cool. Let me know.

Any Pai Gow tips?

ahh.. pokerstars is on to me.. ever since i posted the exe is using so much cpu

No, that isn't the conclusion of the study.

The conclusion was that in 49.7% of the showdowns, the starting hand that could have been best at showdown had already folded, and in 50.3% of the showdowns that took place, that hand was still live. And since showdowns only occurred in 24.3% of the hands dealt, then pure luck of the deal determined the winner only (.243*.503) = 12% of the time.

The point was to show that decision making matters much more than the luck of the deal, and that the outcome of 88% of hands was determined primarily by the decisions of the participants (i.e. skill). That was the whole purpose of the study.

Here you go, i just made another video now...

I could make these all day..

Funny videos, keep them coming.

Nice play by the guy in the first hand. 2nd nuts in plo and he's going fu**ing mental trying to get all his money in.

You've cracked it. Pokerstars alternates who wins all in situations in tournaments to rack up more rake.

Never mind that all the rake is paid for straight at the beginning, so it would be in their best interest to end the tournament as fast as possible.

I don't think they rig it, cause I profit there lol, but I also don't agree with this that I quoted, they would indeed profit from a maneuver like this as it would prevent regs from profiting thus everyone would break even and keep the "ecosystem" running. The site doesnt dry if the cash doesnt get withdrawn.

I would like to see more videos like this they re funny and I used to think like this at the very beginning.

When i see this kind of things, i always think its a level

Nice one OP, you fooled everyone *thumbup*

What I'm talking about may be more about changing the poker ecosystem than a riggie debate, but they are directly correlated. How can you even attempt to say that they aren't?

Poker sites like any other businesses in the world have to constantly evolve to survive. They cannot remain stagnant or they will be crushed by the next hot shot idea.

In your above example, do you remember when Bovada first came out with anonymous tables and limiting player tables to four? They were highly scrutinized and everybody started saying that is the end of Bovada. Regulars started leaving the site b/c they could not grind 12 tables at 4bb/100 hands anymore. Well here we are a couple years later and they are dominating the US market. They have taken the beginning steps of eliminating the winning/professional players. Do you really think that they are going to remain stagnant and not continue to evolve keeping winners profits low or nonexistant???

In all of your arguments you finish with, "through all of the riggie debate threads that we have seen posted, not a single one of them can come up with any evidence of it being true." While you are correct in that, can you give me any evidence or educated response why a business would not be moving forward in increasing their bottom line whether it lessens the tables the regs play, manipulates the RNG, or just flat kicks pros off their site?

Btw how do splits fit into this?

Presumably the "win one, lose one" phenomenon also occurs in heads up sitngos. Has anyone ever won two in a row? OP needs to investigate. Or GTFO.

Idiot troll.

Rigging is a non issue in this industry aside from paranoid people in riggie threads, and those amused by them. In all the years of this industry not a single riggie has proven a single thing, nor has any poker site of significance been proven to have any kind of rigged RnG.

In contrast, many online casino sites have rigged their games, and the power of math helped catch them and document them. Feel free to read about some of them at the following:

http://www.casinomeister.com/rogue/

Rigging is a valid concern with the casinos where the player is going against the house, so a small room without oversight would definitely consider tweaking their games for profit (or they just close and steal the money).

Poker earnings come from rake, so the need to rig a RnG is different in terms of the risk/reward dynamics, and in the end most riggie theories do not even increase the rake a site makes.

Correct, but this has nothing to do with rigging. You can see all sorts of new games and formats on the sites to see examples of what you are talking about.

Poker was never a huge source of income for Bovada, and people on twoplustwo saying it would end their site were frustrated because this change did not benefit them. That is a common human reaction. The twoplustwo forums are hardly "everybody."

Pacific Poker used to actually have a one table limit back in the days.


They will continue to change but this has nothing to do with rigging the RnG. Full time players need to adapt as well, and in this case that can mean playing multiple sites. Many Pokerstars regs have gone from 24 tables to much fewer. Again, nothing to do with rigging.

Rigging a poker RnG is a completely impractical way to make these type of changes. Riggies vastly underestimate the power of math, and while they believe their own eyes (while not being able to prove what they see), they also dismiss or ignore powerful math that is used to catch bad behavior. Research the math behind the Stox Poker soft play scandal to see a good example.

As I mentioned, the poker ecosystem is a very important topic, but it has nothing to do with rigging. If you want to try to have that debate in a riggie thread that is your choice, but it will get nowhere since nothing in this thread is remembered within a week.

All the best.

The study is flawed would you like to tell everyone why?

So only go all-in after you have just lost a pot...got it! I am SO ready to start running good!!!!!

We can't win on poker stars if we Americans aren't allowed the freedom to spend our entertainment dollars as we so choose.

How ironic, in the land of the free, eh?

1179 days and counting...

My post had absolutely nothing to do with validity or lack thereof, I was simply correcting a ridiculous moronic conclusion someone else posted. Oh wait, that was you...

So once I've won an all-in vs someone, am I never supposed to go all-in vs them again because I will lose? Or does the software reset after a time?

This is where we differ in our views. While poker earnings come from rake, significant winning players on a site would decrease liquidity across the site as a whole over the long term. While I feel manipulating the Rng would level out the playing field, I don't want to concentrate on the particular way that a site would handle their business practices, but rather that they would try an eliminate the winning player as a whole one way or another.

We can try and speculate on their business practices but me or you aren't qualified to give an educated response because we don't know the actual numbers. The perfect example to this is what you said earlier that everybody likes to say: "Poker was never a huge source of income for Bovada."

That is just a shot in the dark guess with nothing to back it up. Obviously, Bovada's sportsbook was the bread and butter back in the day and continues to be. However, now that poker scout nor you or I can accurately say how many players are on at a time let alone what a 'huge source of income' is for Bovada there is no way to know.

With Bovada dominating the US market how can you tell me that Poker isn't a HUGE moneymaker for Bovada in the current day? You can't. We have nothing but shot in the dark opinions. With that said, there is always room for improvement. How its up for improvement is only for Bovada management to figure out.

The one thing he's not trolling with is his voice - that's his real voice. Oh God. It's like sandpaper on my ear drums.

Do us all a favour and use captions next time instead of speaking.

Also can you provide some actual statistical evidence with a proper sample size that suggests that the best hand loses a statistically significant period of the time (or in fact just doesn't win as often as it should)?

Until then, the response will be "GTFOOH".

The optimal strategy in any gambling game is to quit when you're ahead.

Pokerstars SnGs are rigged.

I used to play the 45ers. When a table is about to get closed (28 players, 19, 10,...) you are better off folding premium hands when it's small stack vs big stack. They just want to end the tournament as fast as possible, so players register for a new one. Classic jokerstars. True story.

Pity you were unable to do this in relation to your action hand defense in the probability forum.

It doesn't show anything at all, until you've got any significant evidence.

What exactly do you think Stars has to gain by rigging it so that all-ins alternate?