lol..You are nuts, indeed most of you are. How are you even debating that max raked hands = less rake and is suspicious and leads to overall less rake??

I argued that max rake hands only adds more rake.

You guys don't think they can rig action hands for both fish and pro's?

How you think I keep losing to the biggest fish? Because when I have AA and they have their usual junk, they hit pair and gutter and that's the nuts to stick it all in.

If it weren't for such action hands, they'd of A. not made as much rake and B. not been able to sustain a profitable business as their fishes would consta go broke vs me and other pro's and C. this way they are keeping the money floating around to get raked again!

The more action hands they create FOR FISH, the better it is for them, fish won't withdraw and the house can simply rake that money away.

Had they not done it, the pro's would get the lion share.

This is all pretty basic stuff, but not surprised 1 bit the scammers are denying!

BTW, you need big pots in order to hit the max rake, like wtf are you morans even smoking!!

Well, for the 2NL and 5NL games you lose at you need bigger pots, but at the medium and higher stakes the rake cap come pretty quick.

https://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/rake/

In the 5NL games you constantly whine about, you hit the rake cap when the pot is about $23-25 so a 400-500BB pot, which is pretty uncommon.


In the 200NL games the it caps at under $60, so a 30 BB pot would do it. At higher levels it is even smaller, and even at 100 NL it caps at only a 50 BB pot. Why would they want to create a ton of extra much slower "action hands" that are remembered more, that create 200-400 BB pots in a game that had the rake maxxed when the pot got to 30 BB?

Why not create rigged non-action hands which will most likely have a raise pre flop, a call from someone in the BB, and then a flop that totally misses the BB, and then the other player takes down a very fast 5-8 BB pot, and after it gets raked they quickly more onto the next one.

I ask this knowing no riggie will answer in a proper manner, but it could be fun to see the likely standard non-answer deflect insult stuff. Here is the question - explain why action hands would be a good investment for the 100NL+ games. Factor in how a huge increase of action hands would generate attention in the mix, and what value all of these bloated 200-500 BB pots do when the rake was capped at 50BB or lower (depending on the stakes).

Feel free to answer that or avoid a direct answer and scream "scammers!!" a few more time. Not hard to guess which is more likely...

All the best.

Fake boring riggie troll is fake and boring.

Ironic....morOns you twit.

Max rake, cap, means once the pot has gone over that level the house gets nothing more.

I don't agree with Bobo's assessment. I don't think you're a bad troll. I think you're just clueless and a bad poker player.

I'm wearing my online poker more rig is better shirt to the main event this year

I've noticed the higher up I go the less rigged it is. I'd argue that anything over 200 stakes might not be rigged at all.

I'm talking about stakes 10,20,50,100 and as I play mostly plo its about plo. Though whenever I do play NL, it's def rigged at those stakes as well.

Not going to argue with looser morans, it's just not worth it.

Donkeys in here trying to convince me that max rake pots is bad for the game and = less rake, smh, morans!

shut your mouth bibi!

Loose = not tight

Lose = not win

Both = easy poker words


Riggies = Hate+ Money, since most of their theories would cost the sites money rather than make them money.

Riggies = Love + Whining - hey, at least they are good at something

Riggies = Hate + Winning - well, they can't be good at everything...


Better luck in those heavily rigged $0.02/$0.05 games you play, incel.


All the best.

Monterey will never get Coronavirus. That would require leaving his house

And voluntary interaction by other humans.

What are the odds to lose 21 times in a row at spin&go? (in x : 1,000,000)
Let's assume you have 33.33% chances to win.

I did calculate it and try to express it in 1 vs 1 mio. But i'm not sure if I understand it correctly.
I'm afraid to check again in case I do understand what it means.

Are you asking the amount of time someone can lose? Shitty players can lose a massive amount of times in a row. In fact, they can play hundreds without winning one.

Well, if you assume a 33.33% chance to win, I believe it's in the billions to one. You might want to rethink that 33.33%.

I really don't know why there are still people playing on this network when it is so obvious this network was rigged. I am not sure if there are any superuser around, but you can have a lot of bad beat here if you compare it to Party or Stars. They just want you to put more money in the pot, so they can get their rake easily. Even in tournament, they just give you tonnes of bad beat and cooler so you will reenter again. Believe it or not? You will get more those premium hands with only 2 tables compare to 6 table on other network.

They don't need to specifically rigged against you, all they need to do is just by setting their software with tonnes of cooler hand and I believe it is more than enough to steal everyone money. I play there previously back to like two years ago and already noticed strange things happen way too often, so I quit playing with them. Only until recently one of my friend who is GG agent and tell me things get much better now. So I give it a shot and try to play couple of tournament and some cash game in low limit just to try out whether they did some changes because many people say it was soft there, unfortunately I cannot convince myself it wasn't rigged.

Strong allegations usually require strong proof. The 2nd part is lacking in your post

Ok, I was also thinking in the billions to one.

Now I'm trying to figure out why should I rethink 33.33%...
I went for 33.3% just to simplify the calculation. So this is for break even player.

No idea why Bobo would suggest 1 in billions. It is 0.66666 ^21 which ends up being .00020048 which is just under 1 in 5,000. You can use this calculator to do a lot of odds testing on specific concluded samples

https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

That of course are the odds for a specific run cherry picked after it happened, but that does not represent the real odds in the way you are asking. A better way to ask would be the following:

What are the odds that a breakeven player (so 33% to win each one) can have a losing streak of 21+ spins in a row if he played a sample of 5,000 spin and gos. Some of the real stats guys can likely answer that, but the odds of that will likely be a "meh, no big deal" result.

You segregating, remembering, and asking about a specific event that happened is very commonplace as a human reaction, and it is pretty much the foundation of most riggie belief structures.


I think Luckybox posted another conspiracy belief. You should go there and continue with your deeply passionate efforts to try to get him to see the error of his ways. That interaction seems to be emotionally important to both of you, and in these days you may as well take it to the next level. I pretty much regard riggies as replaceable and disposable, thus we will never have that deep an interaction, so you should continue to build and cherish what the two of you have created for each other.

All the best.

It looks like you should rethink your "break even player" estimate.

You don't need solid proof to do all this kind of allegations. Because all poker room know you can't provide proof with those so called RNG, that's why people still play online. Why I wouldn't make such allegations against Stars or Party or even the smaller iPoker network? Party even banned me with those funny reason, but I will never say Party is rigged. I play on all those network(except Party). Just open two table, play it yourself and tell me how many AA vs KK, how many QQ or JJ hand you got, how many AK or AQ you will got for 120 hands? Open 6 table on other network, compare it yourself. You don't need rocket science to proof all this.

It is simple. Just open 2 tables at anytime, play for an hour and make a record how many top 5% hand you will got. Then go to any other network and compare the results. If you want, repeat it for 10 or 20 times, I am pretty sure you will get way more often top 5% hand on GG compare to other network.

Let's explain it this way by using slot machines. Most people know that slot machines also use RNG but why you will see way more often on cherry but not the bar? I am not a programmer but from my understanding, there's two function which they can program into the RNG which they named it "Hit Frequency" and "Weighting". By changing the "Weighting" rules, instead of 1/52, they can change it to 1/26 or 1/13 so they will appear more often. Does that means they break the rules because not using RNG? No they didn't. They are still using RNG but changing some rules so they will appear way more often.

meh...
I should take 66.66% since I'm calculating probability to lose. 33.33% is probability to win. Now number looks better. 162 to 1 million is my result now.

If I add rake into calculation than my break even player is not break even anymore - right Mike?

The point is - I lost 21 games in a row yesterday. I'm trying to estimate probability for this event.

And if number will be big enough than I'm gonna say poker is rigged

As "a dewd" said, a bad player, (and that includes the worst players at the relevant tables), at the format can lose innumerable numbers of games in a row. I don't think you can come up with any meaningful number of skill-based games after the event that one "should" have won. (Unless you can show that every time you could have won the game with the last hand, you lost almost all of your chips when you were well ahead.)

If you keep playing these, (and maybe you shouldn't), you can probably tell yourself you should win about one or two games in six in the future, but unless they're entirely games of luck, the future results are what they will turn out to be, good or bad.

I realize the points I made were not important for your belief needs, particularly the one about cherry picking an event after it happened (vs testing its likelihood in a future sample of say 5,000 games), but even ignoring that (which riggies always do) - can you go step by step to show how a 66% instance happening 21 times in a row is a 1 in 162 million event. Show the details of whatever version of math you chose to use for this determination.

All the best.

Flat earthers and anti-vaxxers absolutely agree with that claim.

I'm an agent. Most of my players love the site. Software doesn't crash, fair amount of games, plenty of traffic, and payments processed quick. Not a single one suggests riggie stuff.

Thanks Monteroy,
I was just thinking about this - I should ask what is the probability of this event if I play 5000 games.
No point in cherry picking.

Math? Just 0.66 x 0.66 x 0.66 ...
21 times. Than you multiply number you get with 1 mio and you get x : 1 mio.

The last result was 162 to 1 mio. I meant 162 times in 1 mio with this. (in a single event)
Maybe the issue here was only my English.

I hope this is the right way to do it.

EDIT: ohhh yeah, I did manage to not see your first reply.

My result is 1 in 6,160. Close enough for me. And this number seem to be far from being scary even if I go on with cherry picking.

EDIT: If you are right and result is 1 in 5,000. So if you play 5,000 games you should expect this event to happen exactly once on average?

Thanks for all the help. I think I learned something new about probability.

For the record...





...



I've played only 166 games

NewOldGuy can better answer the question, and whether you have played 166 games or 1660 games or 16600 games when this happened before you tested for the 21+ losing streak is not that significant, but believing it is is another core belief structure of the riggie community, and when that is pointed out you get them dismissing math or misusing it.

Perhaps NewOldGuy will do the method needed for this type of probability calculation (I forget what this one is called) and provide the answer to the question of the following:

What are the odds that a 66.66666% event happens 21+ times in a row in our next sample size of (1) 200 (2) 500 (3) 1000 and (4) 5000 spins.

I expect the answer will show that assuming you are a break even player (where we will use 33% as the basis for winning), that you were a bit unlucky, but if you played 5,000 spins in a month you should not be surprised or almost expect to have some bad runs of 21+ tournaments lost in a row, and that is when you have to choose whether to believe the math of the situation (which from your posts it seems you likely will), or opt for the riggie mode of believing what happened was actually impossible, despite it being a relatively mundane instance.