It's a semi cute gimmick, and I do like the concept of someone attempting to be a troll of the "shills" (basically its what I do here except I target the riggedologists), but there has been little diversity in the approach (except the doddering old man guy act which was not bad).

This incarnation (with all of its naive/question asking routine) is like watching a re-run and even though some people will still pointlessly respond to that act, but even that is not as funny as it could be.


There is some decent material in his routine like

which makes fun of riggedologists (who would probably think this is genuinely a good idea) and "shills" who would try to seriously dismiss it.

The rest though is leftover old moose junk and his pre old moose junk. Been there, done that. It's like if I started quoting the riggedologist commandments and never took a break from it.

I give props to the guy/girl/other who took the time to create this character, though given he/she/other does it so much on so many boards one has to eventually wonder if it is a bit too much of a hobby. Still, I have no doubt that many of his targets will continue to willingly comply with his needs by responding to his troll posts. For what it is worth, he/she probably is a losing player at poker and this is a good way for him to handle that situation.

If he/she/other has a nice twist at any point I will mention that, as I do like a creative character. As is - kind of boring.

Guess we will see how many "shills" keep directly responding even though it is clearly a gimmick troll poster.

What are you studying? Not English, obviously!

What exactly is the language you are using? Is it sort of like Ebonics?

Yep stock markets is " cheating " also usual, but its easier beatable for a good hourly rate. I simple dont make 20-30$ / hour with poker..my free time is limited " FULL TIME JOB ". In my opinion cheating and rigging is more or less usual in all areas of live...ok...ok..ok not in onlinepoker

Well I thought this was a debate...If this was an informative, "Wanted + Reward thread" I'd refer people to the FBI or the United States Secret Service rather then post publicly....

Please let the rigtards start emailing their complaints to the Secret Service, that would be epic.

just doin' my duty, sir.

LOL

Mark, I'm a little busy right now. Can you just tell me if any of the frequently asked questions give us some suggestions on what to do if we think our poker sites are cheating us?

Oh, and should we be writing to the U.N. as well?

From US Secret Service web site FAQ

Protecting Yourself

• How can I detect counterfeit currency?
• How can I protect myself against credit card fraud?
• What should I do if I think I have been victimized by credit card fraud or identity theft?
• How do I report a case of advance fee fraud (also known as "4-1-9 fraud")?
• How can I protect myself against check fraud?
• How can I protect myself against telemarketing fraud?
• How can I protect my privacy?
• How can I identify a rigged poker site?

Ok, at first I thought you were putting way too much effort into this gag by linking all that. But the last one brought it all home! A+, and to mark as well!

If you toggle the comment mode you can copy and paste directly from other sites including links and style. Go advanced and click on the A in the upper right. You didn't think I did all that manually? That would be too much effort.

for a while i played in a bar poker league where we'd play 3 superturobo sng's a night. the blinds moved up fast and we played maybe 4-6 hands per blindlevel (not nearly as many hands as you'd see online, and therefore the chance of bad beats should be theoretically less than online). I would see this (the crazy beats you're talking about) happen constantly, where people get the one miracle card on the river, after we went all in on the turn (not to mention the millions of times it would happen if we went all in preflop).

The craziest hand I saw, was AA vs KK vs JsQs. The flop was KKsAs, followed by an A, and a 10s.

After seeing how a normal deck plays, i am not that surprised by online beats, considering how many more hands you see.

Sounds like you have a pretty good understanding of what "random" means. Most people think it means things should come out neatly in the expected ratios and even card distributions. Nothing could be further from the truth in the short term, it takes a while for that to mostly be true, and by that time selective memory sets in. Remember that bumper sticker sht happens? That's what random means.

PokerStars Game #34890886278: Tournament #208676927, 10FPP Hold'em No Limit - Level X (400/800) - 2009/11/03 20:00:43 ET
Table '208676927 1' 9-max Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: candpa (34186 in chips)
Seat 2: Target_10067 (17190 in chips)
Seat 3: j_thingy (3242 in chips)
Seat 4: royoboy (29462 in chips)
Seat 6: filou69 (13318 in chips)
Seat 8: ducksie10 (4095 in chips)
Seat 9: Skokky (13402 in chips)
candpa: posts the ante 75
Target_10067: posts the ante 75
j_thingy: posts the ante 75
royoboy: posts the ante 75
filou69: posts the ante 75
ducksie10: posts the ante 75
Skokky: posts the ante 75
candpa: posts small blind 400
Target_10067: posts big blind 800
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Skokky [Ah Ac]
j_thingy: folds
royoboy: folds
filou69: raises 2400 to 3200
ducksie10: folds
Skokky: calls 3200
candpa: raises 30911 to 34111 and is all-in
Target_10067: folds
filou69: calls 10043 and is all-in
Skokky: calls 10127 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (20784) returned to candpa
*** FLOP *** [4c 6s Kd]
*** TURN *** [4c 6s Kd] [Jc]
*** RIVER *** [4c 6s Kd Jc] [Jd]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
candpa: shows [Kc Jh] (a full house, Jacks full of Kings)
Skokky: shows [Ah Ac] (two pair, Aces and Jacks)
candpa collected 168 from side pot
filou69: shows [Ad 6d] (two pair, Jacks and Sixes)
candpa collected 41054 from main pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 41222 Main pot 41054. Side pot 168. | Rake 0
Board [4c 6s Kd Jc Jd]
Seat 1: candpa (small blind) showed [Kc Jh] and won (41222) with a full house, Jacks full of Kings
Seat 2: Target_10067 (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 3: j_thingy folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: royoboy folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: filou69 showed [Ad 6d] and lost with two pair, Jacks and Sixes
Seat 8: ducksie10 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: Skokky (button) showed [Ah Ac] and lost with two pair, Aces and Jacks

Few really appreciate how powerful the selective memory process is when they see weird stuff happen, and I guess one thing that makes my eyes roll is that the stuff riggedologist complain about are what regular players see every day because it should just happen with enough hands.

They also only notice the really bad plays that work. Just looking at my tournaments in the past 30 minutes, one featured a special player that would certainly generate lots of rigged beliefs after winning some hands the way he did.


PokerStars Game #34890711243: Tournament #209371360, $30+$3 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level VI (100/200) - 2009/11/03 19:54:34 ET
Table '209371360 1' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 2: crispin1 (3760 in chips)
Seat 4: Monteroy (1710 in chips)
Seat 6: yapik78 (8030 in chips)
yapik78: posts small blind 100
crispin1: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [Kd 3d]
Monteroy: folds
yapik78: calls 100
crispin1: raises 3560 to 3760 and is all-in
yapik78: calls 3560
*** FLOP *** [Qs Jd 4s]
*** TURN *** [Qs Jd 4s] [8h]
*** RIVER *** [Qs Jd 4s 8h] [8s]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
yapik78: shows [Kc Qc] (two pair, Queens and Eights)
crispin1: shows [8d 3c] (three of a kind, Eights)
crispin1 collected 7520 from pot


Must be rigged after all. What they always leave out are the other hands that do not stand out like that where his bad play results in what it should.

PokerStars Game #34890584382: Tournament #209371360, $30+$3 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level V (75/150) - 2009/11/03 19:50:58 ET
Table '209371360 1' 9-max Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: el_simoca (2426 in chips)
Seat 2: crispin1 (1659 in chips)
Seat 4: Monteroy (2385 in chips)
Seat 6: yapik78 (7030 in chips)
Monteroy: posts small blind 75
yapik78: posts big blind 150
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [As 8s]
el_simoca: raises 150 to 300
crispin1: calls 300
Monteroy: folds
yapik78: folds
*** FLOP *** [6c 3h Jh]
el_simoca: checks
crispin1: checks
*** TURN *** [6c 3h Jh] [Ad]
el_simoca: checks
crispin1: checks
*** RIVER *** [6c 3h Jh Ad] [Jd]
el_simoca: checks
crispin1: bets 450
el_simoca: calls 450
*** SHOW DOWN ***
crispin1: shows [7d 2h] (a pair of Jacks)
el_simoca: shows [Qh Qd] (two pair, Queens and Jacks)
el_simoca collected 1725 from pot

There were several more plays of this level that won and lost him pots in the sit and go as there will be when a player like this plays like he does, nothing more nothing less.


All he is is a manaic that will get in very strange spots because the action is what matters to him. No fancy rigging needed, lots of guys are like this and generally their long term results are horrific. The fact that crazy things happen when maniacs play is a byproduct of how they play.


What would a riggedologist do? They would post the hand where he got runner runner 8s and leave out all the rest and assume it meant something. Well, ok most riggedologists would post hands from freerolls or 10 MPP tourneys they play, but the point still stands.

Then go all in whenever you have the big stack.
[X] Easy Profit
[X] No brainer

Oh wait, you mean only when the other guy has the big stack... I get it now.

Monteroy obv plays on Stars. My HH is proof of that. Not sure what your proof is other than an active imagination.




Nice of them to do that, should be easy for you to prove your case then. I realize you posting a single hand in a 10 FPP tournament signifies that to you, but there is a chance that people play a bit wild in those for reasons you can figure out.

Also, why would stars rig 10 FPP tournaments exactly?



Then you should be able to show a good statistical study on all the hands for all of these tournaments for a period of time to make your case stronger.

Or you can post a single hand in a freeroll I guess for now.

And you can continue losing at a healthy clip in the $2 MTTs you play - which good job somehow being the fish in those.

All the best.


P.S. Someone in a rebuy today was screaming about how Stars rigs it to make people rebuy more. When someone pointed out (not me oddly enough) that Stars makes zero rake on the extra rebuys and add-ons all that did was generate a reply of "YES THEY DO - $5 EACH!" (this was in the $5 rebuy.)

So his theory was Stars rigs it to get people to put $5 more in and even though that entire $5 goes into the player prize pool they make a killing on it somehow. Maybe it is through volume of rebuys at $0 profit each.

So they can get more 10 FPP tournies popping off so they can get more ra...son of a bitch.



I'll get back to you!

You obv play on stars.

As I said above just ask for your hand histories, enter into HEM/PT3, post your results here.

omg finally someone have the proof to bring the poker sites down!!!!!

eagerly awaiting you posting your stats.

I commend you for posting a HH....

Didn't know about that, I've been wasting time attaching links! Thanks!

Volume, definitely. Anybody who read Catch-22 knows that.

Just wanted to quote somebody from a different thread that sums up my whole point...

That's a shame, because that quote is fundamentally wrong on a number of levels.
Obviously the rule of law and contract enforcement is a key part of any credible libertarian view of the life.
I recognise that some people might have a xenophobia, but these comments are really just a thinly veiled bigoted view dressed up in friendly words.

The rule of law was not invented in the USA.
Democracy was not invented in the USA.
Stable parliamentary systems were not invented in the USA.
Independent judicial systems were not invented in the USA.
High quality online gaming regulation was not invented in the USA.

The suggestion that laws, regulations, and other associated issues, are weaker because they're not American is frankly offensive and fundamentally wrong and bigoted.

Further, given that the US Government appears to be so hopelessly captured by special interest groups and money, it's a bit rich for you Americans to lecture the rest of us on the importance of good regulation. You Americans (in concert with the Europeans and Japanese) impose widespread poverty on many developing nations through your offensive agriculture regulations that favour your special interests. You Americans gives special cash handouts and favourtism in breach of the trade agreements that you have signed with other countries... You Americans have been found guilty by the WTO of discriminating against small countries on gambling regulation... and then your people claim that your regulators or your government is somehow fairer than the rest of the world's? Give me a break.
No it is not.

I don't know why people repeat this falsehood when it is clearly untrue.

Not only do players who play under credibly regulated jurisdictions (eg, IOM or any other European country) have the last resort option of litigation, they also have the option of just contacting the regulator and asking them to intervene.

This doesn't even require lawyers or any cost to the complainant. Of course, not every complaint is upheld, just as not every complaint is dismissed. I've even repeatedly made posts in this very thread outlining a procedure that players can use to confirm that it is impossible to rig a flop, turn or river with the regulators, yet not one person has bothered to put the effort in.

While I recognise that you were just quoting someone else, TK1133, the comments about regulation that you have quoted is just yet another intellectually lazy and fundamentally ignorant comment on the issue.

I think he was talking about his particular Country and situation, that being the USA....

So this is why we shouldn't regulate online poker?