Sorry we aren't a team,brotherhood or family!

But at least Wiki can be very entertaining but interacting with you this past day he was boring Imo

My apologies.

ROFLMAO.

Yeah, yeah, but you did f**k up and spoil what could have been a good gag between yourself and NN by taking short cuts.

B+, Must try harder.

I dare say you'll be back having a few more little digs when it gets to 'that time of the month' in March.

I usually try to keep up with this thread, but it's been getting ridiculous lately.

Anyone want to set an under/over line on when post #30,000 will be?


.

Consider it a rare treat that I quote/acknowledge you because you genuinely are more tiring and annoying and even more trivial than nearly every riggie.

I would have liked to do a reveal later today but I had to head out for most of the day and that can be an eternity in this thread when you are in extra hyper mode going against multiple riggies and me.

Thus I did an early reveal, went out and figured I would see what the riggie thread world created and I was not disappointed nor even surprised.

That Nibbles guy was not an active part of it, other than being the riggie of the day filling that role. Everyone knows he will be gone and forgotten in a few days at most and replaced by a new riggie.

Simply put you are a douche nerd and I openly admit to being a bit of a jerk once in a while when it comes to douche nerds. In contrast, I actually like and assist genuinely nice nerds (and even riggies) in contrast. If riggies really want to call you what you are they should drop all the noisy debate, cut to the chase and use that simple term in future - "douche nerd" because it fits so well.

Anyway, I am going to fade from the thread for a while, so maybe if Fated magically makes another appearance you can go at it with him over and over until you go out and purchase yourself a clue on that.

All the best.

But you can't just use the ignore button. When it gets to that time of the month and your hormones start playing up you love to pop in and make a few snide references.

Monty, old bean, I'm happy to leave you entirely alone - save for occasionally defending you good name against some entirely inaccurate slur. I'll even ignore the first dig or two you make each month. But if you keep it up you're going to get a dig back.

You're a bit of a douche nerd yourself. Especially when you get all hormonal.

You know, I have been known to take the trouble to write informative posts myself. It's not every riggie that gets called a fool. Only the foolish ones.

LOL. Poor old Monty.

You can't stop yourself, can you?

It seems that I get right under your skin - even though I leave you alone until you start to get bitchy.

FTP seems to have got himself under some sort of control at the moment.

Perhaps you could do the same?

Maybe a course of HRT the next time you feel a bitch-fest coming on.

Let us assume that a site has a uses a simple algorithm instead of an RNG to produce the expected starting hands and flops within the standard deviation. Further, let us assume that the site decides it wants to keep it short stack players in the game longer. It programs its non-rng to do the following: in cash games, when a player reaches 20% or less of the average stack, if that player pushes all in it will allow that hand to win 90% of time. Allow that hand to win means any of the following: if a normal coinflip (ak v 44) his hand will hold or improve to win, and 10% of the time both his hand and the other player's hand both improve but he still wins.

How would one go about proving this is happening using individual hand histories?

Or, what would one need to attempt to prove such a "rig" exists?

Adults anywhere? Come on!

I'm still undecided. leaning towards not rigged tho.
The sheer # of post on this subject says something in itself.

cliffs?

You could get a heap of hand histories from that situation and review them.

Of course, such a rigging effort is impossible on a site like PokerStars where the deck is shuffled and set before the hand begins. The "rigging" effort that you describe would only be possible on a site where the shuffling is done continuously throughout the hand, and where the flop turn and river were able to be chosen by the server after the players had made their game decision.

lol someone is asking for cliffs. wat?

Just buy like 40 million hands from a big tracking site, import them in hem/pt3 and filter for that situation, see results. I have no idea what the right number should be to have a good enough sample size for this specific situation, but I'm sure one of the statisticians on 2p2 knows

Some people think that online poker shuffling is rigged.

Some people think that online poker shuffling is not rigged.

There's been various bits of evidence to prove that it is legitimate (reports from auditors, analyses by players, and so on) and no evidence to prove any misbehaviour in shuffling at any major online poker sites.

wiki because of your comments/attitude nuetral posters /shills will slowly go to the riggy side & btw if i was a site that paid u to shill your comments id fire u!...u look very silly sir with the childish name calling/belittling...just my 2 cents!

ok so im an 80s 90s rockehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tmc8rJgxUIr but IMO...onlinepoker is here....

wrong there is other opinions here

Such as?

http://www.pokerjunkie.com/poker-blo...-rng:rolleyes:

First line of that article:

So which opinion did Josem miss? From a brief scan of that article it seems like the guy believes it is fair, but wishes there was a way to show this to riggies.

read it all bright star!

I did. So which opinion does he hold that Josem didn't cover?

* Some people cite "you never see this much bull **** live" as evidence despite the fact that they:

a) play 1 table live
b) play 1 table online
c) "watch the cards" and note who wins
d) are inept at realizing that they are never in their lifetime going to hit the long run - live or online - at which point things start to even out considering the volume they play
e) don't understand that when people say "you're going to see more beats online" they are not talking about frequency per hand but rather frequency per hour due to the online dealers being paid 2x as much as live dealers because they deal 2x as fast and think that we are stupid and admitting that it's rigged thus failing at reading comprehension.

And this is the tl;dr cliffs for ~1% of the (low)content of this thread.

The guy was looking for a quick summary. I'm not paid to summarise the crap that you and your mates write, so if you're not happy with my 3 sentence summary, you can provide your own.

Josem, I may be able to call you a shill for your response. I am not asking about pokerstars and I know you would review the hand histories. My question is what would you be looking for, what would you analysis be, and what evidence would you be able to gather from the hand histories. My question is premised on a non-rng platform.

It would seem to me that if I can provide a proof problem where we know its rigged that someone would be able to work backwards with the data to prove it.

probably