Quote:
Originally Posted by Josem
I note that I responded in depth and explained why you yourself proved the fallacy of your own argument, and that you only responded to your error about sheep/ship.
I don't know if you have some sort of fundamental problem with your brain, but reading your posts, you have:
a) Complained that online poker cheating is undetectable, and then used the fact that online poker cheating was detected to support your nonsensical argument; and
b) Complained that people only responded to the sheep/ship comment, and ignored the rest of your dribble, while you only responded to the sheep/ship comment, and ignored the rest of the response.
Like, are you trying to play some sort of joke on us? Is this for real? Are you stoned or drunk or something?
First off like all non rigtards who comment here you seem to be more like flamming ******. You have to start everything with a personal insult and are hardly worth my time. But ill go ahead and give you the little respect you deserve and answer your questions.
1. Matusow did play in rigged games and I am not going to go into the details but you can research it or just read his book.
2. Yes your correct it was proved by looking at the hand histories and analysing them.
However this does not mean my argument is wrong.
Question 2 is interesting because Matusow and others were noticing the cheating before it was looked into by hand histories. It would not take much effort to see others hole cards and make normal plays for big cash that were not noticable at the table or by reviewing hands. And with fresh screenames every session you would never notice.
You cannot take 1 case and assume that everyone with a superuser account would abuse it that openly and stupidly. And even then it takes Much abusing to get alot of attention, and probally no attention at the lower limits.
This hand below is a great example of how hand history is hard to prove anything. Mislick? Most amazing read ever? Information for future hands?
And my point stands hand histories only mean so much. I could look at the TexasLimitKing against Neverwin. Limit Hold'em game. With the board reading Q 2 6 Q 6, Neverwin bets out on the river and is called by TexasLimitKing, who shows pocket fours.