The problem with that question is that the only honest answer is: nobody knows.

Simply because you cannot prove a negative.

There is no fundamental law of computer science that say it could not happen but a poker server is a much tighter piece of code than a general purpose program such as a web browser or general purpose web server and is thus much easier to lock down.

I think he meant that on PS the deck is shuffled and set before the deal. On FT it is continuously shuffled. Meaning that on FT you couldn't gain access to upcoming community cards* because it is not determined until the card hits the board.

*Unless you didn't also crack the shuffling algorithm but the "seed" is random anyway so that's not possible.

FT is only rigged when i lose, and only legit when I win. Atleast thats how I am going to continue to justify myself and my game

tonight... it was rigged from 8pm to 11pm, but from 12am to 2am... NOT RIGGED. oh except for the suckout in the 90 man sng, ofcourse he was flopping a set to my KK... RIGGED! :P

lol, I def. dont think the sites are out to get anyone, but it sure is fun to think they are... helps mend the soul! Fin DOOMSWITCH!

Seriously, your fixation on dudes being little girls is a tad creepy. Pick a different tact. You should be better than that.




Well, the funny thing is, one of the few issues I kind of agreed with tk about was when he would delve into whether you actually even play. Even this response above is all bluster which ironically is direct from the riggies handbook when they are put to the test with a simple yes or no question.

I will ask you the exact same questions I ask riggies when they make all sorts of vague claims about their play (which nearly always ends up being microstakes at most)

Do you play? Yes or no? If so what do you play? Let's see some proof.




Semantics combined with an addiction to synonym.com is simply more bluster. I never doubt your convictions, however, I completely doubt whether you have much valid actual first hand experience to really talk about the games other than from a theoretical perspective.






How about we both answer your remark.

My user names on nearly every site I play is Monteroy. You can search me on tableratings, sharkcope, opr, pokerlabs or any of the other sites you like. My play for the past year or so has been primarily on Stars, before that I was doing a lot of systemic abuse to the Cryptologic network. I do play some on ipoker still as well, though not as much these days.


Now it is your turn. I like transparency. How about you?

Good luck.

There's no fixation. I've never suggested that about anyone else here. Indeed, in two and a half years the only mention has been in the last few days.

You, however, do act like a woman with PMS the way you periodically get all bitchy and go completely off topic to do so.

Yes, as I said, you have joined in the intellectually bankrupt distraction from the topic: Is online poker rigged in order to discuss something completely irrelevant.

Not bluster at all. Just a refusal to play your silly game.

Yes. Yes. None of your business.

You seem to have an extremely inflated sense of your own importance.

This thread is a debate about whether or not 'Poker is rigged', not 'Who plays poker at what stakes'.

I have no intention of playing your silly game. What, and indeed if, I play is none of your concern.

You can get your panties in as much of a bunch as you like and wave your arms about and squeal about refusing to answer the question but the bottom line is that it simply is not any of your business.

Sorry if you had problems. I'll try and use shorter words for you in future.

You seem to be confusing me with someone who gives a damn.

Even if I had never played a game of cards in my life and had no intention of doing so, it would have no bearing whatsoever on my ability to debate this issue.

Now, why don't you go and get some hormone therapy or something and quit with the off topic bitching?

Indeed. You have a transparent mind.

Sadly, that in no way implies clarity of thought.

ok this is kinda fun but why does it matter if he plays or not?

this (not that I really want to interrupt this little exchange: ).

I think he just needs to get laid or try some weight lifting or something.

As I said, if fixating on me with these aspects of misogyny in your personality does something for you emotionally then go for it. I'll just ignore it from this point on.




Is it though? Credibility can come in many forms. spadebidder for instance has demonstrated immense credibility in his ability to analyze data and discuss theories related to that area. How much and what he plays is not really that important.

Josem has a ton of first hand experience playing as well as now working within the biggest site in the world. He has "cred" to talk about the issues he talks about.

I play a ton, and I am a fierce student of the game, so I have credibility in that aspect of the conversation. I do not pretend to have it when it comes to the things spade does.


What do you bring to the table exactly? As I said, you are entertaining, and you clearly get a rush from these types of chats which is perfectly valid, but as a person who does play a ton I look at you and think you are a lot of talk about the game but you are more of an observer.

Even that Mears guy you hate PMed me with his play history, which granted was pretty much standard losing player stuff, but he did play a decent volume, so at least I know his nutty theories are based on that as a foundation.



If you do something, do it well. Reality is nobody here matters all that much. You just happen to matter a tiny bit less, so my importance is really just a matter of perspective.




The play history is a part of the debate as well. Nearly all of the riggies are casual or semi regular players in microstake games, not 20 table grinders at 100NL. There is a reason for this, and their play along with their personality (paranoid) is a large part of how their standard selective memory/conspiracy concepts emerge.

I play so much that I can see first hand through all of their silliness, much like how I essentially set Donko straight in how to look at the games. I have been there day in and day out facing painful beats and running crazy hot or cold, so I see how they can believe what they believe.

Playing matters. That's why I always ask riggies what they play because usually their play history will show they lack the experience to really make a proper judgement on their situation. That's also why I am asking you the same thing, and I am not really surprised you are going with the "I'm not saying my name" answer, which was exactly what that mears and the bannedonlinepoker guys said as well.


Project much?

Whether you give a damn or not is secondary. If you are a non player (which it seems clear you are) then your opinions about actual poker play are diminished somewhat. That's just normal. You can keep your secrets, but that is the result. You can say you don't care as well. Does not change that.




You can debate it all you like, it just makes your opinions lighter in significance since you do not actually play. You are at times amusing and entertaining so you certainly should continue to do that as that is definitely part of the charm of this thread.




Heh. Creepy direct personal attacks. I can see you smashing the keyboard to get those gems out over and over. They are never as impressive as you think whether they are directed to me or riggies, they just make those who hurl them seem small and overly emotional.


Hope this helps some.

All the best.

tl;dr

Seriously, get out more or get laid.

Cool job combining all of my separate comments into a lump sum to remove any of the content and context of them. Very advanced trick... Here, let me try with a recent post of yours.


tl;dr

Do I win now?



Just keep up with the direct personal attacks on everyone and avoiding the simple question of whether you actually even play or not.

Best thing anyone can do to counter you is just ask that, so maybe riggies will learn.

qpw, do you even play poker?


All the best.

Monteroy, I like a lot of what you write, but I think you're really barking up the wrong tree with the relevance of how much someone plays, at least with regard to this thread. I'm just a casual microstakes player who goes up to $1/$2 only when I can find the time to get to the casino, and would play lower there if they offered the stakes. While certainly up lifetime I would not call myself a great player and would basically say that I'm good enough to have a hobby that pays for itself and usually our hotel room when we go down to Niagara. Now, does that mean I lack credibility ITT? I guess according to your definition.

But as I've repeatedly said, this is a thread primarily about critical thinking. My involvement is peripheral at best but I tend to focus on trying to get the riggies approaching this problem from a more rational standpoint. I don't like seeing people being led astray, or being paranoid, or unduly distressed, although I do admit to taking some pretty good entertainment value along the way.

This thread is also a lesson for myself in critical thinking and I've grown from reading your posts, QPWs and Spadebidders (among others). Dude, both you and QPW have thrown your share of good-natured "witticisms" at various posters. QPW has turned a few your way and you're showing a pretty thin skin IMO.

Take your own advice and as NFuego says, don't be a muppet!

That MIGHT have worked except for the fact that you've already answered that post.

As it is it just makes you look (even more of) a dick.

You've obviously got some weird personal issues somewhere but there's no need to be an ******* about it.

I think playing the game (especially online) has relevance to this thread. If someone has played 300k hands online and another person hasn't even played 1k hands, who is more apt to have picked up on any abnormalities if they were to exist? I would put much more credibility (maybe incorrectly) in the person who has seen 300k hands.

I'll give props to Monteroy for the transparency.

Muppet show was quite good actually.

Seriously though, all of your posts focus in on logical constucts and critical thinking, and as such you have an established history when discussing those topics, and they all tend to be very solid posts.

qpw's feature a ton of personal attacks on riggies and often times mocking of how riggies play. Aside from finding that a bit petty (particularly how he calls everyone ******ed), as a real player I do find it a bit annoying to see a fake player mocking bad players on how to play.

You don't do that, you just stick to the emotionless logic part of the equations though you do get led in by a Donkostyle gimmick troll once in a while, because you try to explain rationality to those who will never embrace it.

As well, it is fun to mix it up once in a while in this thread (was getting beaten down by all the lame gimmick accounts recently), so now that I have given the genuine riggies a very simple tool, I can sit back and watch them use it or not.

By the way, if you were the one that coined the term riggies then good job.

The person who has more credibility is the one who makes better arguments.

That might be relevant if the argument in the thread was along the lines of:

a) I've noticed x about the distribution of cards.
b) I've noticed no such thing.

In which case you might give more credence to the person with more hands under their belt.

However, as Arouet mentions, this thread is about critical thinking.

Monty now seems to want to turn it into a pissing contest.

I have no intention of being bounced into telling the world and its dog (or anyone, come to that) where and what I play.

If a point of logic is made and someone can show it is faulty, kudos to them. If on the other hand they say: "Well, I don't agree with that because I don't know how many hands you've played" they are only going to make themselves look extremely foolish.


BTW, love your new location.

Only if you're trying to win a "who can embarrass themselves the most" contest.

YOU RRRRANG?
LOL!

Thought I'd stop by and say hello.
I am still in the woodshed on my game.
I got deep yesterday in a tournament on Stars and donked it off right before the money with top pair against an easy read. (the guy had a set). I told my girlfriend to beat the crap out of me on that. I am playing in the $1100 $100k guaranteed for first place tournament at Viejas this weekend. Wish me luck! If I cash in that one, I will have more donkonline money to deposit.

I am still on my 3 month no talk of rigged sites journey.
Talk to you guys later.
Joe

They earn more credibility for sure with better arguments, I don't think anyone is refuting that. I'm just saying that playing online poker has relevance ITT.

We all feel imbarrsed now and then.

Honestly, I thought you and Monteroy were on the same page so often, I can't tell if you guys are even being cereus about this whole thing.

Incidentally, me giving Monteroy props isn't a call for you to do the same. I don't think you need to share your playing history, as I certainly will never disclose mine. If that makes me less credible, so be it.

I'm pretty sure LVGambler first used "riggies" here. I like it too.

On this recent bickering:
Monteroy, although sometimes arrogant and often deliberately condescending, does have more poker cred than most posters in this thread. He adds valuable context to the discussion, and often a sharp and clever wit. qpw has done a good job keeping up the deserved ridicule of stupid rigged posts (as opposed to others that warrant discussion). He also is one of the most articulate posters on 2+2, and I'm pretty sure that isn't a contrived image, it shows real intelligence. So both of you should just finish measuring your dicks and move on. I enjoy posting with both of you (and like you), but not this bickering.

This I agree with. I remember early on in my involvement ITT that I made some post saying I agreed with what QPW said but not the way he said it. But QPW is hardly the only one, so let's bring this critique out wider. I think making fun of the riggies is counterproductive. I mean, some good-natured teasing is par for the course, as I've said in the past, but too often the substance of an otherwise good post gets lost because the recipient focuses only on the perceived insult.[/QUOTE]

Well put, Arouet. +1

Also, don't forget that I have stated on many occasions that by no means all, or even most, of the 'riggies' are '******ed'.

That only applies to those who continually ignore logical argument (note; ignore, not simply disagree with) and resort to irrelevancies such as accusing others of being shills or not playing poker.

I suppose there may be a problem where the term 'tard' is used and people for whom it is not intended self include.

Basically, I will move on but every day I play against riggies, donks as well as the real engines of the poker economy - the guys who do not utterly suck but they are not nearly as good as they think they are at the game. They also tend to be the ones that hurl all the direct personal attacks and mock others about their play - whether it is donks playing bad or better players totally outplaying them (in ways they do not understand). To be blunt - that is qpw.

If you are in the grind day in and day out it's those guys that eventually tire you out with their petty little mean remarks (just look at the past 5-6 posts by each of us and add them up for each - he definitely wins that contest handily) to the world and annoy you way more than the riggies or -85% ROI donks ever will.

Hence as someone deep into the grind it does eventually annoy me when someone who clearly is not into it makes fun of others in petty ways while lacking that first hand experience to even make many of the actual game based comments.

The same does not at all apply to those of you who focus in on the pure mathematics or logic of the topic itself as that is separate from whether you play 1 or a million hands of poker.

Anyway, off to the grind. Search me if you like (though I have all chat off).

All the best.