If there is one thing Monty does not lack, it's politeness.

Will you at least learn what spam actually is before making any more of these stupid accusations?

Well, you certainly got that right!

Even if we change 'conductive' to 'conducive', which is, I presume, what you meant, that still doesn't make sense.

You really need to take some spelling lessons. Reading your posts are amusing but it makes my eyes hurt and blood boil the way you butcher the English language.

Agreed.

Instead of rambling on about regulation, tax, legality, morality etc why don't you clearly spell out your accusations and your evidence for them?

I'll tell you why.

1) You are a deluded, attention seeking ******
2) You don't have any evidence
3) Any specific claims you write will be shown to be incorrect

If PS had gone through the IPO when planned, they would have realised about $2b. Because they can choose to operate as a private company they were able to make their own decision on trading with US clients, fairly good business decision as the latest valuation estimate of PS is $10b.
So to answer you question, why they turned down billions.......because they know their business and it was more profitable to stay private.

Failing that, how about just spell correctly?

Oh, wait, it's that whole 'being a ******, thing'.

Your evidence is interesting. My point, which is neither pro-shrilltard nor pro-riggie, is that nobody can define what "enough" is, but the argument that "they make enough" is frequently made itt.

Ask any individual/business: do you make enough? The answer will rarely be positive, almost everybody wants more. People want to make more and they will work hard to make more and, often, they will cut corners to make more.

So, the "they make enough and wouldn't risk it" argument is pretty weak, imo, and should be dropped from the shrilltard arsenal.

Simplistic analysis. The base of this point is whether the marginal revenue from whatever paranoid rigging scheme is suggested (which often times generates less revenue) is worth the additional risk.

UB/AP have seen their business drop considerably as a result of the super user scandal and that had nothing to do with a rigged deal. If any site was found to have a verifiable rigged deal then they would be out of business.

Many riggies go with the belief that people want more, but they ignore the cost. Even you gloss past it, so in their world Bill Gates would try to steal a waiter's $1 tip because he will always want more money.


That is one of the main problems with most riggie points - they lack perspective.

A site will cheat because they can make more money is what riggies will say.

When asked

How much more? They answer , does not matter it will be more (even though their rigging theories would generate less risk).

When asked what about the risk of being caught or an insider revealing the secret, they magically say that it will never happen.


I find some of the shill's "believing people commit crimes because they can is a reflection on your character" comments to be a bit preachy. Most riggies are not innate criminals, they just do not think about topics beyond the surface, and the riggie perspective (companies want more so would cheat to get it) fails the common sense test of good business.

Simplistic? I think that Occam had something to say about that.

He does, but it does not apply to the point you are making, unless you are suggesting Occam believes that any simple concept is the best.

We are all Lizard People is a simple theory. This make it true? Everyone knows only the evil overlords are Lizard People, not everyone.

Your opinion is simplistic as it lacks depth into the situation (it ignores the risks which are a key factor). His theory says the following:

The Razor generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions (aka postulates, entities) when the hypotheses be equal in other respects. For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.


You cannot ignore a significant factor like risk and then preach "my theory is simple - Occam Occam baby!" Ironically, riggies do that all the time when not spending time creating complex conspiracies that fail the same theory as well.


Think things through before posting next time to be sure they actually make sense. You do not drool quite as much as most of the other riggies, so try to be a better example to them.

All the best.

In accordance with what the Razor generally recommends, I suggest we drop the assumption that people/businesses know when they're making enough and the assumption that they won't run very large risks for very small gains.

Those are not in accordance to that principle.

Businesses compete in a marketplace and in order to succeed (especially in a very competitive industry), and to do so they need to be better run than the competition or else they will fail.

You seem to think that all businesses have no idea of what is enough or any concept of risk vs reward. Actually, you seem to ignore risk completely out of convenience. That simply is not how the marketplace works.

The Cryptologic network had a bonus and reward program that was far too generous and was brutally exploited. Eventually they ran out of money just like a bank who specialized in giving out change would over time. They were poorly run and eventually collapsed.

In contrast, the major sites today tend to be fairly well run through a lot of experience in the marketplace. They all make mistakes now and then (as do all businesses), but the ones who are succeeding now do not make inherent systemic errors, and your simplistic "they don't know how much is enough" principle is utterly impossible for any business to last in a competitive arena.


Do some companies run large risks for minimal gains? Sure. Those are the ones that fail, just like many of the poker players who play with no bankroll management and discipline.


Your beliefs are indeed simple, but they are inherently incorrect, so to say they follow "the Razor" just shows one of the ways riggies butcher that theory. The more common way riggies do this is with their intricate, yet unprovable conspiracy theories.

Do a little basic research on how marketplaces work and you may eventually understand what I am talking about.

All the best.

You really overreact and make ultra-long posts.

I like to take the time to explain the basic concepts to those who do not understand them. I can type 150+ words a minute, so a long post to you takes me 1-2 minutes to type at most. Not everyone in the world is the same, nor does everything operate under your simplistic, flawed theories.

If you want to be a shining examples to riggies then do the research I suggested, though we both know you will never do that nor come up with a proper, logical counterpoint. That's what this thread is about when dealing with riggies.

25 seconds to type this, hope you enjoyed it.

All the best.

That's better.

No problem. If you need me to use smaller words in addition to fewer words to help you process the information easier then let me know. I am always here for riggies.

Off to play so good luck with the other riggies, shills, sheeple, communists and Lizard People if you decide to continue with the debate today.

UB had a business drop , but all the other scandals shows no effect.
And by the way UB had only a scandal for one reason...the cheater was tooooo greedy.

Guess increasing the profit is easier with other things than a rigged deal...legal or not legal.

But also with a random deal onlinepoker is far away from a FAIR game

In a while we can celebrate you writing the same non sequiturs as a non-player for as long as you bonus whored (while never learning to actually play the game). Think its been a couple years for both at this point.

The UB cheater was not too greedy, he did a smash and grab. Those who believe he should have tried to get away with it for years playing 3 BB/100 poker or something (which still would not make him as much) live in a fantasy world believing that would be the better approach to that type of crime.

Other networks and rooms definitely suffered from scandals or poorly thought out decisions. They went out of business.

The online game is a fair game, but a lot of players such as yourself never had the abilities to adapt or compete in that game as it matured (and the free silly bonuses vanished), so just like the Cryptologic network, Real Deal Poker, Planet Poker and a whole bunch of others - you failed.

Welcome to how competition works, both between poker rooms and the players themselves.

You seem to have a good gig with posting your random musings here ever month or so, stick with that, and enjoy that you actually got a direct reply for a change as most of your latest work was generally ignored by both riggies and shills.

All the best.

First FT doomswitched me in the morning, and it was all Rush poker with the cracked kings and the cracked aces and the kings losing to aces but when I had aces, the kings beat my aces.

Then that afternoon it was all boomswitch time, with the royal flush and some straight flushes and some regular old ordinary but plentiful flushes, and every time I would have lost to a higher flush if I'd hit my flush, know what happened? That board never turned the last flush card, because a good boomswitch doesn't just boost your ass, it saves your ass, too!

Then I was like yeah, this is it, this what I'm gonna do for the rest of my life, I'll just play Rush poker on FT and move up the ranks and I'll be rich as hell sitting in my room cracking people's full houses with my royal flushes. It's all raw talent, because I know just what to do with those hands!

But then the next day came, and that was Sunday. And some klutz must've knocked into the doomswitch with his elbow while my name was on the screen, because it was all hell and bad beats and missed flops and 72o all day long until all that money I made yesterday was gone, and my deposit was gone, and my hopes and dreams were gone.

So then FT went down for maintenance this morning-and this is the part that's how I know it's all true about the boomswitch and the doomswitch-so I posted in the thread about it saying as how I'd like to see my boomswitch flipped back on, and I have it ON GOOD AUTHORITY in that very thread, that I gotta pay a couple hundred in rake before I get my boomswitch back! And I'm stupid and forgot to ask how much I gotta pay in rake just to get the doomswitch turned off and try to get by on some regular poker, but maybe they don't have that setting on FT. I dunno. But it's all true, and now I have proof, and you can go see the proof in that very thread that was made today!

(Oh dear lord I need a hobby.)

Cool story bro

Lets talk about the triple draw games on pokerstars:
This has an altered deal ,
what do we learn from this, Programmers can alter the deal in a subtle way.
Over the short term and long there is a financial gain for any pokersite doing this in other games.
Deal manipulation happens and is very real.
The variables are a little more complex i do admit but any programmer could hide this in code and it would be very hard to detect.Even through hand samples.

Is there subtle deal manipulations on some sites?

God you do talk some crap!

Why do you like to embarrass yourself like this?

Well, the spelling's an improvement.

Now do you think you could manage a little verb/subject agreement?

And sort your punctuation out?

And stop writing run on sentences?

TIA.

Your level of understanding and comprehension fails you yet again WIKI and you should be very embarrassed with your lack of the above,and knowledge on the subject.

Quoting Alex Scott:

I can confirm that this is correct. It is not possible to draw a card which you have already discarded at PokerStars, even in Triple Draw.

and

It’s not an error – the decision was made after much discussion and consultation with Team PokerStars (in fact, the original suggestion came from one of the most respected pros on the team). The theory is that no player would want one of their previous discards back.

Ok so lets manipulate the deal and make our own theory on how the game should be played.
Not a little cause for concern?

Instead of trying to run an english lesson why dont you post on topic for once.

TIA