like every other hand, especially when playing heads up. also these hands should be made right on the turn

Because, and not to brag (I am not baller but have not had to work in 2 years and while I make less than a doctor I make make more than most engineers) I destroy fish at nl. In fact I find it odd that nl games even run because bad players lose so quickly. I find it very plausible that a poker website would find a way to keep fish playing longer, especially if they were trying to expand into emerging poker markets. And yes, i does seem like I get coolered like hell when I play people from other countries. A lot of you here don't realize how much you know about poker compared to a neophyte- even the break even or slightly losing among you. You're telling me new players can come in and hold their own at no limit? I don't think so. In live poker a fish, who by now has been playing for years, wins maybe one session in 5. You're telling me some player in another country possibly just introduced to hold'em will just keep donating money while getting slaughtered? Again, I don't think so.

No limit hold'em is a very appealing game, and stars has that built in appeal when they market the game to new markets. But, it is also a very tough, vicious game where one can lose a lot of money fast. That can only be viewed as a HUGE negative by a company trying to expand via no limit hold'em.

To fully prove, yes, but to come up with any strand of evidence isn't that hard. If it's so obvious you can "just tell" then it's obvious enough to be detected in whatever sample of HH's you have. So you want them to provide proof of a fair deal, but an audit by a third party doesn't count? What exactly would you like to see then? I'm trying to figure out why a play money site is paying you to shill here. Oh look, more shilling. SuperFish, R4R, tkwhatever, where are you to call out the shill? Their highest NLHE and PLO games are $200/400, and they don't have HU tables above $25/50. Plenty of high stakes players play on both sites, and so far none of them have spotted the "patterns" you have. So either durrrr, Brian Townsend, Barry Greenstein, and tons of others don't notice, or maybe they just don't have leaks in their game that they blame on Stars.

I've been a long time reader of this forum and many others but rarely ever contribute and this is my first ever post here.

I'd like to add this as a discussion though.......

I'm 30 now and have played online for approx 6 years only on a "fun" basis when i have free time. I have found that whenever I open a new account on a site, my winning streak goes through the roof. This has been on mostly european sites, Ladbrokes, William Hill etc but also pokerstars.

My main site to play on has always been Ladbrokes, powered by microgaming, and not available to U.S.A customers.

My first deposit of $200 was span up to $5500 within 7-10 days when I opened my account, partly due to no bank roll management and running hotter then Jesus.

i've opened various accounts since, all ruunning extremely "hot" upon opening. most recently william Hill on the ipoker network. There, I deposited only $100 as a "test" to see if what I see as a pattern emerging is true.

The very first hand I raised, about my 3rd or 4th dealt, was 6h 7h, and I got called. The flop of 345 was perfect as the 1 caller happened to have 555 for top set and I doubled up. I went on to turn that $100 into $700 within 3 days. Playing only approx 12 hours.

Anyway, after i lost a few quid last month and my girlfriend was asking why I bother playing, i decided upon an experiment.

We opened a new account on Ladbrokes, my usual site where I'd been consistently losing money in the most horrendous hands. It was in her name with her details etc, and she was sat with me,

so, we deposit 100 euros, in less than 1 hourplaying only low stakes, we flopped quads twice, had KK paid off by a shortie. We also had KK triple through on a KJJ board with 2 people holding a Jack.

these were all hands not seen in thousands of hands played on my regular account.

Anyway, as NVG is a haven for the sleuths. Obviously on a wider scale then I can perform, maybe people could monitor the BB100 or whatever you call it on new depositers over their initial period, say 10,000 hands.

If you don't believe in what I'm saying here, and I have always been pro- internet poker, open an account in your partners name, a friends name, parents name or whatever and see how it performs over the initial period, any network any site...........

post pics of her

lol degen'd already????

I think you're on to something OP, but we'll need proof. Starting with pics of gf.

Also:

FYP.

Cmon shills explain this, or is against the terms of your employment to actually agree with anyone shining Online Poker in a bad light.

"I have found that whenever I open a new account on a site, my winning streak goes through the roof."

100% agreed. It's actually at a point where I've asked a few people "did you just start playing here?" when they're hitting the sickest crap hand after hand. About 4 out 5 times the reply is "yes".

My experiences could just be coincidence, but I find it odd that "ianonabeach" noticed this inconsistency as well.

I play on Bodog btw.

The Shills are probably having a meeting on how best to debunk the last two posts regarding initial luck.

There will probably be some name calling or pictures of a muppet and a demand for graphs/evidence.

Those stupid shills, asking for evidence...

Tons of players with straight downward sharkscopes and OPRs exits, they just do not post as often as the bad players who ran hot in a new account once or twice. I wonder why...

Anyway, not sure what the issue is. Since that guy found the pattern to success, he should open a new account every day at different skins for a couple years and then retire from the hundreds of boom switches he receives. Or he can repeat with his girlfriend's info (whether he posts a pic or not).

Not sure why these guys choose not to take advantage of their pattern recognition skills and show us the results a year or two later when they are up six figures. Most just quit out of frustration instead like you Scooper, or some talk about the 50 bucks they made. It really makes no sense. Make millions, not 50 bucks. You have the secret code.

Why don't you get back into it and do what I suggest above? Use the riggedness patterns that you believe at total face value from a new and likely gimmick account. After all, his claims have to be perfect, so get out there, leave that counter job you have and make millions with that secret information you trust.

I am being totally serious. If it is rigged then capitalize on it since you know how it is rigged.

Can you give a reason why you or anyone should not do that, and why have we not heard of some long term verifiable stories (ie: not a random guy saying he made a hundred bucks one day) of this being done.

I know I casino whored hard years ago as did others and we have the results that can be shown from that happy time. Surely a new account boom switch whore can show the same.

This should make you happy, I am not even trying to "debunk" this theory. I am suggesting you and others talk less about it and instead make millions with your information instead of working at the minimum wage jobs you and others seem be in instead. No need to thank me for looking out for you, I am always here to help.


What is difficult for you is easy for others. Most of your beliefs would have been discovered by now by those who have skill to analyze data.

Be very specific - what exactly would you need to see to make you happy. Trick question, since nothing will, but you may as well try to answer. You already imply the company auditing them is in on it since they are paid, so it will be hard for anything to break away from that conspiracy belief structure. Just add more people "in on it."


Flop probabilities is one of the easiest things to prove, even if you cannot imagine a way to do it.

Even for you this is a pretty feeble conspiracy belief. I am pretty sure some of the 10-20 table grinders at the low/mid/high stakes they have would noticed these special patterns by now, as would those who have done studies on that as well.

Then again, maybe you have that special vision thing, kind of like a super power. Use it for good, not evil.

All the best.

A MESSAGE TO RIGTARDS:

(TL;DR: cliffnotes at bottom)

When a poster makes a claim that this or that site is rigged, the common response by those who question this is: please show some evidence before we believe you. The inevitable reply is that you must be a shill.

This response seems strange in the Zoo, where there are probably 100s of posts by users claiming this site or the other took their funds/scammed them, closed their accounts/etc. In each and every one of those posts, the 2+2 community demands evidence and the complete story. If no evidence is forthcoming, the OP is mocked and the thread forgotten. If evidence is posted (ie: through emails, the site rep coming on etc.) then I am constantly surprised by the amount of work other posters will do in trying to resolve the issue either by: 1) proving the OP is a fraud, or 2) rallying around the OP and doing whatever they can to fix the situation/get justice/etc. The fact is, in most of those cases, the OP is found to have not told the whole story, was making it up, cheated themselved, etc. I don't see any of you calling the posters who uncover those fraudulent posters to be Shills.

For those who like throwing the word "Shill" around, why should this thread be any different? The formula is the same: an accusation is made, evidence is asked for, it is either provided or not, and people look into it or mock the accuser and forget about them. You folks seem to think that when it comes to the RNG, mere accusations should be enough. You fall back on how hard it would be to actually prove that the RNG is off when many posters have described exactly how to do it and they they would be willing to help with minimal effort on the Rigtard's part.

This forum has a history of rising up when there is an injustice in the online poker world. Many active "shills" in this thread have aggressively gone after the sites when there was a problem, or at least actively supported the victim in the various threads.

As with any other thread: if you make a vague accusation, expect it to be challenged. If you're not up for the challenge, then don't post it. If you're not prepared to provide evidence then don't complain/be offended when you are mocked!

I know that I am potentially devaluing the entertainment value of this thread if the rigtards follow this advice, but there is probably little risk of that. I'm probably posting this because while I have found this thread to be immensely entertaining, I am getting frustrated by the same baseless accusations being posted by gimmick accounts created for the sole purpose of posting in this thread.

If you're a rigtard, I would think you would want to get to the bottom of this: why not engage in a productive debate, put forward your evidence (ie: handhistories, which we all have access to, and if you're playing on a site that prevents access to them, that might be a good reason in itself to leave that site!)

So put up or shut up. Provide evidence, whatever you have, and engage the Zoo. You might be surprised by the results.


******************

tl;dr: Cliffnotes:

1. In order to be taken seriously, the Zoo demands evidence for ANY accusation, whether about locked accounts or a rigged RNG
2. This thread should follow the same rules - asking for evidence does not a shill make.
3. If evidence is supplied, many users will do a lot of legwork to either verify it/contradict it - then voraciously chase justice
4. Put up, or shut up, Rigtards.

Who's paying you, Arouet?

The evidence is there. I just got done at Doyle's Room which is by far worst than jokerstars. I lost 10 hands in a row where I was 70-30 and 80-20. Impossible. Yet we can never know because these sites hide their servers on a Indian reservation somewhere in Canada where nobody can see them. Bring them to the US and let the Nevada state gaming people look at them. Stop hiding offshore and then maybe we will believe it.

Where?

Oh, well this clears everything up. I see now that the games are rigged.

By the way, I'm sure they'd be happy to bring their servers to the US. Problem is the US Gov't won't allow them to do so. See how that works?

Sure they would. They just don't want to pay the taxes and real wages or have their games examined. They could come here in a second they don't want to.

Not that you had credibility in the first place, but it's really clear now that you don't. Apparently you've been living in a hole your entire life and aren't aware of the legality of operating an online poker site within US borders.

Beginner's luck is well known phenomonon (but a misnomer) that has been studied in every game of skill, and this perception has very valid and honest statistical basis, not he least of which is the huge survivor bias effect. A second effect is the tendency for those who experience it to talk about it, and those who don't, don't. A third reason is that beginners take more chances and have higher variance, leaving more survivors who talk about it.

sheesh what am I doing even giving an rational response.... this is what I meant...

Heh, ok, for Sooper's benefit: I am not now, nor have I ever been, employed directly, or indirectly, by a poker site.

First,with a username like that, how can this be your first entry into this thread?

Second: are you seriously going to respond to my rant about posters making accusations with no backup - by making an accusation with no backup? Post the handhistories at least. PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Bah, people who have a lot more experience being a riggedologist have made far greater claims of pretend all in losses without showing hand histories. Your fake claim with no proof is only about 1 in 100,000 event while others have made much more emotional fake claims (with no actual hands shown) that are in the 1 in quadrillion range.

Damn newbie riggedologists. Get with the program. Go big or go home when making stuff up.



I had a question as well about the flop composition that the guy who talked about popo poker or whatever vs Stars.

How much of a statistical effect would the type of play have on flop composition. Obviously in a free no risk game a lot of people will go to the flops with any cards, but in a real money game usually some selection is used, so you will not see 94 vs 82 vs J6 etc as often.

I am not sure if I am even asking this right (you are the stat guy, not me), but is removal effect or whatever term applies to the quality and number of hands that see a flop significant? I assume aces show more on play money table flops where every hand sees a flop for instance.