'tards gonna 'tard.

I think he's on our side, not yours.

Not really, usually we start off suspecting a crime because we notice something suspicious. We don't go around looking for people to be suspicious of even though we have no other reason to supect something is up.

I shouldn't have called it step 2 since its really step 1. We generally only look to motive once we have a real suspicion of a crime.

Sure, but most riggies don't make that claim. BR is not representative there. And you don't see any other riggie backing up BR. They all think he's a tool and/or gimmick. Most focus on the site they are playing at.

Moreover most riggies are here because they think they saw something at a particular site.

meh, sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Most of the real riggies have left the thread now anyway.

Thanks a lot for your single cell comment, thought you were better than that. Oh well, not really the point.
Of course its not a hobby, 99% chance hes paid by 2+2 or a poker site. Plus, hes not in here to outsmart us, (the part you said about that is correct, he coundnt outsmart a rock), his purpose is to sway peoples common sense in to believing OLP is not rigged. Hes hoping other suckers that read this thread will buy his b.s. while they are in the questioning stage. Same thing that monteroy does.

Cliff notes - don't bother debating anyone who says "all poker rooms are rigged!" as that is like debating a 9/11 fanatic or a religious nut on the street. Waste of time as debates go, just let them believe what they need to believe.



No idea who backs up "BR" and I have no idea what that guy says. He is not a gimmick, just a failed bonus whore who is a zealot now, and his beliefs are what sustain him.

Ask any of the other riggies if they think it is only a certain site, and I bet most will not claim they think a specific one is but the rest or most are not. Most will veer toward the businesses are greedy angle.






That's because they have, or when they appear they get drowned out by the spammers (on both sides), so it is ironic that "BR" pretty much stifles the guys who would potentially support him.

I am heading out, so let me toss a long winded reply to the potential riggie leader. If you want to debate him further after feel free to carry on with it! I will try to use some phase 2 points!

Have fun




People have discovered soft playing, super users and other forms of cheating doing hand history analysis. AS well, one can use very powerful tools with sharkscope and PTR to analyze play, and players do that all the time. Look at the recent ipoker bot thread for an example of the detailed work done to determine which players were bots.

The fact you cannot do this type of work does not invalidate the power of others able to do it.

This is a different topic than whether Full Tilt rigs its $1 MTTs. I would completely agree they ran a shoddy operation, and no doubt more and more details will come out (secrets are hard to keep) that will shed light on that.

Interesting that riggies will believe the "secret rig" will be maintained even as other secrets get revealed (as they always do when investigated). Oh yeah, the programmers sign a non-disclose thing or something...


The moment you invent a rig that makes sense in terms of financial gain, zero risk of being caught, and somehow nobody ever revealing it then I will be the first to jump on and help it along.


I posted my "non-action hand" theory several times. Riggies do not like it because all it does is make money (albeit not enough to be worthwhile) without targeting them, so they cannot complain about doomswitches of any kind with my theory.



No idea what the criminal mind thing is about, frankly I don't think you have a particularly adept criminal mind. You can worry about being cheated, but eventually if you believe everyone is out to get you then you are paralyzed by that paranoia.


The most naive beliefs of some riggies is that US legislation will in any way shape or form cause any riggie from stopping to believe it is rigged. They will simply believe the US is in on it. US government is the biggest source of conspiracies around, so adding another is not a big deal.




They actually do this by charging a rake. Pokerstars wins every cash hand a little (when a flop is seen), and they win 10% of the prize pool in every tournament roughly.


Paranoia without definition is paranoia. Conspiracies can be a fun hobby for some.

All the best.

Congratulations!
Might it be possible for you to share your subsequent wins and loses with us too?

Thank you, though Blatantlywronginthehead will now make you an outcast.

So if we accept these companies are unlikely (not writing it off, just unlikely) to rig the deal and these companies are on networks that share player base, is it fair to assume that the deal on those networks (and skins sharing that network) are also unlikely to have a rigged deal?

I'm not talking Superusers, bots or collusion, this cheating can happen and has happened, I'm talking purely about the deal, probably, being fair across these networks.

Thank you again for bothering to respond to the direct question earlier

Not cut the specific element out as I'm on a ****ty handheld thing.

To be fair, Monty offered up the non-action hand theory the would lead to hands being played faster and generating an expected minimal increase in rake.

None of the riggies seemed to like this theory as it was not as sexy as action hands and doomswitches but it would, in theory, generate minimal additional rake and be difficult to detect

Standard opperating procedure.. call those who tell truth names in order to instantly discfredit them "riggies"

I PERSONAL DONT CARE IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH.

In order to be doomswi9tched you have to be first a WINNING player!
if you take too much cash out of the system they shut you down!

Seems to me some of you are just keyboard commando's rather than card sharps!

If undeniable evidence has been posted you should start a new thread with it because it wont get closed or merged. Gl we are all counting on you.

I'm not a stats guy, but several real stats guys have posted why you wouldn't need that to prove a rig. No real stats guy has argued against that. Your gut instinct that there may be a super-genius non-detectable rig that generates the site review doesn't count.

If all you have is a suspicion based on motives, you don't have much.

None of this has anything to do with rigging. Why mix things up. It's basically an ad hom argument.

Well, that's not the only response you've received, but please explain why a spadebidder style analysis (or other close analysis of HHs) wouldn't reveal the rigging methods you've proposed?

Again, your gut instinct doesn't count.

And have you posted your proposed schemes in the probabilities forum where real stats guys will look at it and give their thoughts (while also making fun of you)?

Monteroy responded to you at the time. But what are you saying: if the shills can't provide a method of rigging that's profitable to the company that's an argument that there is a site out there that is rigged? C'mon.

You want to call people shills, fine. The reality is it doesn't matter: the arguments speak for themselves.

And what is this evidence of?

Players have unprecedented ability to identify such methods through the analysi of HHs. You don't get those at your local casino or home game!

It certainly wasn't me, I treat BR with the respect he deserves

Presumably you locate that respect with a microscope?

Of the scanning, electron, variety would be my guess.

Hey there short trousers.

Solid bragfail.

Short trousers?

Did I miss something?

The revelations about the business practices of FT since Attorney General action (Black Friday) -

In the past, whenever someone questioned the integrity of Internet Poker major site game integrity, they were in for two scoops of disdain, name calling, accusations of poor play, or simply called "riggies".

While I do not believe that IP ever fixed games in favor of one player or the next, I did then, and do now, think that a company like FT is not above using non-random card generation to augment profits.

Can anyone really still believe that this is at least a more plausible senerio now than before, once some of the true business practices of the Poker sites have come to light for all to see.

Max

nope, you lost money cause you are bad/
BF has nothing to do with that, neither does the poor money managemant by the FT higher ups

FT probably aren't above it but it doesn't mean they've actually done it. Regardless their integrity has plummeted.

Stars have come out of this squeaky clean.

FTP is 100% capable of this.

Here's the problem OP, many people have databases with millions of hands. If a site were rigging flops to generate rake or whatever, the statistics in those databases would be skewed. They are not. Pocket aces still win at their expected rate, 7-2 still sucks etc. The fact that FTP didn't segregate funds and treated player money like their own petty cash account is a separate issue from game integrity. The game was legit and if you can't beat it, its on you.

Also, you lump the sites together in your post. Poker stars paid their players and is completely above board. Full Tilt ran a clean game, they just are lousy businessmen. UB/Cereus is known to be shady so if you played their, well you knew what you were getting into.

So yes, a "riggie" is still a "riggie" and if you can't beat micro stakes its still your fault.

It would be ridiculous of FT to risk their massively profitable business by rigging cards - it would be ridiculously easy for people to spot and prove this.

Fiddling finances behind the scene is something entirely different.

No one knows yet just what FTP might have done, so it's possible, but I doubt that any serious cheating of players individually occurred! Variance and amateurish play was likely the culprit. Juicing flops to( speedup play) (making a lot more Flushes and Straights likely) well, maybe more likely, but still we need to see the endgame of this before we can understand the truth. Rigged poker sites at the high levels PS, FTP are just not as likely after the AP/UB scandal became known!

Excellent, Blatantly******ed is now copyright to J9suited. Any breach is acceptable as long as followed by a suitable transfer.

I disagree, if you are trying the prove a rig is to increase the rake you must look at the rake figures. Completing an analysis without viewing and/or calculating its intended effect makes no sense. If you are trying to only prove that the hands dealt approach the expected results you don't need to look at anything else. If you are trying to prove the a rig is to increase rake, increase pots then you must factor in the intended result.

Because it is idiotic to not consider prior acts when investigating cheating. It is like you are saying, "I don't care that the Trustee commingled my funds in his account, used my money to make loans to others and pay his own bills and won't pay me back my money when I request it, because you can't prove he cheated me out of a 5% interest rate." I suppose police shouldn't consider someone's prior crimes or gang affiliation when investigating a crime?


You are correct. I overstated the lack of response. Monty did provide his "no-action" theory. No one else provided a single idea of how a site could cheat to increase rake.

Your restatement of my argument is completedly wrong. Using the Socratic method, the only thing it proves is that no shill can even suggest a rig that would profit a company because of bias. Everyone knows Monty can argue both sides: he spends most of his time telling everyone how to argue here.

Because Spadebidder's analysis doesn't account for rake. Because his analysis, like LA's, has to make too many, improper, non-real world assumptions to make achieve scientific certainty for their results


I would trade the security of knowing the house does not know my cards or the community cards for your foolish belief that the players can identify such methods through hand history analysis any day of the week.