I suppose I should not be surprised that you took that literally instead of as an example to the style and approach of the post, but to avoid any further confusion for you I am not stating that I am in fact Hulk Hogan, and I will make sure to not use what I considered to be easy to follow examples for you in future in case you might interpret them literally.



Not sure what you want me to say as all you said was

Give an example and be sure to include the context. For instance when that badbeatdude initiated a chat by saying I only make xxx, I replied to that by having him go through the math of his assumptions to see how he changed his story once he realized he was basically saying (without intention) that I had a healthy 6 figure bankroll at work, and suddenly in his world I only back 2 guys. I found that exercise pretty entertaining, and he started it is the best part.

Other times I incorporate it (pun intended) when riggies continue to bring up my meaningless play stats without revealing their user name (you did reveal your user name which is uncommon).

If they want to talk about how much I make then best to give a complete picture .

Feel free to explain what else you may have meant if I missed it and I will give you a detailed reply, but a little quid pro quo on that, if I do that then you have to work actively with the Badbeatriggie dude (and not say you sent an unverified message) by posting in this thread your willingness to help and by replying to his posts with advice.

If you want me to give back then I want to see you give back, and that is only fair, so if you agree to that I will be happy to answer any business related things you want to ask - just make sure you are clear in your questions.

An intricate part of this industry is being wrong, whether it is playing the game or backing players. You can read my negative feedback posts for the mistakes I have made (and I make fun of myself often in those posts about that). If anyone in this industry believes they are right about everything they are deluding themselves.

I have even offered a reward of $5,000+ to any riggie that can prove me wrong and if any did it would seriously be money well spent.

Hope that answered your concerns, and helped put you in a more stable mind frame to play the games today in your job. Let me know what you plan to do with that Badbeatriggie.

All the best.

You're jumping the shark a bit here, man.

So what have we learned?

People don't understand how big an effect variance can have?

After 20k hands I was 7BI below [all in EV]

I noticed I was getting sucked out on a load. But I never let it effect me. Maybe because I play HS live and 100/200NL isn't serious money????

I didn't think I would ever get back to level EV [on all in EV]

10k hands later I'm now running 6BI over

So a 13BI swing in 10k hands

It was easy for me to not worry on the 'downswing' - as I was still making money - just a lot less than my all in equity would suggest I 'deserve'

But the important part was on the downwards journey I saw all the flips I lost, I saw all the 80% hands that got cracked. On the upwards journey I don't notice it as much. Because all I am seeing is hands holding up. And even though they have been holding up a lot more than they 'should' - I didn't really 'see' them winning more often.

So when a riggie says they don't need stats to prove it... anyone can see the rig with their own eyes.... as always the human condition leads us to give too much emphasis to some events and not feel/notice others.

I am sure some of the losing players - going on about the rig - maybe see the rig because although they are winning players - they aren't winning enough to beat the rake?

Maybe rather than trying to cure riggies - we should push them in the direction of more info on variance and how big an effect it can have on results?

Anyway .... 'good luck' all

Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?

Chico Marx

I have a downswing of 180BI's in all my tracked results. I thought it was crazy, but then I calculated it with a tool, and figured out it wasn't that crazy. Problem if these guys talk about SD the riggies have no clue what they are talking about, the gap is to big between them. I think if they have a way to accurately look at how unlucky they actually are, it would help a lot. Variance is a very big monster and will have a very big impact on your results in a short-time period. I think if players understand that, we will have more players who want to continue and keep on learning the game. Instead of just quitting the game, like some shills suggest. Which does not benefit the poker community, because so many players quit because they think poker is rigged and they see no point in giving it any effort. So the last thing you should do as a poker community is ignoring or laughing about the subject and not develop tools where players can determine there luck factor in pop. %.

How do any of you shills explain my graph then? It quite clearly shows that I'm allowed to run OK on a site for a while, then they doomswitch me. When I switch sites, I get some more rungood, but then get doomswitched again.



Look at how obvious it is. The red and green marks indicate where Pokerstars and 888poker doomswitched me respectively.

How can you account for this as it happens all the time? Someone saying he 'doesn't believe' in a rig should be taken as seriously as someone saying he 'doesn't believe' fire is hot. The evidence is clear as day for all to see.

If you are looking for patterns, you will find them.

You've stated that is a 10NL graph and both drops are around $50; hence around 5 buy-ins.

I'm pretty sure that if I looked at a graph of all of my hands that I have saved (which is very nearly all cash game hands I have played since late 2005) I could find hundreds of spots where I dropped 5 buy-ins. I could also find many spots where I dropped more than 5 buy-ins; some being many more than 5 buy-ins.

It doesn't actually mean anything with respect to a rig as 5 buy-in drops are not unexpected and are not rare occurrences in fairly dealt games. But I guess that if you want to, you can use the fact that I've dropped 5 buy-ins before also, and in fact have done so many times, as further "proof" of your hypothesis.




(And looking at your graph, I see one other about 5 buy-in drop and a few about 3 buy-in drops. I don't know why you didn't highlight those as "obvious proof" also.)

The proof comes in the fact that my fortunes are reversed when I switch sites. When the site has you on a doomswitch you'll just keep losing and losing. Switch sites and you get rungood again. It's clear as day to see from my graph. It's not the 5 BI downswing per-se, it's the fact your runbad instantly ends when you leave the site.

Well, obviously, if one is a winning player and one stops playing at Site A after losing a few buy-ins on Site A and starts playing on Site B, then it is more likely than not that the resulting graph will be sloping downward at the end of the graphed play at Site A and be sloping upward at the beginning of the graphed play at Site B even if both sites had a fair deal.


And, as I mentioned there is another about 5 buyin-in drop around hand # 3,036. Apparently after this drop, you did not switch sites, but the graph begins to slope upward anyway.

A sample so small never could be a proof of anything.

If -100bi running above ev, it´s considered kind of standard in a long sample, and if as i have, losing 24 bi allin preflop with AA its not proff of nothing... Don´t really undertand, again, how can we talk about losing 5buyins in a session proff of anything.

Losing that 5bi, in all sorts of limits, or 10bi in 1k hands it´s normal...It´s part of the game.

If that dont happen to anyone in a normal volume, maybe this could be easly a proff that this person it´s protected by the site, lol.

That actually is accurate.

That BBED guy looks through his hands, has a sample where he wins for example 20bb/100 for some hundred hands, and claims that is his normal winrate. The only explanantion for that winrate is his massive skill (as displayed in the hands he posted), isn't it?

Now every time he does not win with 20bb/100 for some hundred hands, it is clearly rigged. What other possible explanation is there? Tournaments are 0% skill, and cash is 100% skill, so variance is not to be expected.

Because he already knows everything, he can't be arsed to even google variance. That is all bull****, the brain of a great mind like BBED already is busy enough when imaging himself in the poker hall of fame. If it wasn't for that god damn rig.

I don't think I'm alone in having decided that BBED is not a sincere poster and is just enjoying frustrating posters who like to argue for reason and logic, by being deliberately crazy and provocative. Best to just ignore.

He probably does have some real suspicions about the honesty of online games, but he knows he's being ridiculous and is enjoying the reactions.

I dropped 19 buyins over 19 SnGs. Beat that.

/sick brag

Just back from hols and catching up on this joyous thread.

The only thing that's changed in a week is that I can see an Oxford education is not what it used to be.

too late. frank already went into convulsions.

Ah yes but if I had carried on playing at Stars the graph would never go back upwards. Isn't it a bit weird how my graph goes up for a decent period, then all of a sudden hits a big downswing? It's not like there's tiny blips either, it basically goes steadily up, then rockets down. When it starts going down you know they've doomswitched you as you literally won't be able to win any pot at all.

3000 hands isn't long enough for them to mark you down as 'not a donk' and flick the switch on you, so that 5 buyin swing was just bad luck. Also that specific downswing was caused by basically 3 or 4 bad hands where I lost them all. The rigged downswing highlighted in red was where there were few big pots, but I just couldn't win any of the small pots at all, and when you can't win any pots at all you know they've rigged it up on you.

2 or 3 buyins might be normal, albeit extremely unlucky. 5 buyins in 1000 hands is rigged and takes the piss.

Wouldn't worry about it, tournaments are essentially just like buying lottery tickets anyway.

Ah, so not rigged. Good to know.

you are just troling.
nice to know.

The gift that keeps on giving lol

Well, there is no way for you to know that since you stopped playing. Maybe it would have gone up. Also, it already did once:


And to further examine this claim: Now, you are just assuming that if you acted differently, a specific event would have happened to you and you are using that event (that never occurred) as evidence of something (and this is aside from whether the event would be valid evidence even if it did occur):

Hypothesis: Online poker is rigged in that online poker sites start doomswitching me after a certain period of time of play.

Support for hypothesis:
1. I played at Site A for a period of time.
2. Toward the end of such period of time I had a 5 buy-in loss at Site A.
3. I stopped playing at Site A and played at Site B and initially won a few buy-ins at Site B.
4. If I had instead kept playing at Site A, I would have lost because they were doomswitching me.
5. Since I won at Site B and would have lost at Site A, Site A must be doomswitching me.

Conclusion: Site A, at least, is rigged against me using doomswitches.



Do you see the problem in the above reasoning? (well there are also additional problems to the one I was getting at)



No. By definition that is what a downswing is. (Also, a graph going down isn't always a "downswing". Sometimes it is just the expected result.)


Nope.



Nope.

So Chris Moorman is either;

1) very skilled at tournament poker
2) consistently the luckiest player in the world
3) boomswitched on all sites across all networks, even the ones he has no sponsor relationship with.

I'm leaning towards option 1

So what are you saying, we have to wait until busto to declare it was actually a doomswitch? How long does the line have to slope down before suspicions are raised? I suspect for you the answer is never - you'd never accept it was rigged no matter how much money was lost after the initial upswing.

Just find it a bit odd that I can't win a single pot on my 'downswings'. Like, I'll win say 5 buyins over 15000 hands or whatever, then lose 5 buyins in 1000 hands. Funny how the losses are always much, much quicker than the gains, and it's because of a doomswitch.

2 buyins = variance.

3 buyins = extreme variance

More than 3 in 1000 hands = rigged.

Every single person who is currently 'up' on tournaments is just a fish on a heater. There's no strategy beyond 'I shove all the hands that are listed on this push/fold chart I printed out online'. Chris Moorman, whoever he is, is just a guy who happens to be on the good side of variance. There's no skill in tournaments, I could print out a push/fold chart and I'd have just as much chance of winning any given tournament as Chris Moorman, or whoever else you think is 'good' at tournaments.

The only form of poker that takes skill is 6max cash and FR cash.

bro, did ya forget it's rigged?

no skill in poker only donks on the heater list

Did you see the problem in the reasoning?

I do believe it is getting kind of old and pointless trying to reason with BBED guys.

No?