Yes. Let's say we see a flop 50% of the time, turn 30%, and river 25%. Every 100 hands we have 205 board cards. Altering one of them is a whopping half a percent, and that would be a huge skew in large samples, and immediately obvious statistically. It also would throw off the balance of more than one board type, as the hand was destined to be one type and was altered to make it another type. So the card distribution would be off on the altered street(s), and the board type distribution would be off in multiple categories. The data I'm working on doesn't show this to be happening.

The other side of the problem is how altering 1 card in 100 hands can affect player behavior and outcomes enough to increase the house rake a meaningful amount. I don't think it could.

It's people like you that make me glad I'm not a dealer anymore. I am curious though.. is luck spoon fed or do you need a fork? (Put derogatory name here)

Great money does not equal happiness!

It's far more likely that you're not nearly as good at poker as you think you are. Also, you probably don't understand the true nature of variance. You might think you do, but you don't.

How many of you guys have ever ate pie & mash? (London, East End style) Not many is my guess and boy, you don't know what you are missing.

1. Possibly, yes. Especially over a large sample of hands. I mean, that IS the idea, isn't it? To alter results significantly? If the results aren't altered in a way that a statistical analysis reveals, then the house edge isn't so much that expert play wouldn't counteract it.

2. If the board changes once in 100 hands played, that doesn't guarantee your results are different. What if the 100th hand happens to be one in which you are heads-up against another player designated by the conspirators as a loser? What if you catch bad on the river but your bluff pushes the opposition out of the pot? What if the only cards that can hurt you and help the opponent have already been seen, then folded by players not in the pot?

I've had bangers & mash. Does that count?

Say a 7c is supposed to come on the river but instead a 9d shows up instead.
Now 200 hands later a 9d is about to be dealt but instead the 7c shows up.
Please tell me how this would be detectable.

LOL. I've never heard that one before. If that's all you got please don't waste your time posting.

You talking about those 2 little kids from Dragon Quest 8? That game kicked ass.
And T. A. Schwitters, you are about as bright as that kid in your avatar.

so you're saying they pick the "correct" river card, but then discard and replace it to help a certain player win the pot based on decisions everyone in the pot made pre-flop, on the flop and turn?

Ya basically, but i don't think they determine it by what decisions players make.
More likely by how much money you are up or down. This ensures that fish don't go broke and regs don't make too much. I'm not saying this happens, but would it be easy to find if it did happen?

they have to. or are you just saying they randomly decide to change river cards for no reason?

in order for this "improper" card to help someone win a pot, it has to make their hand better than their opponents'. frequently, poor players make bad calls pre-flop and then more calls on the next streets without proper odds. if the player with the best hand plays his hand well, the decisions he makes affect how the guy who's gonna get his miracle river is going to play. how does the software know the bad player won't fold on the turn? or that the good player will put anymore money in on the river?

this concept of the software keeping track of tens of thousands of hands and adjusting them on the fly to help folks it has determined need a little more help to play for another hour, or day or even week is pretty ludicrous.

It's possible it could be done to cancel out like that, but it also probably wouldn't help the site increase rake. And it would almost certainly be detectable anyway, depending on the context. If the added card was always put in to complete a certain type of hand, the correction would have to negate one of that same type of hand, or else you would have two board types skewed from what they should be, and it would be detectable. And hole cards completing certain hands would be happening at different rates they they are supposed to, which would also be detectable.

Let's say that 9d is put in to make a 3-flush on the board, to complete a hand for someone holding a suited hand. That increases the number of 3-flushed boards. So when the 7c is put back into the count 200 hands later to make the card distribution right, it still won't make the board distribution right unless it is dealt at a time when a 3-flush board was supposed to show up, but doesn't. The number of expected 3-flush boards can be calculated for a random deal (5.176% on the flop, 12.36% to turn the 3rd suited board card, etc.). The number of 9d hitting the turn spot can be calculated for a random deal (1.923%). The number of 7c hitting the river spot can be calculated for a random deal (1.923%). The times a person holding suited hole cards should complete a flush can be calculated for the flop, turn and river, etc, etc. There are many interdependencies to be managed, not to mention throwing in betting, player profiles, and other factors that the site would need to consider for such a scheme. They'd need the NSA's computers to keep up with it.

Everything has to come out right. It's very very difficult (if not impossible) to rig any cards and then balance them out statistically later, and at the same time accomplish increasing rake for the site.

Yeah that ones almost as good as;

"Your playing way more hands online so your going to see more bad beats blah blah blah"

Im sure alterations are happening during hands. Probably vs house players/house bots or new players on a manipulated initial upswing. That and hands are set up pre flop to guarantee an action hand.

Commandment 2: Thou shalt state an opinion and declare it a fact

Commandment 4: Thou shalt assume

Commandment 5: Thou shalt have no time to test thy theories

and a little bit of implied

Commandment 1: Thou shalt ask others to prove it false


All you new riggedologists recognize what a seasoned vet can accomplish in terms of commandments followed per words used.

Note also how Scooper will never say anything bad about a fellow riggedologist, even the guy who said it was the Russia/Israel mafia at fault, so he is even following commandment 6


Commandment 6: Thou shalt support they brethren unconditionally



Hmm, there should be some commandment in this type of sarcastic response to an obvious fact (that more hands = more beats, maybe it should be less to riggedologists somehow).

Will have to think about this, but it is good to see one of the senior riggedologists back in action to show these raw newer ones the proper way to follow the commandments.

your != you're

It really grates on the eyes to see that repeatedly. I suggest not using contractions and sticking with "you are" when your not sure.

Here's a list of sites that where I started losing immediately after I started playing on the site:
Ultimate Bet
Full Tilt Poker
Some Prima Poker sites I can't remember the names of
Titan Poker
SunPoker (Cryptologic network)

Here's a list of sites where I started winning immediately after I started playing on the site:
PokerStars
Interpoker (Cryptologic network)
Some Prima Poker sites I can't remember the names of.
Empire Poker (an old Party skin)

The main riggedologist defense vs. logical arguments.

If you're afraid of a site fiddling the community cards (as you seem to imply) then you should play at a site where this sort of activity is demonstrably impossible.

So people have seen that statistically AA wins the proper amount of times over a large statistical sample as well as all the other hands winning at their expected win rate. But have they ever tried to measure if hands win at their expected rates during crucial hands?

How do we define crucial? I guess it could be defined different ways but during a tournament a good one would be during the bubble or during high-blinds heads-up when its push/fold fest. Cash I suppose it could be something like any pots over x BBs or something.

Why would it matter? Because another one of the complaints I hear often is that suckouts happen in favor of the big stack to make tournaments end faster or that AA gets sucked out during big cash pots to increase the rake.

Nice ad hominem. It's only appropriate, since all the other logical fallacies have already been beaten to death itt.

Oh, and as long as I rock half as hard as that kid, brightness can take a back seat.

LMAO well said

So which "non-crucial" hands would the site choose for evening out the bonus cards by taking them away from someone else? You can't alter any hands without affecting the entire distribution in multiple interconnected ways.

I agree it would be very difficult for them to do so but nobody said it was supposed to be easy. We went to the moon because it was hard right, not because it was easy. If sites were to try this scheme they would probably make it as complex as possible to avoid detection. And it's not necessarily about increasing the rake per hand. Keeping the fish alive as long as possible and limiting the amount of money regs can make keeps everyone playing longer hours.

Interesting cycle.

They make up stuff.

You explain why that made up stuff cannot exist

They make up more stuff



It's like a bad sci fi show




Honestly, if a site cheats people it generally will be in the easiest way possible. Like not paying out withdraws. This super duper fantasy AI stuff is completely impractical as a crime.