Sometimes the people at hold em manager may make ludicrous remarks.....you would have to take that up with them

I would be willing to bet if they took 100,000 str8 flush hands in 80% of those hands the opponent also had a very big hand.

You'd lose your bet and it wouldn't even be close. I hit 20 Royal Flushes one year, and 80% of them were very small pots. That's generally the way it goes with Royals. I imagine hands involving straight flushes would likely generate a little more action though.

Cool. So what? 35% of people who are interested in this topic (and many people who don't think online poker is rigged will come nowhere near this thread) have voted yes, which is currently 3,338 people (actually a few less thanks to gimmick accounts). Meanwhile, in a 1999 Gallup poll, 6% of Americans said they thought the lunar landings were fake, and 5% said they were undecided. That's tens of millions of people - does that give the idea credibility?

Yes, imaginary people can be quite head scratch inducing.

Given 80-90% of players are net losers, I'm not sure why it's surprising that a good chunk of people are looking for something rather than their own poker ability to blame.

Online you just see more hands much faster, but the runouts over large batches of statistical analysis across many mainstream sites have failed to bear out any evidence of a rig. Losing players just don't like to face the truth that they lose because they're not good enough.

Nobody is saying it's impossible, but posting a few hands as if that's evidence is just a joke. It deserves to be laughed off, because to anyone with any understanding of how poker works it's just pathetic.

With that said, if you're running a successful online poker operation, rigging the rng just seems like suicide. The only time it really makes sense to rig the rng when mass data collection and analysis is possible + regularly done by players is if you're pulling some kind of exit scam and will plan to shut down the room soon. Nothing will destroy your poker site faster than a publicly exposed rigging operation.

But do u really think anyone has analysed a rig for if 1 player flops a strong hand how often a board runs out big to give another player a big hand ??? How would you ever even prove that. It would be impossible. I mean what would u do.....if a player flops a pair how often it runs out turn rivet trips, or 2 pair. Or if a players flops a flush how often it runs out boat,etcc.??
One thing I see a lot is when a player flops a set the other usually has top pair or better. Can u prove this? Mist likely not

Know what is an easier exit strategy in that scenario? Simply taking all the money and not spending anything on some odd rig that riggies see with their eyes but can never prove. Lock Poker is an easy example and there are many others, but still some riggies will believe they spent a ton programming rigs to the very end (with the programmers never talking about it), even when that room did not cash out a single withdrawal request for years until they finally died. Riggies are kind of weird in that way.

Many things you suggest are "impossible" to do generally takes someone with familiarity with the tracking software about 2 minutes to set up. The tasks are impossible for you to do, because you have no skill in this area, but your lack of skill does not mean everyone shares your inabilities.

Your lack of skill is so massive that even when you ask questions about it you tend to muddle up the basic English language in a way that makes little sense, and then you interpret their attempted replies to your hot mess of the moment as "ludicrous." That too is much more on your basic lack of skill to communicate properly.

Why don't you stick to offering silly prop bets that you never follow up on even if others accept them. You have done that a ton of times here, including recently., so just keep doing that as that actually is a "skill" you are good at.

All the best.

How often do you see someone flop a set, and the other has nothing and folds?

Unless you are the one with the set, you won't see this unless they show their hand. So yes, hands that get all in, and/or go to the showdown do tend to have both players with good hands. But the vast majority of hands never get shown because they end well before the river. A site doesn't need to rig anything to get these outcomes. They are just the normal outcomes when you deal poker hands.

Im a winning player on global but the RNG has not been kind lately, one outed 3 times in two days for a few hundred bucks is never fun. I think the rigged debate is of course absurd but only with sites that are regulated. It is known that Globals RNG is not certified nor audited because it is not required to be. The only reason to play on Global is the soft play but i have little doubt that the RNG is fubar for the simple reason that it flattens out a losing players graph which is the majority of players. Obviously no one can prove anything one way or the other but i would say Global poker could be the one exception to this rule. Play a few hundred thousand hands and tell me im wrong or an idiot. I could very well be both but you will see things on Global you wont see anywhere else at the same frequency.......Insults and grammar corrections from mod incoming

You can't say "I could very well be [wrong]" (about it being rigged) and then, in the same sentence, say "but you will see things on Global that you won't see anywhere else" (implying that it is rigged).

It appears that he just did hmmmmmmm. My wife tells me I cant drive down a one way street the wrong way either, well you can! And poker sure as hell is rigged if youre just a rec in America, bots, real time solvers, and people who have the time to wait you out! End thread!

ok fair enough, im admitting that any one persons experience no matter how many hands seen is not a big enough sample size to say it is rigged definitively. Im just a little surprised that no one thinks Globals Carte blanche when it comes to regulations could be an issue regarding anything site related, bots/rng/etc.

You mean the one exception in addition to BUP, NLOP, "and others" that you have complained about previously?

I'm wondering if there's a point, maybe when you reach 5+ rigged sites as you believe you have now, that you either think about whether you have this wrong, or consider no longer playing on whatever type of sites you think are rigged? If you believe "the rigged debate is of course absurd but only with sites that are regulated", then why do you continue to play on non-regulated sites?

Hah, why should I change? So you could jump on inconsistencies and contradictions in my posts, as you have well done over the years with pretty much every riggie who posted here more than once? Nothing has changed with the rigginess of the online poker and with the rig itself, bar minor details. If they change the rig, then I might change my tune. Unless I work purely on adding entertaining value to the thread, and on making Monteroy's job easier, that is. But no, I am not here to entertain; this thread is a dark one.

One thing is for sure certain. If Unibet isnt rigged to protect the poker ecology and to make regs into break even raking machines. Then there is no such rigg anywhere else either. Sick trash site with no transparency what so ever.

I was going to make a post about this after holidays, but after seeing this I can add my thoughts now.

First of all it is difficult to explain things that are happening in this network. You have to go and see it yourself. But there are certain accounts that seem to know the runouts of the hands in beforehand.

These accounts go mental and SQZ BB against reg utg with hands like 7742hhh and always seem to flop top set + fd+. Sometimes they are calling with just backdoors and they are good on river.

Quite often it seems that these "recs" end up having 500bb+ stack at the tables quite fast. In the end the money is more often than not dumped to some random nickname that has never been seen at the tables before and wont be playing afterwards.

I know quite a few regs and their nicknames playing there (who are really really good) and these regs get the stack from the fish maybe 1 out of 100 times where the random nickname gets chipdump 99/100.

It is also quite frequent that these run good accounts show up to start the games.

I don't know how they are doing it, if it is possible to hack the software to see the runouts before its played out somehow, but this is not holecard sharing. Its sicker than that.

I will quit playing here end of the month and I advice everyone playing at higher plo stakes to keep their eyes open when playing.

Making hand histories downloadable for us regs to investigate is just one click away so Unibet should give us this chance, for example 1 month after the hand is played (to "protect recs").

What stakes are you talking about?

The situation is the worst in plo400, but these cheat accounts sometimes help to open/run games in smaller limits also. I haven't tried smaller than plo100.

Its not only bad beats that happen in all ins, but how the hands play out in general is not normal. The players I talk about would be way over -100bb/100 in any legit network but here its really hard to get them broke.

Like I said its difficult to explain all things that is going on but you will notice it if you play plo.

I left NLOP and BUP closed down and as i said before the only reason i stuck with Global is the terrible play but i will leave there as well in a few days. Not a big deal but a $20 deposit was at $1,500 in two months. Currently at $1,200 after the wheels have come off but it happens in live play obviously. I honestly dont give a sht what u think as a mod, u can troll people and be a douche if it makes you feel tough. Maybe its not rigged but my point was simply that a site that does not need to be regulated does gain from an imbalanced RNG being that %85-%90 of players lose at the game.

What does me being a mod have to do with my post?

But on a separate note, as a mod, I'll ask you to just type what you want to say, and let the profanity filter take care of words like ****. When you start taking a letter out, it might be seen as an attempt to circumvent the profanity filter. Just letting you know for when you post elsewhere on the site.

Thanks for your permission, but I have no interest in either, and I don't believe I've trolled you or been a douche towards you. Your posts can be criticized without it being trolling. I also haven't called you any names, like troll or douche.

LOL, what?

How so?

So how does more losers benefit the site? It's the winners who benefit, the site comes out the same or actually worse.

Listen, my thinking could be off on this but bad players who get it in with less equity on a higher frequency than better players wouldnt benefit from a skewed RNG? It would flatten out there graph as it would a winning player towards a median, this seems obvious to me but im definitely no math major. Thoughts on my theory would be appreciated.

Ok, im sorry. No one should care about how someone else is running but the one outers that keep coming seem kinda hard to believe. Doesnt mean i have the right to throw down on someone and definitely doesnt confirm a rigged RNG. You are also right of course, if i dont like the site then i should just leave instead of being a complainer. TBH though i could care less if i get banned from here or any site, i believe in freedom of speech. I also believe however in a semblance of critical thought and perhaps my latest run has dulled this part of my brain. Either way, im just giving my two cents, you could think its absurd or has some merit, no one knows either way and to say so one way or the other with complete assumption is absurd.

Perhaps people who plan to spend the next few years trying to beat online poker do care? And it is "online poker" I am talking about, not poker in general. In live poker I buy chips and I cash out more than I bought for, almost 100% of the time, just a few rare exceptions, where I had to leave before managing to recover form a bad run.

It seems it does, in spite of what you would wish to believe, judging by the responses, and by the previous postings and by the voting in favour of "online poker is rigged".

For the sake of discussion, and all else being equal, such a scenario would benefit the site. In brief, the more equally matched players are, the more "hands per deposit", resulting in more rake. A large discrepancy in skill levels would result in players busting quickly, and therefore less rake being collected by the site. The common rigtard theory of "action flops" and inflated pots would actually be detrimental to a poker site.