lol they rnt being arrested for rigging anything. thats what you rigtards dont understand

Never underestimate the ability of an idiot to fail to grasp even the simplest of arguments.

I agree. However, it's still a very flawed analogy.

You admitting that the deal is rigged would be extremely damming to your company. The company that feeds you and your family.

I can't continue further on this point is it should be fairly obvious to an intelligent person such as yourself.

You still seem incapable of understanding the difference between his saying:

"My opinion is that the deal is not rigged."

and

"From this fact by this logical argument it would appear that no case has been made that the deal is rigged".

Yet the difference is fundamental and your continued failure to grasp that is making you look ever more foolish.

But the deal isn't rigged?

Are you saying that people should not be allowed to defend against false but damaging allegations?

It would be damning to me personally if I was convicted of murder, but I haven't murdered anyone. That's sorta the whole point here. It's idiotic to say comment on how damning something would be for my company, if that thing hasn't happened.

It doesn't matter what people's opinions are on these issues. The only thing that matters is the truth of the matter.

Josem you have more patience arguing with these lunatics than I ever will. Go back and forth once or twice but at a certain point you're just talking to a brick wall.

There are a small handful of "riggies" who post with some level of intelligence in this thread and can carry on a reasonable discussion. None of them are contributing right now.

Actually I quite like what you have said. But some will try and divert you from your points and attack you for your opinions on here. The main thing is to try and be as objective as possible as you will be flamed.

All anyone can do is post their opinions. It isn't what the regular posters say it's how their arguments are represented to the silent majority. I was one of the first to say to say I considered online rigged, on forums, but it is just an opinion.

If your quads thing was out on its own I would say it's a blip. I considered what I was seeing was the odds not playing out correctly so I took some stats over a year to see for myself. That's all anyone can do. It isn't proof, it just gives you some evidence on which to base a personal opinion. My own favourite was seeing trips being stuffed by quad nines three times on the river in a hundred hands. Trip aces twice and trip jacks once. It isn't that it happens, it's the frequency with which these things happen relative to how they should. That is just my opinion, and why I only play for fun.

Anyone who loves online should continue to play because they clearly love it. For some it's their sole hobby. I've played since I was a kid, and been playing reasonably seriously for a good part of my life. The two games are different. Just how much they are different is a matter of opinion. If you think online is rigged, take some stats, and if you don't like the odds, simply don't play.

I was able to listen to the first four minutes of that idiotic video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfQBhbRiqnE) before I could takeno more.

There wasn't any mention of quads in the first four minutes, and the video was just a so-called 'best of' video. If someone could offer a timestamp of when in the video this quad thing happens, that would be helpful.

So how often should this happen? How far above/beyond this expectation did it happen?

That isn't true, though, is it?

In fact, posting opinions is pretty pointless.

What is needed are facts and logical argument.

e.g. Suppose someone posts this:

Fact: It is very easy to maintain a history of all the hands you have played.
Fact: It is easy to get programmes that analyse these histories in any number of ways
Fact: There are a lot of players who have done just this.
Fact: Not one has ever posted credible evidence that the deal is rigged.

Logic: If there are a lot of players analysing their hands in ways that would show that the deal is rigged then it would be extremely likely that if it were, indeed, rigged, at least a few would have posted evidence.

Conclusion: It is improbable that the deal is rigged at any site that has a significant number of players.


Now, the response from the rigtards to the above will be one of the following:

1) Just ignore it
2) Call the poster a shill
3) Accuse the poster of being some other random poster
4) Accuse the poster of being an affiliate
5) Wonder why the poster spends his time posting such things
6) Whine that the rigtard's posts are submerged by posts such as the above.

What they will never do is post some well thought out refutation.

I have indeed see them do this over the years. The answer is always the same - it's too small a sample, it's just a few thousand or few hundred thousand hands. That isn't proof. I would agree. That's why an individual has to do this for themselves. Anyone who is happy with online shouldn't worry about defending it, or get angry. Those who don't like online shouldn't play. Either way, don't get angry, it's just a game and everyone has a choice on whether to play. There will never be a sample of hands big enough to convince either side. That's why it's an individual thing. Proving it one way or another is impossible. Unless we have a genuine independent and unbiased auditing company, which is something I have always wanted to see. Even then, stats as we know, can be tampered with or skewed or deliberately misrepresented. Which is why once again I come back to the point - it's your money, you have to decide for yourself.

Late edit - Yes there are all these new programmes which will track millions of hands. I have said on other forums, players should use these to see how their odds are playing out, if they are in any doubt. There will never be a large enough sample to qualify as proof one way or another, but by all means use them, and post the results. It will make interesting and entertaining reading.

Do you know how Josem got his job at Stars? I'd guess the answer is either yes and you're trolling (fingers crossed) or no based on you not knowing that he's still employed.

I'm actually surprised the theory that Stars snatched him up so he wouldn't uncover their schemes hasn't been floated, although if it has I'm sure Josem will remember and let me know.
Law abiding citizens of where? Are employees of any multinational company supposed to immediately run off because one of the dozens of countries they operate in indicts executives?

Why do you believe this? There are mathematical formulas that let us know to what degree of confidence we should conisder a certain result to be within expectation.

the only people for whom no sample size will be enough are those who lack the statistical understanding to interpret the results. These are the same people who should not be claiming that its rigged based on what they see at the table because they don't know enough to draw reliable conclusions.

Yes I do agree with this to a certain extent, but for some there will never be a big enough sample especially when the results go against what they believe. This is why I consider it a personal thing. You can't always trust what people say or their statistics, but you can trust your own. It's why I say take your own stats and prove it to yourself one way or another. You don't have to prove it to the world. It isn't a court of law, it's simply satisfying yourelf, or at least monitoring enough hands to give yourself enough evidence to help you decide.

I dont played last 3-4 month and invest whoopie 50$ to clear the FT 200 Bonus, and i have no doubt that the game is NOT fair.

It all depends what formulas you use. At sample if you draw one card from the deck and you get AAA KKK QQQ jjj 101010........... any card come 3 times its random. On the other site if you use an other formula dam this distribution looks clear rigged .

I have absolute no doubt that a billion $ company is able to create games thats look random , but arent. Exspecially for companys that offer not legal games in the most countrys .

Maybee the average player from US should be glad not dissapointed.

It must be frustrating for people who are wedded to the idea that the deal is rigged when we assert that if it was it would be easily shown but they haven't the slightest comprehension of the methods by which it would be shown.

To someone with basic maths and stats training this is entirely obvious (even if they don't know the minutia of the formulae involved).

As far as the riggies are concerned, however, their worries are being dismissed with gobbledegook.

What they need to understand is that there are a lot of people with the maths and stats skills relevant to this stuff and, if the 'shills' were making it up they would be very quickly shot down by those who had the relevant skills but were disinterested in the topic at hand.

It should also occur to them that it is odd if none of the riggies that appear here all the time happen to have the requisite maths that would enable them to debunk the 'shills' claims if they were false.

But the problem is that the riggies do not have the maths/stats skills to analyse their hands.

Presumably, anyone who is concerned that the deal is rigged will analyse their hands and discover that it isn't and never even venture into a thread like this.

That leaves, on the riggie side, a large number of people who have zero understanding of the statistical principles involved and are completely incapable of performing the requisite analyses.

i.e they believe that they can see the deal is rigged but have no way to either prove it or disabuse themselves of the idea.

Those people should also not be drawing such conclusions. But has there been such a study? Why has no one posted it?

That's just it: in this instance you CAN'T just trust your own personal opinion. Not if you don't have the requisite knowledge to make proper analysis. We should be able to recognise when we don't have expertise to analyse things. Doing otherwise will invariably result in many erroneous conclusions. Sure you have to find experts who you have confidence in. But when it comes to math, that's not that hard.

Personally, I prefer to confirm that my opinions are sufficently justified, rather than just trust my gut.

Again I find a lot of truth in what you are saying, however this isn's a perfect world. Sometimes in poker you have to analyse and sometimes you have to trust your gut, and even the best get it wrong sometimes. Yes it would be great to provide your own stats and pass them on to some expert stats boffin, but mostly this isn't going to happen, so you just have to work it out for yourself, just as you do at the poker table.

Human beings are entirely unable to perform the calculations required in their head to analyse randomness here. Our brains simply do not have the capability to remember 100,000 flops, and then count how many aces come, how many kings, come and so on.

Statistics, and randomness, are, I think, two of the most poorly understood subjects in our society, and it's poorly understood because truly understanding this stuff runs directly contrary to billions of years of evolution.

In short, our brains are hard wired to identify patterns quickly, and rely upon those judgements. If our forebears saw a lion running quickly towards us, they needed to very quickly identify it as a threat, plot a likely path of the lion, and get out of the way... and if they didn't identify this pattern, they'd die pretty quickly. Consequently, the only people alive today are the descendants of people who were good at identifying patterns.

However, this same pattern-finding ability in our brains is what messes things up. Precisely the same thing happens in poker - people see several similar hands in a row, and our natural pattern-finding habit kicks in... but this time, it isn't really there.

This is exacerbated by our mind only remembering those things that are notable.

Most people have a skewed perception of what is actually occurring at
the poker table. We tend to remember the bad beats, and forget the
times our best hand holds up, this means we think we are suffering a
much greater proportion of bad beats than we actually are. This is
simply how the human mind works, and is part of the reason why so many
players complain about their hands being outdrawn.

The truth is that the cards are truly random, there is no bias, and this is entirely provable by a proper statistical analysis of your hand histories.

That's why every statistical analysis of hand histories have found that results fit within what is expected, and why ******s like Magic612 or onlinepokerisascam and others "feel" that it is "obvious" there is something wrong happening.

Check our www.spadebidder.com for some large scale analysis of hands.

It doesn't matter what people believe.

At the end of the analysis, you will have a mathematical fact realting to the survey and analysis that you have.

For example, some randomness tests will come with confidence intervals - 95% certain that the hands were random, and so on.

I agree with this, and I agree that reviewing players own records is the solution here. Unfortunately, most of the rigtards in this thread don't want to do it, and of the remaining few, they do not have the capability. That's why they're rigtards.

Certainly the selective memory thing is at play with poker players. This is why I took my own stats to satisfy myself it wasn't selective memory. I looked at how many times I went heads up all in with the dominating hand over a year. It was an easy enough thing for me to do. I took other stats as well, but really I became convinced after only a few months. 65 per cent loss for just one person is not proof one way or another, but it was proof enough for me. That along with the opinions of a number of good players I know, most of whom stopped playing online because they didn't consider the odds played out. If I'm wrong it doesn't matter. The world will not shift on its axis and world poverty will not be affected one way or another, but it was enough to let me decide for my own satisfaction. That's all anyone can do.

I agree the more stats and opinions the better. The new programmes and software are very powerful, so I hope people use them.

So you no longer play on line?

In effect, no. As I posted earlier, nowadays I play with freeroll money. Sometimes I buy into a site for the minimum with freeroll money earned at another site, then cashout all but a few dollars immediately and play with that. Either that or enter some freerolls and attempt to build up a sum big enough to cashout. The fun comes from building up a few dollars from nothing then cashing out, and achieving a positive roi. The cashout goes into neteller, and then I cashout from there, paying the £5 charge. I rarely leave more than $20 on any site at any time, and don't leave the money in neteller either.

At the moment the only site I play on is Everest, which I like because I can play stt's for 10/25/50 cents. It's fun because the site makes very little from me, and when I'm not playing live I can sit down for an hour or two and be able to play any time I like, for basically nothing. I don't play much, but sometimes I even play two or three tables. Now the baseball season has started I will be playing much less online as I subscribe to mlb. I am quite happy to be considered an online peanuts player, because that's what I am.

^^^

You seem to be taking a fairly sensible approach.

Whether or not it occurs within the rules of the game, not giving a player a discard is a manipulation of the deck or the reshuffle. I do not view this as the same as "rigging" the deck but it is changing the cards from being randomly distributed after the shuffle.

My understanding from your response is that the change in the rules of the games occurred before, not after, the players were notified of the change.