If you're a winning player, you're always gonna take more bad beats than you give out, just because you get your money in good far more often than you get it in bad.

No, you're the only one..

DUDE WHAT,
my post was obviously not intended for you not sure why you quoted me. Actually give you some props for being transparent pending you you do not have any gimmick accounts. Wich I don't think you do. shill gimmick accounts are fairly easy to spot because their repetitive word phasing and strong personalities usually run into their other accounts.

OP, you should not just limit yourself to the DoJ - you should also alert the various large media outlets on your findings as well.

You are at an important point in your life with the data you have gathered so be sure to use your power well, and you should also be sure someone you trust has access to the information in case Merge does something we do not want to talk about. Try to keep as low a profile as possible, so refrain form mentioning specific hands like that AA vs a 7 hand as they could use that to track you down. Your opponent got dealt 1 card and still beat your AA (making it 28 times in a row you lost with AA), and that's a scary sign that will send chills down any spine.

2+2 may be in on it as well (proof will be if they merge your important thread into the huge riggie thread), so you may want to log in from different computers to make it harder to track you. Use gimmick accounts as needed.

Best of luck and keep us updated on your progress, this is very important.

All the best.


Edit - it has been merged into the riggie thread, they are onto you so watch out!

There are financial implications, you are just too stupid to see them.

When idiots like you tell gullible people the game is cheating them some might believe you and not deposit just because of your lies.

This hurts the poker economy and costs every winning player money in the long run.

Instead of letting that happen without explaining to other players that you are FOS and just a crying little girl that cant accept losing, I choose to correct you the same way I would correct any person in any thread regarding any subject if he was blatantly talking out of his ass.

You ever think about that stupid?

No need to yell at gimmicks.

Riggies have pretty much zero impact on the poker economy, both as players and as messengers. People who want to believe them will want to believe them, and nobody can stop that.

If you are actually defending the poker industry from "attack" and "slander" you should speak to those in the industry more to see how much this is a zero importance topic, and other than threads like this (and laughter about crazy emails), most people working in the poker sites have little or no idea these threads even exist, and when told they laugh and do not care at all.

Definitions of non-issue for $400 please, Alex.

Just enjoy the thread for what it is and the colorful characters (on both sides) in it.

I wasnt yelling. I did call him stupid which I still find appropriate considering he just called me a lying cheater.

Obviously the impact is minimal, that is not zero.

They can believe anything they want but I believe its fair that they are presented with the truth as an alternative decision if they are too lazy and or naive to find it for themselves considering their decision has an effect on me even if miniscule.


This is the reason I sometimes respond to people in this forum that are lying about being cheated at least.

Who cares what a random throwaway gimmick says?

I am personally disappointed that I am not a bigger part of his shill conspiracy, whatever it is. I hope one of them gives a great manifesto about "shills" at some point, though unfortunately it seems the more I ask for something the less they want to do it, despite their natural interest.



Actually, it is effectively zero.




Definitely your choice in the end, but they will not care at all, nor will they ever change their collective mind, and most (not all) of the shills kind of get that that is their routine at this point. That is all riggies have, why take it from them?



A lot of times the riggies believe themselves regardless of what they say. One of them said his aces lost 28 times in a row or something, including losing to a 1 card hand.

Seriously, who cares? The crazier the stuff they say the better. Taking them seriously will just lead you to frustration, but in the end that is your choice.

I thought that at first too, but I'm pretty sure "a 7" was meant to be A7 > AA.

Doesn't make sense...absurd...nutty...wrong...! I'm not sure I follow your reasoning either but I'm not yet sure you're wrong!

I’m not at all sure Pokersite does have to profile, and specifically limit, better players. At this point, it seems to me Pokersite might simply reward the worst play, not necessarily the worst hand or player, more often than not.

Your so called proof uses only two players and a fixed amount of money ($50/$50) to examine how Pokersite might best rig that game to rake more than $5 from one all-in hand, which ends the trial. But you know that’s not a realistic scenario.

Let’s consider 6 max NLHE with one Sharp and 5 fish. Suppose Sharp gets fish A all-in pre-flop, pair over pair; fish A loses and quits playing (no more rake from Fish A). However, fish A is replaced by fish A2 with $50.

Sharp then get fish B all-in, say set over TPWK, but B runner runners flush. Sharp is now < even due to rake and fish B is x2. Sharp then gets fish C all-in way behind but C rivers a set to win. Sharp has now lost a BI+ but reloads (not re-deposits) from her $1000 Pokersite account, while fish B and C are x2. Fish C doubles up fish D after D sucks out. Fish E doubles up though D, etc, etc. Because Sharp is a capable +EV player she wins some small and medium pots and grinds back to even, despite losing 1/2 or more of her all-ins (though she was a favorite in all), while the money goes round and round, all the while being raked. Is Sharp not +EV, despite her only breaking even due to persistent 2 outters and runner runners?

Why wouldn’t Pokersite do whatever they can to prevent fish A2 through E busting and leaving like A did? At the same time, Sharp is effectively prevented from dominating the game and profiting as she should.
“But hey, if A2 through E are likely to be replaced by B2-E2, why does Pokersite care?” Remember, Pokersite is trying to populate as many (merry-go-rounds) as possible and cares very much about keeping as many players in the games as possible to maximize rake/revenue.

Sharp is effectively prevented from winning while the suck-outs are (let's say randomly) distributed amongst the fish. Unfortunately for Sharp, she is good enough to fold when behind, rather than overcalling for miracle cards, so she doesn’t share in the lottery. Being an intelligent person, Sharp just can’t believe she could be +EV playing the lottery (i.e. flip machine). The odd time she does step-out, just to see what happens, damned if the miracles don't fall in her favor too often. But she can't rely on improbabilities, can she?

Now….we can clearly see a pattern of bad beats in Sharp’s hand histories but we can’t use that sample for statistical proof because it is not randomly selected. That sample was selected because we thought it would evidence the bias we are testing. (See here where we flipped 10 heads in a row? That proves the game is rigged right? Not!). But if we start over and compile a truely random sample to test our theory, we have only our own hand histories and must admit that anything is possible, indeed inevitable, in a truely random sample. For any distribution there will be outlying losers, which could be me, while some fish runs like god for an improbable period of time. Someone should!

Ok…Pokersite knows all this and therefore feels very comfortable rigging the deal (not necessarily the RNG - which is the only component of Pokersite’s software ever released for supposed independent testing by people they pay -some think own) to feed the fish, more or less randomly, such that the money stays in play to be raked rather than funding Sharp’s mortgage payments or RESP. Pokersite knows that the rig cannot be detected unless a large number of players contribute large numbers of hand histories that can only prove one thing…some fish may run like god while some sharps may run as bad as Mike the mouth. But that’s expected and can equally be used as evidence that it’s random. “Sorry you got the worst of it and there is no telling if or when it might end. Maybe try positive thinking, or invest in learning how to win some other way than waiting for your 70%+ to get run over.” While that may be otherwise sound advice, it does explain the bad bpersistent eat phenomena so many of us are experiencing, which some think correlates with withdrawals or chat about rigging..

Cudos to wykh for persistence in trying to get a handle on wtf is going on. I have no doubt the rig will be exposed one day but I’ve no idea how that will happen. Given the recent actions of the US DoJ, I suspect they already know what's going on but have easier offences to prove so as to lock up the thieves and stop the theft/money laudering/bank fraud/RICO offences.

said simply

I see the yes votes are creeping up...

I'd appreciate feedback if recent arguments are ringing true.

Did the DOJ do anything recently I haven't heard of, or is 2 years ago considered "recent"?

Do you think the RNG is software?

I would guess already know most of it.

According to the the 2+2 Pokercast (and other sources), the DoJ recently setted it's civil case against Lederer (he gets to keep certain assets and accounts thought to worth tens of millions) but I don't know if they dropped the indictment charges against him yet. I don't suppose they did, or will, until EVERYTHING is dealt with, and we may never really know what is going on until then.

What I mainly want to draw attention to is the DoJ referring to online poker as a "Ponzi scheme" and boarding a plane before it reached the arrival gate to arrest Ray Bitar despite his stated intention to surrender himself. They wanted him baaaaaad and weren't taking any chances, which says a lot I think.
As you may realize, there is a lot the DoJ can't say for fear of tainting trials. But what they've said so far is unusual and should be construed in the worst possible way.

I'm told by Pokersite that the RNG is used to shuffle the deck. I don't recall if they've ever referred to it as 'software' and I wouldn't know if it is correct to refer to it as such. Might that be relevant?

No matter how I ask if the cards are dealt exactly as shuffled, I can't get what I'd call a straight or definitive answer. They say they have no reason to risk cheating (I say they do), that it is impossible to for anyone to know how the cards are ordered after the shuffled, or what cards will come, and that it is impossible to predict player actions (our HUDs and reads say otherwise) , etc.

However the RNG operates and the cards are shuffled, I don't believe for a second that they can't flip trough the deck and pick whatever cards they might want to deal in such a way as to optimize rake, speed up tournies, or make sure fish who tend to leave after losing a deposit don't get felted as often as they should.

What does that have to do with whether the deal is rigged or not?

I was answering otatop if that's OK with you!?

I dont think the so called shills are doing it to benefit any pokersite. They are doing it because( like my wife) like an arguement. And they are intelligent wanting to uphold common sense and mathematics. So easy to see this. But wait.. you must lose the rigged opinion and see motives of people that make sense. They threaten your blanket of riggedness.

I detest the term "common sense". If we use the terms "good sense", "bad sense" and "no sense at all", which one is "common sense"?

It was a simple example.

The more general use case is that "variance causes players to go bust". That's a simple rule of poker (and gambling and everything to do with money and statistics), and is fundamental to the whole poker economy.

Given your posts in this thread, it appears that you don't understand what variance means, but that's not particularly unusual because variance is awfully counter-intuitive in many places.

I'm not really interested in providing a comprehensive lesson on the economics of online poker.

Because I'm reluctant to type all this out again:

I've been reviewing some other threads dealing with the statisitcs and math invoved and I think I'll have to defer to the conclusions of those with the apparent knowledge and tools to do the proper analysis - which is that it may not be provable either way.

Some observations from which my beliefs formed:
I'm losing A LOT of all-ins AFTER all my chips go in waaay best and these losses are responsible for most of my money losses, whereas they should be responsible for most of my (unrealized) profit. By the same token, I'm catching one and two outters VERY often the odd times I do get it in behind.
In multi-way limp pots that are checked down, it is typically one of the blinds that win - most often the small blind having completed the bet and paired the turn.
I can't provide numbers, but I'm seeing the WORST (often ridiculous) calls (i.e. obviously dominated or crushed) win multi-way pots VERY often.
Overcalled/overbet draws get there more often than right-priced draws.

All of these observations appear to encourage very aggresive betting and calling, which coincidentally maximizes the rake.

Actually, I do understand what variace means, which is why I refrain from using it out of proper context. To be sure, I did look it up again just now to confirm my understanding.

I really am trying to appreciate your example, but I don't see it as realistic. It seems more like a oversimplified game theory smokescreen intended to sidetrack the discussion.

http://www.boomplayer.com/en/poker-h...258_664D60C203

Here is a perfect example of how the cards come out too give me a straight on the turn and then give fullhouse on river Stars always deals these action boards

No one who has the knowledge and tools to do the proper analysis has ever said that it "may not be provable either way".

The simple fact is that every honest study has shown that the results are exactly what would be expected in a random generation process.

The rest of your post is meaningless anecdotal memories.

Here's a post I wrote a couple of years ago why what you "feel" and "remember" is a poor indicator: http://blog.michaeljosem.com/2009/08...cognition.html

How can you possibly say that it sidetracks the discussion? It's a direct response to a repeated claim in this thread that "poker sites generate action hands to generate more rake".

There are two parts of that oft-repeated claim:

a) that poker sites do this

b) that action hands generate more rake

Given the totaly lack of evidence that (a) happens, it seems also important to dispute (b).

We have this bizarre situation where riggies make up a claimed crime with a claimed motive, without realising that there's no evidence that this claimed crime has even taken place, or that the claimed motive doesn't make sense either.

1) How can this even be possible when the deck is set before the hand starts?

2) how can PokerStars possibly know that you're going to make the bad play of calling a preflop raise with 56s in mid/late-position?

3) What is the point of an action board in a tournament where there is no rake collected according to the size of the pot?

4) As a general rule, when your bad beat story starts off with, "so a guy raised under-the-gun, and I called his raise in mid-position with 56s, when I had a 40 big blind stack..." then you're a muppet.

1) You should know (with that many posts) that the cards are not set and the shuffle continues through-out the turn and river.

2) they didn't know and calling a min raise is not a bad play with those cards hitting a straight is always a possibility with the cheap cost of 200 why the f#ck not. I be-leave that if i didn't call and someone else did the cards would be different and relate too players hands in the flop

3) The point is too get you out and into another tournament or back at cash tables (more rake)

4) suck me dry

5) How much does stars pay you too?