Being rigged and proved rigged are two entirely different things. So I will pass on that prop-bet, ty. It's fairly obvious by now that the sites have pretty advanced systems to keep them out of trouble. After all they are regulated (albeit in bogus, corrupt countries like Malta and Gibraltar - a fact that by itself has to make you wonder). You said it yourself that a rig wouldn't show up on any standard test/collected hand histories etc.

However I am sure that if you could (or would) tweak those tests - to also show chip count in every individual case, rake paid on average by winning / losing player, how the hand is played, which player is new on the site and which player isn't, recent winnings, etc etc, it would show that the rng's aren't random one bit.

and if someone does that test and no rig is uncovered, would that convince you that OLP is not rigged?

No. The only thing that could result in that would be the same thing that's behind the current test results - that the people testing are colluding with the sites. Someone posted a link to OLP rankings country by country. Gibraltar and Malta were the top 1 and 2 countries respectively - what does that tell you?

It tells me that you'll hold up anything that supports your argument as unbiased truth, regardless of the source, and dismiss anything that doesn't support your argument as a conspiracy to hide the truth you've seen.

That they are tiny countries with some high stakes players that skew the data.

Tells me as well that he does not bother to search the topics he thinks are new and exciting. That whole PTR thing has been talked about a lot, and if he learned how to use a search function he could see all the reasons why his beliefs are invalid (not that they would change them).

Can't wait for this guy's next big revelation, I figure it will be about Planet Poker.

His conspiracy is entertaining in that every single person is in on it. The sites, the auditors, the governments, likely his mom. Nice to see a solid "everything is rigged by everyone" guy again.

Wont happen, because something would be uncovered.
Get a clue Mr. Shill, OLP is as rigged as the day is long.
Join the real world.

so you just told us about a test that could be done to test the presence of a rig, and then admit that the results are only valid if they prove your side.

once again:

I just don't understand how normal people who don't have any affiliation with a site as they claim, like bingo boy, wiki ect ect and are not a shilll ect ect can spend hundreds of hours consisting thousands of posts in a forum conjuring up rebuttles so adamantly defending something of principle they have no ties too. Who does that really? I mean if I join a Muslim message board as a Christian and spend my days mocking there faith and defending mine I see a point sort of. What is yours? WHat is the goal of you non shill, non site defendors. What do you gt out of adamantly defending criminals and criminal software. Personal satisfaction? Does that make sense to you? To not be a site promotor, a site shill and just post 2400 times defending the honour of something you have no association with financial, morally, ethetically, religiously.

see above post

It's not a sound argument to think that the software of online poker is tainted when probably half the industry overall has had a cheating scandle within its bussiness makeup. It's not a sound arguement to suggest the software may be tainted when it was audited by 4 people in a country with no laws and regulations for a company that has been indicted for frauding banks in a country with strict enforceable laws? So, to make another sarcastic analogy in your world of no paralles, unliklihoods where everything is an unlinked random coincidence. It's not fair for someone to make a connection between two things based on tendency. So it's unfair for me to assume that because two of the largest sites comitted these crimes that to suggest that they are affiliated with any crime before this is just rediculous. Have you ever heard of the term * serial rapist* * serial murderer*.. Does one HAVE to comitt the same violent crimes in the same violent manner to be linked in your world? If you stab someone and are accused of shooting someone else would you defend the shooting because he was shot not stabbed? Sounds like it. How how about limiting crimes to murders in general. The rapist could not murder because he rapes. And vise versa right? Criminals have criminal behaviours either out of desperation where they can suddenly become overwhelmed with fear and act out of nature or they are habitual criminals like Waldo of pokerstars who is man on the run. To suggest this was the first crime he outfitted would be foolish. To note the nature of the crime whereby there was obviously a level of comfort probably based on years of getting awa with similar acts would be dumb right? Acts like paying off auditors to turn an eye to RNG's after the shuffle.

Oh myI don't capitalise my IIIIIIIIIIIs (unlike most people on here who are grammatically PERFECT!)

As for ray is this all you do? 12 hours a day 7 days a week trolling the forums looking for drama? You know i am right in what i say and the only response you can come up with is ?

As i have said previously I AM NOT IRISH so you're wasting your time trying to use a childish insult like that but keep trolling ray. If nothing else your pathetic attempts at insults are entertaining for the rest of us.

http://www.pokertableratings.com/top-countries

It's hilarious seeing this top poker of all time. Costa Rica, Malta, Gilbrater, Commonwealth of the Bahamas. LMFAO. Like WTF. I've never heard of ONE decent poker player from these countries ever. Canada? Russia? Sweden? Where are any of the know countries with good players. It's all little scum bag places, criminal paradises. British Indian Ocean Territory. Isn't that where Gilligan tried to rescue Mary-Anne and Ginger. Didn't think they still had electricty there. Must have a wireless laptop. What a crock.

Costa Rica and those little sh hole countries are where are the programmers for Pokerstars and the other sites live. Nothing like a little workers compensation.

I mean lets look at this months rankings. Isle of man 123bb.. 23 players. Nothing like a little extra employee income to suppliment the month out.

http://www.pokertableratings.com/top-countries-month

You see a point in spending time in a Muslim forum attacking their crazy imagination because of your crazy imagination but you don't see a point spending time correcting stupid people who stating things that are factually incorrect?

It doesn't take time or effort to post here, it is just one of the minor, amusing distractions which make up the day of anyone that spends too much time sat at a laptop.

Might I suggest that one of your distractions should be a spelling and punctuation forum?

You didn't answer.

Dude, paragraphs, seriously. It is difficult to read and respond to walls of rambling text like this so you are only going to get a brief response from me.

No. If you stabbed someone I wouldn't expect you to be accused of shooting someone if there is no evidence you were involved. Especially if there was evidence you weren't involved and, as in the case of rigging, there was no evidence that anybody had even been shot.

Oh you're an unpleasant little racist too. That (and your stupidity) partly explains your paranoia.

To be fair, I don't think it's racism so much as xenophobia; and proper grammar and sentence structure.

I know hellojello doesn't have the inclination to read this and wouldn't understand it even if he did, but thought it might be interesting to others:

There are good reasons why large countries are not generally going to be in the top countries by winnings. You should consider that:

a) The 'average' player loses the rake.

b) Each player is in a sense, drawn from a normal distribution whose mean is the average player.

c) The larger the number of players drawn, the more their average results get close to the results of an average player.

d) Note that without rake, the result would not be true. You would expect large countries to be leading both the 'biggest winners' and 'biggest losers' lists.

You can easily simulate this result yourself in Excel. =RAND()-0.5 returns a result between -0.5 and 0.5, representing a random player who either wins or loses. However, we have some rake, so let's do =RAND()-0.55. Now this returns a value between -0.55 and 0.45, with the 'average result' being to lose 0.05 units.

We'll represent a 'big country' in column A. Just put =RAND()-0.55 in cell A1, and drag that down to all cells A1->A100. This 'country' has 100 players. In Cell A102, put =SUM(A1:A100). You will 'probably' see a negative result. Hit F9 to refresh your spreadsheet. Probably still negative right? Keep hitting F9, you will get lots of negative numbers, and *VERY* rarely, a positive number (you might not see one for a long time)

Now make a 'small country' in column B. Just do the same thing but only drag the results down to B10, and put =SUM(B1:B10) in cell B12. Keep hitting F9 to refresh again. Still mostly negative right, but you see a positive number quite often.

Country 'B' beats Country 'A' almost all of the time in terms of winnings. Even if you lower the rake by changing -0.55 to say, -0.51, you still see that B beats A more than 50% of the time. It's only when theres no rake at all that they are equally likely to be highest.

Note further that having 'the best player' doesn't matter. If you look through your 110 random numbers to see which one is highest, you will see that it is in 'country' A 10/11ths of the time, and in country B 1/11th of the time. But having a good player doesnt help, because it also has the worst player most of the time, and in general, just has more average players, and average players lose.

Even if you think country A's players are better *on average*, and change -0.55 to -0.54 in that column, their total result is still almost always worse than country B.

Of course that is no particular reason why a *given* small country should do well. We would have to look for external factors for that, I would suggest that they are simply more likely places for winning US/elsewhere regs to emigrate to if they can't/don't want to live in their own country. For example so far this month 'Thailand' is doing very well which is obviously a popular destination for poker players.

You would certainly expect that countries that have a large population of *native* poker players and that are not popular destinations for emigration would be the absolute worst, i.e. germany, russia, uk will always be near the bottom despite having some very competent individual players.

A good analysis.

Also, even with zero rake, you would expect to see smaller countries near the top (and bottom) because they are more affected by (and here I must apologise for frightening the 'tards with one of their major scare words.) variance.

(BTW, saying the UK is not a popular destination for emigration is way wide of the mark.)

The first bit isn't true because the page (and my spreadsheet) talks about the 'total winnings', not the 'average winnings', hence the use of SUM and not AVERAGE. Big countries will tend to be at both the top and the bottom here in a rakeless environment. And indeed big countries have bigger variance in their *total winnings* since the variance of the sum of 100 players is just the sum of the variance of each individual player (i.e. clearly bigger than the variance of the sum of 10 players).

If we were to look at average winnings, though, it is almost certain that small countries will be at both the top and bottom in either a raked or rakeless environment. Simply because, the variance of the average result is proportional to 1/sqrt(population), so it is larger for smaller countries.

Your correction to my second point is taken. I should have stated 'where the population of native players vastly outweighs the number of emigrating players'. It may well be that there are more emigrees to the UK (perhaps even to Russia?!) than there are to Malta, but because the UK has hundreds of times more native players than Malta, the overall effect is much smaller.

Gwan ya spoofer