He is a mathematical wizard, he probably does everything he needs in his head, so why bother with software programs that could easily prove his riggie beliefs. That would actually produce data he could present, and he is not into that, though it would be fun to see him say he uses those programs but will not make his database of hands available for research into his rig.


Well, if alarm bells sound the good thing is how easy that rig would be to exploit for money if it was true. Simply deposit/boomswitch/repeat on multiple sites then do the same with other people signing up for you that you give a cut of the new player boom profits to as payment. A simple combination of bonus whoring (riggie style) and staking. Easy money! You say a player always doubles, triples, quads their initial deposit so to be safe just quit at the double point. Best part is, you can play high games for the deposit amount and get it done quickly.

OK, so with that out of the way, given that this player has literally not won at any of many sites for 20 years, which of the following is he:

1) A donk. Just that simple in this case.

2) An actual donk who keeps losing despite the sites trying to help him with the help the donk algorithms you talk about.

3) An actual winning player who has lost consistently for 15 years for over a million bucks because of the rig.


Come on, you keep avoiding this choice. How come? .

All the best.

It rings the bell in a riggie dome. Naturally, that whole deposit boomswitch rig is rather stupid.

How come logic is so hard to fathom in the riggie mind? Some truly stupid ideas....

Let me remind you of your last argument as to why it isnt rigged. Which was quote sites wouldnt rigg it because they cant even handle customer support.

just stop Dewd

Forget about arguments against it being rigged. Let's say it is rigged in exactly the way you think it is rigged. In that case, can there be instances where donk/degens will always lose because they are donk/degens? If that is the case then which category would dacy fit in, assuming that every site is rigged exactly as you believe, and for some reasons riggies will not exploit the deposit boomswitch rig for easy money. Remember, he has lost pretty much every deposit on a ton of sites according to him over many years. With that in mind, which of the following (assuming he lives in a universe where your riggie beliefs are valid) is he?

1) A donk. Just that simple in this case. Happens with some special people even when everything is rigged at times.

2) An actual donk who keeps losing despite the sites trying to help him with the help the donk algorithms you talk about.

3) An actual winning player who has lost consistently for 15 years for over a million bucks because of the rig.


Come on, you keep avoiding this choice. How come? .

All the best.

Without observation of his play i can only make assumptions.

Exactly, my argument is consistent. Sites do not rig the game. Most players suck, that is all they need. The dumber cadre of those players believe it is rigged and continue to deposit, fortunately.

Sites struggle with simple customer support and rigtards think there is some elaborate and nefarious doings to steal shitty player's money. They don't need to do anything.

Riggies rig, donkeys donk, etc....keep them deposits up.

lets flip the deck.

Do you Monteroy also believe in your fellow anti rigging beliefs of Dewd .Quote.. Sites wouldnt rigg it because they cant even handle customer support.

is this

1. A intellectual concept that should be highly weighted.

2.A rational logical argument, we can all trust online poker now.

3.WTF

I noticed you guys like to ask a lot of questions but do not like to aswer them. Dewd do you play online poker?

I would assume the point he is making that it is silly to believe sites would be capable of intricate AI rigs, that also require them to never be found by players (despite being seen by the eyes of riggies somehow) and never revealed by the programmers as well, while also hiring incapable support people in their ranks. I admit I did not read his post on the topic, but sounds like that from what you are saying. Given that assumption, I would say that I do not see that comparison being that significant as low level support people are kind of irrelevant in the scheme of things, so even sites that were outright stealing from people (like Lock Poker) could hire good or bad support people who were just doing their low end job.

Still, some riggies assumed all support people were in on it as well, that I always assumed was idiotic, but riggies gonna riggie. One even based his entire riggie belief structure on some throwaway chat he had with a low level support person at Party when language understanding was clearly an issue.

I would say I understand the point he was trying to make (LOL these sites cant hire competent support people but they can create AI to a level never seen before) - but its not a point I think really is in synch with the riggie debate, so I would rate it low for effectiveness, though kind of irrelevant in terms of accuracy. So, given your 3 choices as the only options I would say 3 is the best (though not perfect) one because it is kind of a meh, non-sequitur thought. I would not suggest any intelligent concept be spoken to riggies so I kind of agree with not bothering to do that (why I generally use very simple concepts with riggies like - LOL just exploit the boomswitch rig then).

As to option (2) I don't think his point is to suggest people trust all online poker, even though riggies keep pushing that thinking. The problem with riggies is they create imaginary problems to be concerned about then ignore the real ones in the industry, so when those of us concentrate on real issues and dismiss the riggie concerns then it is because we are defending all the sites according to riggies, which is annoying and why it is better that riggies are plopped in threads like this.


There you go, I "aswered" your flip it around questions in great detail, with choosing (3) if I HAD to choose an option, and I gave context to each choice you provided as well.

Now that I did that - your turn! Dacy is the following:

1) A donk. Just that simple in this case. Happens with some special people even when everything is rigged at times.

2) An actual donk who keeps losing despite the sites trying to help him with the help the donk algorithms you talk about.

3) An actual winning player who has lost consistently for 15 years for over a million bucks because of the rig.


Feel free to answer this in a similar way that I answered yours . To flip it around - I noticed riggies ask a lot of questions and try to reverse the burden of proof, but they do not like to answer them, kind of like how you have yet to answer these simple ones!

All the best.

[QUOTE=Monteroy;56120907]I sites can create AI to a level never seen before) Why is this needed?

OK, pretend it takes a simple program a 5 year old can write (but would never reveal) that works on thousands of tables at the same time, that riggies can see with their eyes, but noone can prove with hand histories. Sure, let's go with your assumption on that as well for fun.

What I did notice of course is that you again avoided answering my questions after I answered yours in great detail, even after you commented how shills do not answer questions.

What a totally expected thing for you to say and do, it is almost as if I set that up by answering your questions in great detail, because riggie behavior is extremely easy to predict, and probably a good reason why most seem to struggle in this industry. Hey, at least you quit when you should - try to get this other guy to do that already, and perhaps answering my questions will help that. I am all about helping people.

All the best.

if you said so and so lost one million in a live setting playing one two or two five over that period everything points to a horrible player compulsive action junkie.

I guess a baby step is you acknowledge that humans like that can exist - ie action junkies/ degens etc that will always lose in the end. Now, you are still avoiding the questions with your "live" condition, so let's try again, shall we.

This guy did it in likely a dozen or more rooms (with a bunch banning him for gambling addiction reasons) in nearly 20 years online, consistently losing on all of them (according to him) due to all of them profiling him. Thus, while you will call him a donk if that history was in the perfectly clean live poker in your riggieverse, given that this was online poker, which of the following would you choose, and like I did for your questions - explain why for each choice . He is which of the following:

1) A donk. Just that simple in this case. Happens with some special people (degens / action junkies) even when everything is rigged at times.

2) An actual donk who keeps losing despite the sites trying to help him with the help the donk algorithms you talk about.

3) An actual winning player who has lost consistently for 15 years for over a million bucks because of the rig.

All the best.

I don’t make these comments lightly.

888 is well aware I am a big winner on another site. I have gotten destroyed to a bizarre and unrealistic amount of 10% and less beats on this shady site. Lets pretend its variance. thats what hand histories are for. I have made over 15 requests for hand histories in just over 3 weeks and have NOT received a single response. I am far from a conspiracy theorist. I believe in empirical proofs and data. This company is failing the opportunity to provide any. Hand histories are the single most important feature that a site can provide to ensure fairness and ive never ran so bad and been two outed on a site and these shady fks refuse to send hand histories

This is NOT a company to be trusted whatsoever and I strongly recommend nobody plays here. I accept run bad and bad beats, it’s certainly part of the game. I do not accept continued horrific bad runs of cards with no requested verifiable proofs being given. To me this is a MASSIVE RED (REG) FLAG

i have a problem with 2. and three. cant expand on this atm. So my assumption is leaning to 1. if i had to choose. But again i believe it is rigged and have no idea what kind of variance he has been put through.

He has played millions of hands on a ton of different sites, and while he claims to be a math wizard he has yet to make even a single verifiable hand history available to look at. There is no magical variance solution to this unique case (massive lifetime volume on many rooms) - sometimes a donk/degen is just a donk/degen.

If you have problems with 2 and 3 that is fine, you can expand on them later, but be comforted in the following:

If you chose (1), which we both know is the right choice, he would not care at all as he has been called a degen/poker addict/donk for many years and has had his accounts shut down to his gambling addiction on many sites (according to him). You being a riggie saying that would not impact him or his beliefs in the slightest.

If you chose (2) he would not care, because he fully believes in his profiling thing, so whether you or other riggies push the "donks get rewarded" belief structure - he will not care, because despite losing consistently for 20 years - he does not think he can be a donk.

If you chose (3) he would be happy and would care, but you are more of an old school standard riggie who believes that bad players get helped by sites, so even you cannot stand there and accept his results are possible by anyone that would be the target of a rig, which is why you cannot really choose that.

There, I got you off the hook and answered more fully for you, which seemed fair since I also answered your questions the first time you asked, where, in contrast, you took 7 times to finally give a partial answer, which to be fair - only needing 7 times and answering partially is quite an accomplishment for a riggie!

All the best.

Phew, finally. Do you have a condition or something? You started repeating yourself quite often, from which I can conclude they pay you per line rather than per post, although to be fair, you are doing quite well on the number of posts as well. Either that, or you are just a bully by nature. You write quite a lot and throw judgement quite a lot for a person who does not read much. According to your admission, you do not read my posts; yet you exercise God like powers to judge me and any other "poker is rigged" aficionados in sight.

I appreciate the great emphasis and suggestive power you put on item 1); it fits your narrative the best, so it is understandable. Regarding 2), you know that sites do not help anyone except their own faithful shills. Regarding 3) - you were so afraid people might see the reality that you stated it as an impossible choice: "Winning player" and "consistently losing for X years" are simply incompatible, rig or no rig. The correct wording (and the correct choice) would be, say:

3) A winning player live who has consistently lost online for years, because online poker is rigged.

And if you want to emphasize how rigged, you could add something like: deeply, profoundly, severely, vastly, immensely, unimaginably, indisputably, irreparably, etc.

Yep, they do that, a lot. They also stipulate you prove everything you say with tons of solid evidence, but they feel free to claim whatever fits their agenda without the need to prove anything. In the best case scenario, "the proof" goes like that: X says so at ... (link follows), and who is X, and why is X an authority on the subject, nobody knows; well "you must trust us"; we are running the show anyway!

I know, right? Pesky little buggers, talking about evidence all the time.
If only they were professional rigturds who can see the evil wrongdoing with their own eyes and realize that the rigging is already sufficiently proven by looking at the rig with their own eyes.

Yep, Mr. non-rigturd, what is your evidence that poker is not rigged? Your paycheck from site X? Why do not you ask your bosses what is their evidence that their software is not doctored? Are you familiar with the details, or you do not have that a high clearance?

Ah, shifting the burden of proof again and demanding I proof a negative. You are clearly not the brightest cititzen in the great kingdom of Rigtardia.

Well, since you are so absolutely sure, what is stopping you from going to a lawyer, present your case and bring down one of the biggest scam operations in human history? Sure, you are broke as a homeless guy and surely are struggling to buy enough food but if a lawyer looks over the evidence you present ("Just look at all these hands, Mr Lawyer") I'm sure he will start a case on commission.
Now, what are you waiting for? Save online poker now, you are the only one who can do it. The blabbering juicebox is unwilling to start his campaign to force them to give up the source code so who's left? Yep, only you. Get going, make online poker fair again.

So our options are

1. You're running bad
2. A public company with half a billion dollars in revenue, listed on the London stock exchange, is scamming you by rigging their RNG against you

Have I assessed this correctly so far?

HH, billions of hands showing no standard deviation of expected statistics or probabilities. It is the single biggest reason why riggies get toyed with.

See? Amazing how actual math has more value than 'muh feels man's.

Now, where is your evidence of anything g you say? Or any riggie?

Coming up with some stupid wild cockamamie idea and then demanding someone else prove it wrong g is the mantra of rigtadation.

You, nor any riggie, has actual evidence. Last week, someone posted a handful of accounts with the exact same stats over a fair size of hands, some very obscure ones. They were not called a riggie. I bet you cannot guess why... Their evidence, naturally, got a group of other players to check stats on the players. The rep for the site asked for all the info to be passed over so they could inspect it all. It appears the accounts are all operated by one robotic player..

That is how things get done. You and ConspiracyJuice prefer the circle jerk routine. Even though you both are allegiant to the feelz, it is meaningless.

I just got back from my first meeting as a site shill. I am happy to announce we are juicing up the throw a bone mode! Deposit $100 or more and get a FREE 5bb/100 upswing over 10k hands! Enjoy friends

Of course I get paid per line and per post, that is what we shills do and we make money.

In contrast, you have posted the same manifestos, with zero actual evidence, and only in riggie threads, for over 10 years, and you not only get zero pay but you also lose over a million at the tables during that time as well to people like me .

That is why you are a prey animal, but do not worry if you lost more at thee tables yesterday, simply deposit and play some more today. Remember - never quit playing and never post actual data in proper furms, otherwise you may uncover the truth and stop me from making money from people like you in all these different ways. Thanks!

All the best.


P.S. Changing (3) to what you want would not make it easier for that other riggie to choose it, so we can go with your version when he comes back in the future. He recognizes that your results are so extremely bad that you are literally just a donk rather than someone who is a victim of a ton of sites picking you to lose (many of which closed your account due to your gambling problem). SOmetimes a degen is just a degen, nothing more - and even riggies have to very reluctantly accept that at times with a fellow riggie, especially one who loses so much that they defy the normal riggie beliefs that sites help deeply losing players.

What a good idea! What makes you think I have not done it already? I mean the contact a lawyer part.

I would love to! It seems you agree that currently it is not quite fair.


Not really; well beyond bad. Define "running bad". I would say I do not run bad; it is forced; they do not leave me any other choice; one might say I am screwed badly, and that will be a kind of a more precise way to put it.

That summarizes it, more or less, except that the rigging must be in the software; the RNG is OK. Do you have any problem with the idea of a public company going rogue? Happens all the time.