Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Monteroy and Wiki are totally convinced that sites would never rig their deal and could never get away with it. But they have no real facts to back up their view because the sites have never released such facts and only they have the data to test the fairness of their deals i.e. up to date complete hand histories. The only evidence is that most sites have had software that they purport to use for their RNG programs tested by third parties. However, no third party has ever stated that they now for sure that the RNG program that they tested was the only one ever used by the site and was used for all hands.

Monteroy seems to ignore that companies, regulated by weak governments, with shady reputations and with known questionable business practices are more likely to cheat customers by rigging their deals than other companies.

Who knows maybe my loss of profit since 2009 is due to bad luck, maybe I forgot how to play or maybe my competition is that much better (although they still call raises and reraises with hands, like 84 and QT).

OTOH, maybe the change in my winrate from 3BB/100 hands at levels up to and including NL200 before 2009 to about 0 since then is not due to these factors, but by decisions by sites, pressed to retain customers by weaker economy and by US DOJ attack on ewallets that made money transfers much more difficult and expensive, to rig their deal of the cards to make outcomes more equal among their players.

I don't have any real facts because the sites have them and are not releasing them. I can just go by my experience and stats that I have kept since 2007. They suggest that among the sites that I have played since 2009 which are PS, Cereus, Carbon and Cake something is different with the deal of the cards. These are the same sites that I played on in 2007 and 2008 when I won at about 3bb/100.

Right now I am playing only one table at Cake. I just started this from playing 4 tables at Carbon to see if an increase in stakes (which lowers rake) would help since my stats show that I have always beaten the players before paid rake. So far, playing only one table, I have seen more bad beats than I ever remember when I played one table in 2005-06; just like my experience in the last two years.

Hey, you're right; it could be me. Or maybe it isn't. Maybe it really is the sites. Two years ago, I would have said no way. Now I question the sites enough that unless my fortunes change soon, then I will leave online poker until it is legalized and regulated by the US (which I have some hope may be sooner rather than later) and then only play on sites licensed by some US government entity.

No joke. This wiki/gothninja dude has to be THE most pathetic individual every born. Sucks getting gangshilled by all these gullible losers and site promoters.

On the other hand, some pretty smart stats guys have described how one can test various rigged hypotheses by analysing hand histories. Riggies have said that they are wrong, but not demonstrated why that would be.

Most riggies are so because of what they observe at the table, but for some reason can't demonstrate it through their HHs. Others just suspect a rig because they begin losing (or win less) but have no real idea of how a rig would be affecting them or how to test for it. They just have a vague idea with no back-up.

It's fine and dandy to fire back at the shills when they just throw insults, but its another thing to ignore the substantive arguments made.

This is math, folks. It's not subjective. If you believe that the stats guys are wrong, then demonstrate why they are wrong. Otherwise you should admit that your beliefs are not well founded. Nothing wrong with that, we all do it. But you're not doing yourself any favours by not recognizing it.

Substantive posts from a bunch of site promoters with bogus evidence claiming the deal isnt manipulated in OLP? Laughable if it wasnt so pathetic.

You truly are one sad, and pitiful site promoter.

You miss my point. My theory is you losing at poker has a greater chance to be related to something you have done rather than a conspiracy of poker sites, governments, software companies, and e-wallets against you winning.

Seriously, go through all of your posts and show me any element where you take some responsibility for losing at poker. You blame everyone but yourself.


Monteroy thinks your inability to win at poker has more to do with you than shady companies. Why would shady companies even care about you specifically to target?



Quite the massive conspiracy against you. Given you are now perma-losing (no fault of your own of course...), when do they start rigging it for you?

Glad it has nothing to do with you. You certainly have no need to analyze your game.

So the number of tables is also involved in the conspiracy? The plot thickens...



It is.



Nah, it's you.


Nah, it's you.


You should quit poker, and if blaming the sites, governments, e-wallets, holdem manager, the number of tables etc is the way to rationalize that choice then go for it. You will get riggie support here (regardless of what you say) that should make you feel better and you will save yourself future money by not playing a game you cannot beat.

All the best.


P.S. Here is an "action hand" from today that riggies can use for their theories. Clearly an e-wallet conspiracy at work.

PokerStars Game #65523389693: Tournament #432010434, $20+$2 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (25/50) - 2011/08/04 13:36:48 ET
Table '432010434 8' 9-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: Monteroy (3545 in chips)
Seat 2: spielverderb (2665 in chips)
Seat 3: steefke (3773 in chips)
Seat 4: TheUrsaraie (2600 in chips)
Seat 5: tonkaaaa (5875 in chips)
Seat 6: janstomp (2843 in chips)
Seat 7: nmop441 (2740 in chips)
Seat 8: sjaak2afhaak (4814 in chips)
Seat 9: SEBI-D373 (3455 in chips)
nmop441: posts small blind 25
sjaak2afhaak: posts big blind 50
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [Tc Td]
SEBI-D373: folds
Monteroy: raises 100 to 150
spielverderb: folds
steefke: folds
TheUrsaraie: calls 150
tonkaaaa: folds
janstomp: folds
nmop441: calls 125
sjaak2afhaak: folds
*** FLOP *** [Jc Jd 4d]
nmop441: checks
Monteroy: bets 300
TheUrsaraie: calls 300
nmop441: folds
*** TURN *** [Jc Jd 4d] [Ts]
Monteroy: checks
TheUrsaraie: bets 450
Monteroy: raises 600 to 1050
TheUrsaraie: raises 1100 to 2150 and is all-in
Monteroy: calls 1100
*** RIVER *** [Jc Jd 4d Ts] [4c]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Monteroy: shows [Tc Td] (a full house, Tens full of Jacks)
TheUrsaraie: shows [4s 4h] (four of a kind, Fours)
TheUrsaraie collected 5400 from pot

Feel free to explain why what I said is wrong. Or continue to act like a little child throwing his toys out because you can't beat the bigger boys at poker

You have to realize you are arguing with a poker coach and site promoter. It benefits them financially to suck gullible fools into the scam that is OLP. What else could you expect?

Your experience and stats are facts. They are all encapsulated in your hand histories. The sites do release these facts and even let you save them automatically. It sounds like you also have all sorts of software to analyse them so why have you said nothing specific in your posts?

No, cheating is a matter of human behavior and completely subjective. How do you logically ignore the stealing of money by FT and AB and the lining of their own pockets in your determination of whether they may rig a game? It's like you know they stole the money from your wallet but don't want to suspect them of stealing the change from your car.

I have demonstrated why the stats guys are wrong, not in their analysis, but in the underlying assumptions and constants they must create in order to obtain their results with mathmatical certainty. No stat analysis affirmatively demonstrates there is no rigging, only that the expected card distributions are achieved.

The studies, while the best evidence out there, do not prove the conclusions you attribute to them. You should admit that your "beliefs" that the sites are not rigged are not well founded. Nothing wrong with that, we all do it. But you're not doing yourself any favours by not recognizing it.

I choose to be non-believer in the promise of a fair game by offshore companies run by former pornographers who engage in multiple forms of unethical and illegal behaviors.

He doesn't need HH's, he's observed it.

Same as I have observed, purely from the manner in which he types his posts, that Blatantly******ed;

1) Buggers young boys
2) Eats dog crap
3) Murders fluffy puppy dogs
4) Listens to "Barbie Girl" on repeat

Now I've observed this from the flow of his posts. You need no more evidence than this, I've stated it, so it is now a fact.

You should be ashamed of yourself Blatantly******ed, lack of brain cells is no excuse for those traits I've observed in your posts. Don't deny it as I will only refer you to my earlier detailed evidence (that I'll refuse to link to).

Many have attempted to analyze hand histories to test whether sites' RNG's are fair or not. The problem is that no one, but the sites, has all the hand histories, showdown and non-showdown, hands from all the years to really audit the hand histories and test them. It would take an auditing firm to do so. So we don't really know. Which is my whole point.

But there is a big enough sample size, which has been analysed, to state that the probability is the deal is fair.

The same as there is a big enough sample size to say there are no 3 legged, 2 headed, 4 bollocked men on the planet.

But hey, you have not seen every man on the planet so perhaps you believe there is a 3 legged, 2 headed, 4 bollocked man out there somewhere.

Me, I'll go with the same verdict on both. Unlikely until proven otherwise.

P.S. I love this thread, it's such a stress reliever

People have uncovered all sorts of cheating, collusion, bots and super users with hand history analysis. If you research some of the topics (UB/AP obviously, Stox soft play scandal, various bot threads) you will see work done that you never thought was possible because you never would understand how to conduct the work.

You are limiting your ability to analyze based on your personal inability to do that work.

The world does not revolve around you seems to be a general idea you miss with your various issues and outlooks.

Anyway, better luck.

And FWIW I always have a downswing between midnight and 3am on a Friday and I have data to prove it, therefore it must be rigged against me at those hours on that specific night.

I don't ignore it, I simply don't assign it much weight in terms of evaluating the evidence of whether it is rigged or not. You want to focus on whether someone has the moral character to commit a certain crime. I want to first figure out whether a crime has been committed.

Suspected is fine. Investigation is great. But believing it is rigged simply because you think the owners are of poor moral character is not evidence of rigging. There are plenty of business owners with poor moral character - that doesn't mean they are engaging in every conceivable scam.

Huh? You're all over the place here. You're assumptions about the moral character of the owners does not affect the math. This is what I understand from the stat guys:

1) For a deal rigging to be ever be effective at increasing a company's bottom line it must be done to a statistically significant degree.

2) If the rigging is done following a pattern, and is done to a statistically significant degree, then it will squew the expected stats over a significant sample

3) any possible rig that can be observed at the tables can be tested for on a large enough sample size

Now, it may be that they are wrong. But not a single stat person has demonstrated why. If the results of a given study are within a reasonable standard deviation from expectation, then there is no reason to believe a specific rig is in place.

You believe its rigged simply because you don't trust the owners. Not trusting the owners may be a good reason to stay away from a site, but it is not evidence of rigging.

The studies that are out there do not prove that the site is not rigged. What they do show, to a pretty high confidence level, is that the particular rig being tested for was not in effect over that sample.

One can't prove the sites are NOT rigged. All we can do is look at the evidence. All proper tests to date have been negative for testing the particular rig (or at least no one has produced a study to the contrary). So while we can't say definitively that the sites are not rigged, we can still confidently say that to date, there is no reliable evidence that they are.

Sure, don't do business with bad people if you don't want to (though I imagine you'll have to cut out a lot of the shopping that you do if you use those standards!) - but that's still not evidence of rigging.

Are there any stats guys who you've read who think there is rigging, or are they all on the non-rigged side?

jjjou812
As I have pointed out before, these site promoters and poker coach you try to reason with is a complete waste of time. They have much to gain financially sucking gullible people into the OLP scam. There is no way they will admit to the truth that the deal is manipulated, even though im sure they already know this fact.

I've never seen one - certainly not in this thread, IIRC . Maybe you can find one.

wykh or wkyh or whyk ( I forget how it was spelled)

He is a stats guy and he spent a lot of time trying to prove the sites were rigged against him, though generally in the end he would discover an error in his math (and admit to it). Repeat many times. Think he just enjoyed the hobby of believing it was rigged as his bankroll was 50 to 100 bucks yet he spent hundreds of hours on his stats work.


He posted some in here and then in the probability forum, you can search him for his posts and threads. I suggested to other riggies that they ask him to do work for them, but riggies tend to be a bit cheap

LOL! Cool - I will check in on him just to see his math and logic.

TY, A. Just thought it would be interesting if a stat person thought there was something up. If so, that would be the person to prove it. I wonder what he/she would think after not coming up with anything conclusive. I'll assume nothing conclusive because I'm sure it would be all over if so.

Yeah, it is wykh. LOL! I was looking through some of his posts ITT, and I came across this hilarious piece of prose:


"wow I cannot believe I have finally succeeded, through the ignore option, of erasing the Wiki and Monteroy viruses from my computer. Yippee!"

Why do you persist in telling these lies?

We are not 'totally convinced'. We believe that they are probably not rigged and if they tried rigging the deal they would be unlikely to get away with it for very long.