I still dont understand why it was wrong. And nobody are able to tell me. They just say: "Read the whole thread again, its surely there!" But its not, and they know that. Thats why they cant point it out or explain it themselves

There are thousands different ways to rig the deal with a different range of profitable outcome. In what universe would all of them leave behind evidence in HHs? And in what universe wouldnt any site at least consider raising their profits by doing any of them?

Look, someone even did a study to see if underdogs were favored:http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25...47/index5.html

Result? Underdogs were favored to quite some degree at 6 million hands. The 95% confidence level failed.

What does that mean for the pokersites getting the results? More money!

Either they got lucky, or they rigged it. Why is it impossible that they rigged it?

Most people give up explaining in detail to someone who refuses to understand or listen after 2-3 tries. Some of those stats guys tried many more times before they gave up on you. That's why eventually everyone just tells you to read it since it is all there. Basically they are done bothering with you and want you to go away. You interpret that as that they are avoiding debating you because your beliefs are correct. Kind of a sad state in a way.

As I said you can bump your thread and flat out ask yes or no if any of your beliefs are correct and see what they say. When they tell you no, you can try to ask why and then they will ignore you again and then you are back at this point rationalizing the world away. Kind of fun to see how many times you will do that before even you give up and fade away.


The universe would need to be inhabited by robots who never tell secrets. Know what happened when Tilt fired all their guys? Tons of threads of insiders answering all questions popped up.

You also need a universe where making money on a rig is not important since pretty much every riggie theory makes the sites no extra money.


There you have it - a universe filled by robots where profits are not a motive for a business to commit fraud to all of it's customers and you might have a chance with that riggie theory.

Actually what it means is you did not do more research to see how the stats guys have talked about removal effect (just math/not rigging) has an impact on many all in situations, especially AK vs pair ones blind on blind.

Spadebidder, Barry Greenstein and others have written pretty long posts about such effects, and that's why "underdogs" tend to do better than "expected" because those studies ignore card removal effects. The impact of the removal effects is debated (not everyone agrees on the severity), but you can read the threads I linked and more to better research that if you like (as if that will happen).

The fact you interpreted your own false beliefs and reality based on no knowledge shows why guys like you are so easily taken in life.



Read these threads (and you can search for more if you like). Youi will not understand anything they are saying, and you might drool a bit while reading them, but after you can either ask questions from those or shake your head and go back to the riggie beliefs you need to maintain for yourself.

http://www.spadebidder.com/statistic...nsteins-claim/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/36...lation-321075/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25...-flops-627887/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78...l-luck-823386/



Math is boring - rigging is fun, so don't let these boring facts/details sway you from your fun beliefs.

All the best.

I just briefly read through that thread real quick. The "statisticians" in that thread do not seem to exactly agree with the conclusion that you have stated and/or implied.

Maybe it was a level, but how come no one commented on the youtube 66 tourney video?

Didn't you admit last time you trotted out those HHs from 2.5 years ago that they weren't from the same table?
Which one? Hevad Khan playing a ton of tables?

Not much to comment on. Couple of jittery guys who are high talking about a faked video and calling this player a bot/site run player

mallmo44 562 -$0.35 $1 -8% -$198 NNNNNNNN 53 PokerStars x


the "bot's" 2011 stats

mallmo44 96 -$0.09 $0 -30% -$9 NNNNNNNN N/A PokerStars Year2011


His biggest buy in was 45 cents.


The guy's other video might help explain where they are coming from.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXKVk...el_video_title


Not a good sign when even the die hard riggies stay away from a rigged claim.

Yes, I was thinking the vid might've been removed, even. It was over the top, but I was still surprised neither side mentioned it.

I watched 2 minutes before turning it off. Can you say what you think is interesting about it?

Dude goes to showdown with 66. Due to software glitch, each of his subsequent hands are displayed (thus misrepresented) as that hand as the cards are dealt.

Nothing to report apart from a pair of Bill and Ted wannabes doing the 'OMG' routine.

I thought it was some type of editing. Maybe that is clear to others. I guess it would be interesting if it truly happened.

Oh, Hmm! I see what you mean, though.

Wow I can't believe this is actually being avoided.

To make it simpler on you guys, just quote and say A or B:

a) 2.392% chances should win 0%
b) 2.392% chances should win 2.392%

Unless admitting that unlikely (if you can actually call 41:1 unlikely) things can actually happen is going to make your head explode.*

* I take no responsibility for having to clean up the mess.

If you stop for a second and actually think about that hand where all 4 queens are out, there are only exactly 3 straight boards and one suit for 4-flush boards both using 4/5 cards that look so sick when they run out where QQ can win. Yet QQ is still supposed to win a whopping 2.392% of the time. So it's kind of silly to get your panties in a knot considering this is not at all unlikely in the grand scheme of probability world when you compare it to people winning million:1 shots in the lottery every day despite the relatively very limited number of ways that it can happen. Do you think the lottery boom and doomswitches people too?

Josem what kind of algorithm do you use to snap-find every single post referencing you

But it won't stop you posting stuff that is obviously nonsense and making a fool of yourself

Except that you are altering people card distributions, peoples card distributions relative to boards, win rates etc

Easyonkemp at least understood that part of it, but he refuses to budge on his idea that you could change a very small number of hands and not have it show in the hand histories.

Interesting Cracked article that relates to this thread.

http://www.covers.com/postingforum/p...&sub=101149284

Good read here. Read all 5 posts. You have the hardcore site promoter and the common sense replies from REAL people living in the REAL world.
Very rare to see that here. Not surprising as this is a site run by site promoters, affiliates, and site employees.

Real,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,people seem to type like reeeeeeeeeee,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,tards.

This was a bit interesting.

So what poker site are we supposedly shilling?

It took some time but now you admit the individual HH is what is important and should be investegated not the overall HH

I have no clue as to why this made me laugh so much.

It's the "whole internet is rigged to help me find what I want" algorithm

Spooky or what?