Trolling lol.
Back up your graph please with solid proof,not just for me for everyone reading the thread.As you apparently run like god and i have yet to see another graph like that over such a sample i dont see a problem.

lmao. your full of ****.

A computer program written by humans will never be random. You're so pathetic its hilarious. You really think you're some big shot? STFU wanna be

I think you are confusing two concepts.

Your post talks about financial auditing. That protects money from being stolen from the business. That is entirely irrelevant to whether the shuffle is rigged. It's like checking the tyres on a car to determine whether the engine is operating fine. They're two separate issues that don't really have much connection.


The "auditing" that is needed here is a review by software and computer gaming experts, not financial audits. In this case, PokerStars does have the world's largest consulting firm specializing in software security and quality in Cigital conduct the review.

This is plainly false because the computer programs used to generate random numbers at a site like PokerStars use external information to generate the randomness.

Funny, I see regs post graphs better than mine all the time. You must not pay much attention or understand anything about what a good online poker player is capable of accomplishing.

I'm far from running like a god. If I were, my green line would be way higher than my red line, for starters. If you were to zoom in on any smaller sample within my graph you'd see all kinds of downswings, but when stretched out over 5 years and over 700k hands it's obviously going to be a pretty steady upward line, especially since I've dropped down in stakes over the past year due to the health of the games and that limits the amount of downswings.

As for proof, lol at that idea. I'm happy to share my information with any respectable established poster, and I have. I've even shared it with some of the more respectful riggies who truly seemed to want to engage in serious analysis. But I have to ask you, what would even constitute proof in your eyes? I already posted a graph that included all hands and no filter based off of my massive database of hands. Reality is you're going to believe whatever you want to believe. If you think I care so much about how you feel and I'm some sort of shill to the point where I'd manufacture my career graph, I feel sorry for you.

Maybe its because according to his graph he has never been touched by solid variance like most other poker players i know in 5yrs.

Somebody clearly doesn't understand how RNGs work. So much ignorance.

Yeah, I'm some big shot. That's exactly what I think I am. Reality is I'm incredibly lazy about getting volume in. I have friends who grind that number of hands in one year. They're the big shots. I'm simply happy with playing on occasion and earning a decent supplemental income.

So downswings of 15-20 buy ins don't constitute solid variance? Would you like to see 50-60 buy in downswings? Sorry, I'd have to be incredibly unlucky or just plain suck as a poker player to pull that off. Maybe that's the difference between you and I.

Look a little more closely before you make yourself look even dumber (if that's possible). There are multiple breakeven stretches of almost 100k hands in that graph. But sure, I don't encounter variance.

But you ask all riggies for proof!!! if you dont want to out it thats fine by me.
As stated, over that sample if its real, well done.^^^ I can lose 4 BI in 20 mins from multi tabling just by getting it in good.15-20 that would be nice.
Look at silent_ones graph in BBV you are more blessed than 95% of the poker players i know.

Hey troll read some of the past 27529 post here and maybe you will find what you're asking!

And are you serious!? you never saw this kind of graph lol time to read this forum!

Deer Onlines Pokure,

Yoo farging iceholes, you have chitted me ah gain. I yum gooing to drryve a farging trrruk in too yooz kaaaboom! Geev me munny bacs nouw oar elzz!

Yoars Trooly,

Sadaam Taliban

I suggest you to read again the rule of this forum, i think you miss some!

btw ken****** your SN fit you well

Sorry i dont understand in english please.

Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

The only part he got around to sharing was his flop study, so yes it included this (I'll even tell you how many 2 pair flops there were: zero). He didn't go to showdown. It was combined hands from multiple sites, which of course to you means "zomg wortheless, how can you tell if a site's rigged if you use hands from different site!?!!" Only spade knows this (well, him and everyone else with the ~billion hands).

It's irrelevant, though.

and cheeky internet geeks can be quite nerdy. Hey everybody, i know some guys with databases, take my word for it. Where's the link?

WHERE IS THE LINK

I understand that the database that he used was the one provided here:

http://pokerftp.com/

Your database proves nothing, it can't even make it seem more likely to not be rigged.

Can it show the hands of all players who ever played at the site for when a tourney gets down to less than 50% of its starting players?

Does it prove no superusers, superbots?

What if they rig it for 2/3 of their players and you are part of the 1/3 they don't rig it for? These are just examples off the top of my head.

There seemingly endless ways for a poker site to rig it to where it is not detectable. They could rig it one way for a week then switch to another way. They could rig a different way each day. Etc etc etc etc etc.

The only way to be sure of randomness is to watch somebody shuffle a deck of cards live, have them cut, then watch them deal.

To the other guy that commented (maybe it was you?) about me being a bad poker player, online I am up less than 10k over a very long period of time. Live I am up over 50k. I'm not bad but I do know that online I have no shot to pull away. If I could move close to Vegas or somewhere I could play whenever I want, I could be a pro. No doubt about that. Life situation does not allow for me to move.

So if the rigging is so small that it is undetectable, how do you know it is happening?

FYP

Because...? Because...? You can't prove a negative. What happens when the rigged 2/3s play the non rigged 1/3? No ****, Sherlock. No one has ever said rigging isn't possible, in fact just the opposite. What people have said is that there's been no proof of rigging, and that so far no one's coming up with even one rigging idea that could increase profits substantially while being relatively undetectable.

In fact I don't think there's been a realistic theory posed for a rigging scheme that could boost profits even allowing ridiculous levels of detectability.

Anyone with sharp knives in the kitchen could go lop off a few fingers, but I don't think many of us worry that one day we'll decide to do that. Yes, because nothing is more random than 3 quick shuffles of the deck, and no one on earth is able to set a deck then pretend to shuffle it.

Plus didn't you say earlier you can't tell if everything's fair online until you see all the hole cards? Why isn't that also true live?

Was there a full moon last night?

There does seem to have been a sudden influx of the thinking impaired running all over the thread talking about some mythical unregulated poker site(s) and failing to understand basic maths.

Next full moon is 21 December 2010 and the new moon was 5 December 2010

No full moon so they aren't lunatics :/

Here's data showing the number of players who are decent winners over a 50k+ hand sample. (Bear in mind few recreational players manage 50k hands)

http://www.pokertableratings.com/blo...s-the-softest/

ken******,

If there is any rigging that is too small to notice, then it is obviously irrelevant. Like, that's pretty much the definition of "too small to notice".

However, more substantially, there is pretty strong evidence that there is no rigging in the form of:

1) the audit of the credible sites

2) the fact that every single data based analysis has found no evidence of rigging

3) the fact there is no evidence to support the false and baseless accusations of rigging.

If you are willing to concede that there is no detectable evidence of rigging, I think we can end this discussion in agreement.