Its hard to take this **** seriously. lol

Flop AJx

AA vs JJ

money in.

Turn J. omg teh surprise.


That's still not as bad as watching the dude with quad J's lose to quad Q's with a turn river queens. lol

It is very simple system to avoid burnout - never take the chat seriously, and only participate when you have a bit of spare time.

Hence the commandments and all of the Lizard people references and my use of "aren't you a nice doggie, here have a treat" style of chatting (which is why they get much angrier at me even though I rarely directly insult them). Call me a shill? Cool, here have a riggedologist scooby snack!

You tried to attack them and their logic directly (and thus treat them as people who can reason), when they are so entrenched in their paranoid ways that nothing will break them out of it. Ever. Instead, treat them like a hyper doggie that yaps a lot, it really is much more fun.

You expect to make someone think rationally when they say two different hands are the same? When they say certain hands are "impossible" to take place in a random system? When they use googled tech speak to say nothing that makes any sense in the real world? When all of their data is a few cherry picked whiny bad beats from memory? When they magically see patterns and yet still cannot win?

I posted 2 stud hands that were way crazier then nearly any of the stuff the riggedologists have posted. I lost runner runner quads on the last streets to runner runner runner straight flush. Two hands later it was a AKT95 flush losing to a AKT97 flush. The 5th kicker is what did it!

I imagine few riggedologists play stud so maybe that was a factor, but that had to be way crazier then any of the whiny "wah wah my KK lost 4 times" type whines they are doing, and if I posted the hands under a fake account I am sure they would have embraced them as proof of something much like they are doing with the two "identical yet different" Omaha hands.

Of course mine took place in a value added Stars freeroll that cost a whopping 1 FPP, so this would require that Stars gives overlays to a fun tournament and then creates action hands in this freeroll to knock people out early and screw them out of their 1 FPP. Maybe I lost to a couple house bots run by the Russia/Israel mafia and Maddov.

You try to make someone who would think in that way respond in a rational manner? Good luck on the endless battle.

Snap out of it. They will never change, so do not make that a goal when speaking to them. Use them for entertainment value once in a while, and realize that they represent a tiny minority that in the end does not matter at all to the industry. They are not even using their paranoid energy toward anything productive (like targeting bots based on stats/collution/fraud methods etc).

That being said, I still want to finish the commandment list, and I hope the next batch of riggedologists is a bit less "out there" with their beliefs. We need some more old school "flush draws hit too much" low IQ guys in place of these "theory of relative gobbleygook" guys.

All the best.

While I wouldn't keep a large sum of money at any poker site, I wouldn't necessarily hold casino poker rooms up as some unimpeachable standard of integrity. Particularly at high levels, I would think that a financially vulnerable dealer could be compromised, to say nothing of collusion and "team play." This possibility has been whitewashed to some extent by the canard that strong players "naturally" and "inevitably" focus on weak players. No doubt many do, but where there's an opportunity for a hustle, there is usually a smart hustler or two (or more) out there to take advantage of it. Nature abhors a vacuum.

If a team of players beats a blackjack game, the casino loses immediately, so the casino has a vested interest in preventing card counting. A casino would have much less interest in preventing cheating at poker as long as it gets its rake. Cheating would only become a problem if the casino faced the prospect of empty tables, and that would happen only if the problem were revealed and could not be explained away or otherwise isolated.

There is so much "pokertainment" available that I think people have an illusion that what you see on television or read online or in books is one hundred percent trustworthy. For example, there are a few television programs that broadcast high stakes poker games. Not only are these programs heavily edited, but they may not represent the financial reality behind what happens on screen. We have no way of knowing whether or not deals were made between players, some of them or all of them, prior to the games being played. Wouldn't mean that the games are rigged, but that the relative values of the risks taken would not be what appears on the screen. I'm not saying that there is anything necessarily wrong with making deals, just that for most of us who go into a casino with $150 and play low limits, that $150 is definitely increased or decreased with each play by exactly the amount wagered on the table.

I enjoy poker tremendously, but I also have a fair amount of skepticism about the prevailing image of modern day outlaws (who nevertheless always play fair) battling one another in the great all-American arena of pokerdom. One of my favorite nonfiction books is Jim McManus's "Positively Fifth Street." Still, I can't help but think that that book would have been improved had McManus liked poker a little less. There's a heroic side to great poker playing, but surely there's a less than heroic side as well. We've been conditioned by the pokertainment industry to believe that the age of card sharps and cheaters is a thing of the past, and so we treat each revelation of dishonest play and cheating as some kind of aberration.

Erm, when I said I'd burned out (or agreed that I had), what I actually meant was that I was a bit bored with the saga for the time being and very busy with other things.

When things slacken off and the ennui abates I shall return for some more fun.

I think you are talking about a software that creates random cards but chooses to whom they would give the cards, is that right?


It that is your proposition you cannot forget that the software has to send cards in an expected frequency to each player, or that would be detectable.

A system like thahis s been proposed before and it has been said that it would be too expensive. I have never seen numbers thoug.

I hope all you people who keep talking about 'a software' appeciate how dumb you look.

'software' is an uncountable noun.

You have a choice:

'a program'
'software'
'a piece of software'

Or, if you want to look stoopid:

'a software'

It's really up to you.

Talking about nunmbers, it would be very important to the Rigtards and for the Believers to have access to some. you please post here and send some reference togehter, like a link.

1. How much a online poker room profits monthly, or yearly.

2 . How expensive it would be to make and run a softaware that choses the players to receive determined hands at some point, without changing the randomness.

3. How big a database must be so we have a confidence interval in the all in situations of less than 0,1%. For example: How many AA vs KQ all PF we need to put the confidence interval in the 0,1%? (I mean: the bigger the database more close to the statistically expected EV will be the results you find, if you have a big enough database a little difference from the Expected EV like 0,1% would be a very strong sign of NOT RANDOM.



Numbers

Agreed. They are not losing fast enough.

They cant. If they lose at a normal rate in 2 months PS peak time will go from 150K people to 75K. That would be tragedy. Im not talking just abou PS, I think every sane poker roommust have their ways to slow down te flow of money. For a smaller poker room they would just disappear.

It is kind of endearing when riggedologists talk all sciency, it sounds more official. Nonetheless, after you make your formal proposal on your issues, do not forget to include some other variables that most riggedologists leave out (since you are a science mathy guy and all). Oh and do not worry, no one ever expects you to do any of the work you propose as that would violate one of the commandments



They make quite a bit. Some are public companies so you can dig through their annual reports if you like (yeah as if that will happen...).

The factor to remember is this, if the companies make a lot what is the general reaction of people. Well...

Riggedologists - they make a lot so that proves they must steal a lot

Normal people - They make a lot every year so they would not risk that income stream by being petty criminals


Ah yes the "make it so" magic software. Just say what you want it to do and it does it.

Don't forget this factor when you talk all techy

Riggedologists - Risk of getting caught or people in on it speaking? Ignore that.

Normal humans - Why would any company take such a risk for minimal if any gain, and by now given the hundreds of rooms that exist someone would have squealed if it was happening.




Heh. For this all I can suggest is that you make these proposals in the probability forum where lots of math geeks hang out that don't really have any rigged beliefs one way or the other. They do know math and statistics in a freaky way.

You may find they take your theories a bit less seriously then you may expect (as I know they all make sense in your mind). Give it a shot, see what they say!


The one shame about this is that people (Josem for instance) who have done genuine good things to make the games better by using proper research and data analysis to catch real "bad guys" have to muck through these riggedologist threads and read all this kooky stuff that actually hinders the process.

Played any Online Poker recently qpw? If so how d you get on?

Yes.

Very well, thank you.

oh alright, well actually I've never even heard anyone ever think of that when they're posting so I was just wondering .

if poker sites can have bad interfaces, bad support, bad cash out times, etc, they can certainly be capable of having a bad algorithm!

http://www.partygaming.com/prty/en/i...nce/fp_summary

I remember seeing a .pdf posted on 2+2 a few months ago that was very in-depth, but not sure where it was. But I'm sure there's lots of info on that site.

Thanks for pointing that out, being a not native English speaker and learning this language at adult age I’ve never knew that rule about the uncountable noun. I did not even know uncountable noun exists :-))) I have been frequently apologies for my poor English here being aware that it must be painful for the native speakers to read such a crap grammar and writing like mine.

Having said that, it says a lot about you idiot arrogant shill that you gave to this thread nothing else but lecturing about English and your usual idiotic personal rants.

It seems you are lack of arguments (as usual), you are frustrated (as usual) and simply lying and/or misinterpreting what was said here.

What was said is that a software system that uses the Intel hardware RNG as the source of the entropy would never produce such “random“ data that was submitted here in the form of two hands, as given the time of the two dataset and the complexity of the dataset it is technically not possible to receive such output from the Intel hardware RNG that results in the submitted hands.

Irony.

If he were a shill wouldn't he not waste his time giving you English lessons and idiotic personal rants?

Software engineers like myself at work uses a program to play poker at lunch time that we put together as a hobby project during the Friday afternoon education time, it just a simple piece of software, it does not even use hardware RNG device just the default cryptography provider, but it produces over 99.985% random accuracy over 2,000,000 hands. The Intel hardware RNG results even more accurate.

So not surprisingly, the Cigital report revealed an accurate output by auditing PS’s RNG module that uses the Intel RNG. The problem is that Cigital has not audited the whole system to verify whether the randomly generated data at the card distribution layer is interrupted by a manipulated software module, and therefore the Cigital auditing a completely meaningless excersise in the context of a complex software system.

I have no idea how a shill prioritise, but well done mate, you have successfully picked up the most insignificant element from the conversation and you've got nothing to say about your co-shill continues personal rants and idiotic comments that he/she/she-he put into this thread.

You can tell that a system for generating random outcomes is being manipulated by seeing 2 of those outcomes?

Really?

Using the multimillion hands sample to identify whether the poker site is rigged is a logical fallacy. I will try to prove why it is a logical fallacy.

Your formal logic statement is the following: the hands that distributed by PS are perfectly fit into the multibillion hands sample, the randomness figures of the sample is not modified by PS distributed hands, therefore PS poker site is not rigged.

Using an analogy, let say there is a group that includes 1,000 humans that defends rigged poker sites on the 2+2 forum, and the task is to identify whether the group includes only naive, voluntary site defender crusaders and verify that there are no paid shills in the group (just like there is a task to identify whether the hands are the product of a legitimate, random business process and not a manipulated software system).
If your only methods are
a) examining the main characteristics of the member of the group such as number of penis/vagina, brain, livers, lung etc, of the human and
b) examining their writings in order to identify whether the human fit into the not shill group, then your method will not indicate how many paid shill in the group as you guys having the same main characteristics, all of you except the unluckiest have one penis, liver, lung, etc. and you are writing the same arguments here regardless whether you are a naïve defender or a paid shill (just like the not randomly distributed hand has the same characteristics from the viewpoint of statistic as the randomly distributed hand).
The point is, the paid shill perfectly fits into the group of the naive, voluntary defenders (just like the not randomly distributed hand perfectly fits into the randomly distributed hand hands sample), and therefore your examination method would be inadequate to identify illegitimate elements of the group. The only sufficient method is examining the characteristics, their writing AND the surrounding system of the humans such as where they work, from where they write, how they get paid in order to identify not legitimate members (shills).

Similarly, in the context of online poker you need a more adequate method to identify rigged systems and avoid such logical fallacy and you need to examine the whole system and not only the multibillion hands sample in order to conclude whether the system is rigged. That sufficient method would be to examine the site as a complex system by recognizing the card distribution as similarly important module of the system as the multibillion hand sample and examining the card distribution. Yes, examining the multibillion hand sample is crucial and definitely a must, but without examining the card distribution and software system components it is not possible to make conclusion about the integrity of the system.

That’s why it is so important having audited, regulated, component level verified software in place, which important factor you guys fail to realize by being hypnotized by the multibillion hand sample.

PS: it has been established during the previous discussions that the distributing winning hands to designated account wold not modify the result of EV statistic, so please do not start with that usual crap that any modifications would show up in the sample. It has been not suggested that PS would distribute more AA by modifying the random data. What was suggested is that PS distrbute the randomly genrated data to designated accounts.

Really.

The reason of that is that the software application that uses Intel hardware RNG would not produce such result. Any sane software professional can clarify that for you. Alternatively please call to Intel, and they will clarify that technically not possible to get two similar consecutive such complex dataset from their hardware RNG. The complexity of the dataset we are talking about is equivalent with about a 1024 digits integer. Intel hardware RNG will not produce two similar consecutive 1024 digits integer during a let say 1000 years examination period. Similarly, it would not produce the two consecutive similar dataset for PS poker site.

Miraculously, PokerStar still produces such amazing random results daily bases.

It is f….n rigged, a simple software fraud the whole thing.

Ah, the "entropy effect"


I am curious why your entropy effect could not have those 2 hands happen. While they had some similarities they also had a ton of differences (suit differences/completely different board cards etc) that you seem to ignore. Do you actually think the hands are identical?

Why is it not possible? What is it specifically about those two hands that make it not possible? Their EV was not even the same, as it was

58/42 for the villain hand 1 and 63/37 for the villain in hand 2

The only thing that is really in common is the riggedologist played both hands really badly. Then blamed mystical forces for his losses. Then he quit poker (his only smart move in that batch).

If both hands had the exact same cards in the same order and the board that was dealt was the exact same then I suspect many would wonder what just happened because that would be an insanely unlikely event. These two hands? Frankly not that exciting as they are very different (even in the odds against each other to win). It's like having a green and purple sweater and someone yelling that they are the exact same because they are both sweaters. Weird.

Also, could you remind us if you were the Russia mafia guy or the 80% of tourney players are house bots guy? Getting a bit hard to keep track of this new crop of really "creative" riggedologists.

I see you have posted a new long manifesto about penises, but assuming you are not one of the new riggedologists above, we can use "entropy guy" for you as that is a kinder nickname then if we used your most recent ramble to produce one.

And you should definitely post your beliefs in the probability area, those guys can offer you some unbiased feedback on your entropy theories I am sure. You certainly are not afraid to be analyzed by your peers in math are you?

All the best.

So now you're saying that the hardware RNG isn't even used?

I just don't see why they'd rig it, they make money as long as people are playing. The only way it'd be rigged for their benefit is if they would for some reason track the "addicts" who will deposit no matter how much they lose in order to keep steady tables of winners and addicts, so the "hit n' run" $50 deposit play for fun and leave crowd would be less of a factor/ Yet, all that seems inconsequential due to the abundance of players they have anyway

As you know I have never said that.

All I've been saying is that if the software would exclusively rely on the Intel hardware RNG and the card distribution would not interrupted with some kind of card distribution algorithms, if the submitted cards would be purely based on the Intel hardware RNG of then such output would technically not possible. It's a technical fact, the existence of such deals indicates that the software is manipulated at some layer.