And that online monopoly game mcd's is doing is more rigged than any poker site could get away with!

Yup. I'll probably crack a straight flush with a royal flush before I ever see a Boardwalk! Rigged game.. rigged I say!

rigged or not rigged seems the wrong question.

Do you win or do you loose ?
Do you have fun or not ?
Is it worth the time ?

are better once

for me break even, a bit fun but never worth the time.

I am down from 60 K hands / month to 1-2 K / thats ok for me rigged or not rigged

I prefer playing live. I do pretty good and I still enjoy it very much. I'm more of a people person who likes to drink a little and socialize while I play. And I like the fact that I can see my opponents (and the cocktail waitresses that bring me my drinks).

I'm a losing player online. My money lasts me a while, but eventually it goes. It's tough as **** to beat because the players are so much better and have programs that help them play. One day I might take the time to actually learn how to use PT or HEM. For now though it doesn't make sense, financially, to go back to playing online. The only big losses I've ever suffered were online. I think I'm down around $4-$5k online. Live I'm up almost $50k in two years.. and that's after I payed my bills.

But even though I've lost online (and suffered ridiculous beats), I don't think it's rigged. I just think there's no edge for me playing against better players and having to move down to limits that I find too small to hold my interest. It's all my fault.. it's not the cards, not the deal and definitely not the site IMHO.

Cue the violens....

what are you trying to say?

Cue the violins...
Cue the violence...

OR

are you attempting to communicate in Spanish?

Is tk bleeding this time of month? Are you tk??

THINK ABOUT THIS

Could this be hidden in the rng deal program.

These are my stats for stars late in mtts on the bubble.

Bigger stacks winning all ins 63% of the time with underdog atc.


And I suspect for everyone.

1) I keep hearing that short-stacks win too often too. Which is it?

2) You can produce data to back these claims up?

also...
keep trying, buddy. keep trying.

ive lost so much money on pokerstars due to bad beats every single hand...

im serious dont just "lol" and close the thread.

is ftp a overall better site that pokerstars?
does it have as many bad beats and should i play there instead?

every site's card deals are random...ftp is worse than pokerstars...worse CS support, only good thing is rakeback. stick with stars

good luck with this one

then how come all the high stakes people
only play on ftp and so does like every1 else 0_0

lulz

lol

/close

Play better...

roffle, seriusly.

rigged against you, the whole world is against you

lol.

I think closing this thread would be funnier but I'm still gonna merge it anyway...

also, in after merge.

Superbots?


Superbots!


Superbots?


Superbots!

Sorry - lol Superbots!


Their superbots provide worse customer service if that matters.

You will lose everywhere, just blame superbots then it will never be your fault.

Were there like...supposed to be pictures or something? Because AORN, this post makes no sense.

You better let pokerscout know; they seem to think Stars has almost 70% more players than FT.

Originally Posted by Skokky View Post
Let me explain further.

THINK ABOUT THIS
You are on the bubble of an mtt at stars.

You get AA go all in and get called by the biggest stack,
with 22 and get busted by the 22 making a flush.

My arguement is that the big stacks win more all ins late in the mtt with underdog atc than early in mtt's.

These all too common bad beats would be easy to program to occur late in mtts with smaller stacks winning more all ins early in mtts thus hide the late bad beats in the "sic fair deal statistics" in the rng deal program.

These are my stats for stars late in mtts on the bubble.

Bigger stacks winning all ins 63% of the time with underdog atc.


Look at the report done on a million hands of stars all ins elsewhere on this forum.

That independant report also said that bigger stacks were winning 50% of allin hands with atc .

Whats got me totally fkked is why this theory is condemned rather than researched further by all of us.

Its not about playing better its about beating the programmers.

How does this allow the site to make more money?

You should also think about why the big stack in an MTT might be expected to win more all-in confrontations, on average. As stacks get smaller, shoving ranges get wider. That's basic tournament strategy, and it could easily result in a skew to the big stack, with a completely honest deal. The big stack's calling range is going to be narrower than the short stack's shoving range, on average. This should be true even with players who understand the concept of "effective" stack sizes. And the short stack will face multiple larger stacks at the table, by definition. Think.