A convert!!

cue big band

I dont understand very well what are you trying to say, but while you was calling me a rigtard, other side of debate was calling me shill. :-| I not one or other, i dont defend one or other side of debate, i just know that there is no suficient proof to prove one or another, and i will defend or deny any argument that looks logical to me. Today is friday, and i am drun as hell, after almos 48hrs poker session and another 12 of clubbing i still cant get no sleep ( drugs sex clubs and techno music)

KJ vs KK , damn I feel good, my two jacks are coming.
JJ vs A10, oh I'm ****ed, here comes the ace.

Wow, what exciting new evidence you've brought to the party.

You might as well just type "it's rigged" and move on, because it accomplishes the same thing.

I think there's no doubt that you are a regular who's using a gimmick account to take the piss out of rigtards by parody.

Congratulations.

Very good.

Sometimes it's the most effective way.

qpw - it's a nice thought, but a look back through K13's post history will probably change your mind. I think they are a regular, perhaps a winning online player, but they seem to genuinely believe that the sites juice things by fiddling with the deal. Yes, they use humor and sarcasm, but just to make fun of what they believe to be true.

I know a number of players who think this way (one who is a good friend I play live with), that they can beat the games on FT and they have no intention of quitting, but that those bad beats just can't possibly be random. They are smart enough to understand all the logical reasons and statistical proof in the world, but it won't get rid of their skepticism and belief it is just something you have to put up with. K13 is like that.

That must be absolutely infuriating. I hate people who ignore logic.

You may well be correct.

I just don't see how anyone can post a couple of imaginary hands that do not mean a single thing in support of some daft rigged theory.

I'm not prepared to check two and a half thousand posts to see if this has been posted before, but here's an interesting demonstration that nearly all "theorists" approach the wrong way the first time. If you can understand the solution to the problem, you will suddenly see which way of thinking in the rigged argument actually has overwhelming evidence supporting it.

The reason I provide it is because it has nothing to do with poker, detaching it enough to potentially change a mind or two instead of create such a conflict.

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons/lesson3.html

Does your friend have a strong background playing live? Until recently, most of my play has been live and as I've mentioned elsewhere, my mindset is not much different than that of your friend. But as long as I'm making an hourly rate that I deem worth my time, I continue to play. Even though something doesn't seem right to me about online Vs. live play.

im ashamed to say my first instinct was wrong (though it only took me a minute to figure it out), even though i know about false contrapositives.

Black Swan thesis. Also see Taleb's Fooled by Randomness.

Is your point that solid confirmed evidence can immediately disprove the statement "online poker is not rigged", but no amount of anecdotal evidence of "not rigged" will ever prove the statement? That's kind of obvious if it is indeed what you are saying. I've said before no one is trying to prove the negative.

Most rational players realize that there certainly could be some rigging going on somewhere and no one is trying to prove the quoted statement in the first paragraph, even if we haven't seen any evidence to disprove it. But as long as the statistics continue to confirm the "not rigged" idea, it doesn't much matter if there is some rigging going on somewhere that is a black swan waiting to be discovered. Poker is about probabilities, and if the statistics say the game is fair, then the game is pretty much fair. At least where I play.

So I guess I missed your point.

Was looking for anyone who has played at least 1 mil hands on bodog and pokerstars who actually thinks the rngs are truly random. Maybe I am a rigtard but for those who are not you have no proof either. I am saying that there is absolutely no way the RNG's are the same. Bodogs RNG is different than pokerstars plain and simple. TY

ok so? switch to pstars then

If this is true, Bodog is about to get a whole lot of new customers. I've always won a LOT more there than on Stars

i feel the same on ipoker vs cake vs fulltilt ..

You can't prove a negative.

spade what poker site do you work for again?

This has to be about the lamest of your 'tactics' (I don't even like to dignify such a feeble ploy with the epithet: 'tactic').

What post prompted that? I don't work in the poker business at all. Furthermore, after playing regularly close to a year (not counting some time on Party years ago), I'm a ~20% net loser in online tourney play, and I believe the game is honest. I'm up a little in online cash play, and I'm up in live play (mostly tourneys and I play in a league). But I blame my online tourney record on my own play, not on a nefarious doomswitch. I'm working on getting better rather than looking for excuses. I recognize that online plays different from live, and it is tougher to beat at similar stakes.

I am up 30-40 K, and i am sure that the games are not random.

For myself its proofed that they create action for higher rake, exspecially the blinds are hot online.

But who cares as long you can make money, anytime better than livetourneys with 40% RAKE (incl.travelling) like WSOP, EPT...

We've seen some pretty convincing statistics lately that this isn't the case. One study showed that the flop cards come in the expected distribution when looking at ~175 million flops on major sites. Another analysis of about 102 million hands showed that preflop all-ins win at the amount they should, at all preflop equity ranges. There will be more coming, as there are a couple groups now studying billion+ hand databases they've accumulated.

I would feel much more comfortable if I knew they were including folded hands in their sample size/study. I'm not sure if you ever answered that question. How are they viewing folded hands? Because of what we previously discussed, no sample size is big enough if they don't include folded hands in the equation. I'm not at all concerned about doom switches, that flops are not random, hole cards are not random, or that AA does not hold up what it statistically should overall. I'm simply concerned that I might be missing equity.

The Cigital study got every cash hand played on Stars at 25NL and above for all of December 2008 with all the hole cards. They "only" got 100 million hands, but they had the complete hole card information for every player at the table for all the hands.

sigh, bodog.