Seriously, it is just too easy at times. Extreme paranoid people and extreme "all forms of belief and faith are bad" people are pretty much the same at the core in many ways.

All the best.

To respond to the bold:

No, they did not. See:


http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=66471

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=66473

From what I can tell, it appears you check/called the flop ... so, no, it most likely was not played properly. And given how the flop went, check/folding the turn would be insane.

Sit Ubu, sit!

Monty is definitely the guy who gets killed in action by friendly fire. Its hysterical that when it happens, he registers genuine surprise. He really has no idea how poorly he comes across with his online persona.

So when confronted by someone on "his team", he first claims you misspoke when you attacked him. When confronted again, he runs away. Now claiming his business empire requires his attention, he runs again. He would do the same thing when Wiki attacked him.
The ego must be in a fragile state right now.

Checking is more EV in this spot.
https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/...76328761_o.png

Calling this guys bet is more recommended.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.n...66934477_o.png

Checking is next.
https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/...97080033_o.png

And finally, I should normally fold here to this guys 3/4th-pot bet.
https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/...77885900_o.png

So my mistake was calling the turn.

Don't worry about it, this thread (and 2+2 in general) is full of douchebags all queuing up to scream at you how much YOU SUCK AT POKER. These gods apparently always get the money in good, whenever they lose it's because villain hit a 1 outer, and they've all made 7 figures from the online game.

Or so they'd have us believe.

You suck at poker if you don't see that calling a 10x overbet by a passive fish otr is a bad idea, or when you can't see that calling the flop in said hand is bad. I see a case for raising though, but only if you are willing to give up the hand when facing further action. You suck at maths, which is a basic element of poker, and you are not willing to even have a look at it.

You conveniently ignore every argument against your beliefs, responding with absurd conspiracy theories like "math is used as a smoke screen" etc, and make dumb statements like "hands that are no bad beats are non-interesting" and "the single hand(s) I posted is (are) undeniable proof".

Look, people explained you how to do it; you show a big lack of understanding in every aspect of statistics, but still are convinced that you are right. You just ignore people, because you are scared your beliefs might get proven wrong. You either are too dumb to get what people tell you, or you are trolling and too dumb to see that your trolling game is bad. Either way, you look like an idiot. Care to comment on any of the questions / arguments I and others brought up in my previous posts directed at you? I mean with a factual response, not with some conspiracy theory yada yada?

I guess no, so keep whining and think it's a conspiracy, Mr. open minded guy.

I refer you to the point in the thread where I openly admitted to being a losing player.

Dumbass.

Even if the river call was bad, the fact is the site just 'happened' to give one of the three cards that would both complete my flush draw AND give him the full house, thus allowing me to lose money. Obviously I'm never calling that river shove unless a spade comes, and if a spade comes that doesn't make him a FH, I win. This **** happens way too often to be explained by variance.

But I guess you always know when to fold the nut flush because you're making 5 million a year online and have never got stacked in your whole life except when villain hit his one outer to make a straight flush after you got it in with quads, right?

For my first 30k hands, I constantly won at like 10bb/100. The next 15k hands, I can't seem to win a pot at all. It's obvious what's happening ffs, the new player boomswitch has shifted to others. I reckon you need to get out of the micros in the first month or you're forever trapped there because of new player boomswitches, but as I only play like 15k hands a month there was no chance of that happening.

You all complain no evidence gets posted, but the only evidence you'd accept would be a signed admission by the PokerStars CEO that the deal was rigged all along. Otherwise you just respond with the standard 'nah, it's because Hero absolutely SUCKS at poker, and my dog could play better'. But the thing is in these cases, even if Hero did suck at poker, the 65% VPIP fish sucks worse...and yet that fish is always going to win because of his boomswitch.

A bad player is +EV against a really bad player, remember. So even if I suck I should still be beating the 60% VPIP donks at 5nl by playing a 20% VPIP game.

Ok, then let me spell it out for you. You have two possibilities:

1. Sit down, wiki Variance, analyze the frequencies bad beats hit you, insert the data into a (pretty trivial) formula, have a result. Anyone with an IQ in the range of room temperature can do that on a rainy afternoon, and you learn something in the process.

2. (what you will do) Tell us how obvious the rig is, how definitely you are scammed by the bull**** site you play on. Use single hands and your memory as evidence. Wonder why noone with a brain takes you seriously. Concentrate on the rig as the only possible reason you aren't crushing the opposition. Keep proclaiming conspiracy theories. Avoid to understand basic math, learn nothing in the process. Keep ignoring what people with greater knowledge and better mathematical understanding tell you. Rinse, repeat.

You certainly aren't the brightest bulb in the basket, but you should still understand which of the two accounts is more helpful for yourself and your evolution as a poker player. You might even understand which possibility an open minded person would choose. Hint: It's not the one that keeps repeating unfounded prejudice.

in my oppinion both a c/r and a c/f are preferable options on the flop.

dude first of all you played the hand you posted worse than the other dude.
you see to think poker is easy and you are supposed to win at it, while in reality poker is pretty hard and unless you put in some work you will be loosing at it in the long run.
what i agree with you on is that the only explanation for you winning 10bb/100 over the first few k hands can only be explained by a streak of good variance.

I AM A WINNING PLAYER ON STARS, JUST NOWHERE NEAR THE HOURLY OR PER HAND RATE THAT I HAVE WON THROUGHOUGHT MY CAREER.

I am up about 100k for 11-12 years of work.

I feel like I lose on the river ( or dominant hand etc....) WAY WAY more than the math should allow.

This has been true since 2004, so not just a product of todays games being tougher

I think Pokerstars wants it this way, it is their business model.

Keep everyone as close to break even as possible, and get almost all the money in rake.

For those of you that say Pokerstars would lose too much oif this could be proved:

This is true in some ways, and for sure how I would think.

However, the online world has changed very quickly ( look at all the companies that are gone now), and there were times earlier where Pokerstars may have thought " lets get all
we can while the getting is good".

Greed is a very powerful motivator.

Also, Pokerstars is a privately owned company and does not have to answer to anyone.

Anyone who does not agree with me, and believes my theory may be junk:

You may very well be correct.

However I am offering my data, to PROVE if I am correct or not.

"Way too often" would have a standard deviation easily large enough to render "variance" an infeasible explanation.

For example, in 1000 trials, a "one outer" (2%) event happening 4% of the time (not anywhere near "way too often") is 0.0000230827%. Or 1 in 43,322.

Please, post data which is even more rare and let's see anyone try to chalk it up as variance.

I know you won't. YOU know you won't. Don't you have better things to do with your day besides blind yourself with lies to salve a wounded ego?

I WILL post my data. My reputation is spotless as a 17 year professional.

I have the results to prove I am not just a paranoid losing player.

I believe in this and want to see a fair game.

http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?n=14125

Perhaps this is the wrong place to post my legitimate concerns.

This thread seems too be full of people who are unhappy they are losing ( very understandable), and people who like to make fun of losing players ( pitiful ).

I just want to expose the truth, despite if I am right or wrong.

We have all this data from Holdem Manager, why not use it?

Tbh you would be far better looking to the stats thread then here. If you explain your hypothesis, show you are genuine, offer up your data as you have here, one of them there may help with the analysis you are looking for especially as you offered earlier to make payment for time spent doing this.

This thread is a bit of a joke in terms of serious debate and "facts and data" are not that common, hence the piss taking.

Good luck, I for one would be interested in the outcome.

Whatever makes you happy.

Not that you'll believe it but I'm break even overall.

Just about pulled back to break even at HUSNG. No boomswitch for me, had to learn how to play them and education cost money.

14% RoI at STT and MTT. Better still on 27+ MTTs.

Complete fish at other forms of poker but keep trying them to keep my interest up. This is where most of my loses are. 2-7SD(NL), HORSE, 8 game, Omaha, 5CD.
Seem to be okay at Razz but not a lot of Razz only games running!

Don't claim to be a "God" but get very frustrated with the "OMG this is so rigged" hands posted when most of the time they are misplayed or no worse than the beats suffered live all the time.

Last night, LIVE play, flopped a straight (plus had the flush draw inc. the straight flush draw). All the money in on the flop, turned the flush and lost on the river to a runner runner full house. Should I stand on the table shouting it's rigged? Would certainly be posted by a certain user if it happened on 888.

I don't know what any of those links are, so I am not going to click on them. But unless this opponent gets super aggro vs. missed c-bets, then checking the flop does not look like the best play. I don't believe you provided any information on the opponent, so I have to assume he is an unknown. In such a case, the flop is certainly a bet. And as the board ran out, the turn is then a bet and the river is then a bet.

And check/folding the turn to a ~75% pot bet is ridiculously bad whether you bet the flop and got called or check/called the flop. And in the case where you check/called the flop it is particularly bad as your hand is underrepresented.

And in the case where you check/called the flop because this villain gets way overaggro vs. missed cbets, then check/folding the turn contradicts the reason you check/called the flop.

Well I decided to move up to 25nl to test out my theory that with less new players I wouldn't get sucked out on as much as at 5nl.

I'm already up 2 buyins in 700 hands. What do you all say to that? Guess it's all just variance though right?

Feels great to be taking money from all you 2+2 **** talkers who think they're gods gift to poker. Guess hero doesn't suck as much at poker as you'd like to think. With no new player boomswitch holding me back I'll finally be able to win some real money.

why dont you tell us why Quads, Flushes and other monster hands are more common than pairs on your anonymous/casual 'POKER' site.What a joke

No way.

Check/fold is insane. Just about the only worse way to play it would be to make a large overbet and then fold to a small shove all-in.

And I like check/call better than I like check/raise vs. an unknown. I don't really check/raise the flop much as the pre-flop raiser at all.


Of course, still it seems pretty clear to me with the information I have that the best play is to just bet.

Anybody think a 28 big blind per 100 hand winrate is going to be sustainable in the long term given that we know it occurred for a 700 hand period?

What do you think about this site and the fact that no anomalies were found during testing.

Is this not enough and if not, why?

THANK YOU I WILL DO THAT