Beauty is skin deep, stupidity goes through to the bone

Is he the guy from the department of stupid stupidity?

If so, yeah, BR is considerably more stupid than him.

That's the one - famously pioneered the technique of "passive research" in which students preserve the purity of their hypothesis by avoiding any information that might contradict it. Also known by some as the "fingers in ears la la la" method.

LOL rigged.

I used to think It was, as I'm sure we all have at some point. Then I started to realize how much I was playing, how many hands per hour, tables up at once, etc. I would take the bad beats awful and never forget them, but when I dished out a bad beat on someone I would hardly notice it and often turned a blind eye to the gutshot I had just turned on someone. We remember the bad beats we take more than we give.

We see beats live as we do online, we just see more online because of the volume and speed we are playing at. All the sites RNGs are audited and there is absolutely no reason a poker site needs to "rig" it's RNG, why would they? They make enough off the rake which will happen if any senario of cards falling eventually and also from MTTs, STTs, MTTSNGs, etc.

The stories of "AGH" are also a myth, I firmly believe there is no action generated hands, although I'm open to see some proof or an alg. of this being proven to an extent. It does seem probable that this does occur and AGH hands are real, however I feel it's just a bad run we are seeing, as this happens to every poker player.

Even I think the deal is against me sometimes (and I'm the most rig-skeptic person there is) - I found myself thinking that earlier today after a sequence of ridiculous hands. I just can't help it because I'm human - even though I know logically all the effects I see are entirely explainable through chance and the way the brain interprets chance events.

I posted in Probability to explain why it's easy to think it's rigged.

This is what a normally intelligent person does when he thinks "hey this doesn't seem quite right". Thinks about it some more, realizes why it doesn't seem quite right, and gets on with playing poker.

Happens to us all, doesn't it?

I once went through a period where believed that I just could not win a hand with two pair. When I checked my HH's I discovered that although I was having a run of odd results with two pair I had actually won quite a few and must have just dismissed them as outliers in my perceived zero run.

The important point being, of course, that I checked. I didn't rush in here and start accusing the site of being rigged.

It's always hard to accept you suck at poker. If you're being defeated consistently it means only one thing : your opponents have more skills than you do. There is no other answer. If someone comes to say it's rigged here he's insta saying he was defeated and now he's crying in few word he's saying he sucks at poker. It's easy to say the game is rigged and hard to accept you're a loser.

Yup, and BR comes in again and again and again to say the same thing. I guess he's getting whipped real good.

I doubt he plays.

Wasn't it revealed that he's a rep from some anti-gambling outfit and he just keeps posting like a moron for effect?

Or something like that.

Last edited by gothninja; Today at 07:56 PM. Reason: The dictionary says"skeptic" is spelled with a "k". I'm not sure I believe that though.

You're using the wrong dictionary.

Here's the obvious explanation for that phenomenon: http://www.youtube.com/user/magic612.../0/xjXQbNotF9s

OMG you're right. Damn internet and americans.

That guy is hilarious.

The only problem is that I still haven't decided whether or not he is a parody.

Poe's law in action.

Must be a parody or an idiot (edit: just looked up Poe's Law - exactly that!). It's hardly unusual to get 2 pair beat, especially on a wet board (and when you hit 2pr the board usually is wet). After all that's the reason you bet heavily with 2pr - because you really don't want to see any more cards.
And he shows someone shoving their 2pr with an OESD on the board and he's surprised at the caller having one of the two cards needed to have a straight? What are the odds of that? - errr, 31.5% so not that unlikely really.

Really at the end of every hand he shows you can just say "well, that's poker".

Fwiw I was dealt 2 milestone hands last time within 30 mins 8 tabling ,I also was dealt into one the time before for 3 total. I assure I have nothing shady going on and was dumb luck im not a shill for anyone .

I don't want to be the riggie leader in an election process or otherwise assume the role as you have on the shill side.

The concept of a Newbie coming to this thread to read theories on the actual issue of rigging surely seems insane given that you have to wade through BR's postings, Dlogic's political-based, anti-the greatest country in the world never to engage in ethnic genocide ramblings and the utter failure of anger management in alleviating Bingo Boy's T.M.I. insecurities. Why I waste time reading this thread, with or without Wiki on ignore (he has been off lately), is something I may have to discuss with my own counselor soon. Anyone have any recommendations? Further evidence of my own mental slippage is that I am now actually responding to him in addition to not trusting on line gambling sites run by former pornographers.


You guys can keep arguing that super users as well as bad management have nothing to do with an artificial rig of the deal. I will just simply agree to disagree that "bad management practice" you refer to different from "stealing" and "theft" simply because you gentrify the concepts like a good environmental refuse engineer. Eventually common sense needs to be a factor for those genuine about the debate and, right now, we are arguing about the ability or inability to prove computer-based manipulation of artificial player cards to increase profits by entities that failed to segregate players funds from their own troughs and are out of business on a world-wide scale as a result. The real question we could be asking is how bad are the players going to be screwed when these companies file bankruptcy.

So, for amusement purposed only, here are two rigging theories-

1. A site with non-static turn and river cards identifies cash tables where maximum rake it are not being hit with enough frequency and the computer deals turn and river cards that "ensure" betting will occur on the turn and river given the players in the hand and the make-up of the flop.

2. A site identifies cash tables where the maximum rake is not being collected with enough frequency and it bypasses an RNG to given a rigged (rigged simply mean programmed) series of hands to generate action at the table by giving players hands and flops that would are conducive to betting.
Not caring who wins, simply to generate player action, the rigged series of hands distributes winning hands to multiple players.


I would argue that these rigs increase rake, are undetectable to the public and uses (modified) coding that each company would have for legitimate testing and obseration purposes.

Let the shilly rain rain - BB's inadequate penis size related rantings included.

No, he was too busy destroying the Constitution.

These are good theories - they at least make sense in terms of feasibility and motive. I also mention (as I have before) that it would be possible to assure fairness (by treating all players equally) while still implementing a method that encourages action, so this might fit within the wording of assurances and gambling legislation.

And I agree that current methods (eg, ispokerrigged.com) wouldn't necessarily discover them.

But how would you test for them? Or what assurances would you need to get?

My biggest issue with these and most riggie theories is that they refer to poker sites as living entities capable of magic.

"The site" identifies cash tables etc.

Who is "the site?"

How many people would be in on all of this? Keep in mind there are hundreds of online poker rooms/skins and hundreds more are no longer in business ( so what about all those behind their rigs).

Let's even pretend one of your theories is totally correct. Are you saying all sites do this? Just some sites? How many people are in on it at all these sites?

I put you as having enough common sense to not fully go the "super bot" route which had zero human involvement and somehow the computers programmed themselves, so how big an industry conspiracy is this?

I admire a lot of the creativity that riggies put into their theories, but all require a human factor that cannot be ignored if any riggies are actually serious about their beliefs ( I realize most riggies here are not entirely serious).

QFT

I'm no stats guy, but wouldn't this be found out simply by an analysis of looking at made hand distributions on all hands that got to either turn or river and that were not all in before the turn or river?
Wouldn't this be detectable by a simple hole-card distribution analysis or a Spadebidder style street by street analysis?

lol mega evidence here wow a guy showing cherry pick hand omg it's rigged Geez this isn't a explanation, he's commenting a cherry pick hand.His action doesn't make this a fact.

Return to school BadNewzKennelz1 you need it too and maybe one day you will ameliorated your critical thinking process. What you just show us it's so weak it will be discard by any rational mind.

How does a site identify a table under-performing in collecting full rake become thinking a corporate entity a magical living being? I think that they have a lot of those keyboard thingees and whodads laying around that could perform this type of function for them. Wait, some of the sites even give this information to the players when they are seeking games. So maybe, they keep track of such information and could even follow it down to the hour or even a smaller time interval.

With regards to your "it can't happen because someone would be a whistleblower" attempts at me quantifying the number of people necessary to be complicit in such a venture, I don't know how many people would need to be involved. Price-fixing between competitors in the same industry has been found to exist involving much larger groups of people than I imagine it would take to pull off either rig. Its amazing how quiet people will stay if they have a financial incentive to do so.

The purpose of me offering up the rigs is for you to show me how the average player detects it.

I disagree with your conclusions there.

It is indeed possible to have entirely scripted hands, where the script is selected randomly from a list and the hands within the script dealt to the players randomly. That would satisfy criteria of "fairness" and "randomness", yet we would still consider it to be "rigged".

There are examples where this is already done within UK gambling legislation, for example UK National Lottery interactive "instant win" games, which are predetermined and the user's choices, dice throws, etc, have no effect on the outcome.

If it's legal for one online gambling game then it might be legal for another, and then no conspiracy or collusion would be necessary as the algorithm could be protected under normal commercial confidentiality. It might even be legal to trigger dealing these "rigged fair" hands according to statistical criteria based on player behaviour or other factors (eg, anti-detection algorithms) to create exactly the scenarios jjjou812 proposes.

This is actually a plausible theory that should be taken seriously imho. (On this occasion I'm not joking by the way)

Seems to me that you are equating an all in-hand to a max rake hand when they are not the same. How do you think Spadebidder's analysis detects either of these rigs?