Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > > >

Discussion of Poker Sites General discussion of online poker sites.

View Poll Results: Is Online Poker Rigged?
Yes 3,445 34.94%
No 5,522 56.00%
Undecided 893 9.06%
Voters: 9860. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-22-2009, 07:23 PM   #8626
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markusgc View Post
I think it should also note whether the user likes pickles or not, which everyone knows is the only defense against our Lizard Overlords.
I dont think he really deserved a snide remark for that question. That's a testable hypothesis.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 07:56 PM   #8627
alexstat
veteran
 
alexstat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Got your Clutch sample size!
Posts: 3,442
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
I dont think he really deserved a snide remark for that question. That's a testable hypothesis.
He is right we should be taking this very seriously. Lizard people are no joke. They work too hard.

alexstat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 08:00 PM   #8628
Arouet
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Arouet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,433
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
I dont think he really deserved a snide remark for that question. That's a testable hypothesis.
I'm not sure I understand the theory: that we're going to take big pots and make the underdog win more often? then are they going even it out by changing the results in a small pot to make him win? And you don't think this will be detectable? It will result in the wrong type of board cards coming out which over a billion hands will likely be detectable (stat guys to confirm)

But the bigger question is how is this going to boost the site's bottom line? is it that only donkey's get all in PF with 56s for 200bb and so this helps them play longer? How many saves do these guys need before they go bust? And is it not going to be detectable that even though I've won with AA 80% but I'm break even on it: isn't that going to stir up some feathers? Wouldn't many people notice that?

Question to the rigtards: if Spadebidders huge hand analysis shows nothing is amiss: will you stop being rigtards? I'll certainly become one if his analysis shows something fishy!
Arouet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 08:04 PM   #8629
alexstat
veteran
 
alexstat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Got your Clutch sample size!
Posts: 3,442
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arouet View Post
Question to the rigtards: if Spadebidders huge hand analysis shows nothing is amiss: will you stop being rigtards? I'll certainly become one if his analysis shows something fishy!
Can you post a link to his analysis. I can't find it because I am sewing high on 02 with the lizard people.
alexstat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 08:11 PM   #8630
toltec444
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 496
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arouet View Post
I'm not sure I understand the theory: that we're going to take big pots and make the underdog win more often? then are they going even it out by changing the results in a small pot to make him win? And you don't think this will be detectable? It will result in the wrong type of board cards coming out which over a billion hands will likely be detectable (stat guys to confirm)

But the bigger question is how is this going to boost the site's bottom line? is it that only donkey's get all in PF with 56s for 200bb and so this helps them play longer? How many saves do these guys need before they go bust? And is it not going to be detectable that even though I've won with AA 80% but I'm break even on it: isn't that going to stir up some feathers? Wouldn't many people notice that?

Question to the rigtards: if Spadebidders huge hand analysis shows nothing is amiss: will you stop being rigtards? I'll certainly become one if his analysis shows something fishy!
I really want to be convinced that there is nothing wrong with the rooms and the game is not rigged.
toltec444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 08:27 PM   #8631
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,099
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arouet View Post
Question to the rigtards: if Spadebidders huge hand analysis shows nothing is amiss: will you stop being rigtards? I'll certainly become one if his analysis shows something fishy!

That will not cure paranoia, nor eliminate most of the newer made up theories that incorporate "prove this wrong" with pretty much impossible fantasy like conditions. Superbots, lizard people, entropy effects etc.

People will also find new and exciting ways to assume how the data can be manipulated so as to avoid the detection of the huge study.

A person who feels paranoid and claims to just "wants to believe it is fair" will not let go of those beliefs easily, so enjoy the ride (with lots of cute Lizard People pictures).
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 08:41 PM   #8632
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arouet View Post
I'm not sure I understand the theory: that we're going to take big pots and make the underdog win more often? then are they going even it out by changing the results in a small pot to make him win? And you don't think this will be detectable? It will result in the wrong type of board cards coming out which over a billion hands will likely be detectable (stat guys to confirm)

But the bigger question is how is this going to boost the site's bottom line? is it that only donkey's get all in PF with 56s for 200bb and so this helps them play longer? How many saves do these guys need before they go bust? And is it not going to be detectable that even though I've won with AA 80% but I'm break even on it: isn't that going to stir up some feathers? Wouldn't many people notice that?

Question to the rigtards: if Spadebidders huge hand analysis shows nothing is amiss: will you stop being rigtards? I'll certainly become one if his analysis shows something fishy!
Um, I completely think this will be detectable. That was the whole point of my post.

I thought someone had asked for testable rigging theories a page back or so. This seems to qualify.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 08:53 PM   #8633
tk1133
veteran
 
tk1133's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Making friends one post @ a time
Posts: 2,221
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
That will not cure paranoia, nor eliminate most of the newer made up theories that incorporate "prove this wrong" with pretty much impossible fantasy like conditions. Superbots, lizard people, entropy effects etc.

People will also find new and exciting ways to assume how the data can be manipulated so as to avoid the detection of the huge study.

A person who feels paranoid and claims to just "wants to believe it is fair" will not let go of those beliefs easily, so enjoy the ride (with lots of cute Lizard People pictures).
WoW. Are you a Doctor now? You must be very successful, I mean it only took you a few hours to diagnose this person..."Nice work Doctor, I concurr...."
tk1133 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 08:55 PM   #8634
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
Um, I completely think this will be detectable. That was the whole point of my post.

I thought someone had asked for testable rigging theories a page back or so. This seems to qualify.
Testing the wins vs. expectation for hands where the big stack[or small stack] is the underdog [or favorite] is easy to do, and easy to spot anything fishy. Very easy.

To give you some idea of how little something has to be off to be obviously not random, here's an example. Let's say we are testing big stack as favorite, all-in expectation vs. wins. Suppose his average equity is 65%, and we can look at hands both where he is preflop all-in with a single caller, or hands where he calls an all-in preflop with no other caller. The condition is just that he is the big stack and the preflop favorite, and either he or the opponent is all-in. (We could also choose other scenarios). We measure his win rate (wins + 1/2 ties) and find it to be 66% instead of 65%. So he is 1% over expectation.

If the sample size is 1000 hands (all-ins) then this is not a significant difference, less than 1 standard deviation. Happens every day.

If the sample size is 10,000 hands, then now we're at 2 standard deviations. That means we're at about the 5% confidence level.

If the sample size is 100,000 hands, now we're at almost 7 standard deviations. Very fishy looking, a real longshot that this can happen.

If the sample size is 1,000,000 hands, now we're at 21 standard deviations, and we are now very very certain this is not a random distribution.

Any skew like that which is consistent, if you get enough hands continuing the pattern, will detect it. This is a gross example, skews of much less than 1% can be tested pretty conclusively with a few million hands.

An easy method you can use to estimate standard deviation in this kind of scenario is:

(actual - expected) / SQRT[ ((1-exp) * exp) / sample size]

Using this formula, if the sample is anything over 120 hands you can assume a Z distribution and say that 1.96 standard deviations is the 5% confidence level, meaning 95% of all samples of that size will fall under 1.96 if the distribution is random (normal).

2 SD's is about 95%, 3 SDs is about 99%, etc. Look up a table.

Last edited by spadebidder; 09-22-2009 at 09:21 PM. Reason: corrections and added some stuff
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 08:58 PM   #8635
Arouet
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Arouet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,433
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
Um, I completely think this will be detectable. That was the whole point of my post.

I thought someone had asked for testable rigging theories a page back or so. This seems to qualify.
(Sorry, I was directing more at Toltec, who I think thought it wouldn't be, not you...)

Toltec, why don't you start off by applying your analysis to your own hands and let us know what you find?
Arouet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 08:59 PM   #8636
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
Testing the wins vs. expectation for hands where the big stack[or small stack] is the underdog [or favorite] is easy to do, and easy to spot anything fishy. Very easy.

To give you some idea of how little something has to be off to be obviously not random, here's an example. Let's say we are testing big stack as favorite, all-in expectation vs. wins. Suppose his average equity is 65%, and we can look at hands both where he is preflop all-in with a single caller, or hands where he calls an all-in preflop with no other caller. The condition is just that he is the big stack and the preflop favorite. (We could also choose other scenarios). We measure his win rate and find it to be 66% instead of 65%. So he is 1% over expectation.

If the sample size is 1000 hands (all-ins) then this is not a significant difference, less than 1 standard deviation. Happens every day.

If the sample size is 10,000 hands, then now we're at 2 standard deviations. That means we're at about the 5% confidence level of still being random.

If the sample size is 100,000 hands, now we're at almost 7 standard deviations. Very fishy looking, a longshot that this can happen.

If the sample size is 1,000,000 hands, now we're at 21 standard deviations, and we are now very very certain this is not a random distribution.

Any skew like that which is consistent, if you get enough hands continuing the pattern, will detect it. This is a gross example, skews of much less than 1% can be tested pretty conclusively with a few million hands.
Totally agree, which is why I suggested that this was a bad theory for how a site could rig the deal in an undetectable manner.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 09:10 PM   #8637
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
Totally agree, which is why I suggested that this was a bad theory for how a site could rig the deal in an undetectable manner.

Yes, and the other part of that equation, is how in the hell would a <1% skew in some particular confrontation type, make more money for the site? And even that level is easily detected. So the underdog wins 1% more than he should, he keeps some of his money a tiny bit longer (maybe) and plays a few more hands (maybe), and maybe pays a few cents more in rake. Do the math. I'm pretty sure a 1% skew like this example doesn't translate to 1% more in rake. All-ins only occur about 1 in 50 or so at full ring cash games. It's just a bad example.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 09:25 PM   #8638
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

But it seems easy enough to test and rule it out and its one of the few actually testable rigged hypotheses Ive seen proposed.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 09:35 PM   #8639
toltec444
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 496
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
Yes, and the other part of that equation, is how in the hell would a <1% skew in some particular confrontation type, make more money for the site? And even that level is easily detected. So the underdog wins 1% more than he should, he keeps some of his money a tiny bit longer (maybe) and plays a few more hands (maybe), and maybe pays a few cents more in rake. Do the math. I'm pretty sure a 1% skew like this example doesn't translate to 1% more in rake. All-ins only occur about 1 in 50 or so at full ring cash games. It's just a bad example.
That is very dependent in the size of the final pot. If someone win 1% more often then they should in an hundred 0.5 final pots, thats insignificant. But if someone is winning 1% more often than he should in 500 USD thats a lot more significant.


Another question spade, what I was proposing is to test not if the bigger stack winning frequency is right, but to see if the favorite hands are winning in the right frequency when the final pot is big (like 200 BB or more).

I know this analiys can easily be made, but the point is, if I put ito the sample hands with small pots the rigged situation (big pot hands) could be disguised.
toltec444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 09:39 PM   #8640
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by toltec444 View Post
That is very dependent in the size of the final pot. If someone win 1% more often then they should in an hundred 0.5 final pots, thats insignificant. But if someone is winning 1% more often than he should in 500 USD thats a lot more significant.


Another question spade, what I was proposing is to test not if the bigger stack winning frequency is right, but to see if the favorite hands are winning in the right frequency when the final pot is big (like 200 BB or more).

I know this analiys can easily be made, but the point is, if I put ito the sample hands with small pots the rigged situation (big pot hands) could be disguised.
This is absurdly easy to detect though. Just divide the sample into 200BB+/200BB- and the win frequencies will both be off from expected values and be different from each other.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 09:58 PM   #8641
toltec444
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 496
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
This is absurdly easy to detect though. Just divide the sample into 200BB+/200BB- and the win frequencies will both be off from expected values and be different from each other.
Yes it is easy, but the point is that if you dont know where to look or the rig, you wont find nothing.

To run a analysis of all all in PF hands is not enough, because only specific situations could be rigged, and if you analyse those situations together with all other situations they will be diluted and probably undetected.

A pratical example, if you take the Absolute poker superuser scandal hands and analyse them together with all the other hands that were ever played at AP at every level it would be very unprobable that you could spot the superuser stats anomaly.
toltec444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 10:11 PM   #8642
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by toltec444 View Post
Yes it is easy, but the point is that if you dont know where to look or the rig, you wont find nothing.

To run a analysis of all all in PF hands is not enough, because only specific situations could be rigged, and if you analyse those situations together with all other situations they will be diluted and probably undetected.

A pratical example, if you take the Absolute poker superuser scandal hands and analyse them together with all the other hands that were ever played at AP at every level it would be very unprobable that you could spot the superuser stats anomaly.
Um, wait, weren't the superusers detected by taking the statistics of the players and showing their win rates were wild outliers? Isnt that detectable?

Anyplace you think they might be rigging in the way you suggest is testable. If its not detectable in the overall sample of all hands, then if they rig it some subsets of that sample have to be rigged to a number both different from the expected value of a fair deal and different from each other.

You specified one such test...AA loses more in big pots and its not detected in the overall sample because its made up for in small pots. This is detectable in three ways...the EV in big pots will be off, the EV in small pots will be off, and the expected winning percentage in big pots will be different from the expected winning percentage in small pots.

Its like trivially easy to test.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 10:22 PM   #8643
toltec444
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 496
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
Um, wait, weren't the superusers detected by taking the statistics of the players and showing their win rates were wild outliers? Isnt that detectable?

Anyplace you think they might be rigging in the way you suggest is testable. If its not detectable in the overall sample of all hands, then if they rig it some subsets of that sample have to be rigged to a number both different from the expected value of a fair deal and different from each other.

You specified one such test...AA loses more in big pots and its not detected in the overall sample because its made up for in small pots. This is detectable in three ways...the EV in big pots will be off, the EV in small pots will be off, and the expected winning percentage in big pots will be different from the expected winning percentage in small pots.

Its like trivially easy to test.

yes, it isvery easy to run this test.

But the point is that if you dont know where to look for the rig, you wont find nothing.
toltec444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 10:28 PM   #8644
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by toltec444 View Post
yes, it isvery easy to run this test.

But the point is that if you dont know where to look for the rig, you wont find nothing.
You really should take a statistics class.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 10:39 PM   #8645
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by toltec444 View Post
yes, it isvery easy to run this test.

But the point is that if you dont know where to look for the rig, you wont find nothing.
If it is non-trivial then you'll find the evidence of it by just looking at the entire population. Then you drill down where the evidence takes you. You split up your population by stack sizes, by fav/dog, by pot size, by what color your avatar is, whatever makes you happy, as long as none of those conditions can bias the outcome. Then you run all the bins and compare them and look for outliers. Beware however, that there are lots of conditions you can think of that do bias the outcome naturally, and this is easily overlooked. Whatever scenario you come up with, determine if any card removal effects are possible and account for them.

Here's a couple examples.

Most people don't know that in hold'em if you check the frequency of cards that fall on the flop, they are not evenly distributed. The reason is that not all flops are seen, and those that are seen are biased because players tend to see the flop when they hold high cards. If you look at all boards you will find more deuces than any other card, and fewer Aces than any other card. This is a known removal effect, and it's because player decisions are involved. This effect can also cascade into other tests you might do and has to be taken into account sometimes. So you have to first measure that effect (by looking at all seen boards) and know how much it will affect other tests you might run if there is a dependency.

Here's another. At least one major site allows players to muck at showdown if they lose, even when they were all-in or called an all-in. This means if you look at the distribution of all-in wins using observed hands from that site (you weren't a player at the table) then the observed hand histories don't have those hole cards. And therefore in an all-in analysis your sample must omit those hands and can't count them since you don't know equity. What you will find is that this mucking is biased and the underdog is more likely to muck when he loses than the favorite when he loses. It also means your remaining sample will have too many ties (which are +EV for the underdog) since you see all tied hands but you don't see all losing hands.

There are many others.

Last edited by spadebidder; 09-22-2009 at 10:49 PM.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2009, 11:17 PM   #8646
LetsGambool
banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 26,578
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
If it is non-trivial then you'll find the evidence of it by just looking at the entire population.
This is what he's saying isnt true.

Im saying that even if the sites did rig the deal in this manner (rig it in some way such that tests of every hand come up normal) its detectable via the tests you talk about in your second sentence since they have to be rigging difference sub-segments of the hands in different ways.

He's saying that since you never know what to look for, your population test comes up normal, hence you never find what they rig.
LetsGambool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 12:04 AM   #8647
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
He's saying that since you never know what to look for, your population test comes up normal, hence you never find what they rig.
He's wrong, and you're right. This theory of shifting equities between player subsets has been tossed around before. It isn't that hard to figure out which ways players could be divided to allow the site to increase rake. Any equity shifting that doesn't accomplish that would be pointless, or it would have a trivial effect and not be worth doing. I've pointed out before, but any valid rigged theory must accomplish only one thing, and that is to have a greater average number of players sitting in seats on a 24/7 averaged basis. That is absolutely the only way the site makes more rake, with more occupied seats. So with that in mind, there are limited numbers of ways to keep money circulating and in the hands of the losers longer. It isn't a needle in a haystack. And all those ways are testable and detectable.

Last edited by spadebidder; 09-23-2009 at 12:12 AM.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 01:10 PM   #8648
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Markusgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by toltec444 View Post
lizards dont like pickles? really?
I can't prove it, but I've seen patterns that no one else can decipher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
I dont think he really deserved a snide remark for that question. That's a testable hypothesis.
My point was, How many more adjustments are the rigtards going to make to their theories. Every time one is shot down they put in some new wrinkle in hopes that they'll find the secret method by which poker sites cheat them and are to blame for their failures.

I stand by my previous remark that if they put 1/2 the effort into improving their game as they do blaming the industry, they'd be 2x as successful in no time.

As far as the snide remark, umm, I'll work on that.
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 01:14 PM   #8649
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Markusgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by toltec444 View Post
But the point is that if you dont know where to look for the rig, you wont find nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool View Post
You really should take a statistics class.
And a grammar refresher wouldn't hurt either.
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2009, 05:13 PM   #8650
alexstat
veteran
 
alexstat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Got your Clutch sample size!
Posts: 3,442
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Let's make this simple. It's all about the 80/20 rule. google it if you don't know what I'm talking about. It has been reported that about 15% of online players are break even/winners. While that may not sound like a lot, today Stars had about 250k players which means that it had about 187,500 losers and 62,500 Winners. I have fortunately, as of the past half a year moved out of the red and into the black. I am not a Superbot, Lizard person, or Superuser. Just someone that learned to play good and not blame the site. Yesterday I had a horrible run for almost the entire day. I will admit I started to get the "Stars is rigged" feeling. We all do, Specially if we are men. We have huge ego's and must subconsciously rationalize a reason for being a loser. So I just took a break and jumped on this thread then laughed for a bit at myself for entertaining these thoughts. Then got back on and grinded out of my downswing and profiting again today.

The owners of the sites are businessmen and the 80/20 rule is an ancient one and they know that they don't have to cheat you to lose. It is a given in every industry that about 80% will bust.
alexstat is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive