he already answer me and it's all the site in the world are rigged! even the one he had no chance to try.

I don't understand why you feel it is acceptable to slander thousands of people as thieves and criminals yet provide no details to support your false and offensive accusation.

Spadebidder did a study on over a billion hands. Others have done extensive studies on large databases as well. The hands are all available and if you could see some of the freak stuff stats guys know how to do you would realize that any concern you have or any riggie has could be proven within seconds if actually true. Riggies always seem to know how the system is flawed (which if true could be exploited for millions), yet none live in a sick house in Thailand with all their poker buddies. Most still play freerolls.

In contrast you offer beliefs from watching a few hands 5 years ago with not a single bit of statistical work done and you probably do not even have your hands saved. You just know what you saw and believe. Stats guys have cold, hard data - you have beliefs with no evidence at all. Guess which matters more in the real world outside this thread.


Note, I do not expect any riggie to give up on their faith as that faith is sacred to them, but all you are is the fringe paranoid crowd which is why the world and the poker world continue without really noticing aside from a special thread made for you guys. Some "shills" play with you guys but if you look at the strategy forums and the staking forums you will never see any mention of rigged beliefs. That is pretty much the domain of the casual, paranoid player.


You are doing the right thing by not playing. You could not compete. Shame for the poker economy in general, but the right choice for you and other riggies who choose that option as well.

At least you are not a gimmick, though I have no idea if you were the murder riggie or not anymore.


All the best.

Please stop repeating this falsehood. I don't really care whether you are ignorant or deliberately lying, it isn't really relevant. What is relevant is that your comments about sample sizes are false and untrue.

I was able to prove that there was cheating on Absolute Poker with 850 hands. That's a clear fact. Your comments about the hurdle changing is rubbish, and reflects a fundamental ignorance (or deliberate deceit) about statistics & probability.

Please stop repeating this rubbish, this discussion deserves better.

Here is some:

Plz Riggies send us your proof in a timely manner and prove it's rigged!
Josem provide some good one.
It's about time riggies show us something seriously or STFU.

And btw plz no cherry pick video

looooool

Nice Counter argument Jeez

Anyway see you all later, time to accomplish my citizen duty in a timely manner.

What is wrong with that information?

Fine so if everything is legit, and some players have doubts, the best thing they can do is take their own stats so they can see how the odds are playing out. That should dispel all their concerns. As soon as they see they are winning 70-30's and 50-50's (11.5-10's whatever the specific odds for the overcards v pair) ), and whatever else they wish to look at, at a reasonably convincing rate close to the odds, they can settle their minds and play online to their hearts' content without any worries. The new software, so I am told, is great for this sort of thing.

What site did you do this analysis on?

if he say pitbull poker, i can understand ;P

he was one of the people claiming that the odds on RealDealPoker were much more fair than stars/tilt and in one of his posts even went as far as explaining a suckout by saying its ok because it happens live too

As for not being able to prove a negative......

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philos...anegative.html

also..... http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/theory.html

and in particular "Logicians note that it is easier to prove that there are such beings than to prove there aren't simply because we only need to find one of them to accomplish our proof, and thus will not have to look everywhere--unless we are so unlucky that where the one Martian is just happens to be the last place we look. But in the final analysis, it is not being "negative" that makes a proposition difficult to prove, but the breadth of the assertion. For instance, "there is gravity on every planet in every universe" could be disproven by searching just one planet and finding no gravity, but if we kept finding gravity we could never decisively prove it true, any more than if we kept failing to find Martians in the universe would we be able to decisively prove that "there are no Martians in the universe." Thus, what people call the "you can't prove a negative" axiom is actually nothing more than the eternal problem of induction: since we can't test a proposition in every place and at every time, we can never be absolutely certain that the proposition remains true in all times and places. We can only infer it."

14cobster,

I don't understand the relevance of your post when I have posted proof that the shuffle is fair and random:

With the ever growing knowledge of a player who attempts to take poker seriously, you have to realize that the toughness of the game is going to make the game look funny at times to a naive less-informed, conspiracy-minded person. By saying toughness, that doesnt have to equate to being offensively better, more aggressive, or [insert your attribute here]. Some fail to realize that someone looking to find a favorable situation to get their money into the pot is going to create the illusion that something is wrong.

If you have player A looking for a favorable spot and Player B looking for a favorable spot, that means all marginal situations(that we are used to) are decreased. Quite simply, the average horrible player who is still horrible has evolved into knowing where the fold button is. This simple act is going to create more situations where someone already frustrated and on edge is going to see something that isnt there, but rather just not understand the game dynamic.

The evolution of a poker player goes through a cycle. Nearly every winning player can look back at a time where they knew just enough to know nothing at all(fish on a heater). Everyone has a timeframe where they thought they were better than they really were. This mindset everyone goes through, is going to blind you to certain elementary dynamics.

The truth is your weak opponents are folding more; you are getting less action with the bottom of your strong range. Yet, you don't realize it and are playing a static strategy that doesnt account or adapt. If Player A is waiting for big overpair+, combo draws and Player B is waiting for the same yet Player A is still betting, pounding along and not accounting for the fact Player B has never shown a single instance of putting their money in behind, it is going to be frustrating if you are in that transistion period of learning.

I probably didnt help but you now have some wood in the fire.

cliffnotes:

Opponents fold more. Average random player is in a transition phase and doesnt get action with semi-strong hands as often as they use to.

Rigtards believe that online poker is definitely rigged despite there being not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

Those of us defending online poker believe that it is probably not rigged because there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

Rigtards believe that online poker is definitely rigged despite there being not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

Those of us defending online poker believe that it is probably not rigged because there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

There is not a shred of evidence that it's probably not rigged?

That's a big statement coming from you.

This is something I have brought up before because it's is perfectly obvious that you can prove a negative.

It isn't even as simple as saying it's just a matter of scope because there, for example, are infinite number of integers and yet we can prove that no even integers other than two are prime. (By induction is we wish ).

The situation is, in reality, simply that it is impractical to completely prove that OLP is not rigged because of the vast number of permutations of methods of rigging that the riggies come up with.

Even if we could it would be pointless because the riggies would do one of the following:

1) Attack the integrity of those who developed the method
2) Attack the integrity of the data
3) Attack the integrity of those who programmed the test
4) Attack the integrity of those carrying out the test
5) Attack the integrity of those reporting the results

or

"All of the above".

All you have to do to disprove that statement is to provide the Evidence.

Well I can offer no evidence that it's 'probably not rigged', but it's fairly obvious that there's something rotten in the state of Denmark.

The suggestion that it's 'probably not rigged' comes from a logical analysis of the lack of any Evidence that it is rigged.

If you believe that there is 'something rotten in the state of Denmark', please post the Evidence you have for making that assertion.

It's funny that you continually claim all the credit for this as if you were some sort of one-man crusader.