These shills as you call them, would make pretty poor customer service reps, with all the insulting and all.

I know my point of view, with my small number of posts and all, spread out over three years, means little to a robust poster such as yourself, but I think if you have read this thread and remember every post in it (as I know you want the rest of us to do) there are many many posts describing how to start analyzing your own stats with a view to seeing if they fit within the statistical mean. You have several posters offering to help any such enterprising players.

How many rigtards have actually done and rigourous analysis? How many have done more than notice trends while they play, get sucked out on (mostly in tournaments) and coming up with a "feeling" that something is wrong.

All the times wrongdoing has been found on 2+2, it has been the result of rigourous analysis by ordinary users. They have found something suspicious, investigated it, compared notes, and submitted their findings to the general public for further analysis.

Most rigtards get stuck at step 1: finding something suspicious. They never get to step 2, but yet they expect to have the dramatic results that the more rigourous investigations lead to. What should the rational response to such methodology be?

I'm not questioning your intellect or your credibility one bit, you chimed in on a subject from somebody that took place a long time ago...

Feel free to elaborate how one is supposed to properly "help" a person who steadfastly believes he can tell how much the site is rigged against him in the first couple of minutes of play? He will never sway from that view so suggesting he capitalize on it seemed the best bit of advice possible given the parameters of the situation.

How would you "help" him?

And for what it is worth, you tend to hurl considerably more personal attacks compared to just about anyone (except maybe qpw), so I suppose you are a shill/customer service rep as well based on that definition. Welcome to the club.

Oh, and explain how you would help that other fellow.

There is virtually no chance that online poker is 100% random.

Cool. Make millions capitalizing on your ability to see the order amid the chaos. Not sure what the problem is here, many others have discovered flaws in systems and milked them hard (casino whoring a few years ago would be a semi related area), so stop whining and start raking in the dough with the secret knowledge you possess.

Your immense fortune will be all the proof you need of your theories, so go for it.

If you need a little hint here is one:

Since you know within a few hands whether you will have a winning or losing session, only continue playing when it is rigged for you to win. Stop playing when it is rigged for you to lose. Explain any downside to this plan.

All the best.

OR he can do the moral thing and explain to us, the sites, and the regulators the flaws in the system.

Morals or millions? Seems an easy choice.

Anyone who has the ability to see into the future and see patterns in a rigged system that no one can mathematically demonstrate should capitalize on it as much as possible.

I just cannot figure out why these guys don't do just that. A whole small community of casino whores (happily including myself) made quite a bit for years based on a similar systemic analysis and manipulation (with fewer super powers like seeing the future).

These guys have all they need to break the online rooms of millions. They see the patterns, they know what is coming, they know how it is rigged and who and how it benefits certain types of players.

Easy money. Hope they remember the little people after they make millions or billions.

I would be interested in that as well. Bucket, can you please elaborate?

SHIFTONE!1

Yadda yadda bad players win more than they shoud

Yadda yadda new players get more better hands

Yadda yadda ace rages win too much

Yadda yadda players when finishing a bonus will get coolered


We really need to hear all these and more for the 1000th time? Let's just get the riggedologists on a path where they can make unlimited wealth by merely using their knowledge when playing.

Screw game/table selection - those are trivial compared to rigged selection.

Play only when it is rigged for you to win.

Seems easy to follow.

I'm reading an interesting book right now that contains a couple of statements that I thought were pretty profound in relation to this thread, and particularly to recent posts where rigged proponents challenge someone to "prove" that online poker isn't rigged. If it isn't obvious that this is a quest to prove a negative, these thoughts might help. The book is "The Myth of the Rational Market" and it chronicles the rise and fall of the dogma of the efficient market theory in the latter half of the twentieth century. It's about finance and economics, but these quotes were particularly interesting.

One economist stated (and I'm paraphrasing) that it is never possible to prove total randomness, it can only be disproved by the presence of detectable patterns. This reminds me of what randomness actually means, which is the absence of any detectable or predictable pattern. It also brings to mind the story of the black swan, where the idea that all swans are white could never be proven, but it was immediately disproved by the sighting of a black swan.

The other quote in the book that I thought was particularly relevant, by another economist, and again I'm paraphrasing, was that the role of statistics is not to determine the truth, its role is to settle disputes among people. This too will seem obvious for those with an understanding of confidence levels and significance.

Just thought I'd share those.

How do you disprove randomness in a process which you do not have complete information about? Surely you can only give some estimate of the probability that it is not random?

Any 'detectable pattern' can also occur by chance with some non-zero probability, no matter how much information you gather.

Yup, that's why we use the phrase "Beyond reasonable doubt".

I don't see any difference between non-random and random. Both are impossible to 'really prove' from observation of the results, but both can be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' by observation of the results.

well this emphasizes my point that I made earlier in the thread. ofcourse fulltilt would benefit off of giving wins and loses to certian players. like i said before, the whole goal of fulltilt is too accumulate as many players on their site as possibly, and by doing this it's possible to keep more players at break even and letting ppl win and lose so they stay on their site. if fish never won, they would never come back, so in theory full tilt does benefit.

Of course its true that if fish never won, they'd never come back. These 1 outers you rigtards always complain about are exactly why the fish come back. The fish love those types of hands, and so should you. The aggrodonk will win a few big pots before being busted by the tag reg. The loose passive calling station will luck into a backdoor flush before busting.

But folks, the entire casino industry is based largely on millions of gamblers who over time won't win, won't break even, but will lose! And they keep coming back. Because they might win!

So embrace the suckouts, play your poker, bust the fish, tell them what a nice play they made when they suckout on you.

Checking into it or making random accusations and stating them as fact?

Yet you continue to lose. Why?

What I'm asking you to do is pay attention. Watch how often in sng's or mtt's the bigger stack knocks out the short stack even though the bs has the dominated hand, ie, A Q vs short stack A K.

It really doesnt matter what the hands are the big stack will knock out the short stack at a 70% - 80% rate when they are the 30% dog.

Now for cash games watch hom many times an overall winning player will get the other player in with a far superior hand only to see the runner runner miracle bail the donks out over and over.

I've reached the point where I pretty much dread flopping a set to my pocket pair because some how I will lose if I get the person to move all in. It will be a 4 card str8 or flush hitting the board, a gut shot coming home or some other equally ridiculous bad beat.

Flopping a set is suppose to be a big money making hand but online if you're a winning player there will be a suck out coming well over 50% of the time.

One more thing. Take a good look at how many all one suit flops hit the board. It's so crazy. I'm talking about both stars and ft. The last week it's happening about 1.75 times for every 18 flops.

GTFO

yeah theyre rigged obvv

nice observation

u sir, are ******ed. gtfo.

but you know you get insta-doomswitched by FT when you talk about their dark secrets in forums, right?
That´s also why everyone ITT is making fun of you.

I can conspiracy's, somehow they don't ever seem to turn out right