The difference between me and the standard rigtard is that I am willing to look at evidence and state that there is no proof that online poker is rigged. I am however concerned that it might be. Up until this point in time, no one has been able to present any solid information to change my position. What I have to work with is my own experiences with online poker and all of the opinions of others experiences.

I think Spadebidders website is attempting to give us all something to grab on to when we are having discussions about this topic.

You say this:


But then you say stuff like this:

Were you just tilted when you wrote the above? It seems you are changing your position on this whole thing from time to time.

Oh look children, a strawman!

It's worse than a straw man argument.

It demonstrates a complete and fundamental misunderstanding of simple logic.

He is equating not believing something exists without proof that it does not exist with believing something exists without proof that it exists.

The sort of error that young children often make.

He really does come across as aged ~12.

Ya, I think that I float around between probably not rigged and probably rigged. That might have been after I played a few tournaments and bumped into some ugly beats.

I am trying to force myself to be scientific about this though...

The difference between me and other rigtards is that I don't give a **** about what anybody thinks about me or my "rational opinions."

I wouldn't take a **** and eat at the same time...even tho it sounds healthy....

TK, what do you think of Spade's results so far?

I don't want to argue, I want to bet on something. I'll lay 2-1 that my cards don't breakeven over the next 2000 hands. I mean the dealer will give me more small cards than big cards. Over the last 2400+ hands, the cards are running about 3% below breakeven.

I'll bet the next 2000+ hands are not much different. Just a small bet, maybe $100-$50. The dealer ain't square.

What do you define as "high cards"? And is "K2" high or low?

Im not saying it is rigged, although I have my concerns, but anyone who would trust an offshore gaming service to never do anything dishonest to gain an extra buck is pretty naive. Actually it is LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL naive.

Let's say "small" is 2-7, and "big" is 9-A. 24 cards each, and 8s don't count.

So both sets have 24/52 or 46% chance to be dealt. In 2000 hands or 4000 dealt cards, you should receive 1846 cards in each group (disregarding 8s, the median card). For a 99.99% confidence level we use 4 standard deviations, which in this case is +/- 126.

So I'll take your bet, that your next 2000 hands result in you receiving between 1720 and 1972 of each group, small cards and big cards. Or in your terms, that you recieve at least 1720 big cards 9+, in the next 2000 hands.

Choose a mod for escrow, you put in $100 and I put in $50. Then you zip up the 2000 hand histories with consecutive times, starting tomorrow, and post the link to them. The hand history files need the original file timestamp on them to show they are not edited.

If I've made a math error we'll agree on the correction.

I think the "$100-$50" thing means he wants even odds, for somewhere between $50 and $100, not that he's laying 2 to 1.

You can request that your last 2,000 (or however many) PokerStars hand histories be zipped up and uploaded to the PokerStars server for you to download. That link could then also be shared with the Mod escrowing the bet, and ensure that the hand histories are legitimate and unedited.

I'll put even money on it. $100 each.

I will happily take the bet on spade's side whenever stats are in debate between him and a riggedologist who knows what he remembers.

Put me in as well if this is going to happen, and note, I pretty much never do prop bets.

Well, he will probably say Stars was in on it or something.

Actually, I suspect we will never hear from him again.

Agreed, at least if you mean with absolute certainty. If you ever find someone like that, let us know.

If TwoMoos posts in this thread again, it better be him accepting this bet.

How can anyone think anything about something you have shown no evidence of possessing?

Everywhere is offshore to someone.

good thing then that no one has actually said they trusted any site to never do anything dishonest.

This seems to be a common error amongst the new intake of rigtards: the idea that people are saying the there isn't or will/can not ever be be any rigging.

I guess it's pretty logical to them actually.

Considering that most of them seem to believe that because rigging in some way or other is possible = it's actually proven that it is going on, it would not be a stretch for them to believe that because you think it's unlikely and that there is no proof = you actually believe it is impossible for rigging to exist.

it makes perfect sense in their heads.

Well, when we're dealing w/ the reality of the situation, we have to have a skeptical outlook at the legitamacy of online poker. It has been corrupted before and will be again. I just don't understand your guys thinking on this....It's way too easy to manipulate and you guys act like the Vatican put a stamp of approval on it.

I can understand and appreciate the "proof" arguements, but some people are so set and "agenda like" about online poker being all holy and pure. It should be our duty as poker players to question their integrity until they earned the right to accept our bets....

"If it's not broke, don't fix it....well something is broke..."

So it does!

Very nicely thought out.

What would the Nevada Gaming Commission do if 3 B&M casino's were found to be cheating players, all in the same fasion and time frame? They would shake down the casino's in vegas and strip their L's.

Would anybody like to discuss the KGC and their control over all US based poker sites accept for 2?