Sn8keChaRmer, I would have hoped you would saved your question for a little later since I am trying to focus this thread on answering a single question.

I just have to know how many other people watching the videos thought, well that is pretty much typical of normal high volume poker.

This thread has no focus on anything, or haven't you figured that out yet?

Fine you created the account and waited to leap into action once Lizard People were mentioned or something to tell me my motives for posting in a huge thread filled with paranoia and delusions are strange, as if anyone is totally sane while posting in this mess.

Congrats on an effective use of your first post. We still score you as a gimmick point.


That you should have stopped reading his silly posts a long time ago. He is a fake or extremely dumb and paranoid. No point in having a discussion with either, so who cares which he actually is.

Waste your time on that Xev guy instead if you like, he has probably a good several weeks of "I am not sure" thoughts to share so it will give you more of a feeling of getting somewhere while talking to him even if in the end it likely gets nowhere. Think of him as Donko lite.


Once you see stuff like that you are in for the long haul of a riggie pretending he is not a riggie. Enjoy the ride if you choose to partake.



Also, congrats spadebidder on the bounty!

Sure, but I think its been said. Cherrypicking bad beats is not the way to figure out if something is going wrong. The way to do that is to look at a large sample and examine the card distribution. Beats are going to happen, especially at microlimits.

My post above is meant to highlight that no one has said here that online poker CANNOT be rigged. Only that given the evidence presented to date, it is highly unlikely to be rigged.

^ Yeah this

Take it from someone who's played 40 hours a week live in a casino and in private games for the last 4 years. Suckouts can be just as brutal if not more so live. You guys talk about good players going on 25k hand break even stretches online. What's that about 2 to 3 weeks for a decent grinder? 25k hands live can take 6 months to see.

I think I am just going to start a new thread about this topic tomorrow.

in before merge

lol, but yes, that's what will happen.

that youtube account about pokerstars being rigged is ****ing amazing and so ****ing funny lol

smithcommajohn, off topic

Judging by your avater you're a Laak fan yeah? I think the guy is a very good player and enjoy watching him in play whether it be the big game, the WPT or The World Open. He's underrated imo

Luck takes care of this just fine. The reason there are court battles all over the world about whether poker is more skill or more luck, is because the skill advantage is small and not that easy to prove to non-players. A great winning player with a long-term record of 10ptbb/100 in cash NLHE will often have a standard deviation of 70 or 80. That means he goes up and down an average of 70 or 80 ptbb (that's 140 to 160 big blinds) every 100 hands but over time nets out only 10 ptbb/100 ahead. There is no other skill game that comes anywhere close to that much luck influence. And this is true live and on any online site.

Here's a simulation of 10,000 hands for 25 players who all have 10 ptbb/100 win rates, with a standard deviation of 80. At 9000 hands 4 of them were still losing, and this is BEFORE rake. After rake about 8 or 10 of them are still losers after 10,000 hands. That's normal luck in poker. Poker is a brutal game even with an honest deal.




There is no "overwhelming advantage" in poker. You need to rethink that.

.

Sweet post spadebidder. This is the type of stuff I want to be reading from the "unlikely rigged" camp.

Thanks bud.

Like I asked just please answer the question under the hypothetical situation I created. I thought I made that very clear thats what I was looking for and asked not to sidetrack. If you cant respect my question enough to answer it then feel free not to respond.

The thing that doesnt matter about all your graphs is they are taken from data generated from an rng you arent sure is natural. Therefor it doesnt matter. Until you can prove that the rng is legit then the data that you provide doesnt hold much merit because it can all be based on a tweaked version of poker they have created. The better way to do these experiments would be to deal hands out from an actual deck with a random shuffler so the data is coming from an uncompromised enviorment.

Then don't. Don't be distracted by the noise. If you treat the topic seriously, others will respond in kind. Not all, but enough to have some good discussion.

Yeah, I do. If you win a tournament, you most likely have to be involved in 5 or 6 all ins. I can't find the exact statistics and I'm not great at the math myself, but the odds of winning 5 or 6 flips, even if every time you're dominating at 80%, is fairly low. This is why most people who play tourneys and SNGs professionally play a metric ****ton of them every day, because even when they play absolutely perfectly, they still have to run good to do well in them. Then read up some on statistics.
Like the thread that was already made about that dude's videos, and got merged into this thread?

It's a strawman, and a question based on a false premise. There is no answer for that.

totally off topic, yeah... just like most of this thread...

laak is my favorite player by far... i find him to be entertaining to watch play poker as he talks about weird random crap that i often think about...

he's underrated big time, even by himself... but better to be underrated than overrated i always say...

If i wanted to protect the weak players i wouldn't rigg the RNG. I would run my site like Pacific Poker did.

How was that?

I'll tell you once you make your video.

I posted the variance simulator on here a week ago. In fact a lot people have come up with feasible arguements on our side of the fence. I am yet to see one bit of evidence or common sense from a rigtard yet thogh

The graph I posted has nothing to do with an RNG. It's a simulation of normal variance based on the winrate of a good player. If you take 25 live players who have sustained winrates of 20 big blinds per 100 hands played, and graph their last 10,000 hands, it will likely look like that graph. Go to the site mentioned on the graph and play with the simulator yourself. It's a mathematical model that applies to anything random, not just poker.

Haha I love the random stuff that comes out of his mouth as well. Did you watch the 36 hour big game in London on TV? He was good value on that. Probably my favourite player as well. I think the guy oozes tonnes of ability, is a super guy and takes beats with as much class as I have seen anybody take them with

idk... im just a micro donk, your the pro you should know.

Your ability to dodge what I keep asking is amazing to me. I think you work for Stars. It seems your whole intention is to dodge anything I say and throw statistics that dont pertain to what Im saying. Its smoke and mirrors.

How about you show statistics of losing players with their actual winrates compared to EV.

Do this. Track 20 losing players and 20 winning players. You will find that all the winning players have EV lines over their winrate. And the losing players with EV lines under their winrate. I challenge you to do this since you are so good with the statistics.