fish are fish, shouldn't matter what site they are at. Like any other decent table selection, you only sit at a table with at least one big fish in the game, preferably with position on them, and I can assure you, it is standard for big fish to call down OOP with TPWK, sometimes even worse.

Some sites (most notably FTP- will someone in this thread post a FTP HH showing this scenario, can they???????????), this scenario almost never occurs because of the rigged deal. Why? Because it is where you makes your most money in poker- when fish call down light. That's why you table select. That's why table selection at a seemingly random site like 888 shows very tidy profits.

All you can say is that you wouldn't put it past them and you think they have the character to do that. But that's not evidence that they actually did it.

I agree that it's reason to be on guard and to scrutinize what they are doing and maybe look for other ways that they may have cheated, but its not evidence of any particular form of cheating.

For example, if someone is caught multi-accounting you can't say that that's evidence that they also colluded. Though it may make you think they are the type of person who would collude - though that doesn't take you very far.

I just meant that doing one crime is not evidence that they committed another crime. It's just evidence of the one crime.

Ok: so what would this footprint look like and how would we spot it?

I have a question for all of you who believe that the sites are not rigged.

Since all sites claim that their deals are fair and random and controlled by a RNG that assures a fair and random deal, isn't it up to the sites to prove their claims by real evidence like third party audits of their hand histories?

Sure many, maybe most, riggies won't accept such audits, but any scientist or court would. So why haven't any site presented such proof?

No, you are worse than a shill, you a shill groupie...actually more like a shill pledge. Someday, they will annoint you to be a shill after you go through hell week and screw a farm animal.

Your thought process is twice as developed as BR's but that still leaves you in the bottom 25% of the thread. You approach the issues all-knowingly when you have a peon opinion.

Frankly, I am no more interested in your opinion or thoughts on whether poker is rigged than I am about whether there is a God, the meaning of life or how life was created. I just find your smugness when opining on these issues in the threads completely annoying in light of your elementary presentation.

And no, I have no interest in having carnal knowledge of a canuck. Thanks for the offer though.

Human nature, being what it is, is a series or repetitious behaviors.

The unemployed, 7x convicted drug dealer gets picked up for possessing a couple of hundred grams of pot in 10 different baggies.... do you think he was dealing drugs the 8th time, or do we just ignore that evidence?

The employed 7x convicted speeder gets caught doing 105 in a brand new
Porshe.....do yo think he was speeding the 8th time?

I will beat you to the punch and opine that I don't believe either of these people chopped up prostitutes and hide them in their freezers based upon their criminal history.

First, I would look at % of players deposits that are raked. Then rake per hour, and then start to look for rigged and non-rigged reasons for changes in the rake at the tables.

Email the sites with your concerns and post their replies here.

As a bonus why don't you ask the riggies if whatever audit you have in mind would satisfy them, and then you can have fun handling how they will say no for various reasons (audit company in on it, site will change data for the audit etc).




In this thread you have riggies (nearly all of whom have never used a program like Holdem Manager), and the shills that did play heavily (including on Tilt) stopped posting here a while ago because they are American and no longer grind like they used to (or even play).

However if you post this request in the appropriate strategy forums or the forums at the Holdem Manager website you will likely get a ton of answers and examples that you seem to believe will not exist at Full Til.

If this data is that important to you why have you not asked in the specific places I suggest where you can get all the answers you need? Instead you keep asking here where few active posters even have Full Tilt cash hands to look at.

Again, it looks like you are avoiding asking your question where you can get answers because you do not actually want answers, similar to how you continue to pretend that you never fabricated hand histories.

Until you actually do some real research into you little theories (that seasonal Ongame nonsense still kicking around your head for instance), do not expect anyone to take you seriously here except blatantdude who will give anything you say full support, even if you bounce back and forth between opposite riggie theories.

At this point I have to assume you are afraid to post in the strategy forums for the same reason you will no longer post in the stats forum after they laughed you out.

All the best.

I signed up to True Poker early october.I deposited big, well for me big to take advantage of their 100% 1st time deposit bonus.At first nothing happend, no number is my money back located in player's details.I contacted live chat and they gave me a lump sum and told me everything was fixed.I noticed that the number in money back was slowy going up just laike it should but i felt that my actual account amount was not going up.I contacted live support again TWICE each time they told me to look in my player's detail and that I could see the amount under money back.I took their word for it.A couple of weeks go by and I'm at around $20 back and not one penny higher in my actual account.I have to wait 45 minutes on live chat arguing to some idiot trying to tell me everything was fine.Later on around the 40 minute mark they noticed that i was not lying and gave me another lump some.They told me evrything was fine now.Two weeks later my money back under player details is still at 0.00. So basically their software was lying, their idiot support was lying trying to tell me that my money was being refunded.If that's not fing rigged what is? I haven't recieved an email, phone call or NOTHING trying to smooth thing over or even asking how thing are.I've bitched on their support thread and even made my own thread getting one or two short responses telling me he would look into it and of course NO response.If this would have been stars they would have been blowing up my email and phone to make sure everything was good.No wonder why the traffic on True poker sux.I'm moving to Hero or Mint as soon as or if I ever collect my bonus.I wouldn't recommed this site to my worst enemy.Talk about Rigged!!!!

Often previous evidence of past crimes are excluded from trials for preicsely the reason that it prejudices a jury to convict based on past behaviour and not try and determine whether he did it this time.

Same thing. All you can say is that he is type of person who speeds. It's not evidence in favour of him speeding the 8th time. What you need is the police officer's evidence, such as a radar, for him speeding this time

Good then you should know that committing bank fraud in order to get around regulations to continue running one's business is not evidence of rigging the RNG while they are running the business.


But what are you going to use as your control? Given that there is no evidence of rigging on any site, you can't even do a comparison since you don't have a subject and control group. How can you isolate out increased rake due to rigging? Who do you compare to?

look: if you don't like my posts, i am not forcing you to read them. put me on ignore if you don't like it. its very simple.

this is a thread for debate. it says so in the title. it doesn't say "rigtard circlejerk thread". if you want to give people like blantantlyrigged e-reacharounds, be my guest. i am just here asking for facts, and all i get are insults.

if you guys have the facts on your side, why do you keep resorting to character attacks?

Except you are accusing the sites of a crime they have no history of committing and you have no reason to think that the crime has even occurred.

I knew you would retravel this road. If you want to give them the protection of the law afforded to criminals when accused by a crime by the government, that is fine by me. Hold the riggies to the highest standard required by law - proof beyond a reasonable doubt, if you want.

While you are correct in your example of evidence exclusion, the practice is to protect the criminal's rights against jury abuses and require the State (or Fed) to meet its burden of proof. Prior bad acts or criminal convictions are routinely introduced into evidence to show habit, custom or pattern and most felony convictions are admissable if the witnesses testify as they impact credibility. So we don't allow the prosecutor to argue they have been convicted 7x before so we know he did it the 8th time, but if his behavior shows a pattern or he testifies...its coming in. And in civil cases, many times res judicata and collateral estoppel concepts are used to make the re-proving of facts or liability unnecessary once those issues are established as a matter of law - the opposite of the exclusionary principle you feel these sites deserve.

Second, even if it is withheld from the jury, do you think the judge ignores it when it comes to sentencing and metering out punishment? If you think they do, you are wrong. All courts consider criminal history when punishing criminals.

Feel free to give them any benefit of the doubt you wish with your money but stop acting like I have to afford them these benefits with my money in order to be a critical thinker. I think the moronic behavior is to trust the pornographers and mail fraud convicted owners of these companies.....


You can parse it however you wish but bank fraud, bribing, fixing, stealing, non-segregation of fiduciary accounts from business accounts, rigging, superuser accounts are all forms of dishonesty involving either cheating or stealing for one's own benefit. Or do you think they are simply bad business decisions too?

That's not rigging lol. Probably a screw up from the site, its possible that they are stealing your money for some reason, and its also possible that you don't understand how first deposit bonuses work. But it isn't rigging.

OK, just to get this straight, it's not a matter of how many hands you play, it's how long you play for before the rigging starts?
Are you saying that the doomswitch gets pressed after 3 years? 4 years?

Can you show me a graph of someone playing that length of time, where it's "obvious" the switch got flicked?

As I think I've said before either in this thread, another, or in a pm to you, the players on Stars are better players than on 888. They are tighter and more aggressive. The majority of pots are heads up and don't even reach the river. I don't make more money on 888 than Stars because 888 is rigged in favour of me. I make more money on 888 because I'm better than the average 888 player, whereas I'm distinctly average in comparison to players on Stars.
My PLAYERS stats clearly show that an average player on 888 is both looser and more passive than the average player on Stars. You don't even need the stats to know this. It's common knowledge that Stars is a nitfest, with the toughest games on the planet.

[QUOTE=jjjou812;30097870]
While you are correct in your example of evidence exclusion, the practice is to protect the criminal's rights against jury abuses and require the State (or Fed) to meet its burden of proof. Prior bad acts or criminal convictions are routinely introduced into evidence to show habit, custom or pattern and most felony convictions are admissable if the witnesses testify as they impact credibility. So we don't allow the prosecutor to argue they have been convicted 7x before so we know he did it the 8th time, but if his behavior shows a pattern or he testifies...its coming in. And in civil cases, many times res judicata and collateral estoppel concepts are used to make the re-proving of facts or liability unnecessary once those issues are established as a matter of law - the opposite of the exclusionary principle you feel these sites deserve. [/quotre]

It's excluded because people are liable to draw unfair conclusions from it.

You're talking about punishment here. Pretty sure you're aware that's a different question.

But I didn't. I specifically said that the previous crimes may be a very good reason not to give the sites your money. Not trusting them is a perfectly fine reason not to give them your money. If you don't like pornographers and some of the owners are pornographers, that may be a very good reason not to give them your money.

But not giving them your money because you think its rigged despite there being no evidence of it is NOT a good reason not to give them your money.

Do you see the difference? there are plenty of good reasons not to trust some of these guys. Why make up things in addition?

They have. Pokerstars RNG was audited by Cigital. It conforms to the US govt standard FIPS 140-2 for implementations of cryptographic modules.
http://www.pokerstars.co.uk/help/sec...ber-generator/

Independent testers have also published their findings from collating millions of hand histories for several sites. http://www.ispokerrigged.com/

Of course, the rigtards don't trust any of the above. Anyone that admits to trusting the RNG and the audits is obviously being paid to say so. :/

No you are wrong, it is not a simple one sentence answer. It is not a rule without exceptions.

A prior bad act is excluded so that a jury doesn't disregard their oath and uses the prior bad act as the sole basis to convict for a charged crime. A prior bad act includes unconvicted behavior.

The prosecutor is never allowed to argue "he did it 7 times, convict him the 8th" in most states.

This is why many criminal defendants can't take the stand to defend themselves in a criminal case- all of their prior bad acts become admissable and once they open the door, it gets introduced into evidence.

It is always admissable to show habit, custom or to impeach credibility. Relevant evidence is admissable so long as it is not unfairly prejudicial.

In order of importance:

1. Many of these sites are run by unethical people.
2. Many of the site's owners have been / are currently accused of cheating and/or stealing money from the players.
3. I don't believe I wil ever be paid money I win playing internet poker by these cheats and thieves.
4. Its not possible/hard for U.S. players to get money on line at any reputable sites.
5. I believe they rig the game in their favor to increase their profits.
6. Gambling has historically been associated with criminal organizations.

If a Pope (a non-child molesting condoning one) ran an internet poker site and I still relied on #5 as the sole basis for my decision, your argument may have some validity.

But why include 5 at all if your only evidence of it are the other items? It's superfluous.

Not a different question, just proving that it is relevant in other stages of the same proceeding in a court of law. As a consumer, without the ability to drag a corporation into court for criminal conduct, my fact finding and punishment phases are combined into the simple act of deciding to patronize an online site or not.

Because its my list and I wish to do so.

I'll accept that as a concession on your part!

Confirmation bias at work, I guess.

And you wonder why I think you are a prick?

I had you on the ropes and you come out with a big left hook...

From an empirical, math-based view of the world, you may see it as a concession. From a student of human nature view of the world, my inclusion of it is completely logical and you continue to miss the boat.

But then again...I would like to see someone produce some empirical evidence too...or at least look in the right area to find it.

Ok Ill try it again...The +/- ratio is around 3% to prove its rigged or not? (Not talking rake spadebidder) I play 1 million hands & 30,000 could be rigged & will go unnoticed? Now if i was a programer I would rig 29,999 hands ...,.the games would end quicker the pots will increase...Guys has anybody ever thought that these hands may be prewritten & it is what is & there is no such thing as a RNG?