Except that it doesn't.

At all.

You have come up with a scheme that would be extremely noticeable to the very people who are capable of, and actually do, analyse their HH's intelligently.

It would stick out like a sore thumb!

A few weeks ago I explained a method that a crooked site could use to generate extra profit that really would be hard to detect. Naturally, the riggies didn't want to know because it demonstrated why their half baked schemes, like yours, would be completely redundant to anyone who really wanted to rig a site.

Unless you use some intelligence and actually do it in a way that makes you a reasonable amount of money on a continuing basis and is really difficult to detect.

Not looking to blame any losses on a rig nor am engaging in the argument that it is a proper business approach to rig. I am just wondering how others would rig or cheat with the intention to increase "company profits."

I am trying to approach this like a murder investigation. We have techies, cops and lawyers working toward a common goal. The techies look at the DNA and the forensics, the cops are experts in human behavior and the lawyers articulate the evidence that was gathered.

As Bingo-boy points out, even Monteroy's simple rig leaves evidence.

If a site wanted to outright steal from it's customers then it would do just that (as some have) and simply not allow cash outs any more and then vanish. That certainly is an "end game" approach and many smaller sites have utilized it.

Creating an intricate rig to accomplish the same thing seems silly.

Good point, in the extreme short run a site would just take the money and run. (I guess if a site was going to stay in business after a 60% loss of gross revenue, it might want to redistribute the funds to the 40% of its remaining players).

So put the rig or the cheat in the context of a 3 year window. Maximize my site's profits over a three year period.

It might seem silly, but that is exactly what is happening on these sites. (Im sure you know this is what really goes on in, but have made this comment several times since that what people with financial interest in the poker scam need to say).
Looks to me about, what, 1548 other people can see it also.

Conclusionary statements don't add anything to the inquiry.

Yeah, but you have to do the analysis. A scheme like the one Monte outlined wouldn't be evident after a few thousand hands. It would be lost in the noise of randomness. It may well "stick out like a sore thumb" in a study the size of spadebidder's, and it may be easy and mentally unchallenging to do, but its still far from "trivially easy"

Rigging AA vs KK every 10th hand ... now that would be trivially easy to detect.

/Rant on definition of "trivial"

I don't think you appreciate the effect of what he was suggesting.

He said that he would change the deal every 20 hands or so! That would create massive anomalies in the statistics. In the first place it would mean that a certain subset of hands would be grossly overrepresented in HH data. And in the second place it would mean that the achieved value of this hand subset would rocket.

He's basically picked two things that a lot of people really do monitor on a day to day basis: Their starting hands and the profitability of given starting hands.

I stand by my assertion that it would (again, in the context of those people who already do analyse their HH's) be trivially easy to spot and, more importantly it would be spotted using the same tests that people are likely to be doing already. It's actually one of the most ill thought out schemes I've seen.

I've already stated a few times (several pages ago) that I don't think Internet poker is rigged, but one thing is fishy in SnG's. If the tourney has been running a fair amount of time, it seems that a chip leader who calls will win a larger majority of hands calling with any two cards. While normally, this might be something like J-4s beating A-K, in the span of three consecutive tourneys, I was beaten on the flop by dominated hands of overpairs.

1st, as short stack looking to double up, my 10BB all-in bet was called. I had KK, he had K-8. Flop comes 8-8-2

2nd - as middle stack, I limp and the pot is raised to put me all in. I have A-A - he has A-8s. Flop comes 8-8-6.

3rd - As middle stack, I raise 3X with J-J. I get reraised with J-4hearts. Flop comes 3 hearts.

I think the actual probability of that happening once is less than 18%. For it to happen three tourneys in a row is half of one percent.

I know we all have skewed perceptions when we lose, but seeing a flop beat a hand that is dominated by overpairs in the span of one night is something I've never witnessed before.

So about 1 in 200 times. Considering how many S&G's go off a day how many times do you think these events will happen in a given day? Once you've answered that do you still think that it happening to you is fishy?

Come on schill # 800, cant you do better than that. The site you get paid from might pull your plug.

Would you care to explain exactly what you think is wrong with his comment?

It seems to be something that any intelligent person would understand.

Oh, wait ...

Every single rig leaves evidence because there are always people who were hired to setup the rig (let's assume the "superbots" some believe who do everything does not exist for the sake of sanity).

I am hardly saying mine is the best theory, but it does try to adhere to some basic common sense guidelines and even doing so it would likely be caught, and would likely not be worth the gains for the risk for any site.


That is an extremely short term and suicidal approach to business, and all I can say is that anyone who thinks a company like Stars or Tilt or any of the large ones would do this has literally no idea how a business is run.

Needless to say, a rig of this magnitude would leave a footprint so large that everyone would see it right away, so I am not quite sure how to even debate it.

lol

What's a schill?

jeez, ok, shill

Zander \Zan"der\, n. [Cf. D. zand sand.] (Zool.)
A European pike perch (Stizostedion lucioperca) allied to
the wall-eye; -- called also sandari, sander, sannat,
schill, and zant.

i lost a hand AK<KJ just now to knock me out of an 18-man sng...can somebody confirm the site is rigged before i go to bed. i dont want to have nightmares or something

confirmed, sweet dreams.

lol if this is an evidence for you, you're trully a simpleton!

all it was was an example of the type of bad beat he encountered.
since it seems like you are one of the believers in a fair online poker site, you are the one who is truly the simpleton. Ignorance is bliss though, eh doofus?

His last video was a freeroll, this one is a $1 game so at least he is moving up in stakes. Give the gimmick some credit for progress.

Of course the best hand preflop and on the flop won the hand so I am not quite sure how the rig was meant to work on this. The guy with KQ played it as badly as possible, and the winner of this hand has a lifetime total of $264 in winnings in 1200+ games, so he is making at least 2 cents an hour from the rig, whatever the rig is (there was no bad beat this hand)

Seriously, there has to be better videos then this. I think this Truth gimmick is actually secretly trying to sabotage genuine riggies with his bad video selections.

All the best

Ahhh playing the Ftops and in Stud my rolled KKK goes down the toilet to a flush where the guy needed 5th 6th and 7th to be the same suit. Yep that is random! What an obvious rig. Like I said when FT puts you on the list you are simply not allowed to win. Unless of course you shill and walk Collin Moshman's dogs like Monteroy. Must be nice. Boy I can't wait till congess gets their act together because I am going through too many monitors and keyboards.

i prefer to be a winning simpletons than a losing simpletons like you ;D

Btw why you ban yourself to comeback with another account, o yeah it's to cheat the voting poll lol nah seriously you got no self-discipline and this is why you say the site are rigging the game to cover up your failure!

You know, BOP, you, me and maybe two others on here actually have played on these rigged sites, which is pretty sad when trying to have any kind of discussion. So, let me ask YOU a question. Why would having the U.S. control these sites stop the card manipulation? Tougher regulation? Explain please.