Oops.

I think I may have hit a nerve.

Live casinos don't provide insurance in their poker games either.

In fact the only times I ever see or hear of insurance in poker games is when Phil Hellmuth is on TV and being dumb like usual and buying insurance from other players at inflated prices.


Not providing insurance is nothing.

For the sites its not necessary to rigg the deal, they make enough profit.

On the other site its not possible to proof something without all dealt cards ( including the hidden ones ).

A bigger problem is that there are bots and cheaters that are better than me

You're right, but good luck getting a riggie to believe it

See the bold; define "enough." You got to be kidding. Whether you're shrilltard or riggie, that statement is just wrong.

As always, the real point is that they make enough profit legitimately that it would be severely -EV for them to rig the deal to make a little bit more.

And if they did want to rig the deal the sensible way to do it would be to use house robots and give them an edge in the most unobtrusive fashion possible, not try and keep losing players on site by handing them winning cards on the river which would (despite the continued whining of the riggies) be extremely easy to detect if it was done to the extent that it would actually change the behaviour of the losers.

I'm not taking the side of shrilltard or riggie here--there are plenty of good arguments against riggies. But the "they make enough legitimately" argument is repeated many times in this thread and elsewhere and it is just wrong. They are so many examples in poker and in real life where people who had it made were still chiseling and cheating long after there was any remotely reasonable need for more.

So drop the "they make enough" point. You don't need it, and it's wrong.

Its really NOT wrong...as was said the potential risk is not worth the potential profit making it -EV. There are not that many situations in the past where somebody put everything they had at risk for not much more. That is the argument here

go away

Ever hear of Russ Hamilton, Martha Stewart, and on and on and on and on. What was Tiger's EV for poon-on-the-side? A personal example: friend making 75K with spouse making 60K, and both involved in kickback scheme worth about 20K, and caught and off to jail with ruined reps. People/businesses really will put it all at risk for negligible gains.

The point really is just wrong.

It's not that its wrong: it's an argument in favour of the proposition that it is unlikely that the major poker sites are rigging the deal. That said, its one of the weakest of arguments on this topic, it inevitably raises the point that people do all sorts of things that don't make sense.

So: weak argument, yes it should be dropped since there are much stronger arguments - the strongest being that motives aside there is not a shred of evidence in support of it. Motive arguments have their role, but they only go so far.

[ ] weak
[x] wrong

:-)

Russ hamilton was an idiot and can u tell me what his income was compared to his personal gain? How about martha stewarts? A lot of her income came from her fraud, so your point isn't really so strong. Of course she made a lot from her branding but she fraudulantly built a lot of her empire. an idea cannot be "wrong" by definition. We are discussing a possible reasoning or anti-reasoning if you will for stealing money, not definite facts. But really we all do think you're cool for being right all the time and telling people so much. Keep it up

Are you implying Russ H is an idiot with a large personal gain?

It is one of the weaker arguments but not all that weak when considered in the context of the likely hood of being caught.

Most of the people who commit fraud (unless it's to finance some sort of addiction) take care to do so where the evidence can be secreted away from prying eyes.

If a poker site rigs the deal the evidence is out there under the scrutiny of a lot of very suspicious people. Many of whom have maths degrees and a considerable understanding of probability.

That's why it is a much stronger argument than it at first appears.

[ ] Correct assessment
[x] Incorrect assessment.

(We could go on like this all night.)

Well there is one undeniable fact.The owner of Pokerstars is a fugative in America and will not step foot on American soil but thats not to do with greed or tax free dollars.?

An IBM programmer who developed the software at Pokerstars but never had the dollar on his mind when doing this only a fair game.?

KRT

And why not? The thread has the room.

Why do some shrilltards cling to this weak/wrong point with so much energy? Aren't the rest of the shrilltard points strong enough to carry the debate?

So does he walk everywhere on his hands?

You know, what with being a fugitive in America but not setting foot on the soil.

Or does he just walk on paved surfaces?

That isn't even a sentence.

We know you are a ******, both from your helpful name and the quality and content of your posts but can you try and at least make some vague sort of sense?

only 2 % of online players make a profit but 99 % percent say that post claim that they are winning player's something does not add up. so lets explain profit say you deposit 50$ and you turn that 50 into 100 you have made a profit of 50$ that's profit. now lets say you cash out 50$ and leave 50$ in your account now lets say you lose that 50$ the account is 0 .now your even no profit made here. so you deposit another 50$ and lose that now your in the red a loss of 50$ just because you cashed out once your not a winning player. so I will ask again how many of you are online winning player's and if I get a response of more then 2% saying that they are. your fooling yourself and no one else

WTF? This thread is stupid, but what is that?

Yet again you reply to facts with a childish humour an adult finds difficult to understand.And your level of comprehension is astoundingly poor are you 10 yrs old, and i really mean that, are you a prepuberty teen as you reply and post like one.

KRT

No, ken - you find it difficult to understand because you are a ******.

That and the fact that you use a form of English not used by anyone else on this planet.

Didn't anyone ever teach you the basics of correct punctuation?

Oh, 1/10 for putting a full stop at the end of the sentence like thingy above.

It's become a good deal more stupid (if that's possible) since ****** ken joined.

I'm impressed with the logic process that goes from "there was evidence found of people cheating" to "therefore, the fact that other people haven't been caught cheating is proof that they are cheating too"