Losing players wont have million hand samples, but losing players that later improved into winning players might have million hand samples.

Is it possible to test the null hypothesis hand distribution as losing player=hand distribution as a winning player for those players as a whole.

My first thoughts are that this is testable, but very, very difficult

The site makes more money cos the loser has to reload derrr.

And your justification is still hiding the fact that bigger stacks are winning more all ins than me calling with underdog hands they should lose with 70% but win 63%.
Stars all ins with bigger stacks in non cash games needs to be investigated.

i wonder what the % of yes's are loosing players

ok so investigate then? you can order your hands from ps and then run them in HEM or PT. post graph. this is not something you need an audit firm or something to do.

I already suggested you contact this fellow via PM

After all, he also sees patterns, but his are different, so maybe he can help you understand why your memory pattern mapper is off. Maybe you can both agree that medium stacks are the real way to go.


Sites make money on rake. Your "they make money if people reload theory" is a funny one. Why not email a site and ask them if they would be happy if you deposited $10 a day every day for a year and played a few hands of micro stakes each day.

I'm sure they will be thrilled paying hundreds a year in transaction costs for your $1 in rake they are making. At least in your world they would be.

it is also interesting how when it comes to cash games the theory is that the fish need to have the money last longer, while for tournaments they are to bust out faster so that they buy into another tourney faster, thus burning their money quicker.

Selective memory of riggedologist theories as with enough of a riggedologist sample size one can find pretty much every theory has someone that believes it is rigged in exactly the opposite manner.

The only thing all have in common is that they are never proven. One thing most have in common is that it involves micro stakes. Also, most riggedologists have no concept of basic math let alone real statistical analytical abilities.

Riggedologists are rigged in a way. Go figure.

I do not believe internet poker is rigged however I believe the sites greatly benefit from moving tournaments along as quickly as possible. I think there could possibly be some correlation with the hands you get and the possible action they may result from if you play those hands with other players. This would create more all-in situations in tournaments, more rake in cash games, and also dominated hands often times knocking out hands that were dominating them. I think cash wise for these sites they would have a lot to gain by having there programmers do this and there is no real way to prove this unless you personally are part of the board that makes the decisions on what to put in the software or the programmers themselves.

The random generators may not be as random as in a casino and it would be hard to do that because these generators were programmed and cannot be as random as a regular deck of cards. Good players are still going to beat the game in the long run. I think super users are a very rare thing and to keep that secret hidden for such a long time is very hard as the absolute poker scandal seemed to be easily uncovered after some research. I think there is some chance that PS and FTP are using "action hand" and "move tourney along" generators. This could account for your 20 losing streaks with sets and 20 winning streaks catching that inside straight.

Virtual decks of cards are shuffled to a greater degree of randomness then physical cards. Why you would assert that they cannot be is beyond me. Do some research on chaos theory and RNGs and get back to us.

OK.

This means you believe it is rigged.

Sites can make tournies run faster in a much simpler way - run more turbo tournaments.


This means you believe it is rigged.

It also is a made up theory that would be easily caught if actually true.

Go with Superbots in future - much harder to catch.



This means you believe it is rigged.

This also means you believe that all of these programmers who programmed these evil things for all of the sites (many of which are now defunct) have never told of their dark secret. Even the ones that are out of work.

Programmers - loyal till death.



This means you believe it is rigged.

It also means you like typing as you think of words.



And yet none of the programmers have ever spoken yet about all of the criminal activity they have seen first hand. To the death they keep this dark secret.


This means you believe it is rigged.

It also means you do not concern yourself with matters like "would this rigging even make the site money?"


This means you believe it is rigged.

It also means you think the sites would choose to rig it in the easiest ways ever to catch. While also making no extra money.



OK.

All the best.

Monteroy, are you really qualified to comment on this subject? All you ever seem to say is "they wouldn't do it" and "if they did it would be obvious".

I am not sure how you can make either of those claims with the certainty that you seem to attach to them.

Can you say with 100% certainty that the sites do not manipulate things in anyway?

I only ask because you seem a very strange person. People come here with concerns and you instantly ridicule them, call them names and belittle them without anything substantial to back up your claims. If you are in a position to use facts and statistics to highlight your opinion why not use those facts and statistics. I assume that you have done a great deal of work yourself in order to come to your conclusions. I understand that this is your passion, it's nice that you have something in your life which you feel is this important, but I don't think your contributions really help.

There are thousands of people who will not play online because they feel it is rigged. Because of these people and also for our own sakes we should be encouraging pokersites to open themselves up for regular inspections, maybe by a team put together on 2+2. Let them have an agreeable number of hand histories, from everyone, and audit them.

People with extreme expertise in this area have gone into mind numbing, boring detail why it would not be possible or practical and that changes not a single mind either. Riggedologists still think they magically see undetectable patterns that rigorous statistical analysis cannot find.

I just mention the common sense aspect and have fun with paranoid people.


I have said many times I can not prove that superbots or Lizard People do not exist. Similarly I cannot disprove the negative statement you are asking, because that is not how "proof" works.

I can say with 100% certainty that if any riggedologist every actually proved a single thing they claim is happening, I would be the first to support them.

Lizard People effect.


Usually I quote them so their words and ideas can speak for themselves. I praised the guy who said it was mafia from Russia and Israel for promoting unity between nations, so it's not all negative.




Spadebidder and others have tried. Just look through this thread for dozens of those hopeless conversations they have had with facts and statistics and theory vs riggedologist "I knows what I sees" beliefs.

I don't try to pretend to be that nice to actually educate riggedologists.

I never claimed I ever tried to genuinely help riggedologists understand the flaws in their thinking, though often times there is genuine advice in my mocking posts.

Others have genuinely tried to help riggedologists by explaining their logic errors and reasoning flaws. Yeah, that worked.

I'll stick with the fun plan.




Tons of people will still not use banking machines. Some will not use banks.

People can be paranoid however they choose, that is their right.



This is not a social service. If these beliefs were deep genuine major concerns for the market as a whole then the sites would makle it their number one issue to talk about and advertise.

Lots of new players like freerolls and free money more than RnG inspection teams.

You really belive that you can easy audit a rigged deck ?
Maybee pokerhands are random, but definetely poker is not as fair as it was 2004-2006. Todays bots are much stronger..not all superusers are detected...netrake increased...more and more software involved...more and more accounts abused / hacked.

Poker was nice for me 3-4 years, but today its waste of time for me

Maybee pokerhands are random - very likely

but definetely poker is not as fair as it was 2004-2006 - not sure I agree, I don't think it's necessarily fairer or less fair

Todays bots are much stronger - bots are a real threat indeed. but this is constantly a cat and mouse chase, if bots are getting stronger it is also reasonable to assume that sites are getting better at catching bots. at least the larger sites

not all superusers are detected - well since they aren't detected we can't know they exist, can we? for all we know there may be tons of superupers out there, or there may be none. personally I think the chance is small that there are superusers on any of the bigger sites, but the risk gets larger the smaller and more obscure sites you play on.

more and more software involved - this one I agree with

netrake increased - really? not saying you are wrong but please show figures

more and more accounts abused / hacked - this is not a site integrity issue though, it's about being smart about your own account (site and email accounts) security


Comparing todays poker to a few years back I think the main reason for concern is simply that the games have become tougher.

Of course online poker is rigged. The trick is to pay off the dealer before you sit down at the table.

Between 2003 and 2006 you pay less rake, you get on a douzend sites easy 4 times more RB than today...and on many sites more than 100%...you could loose in poker and still win. Guess my best was 1200 $ for 14000 dealt hands NL25.

Hacking accounts , manipulating ATMs, cheating during life gambling is total common. Off course 1000s try to cheat with onlinepoker...and i bet a few are successfull.

This was during the rapid growth stage of the market where a ton of new companies entered and a ton of new players jumped in. A lot of money was spent in very inefficient ways to lure players, and some smaller networks (Crypto for instance) eventually created a system that gave an obscene amount of rakeback/bonus to the low stakes players - well over 500% for those extremely efficient.

That type of condition cannot last because it simply cannot make money. Why would anyone move up when they can get paid to sit and fold every hand except KK/AA at lower stakes at no risk and earn as much as being a decent player several levels higher.

Online casinos were even crazier in their rewards in the day.

I took advantage of this as much as anyone, but I also realized that it was not a situation that could last unless this industry behaved completely different from every other one before it in terms of it's business cycle.

What happened is what always happens - the market matured and sites that gave away too much got swarmed by advantage players who cost the sites money. Eventually many of the smaller networks failed/merged with larger ones and a more long term sustainable reward system was in place on the sites that remain.

You and a few others no longer have the "I can lose at poker and still win" games available to you, but that was never something that could last forever. That's your problem.

Next time work on your game even in those situations and you will be better prepared for the change when it happens.





RSA tokens have pretty much eliminated hacking at Stars for those that have them. Your other stuff is just weird made up stuff based on the frustration of your situation.


- The games got tougher over time (as they always will)

- The rewards got more in line with long term market sustainability (as they always will)

- Your bad game that could make money in the good old days no longer works.


Not too complicated.

How the hell do you know if he's a bad poker player?

The failing of the small networks was more due to UIGA then their modals.

I reduced poker dramatic and used the free money from the good times to
invest money in stocks. Poker is now waste of time for me..i am not frustrated it was nice but not these days.

In fact its not important rigged or not rigged...only winning a good hourly rate or not. Its definetely not a good hourly ammount for me

Basic reading comprehension skills. He basically said it himself more than once. He was one of the guys that made money from bonus/rakeback regardless of how they did at the tables (they generally lost at a healthy clip at the tables since they never played a hand). Some sites gave these guys 500%+ rakeback so they won when losing or as he said

I don't fault these guys for taking advantage of the situation when they could, but their complaints today are not ones that matter because they were never desired customers anyway, as much like casino bonus whores they were advantage players.


I played against these guys for a long time on the Crypto network, and they were very open about why they did what they did - learning/becoming skilled at poker was not really on their to do list. Not sure why you think this is an issue, none of them ever claimed they were skilled at the game.


That sped up the process by artificially removing a huge chunk of the market, but it would have gone through the same changes in a matter of time. By now it would have been pretty much where it is.

You realize though that sometimes there is "cheating" going on in the stock market as well.

I think if UIGA were repealed and the expenses (for sites), hassles and fear it's illegal to play were gone you would see a lot more of those smaller "mom and pop" sites, but it's just a guess. .

Ya and if the Illuminatti didn't **** things up, they wouldn't of ran all the "mom and pop" businesses into the ground....errr or something like that...
It's UIGEA and if it poker was regulated, I don't think think the small sites that you reference, could compete...

today i had 4bad beats in a row(all in, at the turn, one card to go) two 2 outers, and two 1 outers. You should say poker is rigged not online poker is rigged, this was a live game lol