Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > > >

Discussion of Poker Sites General discussion of online poker sites.

View Poll Results: Is Online Poker Rigged?
Yes 3,445 34.94%
No 5,522 56.01%
Undecided 892 9.05%
Voters: 9859. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-26-2009, 08:17 PM   #2851
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
This seems extremely inefficient to me. Why not simply set up an array containing the integers 1-52 in order, then use the RNG to shuffle it. No need to have the program "remember" whether a card had been used or not -- just peel them off the shuffled virtual deck, one at a time, as if you're dealing a real deck of cards.
This is actually what is typically done. On Poker Stars they do this once before the hand and the shuffled deck is fixed. On Full Tilt the stub is shuffled before every street. But they both set up a deck array and randomize it (and FT also randomizes a large set of stubs that are called on as needed). Full Tilt says their method is to prevent superusers since the next cards are never known until time to deal them. Poker Stars says their method is just like using a real deck. Both are equally random.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2009, 10:40 PM   #2852
LeHeroCall
journeyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: ITM
Posts: 327
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by edfurlong View Post
Wow I've really been missing out by not reading the ****** containment thread. Keep up the fantastic work gentlemen!
The best part in thoses threads is usually the one where OP explains he would rather play vs good players than fishes who call raises with ATC.
LeHeroCall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 04:04 AM   #2853
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
This seems extremely inefficient to me. Why not simply set up an array containing the integers 1-52 in order, then use the RNG to shuffle it. No need to have the program "remember" whether a card had been used or not -- just peel them off the shuffled virtual deck, one at a time, as if you're dealing a real deck of cards.
That's another way of doing it that would probably be used by a Casino. It's actually less efficient if you only need a small number of cards per hand (e.g. for certain simulations). This is because it involves sorting the array - not a problem for dealing cards for real games but a potential bottleneck in simulations.

To actually answer the original question (which was how you get cards from an RNG) using the sort method:

Set up an array of pairs of numbers, one element of the pair being the position in the array and the other a random number. Sort the array on the basis of the random number and then use the index numbers as your cards (assigning a number of 0 to 51 to each possible card).

There is actaully a rather subtle problem with that approach (that should certainly be corrected by a casino) - anyone see it?
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 05:24 AM   #2854
Weevil99
grinder
 
Weevil99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Waiting for an epiphany
Posts: 620
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
That's another way of doing it that would probably be used by a Casino. It's actually less efficient if you only need a small number of cards per hand (e.g. for certain simulations). This is because it involves sorting the array - not a problem for dealing cards for real games but a potential bottleneck in simulations.

To actually answer the original question (which was how you get cards from an RNG) using the sort method:

Set up an array of pairs of numbers, one element of the pair being the position in the array and the other a random number. Sort the array on the basis of the random number and then use the index numbers as your cards (assigning a number of 0 to 51 to each possible card).

There is actaully a rather subtle problem with that approach (that should certainly be corrected by a casino) - anyone see it?
I'm having trouble understanding the bolded part. In your array of paired numbers, what are the random numbers? Are they the numbers 0 to 51 randomly sorted somehow? Or are they random fractional numbers between 0 and 1, maybe? I'm not quite able to follow this without a little more explanation, so I'm definitely not able to see a subtle problem with it at the moment.
Weevil99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 05:35 AM   #2855
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
I'm having trouble understanding the bolded part. In your array of paired numbers, what are the random numbers? Are they the numbers 0 to 51 randomly sorted somehow? Or are they random fractional numbers between 0 and 1, maybe? I'm not quite able to follow this without a little more explanation, so I'm definitely not able to see a subtle problem with it at the moment.
It's hard to know at what technical level to pitch this.

Typically, RNG's will provide 16, 32 or 64 bit integers (basically just a random string of bits of the specified width).

Obviously, for a pack of cards, you would use 52 elements but let's just use four for this example. You set up an array of pairs of numbers, the first of which is the index into the array and the second is a random number. e.g.

0, 62543
1, 27346
2, 153
3, 2883

Now you sort the array on the basis of random numbers so it looks like this:

2, 153
3, 2883
1, 27346
0, 62543


Now you have the four numbers 0-3 in a randomised order.

Scale that up for a 52 element array and you can deal a pack of cards.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 06:19 AM   #2856
Weevil99
grinder
 
Weevil99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Waiting for an epiphany
Posts: 620
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
It's hard to know at what technical level to pitch this.

Typically, RNG's will provide 16, 32 or 64 bit integers (basically just a random string of bits of the specified width).

Obviously, for a pack of cards, you would use 52 elements but let's just use four for this example. You set up an array of pairs of numbers, the first of which is the index into the array and the second is a random number. e.g.

0, 62543
1, 27346
2, 153
3, 2883

Now you sort the array on the basis of random numbers so it looks like this:

2, 153
3, 2883
1, 27346
0, 62543


Now you have the four numbers 0-3 in a randomised order.

Scale that up for a 52 element array and you can deal a pack of cards.
Okay, now I see what you meant. The immediate problem is that you might, by chance, generate the same random number more than once, in which case your sorting algorithm wouldn't work as expected and the "randomized" deck wouldn't quite be perfectly randomized.

The approach I had in mind was to make a single pass through the deck and swap each card with another card, selected randomly. I saw this implemented in a short C program a long time ago and it seemed extremely elegant to me.

My personal preference would be for the swapping method since it seems simpler and less compute-intensive, but I think both algorithms would work fine once all the theoretical gotchas are ironed out.
Weevil99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 06:29 AM   #2857
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
The approach I had in mind was to make a single pass through the deck and swap each card with another card, selected randomly. I saw this implemented in a short C program a long time ago and it seemed extremely elegant to me.

My personal preference would be for the swapping method since it seems simpler and less compute-intensive, but I think both algorithms would work fine once all the theoretical gotchas are ironed out.
Yes, that would work very nicely. And it would save the sort.

So that's three ways of getting cards from an RNG. Should be enough to be going on with.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 06:35 AM   #2858
K13
banned
 
K13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 531
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by otatop View Post
I'd love to see your PT3 or HEM stats showing this happening. Just absolutely love it.
If they worked on my computer then I would.
K13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 06:37 AM   #2859
Weevil99
grinder
 
Weevil99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Waiting for an epiphany
Posts: 620
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
It's hard to know at what technical level to pitch this.

Typically, RNG's will provide 16, 32 or 64 bit integers (basically just a random string of bits of the specified width).

Obviously, for a pack of cards, you would use 52 elements but let's just use four for this example. You set up an array of pairs of numbers, the first of which is the index into the array and the second is a random number. e.g.

0, 62543
1, 27346
2, 153
3, 2883

Now you sort the array on the basis of random numbers so it looks like this:

2, 153
3, 2883
1, 27346
0, 62543


Now you have the four numbers 0-3 in a randomised order.

Scale that up for a 52 element array and you can deal a pack of cards.
Woops. Another problem is that there is an inherent bias on one end of the deck or the other. It looks like you were generating 16-bit random numbers to sort. There are 65,536 possible numbers using 16 bits, and since we want each of our 52 cards to have equal probability of being selected, we need to get 52 equally sized ranges of numbers from our RNG. But 65536 is not evenly divisible by 52. The largest 16-bit number evenly divisible by 16 is 65,520. That means 16 cards will have a slightly greater chance of being selected than the others in the deck.

The swapping algorithm also has this problem, and there might be more gotchas in both algorithms I'm not seeing.

The simple solution for this problem is just to reject any returned integer greater than 65,520.
Weevil99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 06:40 AM   #2860
K13
banned
 
K13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 531
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Online blackjack is not rigged either.
K13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 01:45 PM   #2861
SooperFish24
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,028
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
lovvely1980
on 08/10/2008 I don't care what kind of non-sense they tell you, they told me all of this before. Yet I have played over 6 thousand games (tournaments and sit n gos) on this site, and I have some definite patterns that indicate the site is indeed RIGGED. I am a top notch player who knows all the ins and outs, and all the odds, and its just next to impossible for the things to happen that I see and experience. Look, every single decent player that I talk to on that site, who plays at least 4 hours a day (myself playing 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for 4 years) has said the same thing, there is just simply NO WAY That it's random. For months now, my pattern of wins to losses is as follows: 1 win, 15 straight losses, 1 win, 14 straight losses, 1 win, 15 straight losses,...etc. Mind you, I play premium hands, I dominate preflop in most instances, and still manage to lose to hands, that have as low as a 1% chance of winning. You see, the only way for bad players to remain on the site, and continue to pay rake, is for them to get extra lucky compared to the good players. Naturally pokerstars wants as many players on the site as possible for more rake. So if they give the bad players the advantage, then they can continue to pay rake, and the good players, can tough it out, and pay rake also.
Reply
3 Replies — best has 0 diggsPokerScammers, on 10/04/2008, -0/+0After taking bad beat after bad beat (often to very slim odds), i could not get over the feeling that PokerStars is somehow manipulated.

I was very glad to see these posts, because it is talking about exactly what is happening to me. In fact i know nothing about Digg, and only created an account so i can post a comment with the hope that even if only one person sees it, it will prevent them from being scammed by this poker site. Although, it does seem that these manipulations favor unskilled players, so if thats you, maybe youll get lucky..

I encourage anyone who has found the information in these articles to read it, because whats being said is true.
For myself, i was doing ok for about 6 months, winning some and losing some and pretty much breaking even overall. Then as my game improved i was starting to win. and win. I would consistently take first thru 3rd place in the tourneys i entered.
Then things seemed to change after i reached my 'first time buy in' bonus, and cashed out most of my money.
Since then its been lose.. lose.. lose -- to hands that im usually the 85-95% favorite, such as KK vs 99, all-in preflop, and lo and behold, the 9 falls on the river. (Funny, i even told my girlfriend last night while i was playing this very hand, "ill make you a 50cent side bet-- there will be a 9 on the river".. She didnt take the side bet (probably cuz shes been witness to the Jokerstars madness) and so i didnt even win the 50 cents!) Or AQ vs. 92 -- and they hit a full house. Now, based on mathematical statistics, this kind of thing will happen occasionally. Thats just poker. The problem here, is that this Happens consistiently, time after time. Hand after hand after hand. (Sorry bout the excessive use of redundency, but its to make a point-- It happens ALL THE TIME.)
Anyway, its disappointing that this is whats happening (Even though PokerStars will deny it, and it seems put the screws even worse to players who complain)
Because if it were a truly fair game, then everyone would benefit overall, and not just the players who are for corporate financial reasons being favored. In fact, the unskilled players are really not being benefitted at all, because it doesnt give them a chance to improve, and they just remain donkeys, and sooner or later will lose whatever lucky winnings they stumbled upon.
The other thought is that pokerstars has computer 'robot' players, who win, and so the money stays in-house. Just more paranoia, right?

Some will say 'its not rigged', that 'its truly random' etc, but perhaps they are judging from their own experience, and havent been beaten over and over again by hands that stastically are severe underdogs.. I wish is wasnt rigged. I just want to play real, honest poker.

Guess i could work at 'cracking the code' for pokerstars, and learn to play in a way that im using whatever programs are running to my advantage, but id rather just play simple, straight-up poker.
So today, im cashing out all my money from PokerStars --whats left of it-- And looking for a new site.
Problem is, i dont know if the other sites are any better..
I would love to see someone do an exposee piece on Jokerstars, exposing it from the inside, for the world to see..
Oh, and one last thought-- The article "Is pokerstars rigged- we finally know the real answer" from Pokerreveiwsweb. Never asks any specific questions about actual case history data on this topic.. Its more like "Is pokerstars rigged?" -- "no" -- "Well there u have it! its not rigged!" Makes me wonder whos in bed with whom..
Good luck all.

edmanski, on 01/03/2009, -0/+0When I read these posts it felt like I was the one who posted it all! All of this is true. I've played for years, hours, at least a million hands and I've written letters to PS staff and all of this. I've said everyting written here and wondered if I was alone. I've noticed that most players just ignore it all and act like "it's just poker". It's not. This site rolls out hands to favor long shots, larger stacks and novice players. All in the name of perpetuating the longevity of cash on the site and therefore, to maximize the rake over time.

You see, to those who say "it's poker, bad beats happen" I've been baffled to find that NO ONE mentions or is willing to talk about the money held on the site. All I ever here is "why would they risk loosing millions to cheat?" And the answer is no different then to why Investment banks risked 50:1 and are now gone. It's all about greed. (Merill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, WaMu, Wachovia.) Or how about Bernie Madoff? He's wiped out $50B of investors money when you could have easily said "why would he do that when he's making millions"? Yeah. Why would he do that? Same reason PS does.

Inside of this greed is the issue of getting caught up in an investment hole you can't get out of. And when you're in too deep, you go back to the investors for more to bail you out of your "ponzy scheme". You keep going back for more until it's all gone.

And about all internet gaming. Why do people not wonder where there deposit money is? Most are foolish enough to believe the money is "kept in a seperate account". That's what PokerStars says but I've asked them what that means and they will not say. Well, it means the money is invested. Banks and businesses INVEST deposits while the cash is sitting idle. It's one of the most profitable forms of their business model. They only need about 2% of total deposits to pay out daily operations. As long as there's not a run on the bank/site, they continue to operate profitably. Yet should investments go wrong or people start demanding deposits, the bank closes down. Ever hear of WaMu or IndyMac? Recent runs on these banks closed them down.

So what if all the deposit money was invested with high risk and leveraged with borrowed funds? Perhaps placed in the stock market or some dirivitive vehicle? And then after the recent world wide crash, 40% of the money is lost to bad investments?? What would PS do to repay the lost deposits? Would they tell you? Um, no.

God knows they would say nothing. But this is exactly what's happened. They were not saved as the rest of the world crashed. And they are burdened with this fictious debt yet they will never be asked to repay it. They are not regulated by any angency and they have no insurance on deposited funds. Should they not pay you back, they would just close the site. You have no recourse to this offshore company.

So in the mean time, the odds to win have been changed to favor all the poker sites so they can rake more cash. It only takes a little. Say you are favored 80/20. Then they change it to 75/25. That's enough to keep money circulating around the site. And then, counting card odds becomes meaningless becuase the standard deviation of the card counter has been changed. It only takes a little to even the odds out so that, over time, all players get screwed, pay more rake, and loose.

And the sad thing is, those players that are "gamers" pick up on this. They "see" the patterns and play accordingly. They understand in a subconcious way the details that any two cards will win with a deep stack. Add that's all it takes to make each player a loser over time.

I have a list of the top 10 things to "see" when you play. I'm sure these sites are scrambling for more money to shore up their investments. And I'm positive they have incentive to keep the scheme going until they run out of options and simply close down.



pete6000, on 03/27/2009, -0/+0I have to agree with these players about Stars being rigged. I too, am a great player and have had issues with Pokerstars. After playing on and off for two years on Stars, I maybe have broken even. Before that I made money on Party Poker (moved to Stars after Party closed down to U.S.) and after that - I am currently making money on Ultimate Bet. I am not going to give specific examples, but I have never played so much frustrating poker in my life. I think its a tradgedy that such a great game is colluded. The worst part is the time I have taken away from my family trying to break even or time wasted trying to get my winnings back. Thanks to a friend, I finally switched. Don't be fooled by their 130,000 plus players. Take a look at the flop percentages and tell me that there are constantly 120,000 great players on the site. Larger numbers equal larger numbers of donks. Not the case at Poker Stars. Find a different site to play on. TO THOSE WHO THINK STARS IS LEGIT -WE KNOW ABOUT BAD BEATS AND THE DOWNS OF POKER. WE ALSO UNDERSATND OUR SKILLS AND THAT THE BETTER PLAYERS MAKE OUT IN THE LONG RUN. MY RUN WITH STARS IS OVER. I SUGGEST YOU FIND A DIFFERENT SITE. DON'T LET THEM WASTE YOUR TIME. Good luck all and hopefully one day their scandal will be exposed. Then we can all inhale a breath of redemption.0 diggs +0 / -0 jenharb
on 09/04/2008 First off let me say lovelly isn't a ***** talker. I actually have played with her many times in the past and she is a good player.
Poker stars is rigged I believe that without question. I wanted to be discreet so I created a second account with a different IP address and started to study the website. I emailed Scott the poker room manager with many questions. Questions that I believe surprised him that I started to uncover the answers too. After he outright asked me what i was doing he threatened my account be closed. I left him alone. I requested a huge amount of hand history, to become aware of more hands. I was testing time reactions, increased action around the bubble by action cards and how deep stacks win so much when they are behind. I started to uncover percentages like this. 87% of the time around the bubble and important times of a tournament a deep stack will win vs a small stack.... deep stack purely dominated. That alone defied math. When things are 60-40 they should hover around those not differ by 29% over a huge time period..hence why they call it 60-40 and not 87-13. Anyways I all of the sudden went to log in one day to my poker account to do some more studying and observation, to find an error saying my account was locked. I emailed support and got a reply ``we apologize for any issues you may be having but we cannot discuss any further issues you with you. Your emails will all be directed to Scott``. Lo and behold my account was permanently frozen and they sent me a check for my remaining funds and gave me contact information to their lawyer if there was ever a need to contact them again. That was the only way. They closed my brothers account and friends account immediately (tracking them through my ip address) and sent them a check and denied all hand history requests, completely ignoring any emails sent by anyone. All 3 of us tried to meet with the gaming commission who ignored our phone calls and email requests. Now what kind of gaming commission is that when you tell them you have some evidence that poker stars is `rigged`doesn't answer you back. Constant runaround for weeks...than nothing is all we got.
I have played on other sites and believe all of them to be rigged in some sort of way. But no one can explain why I have won a fair bit of money in live play to be flat screwed on poker stars no matter how good I play. When you play the Sunday million and your on the bubble with quad kings...to lose to the one player who has you out chipped to runner AA for quads, something is wrong. When u cash out all of the sudden you go on this god awful run ever encountered. When I first went to that site I played a $10 mtt and won it winning somewhere around $1600...the very next day I played one of the 360 max tourneys and came in second winning a few hundred. Than I cashed out and what a load of hell. Than I never made a final table again no matter how hard I played. Even making world class folds didn't help. Having KK vs AA and knowing how tight and solid the player was...I folded my kings by the turn. Now you make folds and reads like that and u are still losing by the most horrid ***** ever....its wrong. to have AA vs a2...flop 569 all clubs...i hold ace of clubs i push my stack in knowing my opponent is a donkey not wanting to screw around. There was 19k in the pot I have 27k he had 39k...He calls me with a2 off suit no clubs....turn 3 river 4...no clubs...is a load of *****. that happens no where. I bubbled.
I can sit here and type 40 pages of evidence and hands but there is no sense. If you believe it to be legit than your an idiot
.
SooperFish24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 01:46 PM   #2862
SooperFish24
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,028
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Want to know how i found this thread? I typed in "is poker stars rigged" into google. Why might you ask? Well, I am a winning player live and applied the same strat to online, cept I play tighter and cant read aswell online. I have been playing online only at pstars for the last 2 years. I have never been up money at that site, no matter how I played. I was playing omaha hilo 3/6 NL, and lost 3 major hands in a row 1 month ago. First AA2K double suited, to KKQQ no suite. AA26 single suite to A378 all suited. and AA23 double suite (best hand in omaha hilo) to A277. I lost more then $2000, not including the money I should have won.
Then I decided to play $6 single table SNGs, because I wanted to see some stats. I applied an allin or fold strategy. 10 to 6 handed I would only play AA KK QQ AK. And i would go allin preflop. No chance of making mistakes anywhere in the hands. Below 6 I would play AQ JJ 1010. below 4 I would play AJ A10 99 88 77. and heads up I would play my normal playstyle.
here are my stats that I took down.
Total SNGs: 136
Cashed SNGs: 22

Hands played up to heads up: 740
Hands won up to heads up: 126
AA win %: 5%
KK win %: 12%
QQ win %: 24%
AK win %: 14%

Some other interesting facts I noticed: I was only behind twice out of 740 hands. QQ vs KK, and AK vs KK. And I won both of those pots.

Some notable beats:
AA vs 22. Flop A77. Turn 2. River 2.
QQ vs Q5o vs Q7o. flop 575, turn 7, river A. (first hand of the SNG)
KK vs K5o. Flop AK4 turn 3 river 2.

% of KK and QQ winning vs Random Ace. 7/89. So I had a 8% win ratio with my 70% odds.
I won 22% of my coin tosses.

I have spent my last penny on pokerstars, and have unistalled. I believe they wish to keep fishes on that site so they let the fishes win and the good poker player believes his badluck streak will turn around some time soon. As for the pros playing on pokerstars, its rare to catch a pro playing a cash game as they only play in the WCOOP. And they probably have free entrance covered in their contracts.
.
SooperFish24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 01:51 PM   #2863
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Markusgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
I am a top notch player who knows all the ins and outs, and all the odds, and its just next to impossible for the things to happen that I see and experience. Look, every single decent player that I talk to on that site, who plays at least 4 hours a day (myself playing 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for 4 years) has said the same thing,
I don't think his assessment of his skills or that of the other "decent" players is terribly accurate.

But it sounds like more of the same - patterns, not random, Bernie Madoff, etc. Oh, and the part where he doesn't have any evidence too.

Where's that from, Sooper? Stephen Meares' new blog?
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 01:55 PM   #2864
SooperFish24
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,028
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markusgc View Post
I don't think his assessment of his skills or that of the other "decent" players is terribly accurate.

But it sounds like more of the same - patterns, not random, Bernie Madoff, etc. Oh, and the part where he doesn't have any evidence too.

Where's that from, Sooper? Stephen Meares' new blog?
I just googled "Is Pokerstars Rigged" to have a read of what people think outside of this forum.

Seems like there s thousands of so called "rigtards" out there. Maybe Im not so crazy afterall.
SooperFish24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 01:58 PM   #2865
SooperFish24
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,028
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
I posted some hands earlier last month asking people what they thought about on-line poker. After this sequence, I am beyond a shadow of a doubt 100% positive that their site is rigged and not random. I will be opening up a website on various different forums with other hand histories to warn others about this ridiculous site. Here is one of the main hands:


PokerStars Game #2993475151: Tournament #14619303, Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (50/100) - 2005/11/06 - 23:18:16 (ET)
Table '14619303 45' Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: STERLING420 (1240 in chips) is sitting out
Seat 2: ancylostoma (4290 in chips)
Seat 3: mistrp2u (15015 in chips) is sitting out
Seat 4: ozyman (1455 in chips)
Seat 5: jcterminator (11380 in chips)
Seat 6: KopeN (5050 in chips)
Seat 7: Titanxxviii (8910 in chips)
Seat 8: CobraP40 (685 in chips)
Seat 9: richwalter (4380 in chips)
KopeN: posts small blind 50
Titanxxviii: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to ancylostoma [Qh Ad]
CobraP40: folds
richwalter: calls 100
STERLING420: folds
ancylostoma: raises 400 to 500
mistrp2u: folds
ozyman: folds
jcterminator: folds
KopeN: folds
Titanxxviii: calls 400
richwalter: calls 400
*** FLOP *** [9d 8d Qd]
Titanxxviii: checks
richwalter: bets 3880 and is all-in
ancylostoma: calls 3790 and is all-in
Titanxxviii: folds
*** TURN *** [9d 8d Qd] [3s]
*** RIVER *** [9d 8d Qd 3s] [2s]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
richwalter: shows [2d 3c] (two pair, Threes and Deuces)
ancylostoma: shows [Qh Ad] (a pair of Queens)
Thats a rigged hand. As if the richwalter player doesnt have access to what cards are coming.
SooperFish24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 01:59 PM   #2866
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Markusgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
Seems like there s thousands of so called "rigtards" out there. Maybe Im not so crazy afterall.
Thousands of people keep thinking they can get a Reparations Credit on their income taxes but that doesn't make them right.
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 02:05 PM   #2867
SooperFish24
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,028
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Want to know how i found this thread? I typed in "is poker stars rigged" into google. Why might you ask? Well, I am a winning player live and applied the same strat to online, cept I play tighter and cant read aswell online. I have been playing online only at pstars for the last 2 years. I have never been up money at that site, no matter how I played. I was playing omaha hilo 3/6 NL, and lost 3 major hands in a row 1 month ago. First AA2K double suited, to KKQQ no suite. AA26 single suite to A378 all suited. and AA23 double suite (best hand in omaha hilo) to A277. I lost more then $2000, not including the money I should have won.
Then I decided to play $6 single table SNGs, because I wanted to see some stats. I applied an allin or fold strategy. 10 to 6 handed I would only play AA KK QQ AK. And i would go allin preflop. No chance of making mistakes anywhere in the hands. Below 6 I would play AQ JJ 1010. below 4 I would play AJ A10 99 88 77. and heads up I would play my normal playstyle.
here are my stats that I took down.
Total SNGs: 136
Cashed SNGs: 22

Hands played up to heads up: 740
Hands won up to heads up: 126
AA win %: 5%
KK win %: 12%
QQ win %: 24%
AK win %: 14%

Some other interesting facts I noticed: I was only behind twice out of 740 hands. QQ vs KK, and AK vs KK. And I won both of those pots.

Some notable beats:
AA vs 22. Flop A77. Turn 2. River 2.
QQ vs Q5o vs Q7o. flop 575, turn 7, river A. (first hand of the SNG)
KK vs K5o. Flop AK4 turn 3 river 2.

% of KK and QQ winning vs Random Ace. 7/89. So I had a 8% win ratio with my 70% odds.
I won 22% of my coin tosses.

I have spent my last penny on pokerstars, and have unistalled. I believe they wish to keep fishes on that site so they let the fishes win and the good poker player believes his badluck streak will turn around some time soon. As for the pros playing on pokerstars, its rare to catch a pro playing a cash game as they only play in the WCOOP. And they probably have free entrance covered in their contracts.
What do you make of this post Mark?

Or are you just going to look for the tiny part of the post you can make fun of?
SooperFish24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 02:21 PM   #2868
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Markusgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
Thats a rigged hand. As if the richwalter player doesnt have access to what cards are coming.
Somehow I doubt he does...



Hedid have a good score where he won a Stars MTT once and managed to show a profit in in games tracked by OPR. However his last MTT there was in 2005, and he only cashed once in his last 24 MTT's. In fact, he only cashed 10/79 tries there.

In 2007 he must've gotten a poker bug up his ass and tried FTP, who apparently aren't as generous with goldern accounts thus he never had much success there at all.

So, if he had access to turn & river cards, why did he do so badly in smaller tournaments on Stars and all of 'em on FTP? Also, why did he stop playing at all?

Last edited by Markusgc; 04-27-2009 at 02:35 PM.
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 02:31 PM   #2869
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Markusgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
What do you make of this post Mark?

Or are you just going to look for the tiny part of the post you can make fun of?
I think it's worthy of being made fun of, if that's what you're asking. But luckily, there's a lot to choose from!
Quote:
I decided to play $6 single table SNGs, because I wanted to see some stats. I applied an allin or fold strategy. 10 to 6 handed I would only play AA KK QQ AK. And i would go allin preflop. No chance of making mistakes anywhere in the hands. Below 6 I would play AQ JJ 1010. below 4 I would play AJ A10 99 88 77. and heads up I would play my normal playstyle.
here are my stats that I took down.
Total SNGs: 136
Cashed SNGs: 22
That's a pretty small sample size, I'd say. Also, if he's cashing that infrequently, I doubt he's as good as he thinks. Probably doesn't understand ICM/Pushbotting - which is really a skill "tight" players often lack.
Quote:
Hands played up to heads up: 740
Hands won up to heads up: 126
AA win %: 5%
KK win %: 12%
QQ win %: 24%
AK win %: 14%
I'd love to see these hand histories. These stats are dubious at best.
Quote:
Some other interesting facts I noticed: I was only behind twice out of 740 hands. QQ vs KK, and AK vs KK. And I won both of those pots.
Quote:
Again, I think his definition of "facts" is not the generally accepted one.
Some notable beats:
AA vs 22. Flop A77. Turn 2. River 2.
QQ vs Q5o vs Q7o. flop 575, turn 7, river A. (first hand of the SNG)
KK vs K5o. Flop AK4 turn 3 river 2.
these are the notable beats out of 136 games? wow, he really has a mind like a steel trap.
Quote:
% of KK and QQ winning vs Random Ace. 7/89. So I had a 8% win ratio with my 70% odds.
if your boy will cough up the HH's and this is true that would be fishy. somehow I bet he never does though.
Quote:
I won 22% of my coin tosses.
again, I don't really put a lot of faith in what this fella says, but his sample-size is a joke, so whatever. And like the word "fact," I would reckon he might be having some trouble with exactly what counts as a "coin toss."

Got a link where this came from? Maybe we'll make a field trip...
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 02:33 PM   #2870
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! The favorite doesn't always win???



If you believe this:



Then you are acting like this:




So have some more of this and you too can be a true believer:

spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 02:37 PM   #2871
Bingo_Boy
old hand
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,872
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
What do you make of this post Mark?

Or are you just going to look for the tiny part of the post you can make fun of?
I think he might like to see some PT stats

Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
I just googled "Is Pokerstars Rigged" to have a read of what people think outside of this forum.

Seems like there s thousands of so called "rigtards" out there. Maybe Im not so crazy afterall.
Rigtards on the internet? Surely not

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markusgc View Post
Somehow I doubt he does...



I await your logical analysis of this sooperfish. Do you now see how producing corroborating evidence is much more powerful than just smugly stating spurious opinions as fact
Bingo_Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 02:39 PM   #2872
SooperFish24
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,028
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

http://digg.com/software/Is_PokerSta...he_Real_Answer

link
SooperFish24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 02:41 PM   #2873
SooperFish24
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,028
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
I await your logical analysis of this sooperfish. Do you now see how producing corroborating evidence is much more powerful than just smugly stating spurious opinions as fact
Sharkscope is rigged IMO to hide house players/house bots true results.
SooperFish24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 02:45 PM   #2874
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
Sharkscope is rigged IMO to hide house players/house bots true results.
There is a name for the syndrome where you include more and more parties in the conspiracy to keep it plausible.

Let me google that for you.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2009, 02:50 PM   #2875
dbcooper279
old hand
 
dbcooper279's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Under 23ft of water
Posts: 1,678
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
Seems like there are thousands of so called "rigtards" out there. Maybe I'm not so crazy afterall.
FYP

That's funny, there are also thousands of idiots roaming the planet as well. Coincidence?

Just because a lot of people agree on a conclusion does not mean it is correct. How about all the 'flat-earth folks', or people that think the moon landings and 9/11 were conspiracies.

There are millions of people who have opinions on subjects that they haven't the slightest clue what they are talking about.

Notice how little statistical analysis was done in the long post about people's bad beats.

Never attribute to conspiracy when stupidity of the observer will suffice.
dbcooper279 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive