Never cool to do that. One thing to have disagreements and even flame wars on a forum. But I've never understood why someone thinks it's acceptable to say that just because they are behind a keyboard.

"Industry shills" have far more important things to do than to secretly maintain some elaborate web of rigging deception. It's only the tinfoilers who keep this crapola going.

Well, not to defend blatantdudes 100th+ account, but I suspect he was saying that for pretty much comedy value as none of his prior posts over the years really have had any kind of true nasty streak to them. He is very repetitive and dull, but he generally understands that these threads are good, clean internet fun for both sides.

A poster who was banned earlier today (was in the riggie thread in the probability forum) tossed some death threats to me in PM and in that thread and started posting some personal information. Although that information was hardly new (all of it was actually incorrect or very, very outdated) - the way he posted it and his intent had even the riggies (like blatantdude's latest account) back away from the chat pretty quickly until that guys posts were removed and he was correctly banned. His user name is/was vjniel, and he did not understand that these threads are good, clean fun for people on both sides, and people who do not understand that should seriously take a couple steps back. That has applied to a few riggies/whiners in the past and certainly a few shills as well. Personally, I think the Rig Astley account pushes the line a lot more than most riggies, including blatantdude, though most of his posts and the vast majority of posts on both sides fit the "have fun flaming" internet model. Without that these threads would lack any kind of fun and would never be allowed to exist.

I will certainly make fun of blatants 100th account for lacking creativity, but his parachute comment I would give a pass on based on his past relatively harmless posting history. He probably should make it clear he was kidding on that specific comment. To offer some perspective these are the PMs I received today from vjniel before he was banned. I assume I would have received more otherwise.

All the best to u and ur ****ing business, are you trying to ridicule me that I am losing player, I give a **** to your stake and your report. Go eat it and wipe your ass with it.
All the money I lost was mine and I will use my money or throw my money, I ain't asking you **** for it.
Go **** yourself and get a life.

u r such a ******* hiding behind the computer, u ought to die a dirty death
my curse on u that u will die a dirty death
i come and kil u and family
go sukk my dick u think I give a **** to your reporting, ur such a ****** *******.

A couple of his threat posts are still there (though they just seem weird without the other posts he did for proper context)

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=4331


Quite a different feel than that parachute comment by blatantdude. If anyone from either side cannot have fun in these threads, whether through gentle flaming, trolling, whining etc. then they should not be posting in them.

I think that banned vjniel dude was almost certainly a teenager and didn't do a very good grownup impersonation.

So I know exactly what the internet is crying out for - ANOTHER RIG-TARD THREAD

I won't go so far as to say Pokerstars is clearly rigged - I can't get my head around how it would be possible to have a true quantum RNG and still rig the outcomes - but I have noticed 3-4 very disturbing trends since Amaya took over Pokerstars.

Some of you will know the financial details of this deal and how it has necessitated change on Pokerstars (i.e. more bingo poker like spin n goes, increased rake in sngs, changing BIs for weekly games to increase rake, slots on full tilt etc), but did you know Pokerstars is now controlled by a Russian? In the spirit of closer relations with Moscow, I will draw attention to the Germans accusing the Russians of systematically doping (99% allegedly) athletes and cheating the international community. If they would do this at the highest echelons of power in a fully regulated field ..........

The things I have noticed with more prominence lately:

1) The very worst players are stacking up early in mtts. As most idiots are Russian or eastern European, it very much looks like Russians hog all the EV. This then seems to reverse on the FT, even when the donkeys GII ahead with good margin. But this doesn't apply to Russians who are competent players. They just hold with premium hands an ungodly amount plus also seem to get way more than their fair share of luck against other premium hands.

2) The "distribution of results" is very heavily correlated - i.e. if I have a day when I make FTs and bust 7-9th, I bust EVERY FT in 7-9th. Likewise if I am busting early and taking beats, I will take beats on all tables at the same time, which tilts me immensely. What annoys me almost as much though is the same player being a big stack in EVERY mtt at the same time. If a player is making top 3s in mtts that day, they are virtually invincible in all games.

3) BACK-TO-BACK HANDS. This one is really destroying me. I haven't been able to win back-to-back hands since Amaya took over (I average 30 hours/week on stars). It has got to the stage where I'm just auto-folding every time after I win a hand at showdown. What really annoys me though is that AFTER winning a pot, I seem to pick up a top 1% hand much more frequently than I could reasonably expect. Thing is I lose or split 90% + when I was an even bigger favourite than the hand I just won with. Of course the Russian uber-tards and the fish on heaters in mtts, can win 9-10 hands in a row at showdown without so much as breaking sweat.

4) CARDS TO DIE FOR. I have had so many games lately when I've picked up aces, kings or AKs maybe 7-8 times in 20 hands, consistently, on all tables. But when this happens I'm up against AQ and the board shows a low straight, 2 pair (splitting with A high) or 5 cards of the same suit (which obv I don't hold). My premium just doesn't pay when the distribution is that dense and I see it happen to others too with alarming frequency.

I would like to know if anyone else notices these trends and has any reasonable explanation for why they have occurred every single session (not just to my detriment) I have played since Amaya took over?

Thanks guys and for ease of posting if you just post the letter, "E", instead of going for the full 3 letter acronym, the space saved will make up for this huge wall of text, cheers

E

Quads are dealt at a redicilous rate. I'm a winning regular and have been dealt quads 4 times twice, 3 times once in sessions since Oct 1st

FYP

Wacka,

It sounds like you have identified a very specific issue that could be investigated: that you get dealt quads too often.

This seems like a good first step.

The second step should be to figure out how often you "should" have been dealt quads. To do this, you need to figure out how many hands you've been dealt (ie, are we talking 100 hands, 1,000 hands, 10,000 hands, 100,000 or 1million hands?) and what form of poker you are playing (No-Limit Hold'em? 7 Card Stud? Cash Games? Tournaments? etc.)

The third step should be then to figure out how often you've actually been dealt quads (eg, are you remembering right?)

The fourth step can then be to figure out how often reality has deviated for expectations, and what the possible explanations for that is.

Does this make sense?

I guess i am making it up right Josem. I am misremembering. Nope, pretty sure i've been dealt 4 times twice, 3 times another day, and lots of individual times. Is it too much? I dunno. Whats the exact number of hands, i dunno, what is the proper number of times it should be dealt? I dunno. I really never paid attention to the exact number of times I was dealt quads before in all my years playing online because it never happened often. I know it seems to happen a lot now where i'm surprised if it doesmt happen once a session. I know you guys will now say its a cognitive response or something to that effect but 4 times twice and 3 times is a little excessive. I wish the jackpot spins paid out like that LOL

I hear what your saying. Your a straight shooter. Very respectable member of the industry. I wouldn't play enough hands short term to be able to run any realistic hand sample. The games I like to play have significantly slowed.

You may as well post your four quad hands to show they even happened. Many riggies make up stuff, so you cannot assume what you say will be taken as gospel if you will not at least provide the hand histories. as some form of evidence.

Seems pretty strange that a rig would be based on the number of quads, as that will not happen that often and it is the type of hand that people will pay attention to and remember. A better rig might target hands that are less noticeable and/or memorable, wouldn't you agree?

I have had quads multiple times in the same day - it happens. Not quite sure what the big deal is on this. I guess post it in BBV or something.

All the best.

So, let's start with figuring out an estimate of how many times you should have been dealt quads.

Here are two simple questions:

a) How many hands have you played?

b) What form of poker are you playing?

c) If you are unsure of the answers to questions A and/or B, then perhaps you could ask the site concerned for how many hands you've played with them, and what games you have been playing?


This isn't true - the sample size depends on what you suspect is happening.

If you play 25 hands, and you get deal quads on every single occasion, that would be compelling evidence that the deal wasn't random.

On the other hand, if you thought you were getting quads 1% more than expected, you would need many thousands (maybe millions?) of hands to prove this.

In this particular case, you think you're getting dealt quads so often that you can notice it by simply remembering it. If that is indeed true, then obviously you don't need many hands - because you've already played them and detected it. A proper analysis is going to be able to detect and reveal anything that a human brain can notice and remember in this area.

The clustering is pretty much irrelevant. All that matters is how many hands you have ever played, and the number of times you got quads.

Rigged or not?? What winning player makes moves like the one above Yes the guy calling a 3-bet with T3 suited has a ROI of 85%...

arsenpetro 888.com : Any : 2014 - Player Profiles

I keep watching his hands for a bit after, and he continues to make the same dumb moves?

EDIT: His average buy-in is less then $1.

***** 888poker Hand History for Game 488528513 *****
$15/$30 Blinds No Limit Holdem - *** 08 12 2014 15:05:27
Tournament #64182477 $1.80 + $0.20 - Table #38 (Real Money)
Seat 5 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 1: ColinCharles ( $2,484 )
Seat 2: arsenpetro ( $2,850 )
Seat 3: allwinpoker ( $4,254 )
Seat 4: Steb_OK ( $225 )
Seat 5: 23panzer23 ( $2,989 )
Seat 6: absint90 ( $2,970 )
Seat 7: Eg4ik888 ( $3,691 )
Seat 9: Muzikant27 ( $8,114 )
Seat 10: MSeptember ( $3,840 )
absint90 posts small blind [$15]
Eg4ik888 posts big blind [$30]
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to ColinCharles [ Kd, Kc ]
Muzikant27 folds
MSeptember raises [$60]
ColinCharles raises [$168]
arsenpetro calls [$168]
allwinpoker folds
Steb_OK folds
23panzer23 folds
absint90 folds
Eg4ik888 calls [$138]
MSeptember calls [$108]
** Dealing flop ** [ 7h, Th, 4d ]
Eg4ik888 checks
MSeptember checks
ColinCharles bets [$373]
arsenpetro raises [$1,806]
Eg4ik888 folds
MSeptember folds
ColinCharles raises [$1,943]
arsenpetro calls [$510]
** Dealing turn ** [ 6c ]
** Dealing river ** [ Td ]
** Summary **
ColinCharles shows [ Kd, Kc ]
arsenpetro shows [ 3c, Tc ]
arsenpetro collected [ $5,319 ]

You misunderstand the value of the 85% ROI figure in this case - it basically has no value given this player has lifetime played very small volume (under 1,000 games) with a couple of "binks" of $300 and $200 which artificially inflate the ROI for him given his very low buy ins.

He did not even cash in that tournament you are talking about finishing 723/852 likely playing every hand as he did against you, and eventually math did what it does to players like this.

If you go to this thread

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=1911

you will see many graphs of people who have a positive ROI, yet are not particularly good players, rather they had a lucky bink or two. In this case this person's ROI is 114%, but if you take away his single lucky bink it is more along the -80% range.

The player you are upset about is a casual, bad player - nothing more. If you play on Stars you will see that type of play every day in the MTTs there as well. Your mistake was believing he was a winning player. He is not, even if net lifetime he has some winnings.

All the best.

Colin,

Rating the play of players in a $1 buyin is frankly pointless. You will get the utter fish playing there that will be playing any suited cards and rag aces etc. The will then overvalue their hand as well when they hit TPWK. Most days they go out very, very early. But on some days they will get lucky, even if it is only for a few hands, and on others may get them fairly deep if their luck holds.

MTT's take a load of luck even if you play them well, and fish will knock you out, and certainly sometimes in the early stages. Ask yourself this, were you happy when the cards were turned over? Yes, of course. Far better to have people making mistakes against you than not.

I never thought he was a good player...... My point is that even if he has gotten really lucky, he still has way to many deep runs/cashes IMO. He has a $750 profit and his biggest cash is like $250, and his ITM percentages are fairly high. I know he's a terrible player, but either he is running like god or the system is rigged(Highly doubt it)... Just seems like this player is running amazingly well.

You are confusing prizes with profits. Some sites (Sharkscope) track profit, while the one you are using (Topshark I assume) lists the prizes, so that $750 number does not include the buy ins he paid. Once those are put in the equation (about 1,000 tourneys at an ave $1 each) he is no longer even a winning player.

A lot of people make these types of errors all the time when they do not understand how math works, or in this case how the tracking site works, but a simple way for you to test what I am saying is to find a tournament you cashed in and look at how much you made in profit and then see what that site lists for you.

You show how these things are usually explained by much simpler reasons that weird rigs, in this case you did not recognize the difference between prizes and profits.

In the end he was a casual, bad player who got lucky against you. Nothing more.

All the best.

Mike Haven, thanks for locking the Probability rigged thread. Now I'll never be tempted to click this **** show again. Some threads are like aids, some are like ebola, but this one is freakin cancer.

Hallelujah.
It's about time.

Scorecard:
Industry shills 1. Silly Riggies 0

Nope, your wrong?

Total tourneys played=969
Average buy-in=$0.93
Total winnings=$1607.20
Total profit=$705.48

969x0.93=901.17 (Games played x average buy-in)
969x0.73=707.37 (Games played x average profit per game)

$1607.20 - $901.17= $706.03 (

Those numbers are pretty close, and the site I use does include the actual profit (Winnings-buy-ins=profit)..

Therefore he is a winning poker player.

If you would take all the energy and focus you spend on silly **** like this and direct it at improving your own game youd be better off.

I got news for you. You arent special. You dont deserve to win any hand. Every poker player in the world has had a 3bet called by junk and been sucked out. Welcome to the ****ing club.

I'm not sure if this has been suggested before, but it seems like there's an easy way to find out if sites are rigged.

If a lot of us pitch in $5, put it in escrow, and pay out $500k to any insider who can prove that their site is rigged, I'm sure someone would come forward if they have any evidence. I'm pretty sure there are sites that can just authorize your credit card and not take the $5 unless the funds are paid out.

Why would we not want to do this?

I don't think you could find 100,000 internet poker players in the world that think it is even vaguely likely that the deal is rigged.

Define rigged. I define it as someone having the ability to rig the outcome for the minority at will, not what many people would suspect, the program just constantly fluctuating out of the norm for the majority. Obviously this does not and will never happen. There are strict non disclosures signed just to go to stupid meetings and not talk about them, I think the losses from the select few who would have knowledge that they can alter the RNG at will would far outweight the benefit of 500k.It would have to be a hell of a lot more money.