FWIW, I don't think the numbers are all that skewed by gimmicks. It is true that a couple of riggies have been found to have voted more than once, but not every vote has been checked of course, nor will they be. A couple people have also admitted their "yes" vote was a joke, but again, likely not enough to make a significant difference.

Of course, it's a very unscientific poll, as is any Internet poll that is open to voting by anyone that creates an account. I'm kind of surprised by people who think the no vote is too low - it's always struck me as being very high considering this is a forum designed for people who play Internet poker. Seems odd that people would play if they thought it was rigged, unless they are able to use that belief to their benefit. I expect the numbers are much higher on the no side than they would be if every IP forum reader were to seriously respond, as pretty much every riggie ends up finding this thread, and you can be sure they vote no every time. OTOH, I think a lot of regular online players skip right by this thread, or take one look and never come back again. Of course I'm just offering my own opinion and logic to back it up; I have no way of knowing whether I am correct, and I'm sure there will be plenty of riggies who believe the opposite is true.

That's fine; you can believe what you like about that, but I think you're very mistaken. What I can tell you for sure is that I am not Monteroy.

What you, and all riggies, should concern yourself with are the points people are making, and not who is making them. Even if someone was working for a site, as long as their logic was sound, why wouldn't their posts be legitimate? But the only person I know for certain that has posted ITT that works for a poker site is Josem. Include me if you like, as I sell advertising for 2+2. That doesn't stop me from posting negative things about sites from time to time, and I don't waste much time posting in this thread concerning myself with convincing the 10 or 20 riggies that post here regularly to believe something they have closed their minds to.

Since I'm already posting here, I'll just add one thing about your evidence posts; this is a point that has been made time and again in this thread, but it doesn't seem like you've seen it, as it hasn't been posted in some time that I've noticed.

Proving online poker isn't rigged is pretty much possible. What proof would satisfy you and all other riggies? I could get a few million hand histories together and show you the card distribution is normal - in fact, that's been done. But then someone will say yes, the overall distribution is normal, but you get bad cards when you cashout and good ones when you deposit. So then I could try to get hands together that disprove that. Then someone else says it favours fish in cash games. And someone else says it favours big stacks in tournaments so they end quicker. And on and on it goes. How does one disprove endless theories?

On the other hand, if any one of those things were true, it should be fairly easy for someone to come up with the hand histories to back it up. How do you think colluders and bots have been discovered by 2+2ers? How do you think the Absolute and Ultimate Bet superuser scandals were first discovered? If something is amiss, the proof should be in the hand histories, and everyone would be very happy to see them. I don't want to play on a site that is rigged, just like I'm sure Monteroy, Wiki, or anyone else doesn't. So if you think something is wrong, investigate and find out for sure, and if it is, please let us know.

funny how the poll I uploades shows exactly the opposite results
again not scientific
but the disparity in the numbers between the 2 polls is definitely open to debate

What site were they from? 2+2 is the biggest poker community in the world, and attracts all kinds of players - there shouldn't be a bias that either attracts or repels people who believe online poker is rigged. When people want to talk about poker, they come here more than any other site. Are the poll results you quoted coming from a similar site, in terms of the likelihood of an unbiased readership?

Of course, the results of a poll on any site, this one or others, won't change the facts. 99% yes wouldn't make online poker rigged, and 99% no wouldn't mean that no site could possibly be rigged. Hand histories is where we determine those facts.

I will be sure to do that, although any obvious proof here is quickly discounted
by the affiliates/shills who in my opinion are protecting their own interests

Online Poker Is Rigged According To WSOP Winner

July 26th, 2010 Author: A. Mitchell








We’ve all got steamed up after losing to one outers or been on the wrong side of a coin flip so many times on the trot that its made your toes curl.

It doesn’t take long scouring the net to come upon reams of posts belonging to disgruntled poker players decrying their bad luck and the pitfalls of internet poker.

Many of the more extreme explainations dealing with an extended losing streak often question the fairness of internet poker and whether the programming is fundementally flawed in some way.

Mostly, however, the online threads venting their angst usually come from players who lack poker pedigree and so usually act as a collective ‘bad beat’ sympathy club.

That’s why it was interesting to read a 2008 WSOP winner’s blog recently, who’d just had a terrible run online and starting suggesting a whole lot of unwholesome reasons for his losses.

Jason “JBY” Young is a 28 year-old bricks and mortar pro with $690,744 in live tournament cashes, including a WSOP Bracelet in the $ 1,500 No Limit Hold’em – Shootout, to his name.

However, after losing $35k online in 2 days Young confesses to feeling like Tim Robbins entering Shawshank and goes on to question the integrity of online poker, stating:

“They are trying to jam it in me around every corner. The biggest joke ever….I’m deleting the word (F**K) as often as I can, but I’m literally steaming while I right this…Broken computer and all…I’ve been playing 500-1k heads up holdem, o8 and Omaha Hi the past 2 days I have lost to 2 outters no less than 50 times. Im not kidding.”

Jason “JBY” Young then goes on to talk about online players he says are nothing special but run like gods all of the time, while many good live poker pros he knows can’t even buy a break online.

“There is a theme here that cannot be questioned…getting it in with AK or AQ vs Ax and they hit x…every time…getting it in with top 2 against bottom 2, and they hit there bottom pair again?!?! it happened 9 times in the past 2 days…i just checked…Pair over pair forget it…now I have chalked up losing sessions and all that to variance in the past, but someone needs to explain to me how this is even possible.”

One explanination he suggests for his bad beats involve “hot” IP addresses, which act as a lottery and favour particular players. He also mentions falling victim to the infamous ‘cash-out curse’ at various times in the past.

For those of you interested in a top poker pro tilting and talking about the perceived injustices of online poker should check out his blog here.

In the meantime its quite refreshing to hear a pro lose his rag and let off steam once in a while, like the rest of us.

Which obvious proof is that?There has never been any here. Prove me wrong.

I hope you realize third-party anecdotal "evidence" is no more useful than if you or I posted it. Is there anything more to go with things like "I have lost to 2 outters no less than 50 times"? Some actual statistics would be nice, so we had an idea that he had a clue what he was talking about, and that he didn't just have a couple of bad days and couldn't calculate his way out of a wet paper bag.

I will give you $1,000 if you can definitively prove one of the major sites uses a rigged RnG.

Will you give $1,000 if it can be proven a site (say Pokerstars) is not rigged?

If you agree then the next step will be that we both escrow the $1,000 with a trusted mod/poster here and then present both of our cases to see if either is entitled to the money?

How about it?


All the best.

There is a possibility that FTP (or any site you care to name) was rigged. But no one has provided compelling evidence that it happened. Since billions of hands have been played, and millions of players have hand histories which could be checked for statistical improbabilities, it seems rather unlikely that rigging on even a minor scale occurred.
So impossible? No. Improbable? Yes.
This is the "Does God exist?" argument. One cannot prove non-existence. I cannot prove God does not exist. The onus is on believers to prove He does.
Likewise, I cannot prove rigging does not exist. The onus is on rigtards to prove that it does.
I'm not affiliated with any of the other "shills" ITT, but just for fun I'm going to start signing off in the same way, just so you can further develop your paranoid delusions.

All the best!

Its actually embarrassing to read your subtle b.s. posts defending the obviously manipulated OLP sites. Think ive asked this before, but doesnt it bother you, and the rest of your kind, even though you clearly have an agenda for pushing these sites, to spew the crap that you do?

+1

When us shills and zealots cite "variance" what do you think we mean by that?

Serious question. What would you consider to be normal results due to variance vs. results that cannot be explained by variance? Do you have an understanding of the difference? Can you explain it? Do you know what to look for?

nah it started with my cashout but i might of added fuel to the fire

how can you have some many posts and write that?

rofl shillarious

Yeah, this is why you shouldn't automatically give credibility to post count - well over 1,700 of his posts are in this thread, and almost all of them are just like that. I'd say all of his posts are like that, but he claims to have posted something of actual substance on the subject before. I can't confirm that since he refuses to repost or link anything, but I'll be very generous and give him the benefit of the doubt.

Thats not how they would do it. With all the damaging evidence you and the other rigged folk post they would give you the boomswitch to take the heat off and shut you up.

An excellent point. If anyone actually thinks that sites are able to see what people post here and then change their outcomes on the tables, there's no question riggies who complain about poor results would be getting the boomswitch.

Burden of proof is on you.

Unable to use the individual post search I see. Ive seen it all now.

Tricky one that, my mums been dead for 9 years. I guess with your low IQ and social skills, the nearest you'd get to sex would be hitting on a stiff.

I love how Bobo says nothing about all the posts from this guy, (many more then me), who posts the same worthless b.s. over and over.
Theres plenty of posted evidence, but chose to continually ignore it.

I was overly generous when I allowed that you might have a 130 IQ in octal.

Binary seems the best bet for you to have any sort of 3 digit IQ.

If someone shows you proof of !x how the hell can you show them proof of x?

Way to demonstrate your inability to master even the basics of logic.

That's because he's talking about posts per day.