In your mind this proves that they rig the deal in freerolls?



Good thing nobody ever tells a secret in that type of organization. High turnover, dishonest employees are certainly ones that you can rely on to keep secrets if you give them enough peanut butter.

Which is it? A disorganized mess that has people coming and going all the time or a highly organized efficient machine that organizes shills everywhere and enforces blood oaths on their employees and contractors who know about about their rig? Seems tricky for both to exist at the same time, so pick one.

All the best.

Really? Your all-knowing, get riggies on the right path, here is the correct way to argue routine gets annoying. Who is talking about boomswitches or doomswitches? What freeroll do you refer to?

You asked for a rig that would be of benefit to the site, I gave you one. You are asked to explain how a player can would discover such a rig and, instead, you keep going into your "how does everyone keep the secret" routine or that the old programmers (circa 2002?) would have to go to their graves with their secrets.

How about simply compartmentalization of job duties and different levels of security clearances as a possible explanation that no one talks. Or even more simply, one department in the company doesn't know what the other departments do. Have you ever seen a standard confidentiality/trade secret agreement? Maybe people are willing to keep quiet rather than face a legal battle with an ex-employer when they are still trying to work in the same industry.

In my example, the guy that creates the rigged hands does not ever need to know that they were implemented in real play. The guy that implements the rig is a major shareholder. Does the shareholder ever realistically whistleblow on the company?

Is the next post about all the contractory riggie theories that in your mind are impossible to reconcile, therefore, none of them can be valid.

it must be rigged

PokerStars.net is pretty blatantly rigged. Why else would they not let you save or even look at HHs?

Plus you can't even check your play money balance, so for all you know they're skimming it back.

Well I told you how it would be caught.

Before the spammers took over the bulk of the riggie side the riggies generally posted more specific poker related concerns along with a few cherry picked hands. Nearly all were from tournaments, and nearly all of those were FPP ones or $1-3 buy in tournaments.

No riggie has posted a single hand for a while because mostly they chant about site promoters now.


Not one that any business would ever actually do. Makes no money and is needlessly complex and messy. Bad business. Know what a site like Stars does that increases rake a lot? They speed up the games, and the players thank them while paying more rake.

They have to for any riggie theory (aside from "super bots") to exist.


Aside from the movie "The Cube" this type of business where nobody knows what is being built yet magically it gets built perfectly does not work in the real world as much as it does in fantasy.



Does anyone know about the rig in your model? Remember - hundreds of sites so whatever you think may exist has to exist in hundreds of copies, unless some rooms are rigged with this and some are not. If so , which rooms are rigged and which are not?


So nobody knows what the rig does ever in the company? Doesn't it at least have an evil mastermind somewhere? Remember, hundreds of rooms so that's a lot of evil masterminds going Muhahaha while oiling their mustaches.


Stars sped up the games and that will crank out millions for them while making their customers happy. As fun as it is to imagine hundreds of drones at Stars working on parts of a rig without figuring out it's a rig and then this rig gets applied that can never be detected by any means (except riggies who see it, but cannot prove it), for now I will go with "let's speed up games and make millions and our customers will thank us" as a more effective (albeit boring) way of running a business for profit.

Riggie theories are really fun to listen to, and I am glad to see more theories being suggested as opposed to simple name calling, so keep at it. I still will chuckle about how no business would ever operate like that in the real world, but conspiracies are always fun to imagine and talk about.

You picked a tricky side because you see the level of thinking of some of your peers (which I notice you basically ignore - good move on that), so I do give you credit for taking the tough fight, and as I said before I root for you as well, and I hope you come up with a riggie theory I can enjoy supporting one day.

All the best.

I realize English is not your first language so I will give you a bit extra slack with regard to your communication skills, but perhaps you can email Stars and ask them why they waited so long to make this change. Certainly players have complained about it for a while, so it would be interesting to hear what answer they give to that question.

The change certainly will make them a lot of money as it increases the number of hands per hour for cash games and speeds up tournaments (which is a theory riggies love) and does both in a blatant manner. Kind of funny riggies ignore this change for the money maker it is and instead stick with "action hands" (which reduces the number of hands played per hour) and big stacks winning in MTTs as the way the site speeds them up.

I know you get upset when people call you a rigtard but you are basically BR with some big words and paragraphs. In order to call you a liar you would actually need to make a specific point rather than rambling.

No you didn't. You did the usual tactic of not saying anything too specific so that it nobody could point out your errors. You know, like a rigtard .

In what way exactly could the sites be manipulating the cards and how often?

Well done BB, you are so predickable. Can't satify a woman, but predickable.

What makes you think there is a connection between April 15th and the length of time it takes to animate the river card?


So given the fact that there is very low staff turnover at PokerStars, your point is invalid?


They did after many people here at 2p2 helped to uncover it.

For someone who isn't a rigtard you do an excellent impersonation. Making stuff up, avoiding question, throwing around insults etc

You'll have to keep up with this posting style because this one-off attempted wit will go straight over their head.

None of the above are examples of legitimate company secrets being revealed.

If it was as free and easy to publicise a company's crown jewels as suggested, then you would see leaked info all over the place. Highly sensitive stuff such as internal company strategy, internal price lists, profit calculations, security controls, etc, would be all over the internet all the time - but they're not.

So if a site ex-employee posted confidential information here, and the site's lawyers got in touch with you to explain this was stolen information and asked for it to be removed, and the information described perfectly legal activities, what would happen?

I'm not leveling. I don't believe it is rigged (and even if a theory is possible, it doesn't mean it actually happens anywhere). But I think it's important to look for feasible rigging possibilities and investigate them, as history has shown us we cannot blindly trust companies to act in anyone's best interest but their own (in fact, that is their duty).

And we know that gambling operations employ lawyers who are very good at keeping the sites just within the letter of the law. An example: casinotimes.co.uk looks like a news website. It does not mention any affiliation and the reader can get the impression it is independent. However, it carries only advertising for William Hill, and some of the articles on industry events (eg, about FTP's troubles) go on to recommend William Hill's operation as a trustworthy alternative - all within apparent editorial content. It seems misleading, yet is just within the letter of the law because it doesn't explicitly state it is independent, and the UK's Advertising Standards Authority admits it looks misleading but are powerless to act under the regulations. It goes up to the very edge of what is permitted by the letter of the law. So they know what they're doing, right?

Also, I just think it would be nice for this thread to actually discuss rigging itself from time to time, rather than just slinging back and forth "it's rigged", "no it isn't" and playground insults all the time. At the end of the day, every player wants to know what rules they're playing under, whatever belief position they hold.

The agitated ex-employee would probably go publish it on any one of a million other websites.

Sure - so that must happen all the time, right? So, give me one example.

I know of several significant leaks of confidential information which were completely removed from the entire internet within 48 hours. These days corporate lawyers also work at internet speed and use Google and email too.

Unfortunately I can't talk specifically about the cases I know about, but it would only be to point out that there is no reference to them on the internet, and you'd have to take my word for it that they ever existed in the first place, so it wouldn't help convince anyway.

If you want to disseminate information that people have a legitimate right to keep secret then you need to publish it on servers that are located in places such as Turkmenistan or China where western corporate lawyers do not hold much sway. If it is interesting or important it will go viral and there is no way it will ever disappear from every nook and cranny into which it has permeated.

If you think that information can be hushed up - even when there are court orders protecting it, have a word with that footballer. (Wayne Roony?)

I imagine there's a good chance it would be removed. I don't think it would be anywhere near as quick as 48 hours from posting to removal much of the time, though.

Of course the situations being discussed here aren't "perfectly legal activities".

First point - yes, there are areas of the internet outside of persuasion. However, you can stop Google from pointing to it quite easily.

Second point - again, not business confidential information, which has a lot more protection than tittle-tattle.

Of former poker site employees posting stuff on the internet criticising their former employer's practices?

Here's a few:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/members/159519/
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Poc...ws-E231526.htm
http://www.chrome-fusion.com/blog/li...ireland%C2%A0/

Hell, also in this very thread:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=14149

That's my point: it gets protection if and only if it is legitimate confidential information. Here there is a possibility that the activities described might be just about legal under gambling legislation, and an essential secret for the business, in which case employees would be under no doubt that they can't leak it.

Just saying it's more possible than people might expect.

You can, on a site by site basis, but, as I said, if it is interesting it will 'go viral' and there's no way you can zap all the sites that have it.

That's irrelevant. In the first place that information was actually protected by a court order which is a lot more cast iron than simply 'commercially confidential'. In the second place, the type and degree of protection was irrelevant. The problem that anyone trying to suppress the information had was that permeated the 'net faster than even the zippiest corporate lawyer would have been able to get it removed.

This thread has suddenly got interesting. What's up?

No. Of employees or ex-employees (in any industry) leaking legitimate confidential information.

There are a few things above that could be regarded as confidential, but mostly it isn't. I guess the sites didn't think it worth following it up.

http://wikileaks.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers

You'd be surprised. Freedom of information is treated very differently in different legislations. Commercial confidentiality is much more uniform due to trade agreements. It's naive to assume that civil liberties are more powerful than business interests.

A UK court cannot stop a US website from publishing true gossip about an individual. However, a company can stop a US web site from publishing legitimate confidential information which has been stolen from them.