So is that a yes???

When you live in a glasshouse, you really shouldn't throw stones

Reposted as it was getting burried in riggie lies and deflection

So how well do you know your rigges?

Nearly the end of the month and the bosses here at Shill Towers asked me to test the rest of the Shills on how well they know their riggies.

If you can get them all correct without searching, you get a 50c per bonus for July.

There are some blasts from the past to test you.

1) The obvious manipulated deal

2) Come to America Wiki, I want to fight you

3) <insert random picture of dude>

4) I pushed a bully under a train so now I'm HARD I tell you

5) It was rigged till they switched me to the .eu site

6) Shillarious

7) Everyone should look at their handhistories and make their own judgement, nothing else matters

8) <insert any stalker like comment referring to Monty and Colin>

9) I'm going to video myself predicting hands. No I'm not. Yes I am

10) BR is probably a winning player

Good luck earning your July bonus.

Rigging online poker is risky ?
How come ?

ex-riggie on a h33333t0r.. or then it was all full of summer vacation n333333rdz





gief more of this plxxxx


4,5bb/100 over quite nice sample on relatively high stakes isnt too bad.. zero table selection and max amount of tables

Here’s a pretty thorough article explaining the whys and hows as to whether online poker rooms may or may not be rigged, along with a brief history of some of the online poker scandals. It’s a good read for the newer Riggies, and maybe some fodder for the Turds to sink their teeth into. Since it’s more of a balanced “what if” approach to the question of rigging, I don’t really see how the Turds will find too much to object to. But, rest assured, they’ll find a way. For one thing, it’s fairly obvious that English is not this guy’s first language. So the Turds can at least get their pea-brained Jollies correcting his grammar. Enjoy.


IS ONLINE POKER RIGGED OR NOT ?
Is Online Poker Rigged ? (Part 1)
While many poker players display some kind of blind trust toward online poker rooms, many others are more skeptical and wonder if, by chance, it could be possible that maybe the game could be at least partly rigged in some way...
We are going to have a wide look at this topic and will try to answer that very question: In the end, is online poker rigged or not ?

...

...

...


• More informations, offers and tips in our page about playing poker free of risk.



In the end, you may have noticed we didn't really answer your question. We didn't really mean to actually. What we wanted to do was to give you as much informations as we could so that you could answer this question by and for yourself.
Believe what you think you should believe, see what looks plausible for you, take the conclusions you want, and see if these conclusions are alright with you or not.
Then, it's up to you to see, and up to you to play.

See source: http://en.rigged-poker.info/

I'm sorry for not answering your questions; although, in my defence, it appears to be the norm in this thread.

I'd like to know, in simple terms, how the rigged deal actually works.

Do the sites just run a few, (relative to the total number possible), hands over and over again, with the winning hand being dealt to some players they have identified as morans, in the hope that the morans will call with their inside straight draws, etc, so that the good players lose with made hands?

Do they not use RNGs at all? If they don't, how do they prevent players with huge databases and analytical skills from seeing any deviation from the card distribution that would be expected from a fair RNG? How do they fool the respected professional Accountants who inspect and pass their card-dealing systems?

Has some genius programmed a generator to imitate a legitimate RNG, except that at the last millisecond, it doesn't quite deal a random hand, and changes the cards to give them to specific morans, whose playing habits have been programmed into the faked RNG - whilst still appearing as random to the statisticians?

It's all too complicated for me to get my head round, so please bear with me and explain exactly how this, as it appears to me, most incredible con ends up fooling every mathematician in the world - yet a few of you guys can see the rig after only a few hundred hands, in some cases.

Looking for enlightenment here, boss.

How many times does someone have to tell you to not copy entire articles? Good unbiased source, though.

Not a bad list though number 10 baffles me. He was a bonus whore and a failed one at that as once the bonuses vanished he could no longer win since he never "won" at the tables. He admitted that long ago before he was on my ignore (why others still talk to him remains a mystery to me, though the bingo game did make me chuckle).

Seems better references to him could be made in that list and one reference to that douche who got spadebidder to do a ton of work then basically insulted him non stop and misinterpreted all of the data. The guy who lost a prop bet, whatever his name was. Maybe also a mention to the guy who is a google search addict (looks like he posted a mega manifesto now with his latest research).

A mention to the guy who thought he was hacked because he was too stupid to realize he had all his info in his twitter account would not be bad also!


The list did remind me of the rigged commandments I was working on way back, but that (and my riggedologist term) ended when someone came up with the term "riggie" which may be the most significant accomplishment so far in this thread. I wish I could take credit for that, but I did not think of the term and whoever was the originator of it deserves praise for that work.


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

Well I'm sorry too for not answering your questions , but for the sake of the argument let's say that by some magic it's indeed happening and poker site gets caught. What's the worse case scenario that could happen for the owners ?

AMEC0404.
It's a good case study.

I agree that his tone was quite measured. However:

he hasn't established that. He presumed it. But he hasn't explained why statistical analysis could not demonstrate a likely rig given a certain rigged hypothesis. In fact, he doesn't really mention statistics at all.

You really can't have a full discussion about whether online poker is rigged without a detailed statistical analysis.

Any riggie disagree? If so, why?

But the problem is that you can't have a detailed analysis without a hand history with the hole cards from all the players, even UB/AP scandal wouldn't be proven if some employee didn't released it (by purpose or incidentally is unknown).

You keep on ignoring when people tell you that this presumption of yours is incorrect so I'm not sure what the benefit would be of saying it again.

You might interpret this as a rude response but I'm not sure what else to say when you've ignored it completely every time in the past.

We can certainly test our own cards, all villains' showdown cards, the board cards, and the relationship between the 3, for randomness. And from that, if the sample is big enough we can also conclude that the rest of the dealt cards, in aggregate, are random even if we can't see them, because they can only be dealt from what is left.

The only thing I can think of that would require all hole cards, is if a riggie was suspecting there was some shifting of dealt hole cards from one player to another but magically excluding his own hole cards from that trick (or else it would show up there too).

Bottom line is we don't need all hole cards to check the deal.

Ignored what exactly ? I really can't recall what you mean exactly.
What's incorrect ?
Let's stick with UB/AP example and superusers, we can after that move to the other ways of rigging.
Besides, "defenders" are ignoring many things all the time , that doesn't seem to bother you.

Wait.... What!?!?!? The deal is rigged? How is it rigged? Are there extra cards in the decks? Do they pull cards out? Aren't there video cameras to watch the deals so they don't cheat like they do at the casinos? I always wanted to tip the deals after every win yet I am unable to. Do the dealers online get base pay as well as tips or is it just base pay? How often are the cards changed online? WHY HASN'T A POST BEEN MADE ABOUT THE DEALERS ONLINE YET?????

Riggies please respond to mike haven's post. I'm not even opposed to hearing rigtard arguments as long as their intelligent...if that makes any sense.

I guess it doesn't.

I suggested that you read the threads on the UB scandal. Have you done so?

As for what the "defenders" have ignored, can you point out one that is relevant to figuring out if a given site is rigged?

This is wrong. Using just the hand histories of players who played in tournaments against potripper, the people looking into it had definitive proof of cheating. He was winning at a rate that was impossible without cheating. The complete hand histories that somehow made their way out into the wild just showed exactly how blatant potripper was playing.
You keep saying that without all the hands, you can't prove anything. You're wrong. The entire point of statistics is to use samples in place of complete information. What's there to stick to? They were uncovered by posters on 2+2, by noticing something was off (sound familiar?) and then actually checking into it. Simple as that.

No I haven't (lack of time) , but I know the core facts.

Well, they were doing that for 3 years, both in tournaments and cash games.
How come they were not caught before that famous tournament by using method that you promote ?

What's more important is that nobody went to jail.
And that's the moral of the this whole story, even if you get caught nothing's gonna happen.

UB incident had nothing to do with rigging as it is defined for this thread.

Arouet is right when he suggests you read the appropriate threads about the topic (it is clear you only know it in a vague sense). You should also read the threads about the Stoxpoker soft play issue and look at the detailed work that was done there to uncover it. Tons of threads about collusion and bots with detailed research exists as well to show the power of statistical research.

To answer your earlier question of what happens if a company actually gets caught "rigging" in a documented manner - they will pretty much go out of business. Simply look at what happened to UB/AP after the super user issue, their business took a nose dive after and the DoJ sped up their demise a short time with Black Friday.


Tons of online casinos and poker rooms have done a lot of bad things, and one thing all of those bad things have in common is they steal money in a much easier and direct manner than some crazy rig theory.

Don't worry, I do not expect your opinion/beliefs to change in the slightest no matter what anyone says, and I have no expectation you will do any of the simplest research that has been suggested to you. That is simply not part of the riggie lifestyle, but at least this way you can pretend that nobody answered your questions. That is part of the riggie lifestyle.

All the best.

No, you don't. You don't even seem to be aware that you're talking about two separate scandals and two separate superuser incidents.

They were.

In the Absolute Poker scandal, the jig was already up. The accidental hand history was just the smoking gun after everyone had already figured it out.

In the Ultimate Bet scandal, there was no such leaked hand history. According to you, the UB superusing should still be ongoing and undetected all these years later. And yet I'm pretty sure I saw Josem on 60 Minutes with a nice scatter graph...

Others have addressed the other points (which you have ignored before when the same points were told to you by the way). But this point is absolutely irrelevant towards figuring out whether something illicit is going on. It may be a valid point of discussion in general, but it is entirely irrelevant to figuring out whether there is a problem in the first place. Do you agree?

That he made within a day of someone posting "Hey guys, I think something's wrong" along with their evidence showing exactly what they found.