I think Mr Bertilsson has shown in his recent interview exactly what his network is up to. You`re not boomswitched at the beginning as they need to profile your playing style and it seems like a fair game. Their "essence" method of rake calculation was no more than an admission of profiling imo.
Mr Bertilsson simply confirmed what I was told in 2008 by one of his staff.

Might want to check this out. Couldn't find the registration dates though. Good luck.

Those are Arouet's results. What are your results?

So I was 'lucky' at every network I joined (9 whole networks) and variance evened out after I'd played around 70,000 hands each time?

Possible I guess, but stretching the realms of coincidence IMO.

And I know for 100% I can beat NL10 for at least 7bb/100+ long term, absolute fact at 888. I've been doing it for almost 3 years with NL20 mixed in for decent profits.

I need to point this out, my break even period was at Ongame only, I don't break even in my main game, I play low stakes so I don't have break even months, I play to enjoy the game and to enjoy it, I need to be winning, hence I stick to games where I have big edges, namely NL10 and NL20 at the weekends/early mornings etc.

This variance 'simulator' is a dangerous tool for naive regs who take the bait. Of course, variance can hit you hard in poker, but if you play a certain style (one 10bb/100 winner plays a different game than another) and you play in games where you have a solid edge, there's no way you are ever breaking even at Nl10 for 50,000+ hands.

I will not change my mind on that so let's move on, you believe you can break even for 50,000 hands in your NL2 game, I don't think it's possible if you know how to play good poker.

At NL4 for instance, it is almost an achievement to have a losing session, a losing month is out of the question!

You seem very keen to write off this 'dangerous tool' despite clearly not understanding it.

I have no intention in reading your blog so next time you decide to join another poker site please drop by and let us know whether you are winning the 10bb you deserve or whether the site is rigged against you (because these are clearly the only possibilities).

Thanks

Variance doesn't "even out".

I had similar results when I played with the variance simulator. Over 1 million hands, just about anything is possible.
If you mean my personal results, it's really none of your business, but FWIW, I have good weeks and bad weeks like everyone else. On one network I'm crushing, but on another I'm breaking even. My sample size isn't anywhere near large enough to make firm conclusions about anything, but trends are being revealed as the overall sample size goes up. (Someone that has played 1 million hands will have a graph that is relatively straight, whereas someone that plays 50,000 hands will have have a graph with obvious up and down swings.)

The smart 1 speaks we all listen!

Do you think the "smart" one might be starting to realize the deal is manipulated? That there IS NO variance in OLP?..................

Nah.
Site promoters would never admit to the obvious rigging of the game.

What do paint chips taste like?

If it's obvious, you should be able to provide evidence to support your claim. You haven't even described how online poker is rigged, much less provide some sort of support for your claim.

I've played. And on 4 different sites.

I merely managed to pay a couple years of college tuition while earning significant extra spending money, live on it for a year, and pay 3 years of law school tuition.

I guess according to you I am apparently a lucky guy. Who would figure? You spend a good amount of time learning how to do something well and you end up winning a bunch at it. Weird.

Yup. It's the way life is rigged against perpetual losers like Blatantly******ed.

The more you work at your game (whatever that may be) the luckier you get.

If only that were true.

Of course, if you don't believe him, the really smart thing to do would be to do a little research to find the truth.

You would then discover that he is absolutely correct.

Variance does not 'even out'. The results of variance, on the other hand, will - given a large enough sample.

I crushed it on Party before it went down for US players then I played on Stars where I did ok. Then had the worst luck on stars. I went on an awful run of bad beats and cold decked that I almost quit poker. I cashed out and played on Cake and Tilt where I began to have success agian. I then moved my money from Tilt to Bodog and have made 15 final tables in the last three months.

Sometimes your not doing something right and sometimes its luck. It may even be all in your head. I have been playing live and got no cards. Walked away for an hour came back and sat at a new table and began to win.

Online is not rigged I can understand people who feel that way because they are most likely doing something wrong, but if it is just variance and luck, then move sites. Its amazing what it can do for your confidence.

FYP.

You need to add that qualifier as, otherwise, the rigtards, who have no qualms whatsoever about libelling sites without a scrap of evidence get terribly self righteous about people saying things they cannot prove beyond all doubt.

I have a few times way back in this thread.

Being a confirmed shill/site promoter, I cant believe you are back spewing the same lies and B.S. over and over again.

This demonstrates so perfectly why you must be considered an extreme case of 'Special Education Needs'.

To anyone with two working brain cells it would be self evident that a 'confirmed shill/site promoter' is exactly the type of poster who is going to return over and over again.

The fact that you can't believe something so self evidently true eloquently demonstrates that you are a drooling moron.

Have a nice day, anyway.

Congratulations - and yes I'll agree, you have on occasion described what you think is going on. And you've not once, in a 1000 posts, described what your thought process was in coming to your conclusions other than to say that its obvious to you. You've never demonstrated that you've directed a single thought to whether its even possible that you're suffering from confirmation bias - noticing the hits and ignoring the misses.

For someone who ostensibly thinks its so important to show the world how rigged online poker is, and who wants people not to be sheep of big business, you don't seem to care too much about how to help people actually see what you see.

Further, you don't seem to care if what you perceive as obvious is actually true!

Does anyone really think the software is that ****ing simple that it would allow a long term trend anywhere to be found. The simple loophole lies within the ability to be able to manipulate the dealings at WILL, not all the time after the shuffle. This is why certain people have amazing luck and certain people who complain get ****ed over. You don't think Pokerstars profiles players before they starting running amazing like Dario Mineri. Look at his graph for the first tens of thousands of games. He was COMPLETE ****.Than amazingly he improves drastically over night? Sure!@ No young Italians to promote the site so he gets the silver spoon after he was researched and * profiled*. They also have this option to set up potential chaters. Give them an unfoldable set up and catch them in the act. Its not rocket science and its proven fact that the audit was only done to the shuffle. The cards after the shuffle can be distributed at sites will if need be for whatever reason they give and as we see from all other aspects its probably a very vague reason justified at will and in there T and C coded somewhere like Nostradomous writings to be uncoded at will of the site if need be.

Do you feel better now that you've puked all that gunge out of your system?

must of hit a nerve. Now even the mods feel the need to get involed in a silly * rig * forum. You know the thread where all the * crazies* come to spread the crazy gospel and where the smartest come to rebuttle them, not out of necessity but boredom.

1) The word is 'rebut', 'rebuttal' (note spelling) is a noun.

2) There is nothing that the rigtards post that comes close to needing a rebuttal. That would require that they post either 'Evidence' (sorry to use the 'E' word ) or sound, logical, argument. And that is not the rigtard way.