1. Thanks for disclosing that you are a paid shill for Stars and other sites.
2. I haven't had a losing year since I started playing online poker in 2004.

BTW. You should put a disclaimer on each of you're posts that you're a paid shill for various online poker sites.

Definitely not the first. Once the UIGEA was passed in 2006, a lot of people stopped winning (since the games got a lot tougher very quickly) and naturally blamed "unfair deals" as opposed to their own less-than-stellar play.

Here's a word of warning for you. Be careful what you say to people in public. You will eventually run into somebody like me who will kick the crap out of you.

I'll ask you the question again. Are you a paid shill for Stars or any other poker sites?

"Suddenly" is a keyword. What if they do it all the time? Or, start oppress someone gradualy? One may not know what his real winning/losing rate is.
For instance, I experince decreasing in avarage earning all the way starting 2005.

E-Thug ITT!!!

Thanks for the entertainment.

About time someone called people shills for sites other then Stars, I think they were feeling left out. By the way, I doubt one could be a hired shill for multiple sites at the same time - you may as well pretend to use logic when trying to call people names



Or they will take time out of their 2/4 cent games to make $20,000 wagers as a sign of how tough they are.


You are basing your assumptions on your understanding of math and statistics which is obviously limited. Others are quite a bit better at math and they tend to be the ones who do the data analysis with no agenda.

That is why I trust them when they say something more then, for instance, you. Fellow riggedologists, however, will believe anything you say. Try it - make something up (the crazier the better) and post it as if it actually happened. Many will support you and say it is proof of it being rigged. It is fun, I did it once as a joke with a gimmick account and had my made up story quoted a couple times even a few months ago when the thread was relatively young. Even had QPW yell at me!

Also, people will still believe aces come up more often on the flop since they will say it always happens to them when they have KK (and those players getting their KK cracked is essential to the sites somehow).


One stat I do know. Nearly every person who online whines about rigged software tends to have an ROI of below -50% and most of the ones here quit after losing a lot. If the sites are supposed to help losing players then what happened?

That graph was just a quick scan to prove a specific point, nothing more. I'm working on some stuff a lot more detailed and on much larger samples.

graphs or its not true.

poast pics or were all just going to assume youre a 13 year old girl.

Who do you think pays more rake: single tabling fish who put in maybe 1,000 hands a month, or 12 tabling nits who get in 50,000 hands a month?

Whoosh. You should probably put a disclaimer on each of your posts that you don't understand sarcasm.

Groups of people would have noticed that their winrate was much much smaller at one site than another. How do they pick and choose who gets doomswitched? You don't say. Well gee, nothing major has happened to online poker since then to make the games harder, so it must be rigged!

There are mathematical tests that exist to evaluate randomness.

Spadebidder - would it be possible to perform such a test on your massive database, using hole cards? Hole cards are not subject to the biases of hand selection, card removal, etc.

left left right right up up down down A + B

They are still biased when you don't have them all, since folding is selective, so you can't just evaluate known holecards in isolation.

However, there are a number of tests that can be done with the cards available (hole and board) that will show that the deal is random with a high level of confidence, at least to the extent that any manipulation would be so small to not be profitable. I think when I publish those, reasonable people will be reassured (unless the results show otherwise).

Actually it's up up down down left right left right B A start.

Who do you think pays more rake: 67 twelve tabling nits or 57000 single tabling donks?

lol, yeah.... that's exactly the distribution on the sites today. If only it were true.

Another credibility killing post from a rigtard. Shocking.

STFU ******.

My point is that even though I do not believe the sites are rigged, it would greatly benefit them.

Sorry, I had in my head that you had hand histories from the players involved.

Does anyone have any idea of the feasibility of creating an online form where you upload your HHs, and it calculates the randomness of your hole cards?

And your point is irrelevant because the distribution of players is nothing close to what you laid out. Apparently you missed that the first time around.

Start's not actually part of the code, it just started your game in Contra, which is the game most people used the code for.
[Begin entirely too serious post replying to off hand remark]
PokerStars averages about 22,000 cash players at a time(I'm using Stars because they have the most traffic) according to PokerScout. I'll round down to 20,000 for simplicity. We'll say that it's a dream world where we somehow traveled back in time to 2003 and sites were aquariums still, and 19,500 players are single tabling fish who play for 2 hours and get in 100 hands per hour, so 3.9 million hands total from the fish. The remaining 500 are 12 tablers who play for 8 hours a day, for 4.8 million hands total.

Obviously I went for extremes on both ends, but originally I had 18k fish and 2k 12 tablers, and the numbers were just way too high for the 12 tablers.
[/End entirely too serious post replying to off hand remark]
Probably, but how would the sites figure out who the bad players are?

What point would it serve? Rigtards would upload ten hands, get some result, and come on here and whine all day about how this "calculator" proves the cards aren't random.


However, this one would do just fine.

LOL awesome

The various random tests have a process that accounts for varying sample sizes.

Oh good grief, another hormonal teenager who's post pubescent angst is making him think he's Mike Tyson.

Here's a word of warning for you, sonny.

When your balls haved finished dropping and your mummy allows you out into the real world without her to hold your hand, before you start threatening people and making out what a big tough, macho hunk you are, get a look at their size, build, general nastiness and weapons complement.

As a little keyboard warrior puffing up your puny chest in an attempt to emulate manhood you're pretty safe but once out in the open ...

Answered earlier. FTFT.

Well of course it would benefit them (until they got caught).

Just as it would benifit banks to steal our money.

But the repurcussions, in each case, would be a bitch.