Cereusly.

ZOMG!!!

Why cant you understand basic logic. Either you

A. Believe that online poker is rigged. Once again I will repeat this does not mean flops are manipulated at the major sites it also does not mean every site or most sites are manipulated.

B. You believe that online poker is not rigged. And you call everyone else rigtards and truely believe that even though its been done before its not being done now.

BOTTOM LINE: You have no more ****ing proof that poker is not rigged than it is. Infact you have less proof than a rigtard cause its been proven to be rigged before. So keep looking at it from a ****** standpoint.

You still cant see that its more likely to be rigged than not. I dont believe in jolly green giants, but hey from your viewpoint with no proof I am wrong.

LOL at you of all people calling others out on their ability to understand logic.

Maybe those are the only two choices in your strange little world, but they aren't the only ones in the real world.

Um, no.

I give respect to those who give respect. And yes those are the 2 choices of this thread. Either you believe online poker to be rigged or not.

Again, no, they aren't. They're the only two choices in the poll, but they aren't the only two choices available to reasonable people.

You really are a grade one moron, aren't you?

Bobo just created a post where he told you very, very, simply, that NO ONE had ever said that online poker was definitely not rigged.

So you quote his post and add some twaddle that demonstrates that you did not even understand that.

Anyone with any intelligence knows perfectly well that it's possible for any poker to be rigged.

However, given the enormous number of people analysing their hand histories, if it was rigged to the extent that it was causing any significant loss then someone would certainly have noticed by now.

That has happened in the past and the problem has been dealt with.

WRONG!!!

It is that fact that you seem to be singularly unable to grasp why you are wrong that enables you to continue demonstrating to the world at large that you are a buffoon.

Once again, all you have to say is an insult. You have no debate. You are a waste of space.

Good insult! Proves your point!

And your blindess is thinking you are going to detect super users in billions of hands.

The nonsense you post (which everyone who reads the thread can quite clearly see is nonsense) frequently does not warrant serious debate.

Even when people do try and debate with you in an intelligent manner all you do is come back with exactly the same logically fallacious gibberish.

Run with the herd sheep boy.

The (well deserved) insult is quite separate to the main point. It neither proves nor disproves it.

ROFLMAO!

I alluded to that in the penultimate paragraph but, as usual, you seem to have failed to grasp the salient point.

Go through your 300 million hands and look for a super user, which is something you dont think exists anyways. Ya thats gonna work.

That would have been so much better if you said


Run with the herd ship boy

I'd love to know how, even in your confused mind and by your twisted logic, that relates to the material you quoted.

I'm not a rigtard, but I do have some constructive criticism (or maybe a question....whatever).

Spade: here is your chart for the suitedness of a flop. I'm adding the fractional math to your combinations in {}s--the numbers come out the same, but it makes my question a little easier to understand.:
Now, by your own admission, we can assume a random hole card distribution, which means that 25% of the hole cards should be of a particular suit. Shouldn't the calculations reflect this fact? (new chart assumes an average of 8 players dealt into the hand, which should be a fair assumption for full ring)
Not a huge difference, but, particularly with the Monotone boards, a significant one. Curious about your thoughts on this.

-red

QPW, That Pokerlab dude str8 up owned you! Damn....

A non-gimmick/gimmick squeeze play.

Sheep that man the pot.

Obviously the proportion is different for a 36 card deck. Try the same exercise for 20 players dealt in and you will see the problem. We have a 52 card deck, and random unknown hole cards means that all 52 cards are equally likely to hit the flop if all flops were dealt. Not 36 cards. You can't do the math that way.

If you enumerate all 132600 possible flop permutations, exactly the numbers in my calculation will be dealt.

Please put other questions about the study on the site. Thanks

I obviously haven't explained myself very well, so I will try to make it clearer on the analysis site.

-red

Which 'Pokerlab' 'dude' would that be?

Nah, just tk1133 spouting his usual nonsense.

He might have intended it as a gimmick/non gimmick squeeze play but failed.

'twould be par for the course.

Nice work on your website Spadebidder!

I may have some comments for you in the next few days as I am going through the information.

Joe

Nice to see at least one rigtard has looked at the website! How 'bout the rest of you?