No statistical anomolies found in millions of analysed hands proves that they're not rigging which cards come out.

it's problem

These new riggies don't know old poker memes.

Which has been done since the beginning of online poker and is still being done today. All the many "shills" in here sure put on an elaborate smoke and mirrors show to try and throw the readers off, but in the end, if 52 cards are used, these sites can put the cards down any way they like. Its insane to even have to say it, as any second grader should realize this.

Wouldnt that be rigged as well the first time you lose?

No, they can only put the cards 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975 ,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 different ways.

No, I'm not saying anything remotely close to that. Just because something hasn't been done doesn't mean it never could be done.

Thanks for the advice but improving my trolling ability is not all that high on my list of things to achieve to be honest.

It was a bit of temporary fun which is all it should be in a thread like this. I don't want to turn it into an obsession like you have.

Anyway time to move on to more useful things to spend my time on.

All the best.

But it couldn't be done without being detected, that's my point.

Yes you could rig which players get which hands but you can't rig the actual deal as in the flop etc or rig AA to lose 50% of the time without it cropping up in the stats.

Perfect, we both agree then.

Indeed many people like you instinctively quit and/or dismiss activities at the first hint of resistance, but hopefully in the future when you try with a new posting account you will make further progress. Your exit post certainly cannot be any less original, so that is an easy area for a quick boost in quality the next time around. At that time be sure to vote again in the pol, as the riggie side needs all the multi-voting support it can get.

All the best.

Yeh i think i worded it badly.

It's funny to me though how losing players who are convinced of a rig still play day after day.

I mean if someone said 'hey, come to my house tonight for a cash game, £200 max buy in but the dealer is going to give me the nuts every other hand' then i'd tell them to do one.

People playing in games that they say are rigged are either A) ridiculously dumb B) have severe gambling issues or C) deep down know it's not rigged.

It's also funny to me how there are certain markers which help you identify these players - usually don't buy in full, usually do a lot of limping and calling, usually do a lot of silly talking in the chat box saying things like 'i had to call, i had a flush draw' and stuff like that.

These people have no concept of odds, of range, of aggression and look only at their two starting cards and somehow feel entitled to win in what is a difficult game to profit in.

It's the same thing and still shows up. This should be obvious.

I don't think he's saying he's exiting the thread, just that the more detailed than usual spoof: 'you could become a shill, too', joke has run its course.

For which sentiment; +1

AA losing 50% of the time isn't the same as one player being given AA 3 times in an hour on one table, for example.

Their stats won't be interconnected because they don't have enough hands together to ever draw a correlation.

the thing is though sites that refuse to give you hand histories and ban the use of huds etc could not be caught if it was rigged, thats not saying it is so, its just saying if they did so how the heck could anyone proof it.

Yah, exactly. That's why hand histories are such an important part of protecting the integrity of the games.

If you change hole card distributions by giving players certain hole cards more often than you should, it will be detectable.

Only if you have access to that players' complete personal set of data over millions of hands. Account for only showdown hands where you see his cards and you need tens of millions before anyone would believe the data.

No statistician will believe anomolies in data is a sign of rigging unless there is millions of pieces of data.

Would someone like Stars for example just allow you access to someones hole cards for every hand they've played? I don't play on there so i wouldn't know.

Sure. Can't think of a site that does this, but there may be some smaller ones that operate this way.

False.

No, you are wrong. For example, I proved that there was cheating taking place on UB and AP with only 500 or 600 hands.

To take a simple/obvious example: if you were dealt AA on 20 consecutive hands, that would be pretty strong evidence that something was amiss.

Don't sites that offer 'anonymous tables' do that?

(I don't play on any such sites, so don't know how they handle this issue)

Bodog offers hand histories; not sure about others. They are anonymous, but that doesn't mean one couldn't still detect a rig. Cheaters are a different story, of course.

Not with the deal. Different thing.

If you took even a 20k hand history showing AA lost 30% of the time AIPF people would claim the sample size wasn't big enough and you were running badly. It's happened already online but with an even bigger sample size.

If you're altering one player at the tables hole cards, you're altering the distributions for every player at the table. If every table had hole card rigging going on, the distributions would be noticeably off fairly quickly even if you weren't the target of the rig.