplied it.

I'm glad you've researched it though. Occum's Razor is a beautiful tool.

It would be easy for you to do a lot of crimes. You could steal from your mother, you could steal from your work. So can I assume you are a thief?

I think he is referring to the site itself though :/

As usual, 'ibluffoldladies' manufactures facts to suit himself.

Of course, it is not a "fact" that money laundering happens at these sites.

Even the US Government admits that there is no criminal money laundering happening there: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...95&postcount=8
This is all just more lies.

Fellas, honestly I didn't read all of the posts in this thread, and I'm not going to invest my time doing so. I'm not paid to do that If this is just a thread about rigging the RNG, then maybe the title should be changed to note that. As it stands, the title simply states "rigged" - which in my assumption could mean a lot of things. The posts I have read were just the most recent ones, probably the last 50 or so.

I will add this however. You could still rig the RNG and over a large sample and notice no anomalies. How? Let's say one software update rigged the RNG for one month in a certain way. The next software update rigged the RNG in another way for one month. Looking at the data for both months however shows no anomalies because the "riggings" were created to even out the data. I'm not saying it happens that way, but it is an example of how it could happen, and no anomalies noted if you look at both months together. Extrapolate that out to whatever sample size you want. The way to cheat then obviously is to just know how it's rigged a certain month (let's say an insider working for the site), and play accordingly. It could go back and forth like this for years and nothing could be noticed.

This is exactly what I'm referring to. I'm not claiming the sites themselves setup money laundering. I'm claiming it can be easily done through chip dumping and hence, they setup an easy way to launder money for criminals - whether intentional or not.

Keep up the good work mom, don't let anyone get you down. Stick with it

Of course you could catch those, too. Hand histories are timestamped so it's possible to pick up on occolations, especially if they effected things like EV, like it sounds like you have in mind, but to be sure of what you have in mind,
please provide one sample rigging concept that has an opposite that could be exploited through play that you don't think could be caught.

So how would this make the sites any more money? And why would they do it?

This is a little more understandable. But what does this have to do with any sort of rigging in any way? And how is the mafia involved again? Fill me in.

That seems unlikely given the context of post #9765. It was specifically using on-line pokerrooms' corruptions as analogous to Enron.

Seems like a rather convenient change of position, but okay... so is it now your position that the on-line pokerrooms themselves do not money launder?