Yes, that seems to be a big problem to the data analysis, I had never thought about that.

You can analyse the all in situations, but the hands that dint went to the showdown cannot be put together in the EV analysis, simply because you dont know what the players had. But still these hands should be considered if you want to know if the EV of some given hands are right or not.

If you think of a deep stack game is only a minority of hands that goes to the SD in all in situations.

Came across this article: http://www.theonion.com/content/opin..._well_reasoned

I think it belongs in this thread.

Thinking about the "sites own bot theory in cash games". If

If we assume that happens the bots would be a part of the system, so they could "know" the shuffle and "know" the cards that are going to come, and everyplayers cards. Tis knowing make them capable of only entering the big pots, lets say they can see you are going to make a set and they will make a straight at the river, thats a good moment to enter the game and win a big pot from you.
Another advantages is tat these bots could change nicks in a daily basis so you would never be able to have any data on them.


The kind of investigation on the "sites own bots theory" is very different from the change in th EV theory. It has nothing to do with data analysis.

Hmm, this offers a good chance to add to the commandments


Commandment 1: Thy shall ask others to prove it false

Commandment 2: Thy shall state an opinion and declare it a fact

Commandment 3: Thy shall hurl random personal attacks as a defense mechanism

Commandment 4: Thy shall assume

If you didnt notice my "assume" over there meant: "I know it could not exist at all, but lets think for a moment as if it does exist (the bots)" So I used the expression in the exact opossite way you are thinking I used it. You have to control your anxiety.

In order to make their bots win, the site would have to manipulate the deal, which is detectable by data analysis. Just putting bots out there and hoping they win sometimes in a fair game isn't much of a strategy. And site-owned bots would not be paying any rake, so they are pretty much useless for rigging cash games. The "theory" put forth was that sites use bots in tournaments so they don't have to pay out the prizes. But to do that they still have to rig the deal.

Around and around we go....

No I think he was talking about an "evolved" superuser, i.e. one that can see its opponents usercards AND the upcoming cards on the board.

Ah, I skimmed over it too quickly. So now we are lumping cheating players in with rigged deals again I see. Tell me again how a superuser makes more money for the site/company?

I think he's talking about superusers set up BY the site.

Right, I get that now. Superbots running around beating everyone at a high enough level for the revenue to matter. Like that wouldn't ever be noticed.

You apparently assume I have anxiety, so a nice usage of both commandment 3 and 4.


Consider that 4th commandment more of a lifetime achievement award of riggedologist posts. After all, they are commandments that all the faithful will follow, so a better idea to see if it applies is to read over all of your fellow riggedologists' posts and see how many assumptions are made for their belief structure.

Commandments, much like poker, are about the long term.


And even in this fanciful scenario the bots would be providing entry fees in the prize pool.

fish think KK vs Ax is a coin flip.

Or maybe I'm the fish thinking KK is the fave. lol

Your only a fish if you think that's a bad thing.

J/C i love poker. This guys says it's rigged and somehow i continue to win. i guess Full tilt likes me?

One or the other of you is probably overlooking the fact that one overcard to a pair is usually about 30% to win, sometimes 34% when suited. That means you are supposed to lose a third of the time, which doesn't even qualify for a bad beat story (or a post).

Maybe you're not aware of this, but this thread isn't your personal poker blog. We don't need to know about every time you lose. No one cares. Really.

Also, Beats, Brags, and Variance.

If the bots change nicknames in a daily basis how would you know? They dont have to rig the deal, the bot will just know when two big hands will confront, that means he will probably win your hole stack, and thats pretty significative.

I hate to use this argument, but personal experience. I just don't find all that many guys that seem to run unexplainably hot and consistently make the perfect play. I play primarily HU and yeah, there is a lot of hit-n-running, but the vast majority of the time I'll check out to see where the hit-n-runner went and most of the time he's donking off his money at another table.

They could probably get away with it if they did it on a small scale, but the money the sites would make would be absolutely nothing compared to the money they make from rake, it's unethical, and if they were caught or exposed then that's their reputation on the line. There aren't enough fish at the high stakes to not notice names that play a game, win a decent amount, then never show up again. If the people running these accounts are actually good players, well, there aren't all that many random good players at the high stakes that only play a session and never show up again. The vast majority of high stakes players are regulars. Sites like TableRatings help keep track of everyone anyway.

No kidding.


We are reaching way too many levels of assumptions for even a standard rigged theory at this point

- Assume there are a ton of house bots

- Now assume they change their names often

- Now assume they are somehow winning playing bots (which assumes super user based info or something)

- Now assume these super user insider bots never get noticed by any other players or the many sites that track results

- Now assume all of those who are behind this criminal enterprise never say a word about it. Ever.


Much as I enjoy watching some of the aspects of the rioggedology faith, this is getting a bit too silly vs basic common sense.

How about this. Let's assume the sites are cheating players in some way. Realistically, this would not be the way they do it. It is just too complex and easy to catch, and frankly I do not even see how it makes them money.

Commandment 4 of the riggedology faith says "Thy shall assume," but it is best to keep the assumptions in control at least a little bit.

Here we are on the 262nd page of the debate, and... hey, here's a novel idea:

Instead of arguing over what could be true in theory, why don't the conspiracy theorists research the sites, then present their findings in a way that is statistically sound, and can be verified by independent surveys?

This can be done. 2+2ers were able to expose the UB scandal through the collection of data. If you're confident that there's foul play, surely you must be committed to exposing these fraudulent activities, right? If so, the effort would prove well worth it. Forum members and podcasters would be celebrating your victory for months and you might even be entitled to some cash from the offending sites.

So why hasn't this been done already? Until there is a good presentation of facts, and not just theoretical assumptions, you have no case. Need the discussion go any further than this?

I dont have time nor energy nor knwoledge to go beyond theoric speculations. Bu I like my theories, if any one out there want to test them, it would be fun.

I am disappointed I did not think of adding this before as many, many, many riggedologists say this even as they spend hours debating their theories.

Note, I also shortened commandment 3 to make it sound a bit more commandmenty.



Commandment 1: Thy shall ask others to prove it false

Commandment 2: Thy shall state an opinion and declare it a fact

Commandment 3: Thy shall hurl random personal attacks

Commandment 4: Thy shall assume

Commandment 5: Thy hath no time to test thy theories

What is the purpose of this thread?

People take bad beats, people get angry, people wonder whether online poker is rigged.
This is true for every player.
So the common player then cools down and shrugs it off. But a few players instead post their silly "Rigged!"-posts. Just another way to blow off steam.

how can anyone say poker online isn't rigged when the same people who said absolute poker and ultimate bet weren't and yet look what happened to absolute poker and the last i've read ultimate bet was called out and a investigation was put into place and they were fined like 500,000 or something.

I know people want to have faith that the sites they use aren't rigged because they don't want to believe a gambling related site could possibly be rigged because they trust them with there money.

I would say pokerstars would easily be the most rigged poker site on the net and i am surprised they haven't been called out. But there based out of the country (not sure if ultimate bet and absolute poker was or how they came about getting investigated). but thats besides the point.

now that the argument of online poker not being rigged is invalid because of whats already happened to 2 major sites what makes you guys think its not happening with pokerstars or fulltilt?

It is and they know it, the people in this forum are the ones who are making money though, so don't expect too much support from that particular crowd.