I have no idea what this means. If they are manipulating the deal then the hand histories will show something strange. If it doesn't show anything strange then the deal was statistically as it should be.

Don't really know what all this old money, new money cycle stuff is.

It means that you and Josem keep replying to obviously fake gimmicks, in this case Wiki's latest gimmick or another shill playing around doing a gimmick to completely imitate Wiki's posting style (note the multiple posts one after the other and the personal attack language and frantic OCD burst like posting style).

The shame is going over the past week that there is definitely a genuine paranoid guy in that Deuces fellow who would be a lot more fun to argue, though it would be like debating a 9/11 guy setup behind a table at a festival in a park somewhere in terms of getting anywhere. Unfortunately he (and his accountants are in on it theories) got lost in the shuffle of the flood of gimmicks and bad beat whiners.

Not that it matters much, but I have yet to create a gimmick, even that one I implied I did.

Anyone that truly believes poker sites are "rigged" will forever have emotional trauma and should never play poker.

Google pseudorandomness

Riggies dream for a rigged site where there equity always holds up

I thought it odd that you were suggesting that one was you. I was a little disappointed. I would have thought yours would have been a little more clever.

I was in the mood to see a little riggie on riggie violence but various shills kept getting in the way, so figure it could reduce the shill content for a bit plus maybe make riggies think twice about supporting brand new posters with crazy claims (though I had doubts on the latter).

I just like screwing around in the thread once in a while to see if we can get get some different variations of content. I doubt I will ever bother with a gimmick because there are so many ones now it would get lost in the noise, and as I mentioned, I was disappointed all of the gimmicks took away from the time the genuinely paranoid guy (with some IQ points) would have spent in a fun debate.

Unfortunately 95% of the content of the thread are obvious, blatant gimmicks getting the reactions they want and emotionally crippled individuals posting their mathematically impossible (yet easy to prove if true) bad beat whine blogs. Last thing that needs is another gimmick.

poker sites aren't pseudorandom, but random. google 'hardware random number generator'.

Also the wikipedia page on pseudorandomness states that

'In 1951, Derrick Henry Lehmer invented the linear congruential generator, used in most pseudorandom number generators today.'

I think this is incorrect, and most PRNGs use Mersenne Twister's today, but in any case it is irrelevant I don't think any major poker site uses a PRNG.

And Monteroy appears with two HUGE "fail" posts.

Better fail posting in this thread than be like you and to FAIL in online poker

The posts you are referring to are NOT WIKI. (but you know that anyway.)
He took his yearly vacation. You know, the week stay over at the S.F. bathhouses.

Your OCD really shines through, but if you want to do your standard routine under this latest ID of yours then I can assure you that works for me. My two posts were truthful but also generated the insta reaction from you I expected as well, so the amusing thing will be whenever you go back to your Wiki persona whether you try to maintain both IDs and also the what the reaction of the other "shills" you insulted under this ID will be toward your future posts when posting as a shill again.

No worries, you always have been and always will be a douche nerd in my eyes, so nothing changed in that regard.

Follow that OCD need and post within 5 minutes of this and I will read it later tonight or tomorrow.

All the best.

Yes, i have failed recently in online poker like everyone else who has cashed out too many times and live in the U.S. Plus, I'm not affiliated with the scum that is the online poker business as yourself might be.
And unlike you, I might be losing online, you on the other hand are losing in life.

That doesn't apply to all sites. there are some that use pseudo-RNGs.

Monteroy, you are not a good liar. Only when it comes to trying to addict newbies to the scam that is online poker.

LoL Typical Mentality of Hillbillies!
Btw keep playing on your rigged site, your are very good for the health of online poker economy

Ps. We don't defend the site we are attacking the non-sense you're spewing here!

__________________________________________________ _____________

Yes sir, you just crossed the line of no credibility whatsoever. You claim you lose 9/10 but don't provide data or do any analysis. How many times is a K suppose to flop in that situation blatantlyrigged? How does the HH not show evidence of this?

Lol! You don't need to do statistical analysis to see what's going on.

Statistics is a load of old bs anyway.

Hey brain surgeon, talk to banonlinepoker, the post youre referring was his.

CORRECT

You mean the one you called "100% correct"?

Are there any other fundamental strains of mathematics that you guys oppose, besides statistics?

It would be like trying to get sense out of a trained monkey.

My trained monkey is laughing at your illogical statements. And he just took a Wiki and flung it at the computer.

LOL

Resorting to editing other people's posts now?