I guess it was a temporary rig.

heh yeah, and I need to make an edit too...there are obviously two spots where they ran above EV otherwise that divergence at the beginning would have been the gap size and not come back down the way it did.

That's what the RNG is designed to do over the long run guys... Start evening out to make it look like it's not rigged... Just play some more hands and eventually the stats will look normal, huh guys? LMFAO...

That isn't what his graph shows. It shows that some time ago he had a short streak of bad luck, and ever since then his all-in hands have won at expectation.

Well I honestly didn't study this particular graph, because I figured it was like all the other ones I've seen that were obviously rigged... I bet it was an absolutely horrible, unrealistic bad luck streak though... AND DON'T COMPARE IT TO OTHER RIGGED ONLINE STREAKS AND SAY IT'S NORMAL... I'm talking about compared to real life normal poker where it would never happen...

Oh, and EvilGreebo... I hope you don't think you are absolutely right in this argument just because you know all about https and encryption and stuff... You might be a smart, intelligent, and successful guy, but that doesn't mean you are correct about online poker being rigged or not... I actually won the arguments in here... Good luck...

You mean the site that provides complete hand histories after 24 hours, including all the players' hole cards? Sounds like a silly place to try superusing.

They could still super use by just a little amount and it might go un noticed... Or they could have software that tells them if people at the table ever use the hand history feature, bcuz if the players never really use it, then the odds of them getting caught stay low... You gotta look at the other side of the coin friend...

Maybe you should read all the posts in a discussion before jumping in, because I already covered your first point...and as for your second point, you should probably have a clue about what is actually possible before throwing theories out there...You gotta learn how sentences and periods work friend.

I might suck at reading and writing, but that don't mean I suck and folding and betting, and also knowing how a site could cheat... Being good at poker goes hand in hand with spotting and speculating rigged garbage, friend...

OK.

BTW, solving your silly punctuation problem is as simple as removing two of the three periods from the end of each of your sentences. Typing less to look a little more literate seems sensible to me, but perhaps not to you, IDK.

No. We've agreed that you can replace a random deck generated on Monday with a random deck generated on Friday and it would still be random.

I don't accept that a random deck is "predetermined" because it was randomly generated more than a few seconds earlier.

It depends what your hypothesis is.

If you believe that rigging is giving you AA every hand, just one non-AA hand would disprove that. If you believe that something is changed every billion hands, then it would take many billions of hands to detect something.

If you can be accurate and describe a hypothesis, you can then come up with a way to test for that.

Thinkinoutloud, how long have you been of the belief sites are rigged and what sort of evidence have you gathered or tried to gather over that time?

Problem is: You suck at existing. You don't have to be like this, there are medics, multicolored pills and rooms with fluffy walls.

Help yourself, brah, see a psychologist today and you will be fine for the rest of your life.

Still grinding the 5nlz and raging at the world eh, Astley?

It's true that the lines will never 'converge', but false that we don't expect them to cross over in the future. We expect them to cross over infinitely often (no matter how far apart they currently are).

Claiming victory - just like George W Bush in Iraq. Reality be damned!

Listen - I've never said that online poker ISN'T rigged. What I've done is continuously held to the standard that the burden of proof is on the accuser. If you take the time to read my posts, I've acknowledged that there are techniques that are *possible*.

But all you do is present vague claims based on your personal experience. I have asked for actual evidence. Statistics is a science, and science has no room for "well I have a gut feeling".

As for this claim:
If over enough hands the stats look normal that is because the stats are normal.

Losing a lot of hands in a row is called variance just like winning a lot of hands in a row.

Statistically speaking, both hot and cold streaks are predictable. If over the long haul the numbers average out, that means the numbers are consistent with what is statistically predictable.

It would only be a genuine rig if the numbers did NOT average out over time.

All of which is testable if just ONE of you riggies would show some balls and put your complete hand histories online for statistical analysis.

Still stealing graphs from successful players and claim they're yours?

Already moved up to 50NL? (LOL). I'm sure they will respect your raises.

Just read your analysis of a hand...Wow, you ARE that stupid. Maybe you should get a real job at last. Poker is not for you.

Also lol@ the fact that no one agress with you when it comes to hand analysis.

Typical modern times fish: Spout a few poker related sentences and hope no one else realizes that you are flinging just buzzy crap.

LOL irony.

LOL you cannot beat 2 NL. Move up to 5NL where they respect your rage.

By the way, there is a reason why you are winning at 888 for a short while. This person here has proof of a rig for relatively new players, so enjoy the rigged based boomswitch while it lasts there!

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/forum/t...hreadid=177225

All the best.

No we don't. That's only if we play to infinity, which is a thought experiment that doesn't exist. In any finite timeframe, it is more likely that they don't cross again than that they do *. And the expectation for where we will stand at any given time in the future, is that we will be exactly the same amount under EV as right now (I think you agreed with this).


* Obviously infinity, if it existed, changes any small probability to 1, no matter how small.

So in theory someone can be 1000BI+ under ev line and it would still be normal because we never reach actual long term sample (our lines would come together in infintie sample but infinity actually doesnt exist) if I understand correctly?

Depends how many hands you played. If you played 10,000 hands and were somehow mathematically 1000+ BI below expectation then you are definitely on to something.

If you have played several millions then perhaps not so much.

Understand though that the EV line is hardly as useful as people think, and it is mainly used as a vehicle for people to whine a lot. Feel free to read this if you like, though most riggies will ignore it, since it does not tell them what they want to hear.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78...l-luck-823386/


All the best.

My graphs are all legit. Why the hell, if I was going to steal a graph, would it be one of a 20nl player who has made like $700 lifetime profit? I'd pick a graph from a 400nl crusher if I wanted to make myself seem amazing at poker, wouldn't I?

Hope you had fun flipping burgers today. I suppose you do probably get some form of health insurance at McDonalds, which you don't with online poker. Maybe one day you'll make crew leader.

I've been playing on 888 for 9 months and anyway that rig theory is ridiculous.

If someone consistently shows 1000BI under EV then that would potentially be very significant, I would think. Over enough hands, that is.

For one thing you ought to see fluctuation in how far over/under the EV you are.