That's not what you said:

But I'm glad to hear you're coming around.

Interesting rationalization.

So, unless someone adds "100% absolute certainty no doubt" before making a statement of fact, it does not mean that made a statement of fact.

Do you even think about how stuff like this sounds before you say it?

Correction, do you 100% absolute certainty no doubt think how this stuff sounds before you say it?



I certainly have played at play money tables when starting at a new room to get a feel for the software. Safe to say the play lacks any meaning , so I suspect it would take you about 20 hands to determine it was rigged based on your beliefs.

Micro stakes are only a bit better in this regard, and I do find it funny that you regard bad play by bad players at micro stakes that once in a while get rewarded as a sign of it being rigged, instead of just bad players playing badly.

Sometimes something is just what it seems even if a major conspiracy makes it more interesting.




Clearly you do not have actual data that can be verified, rather it is just what you remember, and frankly that is never a good source of "proof," particularly when a person has an agenda to fill as well.

You saying "yes it happened" does not mean anything in terms of evidence, even if you believe it did happen.

Your last point about a poster not understanding probability is ironic in that it is accurate, though not in the way you may think.

The two possibilities are the following:

1) A microstakes player using his memory does not get all of his facts straight about his bad beats

2) A major poker site has a team of people targeting this micro stakes player by inflicting bad beats on him.


Which of these two options seems more likely...

Hint, with 100% absolute certainty no doubt it is choice 1



P.S. Do you create similar paranoid conspiracy beliefs in any other aspects of life when something unlucky takes place?

No. The house wanted to let me win sometimes so I'd keep playing and paying fees and rake, and they don't want the best players to win too much or it runs off the fish like me. They have a special shuffle that takes care of this. They do it just enough that it is undetectable, it's all in the timing.

These posts are just so much more fun with "proof".

Option 2 is just lol. Of course there isnt a team of people and to think that I believe that is absurd.

Option 3) The software is pre programmed to inflict the bad beats and that is only known to a small group of people. Certainly not the average employee of the site. Cant have whistleblowers.

Of course theres truth in this but I jotted down the beats as they happened. So in this case the facts are right on about those beats.

Yes Monty, Yes I do.

Yes but I wasnt there was I. If I was I would have constantly droned on about how rigged that tournament was.

Comparing live to online in these threads always makes me lol.

Rigged.

No one has to look at or reply to this thread if they dont want to. If its too upsetting for you Josem just dont look. Just like when you were afraid of the dark when you were little, just hide under the covers.

TTH officially RIC

.

pwned ^^^^^^

correction-Isnt.

eh no.

Actually, 10 bad beats in a row is an extreme aberration, and if it actually happened, spectacularly noteworthy given the context. The probability that you'll lose the next 10 times you are a 70% favorite is 0.00059%.

If you play a million hands, it will probably happen a couple of times, though.

No. The probability that you will lose 9 consecutive times when you are a 76% favorite is 0.000264%.

You'll see it happen once or twice every million hands or so.

www.gamblersanonymous.org

Ok thanks for clearing that up mate.

They werent all 24% but that was the average chance the Villain had.

why would that make you laugh, out loud, or otherwise?

wouldn't the motivation to "rig" the deal so as to make more money be exactly the same for a cardroom as an online site? in fact, wouldn't it be easier with only a few hundred tables and a couple thousand players? wouldn't the need to do such a thing be higher, since an online room with more players and more tables = more rake?

the live cardrooms gotta pay the bills too! online sites don't have to air condition the place for all their players or vacuum up the crud they leave all over the floor after eating greasy sandwiches at the table and sucking down all the free drinks (paid for by the house...) for hours on end. also, somebody's gotta clean the bathrooms - plus toilet paper and them pucks in the urinals ain't free either...

the most frequent motive mentioned as to why an online site would rig the deal is greed. it seems to me that with operating costs lower and volume of play higher, sites would be more profitable, thus less likely to be greedy enough to jeopardize their reputation.

if the reason why they would do it is because they want to increase profitability, then that same skepticism needs to be applied to every single business in any industry where extra money can be made by doing something dishonest.

call channel 8 on your side about the local restaurant that you think is serving cats to diners without proof and see if that story makes the news. but call 'em with the kitty whiskers they put in your salad and they might just check it out.

post about rigged sites when you've got some kitty whiskers, ok?

Hey Mark I was wondering when you were gonna turn up again like a knight in shining armour to defend your beloved online poker.

You should change your name to Lancelot.

Heres my proof. Rigged.

you were dreaming about me and even what outfit I was wearing.

I don't feel "upset". The overriding emotion I have at the moment towards you is "pity".

There's also a little frustration 'cause you're apparently lying - you claim you don't care enough about this issue to actually contact the sites or regulators, yet happy to participate in a thread stretching 100 posts because you care so much.

You are happy to make false and baseless accusations of bizarre international criminal frauds... but not happy to actually report these claims to the proper authority.

There are two possibilities here:

a) You're a lying liar that lies;

or

b) You are an intellectual fraud who is happy to sit in silence while other people are the "victims" of this international "scam".

If you think that online poker is a scam or fraud, or that you have been targetted, it is your moral duty to report it to the relevant authorities.

Your failure to make this report shows that you are either complicit in any such nefarious activity, or you are a lying liar that lies.

Which is it?

yeah, but it wasn't 10 in a row, his criteria for the hands he chose to include were hands that crippled him or knocked him out. shockingly, he lost the hands which knocked him out of the tournies

Not quite. Those are the odds of that type of situation happening, but he did not specify what the estimated odds are of you unintentionally misinterpreting the data or intentionally fabricating it to meet your "proof" needs.

The odds of that are considerably higher.


While you may get off on this minor bit of trolling, the reality is that all of your proof and data is memory or claims that you jotted something down.

Would you believe anything someone else said if that is what they used as proof, even if they added a preface that it was absolutely 100% guaranteed?

You are a microstakes player that has more awareness of the game then the average horrid microstakes player, but you lack the discipline to accept that part of the game is that at times bad players playing badly will sometimes have their day at your expense.

If and when you adapt a longer term view of the game you will accept that all the above is is a "donk tax" that keeps the bad players playing a bit longer as they win once in a while. If bad players never won then it would basically be chess, and those with no skill would quit after a short while and contribute less to the poker economy.

Why guys like you think sites go out of their way to secretly rig micro stakes games in ways that would risk everything for no gain (heh, action hands that take twice as long...) amazes me unless you believe that about every business that exists. At least then your paranoid delusions will be consistent.

So lets summarize these twelve hands:

1. Lost as favorite
2. Lost as underdog
3. Lost as favorite
4. Tied board as preflop underdog
5. Lost as favorite
6. Lost coin flip (slight underdog)
7. Lost as favorite
8. Lost as favorite
9. Folded
10. Lost as favorite
11. Lost as favorite
12. Won as big underdog (suck out).

Dang, that's some serious riggedness that can't be denied. I'd never play again.