Don't forget to sign this promising petition, looks like you will have the evil riglords by the nuts anytime now.

Just look, I run bad in all the major hand categories.

That Citigal audit was worthless.

That's unlucky, fella. Oh well. What can you do? Gotta lose that Thai hooker money.

Donkey, not sure I overly trust your posts in general, and that bell curve could be easy to manipulate by picking any sample of hands you wanted, while making out it was your full history.

That said, it isn't that meaningful anyway. My bell curve for sets shows me right on "very unlucky" which looks bad. But when I worked out my sets to PP it worked out that I was hitting a set every 9.4 PP dealt to me. As your two are barely past unlucky I'm not going to think too much on that at all.

So, really work out the math and see what this actually means rather than looking at a picture and assuming the fact you are running a little unlucky means it is rigged.

It is only possible to vote one time.
I am surprised there are so many people voting for "rigged."

All the beast

Much to learn, you have, young padawan.

That poster has posted here under dozens of different banned accounts, the main one being blatantrigged or something like that. He can only vote one time per account, but he and many riggies have voted with multiple accounts here one time each, something I actively encourage so that they can get the riggie side to 50% in a riggie poll.

This common sense internet stuff must seem so spooky to you at times!

All the best.

A little naïve at best.

Why would you trust anything he says, ever?

He's already proven that he's willing to blatantly lie to attempt to support his rigging theory. Never forget that he forged fraudulent emails purporting to be from the customer support department of an online poker site confirming his claims.

That kind of activity on the part of a poster should never be forgotten as it shows the poster to have 0 integrity.

That was why I said I didn't overly trust his posting in general. Pretty sure I made that clear in first line.

Perhaps we interpret "overly trust" differently. I think it means "You trust his posts some" where as you think it means "You don't trust him at all"

You'll know when you've been Ogged.

Because they are obsessive types, and not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Dishonest people commonly suspect others of transgressions that they themselves are more than willing to make.

The irony of riggies attempting to rig a meaningless poll with no real world value is most likely lost on them.

Great post, particularly the last line.

Guy was sitting out. Said he would only play 3 handed. All of a sudden he sits in. There were 2 hands other than the 7 posted. HEM is being difficult with them. One was the first, before all these 7 and according to HEM it looks like my opponent folded pre. The second happened after all of these hands and was the last hand I played. In that hand according to HEM my opponent folded pre and then insta sat out. In fact I didn't realize this hand even happened.

I thought my opponent insta sat out after the last hand posted here .... which was ouch.


And these are the only hands I've ever played full stacked at 10/20 (like 5 or 6 years ago I played a couple dozen hands shortstacked at a different site [full disclosure].)

It was ouch on this last one.


10/20 must be rigged.









EDIT:

I think I just figured out the two hand discrepancy. I think they both might be that I posted a blind and my opponent failed to post a blind. It seems as though HEM may have counted those as actual hands where I breakeven. I'm nearly positive this is what happened. So, right after that TT < J9 hand, I posted and my opponent failed to post and instead sat out.


Gross? How did he know? [joking obviously ... now I felt I had to say that in case some new user came along and didn't realize my sarcasm)

Standard hands look standard to me. Unlucky with TT but youre only 65% to win IIRC (currently away from computer and have no equilab on my phone).

Not really sure what the point is...no guy who reckons it's rigged has posted a hand where he has 74o and folded as proof of that...

Exactly.







Edit:

I ran it ... I am more like slightly over 70% ... same point though.

Not sure what you're trying to say then?

He was setting riggies up to say out what you did - that nobody would post those hands, which basically demonstrates what "shills" have said all along that riggies only cherry pick specific hands to suit their needs and ignore the rest. Also, he posted a bad beat at about 100x the highest buy in of a riggie to watch the same riggies dismiss it before they post their own dull nanostake whine beats.

He probably was doing it to see that blatantdudes reaction as he believes every hand is rigged including folding 74o, but looks like he got you instead.

Your troll game has really deteriorated. You going to call him a 2 NL grinder that is afraid to play you next or something .

Steady now Donkey, that was technically a post for the anti-riggie side. lol

And it's about 70% or just over. Usually is close to that if they have dominated that way.

Lol I've never seen anyone post a hand where they were a 70/30, lost, and held that as evidence of rigging. Neither where they folded 74o to a raise.

Our issue is getting it in as 90% favourite, time after time, and losing.

Is this another troll? Must be. I'm sure I could go back in this thread and pull up numerous morons posting how they lost some random AK vs Ax and lost as evidence that it was rigged.

Hell, you'll see all sorts of **** like that. Or you'll see the ones that will do worse than that by telling you how they were all in pre-flop but will use the percentage they were ahead on the flop instead of the pre-flop odds of winning. IE say they were 60/40 pre-flop and improved to 90/10 on flop and then lost they would be saying how they lost a 90% chance to win and how rigged it was.

And I'm pretty sure I could show hands you've posted or complained about where you've been no better than 70% and whined about the site rigging in favour of donks.

Hell, people whine ALL the time about losing to under pairs and that is 80%. Really think they won't whine about 70% ones too? Dream on.

whenever someone comes up to me and starts telling me about their bad beat story i invariably begin to sound interested but by the time he gets to the showdown i could give 1/10th of 1% of a f***.

If you took a minute to just search the threads he started you would see he posted hands that he now says no riggie ever posts.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/54...osing-1472199/


which include these hands in terms of equity

MP shows Q 7 (Flush, King High) (Pre 36%, Flop 83%, Turn 91%)
Hero shows J K (Two Pair, Kings and Jacks) (Pre 64%, Flop 17%, Turn 9%)

SB shows Q J (Straight, Queen High) (Pre 76%, Flop 94%, Turn 97%)
Hero shows 7 J (Straight, Jack High) (Pre 24%, Flop 6%, Turn 3%)


so apparently even a hand where he had 24% equity at the best point is proof of it being rigged or something.

Dude lies badly and trolls badly (only the latter is unfortunate, the former is irrelevant), and he cannot even get proper troll value when going against you, which is not overly impressive.

All the best.

Actually I could have sworn I put that KJ vs Qxs example in my post, as I remembered it from memory. He had KJ of hearts if I recall and got into a 4bet pot OOP from the blinds. Guess I forgot to add it, but I meant to when I wrote the post. And quite frankly I cannot be assed to actually troll back through posts to find examples. I'll leave you to waste moments of life on that.

As for your pop at me. Gee could I care less? Much like the last couple of ones that I haven't bothered to make comment on, the answer is no, not at all. Not sure why you feel the need to do it, but think that's just you in general.