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 56.00%
Undecided 893 9.06%
Voters: 9860. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-09-2009, 05:47 PM   #6526
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,099
Re: PStars Appears to be Favring the Dog with their Software

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
What is it with you, you moron?

This question has been answered several times and you just ignore it.

I really hate to see people asking for others to be banned but you are such a witless clown that it really is going to come to that soon.

For God's sake, get psychiatric help before you do something really stupid.
He ignores it over and over to generate that type of response from you and others. Just put him on ignore. I never understood why people get so worked up over him. He is kind of boring.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 05:55 PM   #6527
GPocker
stranger
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3
Re: PStars Appears to be Favring the Dog with their Software

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
I do. I like to see if I can make paranoid people even more paranoid. Proving to be much less difficult then expected. Go figure.



Once someone show verifiable, credible evidence I will be the first to scream as well about the room in question.

A new poster posting made up hands from memory does not count as credible evidence, even if you take it at complete face value.

Do you believe what he said? If so, why? What credible evidence has he shown?

People have done excellent work to show bots, super users, colluders etc in the past using valid statistical methods as proof. I applaud their work and others that make the play environment better for us all.

Losing players who whine about bad beats and think the world is rigged against them? They are just there for amusement value as I see it.

Although, maybe something more sinister and darker is actually at work...

All the best
I am getting the hand histories now for the past week. Let me go through them and see what they yeild. Again I do not like conspiracy theorists, but if the numbers show this then so be it. I am committed to checking this out further in a serious manner.
GPocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 05:59 PM   #6528
Arouet
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Arouet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,433
Re: PStars Appears to be Favring the Dog with their Software

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
He ignores it over and over to generate that type of response from you and others. Just put him on ignore. I never understood why people get so worked up over him. He is kind of boring.
I did find him entertaining at first, but now the only thing round about him are his arguments.
Arouet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 06:15 PM   #6529
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: PStars Appears to be Favring the Dog with their Software

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
He ignores it over and over to generate that type of response from you and others. Just put him on ignore. I never understood why people get so worked up over him. He is kind of boring.
I never understand why people think anyone's getting worked up.

It's far easier to respond to his moronic drivel by telling him he's a moronic cretin than it is to respond to someone who asks an intelligent question.

And quite fun, too.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 06:16 PM   #6530
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: PStars Appears to be Favring the Dog with their Software

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arouet View Post
I did find him entertaining at first, but now the only thing round about him are his arguments.
Yes, he's certainly approaching his sell-by date.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 06:25 PM   #6531
BlunderCity
adept
 
BlunderCity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: London
Posts: 819
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by GPocker View Post
Blunder - I don't think that is applicable since there are literally thousands of potential combinations of random life events. Sure those things could happen.

In a finite environment on 1 or 2 (heads or tails) we see some type of a favoring issue here. You would be talking about those things happening multiple times in a row.

I hate this consiracy theory garbage, but I am just relating what happened. If someone can publish something contrary for me to review I am happy to do it.
I am simply reacting to "the odds are one in a million therefore it can't be". Of course it can be. Those hands you play are unrelated events (just as my examples in every day life) so the probabilities are multiplied.
BlunderCity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 07:08 PM   #6532
Rounding4Rent
journeyman
 
Rounding4Rent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 234
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Yes, he's certainly approaching his sell-by date.

LOL. ya know, qpw, for an anti-social child you sure can say a funny thing once in a while, i guess.

Quote:
This question has been answered several times and you just ignore it.
I didn't ignore the question because I was discussing it with you before, stop making things up, again.

MONTEROY:
Quote:
State a theory as to how it is rigged and then obtain data and analyze it in a verifiable, proper mathematical manner to prove your theory.

So this is your answer? I did state a theory - the theory of "TIMING". I then went on to explain why the average player does not have the resources to obtain such data to be considered "EVIDENCE". Proper mathematical manner?? ELABORATE. Once again - you tiptoed around the question and used broad generalizations to justify your response as an "answer".

I understand we need statistics and math, monteroy, I think that's a bit obvious by page #500.

I think you also missed this:

When we talk about online poker we are not just talking about a piece of software.. we're talking about a complex business model. Do you really think this billion dollar company would make it so easy to detect their manipulation of the game that a random guy on a poker forum could do it and bring down the whole operation? You guys are smarter than that... Aren't you???
Rounding4Rent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 07:18 PM   #6533
DMoogle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DMoogle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northern VA, USA
Posts: 7,140
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounding4Rent View Post
So this is your answer? I did state a theory - the theory of "TIMING". I then went on to explain why the average player does not have the resources to obtain such data to be considered "EVIDENCE".
Please explain again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounding4Rent View Post
Proper mathematical manner?? ELABORATE. Once again - you tiptoed around the question and used broad generalizations to justify your response as an "answer".
Knowing the "proper mathematical manner" can be found by posting in the Probability forum about how to produce results that are "beyond reasonable doubt". Surely a rigtard can do that?
DMoogle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 07:25 PM   #6534
SooperFish24
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,028
Re: PStars Appears to be Favring the Dog with their Software

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMoogle View Post
Although I partially agree that they're somewhat trolls (although not compared to Sooperfish and to a slightly lesser extent R4R), I really don't think they would.

The thing is, nobody has posted any credible, well organized evidence that online poker is rigged.
Lol I barely post in this thread now, I ve said my piece and now I mostly lurk and read other people 's post's to see what they think is going on.

Monteroy and qpw are here day in day out in their "valiant" defence of Online Poker posting their nonsense, especially qpw with his insults and Monteroy constantly blabbering about some kind of "Lizard people".

At least when I do post it's on topic.
SooperFish24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 07:36 PM   #6535
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,099
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounding4Rent View Post
LOL. ya know, qpw, for an anti-social child you sure can say a funny thing once in a while, i guess.



I didn't ignore the question because I was discussing it with you before, stop making things up, again.

MONTEROY:



So this is your answer? I did state a theory - the theory of "TIMING". I then went on to explain why the average player does not have the resources to obtain such data to be considered "EVIDENCE". Proper mathematical manner?? ELABORATE. Once again - you tiptoed around the question and used broad generalizations to justify your response as an "answer".

I understand we need statistics and math, monteroy, I think that's a bit obvious by page #500.

I think you also missed this:

When we talk about online poker we are not just talking about a piece of software.. we're talking about a complex business model. Do you really think this billion dollar company would make it so easy to detect their manipulation of the game that a random guy on a poker forum could do it and bring down the whole operation? You guys are smarter than that... Aren't you???

If you want to talk about the existence of a higher being you can discuss faith and the value of it to people.

Online poker has immense data that can be tracked and studied, which means when you present your master theory and it is impossible to prove in any way and is based on faith that it happens, then you are not suggesting anything other then a belief you have.

You are entitled to believe whatever you like, but if you want to actually prove something in a math/stats based industry you will need to do more then that to be taken seriously.

You also need to be prepared to answer questions directly. Such as:

Exactly how is your timing theory implemented. By whom? Do all sites use it or only some? How many people per site are required to pull off this timing thing? Why have none told yet? How if you know it exists is there no way for you to prove it exists?

You need to explain every component of your theory, answer any reasonable question (as the above are) and even if you cannot prove it mathematically somehow, you need to explain exactly what you think is being done, and how, and why no one has ever been caught to date.

If you just stand around and scream "TIMING!" you are the same as the guy who screamed entropy effect and the guy who screamed mafia. Basically, a joke.

Now, you probably just enjoy yelling at people which is ok for a message board as well. That can be fun and you seem to be good at trolling. If you want your life's work theories to be taken seriously at all, you need to do a lot more actual work and provide a lot more details that make real sense.

No one really expects you to do that, but it is what is needed.

This really is my final reply to you as I am putting this new account of yours on ignore (you genuinely are boring/tiring as most zealots are) , so good luck if you actually do any of the work I suggest.

All the best.

Last edited by Monteroy; 07-09-2009 at 07:43 PM.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 09:16 PM   #6536
kombatarts99
banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 219
Re: PStars Appears to be Favring the Dog with their Software

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlunderCity View Post
What do you think the probability of:

1- One of you top 10 films being on TV tonight
2- You receiving an email from your sister/brother
3- You eating a curry for lunch
4- There being a dog barking outside your house

All in the same day!! That probability is very very low! Yet it's a perfectly normal thing.
1) I don't have Showtime/Hbo

2) my family is dead...so that would be weird

3)Curry is not allowed

4) I live in the woods

See so it MUST be rigged
kombatarts99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 09:26 PM   #6537
Arouet
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Arouet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,433
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

R4R: please remind us exactly what "timing" is. I'm assuming that it refers to doing something within a certain time leads to a rigged card: ie: waiting to bet, cashing out, etc. Whatever the mechanism of the rigging, its going to affect the distribution of cards right? It should show up in your database to at least some extent. It should show up in spade's database to a larger extent.

As spade has suggested however, even if the rigged card was put in to benefit someone in one spot, and then taken out from another spot, this would still reflect in the stats.

Not only should each card be expected to fall evenly in deals, certain made hands should be expected to fall: Ie: there should be a calculable number of straights, full houses, royal flushes, etc.

What is it about "timing" however it is defined, which would make it immune from this type of analysis? Further, every poker player with poker tracker should be able to do their version of a study: clearly it will be only accurate within a certain degree of error, but certain trends should show.

The fact is: users on an internet board are exactly the one's capable of assembling the requisite data since it is so easy to share information. Certain users have the statistical knowledge and the computer knowledge to get a reasonable idea of what's going on behind the cards,
Arouet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 09:40 PM   #6538
burden2
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 969
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by NFuego20 View Post
That, and other variables. But we don't want to make it too complicated right away...
well I thought maybe since FT allows sharkscope that my opponents skill distribution might be weighted toward bad players who are less likely to avoid me (since they are presumably less likely to use sharkscope). But really at FT it feels like I win half of flips, lose half of flips. On stars it was just like lose flip, lose flip, flop trips auto lose, pocket Kings auto lose, flop top and bottom, auto lose to top two.

Maybe some people in this forum should learn something about sample size. 300 trials is plenty.
burden2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 10:27 PM   #6539
K13
banned
 
K13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 531
Re: PStars Appears to be Favring the Dog with their Software

Quote:
Originally Posted by GPocker View Post
Ok here goes - unlike UB or Absolute Poker which used Superuser accounts, I think there is a big problem with PStars software, regardless of what they tell you.

Here it is:

I have played PStars for years. At first I thought I was just paying my dues to learn how to be a better player. But I started to have sucess at other sites whereas it was one bad beat after another on this site. But I love the number of playes and game varieties on PStars, so I kept getting torched. Well, in the last 7 days I lost over 10 all in confrontations where I was a solid favorite:

7 times - odds of winning (70/30)....AQ for example, versus A-rag
3 times- odds of winning (80/20)....KK versus 44

I lost every one of these hands. In a row. So I thought - these probabilities have to be getting pretty staggering. So I figured out the odds.

The immediate response to my analysis I would guess would be that the sample size is just too small. But if you consider the odds of losing this many confrontations in a row - I get .000000524 as a chance of this happening. The odds of getting struck by lightning are .0000025. So my only conclusion here is something is really wrong at PStars.

Does anyone have statisical data to back up this note? I would be interested and welcome in seeing anyone to punch holes in this analysis. Or if I could check out other sources I would put in some foot work here as well.

Thanks
Standard.

You'll get hit by lightning every week on stars. keep playing.
K13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 10:49 PM   #6540
otatop
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: unstuckpolitics.com
Posts: 12,727
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by burden2 View Post
well I thought maybe since FT allows sharkscope that my opponents skill distribution might be weighted toward bad players who are less likely to avoid me (since they are presumably less likely to use sharkscope). But really at FT it feels like I win half of flips, lose half of flips. On stars it was just like lose flip, lose flip, flop trips auto lose, pocket Kings auto lose, flop top and bottom, auto lose to top two.
How many games did you play on Stars?
Quote:
Maybe some people in this forum should learn something about sample size. 300 trials is plenty.
300 SNGs is less than a week's worth for hardcore grinders.

What makes you think that 17% is closer to your "true" ROI than 6%?

Just quickly checking SharkScope's leaderboards, their number one SNG grinder is PureCash25. He's made $508k in 5,037 games on FTP, care to guess what his ROI is? Number 2 on the list is diBasio on Stars. He's made $386k in 17,778 games. Care to guess his ROI?

Hint: Both are closer to 6% than 17%.
otatop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 10:57 PM   #6541
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 otatop View Post
How many games did you play on Stars?
300 SNGs is less than a week's worth for hardcore grinders.

What makes you think that 17% is closer to your "true" ROI than 6%?

Just quickly checking SharkScope's leaderboards, their number one SNG grinder is PureCash25. He's made $508k in 5,037 games on FTP, care to guess what his ROI is? Number 2 on the list is diBasio on Stars. He's made $386k in 17,778 games. Care to guess his ROI?

Hint: Both are closer to 6% than 17%.
That's because they play higher stakes.

But yeah, 300 games is nothing.
K13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 10:58 PM   #6542
BlisterXists
centurion
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 113
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Coolerstars.


You were prolly in against bigger stacks and stars wants to consolidate tables and sends yous on yous ways to teh next ones. Stars no likey mtt nits, and will set yous up/

Yous get total garbage until the bubble setups come. Then teh RNG starts clearing like a nukes. Then they laugh as they know your a smallfish and will never have the ability to prove a random game. errrrr. pseudo-random. deposit more nub. and quits withdrawing.
BlisterXists is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 11:28 PM   #6543
DMoogle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DMoogle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northern VA, USA
Posts: 7,140
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlisterXists View Post
Coolerstars.


You were prolly in against bigger stacks and stars wants to consolidate tables and sends yous on yous ways to teh next ones. Stars no likey mtt nits, and will set yous up/

Yous get total garbage until the bubble setups come. Then teh RNG starts clearing like a nukes. Then they laugh as they know your a smallfish and will never have the ability to prove a random game. errrrr. pseudo-random. deposit more nub. and quits withdrawing.
DEM FOREIGN FOLK GUNNA GET YOUSE
DMoogle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 11:39 PM   #6544
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: PStars Appears to be Favring the Dog with their Software

Quote:
Originally Posted by GPocker View Post
Ok here goes - unlike UB or Absolute Poker which used Superuser accounts, I think there is a big problem with PStars software, regardless of what they tell you.

Here it is:

I have played PStars for years. At first I thought I was just paying my dues to learn how to be a better player. But I started to have sucess at other sites whereas it was one bad beat after another on this site. But I love the number of playes and game varieties on PStars, so I kept getting torched. Well, in the last 7 days I lost over 10 all in confrontations where I was a solid favorite:

7 times - odds of winning (70/30)....AQ for example, versus A-rag
3 times- odds of winning (80/20)....KK versus 44

I lost every one of these hands. In a row. So I thought - these probabilities have to be getting pretty staggering. So I figured out the odds.

The immediate response to my analysis I would guess would be that the sample size is just too small. But if you consider the odds of losing this many confrontations in a row - I get .000000524 as a chance of this happening. The odds of getting struck by lightning are .0000025. So my only conclusion here is something is really wrong at PStars.

Does anyone have statisical data to back up this note? I would be interested and welcome in seeing anyone to punch holes in this analysis. Or if I could check out other sources I would put in some foot work here as well.

Thanks
Were these the only 10 all-ins that you had all week?
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2009, 11:40 PM   #6545
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by NFuego20 View Post
Care to share with us your thoughts on the fgators graph you posted? A good solid analysis as to how you think it's rigged?

Or are you going to be like K13, claim one thing, get proven wrong, and just ignore it so you can go on with your trolling.
He already claimed that he gathered all the hand histories himself. He's not interested in debate, he's interested in attention. Again, just be glad he's here and getting attention and not out killing himself.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2009, 12:53 AM   #6546
burden2
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 969
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by otatop View Post
How many games did you play on Stars?
300 SNGs is less than a week's worth for hardcore grinders.

What makes you think that 17% is closer to your "true" ROI than 6%?

Just quickly checking SharkScope's leaderboards, their number one SNG grinder is PureCash25. He's made $508k in 5,037 games on FTP, care to guess what his ROI is? Number 2 on the list is diBasio on Stars. He's made $386k in 17,778 games. Care to guess his ROI?

Hint: Both are closer to 6% than 17%.
Yeah but they are playing high stakes (right?) I would asume. Winning high stakes players have lower roi than winning low/mid stakes players. 17% is probably impossible at their stakes.

I've played a little over 2000 on stars.

Look you guys obviously don't play on stars. I can tell you how many times I have flopped trips and lose with them. If I am around other poker players when I get KK I waive them over and say watch if they get in this pot they will win. And it happens and we laugh because getting cold decked is predictable at stars.

I have posted truthful accounts of my runs on stars and the true RNG faithful said I was lying which means if they saw what I saw they would not believe it came from a fair game.

Maybe my true ROI is 9 at the worst. But with a 300 game sample I don't think it's truly 6 which is what it is at stars. For all you probablity masters what is the chance, with a 300 game sample, that my true roi is 6 or less given that it is currently 17?
burden2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2009, 02:46 AM   #6547
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: PStars Appears to be Favring the Dog with their Software

Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
Lol I barely post in this thread now, I ve said my piece and now I mostly lurk and read other people 's post's to see what they think is going on.

Monteroy and qpw are here day in day out in their "valiant" defence of Online Poker posting their nonsense, especially qpw with his insults and Monteroy constantly blabbering about some kind of "Lizard people".

At least when I do post it's on topic.
There is not a single word in the above post that's on topic.

supperdish, you need to be insulted.

Failure to insult you is an abomination to God.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2009, 04:12 AM   #6548
Rounding4Rent
journeyman
 
Rounding4Rent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 234
Re: PStars Appears to be Favring the Dog with their Software

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
supperdish, you need to be insulted.

Failure to insult you is an abomination to God.
Honestly man... you need some counseling.
Rounding4Rent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2009, 04:27 AM   #6549
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: PStars Appears to be Favring the Dog with their Software

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounding4Rent View Post
Honestly man... you need some counseling.
Hi, R4R

I see you can't recognise parody - not too surprising, I suppose.

When are you going to supply your HH's so that it can be proven one way or another whether you are suffering from a rigged deal?

You've been whining like a snotty nosed little girl for some time now and have been asked this question several times but repeatedly ignore it.

Are you going to actually do something to try and prove your allegations or are you just going to keep up your pathetic caterwauling from the sidelines?

You're a pretty miserable specimen of a human being but you could at least make some attempt at acting in an honourable manner and backing up some of the libels you have uttered.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2009, 04:55 AM   #6550
LVGambler
banned
 
LVGambler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: EXIT42O
Posts: 4,884
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

If he's Rounding4Rent, he must live outside.

Couldn't resist. I'm feeling very qpw atm.

LVGambler 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 02:15 PM.


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