How large is it? Could you show the calculation you did?

Well I just directly calculated the probability, less than 4% chance to be that unlucky for just AA in that month. Now imagine all the other months and all the other top pairs I was equally unlucky with.

Could you post the calculations,please?

But Faen's super special.

So that was just previous month. This month I'm even MORE unlucky.

Let's not even talk about party poker and 888poker where I learned that it's just better to fold JJ+ preflop.

I haven't abandoned anything, and this isn't anything new - I posted about this several days ago.

So you can knock off the condescending crap.

Or I guess I could match you and say that I'm glad to see you've made progress and moved away from the lying accusation.


That's pretty much the definition of cherry picking. You've taken hands that you believe have been unlucky for you, tested those, and shown your results. What about all the other hands? Any hands where you have been in the luckiest 4%?

They're the calculations RustyBrooks did in the post I quoted directly below this post of yours I quoted, so it's pretty generous of Faen to claim that he calculated anything.

Well, i never expected him to post actual math and calculations....

he prefers to ignore like every good rigtroll and keeps posting made up numbers

Faen:

Your sample of AA hands. Were they all heads up to the flop ?

Getting butthurt are we? Well it's not my fault that you're wrong, and it's getting tiredsome to prove the same arguments wrong for like 100 pages.

Not really. I just picked anything that could possibly be tested.

Here's an analogy. Let's say you buy a box of chocholate. You only see the first chocolate bits on the top, but you can't see what's on the bottom. Now since you saw the first chocolate bits on the top, most likely what's on the bottom will be chocolate as well and not a pile of ****.

Not the best example, and I'm not sure if you will even get the point. But I've made the point and it is correct.

So you sit here and claim that I cherry picked hands that could be tested out of a large amount of possible hands that I could test for where I was lucky. Well i asked you to pick out hands in this large amount of testable hands, and you failed to mention any. Perhaps there is not that much more to test for the rig as you think.

No I could not identify anywhere where I was relatively lucky.

That's right

If you had actually read my calculations, I have provided with more advanced math than any anti rigtards can ever dream of understanding... Apparently..

Faen,

You are overdoing the troll arrogant riggie routine a bit (a trap others who used the same approach fell into as well). You are becoming a bit too over the top, so now it looks like even you do not believe your work, and you are just saying stuff to annoy people.

Granted, that's a better approach than the juiced guy who mutters stuff, and pretty much everyone ignores at this point, but you can already see on your end that no other riggies have supported you for a while which shows they are beginning to doubt how legitimate you are at this point.

Based on your posting its pretty obvious that you realize your math skills and poker skills are quite limited, and you are having fun with it (which is valid), but remember if you do not mix up your troll game then eventually you will become a parody of yourself and nobody will care anymore, and you will become a variation of that juiced guy (and notice how nobody has directly responded to him for days despite his dozens of posts).

Once in a while a riggie comes along that can be fun to this thread, if they do it properly and you show potential, but the problem the other riggies like you faced was that they could not adapt very well, and they became stale. You need to study and learn from the past riggies who failed long term.

Here is an example of a riggie who did a variation of your routine, though he did more the "woe is me" routine in his trolling. Eventually his posts got fewer and fewer replies because he never changed, and he became boring.

I will put his posts in order from oldest to newest and you can see how he never changed and people just ignored him after a while. He then vanished and has not been back for a while.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...sioned-806209/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...ink-so-816658/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...mbling-822222/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...e-yawn-897603/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/26...warded-858683/

(similar post to others, but already his responses went from 100-200 down to 20)

then eventually he would post stuff, few would reply and the threads would be locked.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/36...ottom-1003232/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/36...nents-1026747/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...poker-1053631/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/36...about-1063998/



All of the riggies I linked to you before faded away and vanished, and unless you improve your donk troll riggie routine you sill simply follow them.

You have what it takes to be a good long term troll riggie if you work at it, so I hope these suggestions help.

All the best.

Still wasting your life away, I see.

Why don't you get a hobby?

I have a hobby - I collect money. Thanks for asking.

You will note I never ask what a sub-human like you does, because I confidently know you would never answer, and if you did answer truthfully then the answer would have to be "nothing that ever matters."

You just exist, that is your life and hobby. You know I am and will always be better than you, so I can understand why guys like you come back from the void in frustration once in a while to vent at me, the only thing I ask is you remind me which one you are when you do that. Thanks for the visit, and now you can go back to your life routine. Have a nice day.

All the best.

If only there were multiple sites you could play on, switching each time the rig activates and increasing stakesas you go to make a fortune.

Can I ask you again what your level of education is in maths and/or science?

On the one hand we have several people all of whom seem better educated than you stating:

You are mis-using pokerstove
You don't understand what a Pokerstove range is
You have set a ridiculous range for your opponents hands
You repeatedly lied about never folding
You are using a cherry picked data set
Even if we ignore all of the above you haven't been nearly unlucky enough to raise any suspicions

On the other hand we have you saying:

I've proven it's rigged, you're all too stupid to understand, even though I don't know what standard deviation means and couldn't even be bothered to google it.
I'm even more unlucky if I use some other data.

I think we all know who sounds more reliable but feel free to carry on ranting

Sounds interesting, I'll read it on the train tmrw You're right, it's important to balance trolling and facts. I can admit that I do believe that everything I say is correct!

Just doesn't seem to work. Only works if I take a break and start again. Strange but true. That's why I suggested that the big owners of poker sites are all aware of the rig, and has a shared database of whom it should be rigged against, in order to demotivate players to change sites, which would also arise focus on the rig.



I have a bachelors in physics and soon another bachelor in electrical engineering.

Like I said Bingo_Boy, I have disproven every accusation. All you guys can do is try to make anti riggies look great and me look bad by using words such as "seem more educated" etc etc. But in the end that is just words. I am the one with the maths and logics. Everybody else are just bull**** talk.

1. I did not misused pokerstove. The probability is given there

2 and 3. I used the tightest range, the accused error is at most 0.3% difference. If you want to account for that in my calculations, be my guest, it doesn't change a thing. FYI a range is a range. I bet you learned something new now lol.

4. Uh ok I folded 1 of 17 hands on the river where I lost with 90% chance anyway. So if you want to account for that, well it won't change the results at all. As always I'm very fair and reasonable in discussions, unlike ******s like you who keep accusing me of these points which I have disproven a billion times.

5. I disproved this accusation in a very recent post so I'm not even going to waste time on it.

So this is the last time I'll respond to these stupid accusations until I see any reasonable counter arguments.

Then ppl try to act smart about what they know about standard deviations until I prove that they don't know ****.

Nice try Bingo_Boy. This is the best way you can argue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem So this is proof of how solid my argumentation really is. From now I will no longer waste my time on ad hominem arguments or posts that are void of logics.

I think I have demonstrated that I know more about standard deviations than anyone questioning me about it. I thought it was obvious by now.

All I've been trying say is that due to the fact that I have posted the probability of how unlucky I am, the concept of standard deviation has no further value.

Just look at how I owned otatop for the 9999th time:

And you don't know what a standard deviation is or why its important?

I don't know why people are arguing with you about this. It's clearly correct to say that for any given distribution there is a one-to-one correspondence between the number of standard deviations away from the mean a given result is and the probability of that result (or some worse result) occurring.

Example: In a normal distribution there is a 17% chance of a 1. s.d. result or worse occurring, so if Faen says "There was only a 17% chance of this or some worse result occurring", it is stupid to tell him that it's important to know how many s.d.s away the result was - it isn't important because the only thing you are going to do with the '1 s.d.' information is calculate the result that he has already given you - 17%.

I think there is a tendency to assume that riggies are wrong about everything simply because they are very likely to be wrong about one thing.

edit: I don't know why I got dragged back into posting here. I'll disappear for another year again now

LOL, no. You just sound like a jackass when you talk down to everyone about a subject which you know much less about than you think you do.

Gosh, let me see if I can wrap my head around that complex analogy.

Your wording in the post I responded to is pretty convoluted, so it's very unclear how you picked the particular starting hands you tested. But your analogy is terrible since you aren't expecting your box of chocolates to contain random things, unlike playing poker when you are supposed to get random cards. So to pick a couple starting hand samples and find that you won less with them than expected, and then to say that you expect the rest of the starting hands to be exactly the same, is ridiculous.

Because he said and all he's backed it up with is saying that the run he had was only 4% likely to happen.

4%? OMG call the news, Tens of thousands of players must be seeing this.

Of all the clowns that have passed through this thread you are without doubt the most delusional. I could quote you basically admitting that you don't know what a Pokerstove range is and you will somehow insist that you do and that I am too stupid to understand you.

You are now inexplicably linking an Ad hominem wiki page whilst calling me Bingo_Gay. Would you like to elaborate on why you are calling me that?

You are claiming to have a bachelors in physics whilst completely ignoring recognised scientific method and throwing around the word "proof" like cheap confetti.

I beg you to invite some of your Physics class friends to join you in this debate. I'm sure some of them must enjoy a bit of poker.

100% worthless sequence of words as usual since you are only providing this type of argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


If you did not know what the bag of chocolate is supposed to contain, then it would be random. Then you would have to rely on generalization as means of increasing the probability of the rest of the matter inside being chocholate. In fact even if we knew that the bag is supposed to contain chocholate, it still becomes a random variable since nothing can be proven and it is not impossible that you will find a pile of **** in the next bag of chocholate that you buy. But by generalizing your experiences and knowledge, you know that the bag will most likely contain chocholate.

I never said that I win less than I should with other starting hands. I did however say that I win less than I should with other valuable hands, such as top pairs, overpairs and sets in general based on my HM2. Those include my entire range by the way.

So to motivate you to improve your posts, I'd like to summarize what you accomplished with this post:

1. You managed to provide an ad hominem argument.
2. You tried and failed to provide logical criticism to my analogy. (that's the best attempt at least, but try to at least be right the next time).
3. You made an accusation, based on an assumption which didn't prove to be true.

Learn from your mistakes and I look forward to see your next attempt.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if his percentage chance doesn't correspondence to a significantly high SD (the consensus seems to be around 4) then it is not likely interesting.

You haven't even stated why you think being in the bottom 4% should be conisdered evidence of rigging. What standard are you using? How have you determined it?

Actually I backed it up with more a lot more. All you can do is lie lie and fail.

Not to mention as what Mr. Bobo was kind enough to point out is that I wasn't only unlucky with pocket aces, I was unlucky with pretty much everything: top pairs, sets, overpairs. Since I'm unlucky in all of those, the probability is exponentialy lower. Then the unluck keeps up this month, and has always followed the theoretical pattern.

The percentage chance of his result or a worse result is either interesting or it isn't, what amount of SDs it corresponds with is neither here nor there.

I see 4% being bandied around, let's assume that is correct. 4% is not interesting because the same or worse result happens to 1 in 25 people and that is a lot of people. Saying that it's not interesting because 4% corresponds to 1.8 s.d. does not advance the argument at all, if anything it is a retrograde step because if one started with the s.d. figure one would first convert it to a percentage to see if it was interesting!