You're now saying the thread is rigged? LOL. Paranoid much?

mate, I was basically joking and leaning toward the idea that anything is possible. lol. I dont think it is but there is a pretty negative environment in here and anything 'could' be possible, even tho i dont thk it is.

You're missing evidence and an ability to think critically. The EV probability is certainly balanced, by the way. If one hand has a 40% chance of winning, and another has a 60% chance of winning, the total probability is 100%. It's 100% probable that at least one hand will win at showdown.

I meant closer to even and not all the time. So im basically saying that its not a full rig. Which it isnt. Elaborate opinion below next quote.

Riiiiight. So there isn't any rigging? Cool, I agree. And the 70% of players that lose money playing online poker are just impatient. Thanks for providing that information. Silly me thought that 70% of players lose because they just aren't as good as the 30% of players that win. :/

MOST IMPORTANT QUOTE!
Finally someone has actually replied to the actual point of me coming on here in the first place to give my opinion.
-I didnt explain opinion properly and should have elaborated. Fully rigged deal=no. Possibly in the early days when the stats couldnt be tracked peoperly but I doubt it.

'Juiced-maybe im using the wrong word here.
I stated that it is easy to be a winning player online and is 100% what I believe. Winning player could mean anything in the green. This may be 2cents up for some people. On average, I think it will be very small amounts over a very long time period in the green. You win well for a while online and then you cannot win to save your live. My stats in the past have shown it.Variance it is referred to.I think it is online 'juicing'. They let you win a bit then lose a bit so everyone has a better chance of breaking close to even.

"Reasonably" is debatable. If a random starting hand plays to the river, the final hand has a 43.8% chance of being one pair (including a pair on the board). There's a 38.8% chance of making two pair or better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_p...rd_poker_hands

Good reply.

Which pros? Name names. Link to pages where these winning professionals say "Online poker is rigged".
The onus is on you to back up your opinion with evidence. Without evidence, you're FoS.

It wouldnt matter as far as proof goes and has nothing to do with proof. Im simply stating that there are many top players around that agree/believe the deal is 'juiced' (not 100% accurate/ not like a live deal). And there is. Look up the bracelet winner who believes this for 1.

See what these mugs come up with. I mean thats a stupid comment.

Im reading between the lines and thinking without reading any of his other posts that hes basically saying u cant prove anything and hes right about that.

What a pathetic way to put forth a point tho. These guys are mugs, with comments like this-u cant expect much more in this industry on a forum.

What I should av said which is more accurate logic is this.

I mean, if u come up with comments like that one which is similar to a ridiculous child molestation comment of wiki's, all it does is dis credit the person posting straight away. Anyone with a bit of class and integrity will simply dissmiss it right off the bat.

I apologise. Posting replies to your thread was 'messed' up. Look 2-3 psts back from here and previous one to answer your quotes...

If by pathetic you mean way over your head, then yes, I agree that it is a pathetic way to put forth a point.

But since you don't seem to get it, I'll give you a hint. It has to do with burden of proof.

fixed up. 3 back answers your questions

I hear ya. Ye. Thats basically what i replied with 'burden of proof'.

In my own words tho.

Artysmokes wanted me to post something where a pro has come out to the public with his belief of online poker. Otherwise id be FOS. lol.

Well. This is an interesting one:
http://www.onlinepoker.net/poker-new...op-winner/6801

Better link here. Just for interest. As I said earlier, there are pros out there that think it is suss'

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-blog...-a-few-f-bombs)

Fair enough. My reply was mainly directed at BadBeatBandit.

I believe Leatherass once made an off the cuff remark about poker being rigged during a massive downswing, which he later retracted. Doesn't necessarily mean anything as far as online poker actually being rigged or not.

Also lol, at a live tourny player with $600,000+ in cashes (not profit) losing $35,000 in 2 days of online poker. Talk about horrible bankroll management. I'm not even sure if it's possible to play $35,000 worth of online poker tournaments in 2 days.

Yes, wiki is a mystery of life. But what about this weirdo below. I think he might take the cake.

Who has proved he works for Pokerstars? As far as I know, the only Pokerstars employee that has posted in this thread is Josem, and that was over a month ago.
If you're insinuating that I am a Pokerstars rep, then you're completely wrong. As a matter of fact, I was nominated to be a players' rep in the forthcoming rake/reward negotiations between 2+2 members and Pokerstars, primarily because I've been critical of some of the company's policies. It would be pretty damn weird for me to try and get a better deal for players if I actually worked for the company!
I can look for action flops too if you like. In fact, I've already posted several "action flop" hand histories in this thread, and allowed a rigtard to use them as evidence of rigging. His opinions persuaded nobody, and he quit 2+2 (and online poker) in a huff. How many hand histories have you posted? Have you offered your HEM database up for peer review?
Tell us how often "action flops" are supposed to happen randomly, and then show evidence of how they happen more often when you play. The ball is in your court. Provide evidence, or STFU.

Firstly, I don't believe it's "easy" to be a winning player online. Only about a third of all players make money, and they do so by using a mixture of natural talent, serious study of the game, experience (putting the hours in), and a bit of luck too.
I don't agree at all that sites "let" you win for a bit. I've had up- and down-swings like everyone else. Sometimes I play well and lose. Sometimes I play badly and win through good luck. That sort of variance is absolutely probable due to the random dealing of hands. What's difficult for beginners to grasp is that the swings they experience will be greater at the start of their "career" due to their long-term winrate not being established, and that deviation from EV is greatest at low winrates. As your winrate gets higher, you don't experience such huge swings. This can all be shown with the infamous variance simulator at http://www.evplusplus.com/poker_tool...nce_simulator/

I think there are rather more prosaic reasons than the dreaded "doomswitch" for players hitting a downswing after a brief period of rungood. If a player's opponents are using HUDs, the villains need to play enough hands against him to learn how to exploit him. Once they have notes/stats on him, they know how to beat him. A player that is new to a site starts with the benefit of being an "unknown". I personally tread carefully against unknowns. They probably bluff me out of a few pots because I don't have notes that say "always raises with flush draws", for example. Once I've played against that opponent a few times, though, I know his tendencies. He won't win as many pots against me, because I know how to beat him, so his profit falls.
When I started on Stars I ran good playing really loose for a few days. Then the other players realised I was playing loose (they had stats on me) and they exploited me. I went on a horrible downswing. It took me weeks to completely change my game and get back into the green. There was no boom/doomswitch. I was losing by playing badly. I had to fix my leaks. Many of the rigtards refuse to believe there is anything wrong with their game. They think that if they can win for a week or two, they can keep winning forever. This is level zero thinking. You have to constantly adapt to win at poker. Rigtards don't adapt. They just blame other forces for their own inadequacies.

I must admit I'd never heard of this guy, Jason Young, before. Sounds like he wrote the article while on tilt after some hitting the bad end of variance. He's probably better off sticking to live tourneys, where the level of play is perhaps lower, and he can use skills (e.g. reading live tells) that are irrelevant online. I don't know if he still thinks online poker is rigged. If he does, then I shouldn't think he talks about it much in the company of online players. No one's interested in some stupid bad beat stories.

Oh, the irony. I'm a GIGANTIC IMBECIL. I'm a gigantic WORD THAT DOESN'T EXIST.
The word is imbecile, imbecile.

I can't help but be reminded of this:


I think it's more likely that you're just not a very good player. Why don't you post your HEM/PT stats in the Beginners Questions forums? There are plenty of us over there that could help you to fix your leaks and start making money.
You want to start winning don't you?

Point -----------> .























Your head ---------->

Me either. Cant help think of this whenever you guys post.
Your faith based beliefs are understandable. Kind of like religious nuts. You want to believe something so badly youll ignore any facts or events that are right in front of your face.
You want to believe the OLP scam is fair so badly youll ignore and discredit any evidence to the contrary just so you can play the game youre addicted to.
Be my guest.
Who knows, someday you might grow up and join the world of reality.

How backwards can you be? I'm not relying on faith for my belief that online poker is not rigged. I'm looking at my HEM database and seeing that I get dealt hands the expected number of times, I make particular hands the expected number of times, and I experience variance in line with expectation for someone with my winrate and standard deviation.
In short, I look at evidence, and find that my results are in line with what is expected from a random dealing of the cards.

Where is your evidence? You've presented none whatsoever. It is YOU that ignores facts. You are the faith-based nutter here.

Post ACTUAL EVIDENCE that online poker is rigged. "It's obvious" is only evidence in the sense that it is evidence of your lack of analytical abilities and debating skills.
While you're at it, post evidence that I'm a shill/2+2 employee/affiliate. The clock is ticking, bozo.

Nah. Your ignorance is just to much to deal with.

The evidence that the deal is not rigged is that there is no evidence the deal is rigged.

In exactly the same way that the evidence that you are not a rapist of children is that there is no evidence you rape children.

More specifically, in the case of on line poker, the raw material from which evidence of rigging could be produced, if it existed, if plentiful and easily available. The fact that no one has processed that raw material to provide proof of malfeasance is persuasive evidence that there is so significant rigging.

Arty Smokes's idol and teacher in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUXxajmtOfc

You might have forgot your alias scs already said the first part.
And ,as usual, you are wrong again. Many people know OLP is rigged by using their good judgement and common sense. Why keep going with the same lies over and over? You sound like such a complete fool.
I know i know, when you are one, its hard pretending not to be one.

I have said the first part myself. Many times.

Redundancy.

Many people are not very bright. They draw unwarranted inferences from inadequate data.

If you have evidence of lies, please present it.

Wiki, you sound like a cheap lawyer. You try waaay too hard to sound like you're intelligent.

I don't make any attempt to sound intelligent.

(In before: "Well, it's working." )

His idol? It's the second time you've mentioned him, this time with a video.

He did retract it to A POINT. He stated in his blog following this that he over reacted but still beleives in what he first wrote.

And ye, it doesnt prove any rigging of course. There are many many very good players that think it is though-winning players.

lol

Well, it is gambling, poker just offers the best odds out of any form.
I dont think its overly difficult to be in the green, I just think it is very hard or seemingly impossible at times online to make the most out of profiting as you should according to the odds(to be up big in the green-unless you basically commit your life to it and grind grind grind for hrs and hrs and hrs hrs). You just play an extremely patient and disciplined low variance 'grinders style'.
But it shouldnt be like this anyway which makes anything up to a decent mid stake, a complete waste of time(for like 3-5 bb an hr). Even if u multi table HARD. Its peanuts.
Every player I personally know who has played poker online AND live was actually losing or break even players at best online but live, they are all winners overall(except for 1). This I find strange and always have.

Well someone said he was Leatherass or something. I think he is a proficient online player but possibly plays live more because of his beliefs.
No one wants to hear his bad beat stories true. But I think this is why a lot of pros lean toward the live game.

Sht, even when I play live, I walk out with profit almost every time I play and im no perfect world class player but im decent from years of experience. Say im playing 2-5.Sometimes it takes 30mins to dble up, sometimes it takes 7-8 hrs. And trust me, ive run bad as hell live over consecutive sessions too.

When you 'run bad' online however, anything u do will not bring u profit except for quitting. There is definately something not right.

What level do you play live and what level on line?

You do realise, I suppose, that the effect you describe is exactly what you would expect playing with groups of differing abilities?

In the past I have played as high as 10 20 HUNL in very small doses, a fair bit of 1000NL hu and full ring/6 max and a lot through the mid stakes. Say 200NL-1000NL.

Most of the players are shockingly bad online at low stakes on most of the sites.

I would expect to make more profit if I was playing worse players but this isnt and has never been the case.

A lot of the regs I have played live are grinders playing for a living. I usually play 500NL live + low-mid stake tournaments. I have played some 1000NL (5 10) NL cash live. They dont offer this game much at my casino.

I would say there isnt THAT much difference in skill levels between the good regs live and the good regs online.-its basically the same. They all have their own styles and betting patterns/tendencies.

It cant be that much difference in their skill levels anyway. Everyone starts with 2 cards. You can only bluff so much. Similar probability-whats the probability he has me beat? whats the probability I can bluff him? Whats the probability he thinks he can bluff me/put me off a hand and so on........All comes down to probability still.

If the players are beginners or donks or drunk then theyre easy to pick anyway, even online after a little while.

Plus the way I usually lose is when I get bad beat. Of course this isnt all the time and no I definately dont think im a poker god as there is no such thing anyway.

This happens guaranteed every time I play online. Live it happens sparingly.

And its not the number of hands per hr showing this. Im talking about the frequency % that this happens.

Really? You do realize that you are at odds with just about everyone else who has ever expressed an opinion on the subject?

The difference in the ability of players to evaluate all the probabilities in playing a hand of poker are massive. The above quote seems to demonstrate why you may not be doing very well.

Basically, wot 'e said.

So, why do you think the site may have chosen you to disadvantage in this way?

LOL. Why because I couldnt be bothered writing down every probability analysis that goes through my mind when I play? LOL. As a result I wrote 'so on' instead.

And I actually do fine. I chse not to waste my time with online poker anymore because im not getting value for the time I put in. I took all my money out and spent it on better things in my life than gambling. I also use some of it for a side bankroll in live games where the time I put in and money I get back are actually worth my while. If youre a winning player youre a winning player. Simple as that.

I'd have to say that you seem to have made the most sensible decision.