I think we need to accept that the critical thinking skills of the riggies and 'tards is insufficient to recognise the incompatibility between two of their core beliefs:

1) That the deal can be rigged to the extent that it has a noticeable effect on either the experiences or players or the total rake paid.

2) That the deal can be rigged in such a way that there is no evidence for the rig.


To most people it would be self evident that in order to notice something (e.g. it's blindingly obvious that the deal is rigged) then whatever you noticed in order to come to that conclusion is evidence.

On the other hand, being able to see that instantly qualifies you as a site promoter.

Sorry, Wiki, but your thinking is wrong. It would be impossible to not leave any evidence, but quite possible not to leave the smoking gun evidence that you, Monteroy and other "shills" demand before you will entertain the idea of a rigged poker site.

As I have previously posted, I have posted stats that might be evidence, but are not smoking gun. This type of evidence is likely all you will ever have and cannot necessarily be distinguished from variance or better player skill.

Only a real audit of hand histories with all the hole cards could reveal rigging or prove no rigging.

So if your evidence is well within what you would expect from variance, then why believe that it's rigged? If the rigging doesn't exceed what could be expected from variance, how effective could it ever be in affecting player behaviour enough to affect the company's profits?

For a lawyer you certainly have a very odd idea of evidence.

Or is it just a non statistician's inability to realise just how 'concrete' some of the terms (e.g. variance, sample) are, when used by professional statisticians?

What you want to call 'smoking gun' evidence is, I presume, evidence so compelling that anyone with the most basic numeracy can understand it.

But, as you should know, that is not the criterion for evidence in a court of law. If it was DNA evidence would never play a part in trials.

No, when a disinterested statistician tells a court that a certain sample shows evidence of a certain activity or correlation or, more importantly, that if a certain activity or correlation actually existed it would necessarily show evidence in the sample, then what s/he says will be given appropriate weight.

If that were not the case there would be a whole raft of type of case that would could not tried.

this ^ infinity.

Thats right. Swap random cards randomly and they will be random.

Thats right. And to a lesser degree, every other player dealt into the rigged hands.

Aside from the fact that you haven't really explained how the stats you provided relate to the rigging, even if you could explain how there could be a correlation, you then admit it is within variance.

You dont trust them. Thats fine. End of discussion. But you have no stats and you have seen no evidence.

This is obviously wrong.

We need to accept that the arrogance of this poster, and his ^ infinity minion, is insufficient to accept that:

1. That the deal has a noticable effect on the experiences of players, hence all the bitching and complaining.

2. That there has been no studies done on the total rake paid for a shill to make a claim that there is no effect.

3. That the abnormal deal could be hidden to the average player by the variance of the game and that is not the same as stating there is no evidence of a rig.


To most people it would be self evident that in order to prove a rig given the incomplete information, variance of the game and voluminous data to sift through one might need to know exactly what he is looking for to locate the needle in the haystack. To the internet tough guy picked on by everyone his entire life, he likes to believe that he is making the world a better place with his holier-than-thou proclamations about the internet poker and criticisms of his ameoba-like competitors.

You wanna explain how the rig is noticeable enough to be seen by just observing play, but not noticeable enough to be more than variance?

How do you reconcile the two? Doesn't it mean by definition that players are witnessing exactly what they were witnessing if it were purely random? Otherwise, what does it mean to say that its hidden in the variance?

It's fine to be suspicious, no one will argue much with you about that, some of these site owners are real douchebags. But you've basically just set out that while there is plenty of reason to be suspecious, there is no evidence currently that indicates that its rigged.

if your only argument is that more investigation is needed to demonstrate the rig, I'll agree with you there. If your argument above is supposed to argue that it is rigged, then you've got a plethora of logical fallacies there.

Also: most people don't have a deep knowledge of statistics, so what the common person with no stats background thinks about this is not relevant. It's like me opining about quantum mechanics: no one should listen to a word I have to say about it, unless I'm pointing them to sources that do understand it!

Ignoring the ad hominem stuff.

Beautiful example of circular logic, there.

Let's try another piece of circular logic:

Rigtard players are useless at poker and this has a noticeable effect on the experiences of such players, hence all the bitching and complaining.

It's not the rake that's important. It's the effect on players results.

Evidence of this, please.

This is quite correct.

However, that is not the logic upon which we base our assertions that there is probably no rigging of the deal.

That assertion is based on a combination of four things:

1) There are millions of HH's available.

2) Millions of HH's are sufficient to detect any significant rigging.

3) There are many people with the knowledge and motive to check HH's.

4) No one of those people has yet done so and produced any evidence of rigging.


This may be true for most people.

It is not, however, true for those with a sufficient grasp of probability maths and stats to perform the checks required.

And none of those people have found any evidence of significant rigging.

No, he doesn't.

It's a rather inconsistent belief system you subscribe to- can't keep it straight from one post ot the next.

Show me a study of the rake of online poker sites, I am awaiting the evidence for your critical thinking in #1.



No, its just evidence that you deem unreliable and invalidate.



I don't know if you are including yourself in most people but I have never seen any published work from you as spade or LA have done. Perhaps you can provide a link to it.

Spade and LA only tested one theory.


And you can't simply ignore the good digs... You and Canadiannoballs have a a similiarly constructed, though opposite, belief system of BR. You are just on the side of non-rigging but your evidence and logical explanations are almost as valued as its "obvious" and "so obvious" and "just observe it" explanations of the king riggie.

Sure, somewhere in here is a rig:

salj;kfalhsfajsf.s,a/jvczx")ho/jbneqwqiuwoopwquporuwoqpuwurowquhasoiuhq[hwojbfbanmbs,mfbajsfpasgfasugfasbmnfbf.mnvas.faskf guigqwhmnq.wvnnsfaskjfsauggufaus[ufausffjkaskljlkjkljklsjlkklajlkjskljklfjakljskjkl jkljklfjkljna,msn,mnm,u[[uasugufausgsjfkhaskjjhjakskfjhakjskjhkashhfjasjghj hsakhgkajsjkjkjkjkkjkjaskjgjksjkkjjkjkkajksgjkkjhg kjahkjhkjhgkkjhshjgmnsa,mfnasfn,c;zx;;aqwwqiqowbab sajbbkj*&*(%%$$%^$asfasjklf;lkjasjf;ljaksljfkljkla sj;klgnmxvz'ijiopehhjeqnbm,qmw,nmwk'fg'kwk'fkl'wqk jkjfkjlwkl'fk'lwqkf'lknznxm,x,x,.vmxzm,vm,m,zm,xnn vipqwpiqpipwqpiwf9933880q2hahsklkkhlfiasiipsgpaoup ousahgkjsagklklaslkglklklgkjsklsaklklgklsafkljlksa powqjqwkklEDGFHHJKJKLLGFGHFDFJHGKJKHHKJKHKHJHJHJKH GKGHJGJHGHHJGJHGHJGJJYIIFDHDfggjhgkhoyoywq{WHN:Kwq nl/'lfhqihwsfhwqiphfgehkqb.gbeqbeljgheq'lhgkfalhsfajs f.s,a/jvczx")ho/jbneqwqiuwoopwquporuwoqpuwurowquhasoiuhq[hwojbfbanmbs,mfbajsfpasgfasugfasbmnfbf.mnvas.faskf guigqwhmnq.wvnnsfaskjfsauggufaus[ufausffjkaskljlkjkljklsjlkklajlkjskljklfjakljskjkl jkljklfjkljna,msn,mnm,u[[uasugufausgsjfkhaskjjhjakskfjhakjskjhkashhfjasjghj hsakhgkajsjkjkjkjkkjkjaskjgjksjkkjjkjkkajksgjkkjhg kjahkjhkjhgkkjhshjgmnsa,mfnasfn,c;zx;;aqwwqiqowbab sajbbkj*&*(%%$$%^$asfasjklf;lkjasjf;ljaksljfkljkla sj;klgnmxvz'ijiopehhjeqnbm,qmw,nmwk'fg'kwk'fkl'wqk jkjfkjlwkl'fk'lwqkf'lknznxm,x,x,.vmxzm,vm,m,zm,'lf hqihwsfhwqiphfgehkqb.gbeqbeljgheq'lhgkfalhsfajsf.s ,a/jvczx")ho/jbneqwqiuwoopwquporuwoqpuwurowquhasoiuhq[hwojbfbanmbs,mfbajsfpasgfasugfasbmnfbf.mnvas.faskf guigqwhmnq.wvnnsfaskjfsauggufaus[ufausffjkaskljlkjkljklsjlkklajlkjskljklfjakljskjkl jkljklfjkljna,msn,mnm,u[[uasugufausgsjfkhaskjjhjakskfjhakjskjhkashhfjasjghj hsakhgkajsjkjkjkjkkjkjaskjgjksjkkjjkjkkajksgjkkjhg kjahkjhkjhgkkjhshjgmnsa,mfnasfn,c;zx;;aqwwqiqowbab sajbbkj*&*(%%$$%")ho/jbneqwqiuwoopwquporuwoqpuwurowquhasoiuhq[hwojbfbanmbs,mfbajsfpasgfasugfasbmnfbf.mnvas.faskf guigqwhmnq.wvnnsfaskjfsauggufaus[ufausffjkaskljlkjkljklsjlkklajlkjskljklfjakljskjkl jkljklfjkljna,msn,mnm,u[[uasugufausgsjfkhaskjjhjakskfjhakjskjhkashhfjasjghj hsakhgkajsjkjkjkjkkjkjaskjgjksjkkjjkjkkajksgjkkjhg kjahkjhkjhgkkjhshjgmnsa,mfnasfn,c;zx;;aqwwqiqowbab sajbbkj*&*(%%$$%ufausffjkaskljlkjkljklsjlkklajlkjs kljklfjakljskjkljkljklfjkljna,msn,mnm,u[[uasugufausgsjfkhaskjjhjakskfjhakjskjhkashhfjasjghj hsakhgkajsjkjkjkjkkjkjaskjgjksjkkjjkjkkajksgjkkjhg kjahkjhkjhgkkjhshjgmnsa,mfnasfn,c;zx;;aqwwqiqowbab sajbbkj*&*(%%$$%^$asfasjklf;lkjasjf;ljaksljfkljkla sj;klgnmxvz'ijiopehhjeqnbm,qmw,nmwk'fg'kwk'fkl'wqk jkjfkjlwkl'fk'lwqkf'lknznxm,x,x,.vmxzm,vm,m,zm,'lf hqihwsfhwqiphfgehkqb.gbeqbeljgheq'lhgkfalhsfajsf.s ,a/jvczx")ho/jbneqwqiuwoopwquporuwoqpuwurowquhasoiuhq[hwojbfbanmbs,mfbajsfpasgfasugfasbmnfbf.mnvas.faskf guigqwhmnq.wvnnsfaskjfsauggufaus[ufausffjkaskljlkjkljklsjlkklajlkjskljklfjakljskjkl jkljklfjkljna,msn,mnm,u[[uasugufausgsjfkhaskjjhjakskfjhakjskjhkashhfjasjghj hsakhgkajsjkjkjkjkkjkjaskjgjksjkkjjkjkkajksgjkkjhg kjahkjhkjhgkkjhshjgmnsa

Tell me what it is when you find it.

Let's accept for the sake of argument that you told me you put together an actual string of random characters. Let's accept that I suspect you modified the random string and put a rig in there because you're a terrible person. Let's also assume I can't detect your rig.


Am I justified in believing your string of characters is rigged?

So you can't find it, so much for the critical thinkers. Maybe Wiki, with his superhero stat-powers can find it.

The rig in that post is so obvious you'd have to be an ignorant shill not to see it.

Why not ask other riggies. They are the ones that can see patterns that cannot be seen by other humans or computers.

Your rig is accurate from a riggie perspective in that it makes you no extra money, so you are on the right path.

Also, I don't think you did rig it. If you really want to show the shills you mean business tell them how you rigged this thing.

Keep up the good work.

All the best.

4 top ranking shill and not one of them sees it. Better get Spade in here.

That's because it is not rigged. Nice try.

It's somewhat telling that he thinks banging on the keyboard until he has a block of text is the same thing as having hand histories.

I didn't look at it before. Looking at it now for a half second, there are some capital letters in there that are probably his rig.

Whether I can spot the rig is besides the point. The point is how you treat the data when you CAN'T spot the rig!

FYP

Please ask the guy in seat 3 to post his entire hand history. If he's never had pocket aces after being dealt millions of hands, it's most likely the game is rigged.
Fact is, none of the people claiming that OLP is rigged have provided a full hand history for audit. They just had a few bad beats and think that's enough.
External websites have looked through millions of hands. They've found no evidence of rigging.

It would depend on what is expected in this "game". If normal expectation in this game is for a random lower case letter or character to appear, then the string of several CAPITAL letters in a row (EDGFHHJKJKLLGFGHFDFJHGKJKHHKJKHKHJHJHJKHGKGHJGJHG HHJGJHGHJGJJYIIFDHD) would be obviously unexpected, and most likely exist because of rigging.

Made up hand histories from you and tptk have the same value. You are both liars.