You seem to know a lot about the super secret shill manual. Care to explain, shill?

THX for confirming that you are wiki!

Yes it does.

If they realised they were as bad as they are they would also realise that they need to learn more and would attempt to improve their game rather than just continuing to play like idiots believing themselves to be some sort of unlucky poker gods.

Another classic BR non sequitur.

Well obviously I agree that bad players lose because they are bad, but he said they lose because they overvalue their skills.

A bad player is a bad player. He will likely lose whether or not he is aware of it; his opinion of himself as a player isn't going to affect his results, and he will only improve as a player once he changes this opinion.

I quite often meet players in live games who have super-high opinions of themselves, yet I rarely see them win.

Ok, you've got the kernel of an actual discussion here!

1. What do you mean by "fair evaluation"? What evaluation did you do? What elements did you look at?

2. Mental notes: we've spoken quite a bit about confirmation bias here, and the inability of the human brain for the most part to accurately assess randomness. If you didn't take any steps to control for these, how can you know if you were correct?

Now, there's nothing wrong with starting an investigation in this manner, but you then need to go onto the next step. You have your hypothesis, now test it. And even though you're not playing anymore you still can test it. Get your entire HH collection, and do a more vigorous review.

I really think you have it in you to do this!


(since you call everything a lie anyway, I decided to throw in one lie into this post - can you pick it out?)

pretty much spot on. this thread is filled with Confirmation Bias and Dunning-Kruger. they've also pretty much admitted that no amount of evidence could ever convince them otherwise, so this thread is a huge exercise in futility.

you pretty much have a better chance of deconverting your average creationist than you do the average rigtard.

Yes, but what we're saying is that a bad player who overvalues his skills will find some excuse or someone else to blame for his losing.

Whereas a bad player who understands that he has faults will devote his energy to ironing out the faults in his game.


(Similarly, mutatis mutandis, for bad female players.)

Whilst we 'shills' will change our opinion on the riggedness of any sight the instant we see credible evidence to support a rigged deal.

That was easy. The lie is in bold. HH's mean nothing. This has been gone over before. As far as confirmation bias, I noted what happened to me and to others equally. Didnt come in to the game originally thinking something might be wrong. Took into account EQUALLY my losing patterns AND winning patterns/hands. Of course, when I found out that what happened to me was happening to everyone else, (except shills/affiliates of course), it all came together.

QUOTE=Wiki;30052335]Whilst we 'shills' will change our opinion on the riggedness of any sight the instant we see credible evidence to support a rigged deal.[/QUOTE]

I know this isnt your lie, but the one above is a beaut.
Since this goof never plays, he'd never see anything. But since hes a site promoter, he already knows its rigged.

I am glad to hear. Nothing is worse than seeing normal players debating for the companies against the players.

You should be critical towards the companies instead of being critical towards those who are critical towards the companies. Its embarrasing to see how many can get this wrong in online poker community.

So you think the deal is fair, so what? Why would you want to tell that to those who dont? Why would you want to increase the pressure on the tiny bit of criticism towards the RNG that exist? You can only make things worse for yourself and other players.

The funny thing is that none of these rigtards has ever provided any evidence.

By the way, I feel so left out because blatantlynerd doesn't quote any of my posts

How about being critical to both using common sense as a guide. These sites get letters from people who claim the sites put voices in their heads and that's why they play badly. Should their claims not be looked at in a critical manner?

Lets choose a more gentle example, one customer claims big stacks win too much. Another customer claims small stacks win too much. SHould both their claims be accepted at face value or should they be looked at in a critical manner?

What do you think?

You can be as critical as you like, but if you want to be more than a guy on a box on a street or someone with an angry youtube video you have to do more than just talk, you need to back up your issues with research and proof.


If you want to see how non riggies post about companies in a critical manner, look up my posts regarding the rake structure of DoNs, the bot issue on ipoker, how Stars has handled some of their promos (including the insane every Brit gets Supernova promo) etc.


I see riggies at the table every day whining about results in hands they played quite badly by them. I always agree with them about their complaints at that time because I am quite happy if they never learn to play better.

I don't care what you or other riggies in this thread do with that information in the freeroll and buck tournaments you play, so the entertainment value offsets the "teaching donks" -EV aspect of your point.

All the best.

I agree that no one has presented any evidence that any site rigs the deal of its cards. However, the opposite is equally true. No one has ever presented any evidence that all the sites have a fair and random deal of their cards. I'm sorry, but all the all-in studies are not evidence of anything other than all-in hands are not rigged. These studies say nothing about other hands. Even Spadebidder's partial study was not site specific.

So shouldn't all the posters in this forum demand that all poker sites present audits of their hand histories performed by reputable third party auditors that show that all hands are dealt by a fair and random RNG?

Email all the sites demanding what you want, post their replies here, and realize that even if they did (or have done) every single thing you ask that would not change the mind of any riggie.

Even your mind would not likely be changed.

Are you one of those guys who actually believes when the US finally regulates the industry that the riggie beliefs will be satisfied? The US government being involved will create a whole new crop of riggies in fact and most of the old ones will still not think its legit.

Nice idea, but really a waste of time. That type of audit is not going to be performed as the deal is not fair and random. Pretty simple.

I've noticed that after Thanksgiving, hellojello and blatantlyrigged became extra spicy ******s.

Turkey and stuffing must just obliterate brain cells.

I disagree.

The fact that there are, seemingly, hundreds of people who rabidly believe that OLP is rigged and there are hundreds of millions of hand histories available and yet not one of the 'OLP is rigged' brigade have ever managed to show that it is is, in itself, pretty solid evidence that it almost certainly isn't.

Rather in the same way that no one has ever provided evidence that lead cannot float in water and yet we know id doesn't because with all the lead around and all the water around we know that if it did someone would have provided evidence that it did.

Quck question .....Why or who is it that determined that it takes a million hands or this huge sample of hands to prove its rigged or not rigged? I guess what if I said it only takes 25k hands to determine its a large enough hand sample? I guess my point is after a gazillion hands wouldnt things even out & it would be harder to show any hand rigging at larger hand samples?

Pokerstars is rigged. For some. It's selectively rigged. **** running 20BI's under EV in 200 heads up sng tourneys. **** THAT. That will NEVER, EVER happen in real life.

Oh, and I will do EVERYTHING in my power to keep online poker illegal.

I imagine it has something to do with there being ~13 trillion possible deck permutations.

Flipping a coin only has two possible outcomes and you need a sample of 2,500 flips to be 68% sure, and 10,000 flips to be 95% sure the coin is fair. What's the basis of the number? I'm not arguing that 25,000 is wrong (although i believe it is), I'm just pointing out that you've given no reason for it to be right.

Based on what I posted above, 25,000 hands would probably be fine if there were only 20 possible decks and you only wanted to be around 68% sure your hands were fair.

If anything, a million hands is too few. Ignoring things evening out, the suggested rigs in this thread were spotted by people just playing a casual number of hands (I can't recall any of the riggies playing more than a few thousand hands a week, feel free to make corrections if I'm wrong). They would stick out like a sore thumb in a graph.

This forum is either frequented by idiot savants, or idiots just.

YA RIGHT? you mean and not only the 1 million hands which is NOTHING. That might actually be honest. This is online poker. Online poker and honest do not go together. Bank fraud and online poker. Now that is a match

HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE? lmfao. 99.9% of any casual player believes online poker is rigged. 99.9% of regulars believe it is. The fact that only 65% of the poll believe it is random in this thread with all the promoters, shills ect should tell you what the view is right there.

not even, 60% Enough said. With al;l you shills and promotoers and affiliates should be 90% minimum