Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > > >

Discussion of Poker Sites General discussion of online poker sites.

View Poll Results: Is Online Poker Rigged?
Yes 3,444 34.94%
No 5,522 56.02%
Undecided 892 9.05%
Voters: 9858. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-23-2009, 05:39 AM   #5251
SooperFish24
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,028
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by slick123 View Post
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?
Lol more people think your a shill qpw.

Try asking qpw to post a HH or state where he plays poker and for what limits, or what he does for a living. He wont answer.
SooperFish24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 05:45 AM   #5252
SooperFish24
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,028
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkFB View Post
Here are some real numbers that I spent 3 weeks collecting. I did this because I thought i was seeing a very unacceptable trend at UB.

The following data collection is from every single hand played in a 30 day period. I had spent the last three months playing WSOP steps at UB. During this time, I played dozens of games against many of the same players. While reviewing my hands I looked for hands were I was ahead post flop and my opponent needed runner-runner to beat me. I did not count the hands where runner runner would give them a flush, but only incidents where a set, two pair, boat, etc.... was the result. In my calculations, I was very conservative in favor of UB. Basically, a runner runner with 6-8 outs should hit no more than once every 200 times. If you figure in the times there are only 3-5 outs that number goes to 1 out of every 800 or so. In the month of May, I found myself in 176 hands where post flop my opponent need runner runner with 8 outs or less to win. In those 176 hands, my hand improved 23 times, opponent hit one of the cards 96 times neither of us hit turn or river 43 times and opponent hit runner runner 37 times. Of the 23 times my hand improved, the opponent hit runner runner 8 times and won 7 of those times. Of the other 29 times he hit runner runner, he won 27 times and we chopped twice.

To sum up, when very conservative odds say that runner runner should hit .5% or once every 200 times, on Ultimate bet I saw it happen 37 out of 176 times, 21% of the time. That is to say that it happened on UB 40 times more often than the mathematical odds would dictate. And again, remember that the 1 out of 200 is a very generous number giving UB the benefit of doubt.

The numbers speak loud and clear to me. I can no longer say "oh, that's poker" or "just bad luck"

I won't play online poker for $$$ any more until the US legalizes, regulates and taxes it. Until then there is no reason for the current online gaming industry to be legitimate. US residents are nothing more thana giant cash cow to them. Future legal US gaming sites will be run by those already running brick and mortar casinos and they will not jeopardize their businesses with possible litigation, fines and gaming license issues from online scamming.
Very nice post mate. You should try this on other sites namely Stars and FTP.

I notice that no one is discussing this and the only one's who have threw in accusations that it's BS.

What do you make of this shills?

Let me guess your comical responses.

1. It's a BS study, the guy is lying.
2. He just ran bad. The coin flip argument or Variance.
SooperFish24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 05:46 AM   #5253
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsh_spb View Post
I don't know you, you don't know me. But you speak to me as I'm a complete novice in math. I wanted you to have a clue when you suggest me something related to statistics.
I don't know you but I can see that you are - whatever denials you may make - a rigtard fellow traveller.

It's a ploy that has been used before by the slightly more intelligent proto-rigtard; come here and couch your paranoia as if it was an open minded question. Then try to put forward the idea that rigtards and non-rigtards are two sides of the same coin.

They are not.

A rigtard has a very strong belief that has no supporting evidence and where there is much logic and evidence that are strong contra-indications of rigging.

Non rigtards OTOH can provide sound statistical and logical arguments against rigging.

Another of the rigtard ploys is to demand explanations and, when told that there are plenty already extant in this thread say they can't be bothered to read it and expect others to repeat their work over and over again.

Quote:
In the course of Math I studied mathematical statistics as well, but only basics of it in application to experimental data processing. I think that's enough for understanding results of statistical tests.
I would think that's enough and the fact that you are still having problems is because you are not thinking about the 'problem' in the correct way so that you can use your maths knowledge to calm your fears.

Quote:
I would go to my nephew if I hit a math related problem. So far, I have problem with poker, or poker tools, or poker analyses. He is not a poker player and isn't helpfull. So, I came to you.
Very flattering but I'm afraid I haven't the time to continually repeat what I and others have already covered (often many times) in this thread.

I'd suggest that you:

1) Read the thread.

2) Think (hard) about the problem.

3) Apply the maths skills you have.

If you then have any very specific problems that haven't been covered come back and ask.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 05:50 AM   #5254
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
Lol more people think your a shill qpw.

Try asking qpw to post a HH or state where he plays poker and for what limits, or what he does for a living. He wont answer.
For anyone new reading this thread.

Sooperfish is a known idiot.

He repeats this daft question again and again but has never explained (and he has been asked often enough) exactly what he'd do with such information if he had it (let alone how he could verify its veracity).

His main purpose on this thread - and indeed site as a whole - is for comic relief.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 06:05 AM   #5255
burden2
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 969
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
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.





All the best.
"Someone would have told by now"

Why? Only a few people would have to know and if they were compensated monetarily then you are relying on their moral conscience taking them over? Possible but you can hardly claim that it definitely would have happened. Why would it necessarily would have happened? because everyone in the world is a good person?

"Even if it is "easy" it is completely impractical. Stars for instance deals a couple of thousand hands per second."

You think that they have a computer that deals random cards. They don't because that is theoretically impossible. Computers cannot do anything, but they can deal non-random cards thousands of times per second and they could do so according to any algorithm that any computer science student could write. Please no more of this argument, that it is some technical feat to rig a computerized deck of cards.

"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"

But they would need access to data across many players- millions of hands. Nobody has that access. You really can't look at just 1 account to see if the RNG is approximately random. Agreed?

"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."

My point is just that this discussion needs to get beyond debate about opportunity and motivation. There is opportunity as well as motivation. This discussion should focus more on what is coming out of the black boxes referred to in this thread as "random number generators". We should at least agree that rigging is possible and look at whatever statistical analysis is out there to find out what in fact is the case. We should be able to agree to at least some basic, reasonable premises.
burden2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 06:28 AM   #5256
Josem
human chemical weapon
 
Josem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Getting Trolled
Posts: 17,957
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
Very nice post mate. You should try this on other sites namely Stars and FTP.

I notice that no one is discussing this and the only one's who have threw in accusations that it's BS.

What do you make of this?
The only legitimate response to such a claim is to ask the claimant to provide the details and method that they used to come to their conclusion.

If it's legitimate, it's going to be repeatable and verifiable.
Josem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 07:22 AM   #5257
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by burden2 View Post
You think that they have a computer that deals random cards. They don't because that is theoretically impossible.
Eh, lol?

So all the hundreds of tests that the Intel hardware RNG passed showing that it is random were wrong? Here are some of the tests that were done:

Block Means Spectral analyses
Random walk test
Block Mean correlations, 1-129
Block means
Periodogram
Spectral analyses; hi, med, lo smoothing
Spectral analyses, adjusted for correlations
Autocorrelations, blocking and no blocking
8,16-bit Maurer test
4,8,16-bit Monkey test
4,8,16-bit Goodness of Fit
Komolgorov-Smirnov test of trend
CR/LF test
Overall mean
Column means
Run length variances
FIPS 140-1 test suite

Since you seem to know a lot about what is theoretically impossible, perhaps you have some other randomness test that the Intel-RNG is sure to fail...
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 07:30 AM   #5258
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post
Eh, lol?

So all the hundreds of tests that the Intel hardware RNG passed showing that it is random were wrong? Here are some of the tests that were done:

ƒ Block Means Spectral analyses
ƒ Random walk test
ƒ Block Mean correlations, 1-129
ƒ Block means
ƒ Periodogram
ƒ Spectral analyses; hi, med, lo smoothing
ƒ Spectral analyses, adjusted for correlations
ƒ Autocorrelations, blocking and no blocking
ƒ 8,16-bit Maurer test
ƒ 4,8,16-bit Monkey test
ƒ 4,8,16-bit Goodness of Fit
ƒ Komolgorov-Smirnov test of trend
ƒ CR/LF test
ƒ Overall mean
ƒ Column means
ƒ Run length variances
ƒ FIPS 140-1 test suite

Since you seem to know a lot about what is theoretically impossible, perhaps you have some other randomness test that the Intel-RNG is sure to fail...
Ah, but don't you see?

It's not the actual randomness per se, it's the timing.

That and special patterns that computers can never detect but rigtards perceive with consummate ease.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 07:39 AM   #5259
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josem View Post
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?
Yes, it is a hand history database, and hole cards are known for at least one player in every hand if it was a player-submitted hand, and all that went to showdown are known. Is your question about evaluating the randomness of the deal to each player individually? That can be done but you have to have a significant sample for each player that you evaluate (to have a reasonable confidence interval). Some of the ones in the database would be sufficient, some would not. You could simply sum up the number of each card dealt to the player, and compare that to 1/52, and then do a t-test or f-test for each card, and something like a chi-square on all the bins. I think it also would be feasible to make a collection of all the hole cards for only the player who submitted the hand, and evaluate those, since they aren't subject to any bias. Some of the hand histories are player submitted, but many of them are data-mined and so wouldn't qualify.

Last edited by spadebidder; 06-23-2009 at 07:55 AM.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 07:53 AM   #5260
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkFB View Post
In my calculations, I was very conservative in favor of UB. Basically, a runner runner with 6-8 outs should hit no more than once every 200 times.
No, with 8 outs needing two of them runner runner, assuming you don't have one of his outs, the chance is 1 in 35. With 6 outs, it's 1 in 66.

Quote:
If you figure in the times there are only 3-5 outs that number goes to 1 out of every 800 or so.
No, with 5 outs needing two of them runner runner, assuming you don't have one of his outs, the chance is 1 in 102.



Considering the magnitude of your math errors, I don't have much confidence in your reporting either.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 07:55 AM   #5261
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,035
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
Lol more people think your a shill qpw.

Try asking qpw to post a HH or state where he plays poker and for what limits, or what he does for a living. He wont answer.
What do you do for a living now Scooper now that you have retired from rigged poker after losing a lot (guess you were one of the losing players riggedness did not help).

That being said, I wonder if qpw plays at times as well


Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
Very nice post mate. You should try this on other sites namely Stars and FTP.

I notice that no one is discussing this and the only one's who have threw in accusations that it's BS.

What do you make of this shills?

Let me guess your comical responses.

1. It's a BS study, the guy is lying.
2. He just ran bad. The coin flip argument or Variance.
If he is not lying then he should make his hand history database available for confirmation.

Otherwise, he is lying (even if he thinks he is telling the truth). This is such a basic human behavior that it is amusing to see you (who seems to have a bit more IQ then the other riggedologists) blindly support anything they say when they have no documentation for it at all.

Do you believe everything in life that easily? If so cool, I have lots of bridges to sell you cheap. Trust me, I am telling the truth because I say it is the truth. If you don't believe me because you do not like me that is fine, I understand. In that case, I will create a gimmick account, say online poker is rigged, earn your trust, then offer to sell you a few bridges.


Quote:
Originally Posted by burden2 View Post
"Someone would have told by now"

Why? Only a few people would have to know and if they were compensated monetarily then you are relying on their moral conscience taking them over? Possible but you can hardly claim that it definitely would have happened. Why would it necessarily would have happened? because everyone in the world is a good person?
A few people? Think about it. There are literally hundreds of poker rooms out there. There have been tons of poker rooms which have failed over the years as well.

If they are all rigged in the manner you suggest then there would be hundreds or thousands of people "in on it" even if somehow only a couple were "in on it" for each room.

Many of these people have moved on or lost their jobs when the rooms they were working for failed.

I realize riggedologists live in a world filled with could have and maybes, but eventually some common sense needs to be used.

Is it possible that thousands of people in on it, many of whom are no longer in the industry, are keeping this dark secret? No.



Quote:
Originally Posted by burden2 View Post
"Even if it is "easy" it is completely impractical. Stars for instance deals a couple of thousand hands per second."

You think that they have a computer that deals random cards. They don't because that is theoretically impossible. Computers cannot do anything, but they can deal non-random cards thousands of times per second and they could do so according to any algorithm that any computer science student could write. Please no more of this argument, that it is some technical feat to rig a computerized deck of cards.
Even if we pretend you know what you are talking about you need to show how this non randomness translates into anything that causes issues with players.

A simple example - if I always pick the number 72 when choosing between 1 and 100 and I ask people to guess my number - if they have no idea that I always pick 72 then that non randomness is meaningless.

Sure many have claimed they have discovered the hidden patterns on Stars, and yet they all tend to be losing players. Why are they not making millions yet with their discoveries?


Quote:
Originally Posted by burden2 View Post
"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"

But they would need access to data across many players- millions of hands. Nobody has that access. You really can't look at just 1 account to see if the RNG is approximately random. Agreed?
When spade is done his billion hand study, you know what impact that will have on riggedologists like you and Scooper? None. You will still assume it is all rigged against you after you have a bad beat.

I actually am looking forward to seeing his research, mainly because it will be interesting to see in and by itself and to a lesser degree it will be fun to see how riggedologists adapt their theories to account for the study (I have faith we will see some fun stuff in that regard).


Quote:
Originally Posted by burden2 View Post
My point is just that this discussion needs to get beyond debate about opportunity and motivation. There is opportunity as well as motivation. This discussion should focus more on what is coming out of the black boxes referred to in this thread as "random number generators". We should at least agree that rigging is possible and look at whatever statistical analysis is out there to find out what in fact is the case. We should be able to agree to at least some basic, reasonable premises.
No one is disputing that anything is possible. That is not the approach you and fellow riggedologists take though. You guys say it is definitely rigged even though none of you have actually shown any actual data or proof. That is called an opinion, nothing more.

You are free to believe whatever you like, and you will see for yourself that no amount of studies or data that may show your beliefs to be incorrect will change your opinion.

All the best.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 07:57 AM   #5262
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
Yes, it is a hand history database, and hole cards are known for at least one player in every hand if it was a player-submitted hand, and all that went to showdown are known. Is your question about evaluating the randomness of the deal to each player individually? That can be done but you have to have a significant sample for each player that you evaluate. Some of the ones in the database would be sufficient, some would not. You could simply sum up the number of each card dealt to the player, and compare that to 1/52, and then do a t-test or f-test for each card, and something like a chi-square on all the bins. I think it also would be feasible to make a collection of all the hole cards for only the player who submitted the hand, and evaluate those, since they aren't subject to any bias. Some of the hand histories are player submitted, but many of them are data-mined and so wouldn't qualify.
There are many, many, tests you could do if you had a really large HH base (as I believe you do) but I fear that it is pointless.

If you show that everything is as expected in any particular ways the rigtards will modify their whining along one or more of the following lines:

1) They will claim that the HH base is unreliable. How can you prove that it is reliable?

2) They will claim that the testing software is unreliable. How can you prove that it is reliable?

3) They will say they have no way of knowing that you haven't falsified the results. How can you prove otherwise?

4) They will come up with even more daftly contrived ways in which the sites are rigging the games in order to explain their own poor performance.

These people are virtually professional idiots.

If you manage to nail their BS at any point they will either:

a) Completely ignore your post and lay off for a few days and then start up again with exactly the same BS.

b) Accuse you of being a shill for the sites.

c) Demand an explanation as to why you are so concerned at their BS (and promply ignore any explanation given).

d) Complain that they are as entitled to their viewpoint as you are to yours (as if a belief that 2+2 = 5 is as valid as one that has the outcome as 4 ).

I think these tests you are doing are interesting but, sadly, if the show up everything as being perfectly normal I don't think it will make a scrap of difference to the rigtards posting here (although the current crop may well get new gimmick accounts).

Good luck, nontheless.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 07:59 AM   #5263
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
That being said, I wonder if qpw plays at times as well
Well, over the course of the last month I have actually posted quite a bit less in this thread than you so I suppose I have more time available to play poker than you aere able to spare.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 08:06 AM   #5264
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
1) They will claim that the HH base is unreliable. How can you prove that it is reliable?

2) They will claim that the testing software is unreliable. How can you prove that it is reliable?

3) They will say they have no way of knowing that you haven't falsified the results. How can you prove otherwise?
The source code will be publicly available. The database is also available to some researchers, and the sources of it are published. See pokerftp.com.

Quote:
c) Demand an explanation as to why you are so concerned at their BS (and promply ignore any explanation given).
I'm not, it's an interesting project on it's own. The purpose is not only to show the randomness of the deal, it is also to dig out any interesting effects, such as the known removal effect which causes the board to be very slightly weighted to low cards over high cards. There are surely other effects that can be found which would be brand new discoveries and interesting for their own sake. Other users of the database are doing game theory and AI research (like the folks at the UofA.)
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 08:15 AM   #5265
SooperFish24
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,028
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
What do you do for a living now Scooper now that you have retired from rigged poker after losing a lot (guess you were one of the losing players riggedness did not help).

That being said, I wonder if qpw plays at times as well
I have a job running a small business with good salary and profit share.

I'm unlikely ever to deposit money to play OP ever again given my rigged beliefs.

I know you wont believe me but I wasn't a losing player and can prove that using sharkscope and my database, its just that too many ridiculous things happened over the years. I was perhaps a losing player in cash games on Party when I started playing in my pre BR days though overall I was in the green on Party from having 3 +$1000 tourney wins.

Overall I have profited from OP but not very much in the grand scheme of things.
SooperFish24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 08:18 AM   #5266
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,035
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
Well, over the course of the last month I have actually posted quite a bit less in this thread than you so I suppose I have more time available to play poker than you aere able to spare.
Cool. What is your Stars screen name then? You can always search for me online or check my results, so I am sure you are in the same category, right


Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
I have a job running a small business with good salary and profit share.

I'm unlikely ever to deposit money to play OP ever again given my rigged beliefs.

I know you wont believe me but I wasn't a losing player and can prove that using sharkscope and my database, its just that too many ridiculous things happened over the years. I was perhaps a losing player in cash games on Party when I started playing in my pre BR days though overall I was in the green on Party from having 3 +$1000 tourney wins.

Overall I have profited from OP but not very much in the grand scheme of things.
I can believe anyone was a net winner a few years ago when bonuses were all over the place. ALso, many get early scores like you did and assume they are much better then they really are.

For the small business you run, I assume you cheat customers. You would get more benefit doing so, right?
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 08:33 AM   #5267
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Markusgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
For the small business you run, I assume you cheat customers. You would get more benefit doing so, right?
IF IT CAN HAPPEN IT WILL
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 08:43 AM   #5268
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
Cool. What is your Stars screen name then? You can always search for me online or check my results, so I am sure you are in the same category, right
Why do you think I play on stars?

I've stated before that I have no intention of ever revealing my OLP screenname unless I want to for some reason.

I hope you aren't going over to the dark side and getting worried about where people play, how much they play, what stakes and what they do for a living. It's bad enough the 'tards obsessing about such irrelevancies.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 08:45 AM   #5269
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
The source code will be publicly available. The database is also available to some researchers, and the sources of it are published. See pokerftp.com.
Yes, but this won't satisfy the rigtards.

Quote:
I'm not, it's an interesting project on it's own. The purpose is not only to show the randomness of the deal, it is also to dig out any interesting effects, such as the known removal effect which causes the board to be very slightly weighted to low cards over high cards. There are surely other effects that can be found which would be brand new discoveries and interesting for their own sake. Other users of the database are doing game theory and AI research (like the folks at the UofA.)
I agree that it's an interesting project.

I just hope that you don't discover and reveal a couple of facts that I have found from my own research but which I'm keeping to myself as they give me a useful edge.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 09:18 AM   #5270
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,035
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
Why do you think I play on stars?

I've stated before that I have no intention of ever revealing my OLP screenname unless I want to for some reason.

I hope you aren't going over to the dark side and getting worried about where people play, how much they play, what stakes and what they do for a living. It's bad enough the 'tards obsessing about such irrelevancies.

Hardly. Just showing that if you are going to imply a comparison between us in terms of play, you should be willing to show what and how you play. What I do is out in the open in that regard.

Basically you unintentionally took a riggedologist form of attack in your last post directed to me (ie: a claim without being willing to prove it), and I had a little fun with it. That's all.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 09:58 AM   #5271
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
Hardly. Just showing that if you are going to imply a comparison between us in terms of play, you should be willing to show what and how you play. What I do is out in the open in that regard.
So you are joining supperdish and tk1133 in diverting attention from discussions of possible rigging to off topic matters that have no relevance to rigging.

Why?

Quote:
Basically you unintentionally took a riggedologist form of attack in your last post directed to me (ie: a claim without being willing to prove it), and I had a little fun with it. That's all.
Except that you got it wrong.

You said you were wondering if I played.

I claimed that you had posted more in this thread than I had over the last month - which is easily provable; just count the posts.

So for all other activities I had more time than you did (unless you want to get into childish arguments about typing speeds).

If you want to join the rigtards making stupid comments about irrelevancies it's up to you but I would have thought you would have a little more sense and better things to do with your time.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 10:15 AM   #5272
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,035
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
So you are joining supperdish and tk1133 in diverting attention from discussions of possible rigging to off topic matters that have no relevance to rigging.

Why?
Change of pace.

My amusement.

A break from you responding to every post and calling everyone a ****** while they call you a shill is nice once in a while.




Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
Except that you got it wrong.

You said you were wondering if I played.
I do because you blow a lot more wind overall then even most riggedologists. Oh wait, not in a specific 2-3 week period a little while ago. My bad on that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
I claimed that you had posted more in this thread than I had over the last month - which is easily provable; just count the posts.
Shrug ok. How about posts overall on the board and this thread. Does this matter in some way, you seem to be implying it does. All I am saying is think out your attacks for a few seconds before spew typing, then doing a ton of explaining/rationalizing later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
So for all other activities I had more time than you did (unless you want to get into childish arguments about typing speeds).
Ah, so this was your point I guess. Well, I usually add a couple posts here with my coffee before I start and a couple between sit and go/tournament blocks, so it is a fun use of a bit of spare time I guess.

Congrats on spending less time in this thread for a couple weeks this past month then I did? I assume that is what you want to hear?

In future, just call me a jerk, it is quicker and probably more accurate then your strange, subtle implied insults. You really are a riggedologist when it comes to trash talk at times

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
If you want to join the rigtards making stupid comments about irrelevancies it's up to you but I would have thought you would have a little more sense and better things to do with your time.
I post in this thread for entertainment purposes. This chat is a variation of that to me, your imposed value judgments notwithstanding .


And while I think the riggedologists calling you a shill is silly and mundane, there is a point to the fact that you will not show at all what or how you play. You know how you treat people like that who will not show any data when they talk about all their crazy rigged theories.

Anyway, done the break! Have fun today, I may rejoin it later when I have time. I yield the final word in this mini chat to you as I know you have to have it, so at least take a little bit of time and make it a good zinger!

All the best.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 11:42 AM   #5273
SooperFish24
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,028
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
Cool. What is your Stars screen name then? You can always search for me online or check my results, so I am sure you are in the same category, right




I can believe anyone was a net winner a few years ago when bonuses were all over the place. ALso, many get early scores like you did and assume they are much better then they really are.

For the small business you run, I assume you cheat customers. You would get more benefit doing so, right?
Lol I see what you did there thats very clever. It's a shop so customers come in and pay for the product face to face. If I were an internet business selling fake concert tickets however I could see the comparison.

qpw prove that you play will you. You dont have to post any screen names or anything just post a couple of big pots you ve been invloved in recently. I dont think you can though because you dont even play Online Poker do you.
You must be a shill the way you throw around childish insults in this thread or perhaps just plain ignorant.
SooperFish24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 12:02 PM   #5274
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,035
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
Lol I see what you did there thats very clever. It's a shop so customers come in and pay for the product face to face. If I were an internet business selling fake concert tickets however I could see the comparison.
Then just give the customers that pay cash a little less change then they should get. A quarter here, a dime there - most will not notice and those that do you can say it was an honest mistake. Or those that pay by credit or debit card, make a bit more by inverting some digits "by mistake" or if it is automatic, you program your cash machine to add a little bit once in a while without showing it. Those computer things are easy to program after all.

I assume you do all of this because you would gain a bit more money. That is the only thing that matters when running a business, right?

You can certainly deny these true facts, but if you do I would be curious what reasons you could possibly give to not make this extra money. Why are you defending this business you are in so much?

Oh, and congrats on figuring out what I am doing here, as it is deeply complex and subtle. Feel free to avoid directly answering any of the facts I stated above as well, it will only confirm you steal (did it again...)

All the best.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 12:53 PM   #5275
kitchma
journeyman
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: denial
Posts: 270
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
Lol I see what you did there thats very clever. It's a shop so customers come in and pay for the product face to face. If I were an internet business selling fake concert tickets however I could see the comparison.

qpw prove that you play will you. You dont have to post any screen names or anything just post a couple of big pots you ve been invloved in recently. I dont think you can though because you dont even play Online Poker do you.
You must be a shill the way you throw around childish insults in this thread or perhaps just plain ignorant.

Sooper, do you believe there is an ethical code among "shills" that prevents them playing online? Can they play on sites they don't work for?

Also, I laud you for your consistency on what defines proof. I know qpw is busy suppressing negative views of OLP so I dug up one of his HH for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kitchma View Post
qpwwwwwwwww..............

Full Tilt Poker $200/$400 Pot Limit Omaha Hi - 2 players - View hand 42333
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

qpw(BB): $37966.00
Patrik Antonius (BTN/SB): $42026.00

Pre Flop: ($600.00)
Patrik Antonius raises to $1200, durrrr calls $800

Flop: ($2400.00) K Q 6 (2 players)
qpw bets $1750, Patrik Antonius calls $1750

Turn: ($5900.00) 4 (2 players)
qpw bets $4250, Patrik Antonius raises to $18650, qpw calls $14400

River: ($43200.00) 9 (2 players)
qpw bets $16366 all in, Patrik Antonius requests TIME, Patrik Antonius calls $16366

Final Pot: $75932.00
qpw shows A 3 T 5 (Ace King high)
Patrik Antonius shows 8 Q K 8 (two pair, Kings and Queens)
Patrik Antonius wins $75931.50
(Rake: $0.50)
I assume that you are now satisfied.
kitchma is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive