.

Yeah, total shock to see he may have been stretching the truth just a tad.

Even so, he was more interesting then the guy who uses this thread as his whine bad beat playhouse (while never understanding why he always loses long term).

People who think it is rigged specifically against them are boring clueless whiners. People who say it is rigged for all sorts of magical reasons are much more fun, as they are the deep to the core paranoid people.

Not to mention how difficult it would be to create an algorithm that needs to re-distribute equity to players based on how recently they deposited/how long the tournament has been going on. Then they would need to keep track of who they've made run good/bad and correct that, so when you analyze a large sample, there is no discrepancy compared to a non-rigged site.

I love when two horrible players go up against each other and it's a veritable battle of trainwreck mistakes. That must make the Rigged RNG really flip out as it tries to adjust the flop, turn and river to help the (presumably) worse player win as both of the ******s try to outmaneuver each other and all fundamentals of competent play. I guess it must be rigged though, because it would seem neither mongoloid deserves to win the pot, but eventually, and quite shockingly, it gets rewarded to one of 'em.

There´s no need to create an algorithm to re-distribute equity to players. An algorithm that makes favorite hands win less frequent than expected yet close to the expected is enough. The site wants to keep the money in the table the longer they can, there is only one way to make that, and a simple one, TO MAKE FAVORITE HANDS WIN A LITTLE LESS FREQUENT THAN EXPECTED.

And thats why bad beats are so frequent in online poker rooms.

They can change algorithm from time to time, like that DOOM button everyone imagines.

Dont ask for proofs, I dont have. But sometimes we should not ask why would someone do something, but rather why they wouldn´t.

Q.E.D.

please prove those claims to be true.
I think it's safe to say you're worthless despite your nationality. I couldn't argue with my international buddies if they said because of it. I'd also love to see your hand histories to see if you don't suck at poker.
maybe if you just didn't chat you wouldn't suck as bad. based on your posts here I'm sure your table chatter is not terribly enlightening.

I do have proof, that a simple skew like this this is definitely not happening on any major site. I'll post it later this week once the full analysis is ready (of hundreds of millions of hands). I showed a preliminary version of this before, but the final one is even more conclusive. Thus a redistribution of equity would be needed to make it harder to detect (but that is still detectable, just not with a simple showdown analysis). As has been shown before in this forum, the musical chairs necessary to redistribute equity would be extremely difficult to pull off in a way that doesn't cancel out any rake benefit. It would require a sophisticated profiling scheme where classes of players get some of the equity from another class, so that they add up to true expectation. Obviously that is still detectable if you identify the classes to compare results.

your parents should ask themselves that question about reproducing.

Its one of the main reasons why online casinos was banned in USA, and why it will be banned in russia. Becouse its just to easy to rig the games. All they need to do is keep money moving. And i am almost sure that most of you run waaay above your EV.

The riggedologists can't quite grasp the fact that a complex system involving the redistribution of equities would be so incredibly difficult to make work, that any money made in doing such wouldn't even cover the amount of money spent on creating such a thing. In the end, it wouldn't be worth it to try.

The sites have much more to lose (read: millions of players and billions of dollars in rake) should they rig the software to increase rake than they stand to gain by getting a few extra cents out of the pot. It would be easier (and cheaper) for them to implement a new marketing tactic to increase their player base than to design complex software to increase their profit by a few cents here and there.

It will be a good time watching you answer those who know the "HIDDEN TRUTH" regardless of anything silly like actual data. Do not underestimate a seasoned riggedologist's ability to make up new and sexier mystical power based rigged concepts on the fly.

Remember, you can have all the mathematical/statistical proof you want, but if they lose one single 60/40 in which they a favorite, all of your hard work is worthless because of that hand.

go live...

what a worthless 1st post/gimmick account.

When did this happen?

If you look at the thread title, you'll see this is "The great 'Poker is rigged debate,'", not "The great 'Online Poker is rigged debate.'"

All poker is rigged, imo.

I have a little game like this at my house:


I hit a royal flush on it last night. I'm sure it was just because I'm a fish and they wanted me to keep playing and paying rake though.

I agree, that probably was the reason.

Fish.

yeah, well - they gave me 2k points for that, so I had 2010 when all was said and done.

I'll be playing for a while now, so they'll get that back in rake real fast.

Why doesn't a pro or the sites themselves show a large sample size of hands to proove hands are holding up like they should and all the odds are correct ? This is possible to do with pokertracker right ? I personally dont think either of these sites are rigged but I would also like to see some conclusive evidence to proove their not. So why hasn't this happened yet ?

* disclaimer * I'm not confident 100 percent though everything is on the up and up. I worry about bots and even super users on both of these sites. Although I feel pretty safe at 200 nl but who knows if I should ? I wonder how far down the cheating went at ub and absolute. Why wouldn't there be super users in the small games to? That would be the place to do it if you were smart. Although this has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is why hasn't a pro or someone with a large sample size shown proof that hands hold up the way they should and the odds are on point ?

Stars gave a third party all the hands from December 2008 to look at and the company found the deal fair.

Standard.

Majority of pros would never play online unless they were paid/sponsored for it.

And majority of pros like have negative results online.