I majored in Sociology. I don't know **** about Sociology.

Hello, yet another rigtard with a brand new gimmick account.

What makes you lot even sadder is that you don't have the courage to each post under a single name and have to keep setting up new g/ac's in (completely hopeless) attempts to give yourselves more credibility.

I never said you weren't, just that it sounds like you know what the winning lotto numbers will be. So do you have any proof aside from your word?

What they also should have taught you in stats is to gather evidence and then produce it to allow community feedback. Seeing as you have failed to produce any sort of evidence leads me to believe you actually don't have the evidence required to make a statement such as the stats "don't add up".

It has been confirmed. Rigtards have tails.

Why don't you provide some data on how often a particular scenario loses for you, including the total sample size of that particular matchup, and we can evaluate how often that particular streak of bad luck will occur. You should know that in small sample sizes outcome distributions often aren't anywhere near the long-term probability, but the range of expected distributions can be calculated. Thus it can be shown that a particular string of bad beats is well within the expected distribution of outcomes, or not. Without some numbers, your claim is worthless. Your claim about majoring in stats also doesn't mean much when paired with the observation that "they don't add up" yet no data is provided.

If I flipped ten coins in a row and they all came up heads, would you say that doesn't add up? It will actually happen more than half the times that you do 1500 flips. Probability is tricky.

Let me give a poker example. When you are an 80% favorite to win, if you take all the times that sort of matchup occurs, for every 2800 matchups you are likely to lose a streak of 5 of them in a row (better than 50% chance). For 4 in a row it's nearly 98% chance to occur in 2800 trials.

+1.

If this is a gimmick account it isnt mine.

Do you ever have a day off qpw where you didnt post in a rigged thread? Ever?

Seriously I should look back through this thread and Ill probably find that you ve posted every day in a rigged thread or the like on 2+2 for months.

This would most likely mean that there are multiple users using your account qpw.

What do you do for a living? Poker Player? If so what sites do you use? SN?Graphs? post some of your hands? I dont think you can because you just sit here all day debunking what you call the rigtards and get paid for it?

Anyone wana prop bet me that qpw hasnt posted 5+ times in a rigged thread for the last say 2 months, EVERY DAY?

Go have a tea party with Markusgc. Im sure he ll bring some Ice Cream sandwiches and toy dinosaurs for you both to play with.

BTW Im not here that often before you try and turn this around saying that I work for casino s/Real Deal blah blah blah.

Couple of terrible beats there mate. Where they both in the same day?

Nice runner runner set ups it looks like.

I don't think Mark is, however I think your right on the money about QPW. That dude should be fired. He draws more suspicioun then anything...

I don't know what the big deal is - this sounds delightful!

Ok qpw would you like to post something that really puts me on the spot, I promise I wont duck the question or point, though it might take me a while to get back to you as Im not on 2+2 24/7 like you.

Also I wont be lowering myself to your level by calling anyone a names i.e dumb,******ed,lunatic.

There one logical reason I can think of for sites to manipulate the software. Profit/Rake.

Theres not a lot of logical reasons for a site NOT to rig the software.

Wow, clearly you haven't thought too much about this.

And here's a way to put you on the spot. Get some statistical evidence. Ok....now go, we'll be here when you get back.

Please....
The business case for this absolutely favors the "not" decision, by huge margins. The product of risk and reward is way way -EV on this. And that doesn't even get into the logistical and programming problems of implementing such a system, which have been discussed before. They are not trivial. I also suspect the potential reward to the site (disregarding risk) is not nearly as great as you think. Do some math on it. They make money on the pool of money that is circulating, so to increase profit they have to increase that pool of circulating money (average money in play), or increase the rate at which it churns between players. Figure out how much they could affect those factors, then weigh them against some risks.

I think your right Mark. Can I come too!

It ll be like in Bond movies where Bond always has dinner with the villains halfway through.

Ill be Bond, qpw can be Dr. No its not rigged and you could be the Man with the Golden Mouth.

That does sound delightful!

I havent got any statistical evidence and likely never will. Even if I did have stat evidence it could be explained away with, "thats variance" or "your just the 1 in 1000 who happens to be running terribly bad argument or spacebidders 10 heads in a row nonsense.

What statistical evidence would convince you King Of Felt? How bad a graph/series of HH/results would you require to say "Yes I can see its rigged"!

Um, yes?

Posts in this collection of threads: 1134
Statistical evidence (NOT PROOF, just EVIDENCE) provided: none.

Actually the logistical/programming aspects have been commented on by programming experts who have said it would be relatively "EASY" to do.

Yes they keep the money circulating thus increasing rake. Probably up to a certain level for example no higher than .50/1$ games.

Do the math? Ok 50000 players averaging 5$ rake per day vs 200000 av 5$ per day? If you were the owner which would you prefer?

You obviously have no clue how probability works. The higher the number of hands the smaller the possible variance will be. So for example if you have 100,000 hands the margin of error would be far less than if you had 100 hands. There are certain margins of error that would show a RNG is not working properly if you have a ton of hands.

It's tough to have this debate with you though because clearly you have a limited grasp of how probability works.

But what could be considered STATISTICAL EVIDENCE?

We ve all seen the most horrible graphs or under EV results. What would it take for people to turn around and say "OK I can see somethings very wrong here?

PROOF? What exactly would that be in your mind? Losing with AA 100 times in a row AIPF vs 1 player?

You didnt answer my question.

What statistical evidence would convince you King Of Felt? How bad a graph/series of HH/results would you require to say "Yes I can see its rigged"!

What margins would be enough to convince you?

I'm one of the people who said I could easily do the programming to rig the deal based on whatever conditions we wanted to inject into the RNG to override it, and I also said it would be very easily detectable. The hard parts are making it difficult to detect, and keeping it a secret.

I wouldn't feel confident in my ability to decide whether or not it was rigged. However, there are people on these boards who are very good at this (see AP thread). Say you showed a 1,000,000 hands and over those 100,000,000 hands your Aces were cracked 40% of the time. I think this would be somewhere to start. And please don't say that is too many hands for anyone to possibly have because millions of hands have been dealt online since the start of this thread alone.

Keeping it secret. Just have a very small team in the know who are very well paid.

Difficult to detect. Make sure players databases near enough match what they should be, in short keep track.

Dude, seriously. You don't understand how probability works. You can't just manipulate millions of hands so they stay within proper boundaries, while at the same time "rigging" them to give certain players certain cards.

You aren't making any sense because you don't have the basic knowledge of how one would actually detect a faulty RNG.

how about this? doesn't matter how many hands you have in your database - just find a statistical anomaly. we'll go from there.

fair enough?

So all this time you cry for evidence yet now you say you couldnt decide no matter what evidence was presented. Doesnt that make you bias?

As for stats how about you were shown 20 new accounts on a site all showing way higher all in EV for their first 5k hands.