Mike .It was last night on 888 , I don't use any tracking program , only by hand. would I be able to access this info from the sight itself or Somewhere else , as I am sure you are finding it hard to believe..

I didn't say you should quit , I am talking to ususpecting people hoping for a fair game. If they listen to you and pay for coaching and deposit tons of money expecting a fair game . How is that different?

I went to 888 MTT history and found the game
Hand 28 - AA - 5583K - 34,779 chips
Hand21 - AA - No Calls - 35,679 chips
Hand 3 - AA - I called all in on re reaise - Guy had K 3 - K9QQK - 0 chips

Finished 10th for $ 7.83 min cash I dont care if you think i made it up,

Ofcourse you don't, not that it surprises me, as I've already said before. It's far easier to write some bold claims without showing everyone you can do exactly as you say you could do. Seems to be a common trait amongst riggies. None of them ever delivers.

And since i'm a "shill purist" care to write down who exactly is paying me to shill? Another common trait amongst riggies, everyone who disagrees with them, is a shill. /yawn

Good luck with your psychic abilities.

Evidence commensurate with a claim is not "holier than thou." It's an intelligent approach to life.

Fantasy.

It doesn't matter. fidstar was never interested in taking me up on the wager, the same as any riggie.

I've mediated lots of disputes and there's one tell-tale sign that a party isn't interested in a solution; what you might call "string concerns." They bring up one problem, you solve it, they bring up something new. There's just never an end to the complaints.

People who are interested in a solution say "these are my concerns, solve them and we can proceed."

Parties not acting in good faith can take the latter line and then just quibble of minutia ad nauseum but that's sort of an advanced technique. Pikers like fidstar don't have that kind of subtlety.

I realized this by his second post, I just wanted to see if he'd continue to string and sure enough, fidstar delivered.

Also notice that fidstar felt the specifics of my backers was important but didn't really want to discuss it. That's because this hang-up was a fallback. If I solved all his concerns and obvious red herrings became obvious, he could drag that out and hang his hat on it.

zzZzZzzzzzz.

Speaking of which...

You're lying. The contestant is free to choose any sample size they wish. Per my rules:

Your feigned sincerity in the challenge is so transparent it's clear.

Statistics. Here, let me introduce you to it.

Gosh. That'd be work. That'd be rigor. That'd be ...THAT'D BE ...INTELLECTUAL HONESTY.

Let's go hold our breath.

Well, you lasted about 2 weeks before coming back, so kudos. I had forgotten about you leaving until I noticed your name today.

Umm dude, it was on you to reply about the ...

I am still very keen on the challenge if it is what I think it is. But I'm not betting against you unless there are some very stringent terms (I think you surely can understand why).

Don't put it on me, you're the one dodging ****.

sorry, further to the above (to late to edit post), you haven't solved any of the important issues I've raised.

Now you say that you work at resolving issues. Not sure if that is personal or professional, but if it's professional you would obviously realize that the main reason for a dispute is a 'grey area' in a Contract. The best way to prevent a dispute is that before both parties agree to terms is to clean up any of these 'grey areas'. That is all I'm trying to do. I assume you would have the same goals. I mean you think I'm easy money. So you wouldn't want me to get out with any loop hole. Likewise I think I can make money on this bet. So I want to clean up any loophole, as there are plenty. It should be noted that I don't believe you put loop holes in your proposal intentionally, as I believe you when you wrote that you thought no one would take you up on your offer.

Doesn't that make sense? You have mediated plenty of disputes. Surely you understand this. I mean I have been involved in several major contracts that have required months of negotiations before finalizing a Contract (not for one second am I saying it should take as long here, as what we are dealing with is obviously a lot simpler than building a $25M Road with a couple of bridges).

I mean one loophole I see just looking at it again is you could currently send me 2,000 hands of Razz. I don't even know the rules of the game. That would make it easy money for you and I couldn't do anything about it. I mean there was no rule in there to say that the form of Poker needs to be NL Holdem. Now I'm not saying you are that type of bloke, but honestly I don't know you, and when money is involved anything can happen and I want to cover my ass.

I don't think it is unreasonable. So stop telling me I don't want to go ahead with the bet.

Do you have any Bridges For Sale?

Did the guy get banned for saying everyone should post this on their computer

I doubt that somehow, don't you ?

What? Why would you ask that? Do you want to buy a bridge? I think you got this backwards or something.

I do want to thank fidstar for pointing out some weak spots in my Spot the Rig challenge. I'll incorporate those changes and repost at some point in the future.

Having said that...

This might come as a shock but it's not "on me" just because you toss out red herrings.

You've flat-out lied what the challenge entails to give yourself cover, you've asked for the parameters of the challenge to be relaxed and when I did, you accused me of changing the rules, you've introduced questions about backing that have absolutely no bearing on the wager and you have acted in bad faith, introducing a never-ending stream of new concerns that aren't really genuine, and obviously so.

The jig is up, Kaho-tep.

You're welcome to continue to lobby whatever audience you think you've got credibility with until your head explodes.

As for the rest, tl;dr. It was one of your first statements to me so I'm sure you won't have anything to say about it.

Right?

I can't believe this thread has so many posts/pages when some legit strategy threads can't even pull a second page. unreal tinfoil hats much.

ok, the fact you don't want to sort out the issues is basically saying you don't want to do it. I didn't ask for one parameter to be relaxed? When did I lie??????

I asked about backing. That was one thing of several things I asked about. And you keep harping on that. Ok, let's drop that. Couldn't care less about where you get the backing from.

Now can we move forward.

You do want to go ahead with this?

I WANT TO DO THIS IF IT IS THE GAME I THINK IT IS. The facts are you are not clear in 'what the game is'. If it is the game I think it is and the only game that make sense for this thread, then I WANT TO PLAY. Why do you not think I do????????????

You are not clear and now you actually have someone interested for some reason you don't want to do it?

Would you care to post a bet of $500 and have someone we agree upon put the money in escrow? Once we have, I'll bet you I can post sharkscope stats that prove what I have said. If I can, I win; If I can't, you win. I'll further prove that the accounts are mine by sitting tables simultaneously on all sites at an agreed upon time and saying 'cheesie weesie' at the agreed time.

I have never spoken unkindly to you nor have I ridiculed anything you've said; yet you call me a liar, call me (implicitly) a shill (I will go on record here saying that I have no love for any site and think they all, to different degrees have serious problems in terms of rake structure, software, customer service, etc. What they don't seem to have is rigged RNGs), and so on. Very nice.

You say people can't make money playing solid poker and yet that's exactly what I have done and can prove it in many ways (and am willing to bet whatever you want that I can prove this). I see bad beats and coolers all the time; I lost at the beginning; instead of letting these two facts turn me into a riggie, I studied hard, got coaching and worked endlessly (still do) on my game. That's how it works.

It's not exactly one thread though. It's a collection of threads that get dumped in together, thus, it can never die because someone will always start a new thread about some new or rehashed rig theory and the debate begins anew.

Strategy threads entail some serious thinking and even hard work; this thread requires stubborness and (by those who insist on a rig but refuse to do the statistical work necessary to prove it) lack of serious thought--which one would you truly expect to be the longer?

I've been pretty clear about why I have no interest spending time trying to hammer out details with a person who's given me every reason to believe they're not sincere.

Move on dude. As for the rest, tl;dr. You understand.

Ok, it is below, BUT it doesn't seem that Holdem Manager has a stat that can show what percentage of the time I was "ahead" (and I don't know how to program custom stats) so you can't see that. If someone can figure out how to do this and tell me, then I'll do it. But here you can compare my average all-in EV with the percentage of hands I actually won. Not a perfect comparison, of course, since my average all-in EV should be a little higher than the percentage of hands I actually won because of split pots, but it shouldn't be very different so still can be useful.


So ... this is from a cash game sample of 1,595,931 hands that goes back to late 2005. Over a million hands were played at PokerStars. A few hundred thousand hands were played at Full Tilt. About 13,000 hands were played at Lock Poker on the Revolution Network.

The only filter running is:

-All-in on turn or earlier

the only thing rigged is their advertizing telling us we will be payed.

ok, you don't want to play the game. That's fine. We all have choices in life. You have replied 4 times (?), and in those times you could have easily cleared up the issues (very basic ones). But your intentions are clear. There is another reason I am not going to keep pushing it. I worked out watching 2,000 hands will take 11 or so hours. If we bet $100 each time and I pick 3 or 4 out of 10, that works out to be an hourly of less than $20/hr for doing something as exciting as counting blades of grass. **** I quit by last job that paid me 3 times that and I enjoyed that job (not so subtly hidden brag).

Anyway since we are not moving on with the bet I'll let you know how it would be good for anyone to take on your 'game', whether riggie and / or shrill. And why you would never find backing.

Let's go with the hit the river rig.

You say you will change the results of 5% of the hands played . After speaking to some heads up guys they advise that only 30% of hands played reach showdown. So in a 200 hand sample only 60 reach showdown. Out of those 60 some of those hands will already be decided before the river (i.e. there is no river that the player behind can hit to win the hand. e.g. Player A has a flush, Player B has a full house, there is no card Player A cane hit to win the hand). Let's say 10(?). So we are down to 50 hands you can change. So you are effectively changing 20% of the hand results.

When two players reach the turn the guy behind is probably, on average, 20% when he calls and sees a river (8-9 outs). Now even though he sees a river, doesn't mean it will reach showdown, as he is likely to fold if he doesn't hit and the other player bets. Some of the time it will obviously still reach show down (e.g. times when it was all in by the turn, river goes check/check etc). So 20% of the time he hits and we see river, 40% of the time he doesn't hit and we still see a showdown and 40% of the time he folds and we don't see a showdown. This means 33% of the time when the guy was behind on the turn he will be in front on river, when we see a showdown. Or on 16 of the 50 showdown hands.

Now you will change 10 hands, bumping that up to 26 out of 50 hands that made it. So you are changing it by 60%. A massive change! While I don't think I'm picking it 100% of the time, I think I'm picking it at least 2 out of 10 times. That's returning me a profit!

Ok, and here is how I think I could pick up another 1 to 3 of the 10. The betting in the hand wouldn't reflect the changed river. By changing the river and not the betting action it would at times be quite noticeable. I'll give you an example.

Player 1 has JJ, Player 2 has 44. Run out of Cards is 3, T, 4, 3, A. Player with JJ check / call river, not an unreasonable play. Now you change the river to a Jack so that he is in front. What he only check / calls the river with a Full House and the second nuts in a heads up match?!??!?! Alarm bells going off!

Note - Before you carry on about the percentages I have used above (in bold), my intention was to run through my data base before playing and work out the exact percentages. I have just used the above percentages to prove my point and changing them really doesn't change the fact your changes will make a big difference.

Ok, it's now time to move on. I am sure you have no intention of putting money on the line with your original game. On your side it would be horrible. It has nothing to do with who is a riggie and who isn't, it just would be a bad idea for you.

Now I will shortly disappear, but will drop back in just to check if you ever offer the game again (I'm pretty confident you won't). Then I'll call you out on it, paste this exact post, or maybe PM a riggie with this post so he can take you up on it.

Also on a side note, I really dislike that you called me a liar. You have a go at the riggies about not providing evidence when making accusations and you do the exact same.

On another side note I know the real reason you wanted to go with robots and not BCP hands, even though I mentioned I was happy for you to use BCP hands. Changing a hand on BCP is easy enough, but you would then have to go through all the future hands and change stack sizes, which would then compound for the next hand and then the next hand. How would have you handled an elimination of a player??? It would have been impossible to do.

Now that I have ripped you apart, I do want to say I do congratulate you on owning up about it being on you to post someone else's data when Mike Haven (Hi Mike!) ask a riggie. At least you were honest about it.

xoxo

Well if this is true then I'am amazed at two things , the possibility that online poker can be beaten at that scale. The other is why someone playing and winning at such a level would waste so much time on some riggie thread that won't accomplish anything. Instead you should be even further keeping up on your own game . Forget the riggies already , If what you say is true , you are a winner trying to convince a bunch of losers that they lost out of poor play and not a rig. Perhaps its better for us to believe in the rig and vent here than not. BUT , one sure thing is you have in all your time posting on here NEVER changed the mind of any disgruntled riggie. I could see a large winning poker player offering advice to sincere beginners and people with open minds asking for a little help. Why on earth do you guys continue to dispute findings from riggies that you feel are ridiculous and you have the winning records to prove it.. It just doesn't add up. I have met many people in different walks of life and those already successful that are willing to help only help the grateful. Riggies do not fall in this category , to a letter we believe our money has been stolen and are airing out on here. but you guys ???????

I waste very little time on this thread. You must be confusing me with someone else. I have about 700 posts over close to a decade on this site and I would guess a majority of my posts are on other threads. This one probably has the most of any single thread, but only because it's by far the most frustrating thread. I generally disappear from it for months at a time and then get drawn back by something of a 'car-wreck syndrome'.

Stop lumping everyone who doesn't believe a rig exists together. Some are here for entertainment, some genuinely believe they can talk what they believe is sense into others, some are angry at what they think is BS being spewed by the riggie side, some just love argumentation. I truly, truly doubt there are any true shills here--no one would possibly believe that it would be money well spent to have people here trying to convince the unconvinced; you may not have noticed but there are nearly no 'unconvinced' people in this thread.

I spend hours nearly every day working on my game (especially lately as I'm adding a new game to my repertoir) and additional hours playing. I spend 20 min max on average on this entire forum, let alone this thread.

I'll let you in on a secret of mine. There was a time, early in my voyage into becoming a player capable of earning a living from the game, where I believed some sites might subtly rig all in hands only (not for any player but simply upping the odds of longshot draws coming in) but I believed I could win despite this possibility. I came to this thread looking to see if anyone had done a study to see if anything like this were true. Doing so convinced me there was no rig--mostly because of the incredibly poor argumentation by those arguing for such a rig and their unwillingness to do the analysis required to show any kind of rig at all. Letting go of the 'it might be rigged' idea was necessary to advancing my game further. If anyone ever does decide to rig a site, and that is possible, they will be caught very quickly. Learn to truly beat the game and stop allowing this rig stuff to be an excuse.

One final thing: I have tried to help you and a couple other people I thought were being sincere with advice that helped me along the way. I don't care that people are disgruntled about sites; I get disgruntled too--due to software updates that make things worse, rake, and other BS. And I am not trying to convince anyone of anything--but I do get angry when I see people here trying to convince others of things I know not to be true--like the idea that no one can make reasonable or even great money playing online poker; it's not easy, it's not for everyone, it takes dedication and numerous skills, but it can be done. I also cannot stand fallacious argumentation and often fall into the trap of endlessly trying to rebut it (which is going to end now).

Thanks for your candid reply......

LOL, you berate others for wasting time in this thread while you keep posting :

'Im done here, blabla' and then instantly come back to whine a little more. Why do you waste time here instead of becoming better at poker?

Rig I was not berating him , just curious that a winning player making so much money wastes so much time with us. I don't want to improve my poker game for Internet poker because it is rigged , I just play around with numbers to overcome equalization programming. If I was making large amounts of money playing poker ,I would stay on top of my game and this thread would be the last place I would ever post on. The thing is I believe it is rigged and thats my excuse for being here . I just can't figure out why anyone who is winning and sees legit hands dealt online would waste time here. This should be for riggies to either beat the rig or support each other in ways to never deposit again on something they don't feel they are getting a fair shake from. The thing is gambling is addicting , and the nature of a gambler is to believe they could win , even when depositing when they feel something is wrong, sometimes we just need some others to agree that we are not imagining things and our money is not getting in good so to speak...Best of Luck to you if you are winning . Stork

Yeah Rig, a lot of the stuff Riggies say is ridiculous, but I think even you understand that your comment doesn't really make sense.

You are asking them to not waste time complaining, go learn how to play poker and then go and play on a site they think is rigged?

Then you come in here and waste time instead of learning to play poker better and winning more money on line on a site you don't think is rigged?

Don't you see how it is only in the interest of one of the two people above to go and learn and get better? Your comment really is just insulting yourself.

???. Do you have any evidence of the so-called equalization programming?

What's your background in software development? You have any clue of what you are talking about? Or is it just the naive view of a layman who thinks '"anything is possible with a computer"?

Looks like an excuse for bad play, lack of skill, lack of dedication. Read the next sentence and think very hard about it, because it's one of the most accurate sentences in this thread:

'It's a lot harder to win at poker than you might think'

Besides, there is a post from yesterday from a guy who explains why a rig which you suggest is simpy not doable from a technical point of view.

This thread is a containment thread for people who accuse poker sites for wrongdoing while having no evicence for it. You should stop to believe that this thread is 'for you'.
Even if it was, look around: No riggie ever tried to connect to other riggies to form some group for a serious investigation. Deal with it: This thread attracts bad poker players to vent their frustration, even if there is a whole sub-forum for that.

Maybe you will understand all this some time and eventually become a winning player. Good luck!

I added the bold in the above quote to show what I am replying to.

It certainly can be beaten at "that scale". In fact some people have won millions, let alone tens of thousands. Unfortunately, I have not won millions myself, but have won over $100,000 (maybe close if not counting rakeback/FPPs/bonuses/etc., but when counting those easily over $100,000).

I'm not sure what you mean by "at such a level". Perhaps you mean winning that much money or perhaps you mean winning at such a high stake. If you mean the later, then I think you are overestimating how high a stake you have to play to make that much money. For instance the vast vast majority of my play has been at 50NL ($0.25/$0.50), 100NL ($0.50/$1.00), and 200NL ($1.00/$2.00) (with the play at 100NL being easily the most and the play at 100NL and 50NL being 4 to 5 times more than the play at 200NL).