Wow, that turned the discussion around by 360°

Yes, clearly it's only the people who have no interest in improving online poker who are capable of understanding posts. Or so your logic goes. That's about as sound as the rest of your reasoning.

That doesn't work when someone has already done it. Try something original.

The probability of 2 consecutive 7-card hands dealt randomly both having 4 of a kind as the best hand is approximately 1 in 354,000, or 0.000028%.

The probability of the particular set of circumstances you described occurring given that they occurred is 100%.

You are, of course, asking the wrong question, so both of those numbers are meaningless in this context.

I think we can use this as a teaching moment for some basic concepts in logic and probability theory:

I can both be interested in improving online poker and think you are a stubborn, insufferable ******* who refuses to process any information which shows that his ideas are asinine. These events are not mutually exclusive.

It's easy to see why you struggle with IT

Anyhow, I'm still interested in debating how we improve the transparency and prove the fairness of online poker.

INFO: Name callers and bores will be ignored though.

Tell us how you'd do it then?

Well, that is a twist on the usual riggie approach by saying they are better at poker than I am.

I back just under 100 players currently, and have backed players since before Black Friday. I have worked with several poker rooms and networks, and have refused to work with quite a few as well (Lock Poker, Full Flush and a bunch of sketchy casinos) because after interviewing them it was not hard for me to decide they were not running a business I could trust, and usually my instincts were correct on that.

With regard to poker rooms, the RnG has literally never been a concern, because bad operators will do much simpler and different methods to lie, steal and cheat, and riggies such as you literally disregard the genuine stuff in favor of the scary quads nonsense.

I have worked with players that do such deep and intricate statistical studies that if you had the life experience I did in that regard you may (if you could temporarily discard your paranoia) understand how trivially easy nearly all riggie concerns would be to prove, if they were true, and that is even ignoring the obvious insider employee telling the secret issue that riggies dismiss away with the belief that that would literally never happen in this industry. Usually they cite other industries where whistle blowers came out to show that whistle blowers do not come out. Standard riggie logic.

I say all of this knowing you will dismiss it, because in the end you did see some quads.


Seems all the discussions you take part in fall apart, so eventually one has to step back and wonder why that is. I realize you will never believe it is because of you, even though you are literally the common component in all of your discussions that are "incoherent."

If you doubt that then go to the stats forum here and post those same quad hands from your bad beat whine thread, and in that proper math forum you can present your mathematical beliefs to guys who are actual stats experts with no skin in the riggie nonsense, so they will give you a nice, detailed explanation of how the math works with your concerns.

Let me give you a link to do that, and I do that knowing there is literally no chance you will do that, and instead you will simply dismiss this away.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25/probability/

Let us know when you post your mathematical questions and concerns to the math guys, as your thread will be a fun break from dry ones such as "Normalization/Correction/Sampling problem" and (since you love quads) "Odds of any of 8 players getting quads in 5 card omaha?" .

All the best.

A lot of ways that don't interest you, because they involve things like rake and tournament structures, not your riggie conspiracy theories.

Why are you asking the few people that read this unimportant and unvalued thread why they are not supporting or the poker sites are not implementing your ideas, (forgetting for a moment that the consensus appears to be that they are "asinine")? Do you seriously think that this could be the start of a movement that leads to vast changes in the entire business world of online poker sites?

Just start a new poker site yourself - you seem to have all the skills necessary - and the others will follow, once they see their customers flocking to it.

Good luck.

That's good because the RNG has never been a concern for me either. I posted exactly that a couple of pages back. But there's more to completing the hand than using the RNG. That's the bit I've been discussing and you keep ignoring.

This is an interesting point. Is it equally trivial to prove the fairness of the game using HHs? If so, has anyone done it? Can you provide a link to it? Because that's getting closer to the issues I prefer to discuss.

Theoryjuicer, you are lost. You're more of a narcissistic egotist than a rigtard troll.

One player with a decent sample size posting evidence of something wrong would bring many more players checking their stats. Someone posted a handful of players suspected of bots in the BetOnline thread. In 20 minutes a handful of other responded either confirming the same with their stats or saying they'd check later in the day. BetonlineMile, the rep from BOL, took the info to security and ask people to DM him any further info players had.

You dont need 25 million hands to confirm anything. You DO need to post a poll me evidence and others will check.

You also have zero, absolutely zero, understanding of the public markets. Don't make comments about a topic you're completely ignorant on, it kind of proves what I said in the first line here.

You, like others, throw **** up against the wall expecting it to stick. While transparency is great, your solutions don't work. No one is going to do the work for your laziness. Everyone serious does their own work and analyzes their game. As soon as something is off with the match they post their evidence asking, not telling, others to confirm their findings. Do you know why? It is because no one wants to be cheated. Total strangers work together to confirm/deny evidence. It is also why when people spew nonsense they end up in the riggie thread. Almost all of those speakers also practice their spewiness on the poker table, claiming its rigged soon enough. Ironic.....


PS, you're sounding more and more like that PT guy in the Global rng thread. I'd not be shocked if IP addy was the same.

I'm not expecting the sites to change without market forces. Why would they? That's literally one of the first points I made.

Neither am I going to start a new poker site. That's not something I have any interest in doing.

But I would like to see the existing sites be more open about their software. That would benefit every single player and maybe help convince some of those who refuse to play online. A concept that's treated as blasphemous around these here parts!

Do you have any ideas how online poker could be improved?

I'm fine thanks. I'm not the one getting all worked up and calling names, just because some random suggested a way for online poker sites to be more open and transparent.

As I said, I have no problem with others who blindly trust the sites. That's their choice but make no mistake, you are absolutely clueless as to what the software is doing. It is pure blind faith and you hope that if anything irregular is going on, it can be discovered via HHs. Maybe it can, maybe it can't. That remains to be seen, other than very obvious examples which were caught in the past.

I don't play poker for a living. I clearly don't get paid by the industry, so I have no skin in the game. I play for enjoyment when I feel like it. I'll continue to do so and ask questions when I feel things can be improved.

No amount of childish name calling will stop me. It's really not any more complex than that.

PS - make sure you get those IP addresses checked and let us know how it worked out.

All the stuff you are going on about are distraction issues, even if they are important to you. They all fall into the area of impractical cheating by the site, that makes the site no money, that would be easy to detect if true, and somehow no insider has ever talked about it.

I prefer to educate people on bad operators who genuinely behave badly, like not paying people out for a long period of time.



Yeah, and a ton of those links have been put in this thread. I tossed you some links to look over which you already ignored, so why should I bother doing any more work for you. Spadebidder did a billion hand study on all sorts of things that was rejected by riggies. He even did an in depth database analysis (for free) of a riggie's hand histories that was also dismissed by riggies. Other people have created sites where they studied tens of millions of hands for all sorts of things. Those were dismissed by riggies in the same way you are dismissing everyone else now. Riggies gonna riggie.

Anyway, I told you specifically how you could verify the math of the two hands you posted a thread about, by asking in the appropriate forum. I see you have yet to do that and you seem to avoid talking about that suggestion. How come? What concerns you with that process, and I ask that knowing you will never do it.

All the best.

TheoryJuicer - It's not that people don't want to engage in the debate, it's that you've demonstrated that you're totally incapable of taking any feedback you receive on board. I tried to engage with you on the IT side of things, and you ignored everything I said and then said I don't know what I'm talking about coz... reasons? You act the same way who towards people who are trying to engage you on the poker side of things. Honest question, how do you expect people to react? The reason people are like this towards you is not because you're suggesting how to make the sites more transparent, it's because you're an insufferable git.

He will ignore the content of your thread and nibble at the git part, which is why I try to not have the riggie food be so blatant. Gives them too easy an escape.

In that regard, my end game strategy with a standard riggie like this one is to try to suggest that he post his math concerns in the math forum. Obviously if he was genuinely concerned about the math he would do that, but the fact I am suggesting it will trigger an innate riggie response to avoid doing it, sensing it must be some form of trap, which of course it is, since I know exactly how his thread would play out if he posted it there.

Also, I am still annoyed that Mike Haven managed to hurl a much, MUCH better nutjob in the form of the ?/3 guy to the stats forum, whereas I have only had moderate success getting riggies to post there for everyone's amusement. The ?/3 guy was so good they actually stickied his thread.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...tally-1706112/


I know I will never be able to match that, especially with low grade riggies like this guy, but if you do not try, then you will never know, so one may as well hurl some riggies and see what sticks!

How clueless are you? Who blindly trusts sites?

Billions if hands have been played and players with actual credibility, evidence, and know-how look over them daily. Aberrations flow, they find something unusual, post their evidence, and then ask others to do the same. See? They post evidence.

You, and others, come up with oddball ideas and demand others show why its wrong.

You are correct. I have no real understanding of software and IT stuff, much in the vein of you having no idea about business or poker. I do really on the methods that have been proven to be reliable and basic math. I read and absorbed what you were saying on the software/IT aspect with an open mind. When you refused to openly address some issues/points others brought up and then displayed your lack of business acumen, I saw no further need to give you much credit.

I was very vocal about Full Flush when it was collapsing. I spoke to the law office that was supposedly handling it, they knew nothing about Full Flush. I gave their contact info, not a single person called. Explained how frivolous it was to attempt to sue the shell, to pay some clown a fee to do it for them, etc.... I also told anyone I knew that was on the site that their money was gone.

I don't particularly play for a living, semi-retired and got lucky in business, nor do I fiscally benefit much in the affiliate side because that's not what I'm interested in doing. I like talking poker, HH, strategy, etc... My 'skin' in the game is the continued growth of the game and supporting/growing the ecosystem. I have a substantial interest in poker community.

Lastly, saying you are a narcissistic egotist is not name calling. It is a logically drawn conclusion based on your commentary.

Wow, I forgot about that criminal that suckered Full Flush victims into sending him money for his lawsuit that we knew would never happen. That moron who accumulated 6 figures in fake Full Flush money sent that dude (who was correctly banned here) over $1,000 in real money for that, and then yelled at us for telling him how bad an idea that was at the time. Very similar interaction like we have here with riggies, and I don't have to ask how that guy's "investment" turned out.

Impressive how out of touch a lot of these people are in these things even as they believe they have any idea how the real world works. As long as they contain them in threads like this they at least get out of the way yelling about quads and tricky variance and anti-poker and whatever.

OMFG that thread is gold! You know it's going to be good when Kelvis is not the worst poster in the thread lol. The dispute over whether 1/3 is the same
as 33.3% recurring was a nice touch.

Btw, I tried to PM you yesterday, but it said your mailbox was full or something.

I got way too many weird/threat/stalky PMs from riggies and also nutjobs from the Politics forum, so once it filled up I did not change that except when I send a message. For what it is worth - messages from mods still come through even if my box is full!

With regard to that stickied thread, the amazing thing is that he had another thread in the stats forum that went just was nutso. Mundane riggies like this current disposable one have no idea how boring they are compared to those really dedicated to their paranoid craft.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...41/?highlight=

Gotta love these guys who independently discover brand new laws of probability. I vaguely remember seeing one in the theory forum who had come up his own equity calculator, because he was under the impression that every other equity calculator in existence was doing it wrong (spoiler: they weren't).

Let's rewind a bit, shall we. I literally explained the following to the objections you raised:

1) How reproducible builds can be used to validate the source code is being used
2) The need for an extra verification step beyond just build validation
3) I threw out some ideas for how the verification process might work.
4) I showed you the idea of a trusted client being used to perform these steps, in much the same way your poker client works
5) I explained that IT in fact don't have a problem opening up certain parts of the system because people all over the world download files from systems on a daily basis.

That is literally the opposite of ignoring everything you said. Each step of the way you told me it couldn't be done, before reversing your position on some items.

And here you are, still telling me it can't be done. Guess what, I already know your position by now. Much like a few others, you have nothing left to say other than "it can't be done", which is frankly bullshit.

No need to rewind at this point, as you are in the riggie end phase. You said your yadda yadda, and nobody agreed, because riggie yadda yadda, so time to look forward.

When are you going to post the hands you started a thread about in the math forum to get the answers you seek? If you will not, why not? Here was the thread you started.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/5...22/?highlight=

Here is the forum to post it in for getting the answers you want, given that you literally posted

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25/probability/

Post there and see if anyone cares to have a go


All the best.

Regarding rigged deals? Nothing needs to be done.

As I already explained to you, the amount of people who are concerned about a rigged deal is so hilariously small that they can be safely dismissed as paranoid idiot morons.

You can check for yourself: Just make a public call for your rigtard buddies support and you will see how valued your "ideas how online poker could be improved" really are

To stop you, you would have to be in motion first. Can't see anything else than a whiny rigtard moron who thought this thread here was a legit place to make baseless complaints about a rigged deal

As I also explained to you before: In a few weeks, nobody will remember you and your great ideas to 'improve' online poker


And it was explained to you (several times) that opening up a production server to the public would be a really really stupid idea. You ignored it.

This post was fairly reasonable.

You're a bit like the guy who tried to tell me how software worked back at the start. You're making a similar mistake by assuming I know nothing about business. Is that based on the fact that I told you an audit had nothing to do with verifying the code is doing what it should? Because I know what an audit of a company is. I've been involved in them and I know that it has nothing to do with trawling through source code. A skeptic might think you were trying to muddy the waters.

As for these billions of hands, have you seen them all? Verified them? Answered questions that people have raised via analytics? If not, then it's irrelevant to the discussion. Big numbers on their own aren't that impressive.

Finally, if you're truly interested in seeing the game grow then you'd be keen to see more openness in online poker. From what little I've read here, you've done nothing but argue against that.

I explained to you that your verification process can't work because it is logically flawed. You have to trust the people you think are being dishonest in one area to be honest in the other area. This fundamental logical deficiency in what you are proposing cannot be overcome with technology, despite your earnest wishes that it could. Literally everything I have said has been about that, not whatever you're going on about in that post.

You can shite on about reproducible builds and APIs all you like. The bottom line is, if I'm the admin of the system, I can circumvent all your little verification checks with minimal effort (and I've spent numerous posts explaining how), which renders your entire idea worthless.