Go ahead and post your "numbers" in the stats and strategy forums with new threads and then you can see how healthy a discussion your startling revelations create there, since no healthy discussions can be had here.

If your new data goes nowhere in those other forums (in the unlikely event you actually post there) then you can simply make up another excuse why that happened in this thread, and you can get back to simplistic personal attacks.

All the best.

Yeah, that's not really how theories work.

Simple Definition of theory
: an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

What you're doing is just randomly speculating about something you've spent about 30 seconds thinking about, then expecting everybody else to prove or disprove it for you. You seem to think this somehow adds to a discussion but it's just more noise in the din.

FWIW in March stars changed the Pay out structures so that the the biggest multipliers hit 1 per 1m games instead of 3 per 1m games - so yes, since December stars have made the 1m prize pool 3 times less likely to hit.

They publicised the changes here and on their website.

Great job, guys. Not only delete my post WHERE IT BELONGS, but make me search the forum for this thread to try and find my post to see IT IS NOT HERE.

Maybe you missed the point. I could care less if ANYONE saw the post, as forum participant or one of you high and mighty mods. I only did it to get the attention of the BOL rep on here. Do you REALLY think they're going to regularly check this joke of a thread?????

BUY A CLUE.

Ah yes, I could see how important it was to get this message to a BOL rep:

I have a solution for you - send her a PM.

You could also email or call them.

But if you want to whine about their allegedly rigged RNG, this is the thread for it. Rigged rants just lead to derails of poker room threads, which are kind of pointless when they're just anecdotal.

On another note, when you want to explain why you posted something where you did after you get an infraction, which do you think is more productive?

A) Send a PM that says "LMAO wait yeah hahhahahahahahahahahahaha You guys are top notch, well done!", and then post a rant about it in the forums with multiple all-caps phrases and general berating; or
B) Send a PM that explains what you were trying to do.

And finally, how much less could you care?

So many sad things about this, but the only one about the "point" of *this* thread - you guys don't seem to understand the difference between two VERY different posts

1 - Your RNG is a joke

2 - Your site is rigged

I'd say get back to me when you figure out the difference (which, honestly, should come with an apology) but I seriously doubt I'll still be here next decade which is when that would happen, if ever.

Whether you consider their RNG to be a joke, flawed, pretty bad, ridiculous, or rigged, it all leads to the same derail, so we keep those posts out of the site threads.

Let me comb through the 1000s of posts in here so I can be made aware of how often the reps of various sites engage in this thread. I mean, I'm sure it is one of the reasons why they joined in the first place. They can't wait to read stupidity from morons thinking all online poker is rigged.

While we're at it, probably nothing but coincidence that networks not only have threads here that you guys hawk over, but ads (which is super classy for a forum, btw), and the ability to select exactly what forum brought the player to that skin to set up an account. Nah, everything must be on the up and up. Total sheer coincidence. Wait, how is the connection to Full Flush working out right now? While we're at it, should we go back to days before Black Friday and look at how you guys protected Full Tilt, UltimateBet..........

eh, nm, you're the greatest, they're the greatest, I must be totally off base, my bad

They don't, and I didn't say they did - that's why I suggested you PM, email or phone them. "RNG feels off" posts aren't going to lead to anything positive in a site thread; that's why we usually remove those derails.

"Super classy for a forum" - what does this mean? Were you hoping that the site owners would provide the site for you at a loss, free of advertising?

LOL, this is awesome.

Full Flush - I don't recall them ever advertising with us. If they did, it would have been quite some time ago.

Full Tilt - Yes, they advertised with us. Thankfully, Poker Stars bought them and most people got their money back, but not everyone. That's going to happen sometimes in this business, unfortunately. You could have come up with some much better examples like Lock Poker (we ended their advertising quite a bit before the end, but still...) Minted, and a few others. We'd be pretty amazing if we could predict the future of everyone that advertises with us. We do the best we can, and we don't accept advertising from sites we don't feel comfortable with.

Ultimate Poker - Wow. Just, wow. Never, ever did we take advertising from them. Refused it, in fact. Many other poker sites, forums, etc. had relationships with them, long after the super user scandal came to light. On our site, they were constantly trashed. The super user was scandal was uncovered here. You'd be hard pressed to find many people in this forum in particular that campaigned harder against people playing there than I did. If you had any credibility on this subject to this point, you lost it all here. Protected UB? HUGE LOL!

As for protecting sites in general, it's always amazing to me that people still keep on with this nonsense. Some of our biggest advertisers, like Stars in the past, have dozens, if not hundreds, of threads, and thousands of posts, critical of them. If our advertising revenues relied on us protecting advertisers, we'd have had to close down years ago.

Yeah, this is a pretty good summary of where your mindset goes wrong. Believe it or not, there is something in between "they're the greatest" and "they're the worst". You seem to have built up a narrative in your head that online sites are out to get you, and we're in cahoots with them. Then when a post of yours is deleted, all logic is dismissed so you can fit what happened into your narrative. Never mind that the site in question doesn't even advertise with us currently, that doesn't fit your narrative. Never mind that Full Flush and UB didn't advertise with us, that doesn't fit your narrative. To hell with facts - your mind is made up already.

All this because you had an all-important "your RNG is ridiculous" post deleted.

Look at when I joined and that I am NOT wasting time going through anything old except when it is classics posts that have been deemed funny or useful.

Congrats that you flat out refused to accept UB. Was that literally from the start, or after it was painfully obvious to the general public what they were doing was wrong? And did you SERIOUSLY just take FULL CREDIT for discovering their most notable flaw on here? If so, WOW and LOL.

In fact, yes, I do want Sklansky and others to operate this site "for me" (lol at that, considering I'm likely about the, what? 100,000th person to join?) without advertising. Don't know much about your business model, other than the fact that your moderating is for ****. But seems to me that you could earn enough money just off of affiliations and kickbacks to cover costs unless you grossly overspent on hosting/servers/etc. Also, in case you want to know my opinion about banner ads - anyone who not only clicks on one ON PURPOSE and then leads to them spending money is a moron, plain and simple.

You have 100s of threads critical of just PokerStars (which is the best site in the world, btw) suggesting you have plenty of others that were not deleted or moved to this thread? Really? PROVE IT. Every post of mine that is now gone and the rare ones that were moved and all that got me infractions YOU deemed were critical of an affiliate, even when they were not. You seem to think I have a "rigged" bias against all sites and that frames all of my posts. It's actually the exact opposite. You ASSUME that and so you see a post by me directed at a site and you insta-delete it and then consider punishment for me. I mean, what else could possibly explain the deletion of the thread where I posted a link to a site that calculates the value of domain names which indicated that YOUR domain name was worth a LOT? In case you missed it, this is where someone buys JUST your domain name, not the contents or the site. Me posting that was about as close to a ridiculously good compliment as you'd ever find on here and it was gone in a matter of seconds. Again, well done.

I've already pretty much addressed how far off you are in "my" views and indicated that the problem actually lies in YOU GUYS pre-determining what my views must be and then taking action on it. All I can fathom, in trying to see your side, is you MUST have had a TON of rigtards on this forum before I came along that posted anyway similar to me that someone confused you into lumping me in with them. Would you like the truth? Sure, next paragraph.

The ONLY site that I have deposited on is ACR. The ONLY exception to that was a small deposit I made on Bovada before it transitioned. I have no justification for why I did that, other than maybe no sleep, lack of meds, lack of food, etc. Because although playing whatever their fast/zoom is called for real money was intriguing, I don't really care for a site that uses complete anonymity to the point where sometimes I can't even tell who I am at the table. But I've never even pointed that out let alone bitched about it, because it is totally meaningless IMO. Did I ever claim that they were rigged or "out to get me" because I lost the small amount I deposited there, and then went on to lose the even smaller amount that I won in the 2 "transition" freerolls that I placed in on Ignition? NOPE.

Any comments I make about anyone other than ACR is based on the experience of trying to play on the site using freeroll money. Sooooo, at least according to BOL, that means I am not a "real" customer. Sorry, I don't screenshot all my live chats from this past year, so don't have that one saved for you. But, yep, they said it, it was the same dude who always responds to my live chats and calls who goes by "Christopher"... So are they rigged? LOL AGAIN, you don't see the difference between they are rigged and your rng is garbage. ALSO, you don't see or care that this is RECENT was part of my point. Through money won in freerolls, I've played for real money on BOL. The RNG was perfectly fine at the time. Whether I got sucked out on or just outplayed for my roll is not the point, it was well withing expectations of normal variance. NOW though? It's pretty much a guarantee that if there are two hands head's up, they will both hit the deck hard. JJ vs 10J? Not only will the j10 pick up a broadway draw he'll also pick up the only potential flush out he had. Unlike ACR, it's not as though he'll always win QUITE YET. But yeah, if you think that's "normal" and "variance" I feel more sorry for you than I already did.

Point is, I have evidence and proof where I caught others cheating not just on ACR (where it is BEYOND rampant) but also elsewhere, including their sister skin that they refuse to discuss on here - PokerHost. What is the reaction of the site when I bring these thoughts to them? Usually problems for me and no action whatsoever for the person that I just proved cheated. In the case of PokerHost, the cheater is still running wild there (I have friends that validate this for me) and I have been PERMA-BANNED for "collusion" because I made a joke with the cheater about sharing the inactives blinds and antes BEFORE he cheated me out of the Sunday Special Satty. So they are clearly the classiest of the classy.

But, eh, you still won't understand. When someone says "you still have a ton of BOTS on many different levels" or hey "the play from this Portugal player (which we thought you banned) is super super suspicious" is NOT -- LOLZ11! OLINE SI RAGG3D!!!1

What is the difference between RNG is garbage and RNG is rigged?
Which RNG is not garbage and how do you identify the difference between garbage and non garbage? Do we have a set standard for this to compare?

Keep working though finally some genuine riggie in thread

No matter what everyone says i Like you

Maybe you should remember that lack of forum experience and knowledge before commenting on things you know little about, then. Perfectly reasonable that you wouldn't know about things that happened before your join date - so why on earth would you be commenting on what we did or didn't do with sites years that went under years before we even joined here? So basically, when you said "While we're at it, should we go back to days before Black Friday and look at how you guys protected Full Tilt, UltimateBet..........", you were just throwing that out there, with no knowledge if it was true.

I couldn't tell you the history of when they came to us - I doubt we'd have had any reason to refuse them before the super user scandal broke. But I do know they never advertised with us.

Do you even read things before you reply to them? I said:

"The super user was scandal was uncovered here. You'd be hard pressed to find many people in this forum in particular that campaigned harder against people playing there than I did."

The two sentences aren't linked. I had nothing to do with uncovering the super users, but it did happen on this forum. I did constantly tell people not to play there, as did others.

LOL, awesome. You don't know much, but you know enough to mock us sarcastically as being "super classy" for having ads. Nice.

Yeah, like you said, you don't know much about our business model, or our costs. Or the poker business in general, given your comment on affiliation and kickbacks.

So, your suggestion is that we should make our money off kickbacks and affiliation. First of all, how does that happen without us advertising it on the site? Do we hope people go to poker sites and say that 2+2 sent them, and then hopefully the poker site decides to send us money? Sites that are affiliates draw players to the sites with...advertising. But leaving that aside, there's another reason why this is a ridiculous argument. You seem concerned that we are biased in our modding in favour of our advertisers. Currently, poker rooms pay us flat fees to advertise - whether they sign up any new players through their advertising here doesn't affect how we are paid. If we were to take that advertising on an affiliate model instead, our revenues would directly depend on how many of our members signed up. This is the model you'd prefer?

So in your world, it's only morons that keep thousands and thousands of sites, including this one, in existence. And if I see a banner for something I'm interested in, and click on and buy it, I'm a moron. I assume that would apply to TV, radio, newspapers, etc.? And advertising has in no way, shape or form, ever affected any of your purchases? Or do different rules apply to the online world, or to you in particular? Or are you also a moron?

I'm afraid I can't prove something that isn't true - which is why I've never said it. In fact, I'd say the opposite - most RNG-related posts about ANY site, advertiser or not, are either moved here, deleted and the poster directed here, or once in a while they're allowed to stay but the discussion eventually shut down when it leads to a derail.

You have exactly 4 infractions, for:

1) Breaking the rules in the P2P transfer thread, no screen names.
2) Posting "Thread + useful = 4" in the Equity thread.
3) The post about the RNG in the Chico thread that brought you here in the first place.
4) Posting a question about Kahn in the WPN cashout thread, which I deleted, and then reposting.

The last three infractions came from me - all of them for derailing threads, only one of them in any way critical of a site. So, no, I don't "see a post by me directed at a site and you insta-delete it and then consider punishment for me".

No idea; don't remember the thread, and quite possibly never saw it. I'd need more info.

Eh, I though I JUST clarified the difference, but since it was the post before yours, maybe you missed it.

Currently IT SEEMS (very very small sample size) that the BOL RNG is garbage. My example was when j10o will magically have a ton of outs vs JJ, but more often than not, ends up losing. On ACR, j10o is a 90% favorite in that spot preflop. The suggestion is that both have RNGs that are completely ****ed. I'm not suggesting either of them is rigged. If you want to say "rigged for action/big pots" then okay. But probably close to half of my posts on here that weren't about the Cubs run this year were explaining how even if they setup their RNG for action, that doesn't mean they are rigged. Why? What's the benefit to them? Some suggest that the benefit is the loser will make another deposit. This is TOTALLY TRUE of Playtika and clubwsop.com 110%. Why? Because they MAKE MONEY when you "reload" because you are forced to buy chips from them which goes only to them and their selling partners (I'm only aware of Google and iTunes). That is NOT how online poker works though. I honestly have NO IDEA why I have to explain this for the MILLIONTH time in (you'll like this Bobo) the BEST (I'm seriously not joking) Online Poker Forum out there. Many people on here are super smart in general and when it comes to online play. No clue why they don't post more often so the task is not left up to me. Based on their streams, sure they play A LOT but it isn't 24/7/365 like it was back in the day. Maybe they're just sick of explaining why rigging the way people commonly define it does not benefit the sites.

So you're on ACR, and because you're an idiot like me, you have your entire bankroll on the table. Doesn't matter if this is $5 or $15k. Point is still the same. The suggestion is that the site knows that what you have on the table is all you have in your account. Okay, don't think that needs to be argued one way or another, it is certainly "possible" but as I'll explain later it is also pointless. So now that they know this is all your money, they rig the game giving you some sort of monster and you're shoved all-in by a meager holding. Then magically they hit the only card (if on the turn) or cards (if on the flop) that they need to TID. So the suggestion here is that you are broke and need to go deposit again. So what? ACR doesn't take a cut of your deposit! The only "fee" here would be by the payment method, and in the case of WU and MG, if over a certain threshold they actually CREDIT you the fee. If someone wants to prove to me that they earn 50% or more of your reload "fee" then fine - I could see a "problem" but I SERIOUSLY doubt that is their business model considering how small of an amount that is ACROSS the network compared to winnings/payout.

So what does that leave you with? They have some sort of a relationship with the pot winner where they get all or some of the pot. So inside players? NO COMMENT. Wouldn't want to get banned at the same time from this forum and ACR for publicly stating my thoughts on this possibility. Let's just say, though, that if you really examine the most known/successful "inside player" was it really enough money to justify the potential negative outcomes for all involved? Doesn't seem so - but make your own conclusions.

Well, well, well...ummm, they rig it to increase rake! YEAH!
Literally just rolled my eyes at this. This is wayyyyy beyond stupid. It is time for you to re-read their rake policies to better understand why this is blatantly wrong. But hey - I'll start to explain for you. THEIR RAKE IS CAPPED. Didn't know that? And yet you deposit tons of money online? Please tell me where and your screenname and then a private message when you're ready to play - should be a good time. So yeah, brainiacs, they make more rake if you hit EXACTLY max rake EVERY SINGLE HAND and still have money left over to do this as long as possible (rather than deal with the wayyyy too long wait times for deposits other than bitcoin) because that is the only way they would benefit in an obscene way.

2 things - if you have ANY even small sample size or anecdotal evidence to suggest not only that they CAN do this but that they, in fact, DO do this - post it here, send it my way, let's get on them. Until then, realize "poker is rigged" is totally stupid. 2nd, if they DID do this, and we're still talking about ACR, they're giving you 27% of what they took in rake (unless you made the poor choice of badges over rakeback) so their "profit" is now down to 63% of the rake all committed in those hands. The very, very, very few people in the world who would be capable of designing a site to do just that are NOT designing sites or even working as a consultant for these sites. 1) Because that person stands to gain A LOT more money from other ventures. and (2) (assuming we're still talking about ACR) The site would rather be known for crazy "wild" pots than what would be super boring maxing out at max rake pots.

And to the original poster asking me the question, I haven't felt like any RNG was garbage other than ACR until BOL just recently. So I'm giving BOL the benefit of the doubt that this was more happenstance then it was a systemic change that they went with. Doesn't mean I didn't feel the need to joke with them about it. It's funny, though, because we ALL know that ACR is the best option for those who can't get on Stars and 888. Yet, out of that same group of people, many of us are well aware that their RNG is pure garbage and they have many other problems to deal with. So end results are the same. If you can't get on Stars you play on ACR and bitch about it. If you can get on Stars, you play on Stars and bitch about it (apparently, I hadn't seen that, but if Bobo says it happens, it must happen). Or you just say "**** it" and stop online poker completely. Supposedly that's what "JohnnyBax" did it resulted in him getting 3rd in the Main this year, which seems a better outcome than what most of you are capable of earning online in 2016.

All non-ACR/WPN sites RNGs are totally fine IMO (But BOL - still looking at you) and that includes sites that I'm not supposed to be able to access, but which I'm smarter than the site admins so I'm on with no problem. Now, if you excuse me, unless something catches my eye in my subscriptions, I really should get back to alternating between playing illegally in China and writing my book (which is about my life and details illegal (and legal) **** I have done)....................

"No knowledge" is true. Said by me first and now you. But I've seen ON HERE favorable on now down sites. Why in the world would that occur after June 2016? Makes absolutely no sense to me.

You realize you just MADE my point, right?

Yep. Totally way off on putting two sentences next to one another and in the same paragraph together making the same point. Is that because this is online that general rules about paragraph syntax don't apply? Please inform.

Ads are the second worst part of the Internet. First is the adults who act like children with ****ty attitudes.
Congrats, you have both here. (In fairness to you, every online poker forum, group, etc. has enough of these horrendous people)

No, I'd actually prefer that you find an alternative source of income. Feel free to clue us plebs in on your finances? How much profit are you making off the backs of poker players? Sorry for you that I have a ton more respect for people who have a mission of educating their audience and so focus on alternative models (wiki, PBS, etc.)
Also, it's FAVOR. Awesome that MY horrendous country that people think are about to turn over the reigns to a lunatic know the language better than our former owners (British) and Bacon to our North.

Newspapers are what? 99% dead? Radio (not satellite) is what? 90% dead? Why even include them here? Just to throw around more "media" that might use more advertising?
I already posted elsewhere my thoughts on online ads, I'm not repeating myself. So that just leaves you with TV ads. Have I NEVER EVER been "affected" by a TV ad that lead to a decision that resulted in the advertiser getting some money from me? That would be really difficult to claim that and I'm honestly not sure either way? Why not? Because until recently for the last X number of years I have almost exclusively watched TV on DVR, fast-forwarding through ads to actual content. Currently I have to sit through ads, and can say definitively that none of them (since June) have lead to me giving anyone any money.

Hey, fwiw, I'm not on places like Facebook anymore partially because I tired of their ad policies. Most people would say their site is successful, so feel free to link yourself to them and assume you're on the correct path.
Wish I could see what I apparently said that you apparently never said. Thanks again for your bosses' choice of only quoting the last poster, as opposed to at least the one before as well.

Honestly "Thread + useful = 4" is absolutely hilarious and spot on as a joke. But, yeah, thank you for pointing out that it was, in fact, you that punished me and deleted what I wrote for an inability to take a joke.

Thin-skinned much?

It was so long ago, and since it was inta-deleted, I don't have specifics, but it pointed out that, as I said, your domain name (just the domain) was worth "a lot" I said -- I believe the figure was more than $2 million. There are very few domain names that can claim that. If it was my site (which none of you care about) I'd be proud of that fact and allow any discussion about it ESPECIALLY if it came from someone from me. Have you not noticed that I REGULARLY kill threads that do not have later news? You're literally the only one who continues to post-repost-repost next to me. Even your pleb trolls on here typically troll once and move on.

Nutcracker u really are mad take a few deep breaths firstly..

Bro ..

Do you realise what your saying? I've played a million hands online.. and can tell you the funny hands ur dealt in succession ect setups ect bad beats that u think are totally unreal. It's just random. Most of these sites now are pretty well regulated... there were sites like u.b but trust me they were found out thanks to 2+2 ..

Go play some live poker. Then complain about the rng. You will see

Right. So you've accused 2+2 of protecting sites they never did just because..you felt like it, I guess.

The sentence I've bolded makes no sense to me; perhaps there's a word or two missing. If you can rephrase, I can respond.

I wasn't trying to prove or disprove any point you made. You asked me a question, I answered it. I know UB never advertised with us, and I know that we turned them down at least once when we knew there was a problem there, at a time that many sites were running their ads. It would seem a bit odd to turn them down when all appeared to be running well, but perhaps we did then also if we didn't have confidence in the site - that was before my time in advertising sales with them.

It was a paragraph about Ultimate Poker, as the previous paragraph was about Full Tilt. If I need to separate every thought on the same topic into separate paragraphs for you...well, I'm not going to do it, but let's just say that my already long posts would be even longer and more annoying.

Hang on, are you actually correcting my spelling of a word with the claim that because Americans changed it, the original spelling is now incorrect? I hardly even know where to start, so I'm not going to bother.

And no need to continue the back-and-forth on advertising - you think it's terrible, doesn't work on you, and those who are affected are morons, fine.

Yes, you do seem a little thin-skinned to still be complaining about a small infraction for continuing to derail a thread.

The 34% rigged actually surprised me, im sure some of these are trolls but to actually believe this isn't logical.

What blows my mind is people believe sites are rigged, but are such degens they can't quit. Whenever I suck out or get lucky, people complain about it being rigged, my reply is always "If you know it's rigged against you, why the f$?&@ do you still play?"

I'm surprised it isn't higher in an "echo chamber" thread that is by riggies for riggies and ignored by 90% of the rest of 2+2 members.

I've played plenty of live poker and watched plenty of live poker on TV. I also know the difference (unlike average players (read: morons)) between live streamed every hand shown telecasts and the nonsense that is WPT telecasts (Alpha8 slightly better IMO) where only action hands are shown with such crazy editing that it LOOKS like those were the only hands played, even though slight attention to stack sizes would indicate that isn't true.

Point being, thanks for the attempt to "school" me, but I've been playing live and online since I was legal in 2001. Although you see more hands online, I abandoned multi-tabling a while back and hadn't played online in 5-6 years prior to last November, so it is possible that I've done more live than online. Not only are live outcomes more in line with expected outcomes, but the mechanism at which they are derived is far superior.

This seems counter-intuitive. A well-designed computer-generated RNG should be better. Instead, a card shuffler does a better job at meeting expectations. Typically manual hand-shuffling tends to be garbage. (Not like **** of online rng's where "magic action" hands are commonplace)

It is not logically possible for me to be the only one that thinks about things like this. Take a look at your logs, folks. Evidence is right there. I have looked at the logs of both "winning" online players as well as content "regs" and they'd be even bigger losers if the so-called "variance" didn't hit them like Joe McKeehan as often as it does. In fairness, it actually more reminds me of Joe Cada - get it all in preflop with weaker PP regularly and almost always get there.

So 3,275 pages ago at the start of this thread, the OP was complaining about rigging on Stars and FT (which is already funny) and followed by a DEFENDER who also backed UB & AP, but at least qualified that "superusers" are not part of the consideration.

From another thread:

Obviously there are tons of paranoid people like you, and over time many different rigs (often conflicting each other) have been proposed. If you really want I can post a small list of some of those riggies if that will help you with your research into the riggie lifestyle.

The thread has been very dead, likely because very few new riggie theories are created any more. They have all been recycled, yet never proven, and probably even riggies are getting tired of making up new things to believe in.


You likely have a riggie definition of the word evidence, which to date has meant a complete lack of actual evidence. If the evidence is "right there" then present it in a verifiable way and change the industry forever. You will present nothing of course just like all of the riggies before you.

Anyway, if you want to see the list of your fellow riggies let me know.

All the best.

Nice, then I'll read it all, was about to tl;dr him.

once saw miles dewey davis in a small theater. he didn't even fire any of his musicians on stage that night.