Exactly.

How does your rig adapt to players not playing in the way the rig expected them to play?

I would be curious how the sites can even program a rig that adapts to a near unlimited number of combinations of players (changing constantly), but I kind of like the "mind control" feel of your beliefs so let's develop them and hopefully that can be a new avenue for future riggies.

Your ideas certainly beats the other riggie as he channels a 4 year-old by hurling a litany of "why" questions he does not care about being answered (while that too is at least a bit different, it is a pointless tactic with regard to the development of the riggie culture).

All the best.

P.S. Don't worry - I doubt anyone expects you to answer.

This is the part I have a real problem with.

OK, so I've got my hand histories, and lets give you a scenario that occured last night.

I have K 10. Opponent has 7 7.

Pre flop all in. Board reads K 7 10 ( other card cannot remember on the turn ) river is another 10.

Now I have that hand history, I've detected that this is a rather strange flop and river given the two players involved in the hand BOTH happen to have a very large chunk of.

Firstly, lets look at the flop. There are 3 cards specfic to this hand. K, 10 and 7. They ALL hit the flop. The two players who are betting BOTH happen to hit big hands. The turn is of no consequence, but the river gives BOTH players a full house.

I've got lucky and rivered a better full house agaisnt the ONLY player playing against me. He is sat there thinking "bugger me.. this site is rigged, the odds of ONE player hitting a full house is 2.6%. The odds of a player losing with a full house is 0.0012%.

He is confident that the 0.0012% chance of losing is sufficient to suggest that poker is rigged, he has the hand history. What evidence have you got to say that the cards dealt in this hand were randombly selected.

There is no proof whatsoever. We only have YOUR word that the cards that came on the flop, turn and river were randomly chosen. You can tell me till you are blue in the face that its random, but you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back that claim up.

You have Cigital telling us that its random, but you pay them to say that. You tell me its random, but try telling the poor sucker who had 77 and lost to another full house, soemthing that happens once in every 1000 times you hit a full house, that its totally random.

He will not be convinced, and you cannot blame him because YOU canot prove that you didn't choose what cards to put ont eh flop turn and river once it was determined what two players were involved in the hand, and what hole cards they had, and more importantly what cards would instigate the most exciting outcome.

*

Edit/MH:

So we know how many times he should lose that hand, can't we figure out if its legit by seeing how many times it actually happens?

What ?

[BEGIN RIGTARD TRANSLATOR]
PROCESSING...

HURRRR DURRRRRR DE DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR DE DERP DERP.

[/END RIGTARD TRANSLATOR]

So, what would you propose they do?

I'll refer you back to a point I made earlier.

Supposing I have AA 100 times in a month. I win 78% of the time with it, then the fact I've won 78% of the time is consistent with the probability expectant, and you would say "well you won the right amount of times, and lost the right amount of times so therefore its random"

However, what happens if in all those 78 hands I hit runner runner aces to beat quad Ks because my opponent had KK and the flop came down K K 10.

Because I won 78% of the time then you are saying its random because what you would expect to happen 78% of the time has happened. My AA won.

What you haven't seen is HOW that AA won 78% of the time.

Having access to hand histories does NOT prove that the cards are random. Not in the slightest. All it does is allow you to check if AA wins the right number of times.

If I play a slot machine and the odds suggest I will hit 4 bells once in every 3 million spins, just because I hit the jackpot once in my 3 million spins it doesn't mean the slot machine is randomly dropping in those four wheels. A slot machine is as rigged as hell, but they still make sure the probabilities of meeting certain expected results are met.

Did you use a random number generator to come up with the 0.0012% and one in 1000? If so I think you need to get someone in to audit that. If not you need to try not being completely awful at maths.

This is actually hilariously easy to check using HEM and PT.

So basically you are saying unless God himself shines a heavenly light to prove that every card ever dealt on any poker site at any time from the inception of online poker till the end of time as we know it then people can logically assume its rigged.

You are ridiculous.

You set the proof for the case of legitimacy at an unrealistic, absurd, illogical level, yet at the same time the bar you set for rigged doesnt even exist. You just assume any card that comes is rigged just because.

No offense, but its easy to see why you are a degenerate gambler. You lack critical thinking skills and you think totally irrationally with regards to poker.

I would really suggest finding a new hobby.

This game is not for you.

Other guys will try to explain why all of your riggie-math is wrong, but we all know that will have no impact on your beliefs, so let's focus on your beliefs.

This KT vs 77 hand makes you wonder if it is rigged. The hand seemed fishy (as per your breaking down all the details).

I want to help you develop your beliefs further, but let's try to be sure they have a bit of logic to them or else you will be dismissed easily.

Work it backwards and ask yourself why would a company rig this hand in the way it did? The all-in was preflop, and no more betting could take place, so why would Stars create two power hands like this which inflame riggies when that does nothing in terms of "action."

Imagine you limped (guys like you often do when not doing the outdated "3x") and the other person called, or let's say you busted out your 3x raise "2008 style" on him and he cold called.

Flop is K T 7

Action time!

Sure, one could ask what action hands do in tournaments where the rake is paid in advance (common theory is "to speed them up" as if a faster structure would not do that easier), but at least in this scenario your version of crazy would have the "proof" of an "action flop" that generated a ton of betting.


I know you want to believe it is rigged, and you need to believe it is rigged, and you should believe it is rigged (maybe go for that mind control thing the other riggie was talking about). The problem is your rig is completely backwards, it requires the sites to rig hands to be "crazy" when they never had to be for the same result.

Any site smart enough to do a rig like you guys propose (as millions of hands take place every minute) would have to also be smart enough to not display this rig on hands when it does nothing to the result!


If the flop was K 2 6 turn 9 river J and your pair beat his pair you would have never noticed or cared about the hand, so why would Stars not just do that when there is no more betting post flop? Can you prove to me why they would not do that?


Don't worry about the other shills and their logic and their questioning of your creative math techniques, where somehow a single coin flip hand proves a site is rigged. You saw what you saw, and you believe what you believe - take riggie pride in that.

My suggestion is you tweak your beliefs so that they at least make sense in terms of why a site would do it for that hand. No way Stars would plan a hand like that with a savvy observer like you at the table - they would know they would be caught and their business would be destroyed, so perhaps some other forces (maybe sinister...) are at work. Hope this helps.

All the best.

There's the evidence that the systems have been repeatedly reviewed, consistent with the regulations in eight different countries, and found to be satisfactory every time.

There's also the evidence that every single independent review by a player has found the results to be random as well.
I don't understand why you are asserting what I have or do not have, when you clearly do not know what I have or do not have.

Here's a post I made 2½ years ago that outlines some key pieces of evidence that the shuffling at PokerStars is truly random:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=21597

I can prove that very simply.

Your theory - that the turn and river cards are chosen to maximise betting patterns is impossible on PokerStars because the deck is shuffled and set before the hand begins.

Again, gibbo, it would be preferable if you understood the issues at hand before you made a whole series of wild and offensive accusations here. I accept that not everyone is an expert on this, and I'm happy to help you learn, but it's not very nice for you to keep making assertions about what I might or might not know, and what I might or might not be able to do... especially since you're generating a pretty fast track record of being wrong on these issues.

gibbo,

One other point: if we're going to have a developing discussion about these issues (rather than just making the same repeated false assertions) you need to actually read the stuff that I write here.

You asked me in your big set of questions about action hands that happen too often. You apparently didn't read my earlier answer before your latest post about action hands:

So, in summary, your theory about the turn and river being used to create action hands:

a) is impossible at PokerStars;

and

b) would actually harm the revenue earned by PokerStars.

If you're going to make up false and offensive accusations, can you please at least move onto something that hasn't been proven to be false and counter-productive?

I wonder why you think that if someone doesn't believe that PokerStars deals random cards, they would believe that PokerStars shuffles a deck and sets it before the hand? I mean presumably riggies don't believe anything PokerStars says about the way the cards are dealt?

Well, if we're creating rigged theories out of thin air, why not just hypothesize that there's a little evil monkey running around the PokerStars HQ dishing out action hands to harm certain players and PokerStars itself?

Most of the rigtards in this thread seem to want to try to maintain a pretense of reality.

What I'd like to know is when you're going to take care of this monkey problem and why this is the first we've heard of it!

This is pure conjecture Pokerstars has everything to gain with "action" distributions.The shear amount of this that goes on is proved by numerous player graphs running hundreds of BI under EV.
Pokerstars has everything to gain and does when more players see a flop.







ATo FTW

Well after seeing that hand above need we say more? Confirmed rigged

OnE OuT On RiVeR,

I proved in the linked post that action hands reduce rake.

You making baseless assertions doesn't actually change the fact of the matter. You can stand on a soapbox and claim that the earth is flat, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

What is it with these new riggies talking about "action boards" and "action distributions" on hands where there is no more betting post flop.

Anyway, Pokerstars makes a lot more rake if you and that opponent play a long, close match instead of you losing your stack all in one hand and likely quitting.

Very difficult to help advance the riggie culture if you guys continue to believe in rigged theories that actually work against the site (less rake, reveal rigs when they do not need to etc.).

Post your whines and bad beats in the BBV forum, but tweak your beliefs to ones where at least make the site will make some money and action boards actually generate post flop "action!"

All the best.

You call that proof?

You're full of wind mate.

You proved nothing in that post.You put forth your reasoning as to why you think it would reduce rake.I do not agree.
Player constantly posting -EV graphs is prove in itself.

No you need to go to the flop and you see this on stars all the time in cash games constant stack shifts from player A-B.You pay more rake over a long close match really?

How does -EV graphs prove anything?

If you and another player heads up play 200 hands with each breaking even then Stars will earn a lot more rake than if you or the opponent get stacked quickly.

As well, in a long break even match both of you will have enough to play again later in the day. Look at how angry you are being stacked in contrast.

Your riggie theory is backwards. I know you need to believe it is rigged and that is fine, my suggestion would be to step back and create riggie theories that actually benefit the site.

All the best.