Go to the IoM Gambling Commission site and you will find many many pages of Internal Control Systems procedures and regulations, including surprise inspections, all of which applies to sites that they license (like PS).

IOM Commission doesnt do the inspection and testing themselves, they hire out. When I go to the link of one of their hired tester sites, this is what I see first:

The link you are about to follow will take you to a site not maintained or endorsed by Isle of Man Public Services.
Isle of Man Public Services accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or currency of information provided on external sites.

http://www.ecogra.org

How does an organization that doesnt handle its own auditing and inspections choose a company to do this for them? It is like allowing the blind or the visually impaired to drive.

I am trying to find any semblance of an answer to this question on the IoM site.

Online poker is nothing but rigged set up hands and donks getting lucky.
Completely asinine that these sites are allowed to continue ruining bankrolls as well as lives, when they haven't passed any type of inspection in 5 years.
Anyone with any type of intuition will eventually realize that these sites are bogus.

After final tabling the last 5 of 8 tournaments live the last couple of weeks, I can see that something is not right with online poker. Whether it is purposefully or not, I just dont need to be wasting much more of my time online. I dont know who or what to believe any longer outside of my own eyes and intuition. It has done me pretty well during my life, so I will just trust myself from now on.

Not sure why you wasted all this time, most of us knew you were just a riggedologist anyway. Now you can join Bucketfoot and others who could not hack it online and whine about it after, blaming everything possible (sites, shills, lizard people) but themselves. The few hands you posted demonstrated why you lose pretty clearly.

You know, if you just play single table SnGs online you will final table a ton of tournaments that way. Wouldn't shock me if a good chunk of the several hundred live final tables you claim to have made (one of the thread's weirdest claims) had 11 people to start or something. Congrats on those final tables...

Anyway, good choice, now you can be one of those live guys who's always moaning about how rigged the online game is at the table. Everyone loves that guy. Seriously.

Some people play for fun so their bankroll being "ruined" is not really an issue. To them it is like spending money on a movie. Many others who play seriously do just fine.

You happen to think you can play seriously but lack the skill to do so, so you lost everything. That's on you, not the evil sites. The best choice you can make in all honesty in terms of EV is never playing again. If whining about conspiracies restores some dignity for you then go for it. You still suck at poker.


While nobody will ever actually do this, it would be genuinely funny to see a list of all the things various riggedologists have claimed they do in this thread. Literally hundreds have posted and made all sorts of expertise claims and yet not a single one comes close to ever making the sense that spade, pyro, KingofFelt or Josem make with regards to the math/techie issues.

I know how to program the device that records TV shows the rare time I watch, and that's barely, and most of riggedologist self proclaimed experts make even me feel relatively knowledgeable with programming at times after some of the claims they make.


Although spade politely replied to this fellow, I would actually put this up there as literally one of the dumbest things said in this thread. It's like saying there is no meaningful difference if a bank teller stole money from your account or an entire bank had a system to steal from all of it's customers.

Know what I want for the new year?

- A riggedologist that posts hands from tournaments $20 or more.
- New exciting theories, maybe involving weather patterns or something.
- Spade to post this analysis he is doing already :P
- A riggedologist to show proof that he actually tried to utilize his pattern mapping skills (even if they failed). If you say KK always loses to ace rag all in deep then show me your hands where you charge with 100 BB with A6o knowing you are dominated but will win because of how it is rigged.

All the best.

I think the claim was pretty easy to connect with my point of view. I am getting dealt some ****ty cards online especially on one site in particular. This doesnt happen live and you could see in my past history online that I was doing well until I cashed out. I have been doomswitched or running bad ever since. The only hand history that I put up here was a poor example of my play. I did list my screen names so that you could see that I was not lying about the fact that I do know how to put some winning streaks together when I am not running bad or getting doomswitched. Here is my screen names again, you can see how all of the sudden...out of nowhere, I cant play. Badmonkey619 on FT and UhOhIt'sJoe on Stars. You can see that I dont frequent the single table SNG's. Also, the final table amount was live and online for the last 6 years. Not much of a brag.

Seriously, Do you think that your $2500 in profit from your nitty style of just cashing makes you the authority? What does that convert to? $6 an hour? You are not even out of single A ball yet, so you are no authority.

It is so curious that you are always in this thread trying to minimize the opinions of people who are not willing to buy into your way of thinking. You respond like a shill. So make your money. Have your fun, I dont need any more of it.

I appologize, you are up $7600 this year. Congratulations, you made the Single A allstar team. Maybe some day you will make it to AAA.

OK, you have accounted for the tracked Stars MTTs. Good start. Now you need to account for the Stars SnGs (nearly all from this year), the various Stars VIP type tourneys that are not included at OPR (like turbo takedowns/SN weekly ones etc), the cash game stats (which seemed to only start being tracked for Omaha recently), the ipoker cash game stats, the ipoker VIP tournament results (including a Rolex and some ipods which were bizarre), the bonuses and rakeback and VIP benefits, the sports betting (bonus whoring/line arbitraging as well as being a Performy MMA follower - props to him), and the online casino whoring.

You are not a bad player because of a single bad hand you posted. You are a bad player because how you analyze situations is severely flawed. You never take the time to really understand how something or with me how someone works. Instead you grab bits of information (my OPR or your beliefs about the hands you feel you get online) and run with it wherever it takes you. Essentially you are a zero level logic user.

That hand you posted showed you are a losing player primarily because of how you explained the hand after. Everyone makes some boneheaded plays, but it was how you approached the game itself which showed you will not be a winner.

Stick with live. Seriously. It's the correct move for a guy like you to make. You will never be able to consitently beat online competition, even low stakes.

All the best.

Bro, who are you to make the assumption he is a bad player because of one HH? I am a winning player also so do not make your judgement of online poker from your winnings. Basicall what you're saying is that online poker is definetely not rigged and that the "bad players" are the one's yelling "rigged"... but how do you know this?? one hand history means nothing

Work on your assumptions about assumptions skill. Maybe time them better.


Lots of riggedologists claim to be a winning player, few ever prove it to any serious level. You never did I would assume (correct me if I am wrong with your screen names, I missed your first time here with your manifestos).

Show me a riggedologist that posted anywhere in this thread that is a winning player and plays tournaments for more than 20 bucks (not saying that is a high level, but even that level pretty much cuts them all off). Hell, show me a losing one that at least plays at that level.

Also, he was not on tilt that hand, he just played it horribly given the context of the tournament and opponents and stack sizes. He even realized that after, but it showed his approach to the game itself was flawed, and that is a much more serious problem than simply tilt shoving a bad hand once in a while.

Well you just found one.. I did post my account name a while back but was constantly harrassed at the tables so will not do again.

And have played everything from .10-1000$ MTT/STT. and up to 2/4 NL. I'm a winning player at 100$+ HU sng also (small sample)

This all means nothing though..., the point i am trying to make is that I have seen many many hand histories and many different situations to be able to come to a rational conclusion

So your proof of being a winning player is you saying again you are a winning player and then giving an excuse why you will not prove it?

Riggedologist logic at it's finest.

You can turn off observer chat by the way or report abusers, so come up with a more creative lie as to why you will not show you are a winning player. Say that the sites are watching and they will time your doomswitches or something.

Shrug. Prove it. If nothing else it will show you are capable of telling some form of actual truth once in a while ( I know you genuinely believe everything you say - but that is not the same thing).

^ PM sent

And how does the site know this? Do they assume "CuTiEgurl456" is actually a cute 20 something female?

Also, most players connected with the site have that connection because they did ok in a donkament, and they then proceed to just bleed money online. How many of Stars' or FTP's pros actually have any sort of profits online? I can't think of too many (Ivey, Antonius, barryg1(?)), maybe a few others. How do Stars and FTP benefit from Kidpoker and Gus Hansen being considered fish and losing tons of money?

Oh dammit, there I go again with testable examples, I forgot the only "proof" allowed in this thread is baseless, often misguided, speculation. One shark crushing everyone, like BoyWonder or nanonoko? Do they have a set shark allowance, where once they have 250, they start doomswitching the rest? Sharks aren't bad for the site because they'll never play the random microstakes fish. People with enough money to feed those players aren't going to suspect anything if they lose, because the money is irrelevant to them, and they want to play the "best" and win a few pots, they don't go into it expecting to clean out the dude's account.

Party Poker

Ive just started playing on there and I datamine the site religiously. First all in luck against a new player - can be a fish or a 'non-fish' - 100% guarantee 1-4 outer on the river for him/her to win.

Has anyone noticed this ****? I could go through my whole database and get all the hands if I must but it is beyond ****ing ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure that a lot of good stuff will be ready by then, and I'll start opening up the web site. It has taken longer than I expected to perfect some of the programming.

I truly respect the fact you're putting in the effort for the better of OP - but these tests are irrelevant imo.. I'm one of those "timing" guys.. you still may find some odd results running these standard tests but it will not be conclusive

We've disproved those ideas using only thought experiments. Empirical testing isn't even needed. I'm not going to debate your old stuff again.

Edit: My studies are more geared to showing real card removal effects and biases that have never before been quantified, and in some cases I think not even known. Conclusions about the legitimacy of the deal will be a side effect.

Party tells you how long someone's been on their site?

His choice to reveal the user name details if he likes, but all I got was a user name that was a losing player in SnGs , MTTs and cash games through a sample size of tourneys/hands played that would put him close to the casual level in terms of volume.

No idea if it is him, but they certainly would not be results that anyone would hold up with pride (-50% ROI $15 ave buy in type stuff over 100+ MTTs and bad SnG results as of late according to pokerlabs (not opted in with sharkscope)) so I doubt anyone would lie about these results. His average buy in was higher than most other riggedologists in the thread so to his credit (I suppose) this user name is at least a loser at higher stakes.

Maybe one day a riggedologist in poker will explain how they used their insightful theories to make money by exploiting a flawed system instead of being just another losing player making excuses. If that ever happened legitimately I would be one of the first to congratulate them.

^
In response to that:

That was the first account I ever had on op.. The full tilt account is pretty bad except for high/low stakes HU.. after full tilt I played stars and my stats were actually reasonable.. I now am a winning player on one site a loser on the other (odd)

ROI was -15% not -50%

Really?

I'm impressed.

Erm, that proves that you can make that source code run, not that the code that was actually running was not subtly different - maybe patched from the correct code..

So the 'person from the gaming commission' logs on and the malware notices this and in a few microseconds removes the patches and disappears.

It really is all but impossible to audit these huge systems in such a way that will catch every possible piece of tampering if the people at the centre of operations are actively trying to deceive.

And yet that is exactly how virtually every company in the Western world handles its auditing.

Only, worse that the IoM situation in those cases the company itself chooses the auditors and could choose someone they believed would be more amenable to certain dodgy accounting practices. (Worldcom:Authur Anderson).

At least in this situation it is the regulatory authority who chooses the auditors, not the company being inspected.