Yes BR, do tell, I'm hysterical right now at the very thought of someone requesting your counsel on this subject...........

How would house players and house bots funnel extra money into into the company coffers without any rigging of the RNG happening? Unless the house players or bots were good enough to be winning players. In which case why wouldn't the house players just play on their own as individuals? The economics don't seem to make sense here. Either the house players win or they lose. If they lose then no extra $ get funneled to the company. If they win but win less than what the company pays them then extra money gets funneled to the company's coffers. But if they are actually winning players then why would they accept a salary from the company that is less than what they make from the game? And why would the company pay them more money than what they make from the game? Like I said: the economics of what you suggest don't seem to make sense.

As for bots ... they can be a problem in some games. Some sites do better than others at catching them .... so that would be interesting. Some sites do a good job ferreting out and getting rid of bots. For example the leading bot software provider (I will not link to these people because I don't want to advertise for them .... they are cheaters .... at least most of them are really bad) recommends that you not run their software on PokerStars because there's too good a chance you will get caught. So it'd be pretty ironic if PokerStars was running their own bots at the same time. I don't think that is the case. There also, btw, have been many cases of players suspecting, reporting, catching bots playing.

Also in most games, to my knowledge, bots have not yet become good enough to be winners. But in some types of games and some very low limit environments there are some bots that can win.

This thread is so painfully boring when blatant and/or Wiki are allowed to be the main characters. They are basically the same guy, just add a "not" to one of their replies to get what the other would say.

Any chance we can hire some real and entertaining riggies to amuse themselves and all of us in this thread?

In the meantime, has any shill ever thought of the concept that maybe blatant is telling the complete truth about his chat from 5 years ago with a minimum wage customer service rep from Party Poker.

Let's assume in that chat that this rep said "sir/maam/other, the site is rigged in every sense of the word."

OK, so now a guy getting paid 5 bucks an hour, one of hundreds answering the phones, told this riggie that the site was rigged and you know what - the riggie made it the cornerstone of his belief system for his life. That is as pathetic as it gets.

Everything he believes in today is a result of what a random base level operator at Party Poker told him. He is genuinely that gullible. From that he now sees site operators and shills everywhere - hundreds of them all conspiring against everyone because he is a failure at bonus whoring who had the game pass him by.

He is not even a real riggie, he is just washed up. Why do you guys spend so much time debating him? Snap out of it and move on to more fun riggies like jjj and raymears. Hell, yell at me for posting this - that will be a nice change of pace over the boredom that this thread has been the past week.


Here riggies, a couple of actual hand histories which probably proves something for you - go nuts with them.


PokerStars Game #64690801797: Tournament #429010447, $100+$9 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level XIV (250/500) - 2011/07/17 16:02:31 ET
Table '429010447 193' 9-max Seat #3 is the button
Seat 1: tapisa (16078 in chips)
Seat 2: glissario (10010 in chips)
Seat 3: Monteroy (8577 in chips)
Seat 4: cheese9 (16531 in chips)
Seat 5: Nordbasse (6803 in chips)
Seat 6: Pumpingpoker (11678 in chips)
Seat 7: ThaSquirrel (18229 in chips)
Seat 8: SirPatrice (12120 in chips)
Seat 9: Subbbota (4929 in chips)
tapisa: posts the ante 60
glissario: posts the ante 60
Monteroy: posts the ante 60
cheese9: posts the ante 60
Nordbasse: posts the ante 60
Pumpingpoker: posts the ante 60
ThaSquirrel: posts the ante 60
SirPatrice: posts the ante 60
Subbbota: posts the ante 60
cheese9: posts small blind 250
Nordbasse: posts big blind 500
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [9d Jd]
Pumpingpoker: folds
ThaSquirrel: folds
SirPatrice: folds
Subbbota: folds
tapisa: raises 500 to 1000
glissario: folds
Monteroy: folds
cheese9: raises 1500 to 2500
Nordbasse: folds
tapisa: calls 1500
*** FLOP *** [8s 6h 4s]
cheese9: bets 2500
tapisa: raises 11018 to 13518 and is all-in
cheese9: calls 11018
*** TURN *** [8s 6h 4s] [As]
*** RIVER *** [8s 6h 4s As] [5s]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
cheese9: shows [Ks Kc] (a flush, Ace high)
tapisa: shows [Kh Kd] (a pair of Kings)
cheese9 collected 33076 from pot
tapisa finished the tournament in 538th place


KK loses to KK - must be rigged!!



PokerStars Game #64691359066: Tournament #429010497, $10+$1 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level X (100/200) - 2011/07/17 16:13:15 ET
Table '429010497 745' 9-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: BigDub034 (9337 in chips)
Seat 2: hjense (6829 in chips)
Seat 3: P1EFULL (2500 in chips)
Seat 4: rudirules (2627 in chips)
Seat 5: shevalex09 (4445 in chips)
Seat 6: good2850 (5528 in chips)
Seat 7: Monteroy (6035 in chips)
Seat 8: tadej0000 (4177 in chips)
Seat 9: mackanhell (8264 in chips)
BigDub034: posts the ante 25
hjense: posts the ante 25
P1EFULL: posts the ante 25
rudirules: posts the ante 25
shevalex09: posts the ante 25
good2850: posts the ante 25
Monteroy: posts the ante 25
tadej0000: posts the ante 25
mackanhell: posts the ante 25
Monteroy: posts small blind 100
tadej0000: posts big blind 200
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [5s 8d]
mackanhell: calls 200
BigDub034: folds
hjense: folds
P1EFULL: folds
rudirules: folds
shevalex09: folds
good2850: folds
Monteroy: folds
tadej0000: checks
*** FLOP *** [Tc Qh 9h]
tadej0000: bets 250
mackanhell: calls 250
*** TURN *** [Tc Qh 9h] [Ad]
tadej0000: bets 3702 and is all-in
mackanhell: calls 3702
*** RIVER *** [Tc Qh 9h Ad] [Th]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
tadej0000: shows [Jh Kh] (a straight flush, Nine to King)
mackanhell: shows [6h Ah] (a flush, Ace high)
tadej0000 collected 8629 from pot


ace high flush vs straight flush - action hand!!!


All the best.

Superuser house players, who earn commission on their winnings, and hourly wages on days they are required to have a losing session to avoid detection. Kinda like a Blackjack counting team...

This is an extremely far fetched "what if" mind you. I'm interested in hearing Blatantly's take on it though.

ME is streaming in case anyone is interested in poker...........

I usually find raymears boring, though there have been occasional exceptions.




HAND 1:

You played it well. Good fold pre-flop.



HAND 2:

You played it well. Good fold pre-flop.

How is that at all like a blackjack counting team?

Yes, this kind of stuff happens more than enough to be bothersome to me.

GS,
Please be specific. DePokerGod gives a very good example of what makes people suspicious. Can you top it?

That's kinda crazy .... cause I've played like over 2 million hands online and off the top of my head I can only remember one time that I lost to a runner runner with very few "outs" on each "run". That JJ hand is of course a 'perfect runner runner' (meaning 2 cards to come and you need 2 exact cards to win). Perfect runner runners happen to you guys a lot?

True, not sure I mean that extreme of a case. I just mean I have seen a lot of crazy things, too.

Some cool words I've learnt:

Downswong
Moran
Derp
Rogged
Poast

I'm always keen to enrich my vocabulary, so will be keeping an eye out for further colourful nuggets such as these.

Great forum.

I think a lot more craziness occurs in MTT/STT, ppl are constantly getting it in so you see more drama. I don't see it too much in cash games and that runner runner JJ is like a once a year type thing in my experience.

Ill start with the 2nd question. Bodog uses house players. If you were to play there, you would see what i mean. There are about 4 of them, very obvious.

Ill explain the other question for the 100th time. The software is rigged to cycle old money(profit), to new players and new money. This cycle goes on and on. It creates rebuy after rebuy. Thats how they create more revenue.
Now, the problem is wiki and his band of morons will be here to discredit this with their lies, so remember that.
P.S. I thought we would be lucky enough to go a day without Monteroy. I quess not, such a douchbag.

Just the intentionally losing to avoid detection part. Maybe I'm only thinking of hollywood examples tho, who knows.

Evidence? (yawn)

There was one guy at a table last night who kept chasing flush draws to the river regardless of pot odds. Every time. You could bet that if a flush draw hit on the river, he had it, and if it didn't then he had nothing (and I did bet that, every time).

Some other guy hadn't noticed this, three to a flush came on the river, and he shoved with his flopped set. Villain turns over 92s to win and this other guy starts ranting about rigging, bad luck, bad play, etc.

But the real explanation was quite simple - this guy was playing like an idiot, kept playing any suited cards and kept calling to hit his flush even when he didn't have the odds to do so. When he hit a flush it looked ridiculous, but the thing is I knew this guy had made a flush on the river - it was clear as day - but this other guy just hadn't been paying attention. Yes, he shouldn't have been in the hand, he shouldn't have called the flop and turn, but he'd been doing that over and over all night.

Of course I proceeded to take a lot of money off him - by betting relentlessly whenever I had something (even 2nd pair) and there was a flush draw on board, and folding whenever the flush hit. I also took quite a bit of the other guy who went on tilt. I guess he went away thinking the game was rigged or luck was against him or something, but actually he was just playing badly too and not noticing and adjusting to other players' behaviour.

See - that's how it happens. Idiot players exist and sometimes they suck out. Players who complain "how can you call that?!" should realise that people can call - it's just a button - and should take advantage of their bad play rather than whinging about bad beats and imagining conspiracies.

Yup.

This is something that all winning players observe.

The thing is, though, that it does require a certain amount of intelligence, observation, and concentration. And the first of those is where people like blatantly rigged luck out. They are too busy ranting about rigging on the basis of patterns that they could not possibly see (without using a computer and many, many, thousands of hands) to notice the pattern you spotted above in relatively few hands and actually used to make money!

When the exigences of dealing with blatantlyrigged's execrable folderol have abated perhaps we will come up with some more verbal collocations.

No strategy discussion itt please, it clutters up the intellectual debate

Monteroy, you seem to have a rather odd obsession with wiki, you're forever mentioning him. Why not just put him on ignore if he bothers you so much? And blatantlyrigged for that matter.

Quite right. Let's not let poker get in the way of the fun.

They both have been for quite some time, and while that makes half the thread read like the following:

This message is hidden because Wiki is on your ignore list.

This message is hidden because blatantlyrigged is on your ignore list.


what it does not block are quotes from ignored posters, and nearly every shill post in the past week has quoted one of these guys, effectively negating the effect of the ignore feature. The only shill posts that were fun to read for the past week were Lego's and J9's but that is probably because they are the only currently active "shill" that even play much. gotninja has some solid shill potential as well, but he gets lost in the land of blatantriggeddude.

This thread has genuinely sucked for the past week, even by this thread's standards. All I suggest is give more shill time to better riggies for a while to arise from the suckage.

All the best.

$3/$6 live

All fold
CO raise $18
I call with Q J from BU
All fold

Flop: K K T ($45)

He bet $30
I call

Turn: J ($105)

He bet $55
I call

River: 9 ($215)

He check
I bet $130
He raise $340
I 3bet and all-in
He call

He show KK (four of a kind)
I show QJ (straight flush)

So the real question is; why does Monty continue to read this thread if he finds it so boring?

Does he have, squirrelled away somewhere, a vision of a a Platonic ideal of what the perfect 'rigged' thread would be?

It seems that he would like to have this thread as his own, private, playground, where he could make long and pompous posts about interesting riggies who promote ever stranger ideas using ever weirder thought patterns without the day to day banter engendered by the likes of onlinepokerisascam and blatantlyrigged.

I fear that he will be disappointed.