How is retirement lucrative? Most people get less money in retirement then working years

Should just change the title to "The great ONLINE poker is rigged debate".
Rigging a live game is a totally different animal,and a very uncommon one unlike online.

Get ready to be called all kinds of moron by the schills. They are gonna tell u that u got no proof and tho it's impossible to prove

Even if your barely coherent theory was true, this doesn't change the fact that they're making their money from rake, Sparky.

This is the Internet Poker forum, so most people have that worked out.

Yes but no money in till l, no rake.and if money keeps going out without coming in, no rake.....see lock poker

Just stop. Your example of lock poker has nothing to do with what point you are trying to make.

Unless, youre trying to say pokerstars is stealing deposits and withdraws are no longer being honored?

Edit: well done on the critical thinking aspect of no customers equals no rake.

You are missing the point. It'd like a bank, they can only are so many loans based on how much money they have in reserve so they want to encourage people to deposit to Christmas clubs, sav I no accounts, certificates of deposit etccc. Poker sites are the same. The omore money they have the more rake they make so they need to make it difficult for winners to withdraw and very easy for losers to deposit. All I am saying is it would be greatly profitable if winners won less and losers loss less. Think about it

And what does any of that have to do with lock poker, unless you are suggesting pokerstars is committing blatant theft?

We all understand they convert a percentage of each deposit into rake. We also understand that if winners win less they convert a higher percentage into rake.

What you dont ubderstand is when you say "they dont make most of their money from rake" people comprehend it as said and not your cloudy explanation of deposits that will eventually be converted to rake.

If "u new anything about poker industry" (or any industry, for that matter) you'd have a chance of comprehending the fact that THE RAKE IS THE TURNOVER. You can google the word "turnover" if you want, though that will only lead to you having to google other words like "income", "money", "business", "period" and "the".

No, I think I finally get what he means. I believe he's taken a long, convoluted, barely coherent route to explain what has been obvious for many years to anyone who is even slightly aware of how online poker works - sites want people to deposit money, so they'll play poker with it, generating rake.

Well it would probably be easier to understand if he was writing in English again.

So if someone withdraws money from a poker site the poker site can't collect rake on that money any more? What if they deposit that "untouchable" money back into the poker site, did they just find a loophole or can the poker site start collecting rake on that money again?

I was just listening to dani stern talk about the pokerstars strike. They won't play for 72 hours with the most important thing of the strike is to cash out cuz pokerstars values the players account balances to highly. Interesting

I just browsed his Twitter and it sounds like he's striking because they took away rewards for hand volume which encourages bum hunting. Fascinating.

Cuz they don't want good players winning too much? Sounds like my original argument

I don't know but probably not.

And they don't want people to withdraw. So maybe they do things to keep the games even so people won't withdraw as much and don't need to deposit much?

You mean like many sites getting rid of rakeback, cutting down the number of tables people can play, and limiting the software that can be used? Yes, many sites have been moving towards a more rec-friendly model for years now. Where have you been?

But I assume that what you're getting at is that they could be rigging the sites to that effect. Um, yeah, hasn't that basically been the crux of riggies' argument in this thread for the last 7 years?

But thanks for coming into the thread and stating the same thing hundreds of other people have been for years now, only doing so in a way that was much more difficult to understand due to your baffling lack of desire to make even a single effort to post in a coherent manner, all while presenting it like you had some new argument to make rather than just stating the the blindingly obvious.

rec-friendly?

yeah, like the old school ex chess grandmaster's with way too much time on their hands mailing the moves to one another.

Not to derail the everyone on 2+2 vs jungmit rig debate thread, but just to the point above, I just clicked on the Internet Bonuses section of the forum for the first time in a long time and received this message.

What a difference from when us old heads started playing online poker huh Bobo. The problem then was not where to find a bonus, but what one do I want to do next. Ahhh, the good old days, sighhh.

Yes.

Well, the forum's actually closed, which is why there have been no posts, but your point is still valid because we merged IB & AR due to lower traffic. Yeah, those days were great, and their departure really took most of the fun out of poker for me. I used to love the bonus whoring.

Ah ok, that makes sense then. I didn't know that.

30 minutes 3 sets hold up and hit quads. Kinda streaky

just a sidenote: its way more easy to create a manipulated pokersite than a "clean" one. now think about how many sites are out there.