Since we're educating this guy apparently, I'll let him in on the fact that instead of using 4 or 5 periods between thoughts, one can actually hit a special key in the middle of the keyboard known as the "space bar".



Also, typically replies to posts go below the quote, otherwise the discussion is backwards.

So you believe no one should win the lotto?

So you now think the odds are orders of magnitude larger than 100 billion:1? Don't you think its a good idea to actually find out the odds of it happening, rather than just picking whatever odds would make it extremely improbably to have ever happened during the history of online poker?

Don't worry, that's a very common fallacy. Especially among those who post in this thread. The fact is that a 100 million to one event (just a made up example), in a sample size of 100 billion, has an expectation of 1000 and a standard deviation of only 32. That means 95% of the time it will happen between 936 and 1064 times, and 99.99% of the time it will happen between 872 and 1128 times. There will never be a 100 billion sample where the event doesn't happen, or even one where it happens less than several hundred times. And by "never" here, I mean before the sun burns out. Not infinity.

BLOME,.....there,....i got the post where YOU want me to put it, not
necessarily where I want to put it! I have another place in mind, and i bet
you could figure it out since you're a smart-a$$! Give yourself a 2-Thumber,
odds are it will do you some good!

Never said the odds were 100 billion to one,....which is why i suggested
someone with a program that could figure the odds might fill us all in.

Seriously, i'm beginning to think there are a LOT of nitpicking folks on this
site. First one wants to pick apart my computer typing prowess and placement
of my posts, and now you with this nonsense.

.....at least i'm a perty-goooood spellller! (tested at a 160 IQ in high school
39 years ago, although probably slipped a few points over the years)

Those rat bastards, expecting that if something is so obvious you can "see" it you should be able to understand why it's "off"!

Again they fail to address you and believes his childish pics are humorous. Another Yawnnn for the 4k posting shilltard

You said that you thought the odds would be so high that it should never happen. For it to be unlikely to have ever happened on pokerstars, the odds must be more than 100 billion:1 (given that over 100 billion hands have been dealt. For it to be unlikely to ever happen on any site, in the past or future, the odds against must be significantly more than 100 billion:1.

Your comments led me to believe that you didn't understand this. Your response to my post as nonsense seems to confirm that. Do you understand this now?

For arguments sake, let's just say the frequency of 4 Quad hands
hitting within 40 hands at the same table will probably prove to greatly exceed both the expected frequency and standard deviation,......whatever the actual odds may be over 1 billion hands.

Here's an interesting analysis from someone who did a study on 1.5 million hands purchased from PTR. Unlike the riggies in this thread, he actually posted his data, which can be double checked by anyone here.


http://intellectrush.blogspot.com/20...okerstars.html

But you're not basing that on anything. It's just your gut feeling.

Post your question in the probabilities forum: someone may be able to figure it out.

What I'm trying to point out to you is that a LOT of hands of poker have been dealt by these sites. Because of that, improbable things will happen quite often. It's called the law of large numbers. It may change your perspective on this question.

Sorry guys I've fallen so far behind in posting the muppet pic that it would take me an entire week of work to catch up in this thread. Thanks for helping out otatop.

there has been a surge in muppetry since 4/15

The fact that nearly 40 percent of those on this site (PRO Ipoker) who have taken the poll think that online poker is rigged. Well that's pretty damming.

Good to see you refute an argument with your usual level of intelligence and insight.

You really need to change your name...

Wikipedia is generally factual. 99 percent of your posts are worthless.

um no, lol

The fact that the intellectually void, along with sarcastic people and people with multiple gimmick accounts exist is not evidence of anything whatsoever. Most serious poker players don't even bother with the stupidity of this thread, and as each day goes by I understand why all the more.

What would be pretty damning, is actual evidence of wrongdoing. Should be pretty easy to find too since so many people are sure they're seeing something wrong.

You are awesome. You confirm that you believe that the "rig" is simultaneously detectable and un-detectable.

If you think that you have detected it, why don't you post hand histories?

Either your run of cards was notable or it was not notable. You cannot say that it is proof of rigging, yet also say that it was "negligible" and "no proof". This is bat**** crazy stuff. Either it is proof of rigging, or it is not proof of rigging.

Earth is either flat, or the earth is round. You can't say that it is both flat AND round - they're mutually exclusive.

I feel like I'm Heisenberg's cat. Either the thing is rigged, or it is not rigged. You can't have some sort of nutty quantum situation where it is both rigged and not-rigged simultaenously.

Josem didn't you work for Stars at one point? If so your statements are completely irrelevant.

Whether online poker is dealt randomly or not is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of mathematical fact.

Around 20% of Americans think that Barack Obama is a Muslim but someone's opinion on the issue does not change the underlying fact of whether or not he is Muslim.

Ascribing any value to a poll for an opinion survey for whether online poker is shuffled randomly has as much value as running a poll on whether 5 + 5 = 10. It doesn't matter what the results of the poll are in either circumstance: it only matters what the right answer is.

Whether he works for PS or not is irrelevant when making logical arguments that stand on the merit of the logic.

It would only be relevant were he posted an opinion and that opinion was likely to be coloured by the nature of his employment.

I know this is a bit subtle for the average rigtard to understand but do have a try, there's a good chap.

Would you feel better if the shuffling was programmed to exclude options that "felt" bad?

The fact that something that has just a small chance to happen, and subsequently does happen, itself suggests that the shuffle is truly random.

How can you expect something to be random, yet not sometimes give surprising results? By its very nature, something that is random should be unpredictable, as you discovered.

It makes no sense to suggest that predictable outcomes (in this case, pre-determined distributions of quads) are a part of any random process.

Of course it is racist to select auditors on the basis of their nationality. The only criteria that one should judge people on is their ability to do the job.