This will never end. Its hilarious. Rigatards!

So you want them to be audited in orders of magnitude more than any other publicly traded company?

I was an auditor in public accounting for four years. There are all kinds of professional standards and work involved, not to mention cost. If five or twenty different companies were auditing the same thing, for one thing they'd take up so much of the company's time making data requests and interviewing company personnel it would pretty much prevent them from doing their jobs. They'd also be fighting over the same data. If the auditing company is certified and reputable, that's enough.

I would like very much to be shown why it's so.
The fact that I don't know how to do this doesn't mean that I think it cannot be done. My last name is not Einstain.
They cannot keep every cent deposited - that would be too obviouse. Every other cent - quite different story. Still, I don't know how they could do this.
So, I'm still playing.

Beats, Brags, and Variance[/QUOTE]

Thank you.

wat

People should play tighter preflop the higher the rake is, but other than that I don't know what you mean.

.
Other guy answered; the Brags, Beats, and Variance forum. It's close-ish to the top.

OK, I'll try and give you an idea of why using your Party numbers.
So, we'll round a bit and say that 1,250,000 players made party $50 million, or $40 per player. We'll assume that that's what they make with a fair deal. If they somehow messed with their deal and got an extra 10%, they'd make $5 million more, or $4 more per player.

Now let's say they get away with this extra 10% for an entire year, bringing their profits up to $55 million. Word gets out that they cheated their customers, and 250,000 players leave. Since we're assuming that under a fair deal each player makes them an average of $40 each per year, there goes $10 million for the next year. So 2008 made them $50 million, 2009 made them $55 million because they cheated an extra 10% from their customers, and 2010 made them $40 million because of the backlash that they likely won't recover from.

So to make an extra $5 million for one year, they're giving up 20% of their profits for the future, which is just awful, awful business.

Make sense?

I mean, if a site don't cheat in any way, then we play against each other. But if it cheats, we may find ourselves fighting against the house, depending on form of cheating. Or, a site may intervene in our fighting for whatever reason (they should know better why).
Thank you. I was there, saw graphs. they are pretty impressive.
Why didn't you point me there from the very begining? I wouldn't have to participate in this pointless argument with people who know all answers in advance.
(I don't mean you!)
Now I'm going to switch from SnG to ring games: seems, thay are more profitable.
I stop posting for a while: I have to re-read my poker library

What's with all these rigtards suddenly seeing the light? First K13, now you. The rest of you better get some new recruits or you risk dying out entirely!

Any good religion needs a promotional campaign.

Thank you for reply.
First of all, I spoke not about 10%, but about 50% or more of players earnings (which, BTW, gives them 100+% increase in their profit). I wouldn't be bothered if it were 10% at most.
More important, I wanted you to explain why they can get away with cheating only for a few month. Why are you sure there is no way for them to cheat and never be caught?

There are 3 points that crush the self policing argument against deck manipulation:

1) It would be extremely difficult to prove subtle yet effective rigging that dampened skill advantage ("skilled player X was just running bad" is the easy defense)

2) It would be extremely easy to manipulate the deck

3) It would be extremely profitable to manipulate the deck so that bad players keep playing more and skilled players don't win as much


There is no argument against these points because they are so CLEAR. There is nowhere to attack them. As far as anyone but the closest group of insiders is concerned, the RNG software is a BLACK BOX. I'm not saying that there are not strong arguments against online poker being rigged. I am just saying please stop saying "they wouldn't do that because it would ultimately hurt them". That argument is as dumb or dumber than anything any riggtard has ever said regarding this subject. That argument is like saying no good player would ever bluff because if he was called he would lose money. Yes there is risk involved in trying to rigg an RNG and pass it off as fair. But when the risk of being caught (or called) is low and the reward (pot size) of getting away with it is huge then dont try to tell me there isn't sufficient motivation. Maybe we could make progress on this question if people entirely stopped saying "they wouldn't do it out of fear of hurting their business". Business people take risks. There is ample motive and opportunity for RNG manipulation.

1. I cannot speak for all "rigtards". As for me, I never was a "rigtard" in my understanding, 'cause I never said that OLP IS rigged. I just had doubts. I still have, because you, "not-riged" guys, never managed to prove that online poker cannot be rigged.
2. Your "non rigged" position is more alike religion. Reading you post, I see that its romotional campaign is running.
3. Having blunt confidence about anything, without any doubt, IMO, is not a sign of a great intellect. Not all, but many of "non-rigtards" demonstrate just this. Most of "rigtards" are only in doubt. I'm not saying that "rigtards" are smarter, just observation.
4. Seeing that some players can do well online gives me a great deal of hope. I'm going to keep playing, studying, thinking about poker.
As long as I still a winning player.
Anyway, I love this game.

This whole post is typical bs from someone who has no half way decent understanding of probability maths and statistics (with particular reference to confidence limits).

And the sad thing is that if anyone takes the trouble to explain why what is posted above is actually pure nonsense all they will get for their trouble is an accusation of being a shill.

LOL, is that a riggedologist commandment? Monteroy?


All three of your CLEAR points are about at clear as mud. As for #1, if the rigging was subtle, it really would put a limit on its effectiveness. As for #2, O RLY? In a subtle way such that nobody is going to detect anything? And as for #3, I don't think you realize just how complicated it would be to rig the deck this way. And if they did it, I doubt I'd be seeing the worst donks losing at 10-20 ptbb/100 lossrates or worse when you look their results up on tableratings. Everybody's play whether they like it or not is documented if you're playing on certain sites. Trust me, the weak competition loses money, FAST.

But why am I wasting my breath. After all, your points are so clear I should not have argued them.

Proving a negative is damn near impossible. Prove to me that there isn't a planet full of naked supermodels a billion light years away.

I think most of us have developed our attitudes towards this argument based on logic, having a pretty solid grasp of statistics and variance as well as experience in having played hundreds of thousands of documented hands. We have databases full of them. I don't think you'll find very many people saying that something like rigging is completely 100% impossible, but at the same time it really defies reasonable logic both in terms of motive for the site to do it and what we've seen first hand over large sample sizes. Nobody likes losing, and some people aren't capable of taking responsibility for failure. That's the source of a lot of these "rigtard" theories. Personally I'd love to make more money at this game, but if I don't I'm pretty sure rigging would be pretty low on my list of potential explanations for why I have gone through some struggles. I'd probably be trying to identify leaks in my game first and also analyzing variables involving the competition.


Sincerely, best of luck. If you are planning on switching to cash games and want to discuss strategy, let me know.

Sure it would. Someone among all of the poker sites who was behind this would have told by now if it was happening. That is ignoring the fact that people who are genuinely good at freaky stats stuff (unlike you or I) have said it would be caught as well by players adept at this type of analysis.


Even if it is "easy" it is completely impractical. Stars for instance deals a couple of thousand hands per second. That is a whole lot of work to create a system that adapts to every hand for all of the strange factors riggedologists suggest.

Plus, someone among all of the poker sites who was behind this would have told by now if it was happening.


Even if it was (and it usually only is extremely profitable in riggedologist minds based on creative riggedologist assumptions), it is completely impractical. Stars for instance deals a couple of thousand hands per second. That is a whole lot of work to create a system that adapts to every hand for all of the strange factors riggedologists suggest.

Plus, someone among all of the poker sites who was behind this would have told by now if it was happening.



They are clear in your mind and you completely believe in them. In the real world they are just assumptions that ignore some major aspects of the situation like the risk of being caught.

Insiders for hundreds of rooms. Over many years. That is a whole lotta "insiders."

I did not have the patience to separate further your huge block of manifestospeak, but I assume it is basically declaring your beliefs completely unflawed and those that disagree to be naive etc.



Indeed. burden seems to like commandments 2 and 7 the most.

Commandment 1: Thou shalt ask others to prove it false

Commandment 2: Thou shalt state an opinion and declare it a fact

Commandment 3: Thou shalt hurl personal attacks

Commandment 4: Thou shalt assume

Commandment 5: Thou shalt have no time to test thy theories

Commandment 6: Thou shalt support they brethren unconditionally

Commandment 7: Thou shalt believe anything is possible with software


All the best.

btw, I still think its rigged.

Hi K13,

I still haven't seen you confess that your claims about aces coming on the flop more often than expected are false.

Why is that?

Still having fun eh ?

A lot of rigtards say they don't think OLP is rigged.

They then make statements that demonstrate that is exactly what they do believe.

Quite the reverse.

It's the rigtards that have a religious belief. You will rarely (if ever) hear anyone make a statement that OLP is not rigged because such a dogmatic assertion would require proof and there is no absolute proof that OLP is not rigged.

Well spotted. Can you this see how the term 'rigtard' is derived?

Well, it depends on where the confidence is placed. I have a great confidence that if you stand in the path of a Eurostar going flat out and don't get out of the way you'll end up a gooey mess. That is a perfectly reasonable thing in which to have confidence.

Well actually, there are a lot of 'tards who make catagorical statements that OLP is rigged. Read this thread.

Just as well because that would really mark you out as a buffoon.

What you basically need to do is gain a sufficient understanding of probability maths and statistics that you can see the size of the evidence base, understand the tools available to analyse it and make an intelligent assesment based on that understanding.

When you can do that you will stop embarrassing yourself by making veiled comments that have a sub-text indicating that you think having serious doubts about something when there is a vast amount of logic and evidence to indicate that it is kosher is evidence of intelligence.

Poker seems to be rigged, but not in the expected way.
At least with the new points structure at Party, you're playing mostly against the house at the micros. I recently played 1500 hands 2c/4c, got sucked out by donks a few times and in the end was at +0.5 BB/100. The rest of the 5.5 BB/100 was rake.
Now that's an extreme example (was really unlucky that day) but generally the accumulated rake from the swings for all stakes not reaching the cap is outrageously high, higher than even the taxes (including lotto tax) in my country. And that is an achievement.

Since the majority of players does play micros for fun, it's not necessary to further "rig" anything, it's already a done deal and most money flows to the poker sites instead of back to the players.

Funnily enough, I've made that point (that there is very definite rigging and it's called rake) several times in this thread but the rigtards just ignore it.

As you've spelled it out there, though, it should make it very clear to even the dimmest rigtards that if they are a just losing players, rake is the reason they are not modest winners.

The house does not need to 'rig the game' to get tiny extra amounts when they can rake it in hand over fist by completely above board means.

See, now this is the riggedologist way. The only "logical" assumption is that Party fills the tables with house bots at the 2/4 cent level to punish the real players by letting them win a bit after all rake was paid. This is because apparently Party somehow earns rake on their bots as well.

A less logical belief would be that the tiny stakes games that offer rewards that offset the rake are often filled by humans who fold nearly all hands to squeak out a tiny profit (or it may be automated bots as well though likely not house bots =) ).




Yeah it's those house player bots that play and contribute to rake themselves which somehow does not count as a site cost when they do. Only the revenue counts somehow.

Riggedology accounting is fun

Where on earth have you suddenly dragged 'house bots' from?

The poster to whom you were responding didn't mention them nor did they make some implication (unless I missed it).

What he's pointing out is that the house does not need to rig anything beyond the very visible and very substantial player sanctioned (even if under protest) rake.

I think I've said a couple times in this thread that I will not be surprised if one day someone finds convincing evidence that one site or another is rigged. I'm not surprised by a lot of stuff that happens in this world. However, to date, I think we can agree that no one has produced a shred of solid evidence that this is happening.

It bears repeating: the mere fact that something is possible does not mean that it is happening. I think it is fair to say that individual player's annectodal evidence vis-a-vis some bad-beat stories or even personally witnessing some statistically improbable hands will never be enough to make a coherent case that a site is rigging.

Player's like K13 quickly see when they actually look deeper at their own stats that their recollections are off.

Any deep statistical analysis that I've heard of (such as has been discussed a lot in this thread) appears to show no evidence of rigging, leaving the rigtards left with devious undetectable methods that will also somehow make the sites heaps of money, in addition to the heaps and heaps they are already making.

Do I know 100% OLP is not rigged? Of course not. But until some evidence arises to prove otherwise than I will bet on it (literally) not being rigged.

Prove to me there IS a planet full of naked supermodels a billion light years away.
Beyond jokes, that was bad wording on my part. I should say "Nobody gave me convincing arguments why OLP cannot be rigged." "Prove" is too strong word in this situation.

Well, I also don't give to possibiility of rigging 100%. But something makes me unsure. The difference between us is that I see motives for the site to do it, but you don't. If you read one of my posts about it, then I could not make my point clear to you. On the other hand, all folks who responded to me could not dismiss my concerns.
I also have a database of more than 20,000 SNG tourneys which contains near 1,000,000 hands. I did basic statistics for poket hands, hitting flops and all-in clashes. Sounds good to your side, I found no statistical abnormality.
Why am I still in doubt?
Rigtard's set of mind, you know . It whispers there may be other ways to rigg the desk.
Never mind. Could you, please, point me to some place where I cand find some other kinds of analyses?

Agree 100%, but cannot help to stop those filthy rigged concerns.
Not now. I have to refresh my poker knowledge in respect to ring games.
What's your oppinion, should I take coaching?
Thank you.

I really don't know specifically what I can show you. As mentioned, you're never going to see definitive proof of a negative. Just simply lots and lots of data that appears normal as a whole. I can pull up some expected value graphs from my own sample of all in hands which show that overall things appear about as they should, but that alone isn't going to prove anything. I'm only familiar with analyzing ring games. I'm sure there is software to analyze tournaments as well but I wouldn't know where to point you. It just seems like you're looking for some kind of definitive end-all study that isn't out there. All you can really do is analyze an adequate amount of evidence and arrive at an educated conclusion.


Really depends on your situation. If you're not in a hurry to play higher stakes right away I think you could pretty easily start out at small stakes, employ some of what you pick up from strategy posts on 2+2 and possibly subscribe to a training site and watch some videos. Or just talk to some regulars and have them give you a crash course. As you build up a roll at smaller stakes you can always move up as you feel comfortable

Personally I've been stubborn and have allowed my game to evolve on its own instead of seeking coaching. When I make mistakes I try to identify them and learn from them.

Either approach is fine as long as you're playing within your means.