1. I am comparing skins that from my understanding use the same software but your point is taken. You could do the same analysis by some other time period or by buyins.

2. Agreed.

3. I don't care that others don't think its a good analogy but my point is that one Madoff customer could not prove the fraud simply by reviewing his own statements. Similiarly, I don't see how my HHs are enough to conclude anything. I reviewed my HH with my HUD and found that (like people talk about here) 1. my perceived reality was not my reality and 2. my results were below expected. But I am not trying to use the HH's to pinpoint the RNG - this is a red herring. I don't care if the RNG approaches randomess or achieves it, my issue is that the site ultimately knows and controls the data. I have posted before about the safeguards of live poker but the bottom line in live poker is that the players nor the dealers know the next card. Procedures are in place to safeguard this information so that cheating by having information others don't does not happen. Live players that mark cards have a huge advantage when they know the cards, team cheaters that signal cards values have a huge advantage over other players.


As you stated earlier, assume the sites would cheat and steal from the players - this fact provides them a method of stealing from the players - whether it is robot accounts to win players money or methods to increase rake.

This sites were mostly started by Americans using software owned by U.S. companies. A large part of their business is from the U.S. Why do they operate in small, under-developed countries instead of the U.S.? The same reason the bookies all ran to the same countries....less regulation and scrutiny by the government, barriers of collection for the players, and fear of prosecution of those making loads of money. Look at all of the shell corporations sued by the DOJ. Are all these shell necessary? It depends what you are trying to hide. Why is the ownership of AP/UB still in question? Do you think Pokerstars has more or less regulation of its French and Italian operations and procedures?

The general operation of these companies is all about getting around U.S. laws regarding gambling and funding. Who can blame them? They found a cash cow which they were exploiting for maximum gain. Obviously, none of this proves a rig but it shows a pattern of conduct and a willingness to systematically exploit the loopholes of international law and cyberspace jurisdictional issues in order to bring gambling into the living room (or basement) of its customers.

But the blind allegiance to these companies exhibited by many posters here and the need to protect them from the libelous posting of riggies to me is at a minimum puzzling. Or simply, a means to an end. Why would an ex-pornographer cheat her customers?

Until FT and AP pay its customers, proving a rig right now is like proving Enron engaged in discriminatory hiring practices.

The countries may be small but they are hardly underdeveloped.

They have running water, roads, and everything.

Some even have mains electricity. (It's useful for running the servers. )

They also have certain freedoms that are not available under some of the more oppressive governments of larger countries.

Arouet: You are right to some degree. What I have perceived (whether real or my mind's version of reality) at the table is odds-defying play and results. Given the lack other 'skills" involved in on-line poker, the increased reliance on the mathmatical aspects of proper play required to be successful at OLP, coupled with my distrust for these companies, I have stopped playing OLP (well, that and the DOJ's party busting). Faced with the choice of live play or trying to live up to the Herculean task of proving online is rigged, I choose the former. I have tilted at enough windmills in my professional career to want to do it in my hobby.

You shouldn't assume that I have never done any analysis of my HHs simply because I refuse to dismiss olp being rigged as a possible explanation for what I have experienced simply because no one has provided this thread any proof.

Lol, I really need to put you back on ignore but your number of postings has been so impressive recently..... So what is the status of the CAKE v. Wiki fight? Do you have a time picked out? What color trunks are you wearing?

You can compare the economic development of Costa Rica, Antigua, Kannawaashehe's canadian reservation and the Isle of Mann to the U.S. France, U.K., Italy's or anyone else's (except Greek) and come up with any terms you prefer... Yeah, those Greeks really f'd it up for you EC guys.

So at this point the rigtards have pretty much given up the argument the same way they gave up playing poker? I say you guys are alright by me and plz keep posting funny pics!

Son, sit in the back of the short yellow school bus and don't take off that football helmet until you get back to your mommie.

Billion hand studies were done which showed nothing was wrong. Million+ hand studies were done by a guy who had "concerns" (and was widely loved by riggies at that time) that showed nothing was wrong and he offered to setup a template for others to test their data (riggies have ignored him since then).

Flip side is a riggie posts 2 royal flushes in a row and claims that shows it is rigged (because the Stars rigged department decided that would be very stealthy), and other riggies post pictures or talk about putting people under trains.

I will not even go into the silliness of the acronym OLP which nobody actually uses outside this thread.

You absolutely should not play online poker for money as you cannot compete in that regard. You certainly can play it for fun or a hobby.

I have asked many riggies specifically what theories they would like proven, none answer (big shock). You can give it a shot. Pick a specific theory you want to see "proven" and then post it on the probability forum and the stats guys will tell you

- Exactly how to do it

- Whether it is a practical test or not, and if not how to make it one (if possible)


I have asked other riggies to do this which would take about 10 minutes, but most spend far more time on that to avoid doing that task, so will you be the first to give it a shot?

I have not hurled a riggie at the stats guys in a while (a fun activity) , and that corncob guy vanished once he was asked specific and simple yes/no questions, so will you be up for the challenge? I say that knowing the answer is no, but never hurts to ask.

I doubt Spadebidder would agree that his tests show "nothing is wrong" with on line poker (no more OLP, just for for you) (oops) but only that the actual results were within the SD of expected results for the tests that he ran. I reviewed his site and would agree that his opinons hold more weight than mine (or yours) and he is qualified to accomplish the Herculean task that Wiki can prove with 10 HH's or the D&L guy can prove with... D or L.

I will take up your challenge after our Muay Thai battle, which is suppose to be the undercard for the Cake vs. Wiki challenge. I just can't figure out the time or location for it. Has Wiki told your arrogant ass any details or are you still PMS'ing over your strained relationship with him?

Country	GDP Per Capita (CIA World Factbook)
U.S.A.	$47,100
France	$39,400
U.K.	$36,200
Isle of Man	$34,200
Italy	$33,500
Greece	$28,100
Antigua	$12,700
Costa Rica	$7,800

Plenty is wrong with Online Poker - collusion, fraud, legislation issues, and many more concerns which riggies seem to ignore as they get distracted by their bad beat in a freeroll.

While I will not speak for Spadebidder, I would be shocked if he had any concerns that any riggie theory to date in this thread (which are generally vague at best) has anything to be concerned about. He did one study for a really angry riggie and demonstrated his data fell within expectation and all that happened was the riggie turned on him and claimed the data showed how the site was rigged against him. Since then spadebidder has correctly avoided most riggies since they are generally a waste of energy.

I will again make this challenge to you or any riggie:

Pick a specific theory you want tested, write it out in the probability forum and ask how it can be done and they will actually answer in a generally polite manner. In fact one riggie posts there trying to prove different ways that the sites are rigged against him (each time when he thinks he is onto something he eventually realizes he made an error in his math - it is sort of comical).

Even you when asked to name a specific theory - any theory- you completely avoid the situation and then talk about fighting matches, as if 4 random people on the internet will get together in that manner any time in our lifetime (who the hell is the cake riggie as well - was that someone who thought Cake Poker was rigged?)


Why will you not post a specific theory you want tested?

And for your listening pleasure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umrp1tIBY8Q

JJJou youre a freaking toy man. If you think online poker is rigged then dont play it. I guarantee you that youre a garbage live player as well but you dont grind live and thats why you dont understand poker and the nature of variance. People like you have literally nothing to add to the poker world but youre money and thats why youre wasting youre time talking a bunch of senseless trash in this forum. The fact of the matter is that maybe 1% of rigtards are profitable players live or online. Im not a shill of any site but am a shill of the game of poker and I for one welcome your lifelong play of the game. If and when regulation gets going hopefully you, mike, and ken will join up and it will become very clear who knows anything about poker. Spend less time in this thread and more time in the strategy stuff and you might learn to win money and actually enjoy the game instead of belittling others and posting semi-funny pics.( p.s. to any casual lurker reading the thread its obvious you guys have given up and its clear none of you are serious players live or online)

And then you move up to the fries, thats when the big bucks start rolling in.....

Well done, sir. Not only is it assumed to be factually accurate but a prime example of how deceiving statistics can be. I made one tiny adjustment.

Is it possible that you REALLY dont have a clue? In the overall scheme of manipulating the deal to move old money to new money, which is quite simply what the rigging is all about and why its done, if an AA rig or royal flush needs to be put down in order to suck out a profitable player and move his money to a newbie, then thats what will be done.
Addressing you personally Im sure is just a waste though, you cant be that ignorant. youre here trying to protect your financial interest by feeding suckers B.S.

I did not know you had me on the clock. I will post a theory with the probability guys and get back to you, maybe by 7:02 but it may be 8:31 or later.

Just go with never as that is more realistic for riggies.

Props if you do actually do this, but no expectations you will.

All the best.

Then there is this way (GNP)

United States 1 12 970 billion $
Japan 2 4 988 billion $
Germany 3 2 852 billion $
China 4 2 264 billion $
Great Britain 5 2 264 billion $
France 6 2 178 billion $
Italy 7 1 725 billion $ Spain 8 1 100 billion $
Canada 9 1 052 billion $
India 10 793 billion $
Korea (N + S) 11 777 billion $
Mexico 12 753 billion $
Australia 13 655 billion $
Brazil 14 644 billion $
Russia 15 639 billion $
Netherlands 16 598 billion $
Switzerland 17 409 billion $
Taiwan 18 386 billion $
Belgium 19 374 billion $
Sweden 20 371 billion $
Turkey 21 342 billion $
Austria 22 304 billion $
Saudi Arabia 23 289 billion $
Indonesia 24 282 billion $
Norway 25 275 billion $
Poland 26 271 billion $
Denmark 27 257 billion $
South Africa 28 224 billion $
Greece 29 218 billion $
Thailand 30 197 billion $
Finland 31 196 billion $
Iran 32 187 billion $
Argentina 33 173 billion $
Portugal 34 171 billion $
Ireland 35 167 billion $
Israel 36 129 billion $
Venezuela 37 128 billion $
Malaysia 38 126 billion $
Singapore 39 120 billion $
United Arab Emirates 40 112 billion $
Czech Rep. 41 109 billion $
Philippines 42 108 billion $
Pakistan 43 107 billion $
New Zealand 44 107 billion $
Colombia 45 105 billion $
Myanmar 46 103 billion $
Hungary 47 101 billion $
Chile 48 95.6 billion $
Egypt 49 92.9 billion $
Algeria 50 89.6 billion $
Romania 51 82.9 billion $
Nigeria 52 74.2 billion $
Peru 53 73.0 billion $
Ukraine 54 71.4 billion $
Bangladesh 55 66.2 billion $
Kuwait 56 59.1 billion $
Morocco 57 52.3 billion $
Viet Nam 58 51.7 billion $
Puerto Rico 59 47.5 billion $
Kazakhstan 60 44.4 billion $
Slovakia 61 42.8 billion $
Croatia 62 35.8 billion $
Ecuador 63 34.8 billion $
Slovenia 64 34.7 billion $
Libya 65 32.4 billion $
Guatemala 66 30.3 billion $
Luxembourg 67 30.0 billion $
Tunisia 68 29.0 billion $
Belarus 69 27.0 billion $
Yugoslavia 70 26.8 billion $
Bulgaria 71 26.7 billion $
Syria 72 26.4 billion $
Lithuania 73 24.1 billion $
Sudan 74 23.3 billion $
Oman 75 23.0 billion $
Sri Lanka 76 22.8 billion $
Lebanon 77 22.1 billion $
Angola 78 21.5 billion $
Dominican Rep. 79 21.1 billion $
Costa Rica 80 19.9 billion $
Kenya 81 18.0 billion $
El Salvador 82 16.8 billion $
Cameroon 83 16.5 billion $
Iraq 84 16.0 billion $
Latvia 85 15.5 billion $
Ivory Coast 86 15.3 billion $
Uruguay 87 15.1 billion $
Qatar 88 15.0 billion $
Panama 89 14.9 billion $
Cyprus 90 14.3 billion $
Iceland 91 13.7 billion $
Trinidad and Tobago 92 13.6 billion $
Jordan 93 13.5 billion $
Uzbekistan 94 13.5 billion $
Tanzania 95 12.7 billion $
Yemen 96 12.7 billion $
Estonia 97 12.2 billion $
Cuba 98 11.2 billion $
Ethiopia 99 11.1 billion $
Azerbaijan 100 10.4 billion $
Bahrain 101 10.3 billion $
Ghana 102 9.99 billion $
Bosnia 103 9.54 billion $
Bolivia 104 9.27 billion $
Botswana 105 9.15 billion $
Jamaica 106 9.03 billion $
Honduras 107 8.59 billion $
Brunei 108 8.54 billion $
Senegal 109 8.25 billion $
Albania 110 8.07 billion $
Uganda 111 7.94 billion $
Paraguay 112 7.85 billion $
Nepal 113 7.28 billion $
Macau 114 7.09 billion $
Afghanistan 115 6.96 billion $
Gabon 116 6.93 billion $
Dem. Rep. of Congo 117 6.89 billion $
Turkmenistan 118 6.63 billion $
Mauritius 119 6.56 billion $
Mozambique 120 6.14 billion $
Namibia 121 6.07 billion $
Georgia 122 6.02 billion $
Martinique 123 6.01 billion $
Reunion 124 6.00 billion $
Macedonia 125 5.75 billion $
Zambia 126 5.67 billion $
Malta 127 5.49 billion $
Madagascar 128 5.37 billion $
Cambodia 129 5.34 billion $
Burkina Faso 130 5.24 billion $
Mali 131 5.12 billion $
Nicaragua 132 4.97 billion $
Bahamas 133 4.92 billion $
French Polynesia 134 4.76 billion $
Zimbabwe 135 4.46 billion $
Armenia 136 4.44 billion $
Benin 137 4.34 billion $
Guadeloupe 138 4.16 billion $
Haiti 139 3.88 billion $
Chad 140 3.87 billion $
Papua New Guinea 140 3.87 billion $
Congo 142 3.79 billion $
Guinea 143 3.51 billion $
Niger 144 3.35 billion $
New Caledonia 145 3.25 billion $
Moldova 146 3.17 billion $
Jersey & Guernsey 147 3.00 billion $
Fiji 148 2.78 billion $
Bermuda 149 2.68 billion $
Barbados 150 2.63 billion $
Laos 151 2.62 billion $
Swaziland 152 2.58 billion $
Netherlands Antilles 153 2.48 billion $
Isle of Man 154 2.34 billion $
Kyrgyzstan 155 2.29 billion $
Tajikistan 156 2.18 billion $
Togo 157 2.16 billion $
U.S. Virgin Islands 158 2.14 billion $
Malawi 159 2.08 billion $
Rwanda 160 2.07 billion $
Aruba 161 1.98 billion $
Mongolia 162 1.76 billion $
Guam 163 1.72 billion $
Lesotho 163 1.72 billion $
Mauritania 163 1.72 billion $
French Guiana 166 1.67 billion $
Central African Rep. 167 1.40 billion $
Andorra 168 1.38 billion $
Liechtenstein 169 1.34 billion $
Sierra Leone 170 1.21 billion $
Greenland 171 1.18 billion $
Suriname 172 1.14 billion $
Somalia 173 1.12 billion $
Belize 174 1.02 billion $
Monaco 175 1.01 billion $
Cape Verde 176 0.95 billion $
Cayman Islands 177 0.93 billion $
Antigua and Barbuda 178 0.89 billion $
Eritrea 179 0.85 billion $
Djibouti 180 0.81 billion $
Bhutan 181 0.80 billion $
Saint Lucia 182 0.79 billion $
Maldives 182 0.79 billion $
Guyana 184 0.76 billion $
East Timor 185 0.73 billion $
Burundi 186 0.72 billion $
Seychelles 187 0.70 billion $
Faroe Islands 188 0.58 billion $
Equatorial Guinea 189 0.53 billion $
Mayotte 190 0.50 billion $
Gibraltar 191 0.49 billion $
American Samoa 192 0.47 billion $
Gambia 193 0.44 billion $
Liberia 193 0.44 billion $
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 195 0.43 billion $
San Marino 196 0.42 billion $
Grenada 196 0.42 billion $
Comoros 198 0.39 billion $
Western Samoa 198 0.39 billion $
Saint Kitts & Nevis 198 0.39 billion $
Vanuatu 201 0.34 billion $
British Virgin Islands 202 0.30 billion $
Solomon 203 0.28 billion $
Guinea-Bissau 203 0.28 billion $
Dominica 205 0.27 billion $
Micronesia 206 0.25 billion $
Tonga 207 0.22 billion $
Northern Mariana Islands 208 0.19 billion $
Marshall Islands 208 0.19 billion $
Nauru 210 0.17 billion $
Turks and Caicos Islands 211 0.15 billion $
Palau 211 0.15 billion $
Kiribati 213 0.14 billion $
Anguilla 214 0.10 billion $
Cook Islands 215 0.09 billion $
Sao Tome and Principe 216 0.06 billion $
Montserrat 216 0.06 billion $
Wallis and Futuna 216 0.06 billion $
Saint Pierre and Miquelon 219 0.05 billion $
Saint Helena 220 0.04 billion $
Falkland Islands 220 0.04 billion $
Tuvalu 222 0.03 billion $
Niue 223 0.02 billion $
Tokelau 224 0.01 billion $

First of all, that a rig needs to be undetectable was a notion that I have usually more than just acknowledged.

I don't think a that any riggy ever suggested that, upon witnessing successive royal flushes, there was a rig that specifically deals out lots of royal flushes. They are simply saying that the strange anomoly is an indication that something is wrong, ie, there is a rig. For the record, I will say that I don't think seeing successive royal flushes should make someone fear that there is a rig. So, if I were to try to refute a riggy's paranoia pertaining to his royal flush fears I would try to explain why the occurence doesn't indicate it in my opinion. However, I wouldn't insinuate that they believe that they think there is a doom switch the just causes lots of royal flushes, which is basically what you do.

Anyway, to answer your questions, no, I do not think dealing two royal flushes in a row is a good rigging idea, and yes, I hereby denounce a riggy's opinion (sorry riggy) that sites are being smart to rig the game in that specific way (although I don't actually think a certain riggy implied that. What he surely meant to say was that the royal flush thing was some kind of colatteral damage of some kind of rig if you will.)

The thing is, for some reason you decided to suggest I thought sites might do something like this, but I claim that I never thought such a thing. Don't know what else to say about all that....

However, I do think that some kind of doomswitch if you want to call it that would be necessary if there was an actual rig (I strongly believe that there aren't rigs by the way, especially by the big reputable sites, but simply that it would be possible to do it in a way that would be difficult to detect.) The reason for a doomswith is simply that the most reasonable form of rigging would be to juice inferior players so as to inspire them to redeposit. And to do this you would have to have employees decide who to juice. After that they would have to activate the favorable circumstances for them. This activation might be synonymous with 'doomswitch' to some extent. But that would imply the activation of software that gives them favorable results again and again, on an automatic basis, rather than a monkey pushing buttons for pkt aces or royal flushes, set over set in some slave labor fashion. It is actually highly probable that nobody thinks it would work in that fashion. It is certain that you imply that a monkey or slave laborer person pushing stupid buttons constantly is basically the only possible way that the anomolies riggies point to could have been produced, granted they were produced by a rig.

I also want to point out that if you gave person A the winning hole cards amongst several players over and over again, as in ALWAYS, analysis of board cards alone, meaning flps, turns, and rivers, could still be shown to be perfectly random over a gazillion hand statistical analysis.

USA! USA! USA!

Cool. How do you and other riggies manage to see the rig if they cannot be detected?

How do none of the people who program the rig ever tell, even for the rooms that are no longer in business?



Nearly all riggie theories in this thread are based on either zero real data or less than 5 hands of data, yet they see all sorts of patterns even when as you indicate they would be impossible to detect.

Are you saying these riggies are wrong in the patterns they see (since you also say they would be impossible to detect).




You will have an angry riggie on your hand by saying that!

DO you have any more details on this "colatteral (sic) damage" theory? That has potential to be a cool name for a riggie theory and you still have yet to say any specific theory at all.



State your specific claim/theory and all this confusion fades away.

I asked you specifically many times what your specific claim is, yet you have yet to produce one.

Umm, ok. Why not post this somewhat vague theory in the probability forum and ask for their help in proving it? Yeah, that is hard to type without laughing, and I know you would never do it, but figure maybe you can answer why you will not post it there.


At least post this in a new thread in the probability forum and see what the stats guys say. You will find your beliefs about math are not as correct as you may believe them to be.

All the best.

Well said 14cobster. You know you really hit home with the truth on how the deal would be manipulated to accomplish what these scam sites want to do when Monteroy immediatly rushes in and tries to dismiss your post with some snide remark.

Well, if you take a deck of cards and remove 8 of them (four holdem players) and then shuffle these cards, the remaining cards in the deck don't change in any way. Shuffle again. No change in remaining cards. shuffle again, no change etc. there u go. In this case community card analysis alone would point to no rigging. pretty simple really.

What 'stat guy' would disagree? I don't think anybody would, except for maybe yourself. (but I don't really think you would)