Again, you are working under a faulty premise.

None of the regulars here ever state for a fact that it isn't rigged. If you'd had the courtesy to do even the most basic of research in this thread instead of just wading in and going off half c0ck you'd know that.

This has been posted before (several times):

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.



Got that now?

Sadly, ct is labouring under the delusion that s/he is a lot cleverer than s/he actually is.

Hence s/he will never really understand why people will not accept her/his faulty logic.

This has been posted before (several times):

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.



Got that now?[/QUOTE]

Planet earth calling WIKI, where are you? You seem to be in a dream state again. Time to take your meds, youre way overdue.

Planet earth calling WIKI, where are you? You seem to be in a dream state again. Time to take your meds, youre way overdue.[/QUOTE]

YOU are calling for WIKI to take his meds for a post in which he correctly describes what is happening?

Someone put this clowns videos up in nvg. He is a winning player according to opr, not steady, but not an out and out donkey. I watched and he limped in early position with A5o and was outdrawn by a donk. But that limp was donkish.

dont know if I can put a link it was pokerstars is a scam. Magic612. He used the phrase babysitting donks.

He had some really nasty bits about the owner of the adult site doing sodomy. someone said he was Canadian but i dont know. He sounded like a Cree I knew back in the early 80's who sold used cars or so he claimed, but I dont know for sure if this guy is a Canadian.

Not all people who think the outcomes are strange are losers. I myself am always shaking my head.

Somebody posted those videos in here a while ago.

It's not my style either, but this is the Internet, and us grown-ups learn to deal with it or ignore it.

And yet for the most part, it is. I'd explain in further detail, but last time I did, you ignored it, so I guess there's no point.

It's not my preferred style, either.

I just got fed up with writing posts that carefully explained things only to have them ignored by the person they were answering. Ofttimes being called a shill into the bargain.

I'll still take the trouble to carefully explain and engage in polite, sensible, dialogue with posters who actually listen.

But someone like chaos theory who refuses to either acknowledge explanations given or point out the flaws in those explanation (because there's no assumption that anyone is guaranteed to be correct) but, instead, keep repeating assertions based on the same flawed logic and understanding does not really repay the time spent in responding to him in any detail.

Quite.

He ignores explanations and just reiterates the same erroneous assertions.

What's this can't prove a negative business?

I think you beat your wife. Prove that you don't.

That's easy, I'm not married. Next!!

If you're serious---

In this case, the problem is twofold.

First, you can test for one type of rigging (say 'action flops'). When that doesn't show rigging, then the riggies will way 'no action flops'. When that's tested, then the riggies will say KK v AA. When that's tested then the riggies will say boomswitch after deposit. When that's tested then the riggies will say doomswitch after withdrawl. When that's tested ... (I hope you see the pattern)

Second, the tests that have been done are statistical. In this case, you are trying to reject your null hypothesis. That is, you never 'prove' your hypothesis of 'not rigged'. You either reject the null hypothesis (at some statistical level) or fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Now, if you actually had the code, you could possibly get around both of these issues by 'proving' the code does what it's supposed to do. But, another nasty version of the first problem shows up--the riggies can now say 'well, that's not the code that's currently used, they swapped the code out for a rigged code', and we're back to square one.

I recently got my FTP basic white t shirt and found that my nipples poke through when I wear it. Poker is rigged to make me look fat.

If the negative in this debate is "not rigged" then I think that that is just a play on words.

In the case of this debate things are quite different in my opinion. You see, rigged=not random and not rigged=random. Rather the opposite. But if you wanted to be really fair wouldn't you say rigged=predetermination and not rigged=random. Two 'positve' entities if you will.

No offense. This has to be the longest sentence I have ever seen.

This I believe is flawed a bit. I have seen plenty of chicks with their nips popping out that were skinny as a stick. I don't think nips popping out signify fatness. I think, in most cases, it means horny or cold. I could be way off though.

Yikes.

Planet earth calling WIKI, where are you? You seem to be in a dream state again. Time to take your meds, youre way overdue.[/QUOTE]

Yup its like i loose = rigged
and i win = its random

But who trust a place that offer there service outside of national law ?
Fact is that the game and playing the game is crime here...ok noone really cares.

The general problem for poker will be that still only 10- 15% of the fresh money goes to the winning players. After regulation and taxation that will be 5-10% and we will see 50 % for rigged and 50% for not rigged .

Sure my results let me play only stakes where rigged not rigged, botting and tracking is not important.

I am only a bit pissed that the nice pokertimes with the huge promotions are over.

Why would I be offended?

There are a couple of missing commas, though.

Which sites operate outside of a 'national law'?

Where's here?

It's not illegal in a lot of the world. (Most of the English speaking world, for example.)

It's already regulated and, in some jurisdictions, any winnings are taxed. (Not here, though. )

Have you spent any amount of time trying to improve your game to the point where you can actually consistently win?

You clearly enjoy the game so it's a pity that you can't make at least some profit from it.

ShaneP has already explained how the expression applies to the 'rigging' debate.

More generally the expression should really be: "You cannot prove (by examination) a negative over a population of such size (or inaccessibility) that you cannot examine every member."

Clearly you can prove that you, personally, do not have three arms (unless, of course, you do. ).

You can also prove that no one can 'square the circle', by logical reasoning.

But you could not prove that there is no one in the world with six toes on each foot and one blue and one green eye.

[QUOTE=Wiki;24162216]its not illegal in a lot of the world. (Most of the English speaking world, for example.)


It's already regulated



Have you spent any amount of time trying to improve your game to the point where you can actually consistently win?

Really statring to worry about you dude. The longer you live in your dream/fantasy world the harder its going to be coming back into the real one. It might be to late already!

Oh FFS, did you even read the post two above yours? This has nothing to do with words; ShaneP explained the problem with trying to prove poker isn't rigged. Call it positive or negative or fairy dust or giant marshmallow men from outer space, his point stands.

Is there any chance that you will ever learn how to quote properly?

You actually have to take some specific action to foul it up the way you keep doing.

As to your question, why not specify what you think the 'dream/fantasy' is?

Or are you, as I suspect, just intending to make yourself look like an idiot?