I agree that people who are serious about poker will not get emotionally involved in a 'big pot' (which is what 'action hand' really devolves to in this context).

However, I'm sure that there are an awful lot of people like FTP who do retain an emotional attachment (which may well explain why they are so easily perturbed by the possibility of their precious hands being rigged) and really can't understand that others don't.

How often do you see the statement: "Everybody goes on tilt from time to time" from some experienced 'expert'. It's evidently quite inconceivable to this person that to some, losing to a suckout is a welcome marker that you are playing an opponent who is very likely to be donating money to you over forthcoming hands?

I don't mean to be a nit, but the whole discussion here about so-called action hands in tournaments is based on a discussion whether getting knocked out of a tournament in a cooler somehow causes the 'victim' to play more. Even if people have some sort of emotional involvement in a hand, I don't understand why suffering a cooler would cause people to want to play more than they otherwise would.

It is someone's hypothesis that suffering a cooler causes a player to play more. If this were so, it should be fairly easy to present someone who will stand up and say "I play more that I otherwise would when I suffer a cooler that knocks me out of a tournament"?

Obviously, the first step of proving the hypothesis for this motive is to find someone who has the reaction of playing more than they otherwise would when they get eliminated by a cooler in a tournament. The next step is to somehow prove that overall, there are more deposits/rake generated by the total number of people who play more than otherwise because of a cooler, and to show that this outweighs the people who play less because of a cooler.

Once you've done all that, you would be halfway to proving a motive exists. The next step would be to prove that some online poker site has actually done this analysis and knew this. Knowing what I know about online poker site marketing, the idea that multiple poker site(s) have actually conducted this analysis (and kept it a secret of course) is absurd.

Then, after you've done all of this, you would have proof of a motive to commit a crime. Obviously there's no still evidence that this crime has actually took place, but at least you would have a plausible motive.

I like the my Dad's bigger than yours attmpt. Glad you will not be bringing your wife here, we have enough fat, ugly birds of our own thanks.

And no they are not banks, they are drug dealing manufacturing plants according to your last post (or have you realised your mistake and are now changing the story to suit)

Well, aren't you asking for a 'degen gambler'?

Someone who has an emotional attachment to every win and loss who will be determined to 'get back' what he's lost (lost, that is, by cooler or 'normal' play).

That sort of person will play more if they get kicked out early and, I suppose, a seriously disreputable site could observe the reactions of their players to winning and losing and adjust the deal appropriately. But that is heading way out into fantasy land and would, anyway, be incredibly easy to detect.

It does, however, indicate the way the thought processes of some of the riggies work. They respond to losing by immediately trying to claw back their losses (as opposed to just continuing to play a strategy), so they assume that is the way everyone thinks and acts.

It's rather like the other riggie outlook: "If you can make extra money by cheating, why wouldn't you". That tells us a great deal about their integrity and outlook on life.

uh, if they're a degen gambler, why would you need to do anything to entice them to play more in the first placce?

The riggie thinking is that the sooner you can knock them out the sooner they will pay you more money for the next tournament. i.e. with fair play they play x tournaments in a session but if they get kicked out early they will play x+n.

Riggie thinking works at a very basic level.

To be fair, I used to do this a few years ago. Get knocked out on the wrong side of a cooler or a bad beat, immediately boot up cash tables or SnG's to get my buy-in back as I was "owed" it.
Only after studying a bit and realising this play was on "tilt" did I start ending my sessions when knocked out.
I'll still boot up a few cash tables if I get knocked out but only because I have time to play a bit more. If the tournie has left me mind ****ed, then I just switch off

I guess how I used to be almost enforces a riggie theory and that makes me sad!

I think what we're talking about appears to have got changed or blurred, or that two different arguments have got a bit mixed up into one.

You kept saying 'action hands make the site less money.' I thought we were talking about action hands, but you seem to have changed it to talking only about how people react to being on the losing side of a 'cooler.'

The way I see it, there are 4 different possible effects of a player losing a 'cooler':

1. The player goes on tilt and now throws around much more money than they would have originally intended, with the intention of chasing the money they have just lost. More common amongst beginners/lesser skilled poker players.

2. The player had a set amount of time, (3 hours or whatever,) set aside to play poker, so they now re-deposit or buy in again, to keep playing.

3. The player was going to play a certain amount of time or put in a certain amount of money, so the 'cooler' has no effect on their level of play.

4. The player is put-off by the cooler so leaves the site and doesn't play any more that day.


Some of these effects make the site more money, some cost the site money. It's difficult to say how many players fall in to each category as well, so we could never really say the overall effects of players suffering 'coolers' but I think a fair view would be to say it's very varied.

That's just the effects of players losing a 'cooler' though. There's also the effects of players winning a 'cooler' and what I thought we were infact discussing, which was the topic of action hands in general.

FTP What, in your opinion, is the difference between action hands and coolers?

Can someone just clarify exactly what a 'cooler' is please? That's when two big hands run into each other, so big that nobody can get away, is that right?

Does it have to be a preflop thing, ie A, A vs K, K, or can a hand turn into a 'cooler' later on, ie 3-of-a-kind vs two pair?

Thanks.

A cooler is when a very hot hand (ie nutz on the flop) gets "cooled off" by the end of the hand. imo

aka deck got cold (something you don't expect to happen to a hot hand)

also, imo, a cooler is a made hand (so not pre flop) -- it actually refers to the other hand [that cooled yours off]

That sounds about right. What's particularly amusing is when you see someone complain: "every time I'm favourite to win a giant pot a cooler comes along".

It's as if they think that giant pots appear at random.

Yeah and we all know that aint the truth.

A lot of players misuse the most common terms (ie bad beat, the nuts, a set, cooler, suck out, priced in, etc). They tend to think "close enough, I'm right." When it's more like, "nah, you don't know what you're talking about."

"where drug and arms dealers hide their money"... No hablo englise. Thanks for the misquote but I believe you have a reading comprehension problem as well as the worst dental hygiene of any civilized country.

My understanding is that at the time of the theft the guy was living in costa rica or one of the islands where I supposedly claim drug manufacturing occurs according to some weird chap when the crime occurred. He would need to be extradited to that country to be tried.

I am saying that if a U.S. drug dealer killed another U.S. drug dealer in France, the U.S. would not have jurisdiction to prosecute the crime.

Are you sure about that?

I believe that the US claim extraterritorial jursidiction for a number of crimes including murder. (Although, obviously the French would be the most likely to prosecute.)

You might want to check your facts before making statements such as the above.

If you really, really believe drug barons "hide" their income in the Isle of Man, Malta or Ireland you are seriously more deluded than I thought.

FWIW check your own posts before claiming a misquote. Guess you suffer from selective memory, actually this is virtually proven as you "see and feel" paterns in the deal.

And if lack of dental care is the biggest worry this country faces, then happy days.

He gets all his information from 'The Simpsons'.

Please don't get the impression from this post that I'm bitter about Poker Stars and that I'm running bad or anything.

I just stumbled upon this link and asked math a professor at my university about the randomness of Poker Stars RNG, and his response was yes in fact it is random, but very far from "real" poker. This is the reason why; when you play "real" poker when all the cards are dealt out to all the players at the table the remaining cards in the deck NEVER change their place in the deck.

So to put in prospective, in live poker all the cards are dealt out and there's 3 Aces at the bottom of the deck they'll never show up, however, with Poker Stars RNG those same 3 Aces can be moved to the top of the deck before the flop is dealt out or maybe before the turn or river is dealt, nevertheless this isn't even close to real poker.

Here's the link to the RNG info:

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/features/security/

They are using a quantum RNG which basically means that cards are dealt based on various actions both pre-flop, flop, turn and river. Based on players actions/timing the RNG will determine the next card to be dealt.

Just imagine if they did this live with pros. Let me give you an example. In a live game (say 9 handed) the deal out the 18 cards pre-flop and based on how long it takes for everyone to make a decision will determine how long the dealer shuffles the deck before he or she deals the flop. Can you imagine! The players at the table would be like WTF you doing? Well this is fact at Poker Stars. Poker Stars will deal out everyone's pre-flop cards and based on all the actions mentioned above it will determine the next card for the flop, then based on flop action will re-shuffle then deal out the turn and same for the river. is that real poker?

Opinions please.

It doesn't matter, it's random, and you need a tin-foil hat.

go back to your community college

in before lock.

I never thought of it that way!

and since normal random>pokerstars random, RIGGED imo

This is how it works at Stars too.

in b4 merge