spade's billion hand study,

Out of interest,did this include how meny 2 pair flops/2 to the flush flops.
The % of flushes at showdown and winning hand at showdown.
What site was this? were the hands consecutive if not what was the largest consecutive hand sample.

I appreciate you believe his stuff as if it is a religion, you quote it as if it is the bible. The guy is a showman and if he has you babbling about momma and baby donks as if it is scripture than congrats to him on providing a solid product that appeals to riggies.

Every single belief you talk about and he talks about would take some of the guys I work with seconds to disprove with their data (once a specific claim was made that is deeper than momma donk concepts), but even if that was shown to you in a step by step manner you would not believe it, instead you would tune in to see this guy's next episode.

That is why guys like him can achieve some success appealing to guys like you and again I congratulate him for doing that.

I appreciate you wanting to educate me, but for now I will stick with the database freaks who do a proper analysis over a showman talking about house players, psychics and momma donks when it comes to analyzing poker. You can stick to a guy who appeals to your needs though and nothing wrong with that if it is what you prefer.

See the difference between myself and other shills yet? I know you are wrong on this with regard to the logical thinking aspects of this discussion, but I don't really mind because you get a lot of entertainment and emotional fulfillment watching his shows, much like fans of pro wrestling get into their favorite characters as well.


Edit to add:



First part is the guy pitching his videos over and over.

His babysitted donks are all deep losing players which makes no sense. If they took care of them then they would not lose as much as they do.

Guy swears all the time which is distracting.

He whines about low stack suckouts when most riggies believe large stacks win too much. He probably has another video where he screams about big stacks winning too much.

Lot of the hands are standard all ins where he only shows when he loses. Some of the hands are from freerolls.

He claims that Stars keeps protecting the -75% ROI guys. See the logic problem with that claim after he lost AQ to A6.

Many of the hands the babysitted donks have larger stacks which goes against his belief earlier that they help small stacks so he contradicts himself a lot as well.


Not sure what else you want me to say, this video and the hands he shows actually unintentionally prove that the game is legit because all of the -50 to -75% ROI guys keep getting it in bad with hands like A6. That's why they are -75% ROI guys.



All the best.

on the contrary, you seemed to have some questions and assertions to make that were incorrect. I merely gave you a homework assignment to answers some of your own questions as you seem to be fascinated with this guy.

You asked me to review the video and I did because I have a bit of time right now. I kind of shrugged at what I saw because in the end he basically proved that the game was legit based on the hands the losing players overplayed.

The guy is pretty mundane as a showman and can work on his routine a lot if he wants to expand beyond being a routine angry yelling at clouds type act. Others have posted links to far more entertaining tongue in cheek rigged videos that appeal to riggies who fail to get the humor in them. Try to find some of those.

Thanks for the chat, and thanks for not at all changing how you think on this topic because if you did that would actually surprise me quite a bit.

Have fun watching his show. Send him a donation if you like it or something.

All the best.

Why not take up your issues with Magic? I'm just a dumb wrestling fan idiocracy type character after all. You can join his live internet tv show around 8pm every night central standard time. You can hear him talking and type your questions into the chat box. Here is the link for you: http://www.blogtv.com/People/PokerStarsIsAScam

If someone says that the -75% ROI guy is being protected by PokerStars, then PokerStars must be doing a pretty ****ty job of protecting him.

Not at all. Clearly if he got to -80% ROI he would quit playing. -75% is the optimal level for losing players willing to redeposit.

Only idiots don't understand this, its self-evident. If you don't see why you are clearly paid by the poker sites. All of them. Not just pokerstars.

From one fake shill to a real shill - your shilling is a bit too blunt, though I do respect the Idiocracy reference at least. If you are in on this guy's show or actually that guy himself then good job with the promotion here. Get back to me when he swears less, adds more humor and makes the show a bit more balanced other than one standard bad beat after another.



-80%? Try -97%.

They could technically say you are protecting them from becoming this guy:

http://www.officialpokerrankings.com...1EEAC.html?t=2

though I have no idea how they can justify Stars protecting him until they find a long term -100% ROI guy to compare.


Maybe the guy will do a show soon on Stars protecting -100% ROI guys who win too often when short stacked except when they win too often when large stacked.

Seriously? This is why people get muppet pics. Every major credible site has plenty of information on that. If you choose to write it off because of xenophobic and bigoted views, there's nothing I can do to help you.

THEY provide credible information on THEIR site? how naive are you fuego, you need to give yourself a mupp pic, and we're tired of kermit, so change it to beaker and then give yourself a face palm for not being the sharpest tool in the shed. xenophobic and biggoted views, ha ha ha, learn how to apply the right words to the right situation limp noodle.

just to clarify Fuego, I did not mean self-regulated. I meant by a 3rd party non-shill organization that they don't get to choose. mupp

Yeah, they list who they're regulated by. Use your head and take it a step further and then do your research on those regulatory bodies. You are beyond clueless and beyond help.

By the way, every public company in the United States gets to choose their auditors. It doesn't make the auditors any less independent nor does it imply those auditors don't have professional standards to follow. I should know, I spent 4 years as an auditor myself.

Grow up, muppet.

You've earned your way to the exclusive NFuego20 ignore list. It's a high honor, so congrats.

Ah ha! So you admit that you're a shill!

heh, if auditing public companies around Cleveland makes me a shill, I guess I'm a shill

Sadly it's just a matter of how an educated person has an understanding of how business and regulation work and the standard rigtard couldn't be more clueless. It's not terribly surprising.

I honestly don't see how anyone who has played online poker for a considerable amount of time (5 years+) can say it's not rigged to some extent.

I've played online for 10 years or so, have had plenty of upswings and downswings. I've played real poker (live) about 15 years.

Playing online, yes I understand you see considerable more hands, but there's just so much more 'action' hands. You may win but you always lose more.

I doubt anyone can prove one way or another that it's rigged or not.

And I think it's greatly exaggerated the number of winners over a long period of time that play every day. I'm guess it's less than 1%. Easily.

I won't be checking back cause people here make my head ache from pure naive stupidity. Have fun, I know all you are losers in the long run in the game of poker.. Keep lying to yourself that you are big time winners. The only winners of poker are those who play limited amounts of time and win big donkaments and get on a hot streak then stop.

If you play every day all day, for several years, you going to lose.

oh god

guess I need to post this again



graph covers about 5 years or so and doesn't even factor in rakeback or bonuses

friggin muppets

So who did you pay, and how much for such a protracted boomswitch ???

well as you can see the beginning of the graph started out best, that's because Party Poker gave me a bigger boomswitch for my bribes. Full Tilt wasn't as generous, but I guess that makes sense due to the increased cost of payment processors, etc.

In theory you might be correct, but ANY Fortune 500 company will not simply chose ANY auditor (accounting) firm.

If GM would use some 30+employee Firm (unknown firm), the IRS would have a field day finding mistakes. That in the end would cost GM more money to re-do their audit, hence why big companies use one of the Big Four Firms.

My point being, a company making BILLIONS will use one of the FOUR BIG ACCOUNTING FIRMS. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Unless FTP or PokerStars are being audited by one of the big four firms, and even then (think Arthur Andersen), no audit is 100% guaranteed to be mistake free, in some cases fraud is knowingly discovered but hidden.

For someone working as an auditor you should know about ethics in our profession and how UNETHICAL behavior is being conducted daily.


Is online poker rigged? What is your definition of rigged? The RNG works different at different sites. I've noticed that the smaller sites RNG is worthless and there's nothing random about it.

PokerStars has the best RNG with FTP in second place.

That graph is bull and faked.

God you're clueless. Nothing but non sequiturs. Do you have any idea the reporting requirements these companies have and the man hours that go into an audit as big as GM? A 30 man firm couldn't even handle it. So you're saying what, because there are only a certain # of options for auditors of large public companies in the US...... hell I don't even really know what you're saying. It's not exactly apples to apples. My point was fairly simple, that a company having the ability to choose the jurisdiction in which they operate and who conducts their audits is nothing new.

As for the rest of the garbage you're spewing, random is random. There aren't degrees of it. And what the heck are your conclusions based on? How many hands? I'm sitting on a database of just under a million and I see no evidence of something not being random. Please enlighten us on the scientific study you did.

lol, I have every single one of the 700k+ hand histories, not to mention PTR supporting the last couple years of it, a couple hundred thousand hands in a winning sample. You spent about as much time coming to your conclusion here as you did on your other posts, muppet.

I think I need to report you to an administrator for slandering me and accusing my graph of being faked without proof.

Looks shopped and in 700k plus hands whats your biggest downswing?
Why does the red/green line get thinner at the top with same amount of hands played also theres some suspect redline goin on in there.

Do you SS/hit n run?

Pm me your SN for PTR confermation or out it.

What's disappointing is that this is not even riggiespeak, it's outdated geezer perma losing player speak. Go to the technology forum and complain about why your pager does not work and ask who you can fax to get it fixed, then complete the trifecta with a scalding commentary of the naked butts they keep showing on NYPD Blue .

Fewer guys typing on their 386s and more riggies calling shills communists please.

I've PMed my name to respectable people before. You are not respectable. You're a clown. To just PM my poker handle to a guy hell bent on trolling people isn't going to happen.

Biggest downswing was about $3,000.

Suspect redline? Do you have a clue what you're talking about? That's an all in EV line, the only thing that could possibly be suspect is if it diverged a ridiculous amount from the green line.

No I don't SS or hit n run. I despise ratholing. I will often buy in at less than full but always closer to the maximum than minimum and never bolt after winning a pot.

I really don't care about your opinion. My identity is known by many, many posters on this forum. Your twisted logic and made up bs just make me lol.