But is it OK to parody them, as long as it doesn't get into a leveling game of "does he mean it or not?"

?

A quick glance at his past posts shows he is not a leveing machine, rather a relatively simple guy who whines over and over and over.

Not quite sure what parody does, since he is not really worth parody, and any attention (even this post) is probably -EV in every sense of the expression. Best in future is to completely ignore his hissy fit "wah wah my xx lost to yy posts."

Who knows, maybe he will lose $20,000 in a wager to an angry guy who plays 1/2 cent poker.

Oh, I did enjoy reading your Omaha hands.

This is for all the Real Dealers:

Dice-O-Matic mark II

(So awesome!)

The absurdity of this contraption makes the realdeal shuffler look relatively sane by comparison.

I think it's pretty clear that a few posters ITT are just empty vats.

spadebidder,

Thank you for letting me know about the regulation, software development control and software audit aspect of operation at the Chanel Island by pushing me links here a few weeks ago. I have read all relevant documents from the Chanel Island gaming authority resources and being a software professional actually I do understand what they are talking about.

I have to admit that I am very impressed and you were quite right - there is indeed an adequate process control in place especially from the viewpoint of software development and implementation which is in obviously in the center of the debate as the poker sites use software to distribute the game to users. It looks good what those guys at the authority require and if the policy would be actually enforced players should not be worried about the rigged system.

The problem is, that from the available resources it is unclear how the policies are enforced and whether it is enforced at all. There is no reference at all to procedures and actual actions that enforces the policy and it makes questionable how the tiny offshore island's tiny gaming authority ensures the software integrity on hundreds of servers when some of the servers sits in a Caribbean or Florida based data centre. Additionally, knowing the frequency of software updates rolled out by the sites and generaly speaking the magnitude of operation it seems not feasible to ensure software integrity using the resource available to the tiny gaming authority and its unknown subcontractors.

The bigger problem is that from technical viewpoint the policies are simply not enforceable. Why? Mainly because 1) the nature of the software business namely that IP traffic needs to be routed via different systems 2) the business continuity aspect of the software operation. Addressing business continuity is essential in enterprise software system operaio. Poker Stars, FT and all large sites utilizing business continuity sites, which means that the servers are in different data centres in most of the cases in different continents. It is a complete mystery how the tiny Chanel Island gaming authority ensures the integrity of the servers and prevents the deployment of malicious components that interrupts and modifies the random card distribution. Additionally, when we realizes that the ISP of Poker Star is a company that is not member of any professional organizations, basically a bespoke IT operation that can route the traffic and data to unknown locations using unknown and not audited software systems, then software professionals are rightly say that this is a complete joke and nothing can be further from a regulated operation. The well constructed regulation and policies are might makes look good the poker operators in the eyes of the public and it gives you ammunition to defend them, but in reality it seems the sites operates in a completely uncontrolled manner.

If you know resources that details how policies can be actually enforced and in fact they are enforced by the Channel Island authority please let me know. I am still very sceptical about the software operation of large poker sites, but I am willing to accept that the operation is genuine if I can see resources about enforcing policies that guaranties software integrity and that the random card distribution is not interrupted at any levels (including the application and traffic layer).

And here is what happened today at Poker Star. I am the player pokerasmus playing my usual $3 tournament, spending the time with poker what I love, being a very weak poker player, knowing very little about the game and probability, but making the at money being lucky in every third-fourth tournament.

Poker Star operates at unknown sites and data centres, using their own doggy ISP, under the jurisdiction of a tiny offshore gaming authority that simple unable to enforce the technically enforcable policies and distribute this **** what you can see below.

Gentleman, it is rigged. The software has been written to distribute a completely not random **** in order to keep players going and generate more revenue for the operator. Until I don't see the resources about how the policies actually enforced, how the authority actually controls the data center that is geographically and in legal sense is outside of the control of authority and how the actual software integrity is guaranted the conclusion is that these software criminals operates a very rigged system.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

PokerStars Game #28650511865: Tournament #165726468, $3.00+$0.30 Hold'em No Limit - Level XIII (200/400) - 2009/05/26 21:25:31 WET [2009/05/26 16:25:31 ET]
Table '165726468 598' 9-max Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: Arjuna999 (7720 in chips)
Seat 2: pokerasmus (13372 in chips)
Seat 3: SIXHCP (24900 in chips)
Seat 4: R1FTY (19318 in chips)
Seat 5: windy99999 (9870 in chips)
Seat 6: dyckapo (12354 in chips)
Seat 7: Kralle82 (5585 in chips)
Seat 8: trium_vira94 (21033 in chips)
Seat 9: Steph65 (5563 in chips)
Arjuna999: posts the ante 50
pokerasmus: posts the ante 50
SIXHCP: posts the ante 50
R1FTY: posts the ante 50
windy99999: posts the ante 50
dyckapo: posts the ante 50
Kralle82: posts the ante 50
trium_vira94: posts the ante 50
Steph65: posts the ante 50
Arjuna999: posts small blind 200
pokerasmus: posts big blind 400
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to pokerasmus [9d 9h]
SIXHCP: calls 400
R1FTY: folds
windy99999: folds
dyckapo: folds
Kralle82: folds
trium_vira94: folds
Steph65: folds
Arjuna999: calls 200
pokerasmus: checks
*** FLOP *** [4d 3d Jd]
Arjuna999: checks
pokerasmus: bets 800
SIXHCP: calls 800
Arjuna999: calls 800
*** TURN *** [4d 3d Jd] [6d]
Arjuna999: checks
pokerasmus: bets 400
SIXHCP: calls 400
Arjuna999: folds
*** RIVER *** [4d 3d Jd 6d] [6c]
pokerasmus: bets 400
SIXHCP: calls 400
*** SHOW DOWN ***
pokerasmus: shows [9d 9h] (a flush, Jack high)
SIXHCP: shows [Kd Ac] (a flush, King high)
SIXHCP collected 5650 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 5650 | Rake 0
Board [4d 3d Jd 6d 6c]
Seat 1: Arjuna999 (small blind) folded on the Turn
Seat 2: pokerasmus (big blind) showed [9d 9h] and lost with a flush, Jack high
Seat 3: SIXHCP showed [Kd Ac] and won (5650) with a flush, King high
Seat 4: R1FTY folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: windy99999 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: dyckapo folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 7: Kralle82 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: trium_vira94 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: Steph65 (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)


PokerStars Game #28650562743: Tournament #165726468, $3.00+$0.30 Hold'em No Limit - Level XIII (200/400) - 2009/05/26 21:26:42 WET [2009/05/26 16:26:42 ET]
Table '165726468 598' 9-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: Arjuna999 (6470 in chips)
Seat 2: pokerasmus (11322 in chips)
Seat 3: SIXHCP (28500 in chips)
Seat 4: R1FTY (19268 in chips)
Seat 5: windy99999 (9820 in chips)
Seat 6: dyckapo (12304 in chips)
Seat 7: Kralle82 (5535 in chips)
Seat 8: trium_vira94 (20983 in chips)
Seat 9: Steph65 (5513 in chips)
Arjuna999: posts the ante 50
pokerasmus: posts the ante 50
SIXHCP: posts the ante 50
R1FTY: posts the ante 50
windy99999: posts the ante 50
dyckapo: posts the ante 50
Kralle82: posts the ante 50
trium_vira94: posts the ante 50
Steph65: posts the ante 50
pokerasmus: posts small blind 200
SIXHCP: posts big blind 400
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to pokerasmus [9h 9d]
R1FTY: folds
windy99999: folds
dyckapo: raises 695 to 1095
Kralle82: folds
trium_vira94: folds
Steph65: folds
Arjuna999: folds
pokerasmus: calls 895
SIXHCP: folds
*** FLOP *** [3h 6d Kd]
pokerasmus: checks
dyckapo: bets 1095
pokerasmus: calls 1095
*** TURN *** [3h 6d Kd] [3d]
pokerasmus: checks
dyckapo: bets 1395
pokerasmus: calls 1395
*** RIVER *** [3h 6d Kd 3d] [7d]
pokerasmus: checks
dyckapo: bets 1495
pokerasmus: calls 1495
*** SHOW DOWN ***
dyckapo: shows [Ks Qd] (a flush, King high)
pokerasmus: mucks hand
dyckapo collected 11010 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 11010 | Rake 0
Board [3h 6d Kd 3d 7d]
Seat 1: Arjuna999 (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: pokerasmus (small blind) mucked [9h 9d]
Seat 3: SIXHCP (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 4: R1FTY folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: windy99999 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: dyckapo showed [Ks Qd] and won (11010) with a flush, King high
Seat 7: Kralle82 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: trium_vira94 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: Steph65 folded before Flop (didn't bet)

How much does PokerStars pay their shills these days? Do you guys get a set salary or do you get paid a fee for each post?

Wow, two hands. Got me convinced. To hell win multi-million hand databases, these two are obviously proof enough........

BTW, you played them both so badly, no wonder you think it's rigged.

So... poker stars is so rigged it.. makes you play bad?

Well since I haven't made enough posts to have a golden ticket shill account, I do not yet earn the ice cream sandwich pay yet, so I have to deal with cookies for now.

No need to berate someone's play who admits he plays bad, imo.

Relevant picture, imo:

Not that's the point. Yes, I obviously played badly because I am a weak player knowing nothing about the game and playing purely for recreational reason having a daily job when I design software.

The point is that the card distribution is not random. The software is uncontrolled, operated on unknown resources at unknown data centres, the software is doggy and written to generate more revenue. That is what it is.

Great! I look forward to the evidence you will soon be presenting to support your claim.

I think you have no idea what are you talking about or you really get paid for defending these criminals.

How a multi million hand analysis proves the randomness in a domain where ANY hands is legitim and possible, ANY hands must be seen as random, therefore any not random hand is well within domain and qualified as a random hand. It's a beutiful logical paradox and unfortunatelly makes your argument completely useless, in the sense of logic you are talking about a set that can includes itself which is a complete nonsense.

Additionally, you are being naive beleiving that software crime is outside of a business that is operated by doggy software professionals at doggy places.

[ ] Makes sense.

Would you care to explain how juicing hands in a tournament generates more revenue for poker stars?

Great. First I look forward to recieve the resources about policy enforcement, information how the tiny Chanel Island authority control servers in London (just one place where PS data centre is), ensures software integrity, etc. And it is not asking to prove the negative. What I am asking is simply a technical requirement that is common within the software industry, any software operators would gladly comply with it in order to prove the business is genuine - except poker sites.

So just bring the resources.

Haha, funny you should say this. I was definitely searching for a few minutes for "doggy software" and "dog software", but couldn't find anything funny enough so I decided not to comment on it.

Oh yeah, and +1 to:

This is what I am talking about. I do not care if it is a level or not (I assume likely not), but we need more nonsensical, rambling manifestos about intricate, massive conspiracies and fewer whiny bad beat stories.

The more posters who write like they are wearing their post on a billboard attached to their body the better. Any way we can remove the pointless bad beat posts from the thread to allow these "ideas" to shine through more clearly?

I've seen a lot of evidence presented that shows that more than likely the deal is fair. I have yet to see any evidence presented showing that it is not. If you choose to believe something "does" exist for no other reason than you think it is "possible" even if it isn't supported by any evidence then that is your prerogative. Similarly, you can believe that giant turtles exist within the depths of Jupiter. Go ahead, prove that they don't.

Also, "doggy" software professionals at "doggy" places would make a good photoshop.

Yes, I would.

In my opinion some of the player account is actually not a real user account, but a software driven playing action and a smartly controlled unknown percentage of chips and money simply distributed to those accounts.

In the software development test is essential. Software test uses test accounts. I have no reason to assume that in the uncontrolled, practically unregulated poker business that is partly operated by criminals at undisclosed locations they don't utilize the test accounts as playing accounts in order to suck out the very easy money from players.

So based on two hands, you think that not only is the deal not random (despite not understanding what a random deal even is), but that the site has bots in the tournaments to take some of the prize pool money?

Stars might want to work on dyckapo's botting skills in that case, but SIXHCP seems to have recovered from his early losses.

Question: Let’s suppose for a minute that the RNGs are not, mathematically, completely random, and that presumably there is some algorithm that could potentially figure it out. What good would that do anyone? I would assume that any analysis would require seeing all the hole cards that are put out over a big enough sample, then you would need a way of calculating where the cards are going to hit, taking into account people sitting out, etc.

I may shuffle the deck only 5 times at my home game, but how is that going to help anyone in a hand that its not “completely random”? For all intents and purposes it’s random enough that it would be of no use to anyone.

Well, I have a bad news for you: what you have seen is not an evidence and I am struggling to understand the rational and logic behind this argument (the latest is probably not a news).

In poker any combination of hands is legitimate and must be seen as random. If you would get 10 pocket AA in a row it would be well within the boundaries of the domain and because of the large variance of the possible hands one must accept that any card distributions is completely normal. So again, if any card contributions is normal, how in the earth of any analysis of any number of hands proves that the system is random in a domain where basically anything fits in the randomness.

My above sample, the two hands with the 99 diamond is perfectly fits in your large multimillion hand sample and distributing a wining hand to designated players is clearly not going to change the outcome of your analysis. No?