Luckily there are far, far easier ways than complicated rigging schemes to enable their greed, like eliminating rakeback/rewards and increasing rake.

LOL at bolded. You a funny shill wiki/monteroy!

Not Wiki or Monteroy either.

The rig must be complicated, otherwise one of you ******s would have managed to actually explain how it works by now, and not rely on some ****ty Youtube video or reviews on Poker Scout as your "evidence".

A youtube video posted by an unknown person that: (1) shows writing and utilizes awful animation to make the writing appear as though it is being typed as the video runs, (2) doesn't include any numbers (no math, no analysis), (3) lacks any type of evidence, including, but not limited to the aforementioned mathematical analysis, and (4) doesn't make any distinction between and among the many different companies that run online poker sites and states that they all use the same rigging "tactics".

Rather it just makes statements that all online poker is rigged to: (a) protect weaker players from losing too much, (b) cause large pots (where players win and lose large amounts) by dealing "action flops", (c) changes which player has the best hand as new cards are dealt to cause players to bet more (it doesn't say how this causes players to bet more) and (d) auditors get paid off.

When your main goal in life is to defend the online poker scam, the truth can understandably be painful. Probably be dragging you out of bed again with this, right? What is it like 3 a.m. where you are?

Hey shill, I'm considering signing up for some Bitcoin poker - have any good deposit codes for me?

Where do you think he lives, Greenland?

1 a.m. I haven't gone to bed yet; will be soon. I don't wake up and get out of bed to browse internet forums.

I don't have a goal to defend any online poker sites that are rigged, or even that aren't rigged really.

Actually, I've done more to try to find evidence/prove rigs in online poker than you've done, or at least that I've seen you do, ... though that isn't saying much since I haven't seen you do anything to help find evidence/prove rigs in online poker.

I've run various filters as requested by different people in this thread to see if there was anything amiss with them that could be rigging and I've offered to run more. I haven't found anything yet though. But you, as stated above, seem to have done nothing, which is less.

Have a good night if I'm off to bed without responding any more.

WOW, just wow. Have the number of people catching on to the obvious deal manipulation increased THAT much?

So I guess that's a no on the deposit code then?

Boom.

ZEROMYACCT100

Assuming you are correct about this set standing alone statistically, your result sample happens this bad or worse about 1 / 8637.

To find out if you are correct about this subset standing on its own without counting all the times you flopped a four flush, I would post this in Probability. The smart guys there don't read this thread.

And yes, the correct percentage you expect to complete the flush is 34.97%.

LostOstrich has pointed out that there would be times where I folded an unimproved 4-flush to a bet on the turn, and therefore the sample is bound to be a bit lower in number than if those folded 4-flushes had gone to completion. (There would be a tendency to play in a way that distorted the results by some degree as there would be more completed flushes on the turn going to the end.) They would need to be all in on the flop hands to give an unbiased result.

He's right, but I think that isn't the only error in counting that way. There are also times when you complete the flush on the turn and you bet and villain folds. Those don't get counted.

They weren't included in my 1064 hands sample.

Copied from the $10K missing thread.

Here's my take . Played on almost every site since 2002. I have noticed a difference in randomness . Party poker and pokerstars seemed to be the best. Full tilt was even ok from my recollection . But I really think bovada is stacking the deck. . Just my opinion .

No such page as the URL shown in that screen shot.
[text]http://www.americascardroom.eu/online-poker/online-poker-scam/[/text]



Google is also unable to find any reference to that URL.

It may have been posted 7 years ago, according to SantaCruz, and was deleted, according to TyTwhyTs.

If it ever was on ACR, it may have been copied from http://www.globalspecops.com/differe...oker-cheating/ by mistake. I don't think the .eu was in existence 7 years ago.

*

Edit: SantaCruz now thinks he was mistaken that it was from 7 years ago.

I'm not sure what that last post is in response to. It was the post immediately after my above quoted post, but it doesn't appear to be in response to such post because it doesn't seem to make any contextual sense as a reply to such post.

???

But u have no proof so they are not going to believe you. For years I have said sites seem to be differnet with how random things are. Can I prove it? No. The problem is unrandomness is hard to prove, so is randomness. I never played party, but I thought poker stars was ok, and I thought full tilt was brutal. It could just be a situation where u just had better or worse runs. I have obv done better at some sites then others. Player pool matters. All I am sayin is people here are quick to discount any theory. Obv some theories are insane like the mouse movement thing. But a theory of sites doing things to make things even could be real. I remember way back when I said ft was rigged, every person told mesh would they rig it they make enough money running and honest game?!? Ya think? Obv now we know they didn't make enough. Never assume anything I guess is all I am saying.
Just to keep things clear I don't think anyone will ever find anything wrong with any site just due to the sheer size of what would be needed to accomplish this. So I continue to play and on those 10-15 coolers a night I shake my head and say well that's online poker.

I added the bold.

Do you mean that you don't think anyone will ever find anything wrong with a site again? Or are you unaware that people have already found things wrong with several sites?




EDIT:

Also, I bet a lot of those things you call "coolers" are not really "coolers".

Yes I don't think anyone will find anything wrong again. Take it like this. Everyone understands the number of poker now, no site is gonna do anything blatant. But small percentages over billions of hands is huge. U may disagree. And small percentages will never be questioned.
Yes a lot of the things I call coolers are indeed cooler
July 17th, 19th and 20th I hit a royal straight flush once on each of those days. 3 royal straight flushes in 4 days. It was plo but still amazing if u ask me

Sure, until you think even a little bit about complicated a theory to "make things even" would be. And in Full Tilt's case, they didn't rig it, they just stole all the money. Why would they steal all the money and kill their golden goose when they could just turn their Rig-U-Lator 5000 up a couple notches?

Odds of a Royal Flush (no need for the straight part) in PLO are 1 in 10,829.

Also funny that you say no site is going to do something blatant then follow it up with your 3 Royals in 4 days anecdote.

Hello all,

The purpose of this post isn't to moan about my luck (read: short-term variance).

I'd just like to provide my fellow twoplustwo members who may be in search of a softer poker site to reconsider their decision. Below I will post my 'evidence' of what I likely think is a small site with a small player base dealing out sickening run-outs to try and make noobies stack off so that they generate more rake for themselves.

I'd advise you to give small sites such as Sky Poker a miss and only play on the bigger more reputable sites!





P.S. Thanks to the Mod for kindly moving my thread to being a post in the correct thread, apologies!