Nope. You are still suffering from this weird obsession that you have with me. The only other people who share that obsession are the most ******ed of the ******s. That should tell you something.

All you've got so far is one person agreeing to keep quiet until the end of the month. You're seeing things that aren't there.

Are the voices in your head telling you you can see things you want to see?

Monty, as well as your other evident psychological problems you now seem to be suffering from some sort of delusion of grandeur. You have no power to exclude anyone from a group that is acting by omission.

Comprehension fail. None of the replies were to myself.

Massive comprehension fail. I did no such thing. Of course, if your paranoia led you to believe Bobo's post was directed at you (it wasn't) then it would make some sort of vague sense that you thought my comment referred to him. But it's just your paranoia working overtime.

You will no doubt believe whatever it make you happiest to believe.

I believe I mentioned that I was not going to respond to the riggies and 'tards for the rest of the month. You seem to be having great trouble reading what is there but are making up for it by reading things that are not there. That's rather worrying and I'm sure your doctors have told you about the importance of taking your meds.

what's going on here? Shill vs. shill?

Actually, I was trying to help you, since you were looking a bit silly IMO. Poe's Law? I don't think it could've been much more obvious that he was poking fun. And then when he rather politely pointed this out to you, he got a bunch more mocking in return, which made you look even sillier.

But carry on if it makes you happy. I pop into this thread less and less often lately, as it's just getting worse and worse every day. Some truly awful riggies in here recently, and you seem to be getting progressively more abusive. Almost all of the intelligent discussion and much of the fun is gone now IYAM.

But that's exactly what Poe's law says.

Yes, I admit that I got it wrong (twice ) but that's not too surprising when you look at what the genuine riggies are doing at the moment. (You have to remember that when I look at the site in the morning there is frequently nothing but a run of idiocy and picking out one post as an intentional parody isn't the easiest thing to do.)

Of course, the high post count should have told me something - well, something more than it did.

I agree.

And that's why I've decided not to respond to the riggies for (at least) the rest of the month.

I agree with the first part but I'm not so sure about the second. I'm not sure what you expect as a response to people who find 'taking a Monteroy' and 'stepping in a wiki' to be the hight of intelligent humour. Plus Monty himself is getting ever more obsessive - he used to just have one of his bitchfests every few weeks but it's a lot more common recently. He seems to be in such a state at the moment that he's reading things that certainly aren't there.

There have been isolated incidents of intelligent discourse but, I agree; things have gone downhill lately - and they didn't exactly start from an intellectual high.

I think a couple of weeks or so of leaving the riggies to it is definitely a good idea.

Thank you, dont come again.

Monty:

This is a low point, even for you! You can't remind wiki-head about not being invited to the party! You are pin-pointing the event that led to his break with reality. He was 10, Susie, his crush, didn't invite him to the birthday party....shazam....he has been this way ever since. The current day name-calling, hormone obsessed, cross-dresser that neither side wants in the debate but no one can make leave. Any attention is good attention.

You may have just caused him a flashback!

"only a dork brain would waste time worrying about the RNG..."
"******s"
"doing a pretty good job of imitating an idiot"
"clearly not the brightest knife in the drawer"
"you are blind"
"too stupid to understand"
"bunch of ******s"
"stupid"
"idiot"
"biuch of idiots"
"demonstrating pig headed stubbornness"
"a rather sad little nobody puffing up his chest"
"gimmick"
"kid"
"dork brain"
"imaginary friend"
"child like" (sic - when you meant to write childish)
"jack ass"
"sop to idiots"
"flying f**k for the opinions of some silly posturing 15 y/o"
"grade one fruit cake"
"regressed to a mental age of 14"
"rigtard"
"rigtard nonsense"
"idiots"

But I draw the line at fart and **** jokes....thats just childish and immature.

imo we all just should ingnore wiki, and in the end of each post to note that wiki is shill. that way when a lot of ppl will say that he is a shill nobody will listen to that unfair troll. so....

imo wiki is a shill

I can see every ones hole cards now, i bought the super user 2000

I have always thought pokerstars was rigged since I first started playing, even though I have won overall. Whenever I look at my hand histories I am never winning as much as I am supposed to win. I compiled my last 284 all ins. I won 125 and lost 159. My average equity was 54.09. Doesn't seem right. Thats like a 60 all-in swing away from what it should be and thats only a small sample I looked at. It has ALWAYS been this way at pokerstars. So that concerns me.

Also concerning is that fact that the computer slows down in big pot all ins. Why? My computer has plenty of memory. But even so why should all-ins be being processed differently by their client? I think my results hold with the theory that losing players are being helped. I think what happens is when your all-in pokerstars will take some of your outs (blanks usually) out of the deck. So when you have top pair top kicker with the pot equal to your stack and your fish opponent goes all in with middle pair I think what happens is some blanks are taken out and your opponent is more likely (not guranteed but more likely) to suck out because the blanks are taken out. This also corresponds with the massive study conducted by the auditing firm (you die hards know what I am talking about but I forget the firm) which shows that winning probabilities of pokerstars hands merge to 50/50 regardless of starting hand.

So please, all of you who believe without waiver in the absolute benevolence of a completely unregulated gambling outfit, tell me why the program slows down and skips during all ins?

Pretty interesting how it waits a couple of seconds to put the last two cards down. Ive noticed this on other sites also. Anybody who plays and actually watches what goes on has seen this too im sure. Good example of card manipulation right there. Depending on your financial situation plus other variables, the card or cards are chosen at that point for you to lose or win a hand.
This procedure is very obvious if you have ever played on cake network.

If your sample of all-ins is random you can compute the probability of winning 125 out of 284 if you have an average of 0.5409 equity. It is given by:

BINOMDIST(125,284,0.5409,FALSE) = 0.000147

This does seem quite extreme!

Why don't you take one large sample and then post the results here?

So you're saying their RNG is so sophisticated that they can rig the games in a virtually undetectable fashion, yet they can't make it so their software doesn't lag when they do so? Does that really make sense to you?

What concerns me, is that you claim you believe the game is rigged yet continue to play there. Be honest, you don't really believe it's rigged, do you?

Interesting to see how many people actually voted yes, although I suspect a significant percentage of those votes were people just joking. I myself am not sure about online poker. I think its pointless to argue about it because we will probably never know. All I know is the following...

1) They could do it
2) They have reason to do it

All the sites would have to do is cut some winning players winrates by 1bb/100, imagine how much money this would generate? And how are you ever gonna prove that you are being cheated by 1bb/100? It would take tens of millions of hands and even then it would be too complicated to properly evaluate the data.

I also laugh when I hear the "why would they risk such a big company for more money" argument. That is exactly what business is about = making money. If a site could increase their profits by 5% by rigging the games Im not saying that they would, Im just saying I wouldn't at all be surprised.

One thing we can be certain of is that if it is rigged against you, then it is not by much - that would be too obvious. So in other words if it isn't rigged then great, if it is the its still not so bad - they would only be decreasing your winrate by a small amount.

I believe that the bigger sites such as pokerstars and fulltilt could create such sophisticated software. Actually I dont believe the software would need to be that sophisticated.

Please explain then how it would be done. It's easy to say "well they just cut off 1bb/100" but explain how it would be done and avoid detection. Keep in mind there are billions of hand histories available to the public. In fact Spadebidder did a study of over 500 million and it is posted in this thread.

Also, did you intentionally cut off the part of my post where I comment on the fact that particular riggie thinks the software is laggy when it is "rigging" the deal. Do you agree with that as well? Seems pretty detectable don't you think?

I play when I take a break from live games or sidelined for some reason. I believe a skilled player can make a profit at pokerstars but not what they should make. The other day I was all in in a live about 2K pot with an overpair vs. up and down and diamond flush draw on the turn. A black trey rolled off on the river and, because I had been playing on stars for a few days before, the blank felt viscerally unnatural. The final boards are farrrrrrrr too coordinated on stars and the equity just doesn't play out. Its not totally rigged and maybe it's not rigged on all levels, but something is going on there, some discount for the fish. Honestly, and I dont want to even say this cause it makes me sound nutty, but honestly I can sit back and call out turn and river cards on stars- if not exactly then categorically. Its easy actually. It's whatever card makes a straight and a flush possible, or a one card broadway.

Come on king of felt, let the riggies have the playground to themselves for a bit. It's quite amusing.

1). Lazy plus I probably don't have enough results to satisfy the likes of the sample size police.

2) It doesn't make sense to me, but I know for a fact that the software lags in all ins and I don't see why it should do this. Maybe someone with more computer knowledge could help me out. To the stars client, why would people going all in require more processing. Its just a bet and a call right? it goes bet call/raise call perfectly smooth. Then you get to an all in preflop and the software can't handle it? That makes no sense to me. Please explain the lag.

Fine

It's not "lag", it's a dramatic pause for people who watch too much television and make threads like this:

Showing cards when All-in

ill be honest i did lol at this 1

Would you mind if I just quote this after every rigtard post in this thread?

284? Why not all of them? No split pots???

No you can't. Realising which cards complete draws and noticing when they hit really isn't a skill.

Allin hand is different from not finished hand : in time when players are definitive allin software can count all hand to end, sends results to table, sends some comments to chatbox, sends hand histories to computers over the world, saves result to servers.