Hahahahaha, best level evar.

Bold rant.. literally. Not dogging you bro. Just sayin. Much like this thread, you won't accomplish much (and neither will my posts). The way I look at it, only time will tell whether online poker is rigged. I used to think so myself. And I was a casino dealer. Born n raised in Vegas. I'm very familiar with cheating, cheating methods, greed, suspicion, and all that jazz. And you know what? I truly believe that if you play correctly and manage your money the way you're supposed to, you'll profit in the long run. Whether you play online or play live. Playing online is a lot harder imo because of too many factors for me to want to list here (but two important ones are frequency and opposition - that uses stat collecting/tracking software). I just think people think they play better than they do and they think they've lost "a lot" of money. So, they think it's rigged (they swear it's rigged). Now I'm not saying it isn't. I don't know that 100%. But my common sense tells me that with their popularity, if it was rigged, someone who's smart would've been able to prove it by now (maybe). I do tend to be on the fence on whether it's action-rigged though. Even though evidence doesn't support that theory, at least it's one that I'd entertain.

| /.

feldzpar,

did you just figure out that Online Poker is rigged the other night?

You sure have become a zealot quickly!

So what, this is one of many beats, the lag time on the turn and river coming off on that hand is what made me suspect. I started researching the company STARS and found it is owned by Israeli Zionists and the questions were raised.

That hand is a great example, thanks kid for putting the link through, makes it easy for others to see how laughable online poker really is.

no problem, but I really think folks are laughing at something else.

LOL kid, Im laughing at how naive you are.

Go pay some more rake to organizations that have questionable motives, go play illegal poker online and get screwed.

Laugh Laugh Laugh Laugh HA HA HA HA

I think this guy is my favorite troll on 2+2.

This childish capslock troll makes me not want to even read this thread. I'll come back in a few days when he's gone and maybe it will be interesting again.

Online poker is done.
Unless you have a golden account, you will not win.

Eh, it's impossible to rig a poker site without leaving any evidence.

It wouldn't be too difficult, for someone who wants to prove it, to conduct some research over an adequate sample size of HH's and show beyond reasonable doubt that the results are far beyond what would be statistically expected (e.g. that a 20% dog actually wins 45% of the time and stuff like that).

Something tells me you don't believe you happen to have a golden account.

(To me anyway), it has the same relevance as if 100 physcists at a convention in Scottland who all claim to have seen something quite large swimming in a loch, compared to 100 burger flippers at a McDonald's convention saying the same thing. Neither claim would be proof of a monster, but one would deserve a little more credibility (at least in my eyes).

haha. I'm not here to insult anyone, although I do enjoy a good debate. To the point where I'll sometimes switch sides just to make sure both parties arguments remain rational.

LOL!
Is that something you can get from Willie Wonka or one of the Umpa Lumpa's?
My ticket is definitely Brown and stinky, Pstars has totally wiped their backsides with my account....

yesssssssssss my account is golden

FYP.

Ok, so I'll try a serious response (since you obviously haven't read the whole thread)

We can't just look at motives because they mean very little. People have motives to do all sorts of things: lie/cheat/steal/kill/etc. Moral compass aside, one thing that prevents one person from screwing over another is the chance of getting caught.

The simple fact is: if the sites are rigging the deal, while they may be able to hide HOW they do it, they won't be able to hide the results. At least not for long. There are numerous poker players who keep track of every hand they have played. There are others who have amassed millions of handhistories. There is statistical research going on as we speak by 2+2ers (most notably spadebidder in this thread- whose posts are 100% gold and who is clearly frustrated that you have obviously not paid attention to a single word he has written and has decided to leave this thread) who are doing extensive and deep analysis. The fact is: if the deal is rigged: it will show up in this analysis (bolded since you seem to like that).

If these studies show no irregularities we are left with concluding that the deal is most likely not rigged.

Relying on motives to replace evidence is illogical and will lead you into trouble in life should you applky this kind of thinking outside of this debate.

This!

You might be interested to know that that method of determining credibility is technically known as 'argumentum ad verecundiam' and is a well known logical fallacy.

Just as the rigtards believe that OLP is rigged without a shred of evidence so you believe, again, without a shred of evidence, that some of those who argue against OLP being rigged are overall losers.

You don't have any evidence and even if your belief was true and did have evidence it would be wholly irrelevant. Whether a person is an overall winner or loser has no bearing whatsoever on the logical validity of their argument.

LOL!
You work for Pokerstars
LOL!

Thanks. I just wiki'd this and haven't heard of it before. Seems interesting but I haven't had time to read the whole article yet. Do you know for a fact it's legit? I'm a little skeptical.

Generally, the more intelligent and educated one is (on a range of subjects), the more credibility they deserve even if it's not the subject of their expertise. For example:

If I had to make a life or death choice based on the opinion of just two groups of people, neither group who knew anything about a particular subject, and one group are post-graduates, and the other high school dropouts, I would go with the post-graduates.

Are you claiming you would do otherwise? That their level of education, IQ, etc., would make NO difference to you?

This is getting far removed from "The greatpoker is rigged" debate, but I'm curious what your answer is.

Even so, I respectfully still disagree with you. Winning players are more apt to think about poker in the "right" way. I have a buddy who claims the beats online are ridiculous and is why he cannot win. However, every time I go through just 100 hands using PT, I find multiple -EV mistakes that he makes. If he thoroughly understood poker theory and concepts, he too, would recognize that much of his problems are due to his play, not luck, or the site being rigged. I really think you're wrong in assuming that a losing player's opinion is worth just as much as a winning player's. But that's just my opinion. -lol.

Can I get the link to that thread? I am very interested in seeing some real information on this subject.
Thanks!
Donko

You really think PokerStars would pay a person to call people muppets on an internet forum?

ftp is def rigged

I am just wondering outloud why sites like PS and FT just dont make their regulation practices and access to meaningful reports a bit more transparent. With approximately 1/3 of the active online players or more believing to some degree that the sites are rigged, wouldnt it be prudent to put this fire out before it becomes a mess like the AP and UB incident became? The sites could step out and be more proactive and transparent. AP and UB could have stopped the scandals before their sites names were tarnished. Their situation seems to be a bit different than this discussion though.

you've left lots of evidence that you're not terribly clever. I'm curious as to what your motive is though.
I don't believe that is a credible statistic.