Dear Darkus,

He is boring.


All the best.

That looks as if you have written a letter to someone called Darkus telling him that some unspecified person (the identity of whom, one assumes Darkus knows from previous communication) is boring.

No native English speaker would ever interpret that as a letter telling Darkus that he, himself, was boring.

Your suggestion that an earlier post jumped from second to third person is unequivocally wrong.

Always remember: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!

All the best.

Why are u 100% sure? You are only looking at your results. How can u know sure unless u see everyone's cards?

Did you even read that ? He said he wasn't 100% sure.

Please respond to other questions you keep avoiding.

I initially read Darkus63's post as being addressed to Monteroy and then talking about someone referred to as "he" and I read Monteroy's post as being addressed to Darkus63 and then talking about someone referred to as "he".

It is possible that Darkus63's post was not meant to be addressed to Monteroy, but that the "Dear old Monty" beginning was meant to call attention to Monteroy because the remainder of the post was going to be about him. Boosting this interpretation is that there is no comma or semi-colon after "monty," but rather is a period. But I admit I did read it as an address at first since it is pretty common for punctuation to not be correct on message boards and it is common for people to address messages to one another on message boards.

If you thought a casino had rigged dice at their craps tables, would you keep track of every face of the dice, or just the top face?

Heh, even Wiki came out from the void to comment? He is the first person I put on ignore I think even before Black Friday when I grew tired of his constant use of "******" toward riggies and "are you a woman having a time of the month" style comments to me and others (thanks for quoting him Lego). I assumed he vanished years ago, or changed posting identities as he was one of the first to have several here as his earlier ones got banned. Perhaps he is the Thai hooker riggie all these years...

As to the grammar debate - that is kind of the problem arguing with "shills." It usually ends up being the equivalent of a slappy fight. Riggies are much more fun to debate as while they are generally paranoid and emotional - they do have some genuine passion for their beliefs and they are not nearly as nitty in personality.

I know I annoy riggies, but most of them get over it, and know it is in good, clean fun. In contrast, the "shills" I annoy keep it in their system for months and years. That's kind of funny.

Monteroy agrees with this message. Yeah, I mean you. That's what "he he" said.


All the best.

monteroy, bro, hows it going? your still spending your whole lifetime responding in the riggie thread, sun shining?

Uh... wat?

I'm clearly responding to posters that have posted in the past few days... As I even quoted them... Weird.

But anyhow thanx for the recommendation to start reading the thread from the beginning forwards and not from here backwards, the whole thing is fascinating.

The thread has no memory, so responding to anything over a day old or so is like talking to the void. Also, I was serious when I said that the thread was more interesting back then. There actually were genuine discussions, mathematical work done etc. If you want to see what a confrontation was like in the good old days find the drama of when a poster named spadebidder did some work for a real douche riggie named AMEC104 or AMEC004 or something.



Well, sis, its going great! Seems today is random stalker day. I assume you are someone else I annoyed in the distant past who has yet to get over it. To Wiki's credit I do remember him/her, but obviously I have no idea on you. Anyway, I do have 18 posts in this thread this calendar year so far (most as short as this that take 2 minutes to write) - so you can decide whether an average of 1 post that takes 2-3 minutes to type every 2 days is spending one's "whole lifetime" responding or not. Part of this thread is believing things that one needs to believe regardless of the facts, so I am happy with whatever choice you make for yourself to being you comfort.

I would ask how you are doing or who you are, but really, nobody cares. Hopefully this passing attention gives you what you need, as I am always here to help people like you. Looks like you needed cheering up after yesterday

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=10543




I hope Godboy (forget his user name) shows up next today - he was my favorite void stalker!

All the best.

atleast i have the money to gamble with(not proud of it). imo better than monitoring this thread all day long and responding to every guy who thinks online poker is rigged. but i guess its your destination and noone can talk you out of it.

i feel ya,

cheers bro, hang on for the rough times in this thread

edit: 20 minutes to respond including that post. do you have an alert on your phone or something like that to get insta notification? im just curious

edit 2: sorry for mentioning a phone, that would include that you get away from your computer(which obv. doesnt happen alot), my bad sorry


btw. yes i should quit roulette, but its a hell of a fun game, i tell ya that

Since this was the multi-stalker and grammar nit day, I will, in that spirit, help one of the unknown stalkers with some grammar tips by correcting your quote to the appropriate tense.



If you had done that you would still have 12,000 Euros plus 5 bucks per post if you are on the shill payroll...

In this case I am responding to a degen who is not happy until he is completely broke.


Forget my previous advice, and keep playing roulette since it makes you happy. Just think of roulette as the first Spin and Go (or in your case Spin and Gone).

All the best.

Not many - if any - will say online poker is 100% not rigged. That to me is like saying that the sun will be 100% certain to rise tomorrow. All the evidence I have says that it will, and I've seen no evidence it won't - but it might not.

So same for me with poker. While I'm happy with the stats I see, and nobody else is showing evidence of rigged games I've got to be fairly certain - if not 100% certain - that the game is legit. Tomorrow someone may find the holy grail of rigs that we all missed.

It's not something that will be found. For example u should see a flush flop x times. I shoudl flop top set x times. Etc. How can u find out out how often this things should happen at the same time? U cant. So if u just an Analyze your stats they will look fine as will mine. But this says nothing of the times u flop 2 pair and I have top pair and hit a better 2 pair. All we see is my 2 pair held up as much as it should. It's not info that is gonna prove anything. All I am saying take today for example. A little Friday plo vs the same loser that lose all week long. One guy calls a 4 bet preflop with 7744 of course spikes a set and wins. Next hand he has 8663 of course runs into a set and hits a flush. Very next hand i got AKKQ. With AK clubs. Flop is 986 clubs of course he flopped a str8 flush. Seems all random to me. I mean play live and tell me u suffer 4 or 5 ridiculous beats a day.....u just won't, but that is very common online to suffer 4 or 5 bad beats every day. Don't give me the u see more hands argument either. Play 200 hands live then play 200 hands online u will see way more stupid things online. If the players are supposedly better online and u are seeing more bad beats then by theory they are not better they are worse cuz they are getting their only in bad more often. So u tell me

If I attempted to make an amusing parody of a riggie post, I couldn't do anything near as perfect as this. Just glorious.

It really is great, his ratio of stupid rig theories:words per post is God tier.

What is stupid about it?

The same things that I've explained were stupid over and over and over again. I'm not going to bother anymore, congratulations on proving the rig that's unprovable.

It's just a matter of time before riggies take over a refuge in Oregon.

Of course you can.

And the rest of your post was no better.
Which is why you get ridiculed. Well, one reason.

U are free to ridicule me if u want. Prove it otherwise.

It's been proven otherwise multiple times, and look how much good that did anyone.

Wrong, it could be found. And how? With mathematics. Do a Google search on poker and working out probabilities.

As for PLO. My experience with small stakes PLO is that players there have a problem folding pre-flop and variance in the game is way more than HE in general. So good luck if you aren't expecting odd hands to outdraw you on a regular basis.

Edit: Realized you may be talking about PLO, but I don't really care.

If I have two suited cards, and you have a pair, there are two options:
A) One of your paired cards is the same suit as mine. In that case, you flopping top set and me flopping a flush is impossible.

B) Your cards are different suits than mine. In that case, there are (10*9/2) = 45 flops that will give you a set and me a flush, counting combinations, not permutations. One-third of those (assuming you play all pairs equally often), you'll have top set. So 15 flops, on average. Out of (48*47*46/6) = 17296 possible flops. So, there's a 15/17296 chance that you flop top set, or about 1 in 1153 flops in which you have a pair that's a different suit than my suited cards.

Any other incorrect claims you'd like to have proven wrong?

It's all like MATHS HOW DO THEY WORK