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 3,445 34.94%
No 5,522 56.01%
Undecided 892 9.05%
Voters: 9859. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-25-2009, 10:51 AM   #5401
K13
banned
 
K13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 531
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

My AA's have won 40 times in a row so far on AP.

Rigged. LOL
K13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 10:55 AM   #5402
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 K13 View Post
My AA's have won 40 times in a row so far on AP.

Rigged. LOL
Oh, do stop posting things you've just made up.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 10:59 AM   #5403
K13
banned
 
K13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 531
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
Oh, do stop posting things you've just made up.
You want a screen shot from PT3?
K13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 11:14 AM   #5404
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 K13 View Post
You want a screen shot from CS3?
FYP
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 11:54 AM   #5405
suzzer99
Save the Cheerleader, Save the World
 
suzzer99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: givin' 'em the business
Posts: 98,563
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josem View Post
this thread now makes me sad
You know what makes me sad?



This is since the day the check problems started, June 3rd. And after May being one of my worst months ever. Both months the play has been softer than I've seen in some time. My hands just never hold. For 2k sngs. They never hold.
suzzer99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 12:59 PM   #5406
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 K13 View Post
My AA's have won 40 times in a row so far on AP.

Rigged. LOL

Assuming many of those did not see a showdown, that isn't an unlikely record at all. Even with all showdowns, if we assume average preflop equity of 80% against whoever went to showdown, then it's only a 1 in 7500 event to win 40 in a row. It happens, and isn't all that rare.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 01:22 PM   #5407
burden2
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 969
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post
Please don't ascribe beliefs to me that I do not hold. I do not have any doubts at all about the randomness of PokerStars shuffle.

I said that I doubted your Hand Histories were correct - the other possibility is that they are correct and that you encountered a 1 in 80,000 event (spadebidder's maths) and are just unlucky.
So if my hand histories were correct then you might say you doubted the randomness? It's a matter of perspective I guess. The funny thing is that what I posted is really nothing compared to the entirety of my running bad on stars.

I look forward to online poker being regulated, with truly independent audits of actual hands being done. When stars says their software is tested that doesn't mean anything more than a new employee passing a urine test. Does it mean they don't use drugs? It depends doesn't it? That is really the only thing that will satisfy me- massive amounts of randomly selected hand histories analyzed by an independent group. Short of that I will have my skepticism and you others will have your certainty lol
burden2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 01:34 PM   #5408
burden2
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 969
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Username^^ View Post
Is full tilt rigged ? :-s I see everyone talking about stars, when they indeed are fair. What about full tilt ? I got pwnd yesterday (Like i do every day) in most pathetic way vs the same donkey 5 times all of them in the row. He betted into me and call my raise on the flop with bottom pair or small pocket pair and sucked out all the time ? Then i stoped playing against him, becouse he was to good for me .. He called me down with 66 on 77J board, and hitted a 6 on the river ? He called me down with 109os on AK10 board and sucked out on the river (vs top2), he called me down with 64os on Q48 board and made 2pair on the turn ? And to give it a final touch, he knocked me out with K10os vs AJ, flop camed A4K, he called my reraise on the flop, turn camed Q, he called my shove and rivered a J.
I've got some money on FT now- it seems better to me. Like getting all-in with AQ vs. KQ on a Q high board I didn't feel like the villain was going to automatically get their K whereas on stars you really need a set to be safe and even then half the time the dagger is coming. I have taken some beats but it seems more balanced at least from a psychological standpoint- I don't expect to get bad beat and coolered without mercy over thousands of hands.
burden2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 02:07 PM   #5409
Username^^
veteran
 
Username^^'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Reviewing hands in my dreams
Posts: 2,784
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by burden2 View Post
I've got some money on FT now- it seems better to me. Like getting all-in with AQ vs. KQ on a Q high board I didn't feel like the villain was going to automatically get their K whereas on stars you really need a set to be safe and even then half the time the dagger is coming. I have taken some beats but it seems more balanced at least from a psychological standpoint- I don't expect to get bad beat and coolered without mercy over thousands of hands.
wait a month or 2 ..
Username^^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 02:29 PM   #5410
Rounding4Rent
journeyman
 
Rounding4Rent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 234
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Short of that I will have my skepticism and you others will have your certainty lol

well put
Rounding4Rent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 02:58 PM   #5411
LVGambler
banned
 
LVGambler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: EXIT42O
Posts: 4,884
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by batair View Post
I don't know or absence of belief it's rigged would be weak/agnostic atheists. Saying it's not rigged would be strong atheist. Weak and strong atheism. Agnostic atheism.

I agree weak atheist or agnostic is the way to go on both issues.
I would say I am an agnostic weak-atheist.. who doesn't really know what the **** he believes.. but I need proof! You can't prove anything without truth and facts (the opposite being absurd and random). I believe online poker is not rigged. Most of all because I used to be a casino dealer and losers will say all kinds of stupid sht because they're losing. I believe that if online poker was truly rigged, it would have been proven by now (openly and to the public). And I'm not referring to the rare cases of super-user accounts (that sht happened but they were isolated incidents). Now I used to say that online poker was "action-rigged" like video poker machines and slot machines are. That was until I did some research on RNG hardware (and probabilities). Slot machines and most poker machines do not use RNG's. Their software is rigged. To hold a certain percentage for the house. This can be adjusted through the software programming (=rigging imo). I don't think however that that's the case for online poker. I think that servers yield so much volume (of hands) and players are seeing so many more (hands), that the ups and downs of variance are more available to the human eye. Therefore you recall what you see because of the frequency in which you see it. In other words, it's like asking a dealer what's the craziest thing he's ever seen in a casino. A dealer with 40 years of experience will have many more experiences to draw from than let's say a dealer who's only been dealing for a year or so. The dealer with 40 years experience will most likely have the crazier story to tell. I would also like to add that arguing about this matter is somewhat a waste of time. Like arguing about whether a God exists. It really can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in a manner that all can agree on equally. And why waste your time arguing? Make your point and move on. **** what people think. I come here to this thread to get a little laugh when I'm bored and throw in my 2 cents every once in a while to say what I think. Basically more to voice my opinion than to argue. Thanks for the entertainment though (I have learned a few things as well).

| /.
LVGambler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 03:13 PM   #5412
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 burden2 View Post
Short of that I will have my skepticism and you others will have your certainty lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounding4Rent View Post
well put
except: The only people who have certainties are a number of the rigtards.

Those of us on the 'other' side do not know either way. We simply strongly suspect not and await credible evidence to change our opinions.

And I still cant win with two pair.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 03:14 PM   #5413
K13
banned
 
K13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 531
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
Assuming many of those did not see a showdown, that isn't an unlikely record at all. Even with all showdowns, if we assume average preflop equity of 80% against whoever went to showdown, then it's only a 1 in 7500 event to win 40 in a row. It happens, and isn't all that rare.
Make that 42 and 0
K13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 03:39 PM   #5414
suzzer99
Save the Cheerleader, Save the World
 
suzzer99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: givin' 'em the business
Posts: 98,563
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Lol if Absolute is rigged so the fish won't think it's rigged when their AA loses.
suzzer99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 04:08 PM   #5415
Username^^
veteran
 
Username^^'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Reviewing hands in my dreams
Posts: 2,784
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99 View Post
Lol if Absolute is rigged so the fish won't think it's rigged when their AA loses.
+1
Username^^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 06:05 PM   #5416
suzzer99
Save the Cheerleader, Save the World
 
suzzer99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: givin' 'em the business
Posts: 98,563
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

It should not be possible to run as bad as I am running. Like 200 sets of poker, maybe 5 big winners. Probably 120 sets that start out good then run way below expectation on the high equity showdowns. Including last 10 sets in a row just like that. I seriously would not be shocked if it came out PS is rigged. This just shouldn't be possible. It's like I've had 7 or 8 of my worst downswings back to back to back.

Either way I have no idea how one is not supposed to lose ones mind when this happens.

I just had level 1 reraise shoves called by K9, on two different tables. My games right now are as soft as I have ever seen them. Or at least in the last two years. And my chart just goes straight down. For 2k sngs. I ran 18% over 1k sngs in Jan/Feb, when the games SUCKED by comparison. It's like the worse everyone is playing, the worse I run on the bubble. And it feels like it's been like that for years. I'm not sure I've ever had a winning holiday weekend. How is this possible?

Last edited by suzzer99; 06-25-2009 at 06:33 PM.
suzzer99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 06:36 PM   #5417
suzzer99
Save the Cheerleader, Save the World
 
suzzer99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: givin' 'em the business
Posts: 98,563
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

How is this possible? Am I the only one with this weird pattern? It actually would really really help me to hear from a US multitabler who's been running good at the $27s-$39s the last couple months. That would largely refute my darkest thoughts about PS.
suzzer99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 06:51 PM   #5418
DMoogle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DMoogle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northern VA, USA
Posts: 7,132
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

lol donkaments
DMoogle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 08:15 PM   #5419
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 K13 View Post
My AA's have won 40 times in a row so far on AP.

Rigged. LOL
Hi K13,

I see you still haven't confessed that you false claims about the frequency of aces coming on the flop were, in fact, false.

Why is that?
Josem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 08:18 PM   #5420
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
Hi K13,

I see you still haven't confessed that you false claims about the frequency of aces coming on the flop were, in fact, false.

Why is that?
They changed gears, from doomswitch to boomswitch. It's a cycle.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 08:42 PM   #5421
Weevil99
grinder
 
Weevil99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Waiting for an epiphany
Posts: 620
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
Assuming that this happened, then the next step is deciding whether a 1 in 8000 event proves something. Realistically given the number of hands dealt I think it is safe to say that it does not, as many 8000-1 situations will occur every day...
Correct, and that's a point I made months ago in the thread in which this thought experiment originated:

Quote:
Originally posted by Weevil99

And that is the whole problem in a nutshell. Everything seen so far can be explained that way. Someone says, "This only had a 1 in 10,000 chance of happening, but it happened!" We reply, "But the site deals millions of hands every day. That's going to happen many times every day."

It is useless, even intellectually dishonest, to demand that someone show evidence of rigging from their own HH since the response can always be that the site deals x number of hands per day and therefore the observed event will happen y number of times per day on average.

Unless a site is rigging the deal against a particular player in some ridiculously improbable fashion, then one person can never prove anything from his own HH.

If someone says to me, "There was only a .00015113... chance of me playing that many draws in a row without hitting a flush," I'm going to think (and probably say), "That's some pretty bad luck, but there are people out there who've had even worse runs than that, simply because so many hands have been dealt to so many people."

The only chance I see of ever moving this argument out of the embryonic stage is if someone somehow obtains a very large database of hands with hole cards revealed and performs a rigorous statistical analysis on it, then makes the analysis and the database public so that any and all can check it.

The same end could be accomplished without revealed hole cards, but the database would have to be truly, spectacularly, humongous.

The former will never happen, and I haven't seen anyone talking about taking a crack at the latter, so I don't think this argument is ever going to move beyond where it is right now:

---------------------------------------------------

"It's rigged!"

"LOL! Prove it, rigtard."

"I don't have to prove it; I've seen it with my own eyes!"

"How about a nice ice cream sammich?"

"F-U! I know what I saw!"

"Yawn."
This post was from earlier in that thread. It eventually led to the thought experiment that is getting reproduced here. Back when this exchange took place, in March, it was very common to see claims about how easy it would be to prove rigging by a site. The usual accusation was that "rigtards" never brought any proof.

My position was, and is, that it might be extremely difficult to prove rigging, depending on how the rigging was accomplished. This is especially true if all someone has to go on is his own hand histories. Nothing at all can be proved by this unless the site is as dumb as potripper was.

Quote:
...especially if you allow people to define their own scenarios after they experience and observe the data. The key will be to create a theory and test it without using the cherry picked historical data.
And this is the problem. No one is going to invent a hypothesis for testing without having observed it already. If this were a natural phenomenon, we wouldn't mind that the hypothesis came only after they experienced and observed the data, because if the hypothesis is true, the result will be repeatable. In real life, this is how most hypotheses are born, anyway.

But this isn't a natural phenomenon. It's a man-made activity that can be changed on a whim by human beings. What happened last month or year might have nothing to do with what happens this week or today. In other words, the experiment might not be repeatable even if the hypothesis is true. This isn't something that is following the laws of physics or chemistry or biology and will continue to follow those laws tomorrow and the next day.

You can't point to the fact someone's horrible run with KK running into AA wasn't repeated and say, "See, that's proof it was just a bad run." That's no more proof that it was a bad run than the bad run is proof that it was rigged.

Quote:
The odds of someone guessing a correct number between 1 and 10,000 three times in a row is nearly impossible (1 trillion to 1), however if after seeing the numbers of

8,734
974
5,317

one can say how amazing it is that those 3 numbers were chosen as the odds were 1 in a trillion...
I'm snipping that here because it's starting to get tiresome seeing the same trivial illustrations of simple probability and statistics. Please, just leap to the conclusion that I have somehow managed to wrest a horribly primitive yet sufficient understanding of math from some source or other. We can save a lot of time that way. If you get too deep for me, I'll let you know.

Quote:
That make sense? If you see a logic error here feel free to point it out (as that was part of your plan I believe).
No errors in logic that I can see. On to the followup, and at the risk of appearing immodest I'll quote myself again:

Quote:
Originally posted by Weevil99
Our hero replies:

-----------------------------------
Okay, I'm back. I've done as you asked and learned the basics of probability. I also brought a friend who believes he's doomswitched. The problem he's been having has that same low one in ten thousand probability.

You say this sort of thing happens three times a second. For the purpose of this discussion, let's pretend that number is accurate. In that case, I'm sure you'll agree that my finding one person who has had such a bad run is meaningless.

My question, then, is this: given the staggering number of players online and the number of hands dealt every day, about how many one-in-ten-thousand "doomswitched" people would I have to find in order to consider it significant and worthy of a thread on this forum?

-----------------------------------
That was the followup question no one replied to. It was a response to this from qpw:

Quote:
Originally posted by qpw
Like this:

Why the hell is someone who has such an execreble understanding of probability playing poker?

Do you not have the vaguest clue?

Let me give you a clue:

There are hundreds of millions of hands of poker played per day.

You think a p=0.0001315 event happening to you means you've been boomswitched.

So let's see; how often does a 1.3 in ten thousand event happen if there are (at a very conservative estimate) 100 million hands played with obviously at least two people in each?

About a quarter of a million times a day.

Or three times a second.

Now, go and learn at least the basics of probability before you come back here with your ridiculous theories.

That's how I'd respond.
Weevil99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 08:51 PM   #5422
UncleDeezie
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Epitome of LAG Grinders
Posts: 96
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

This isn't anything scientific, it just may be extremely maddening coincidence.

I cashed out early Monday morning then went to bed. Woke up, played poker later on that evening and was hit with a 150 BB downswing for the day. That's huge for me. My biggest one day downswing for the last 6 months has only been around 70 BB's. So it seems strange to have this massive one day downswing RIGHT AFTER cashing out, especially since it's more than twice my largest one day downswing in recent play. The outdraws that were happening to me were sickening. If I had just eaten, there's no doubt I would have hurled on my monitor.

I know the proxies in here will probably give me flack, but oh well...I just wanted to share my story.
UncleDeezie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 09:41 PM   #5423
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,056
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
This post was from earlier in that thread. It eventually led to the thought experiment that is getting reproduced here. Back when this exchange took place, in March, it was very common to see claims about how easy it would be to prove rigging by a site. The usual accusation was that "rigtards" never brought any proof.
The did not and still have not and indeed most of their beliefs would be very easy to test, which has always been one of my main complaints about their theories. If the sites were indeed pulling off a massive conspiracy they would at least do it in a way that would not be that easy to catch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
My position was, and is, that it might be extremely difficult to prove rigging, depending on how the rigging was accomplished. This is especially true if all someone has to go on is his own hand histories. Nothing at all can be proved by this unless the site is as dumb as potripper was.
But it is not a population in isolation. You test your hand histories, I test mine, others test theirs, and if a pattern emerges that is incorrect it will be detected. I am not the expert like spade, but he has made it very clear that basically anything can be tested, and given that one has to assume that nearly everything is tested by the playing public. Basic checks and balances.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
And this is the problem. No one is going to invent a hypothesis for testing without having observed it already. If this were a natural phenomenon, we wouldn't mind that the hypothesis came only after they experienced and observed the data, because if the hypothesis is true, the result will be repeatable. In real life, this is how most hypotheses are born, anyway.
You have a very odd sense of how things work at times. Spade is working on a massive hand history analysis that will analyze all sorts of scenarios. I am sure others have as well.

Even if it is natural, one would still need to to some study to determine if it is an accurate observation. My left arm got bitten more by bugs then my right arm. Does that prove anything? Well, no unless we see that through a decent sample size that trend continues.

You are doing the thinking version of fancy play syndrome in complexifying some rather simple processes.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
But this isn't a natural phenomenon. It's a man-made activity that can be changed on a whim by human beings. What happened last month or year might have nothing to do with what happens this week or today. In other words, the experiment might not be repeatable even if the hypothesis is true. This isn't something that is following the laws of physics or chemistry or biology and will continue to follow those laws tomorrow and the next day.
You are ignoring a key component of humans, namely that with all of the humans changing the rigging on a whim with their coffee, one of them would have told by now. That is simple human behavior.

Your odd mix of 90s trance and Orwellian controlled humans doing what they are told without no one ever finding out for years over hundreds of sites fails the real world common sense test even if you ignore all of the math.

Your theoretical world simply cannot exist based on the current limitations of humans.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
You can't point to the fact someone's horrible run with KK running into AA wasn't repeated and say, "See, that's proof it was just a bad run." That's no more proof that it was a bad run than the bad run is proof that it was rigged.
It is not proof of anything. To prove it is rigged you need to use unbiased data of an adequate size to statistically prove your theory. Many do that every day, and many here have explained how to do it.

You seem to think it all ends with a mystery after a random guy says his luck is impossible. It does not if he chooses to properly study it. Most riggedologisats do not because they have no real data other then what they think they remember.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
I'm snipping that here because it's starting to get tiresome seeing the same trivial illustrations of simple probability and statistics. Please, just leap to the conclusion that I have somehow managed to wrest a horribly primitive yet sufficient understanding of math from some source or other. We can save a lot of time that way. If you get too deep for me, I'll let you know.
You are the one trying to make this into some grand philosophical, mystical debate when it really is only about basic human behavior and basic statistical analysis.

Massive conspiracies involving hundreds or thousands of people over the years for hundreds of poker rooms (many of which are now defunct) which has never been discovered either by a whistle blower or the immense amount of statistical studies and data available simply fails basic common sense. Come back from the ethereal plane for a minute and try to explain how this would not have happened yet if all of the sites were indeed rigged.

Your thinking exercise may seem significant to you, but you could form the exact same deep thoughts about whether people can teleport. Reality is simpler - when I see someone teleport I will believe someone can teleport.

Or as the cliche goes - if pigs had wings they could fly.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 09:41 PM   #5424
suzzer99
Save the Cheerleader, Save the World
 
suzzer99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: givin' 'em the business
Posts: 98,563
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

I'm still waiting to hear from a multitabling US snger who has run hot the last 2 months.

Oh yeah, duh, they wouldn't be reading this thread. I only wandered in here after the first month of hell.

Also I just won $130 that last set. Time to quit for the month while I'm slightly ahead of my recent low. The thought of loading up another set to me right now is probably akin to the feeling a dog gets when it knows it's abusive master is just about to kick the **** of it.
suzzer99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 10:07 PM   #5425
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,056
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99 View Post
I'm still waiting to hear from a multitabling US snger who has run hot the last 2 months.
sippin_criss seems to still be winning a buck or two. You cal also sharkscope some US regulars that you see as well to see if they are running hot or not.

Come on now, you are not a riggedologist like the others that have posted in this entertainment purposes only thread. You had a bad run, let it impact you emotionally, and started playing way below your A game as a result which helped the downward process as well.

That is called being human.

Now, you can either take a break and refocus and catch your breath or continue to develop paranoid theories. If you choose the latter they will eventually consume you as they have done to others in this thread.

Do not be afraid of your short term losses, be afraid of what type of player it can make you if you start seeing dark sinister forces at work against you.

You have a billion posts here and have been here for years, you know better. Snap out of it already.
Monteroy 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 02:37 AM.


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