Poker > Interest > Cookies > Powerball.

If this was true you could prove it in a day. Again, this is something where you could easily say "Aces should show up x% of the time, but in the replay of the Sunday Million final table, they showed up y% of the time" and be a conquering hero providing easily obtained proof.

And yet your "proof" is just "It's so obvious!".

Well because that would mean someone not conntected with the Indians or the site would have to inspect the server and they can't even get near them nor will the site allow it.

It's also counterproductive. The sites main goal is money and not being regulated or open to any law enforcement authority. They want to be able to operate totally free and away from any sort of law or taxes.

It's a bunch that is constantly getting bombarded with.............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ........ (should I keep goin?) .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .......

ridiculous U-N-B-A-C-K-E-D claims!



& btw, I feel you in a lot of what you said, but take it from someone who's seen their fair share of cards..
it's more likely the player than it is the cards. Whether dealt online or live. Sht happens. If you play good and often enough, the end result will be a positive one. You just have to work at it. Look at Tom Dwan vs Isildur.. it happens to the best. Even Phil Ivey, the best in the world, had to put in a ton of work. It's not easy ESPECIALLY online.

| /.

OK, I checked a few flops and here's the data:

http://www.spadebidder.com/flop-analysis/part7/

Uh oh, spade has his data available... surely a rigtard will have some constructive criticism in response

Very nice work, from the quick glance I just took.

But ouch at 3 embarrassing typos in my post you quoted - I edited it, so feel free to requote me, please.

Done.

I think it would be nice if you could add a "let me summarize this for you math dummies out there" section at the end of each analysis section. Tbh, I can't follow a lot of what you're saying spadebidder. I never made it past Algebra in high school and can barely remember any of it anyways. It might be too much to ask being that you've already committed so much of your time already. But if your purpose is to show the "average person" what your analysis shows, then you need to speak in terms that everyone can understand. Or not. It's not really for my benefit. It'd be to the benefit of what your work is trying to accomplish (IMO).

It's like what you've wrote is the small print of the deal. You need to add some simpler terms for the less educated to read first. Then, maybe after they get a grasp on the basics, they can move in deeper to get at what's really there (in the small print).

Did that make sense? lol

Anyways, again, your work is appreciated and the site looks great!

LVG

Nice job spade.

for LVGambler, a summary:

Flop texture is NOT random, as expected due to card removal effects. Essentially, more paired flops due to people playing more with paired hole cards, more monotone flops due to people playing more with suited cards, less Aces and Kings on flops due to people playing more with those hole cards, etc.

I think the curious thing is that it shows quite clearly what some people have claimed about "rigged" flops (more pairs, more monotone, etc.), but gives a detailed analysis of WHY this is actually expected in a completely random deal. It's 4am here, so if I made some errors in my summary, please correct me, spadebidder. Incidentally, very nice work! I'm going to be spending a lot of time reading through this.

The only thing I'd add to your nice summary is that the effects are small. 30 or 40 extra paired flops per 100,000 are not going to be seen by human observation. People imagine they see such patterns, and a few of them turn out to be true. But just as many say that Aces flop too much, when the opposite is actually true.

And blazingly quickly! TY TY.

And what, pray, is wrong with some laughs?

This data is great. having played millions of hands online myself I have never been a believer that flops are manipulated.

This changes nothing in my mind that online poker is not rigged. I know for a fact that cheating takes place online and im not talking just 2 people colluding. Im talking actually rigging of the game. And the easiest way to do this and the same way its been done before is by the use of super users. This is not a math issue to me. It does not take Enstien to play with a super account and not get caught. Forgive me if i missed it, but I was suprised with all that data there you failed to mention what site(s) it was from.

So now, in your mind, you have it that online poker is not rigged.

Make up your mind.

Just more random accusations with neither evidence nor proof.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here, just the same ol' lame ol' rigtard nonsense.

As usual you have nothing to say but an insult. Still unwilling to accept that online poker has been rigged in the past.

Barry Bonds and Mark Mcgwire did steroids its a fact. But no one else in the MLB is doing steroids right now, you know how i know? Cause I have no proof. Luckily for economists who apply probability and logic, we know that its more likely than unlikely that they're still steroid users in the MLB.

Your reading comprehension is rather poor.

There is very obviously something there other than an insult.

I have pointed out (correctly) that you are, once again, making statements with no evidence or proof.

I don't need evidence to know that something is more likely to be going on than not. Any poker player should be able to understand this. Everyday in real life scenarios people make a living from knowing things that are not yet proved.

And its already been proved online poker has been rigged in the past and it should make it that much easier for any non ****** to see that it is more likely too be rigged on a site(s) than unrigged.

The English language is a wonderful thing.

It has words for all occasions.

Thus, if we have proof that x is the case we can say: "X is the case.

If we have no proof that x either is or is not the case we can say: "X may be the case.

If we have proof that x is not the case we can say: "X is not the case.

What you are doing is saying:

I have no proof that x is the case and can say: "X is the case.

This demonstrates that you are an idiot. DUCY?

I was just over at Pokerscout checking some traffic numbers, and happened across their Stars reviews by readers, and was pretty surprised to see they had an average rating of 4.6/10 by 37 reviewers. So I read some of the comments, and holy rigtards Batman! Of course the rating's accuracy also isn't helped by the fact that it looks like people can rate it more than once.

So I had more of a look. FT - 3.2/10. I skimmed through some reviews, and enjoyed this one most of all:


Rating:10 / 10

By:rigtard

Date:Friday, April 03, 2009

Title:rigged, cant cashout4 out of 11 readers found this review helpful

Its totally rigged, no one can cash out, these red pro shills cant lose a hand, stay away.


Calls himself rigtard, and gives the site 10/10. LOL.

Party gets 6.4, iPoker 3.8, OnGame 3.6, Cereus 5.6. Apparently poker sucks everywhere.

I shall leave it to someone else to point out the absurdity of the above.

I'll just mention that you are making yourself look ever more foolish with your paranoid suppositions.

Why the **** do you keep repeating this sort of drivel? No one in this thread has ever claimed that online poker absolutely is not or can not be rigged.

NO

ONE

Are you serious?