Nobody ever posts hands that were ahead and won. Well I played some hands today. Let's just pull a few out:










Yes .... my 98 is ahead there. I had 50.7% equity.















Hands with an equity advantage winning the pot ???

sure

in this thread

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/ne...ply&p=24234204


I guess "a well run site with a good reputation" is not a sign of respect for how they do business in your world or something. Maybe "a well run site with a good reputation that also intentionally rigs their games" is what you intended to say. My bad if that is the case.

Just stick with whining about made up beats in $1-5 sit and gos and MTTs as that's the level of poster you have achieved at this point. Avoid any facts and details in future as they never work well with your general approach at posting.


I like the whole shill conspiracy thing as that is a solid indication of the pure paranoia the thread needs, but I hate your timing as you always post before either a flood of gimmicks or in this case some weird HH battle (need some banjo music for that).

The thread needs you and your limitless paranoia so try again when the waters are a bit calmer and you get the attention you do deserve. Assume I have some evil shill motives when I suggest this as well.



All the best.

so what you're saying is play 6-max

There's full ring hands in there also. I tend to play more hands with 3-6 players at the table than hands with 7+ players at the table or exactly 2 players at the table.

Thanks for proving your spin boy. Did I say I respected them? Just pointed out how party gaming is viewed in the industry which is common knowledge. Now go back and clean Collin's pool lackey. Just like I am racist because I don't agree with an Indian reservation giving a license in a industry they have no experience or do nothing when a site cheats it players? Your a muppet.

This is precisely my experience, also. In the 4-5 years I've been playing online at PS, I've made two relatively small deposits and have cashed 4X that amount and still have a bankroll to play micro tourneys.

But I know I should be up more, that this constant treading water is clearly a function of keeping the fish entertained and around, and that the constant stream of hands where you just shake your head at the action flops, turns, and rivers, and calling what's coming because it's Jokerstars is what's holding down the kind of returns I get playing in games where I'm very confident the dealing is square. And one of the side effects is that you get more donks chasing nonsense is because the site teaches them it pays to chase.

And while it well may be that at higher buy-ins, the dealing is true, I for one am not going to invest a bankroll required to play at them because of what I've seen at the micro levels. I get that many people playing micros are there just to spend their entertainment dollar. They want action. They want entertained. And if they don't get it, they're going elsewhere. But it's not real poker.

Is reading comprehension really that difficult a skill? The point is that it's precisely this kind of situation that should be pretty rare, but turns up time and again in a single tournament, that suggests the software reaches into the deck and finds what it needs to induce action and entertainment.

My focus is on tournaments, where the action in any given hand is immaterial to the rake, but is very important to whether players are being entertained as well as pushing donkeys deeper that they remotely deserve to go. This keeps them coming back for more.

I know PS doesn't have a continuous shuffle, and no where have I remotely suggested they do or should have. That no one thought to explicitly state that cards always come in the order set by the shuffle is disingenuous at best. This is exactly how most scams work. They rely on assumptions, and when those assumptions are shown to be false, the fact that no one ever said otherwise serves as the basis for deniability.

I don't accept assumptions, especially since PS' response to my asking for a clear, categorical statement about how cards come off the deck *after* the shuffle has been stone cold silence. It's a trivial matter to add this to a website that bends over backward to explain the methodology of the shuffle. That it's never been done speaks volumes about what's really going on.

wrong

There's not really much different here. Just you're saying you believe PokerStars does an actual fair shuffle before saying they do an unfair deal. If they were manipulating the deal it could be found through analyzing the hand histories.

Not really much to talk about.


Maybe you could try e-mailing Stars the question again or ask Josem if he can answer the question in this thread. You'd probably have to explain the question in an e-mail real well because I think it's a pretty good chance the person at Stars support wouldn't understand what you are talking about.

If the shuffle was found to be rigged currently, the directors of the organisation would likely go to jail.

I don't understand why you would want to lessen the penalty?
That's just a lie. The audit was last done in March 2009.
That's just another lie. They do say that here: http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/features/security/

I have no opposition to math(s)... plural - (short for mathematics)

Just got no time for guesstimatology (statistics).

Zombies are boring and they don't even exist.

Not if it were done cleverly enough.

It would be interesting to know the technical details. Like howtf do they know where someone is moving their mouse?

Currently? They are safe for the time being.

I'm saying that under the existing laws and regulations (ie, currently), if they were found to be deliberately cheating players, they would likely go to prison.

Obviously they are currently safe, because they are not deliberately cheating players.

The irony of this little tangent is that it came from someone suggesting a penalty for cheating, but because they knew little about the current arrangements, they accidentally ended up suggesting a reduction in the penalty to only $1million.

That pretty much neatly summarises the issues here: people come on here and demand all sorts of things from a position of ignorance, rather than information.

Yes, you did and that is why I included your quote and the link to that thread as you asked.

Note, whether you respect Party Poker or not (you clearly do with your multiple positive posts about them) is not really that important other than showing your rather inconsistent and random view of the world in general.

Three of us are equal partners in the business and if people want to know more they can use google to search Collin's name or my user name. You can certainly imagine and make up that world however you like if that makes you feel better of course, just like you do in poker, but that is simply you making up stuff again as a form of venting when you are emotionally frustrated.


Congratulations on finally accepting what you are, as that is an area you continued to deny. That might be your first step toward understanding just how often you delude yourself with false realities, both trivial (ie: how much you respect Party Poker) and non-trivial (ie: when you toss around accusations of crimes casually).


For what it is worth, your angry, jealous , racist personality is a lot more entertaining in these threads than your whiny bad beat moaner side so keep that in mind for future posts as well.

All the best.

Maybe the fact that many more players want action and are willing to chase w bottom pair and draws is why there are more suckouts at these stakes?

pretty much you just poll the mouse position in the client each frame or x milliseconds to determine if it's moved or to get a new seed value based on a hash involving time, delta since last movement and position etc

Aside from clicking on anything, the position of a cursor can be known?

Of course it can. How do you think hover effects work.

Fine. We'll send them to jail, too.

Please reply with the link detailing the audit. From what I've read, it was the shuffle algorithm that was audited, but I may be mistaken, so point me to where I may be fully educated. The shuffle algorithm isn't what's in question, at least not by me.

And this is where you lose all credibility, because, quite clearly, they don't. Nowhere does it say that once the shuffle has been completed, the deck is locked and under no circumstance will any card other than the top card to be played next (or however the case may be best described) be actually played. It would be extremely easy to add this and all you PS employees who keep posting this link wouldn't even have to change your macros.

I know, I know. Who should I believe. You or my own lying eyes. Maybe it's there in an invisible font.

The facts are quite simple. There is nothing on the PS website that says the software doesn't, on occasion and *after the shuffle has been completed*, reach into the deck and select a card and then play it on the board that is other than the top card at the time that should have been played. And unless the link to the 2009 audit you're going to post for me says differently, no audit of the software code itself has been performed.

You want credibility? You're off to a terrible start in search for it, at least with me.

If you'd take the time to actually understand what you're reading, which it's becoming more clear to me that you don't, you'd see that the suggestion was for the US. Since there aren't any online poker rooms operating under US jurisdiction right now, the statement that is ignorant is that this would be a reduction in the penalty.

There's nothing magic about $1MM. Make it more if you want to. But people who have been bribing, er, I mean making contributions to, governing officials don't go to jail, at least not in the US. What hurts them is taking some of there money, the more of it, the better.

I have no idea what the likelihood is that the Isle of Mann would actually jail anyone in this position, or if those who would be held responsible are even living there. I don't really care. All I want to see is honest, highly regulated and audited poker in the US that I trust. Once it's available, that's where I will play.

Nowhere does it say that a bad beat fairy doesn't come in and change things to take money from you. It would be extremely easy to add this and yet they don't.
Nowhere does it say that elephants are given less bad beats than hippos. It would be extremely easy to add this and yet they don't.

Edit: I'm all for checking up on sites but this is stupid. You want them to go through every single rigged theory and say we don't do this and that? The webpage would be as big as this thread.

You need to believe it is rigged and nothing Josem or anyone else says will ever change that need. This is paranoia 101. If Stars had word for word on their site exactly what you wanted all that would happen is you would find something else to be concerned about, and other riggies would never be satisfied with your language as they would want their own. Welcome to this thread.

Look at it from a business perspective as well. While your beliefs are extremely powerful to you, the reality is that the marketplace in general does not share your obsessive concerns on such details. A room called Real Deal Poker was created to try to cater to customers just like you and it failed miserably as people started thinking that the site was rigged anyway (which is what the riggie faith is based on).

Your need for answers is similar to the math problem of always moving half the remaining distance to a door and thus never actually getting to the door, so what a company needs to do is stand back and decide whether you and others like you are important for the overall model in terms of success. The reality is you are not as riggies represent a tiny fraction of the business, and for the most part they are more trouble (in terms of drama) than they are worth which is why they are generally politely ignored. Josem is just a glutton for punishment dealing with riggies, since he has never nor will he ever actually change a riggie's position because faith based beliefs do not switch easily.

How I have converted a couple riggies from this thread is getting them into a grinding program where they realize they can make money once they focus on their game and leave the paranoid silliness behind. A guy who suddenly makes $500+ a month who was used to making $10 in a good month gets his eyes open a lot more than with words on a message board, so I do not quite see why Josem keeps beating himself over his head with this thread, but that is his choice.

No doubt my opinions will be dismissed as site shilling or whatever, and I realize that is how the paranoid mind reacts when challenged, but the business world tends to be far less sexy than riggies need it to be in their imagination and the cold reality is that riggies just do not matter for the bottom line. Same thing for a website like 2+2 which is why they are all mashed together into this thread.

All the best.

No, because all that means is that there are more showdowns. When we compare expected outcomes to actual ones, the only hands we're looking at are showdowns. If anything, what more donk chasers does is give us more showdowns to look at in the same number of hands as well as more opportunities for the software to hit that part of the code that considers whether or not this is an occasion to reach into the deck for an action/entertainment card or to let it play out normally.

Not even hover effects, just the whole cursor movement should give it away.

When a user moves their mouse, even without clicking the screen, Windows (or any other program) moves the mouse cursor to follow your mouse movement, changing it as appropriate in the context as it passes over things.

Any program does this by polling the mouse x,y locations in the screen 2D space at varying intervals as determined by your mouse and it's drivers, taking into account the speed of your computer and how many fps the program you're running is able to run at, for example if your machine will only allow a program to run at 30fps your mouse can't be polled any faster than 30 times a second (explanation severely simplified and some things glossed over for that reason, such as how Forza 3 runs at 60fps but does physics at 360fps and the analogue to mouse polling)

Gosh, I wasn't aware that the hippos had a problem. I can so see how this applies to the discussion.

There are two parts to the process of dealing a fair game. The first is the shuffle of the deck to ensure a truly random ordering of the cards. This part is covered.

The second is how cards come off the deck. On this part, PS is silent. For all I know, they deal from the bottom of the deck. It's a trivial matter to address this deficiency, yet look at all the resistance to doing so.