I was reading about the Dunning-Kruger effect and thought of this thread

Not enough of a brag for BBV. The real grinders would yawn and I'd just get flamed. And rightfully so.

I just find it funny when riggies claim nobody can win in online poker, when they are the ones who can't win and are looking for something to blame it on.

wp

massive DKE itt

I wouldn't say I am close minded, but I feel strongly about my views on this, just like everybody else feels strong about theirs.

You just never know if you are getting a fair game. Who knows, I could be wrong... All the bull **** I see might actually be normal. Or maybe they are wrong. But there is still a trust issue when it comes to playing online for real money, so that's why I don't play.

Right now, there's no way to prove who is right.

So I don't think there can be any real discussion here lol

It's like a stalemate.

Maybe I'm just (re-)stating the obvious, but isn't the point of posting your graph is that the EV line tracks the actual profit line so closely over the long run. Wouldn't it be equally valid to your point if the graph lines went straight down, if the EV and actual profit still track very closely.

Neither I nor anyone else cares whether you would "say" you are close minded, because you obviously are. You just wrote:

That might as well be the perfect definition of what it is to be 'close minded'.

But you do know. It's been proven repeatedly to be a fair game - by the independent audits, by the player analysis, and so on.

This isn't an issue of opinion or taste. It's an objective fact that the cards are shuffled fairly and randomly at a credible leading site like PokerStars.

You are wrong. There's no doubt about that.

That's a reasonable reaction if you don't trust it. All human brains are limited by various psychological biases. There's nothing abnormal or unusual about that.

However, it's pretty offensive for you to make accusations of giant international conspiracy allegations against people on the basis of your own ignorance and closed mindedness.
Yes there is. These things have been proven to be shuffled fairly and honestly. Your ignorance to that fact doesn't change that it is a fact.
There can be discussion if people are not as closed minded as you are. Normal people listen to the evidence, review the evidence, and make a decision based on that evidence. You've announced that no evidence is good enough to change your mind. Thus, anything you write is not a discussion but simply repeated babble.

It's only a stalemate if you reject the normal rules of human interaction, logic, mathematics and common courtesy. Every piece of evidence points to the shuffle being fair and random. Given that every piece of evidence points in the same direction, and given that there is no evidence to doubt that, anyone who wants to argue to the contrary is clearly a muppet.

Maybe i'm close minded about this issue, so what. Everybody else in this thread is too, including you.

And I disagree with almost everything you said.

I'm done here.

I'm not close minded at all. If anyone provided any evidence of cheating, I would obviously change my mind.

For example, take the Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet situation. Five years ago, I wouldn't have thought that any online poker operator would be so stupid and/or criminal as to steal player money in the way that they did.

However, I then had some friends of mine lose a chunk of money. They each provided a little bit of data. I was concerned about this, and I basically compiled the data into an easy-to-understand graph and did some simple mathematics that proved there was cheating.

That's what a normal person would do. I don't walk into a fuel retailer and start screaming at the attendant that they're stealing money by fiddling the pumps to provide less fuel than they said. Before I'd do something like that, I'd want some more evidence than "I feel that my car isn't getting good fuel efficiency". That's what would be courteous and intellectually honest. Of course, I recognise that some people in this thread don't have much courtesy or intellectual honesty ('TheTruth5' and 'banonlinepoker' springs to mind) but that doesn't make it right.

This thread is basically the online poker equivalent of a few muppets walking into an astrophysics laboratory and loudly proclaiming "THE EARTH IS FLAT". In this metaphor, the muppets are saying that the earth is flat because they've never been to space and seen a spherical earth. Like, it's sort of amusing that some people think the earth is flat, but their ignorance and lack of information on the issue is not evidence or proof on the actual matter.

If you want to be taken seriously and not just regarded as another flat earther, you're going to need to provide some evidence of misbehaviour/non-randomness/cheating/etc. That's what I did. That's what others did in the case of PlanetPoker and PitbullPoker and so on. It's not impossible, but will require some coherent logic and a little bit of effort.

fixed my post for clarification.

FWIW, I think it is impossible to prove that the PokerStars shuffle is rigged just as it is impossible to prove that the earth is flat.

That's part of it too. I do believe I mentioned that in the post where I posted it also. It serves several purposes.

Many riggies come on and say that nobody wins in online poker, so that's easy to prove wrong. They also complain about suckouts, and I'm basically showing that in about 800k hands, all in pots are roughly where they should be. That's not to say others can't show something different, but in general when you get that kind of sample size built up I think graphs like mine are much more the norm.

Don't let the door catch you on the way out.

And yet you clearly demonstrate that your are.

OK, if you don't play that means that you are not a total ******.

Well not prove beyond any doubt, true.

However:

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.



Intelligent people take note of the above and allow it to inform their opinions.

Not at all.

The very instant that anyone shows the slightest shred of credible evidence a lot of the people in this thread will be on it like a tramp on chips.

Again?

Again, don't let the dorr catch you on the way out.

It has been proven that a computer RNG does not produce a truly random event over a long period of time maybe?

wrong

There's no such thing as a "computer" RNG. You'd think with all the time you spend itt that you'd at least know that much by now.

You can't simply say: 'computer RNG'.

You need to specify whether you are talking about a hardware RNG or a software one.

A hardware RNG system will produce truly random numbers over any period of time you care to name - longer than the life of the universe if you wish.

A software RNG will, left to its own devices, repeat after a certain number of iterations - although the number can be arbitrarily large.

What is important, though, is that the RNG's are not left to their own devices. Their results are merged with timing data from individual actions so that no predictable repeat will ever occur. This process is simply ju-ju to keep the rigtards happy when applied to a hardware RNG but can turn a sotware RNG into a device that is random for all practical purposes.

There's so much to be said for brevity.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/200...enerators.html

Instead of just posting flamebait and one word replies without sources try reading a little.

wrong also

I shouldn't give you any more than that, but poker sites don't use those types of RNGs, clown. Open your eyes.

Because you actually need to read a lot to be able to understand and interpret what has been written.

This is where you FAIL big time because you just see something that you think supports your argument and wet yourself.

In fact, it doesn't really support any argument about the application of psuedo RNG's because, believe it or not, you don't even need particularly good quality random numbers for generating a deal.

There is a good, technical, reason for this but it's unlikely that you would understand it or accept it if you did.

Even if they did they could still produce a perfectly fair and unpredictable deal.

Of course, but riggies like to hold onto any shred of irrelevant factual data that might support their weak "arguments".

And when I say "arguments", I mean unfounded biases.

All the rigtards should move into one house, mustering up all of their combined brain power (like 16 neurons) so that they can break even online.

If any pokerroom has good RNG system, numbers are really random, cards are dealt to also random tables, all this process can be easy controlled using powerful computer : so tell me "you are losing rigtards" why no one pokerroom do it ?
Pokerroom can have really random deal, for example Pokerstars has without doubt random deal, but they also have line of thousands shuffled decks every second. They can select "interesting" sets of cards, they can deal cards in no random order to no random tables, they can cut out some sets and nobody can know about it.
Honestly, I am not losing player, I am recreational mtt luckbox with about 3000 mtt and 8000$ profit in 3 years and I am convinced Pokerstars are rigged in ultimate way.
Experience of this player http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SEvvJM2RW0is also my experience.
I have some routine on Pokerstars:deposit, win a few final tables, take money,get out to Cake or Fulltilt, after half year again.
After each deposit I have run of good results, then run of fantastic suckouts and badbeats. I play on four sites, but nowhere I saw so fantastic decks and twists where no hand on flop is good enough to win.