[QUOTE=PokErasmus;10888868]
I like the retro feel of "the Russians did it," though that might be a bit "out there" for the more mainstream Riggedologists.

I would not expect your creative beliefs to be acknowledged by fellow riggedologists for this reason (though they will likely not say anything against them either for fear of compromising the overall Riggedology faith), but it is good to see the bounderies of how one practices Riggedology being pushed by some.

Keep at it!

Surprise surprise, this would show up in a large enough database of hands. It's naïve to want actual proof of something vs. seeing 2 hands and going "Well, that's a big enough sample, it's obviously rigged"? I guess I'll stay naïve then. No way, the best hand would win if it was rigged? By god they think through everything. Account B wouldn't win here, it would be a chop.
If there were players who were winning more often than they should, it would stand out. That's how UB/AP got found out. wat. How do you know how long each account exists for?

This is some delicious paranoia, though.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...needed-393876/

Not that that will be sufficient for you, since I'm sure you'll find some flaw in their methodology, but there you go.

I think PokErasmus' argument (not that I've read most of his posts, only part of a couple) is that evidence isn't really evidence, and statistical analysis means nothing.

To be clear, the Cigital study did not set out to do any comparison of expectation vs. results or to confirm/dispute rigged theories in any way. I'm sure they consider that a waste of time as the riggedology belief system (I like Monteroy's word) can't be beaten by logic and statistical proofs anyway. The fact that PS was willing to provide a full month of hand histories with all hole cards (and hands were validated by players solicited by Cigital) says a lot about them having nothing to hide, but the study did not examine riggedness.

All the Cigital study did was answer two questions. How many hands go to showdown, and of those how many times had the hand who would have won already folded. They used 104 million Poker Stars NLHE cash games for this study. It turned out that 24% of hands went to showdown, and of those half the time the potential winner had folded already. Their purpose was to show that poker outcomes aren't dependent on the random deal of the cards most of the time, and their conclusion was that 12% of the time the cards determined the winner, and 88% of the time player decisions (skill) determined the outcome. The study results are being used in court cases since most gambling laws hinge on whether chance is the major facter determining winners, or skill.

Whether this was a good analysis or not isn't my point here, so I'll leave that alone.

Since riggedology is pretty much immune to evidence, the statistical analysis that I'm working on now using nearly a billion hand histories won't have much point in this thread. I'll be posting them in some other thread, presented as interesting statistical analysis per se and not as an attempt to dispute riggedness. Obviously that endeavor is quite pointless. But for those who are interested (including me) in seeing real outcome distributions over huge samples, and sliced and diced in several interesting ways, the information will be made available. Just not here. I've pretty much lost interest in this thread.

All the best.

Didn't Oprah try that?

Good post, but what i am woried about is not poker stars. In fact, I feel like playing a fair game when I play there. What wories me most is full tilt, what kind of regulations it has ?

Why would I quit playing online if I have fun doing that and win money doing that?


You really dont think that someone would be so idiot to manipulate the software in a way that good players playing good move would loss money, do you? So, I think theres is some kind of riggness, probably some way to keep the money in the table longer than expected, like making the better hands win a little less then expected.
If you play the game right you will still win money in the long run, just in a slower rate than the statistically expected.
And if you think in the amount of hands that are played by minute that slower rate can be just a very very little slower. That would be sufficient to make huge amounts of extra money in rake and would be very hard to be detected in an statistical analysis.

Lets imagine I have a manipulated poker software that can change the win rate of some favorite hand from its original 80% to something like 79% of win in a all in situation. Now lets imagine that this software can make these changes in all in situations in the pre flop, flop and turn. Lets imagine I set the software to manipulate just the flops all in situations, after sometime I can set it to manipulate just the turn all in situations and so on. It would be almost impossible to detect these manipulations doing analisys statistic because you would have to know where to look for the manipulation and wich hands combination are being manipulated, and there is virtually infinite possibilities and combinations of manipulated all in situations that can be made.

So if you think they are manipulating the software making AA lose more frequent than expectd you can go in the data and see if that is happnening. But if the manipulation is happenin at another point of the game, with another hands you would never know, just because you didnt looked for it.

And im talking about only all in situations.


I dont see how it would be very complicated to make a software like this I am proposing here. Its very simple indeed.

I don’t give a f…k whether 24/7 deployed poker site defender Monty Python crusaders like yourself play or not. Who the f…k care what are you doing with your very little life that remains for you outside of this forum?!

But wtf are you doing here in 24/7? Why don’t you let people who believe poker sites are so rigged exchange freely and peacefully their ideas without forced to be read the defender crusaders rants?

Wtf you don’t open your thread to discuss that the poker sites are so not rigged and so honest, in this case we could discuss our theory/info/assumption about these f…g poker site criminals and you could discuss there how honest they are?

better point then you have made in your 200+ post itt.

Thank you for pushing the link, it verifies that my statement about Cigital was accurate. The Cigital RNG auditing and hand analysis is completely irrelevant in the context of system integrity and you have no idea about software system auditing whatsoever nor about the importance of software system integrity in a domain where the media … is software.

Please send me links, materials, resources that clearly indicates that the software system is audited, details the methodologies of auditing and explains how the policies are actually enforced on Poker Star London based, US based, and Caribean based servers by the Chanel Island gaming authority.

Do you not understand the purpose of the 2+2 forums? It's a *discussion* board.

the thread is open afaik.

but the fact that you keep coming here to try and change the minds of people who are comfortable with the degree of integrity of the games they play WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE shows a serious mental deficiency.

I think the WWE is rigged, but I don't go to wrestling forums and tell the people who love it how I feel about the "sport." Why are you bothering us? Do you think you'll get a medal, or a promotion in the Rigtard Army?

Tell it to your crusader mate between two agonical cries that you hint here for the poker sites. He/she/heshe was asking in the first place wtf I am discussing here.

And you try to change the minds of people in 24/7 who are unhappy about the game at poker sites.

You don't own the Internet nor this forum, and trying to stop people talk about poker in a poker site says a lot about you mate.

I know this question has been brought up before, but is it just a coincidence that non-rigtards seem to be able to form coherent sentences with limited spelling or grammatical errors (for the most part), whereas rigtards struggle to use proper grammar and misspell every other word (for the most part)?

I think a lot of folks are asking "wtf are you discussing?"

In summation: wat?

Your incoherent ramblings won't win over any recruits. Maybe some hard data might. Try that.

you're really more the "crusader" in this case. let me give you an example...

European Christians went to the Middle East to convert Muslims through battle. Those warriors were called Crusaders.

Do you see the parallels here?

FWIW, I don't think Markusgc is discouraging people from showing cheating or less-than-fair games. He's just saying that there's no point in saying "I think it's rigged", then not showing any REAL evidence or at LEAST requesting that someone test their specific theory about how it is not fair.

And I disagree that there isn't any evidence showing that games are fair. There are studies floating about testing the randomness of hands (making sure certain hands are distributed evenly, within reasonable ranges), and the lack of studies showing anything abnormal certainly says something about the fairness of the deal (however, it certainly does not PROVE anything).

Although I suppose he can clarify his thoughts about this.

I'm just kinda getting the Rigtards in a frothy rage is all. Until they present some data to analyze, that is.

To their credit, some do cram in 1,000+ words in a single paragraph, and sometimes even a single sentence.

That should count for something.

Most rigtards have few posts, so I'm guessing most are new to forums and most of their online chatting experience has taken place at the tables of nanostakes donkaments and probably some AOL chat rooms.

That and most sensible 2+2ers think things through. They like to make sure their play is logical and makes sense.

Well, I apologies not being able to present my arguments in English that is up to standard. I am not an English speaker, learnt this language being adult and I have to tell you that I completely understand how you feel when you read my poorly written English. Again, please accept my apologies, I speak another 3 languages fluently, but you are right: coming here I should be able to present my saying in better form using the languege of this forum.

Having said that, I believe the reason of not getting any useful replies for my arguments about the lack of software system audit, how the business continuity aspects makes impossible to enforce policies is not my poor English. You guys simply have no idea how software system works and why so relevant the software system integrity in the context of an online business. That’s why you are unable to have an intelligent conversation about online based software operation, and when I presented my arguments received nothing else but personal rants, and I think it is nothing to do with my poor English – it says a lot more about you guys.

Anyway, thanks again for pointing out.

It would be a lot more interesting if this thread were about the subject line without lumping cheating, superusers, collusion, bots, and hole-card-viewing-trojan viruses all under the banner of "rigged sites". Rigged means the game isn't dealt fairly. Cheating means some other player at the table has an unfair advantage unrelated to the fairness of the deal. No site in the history of online poker has ever been shown to have an unfair deal. Ever. On the other hand, every site in the history of online poker has cheaters, and they catch them every day. Two notorious sites had cheaters on the inside who worked for the company, but the deal wasn't rigged. There are cheaters in gambling, live and online, and no one disputes that. The discussion is about the fairness of the game dealt by online sites. The bizarre tangents taken in this thread make it kind of pointless. And accusations of player cheating (insiders or not) are less than worthless until there is evidence to the contrary.

there are two main reasons I don't do this...

1) it doesn't affect me at all if people choose to watch Monday Night Raw or Smackdown or pay $49.95 for Wrestlemania. That's their business.

and

2) I can't prove it's fake at this time. I suppose if I cared enough I could probably read a book by Mankind or somebody and present my case that way, but it's not worth the energy.

Here is how it works:

1 .Software manipulates the game making favorite hands to win less frequent then expected (but obviously winning close to the expected rate)

2 . The favorite hands that are manipulated can be any hands, from AA, AK to 53o, doesent matter, what matter is that the favorite hand win less frequent than expected.

3. The manipulation can be made at any point of the round: pre flop, flop or turn.

4 . The manipulation can be made at any point in the time.

5 . The objective of the manipulation is to make the money stay in the table generating rake more time than expected.


These kind of manipulation is virtually impossible to detectd through any statistical analisys, because you would have to know 1. wich hands are boing manipulated 2. In wich point of the round thay are being manipulated 3. in wich point of time thay are being manipulated.

Without that information you wouldnt be able to detect any statistical abnormality, simply because you would be looking for the wrong place.