And you have evidence that rogue employees or hackers are affecting the deal at on line poker sites?

Please present it for our perusal.

For v < c, that's true.

Again, I must ask for evidence of that rather extraordinary assertion. Well, both of those rather extraordinary assertions, actually.

OK, so far ...

Well, the integrity of on line poker certainly is.

Stupidity.

Bad play.

Selective memory.

Variance.

Confirmation bias.

Delusions of adequacy.

Outright lying.

There surely can.

Humans are ape like creatures so, yes, humans do give birth to ape like creatures.

The answer is a combination of basic human fallibility and a special brand of rigtard stupidity. As for the rest of this post - what the hell are you rambling on about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qkJUh3s7kc

Watch this, this is footage from Fox News.

But the measurement of "rigged" is that, related to the expected results from playing (the original) live poker.

People dont want to believe that they are losing because they are bad. If it wasnt for my knowledge of statistics I may be convinced of it being rigged. I just know that over small sample sizes anything is possible, and over larger samples sizes, more stuff is possible (1 in a million). Variance is a bitch, and some people are just unlucky and run under EV just as likely as someone constantly runs over EV. Thats real life.

I have friends who are normal guys (not tech) who play poker and as much as I try to explain why they are running bad they would rather blame the sites. I usually convince them for a while, but they resort back to it being rigged. I asked a friend to keep track how many times he has been sucked out on. After about 100 hands, it was like 90 times. I told him to track it again for another 100 hands. Magically, he caught up and was even again. That convinced him for a while.

People take short term events and extrapolate them to infinity and the small sample size is all they need to convince themselves. I guess thats human frailty.

If your friend was sucked out on 90 times in the next 100 showdowns, he was in a rigged game, without question. Even assuming your friend only had 51% equity in each of those hands, the probability of your friend winning 10 or fewer hands out of those 100 is around 0.000000000000000003.

Your friend was right. The deal was rigged.

It is also possible that your numbers are a little off.

Dont make assumptions as to the skill of my friend. He shoves very light as much as I tell him he is a dog in most of those situations. So, dont assume anything regarding his equity. He is an agro donk. His use of the term "suck out" is quite liberal.

But any change in that number would just make the rigged case stronger. If he's getting sucked out on, by definition, he must be the favourite. Weevil was being conservative in making him a 51% favourite - if his equity was greater, this would be even more unlikely. Unless of course you're suggesting your friend doesn't understand what sucking out is, and was actually the dog in some of those hands.

That was my point. He thinks everyone is sucking out on him, the deal is rigged, and he loses not cause he sucks. He does.

Ah, OK then. Well, don't get me wrong, I'm sure you're right.

well, err, no you don't

play a game of poker why don't ya?

how many winners are there?

how many losers?

how many have taken a bad beat along the way?

and then do the math

The causes are very well understood, and none of them have anything to do with the deal being non-random.

It's not about being wrong, it's about this thread messing up your life (assumption based on logical deduction)

You're getting angrier every day, I was really shocked the way you respond to every Fated post nowadays even though he clearly put you on ignore. You're basically trolling the troll clogging up this thread with nonsense, I can see he got to you, although you'll never admit it.

If I were you I'd ask my self at some point is this thead really worth it for me? Could all those hrs/day I spend in it be spent in a way that is more life +EV? You're addicted to it imho and it stopped being fun for you a loooong time ago

Not true, you are describing agnostics there.

Atheists are like riggies, or people of faith, they believe there is no god and everything is random(variance) - without evidence as well. Faith by definition does not include probabilities, it only deals with certainty. If someone is inclined to believe in some god or in no god but aren't completely convinced, they will be called agnostic.

Therefor, atheists are believers too, believers in randomness.

P.S. : Although an agnostic myself, I can see deductions being made about some superior being(s) to human that have organized things in a certain way. Because alot of things in the known universe happen according to set rules, look at evolution for example.Kind of different than seeing patterns that aren't there. It's pretty unlikely to be random imo, like being dealt starting hands in the exact same order over a billion hands

Bad logical deduction, actually. Or, deduction based on incomplete evidence.

Wrong. The number of times I've ever actually got angry about a usenet or forum post can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And that's in twenty years.

He hasn't got me on ignore. He just doesn't respond directly. If you look carefully you can see how he occasionally addresses points I've made in replies to other.

So wrong, so many times, in one post.

This thread is, mainly, light relief. I'm a quick typist and it doesn't take me long to respond. I spend a lot of time on the computer for work but, since the nature of the work involves a lot of modify/test cycles I have a lot of very short breaks during which I can reply to posts. It may give the impression that I sit here all day just waiting for someone to post on this thread, but that's far from the case.

I know. But it's a distinction that not everyone is aware of and those who are automatically make the adjustment.

Not really.

An atheist simply says: "No evidence, no fact".

You don't give people special names for not believing in unicorns, pixies or teapots in space. It's only the vast number of people who suffer from the 'god delusion' that brings a need to name people who do not believe in one particular thing (amongst many others) for which there is no evidence.

Nope.

They simply don't believe in things for which there is no evidence.

There are two types of agnostic.

One type has no faith but worries that they might be wrong so call themselves agnostic to hedge their bets.

The other sort (like myself) says that logically there is no way of knowing what may be interposed between the raw universe and the universe we know (e.g. we may be some giant simulation of very basic life running on a computer in the bedroom of some child in a universe of hyper-intelligent, pan-dimensional beings), so, logically, all you can say is 'I don't know'.

This is not true, what you are describing is strong atheism.
An atheist is someone who does not hold the belief that any god exists.
A strong atheist is someone who holds the belief that no god exists.

That seems to pretty much coincide with the second type of agnostic I mentioned above.

The main difference being that someone who is an atheist is an atheist 'all round' whereas someone can be agnostic to one form of theism and atheistic to all others.

If you say so...tho even if true, it looks unlikely to me that you don't get wind up at all about things in this thread. Of course, I can't prove that
The 2 types are basically the same then, the 2nd just with more elaborate logic.

Do we really need to sub-categorize atheism and agnosticism now? There is enough confusion about those terms as it is.

FWIW I've always understood the concept as atheism as what you call 'strong atheism'. I agree with Wiki your 'normal atheist' type is basically an agnostic, that's what I said when I started this debate

Atheism/Theism deals with belief. Agnosticism/gnosticism deals with knowledge.

One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. They are not on the same scale.

If your answer to the question: "do you believe in any deity" is anything but "yes": you are an atheist - that is: not a theist, someone who believes in a deity. That includes someone who says: "I don't know."

You can then get into hard atheism and soft atheism, which atheists (myself included) spend many brain cells trying to properly delineate.

apologies for the diversion of the thread,
i should have picked another example from the poe law link,
religion and poker - not natural bed-partners

Theism is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Atheism is the lack of any such belief.
It does not mean that you believe no god exists.

An agnostic is someone who claims that the existence of a god is unknowable. Someone who is agnostic could be a believer in god or not.

You could be an atheist without being an agnostic, and vice versa. Basically what Arouet said more fluently than me.

I cannot, in all honesty, remember.

But if anything has really wound me up, I can guarantee that it won't be obvious. If anything it's likely to be someone jut saying the same thing over and over again which is dealt with by not responding.

The rigtard stuff cannot wind me up because it's so absurdly easy to counter.

And if someone comes up with a point that isn't absurdly easy to counter it's an interesting challenge.

Shills are more agnostic about their beliefs (they're still waiting for proof)
Riggies are more like theists (they believe regardless of proof to the contrary)

Sometimes riggies act like they're on a Crusade

currently we see shill are very determine and dedication to bombard the thread so real thing like working together cannot be done.
wiki's logical = there is no proof, so it proof it's not rigged.
there is no proof, because there is no software
if there is software, one can proof it by saying, yes it's not rigged or yes, it's rigged.
i'm a rigged because i see something that concern me.
selected memory or not: i did like to have the ability to check into my database, and determine it myself.

How many more times are you and your cohorts going to post this lie?

Neither I nor anyone else has said any such thing.

Just to remind you:

Rigtards believe that online poker is definitely rigged despite there being not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

Those of us defending online poker believe that it is probably not rigged because there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

We are paying tons of money in rake every single day. There is no reason to be rigged.

There's no software? O RLY?