Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoryJuicer
It is a complete waste of time. Someone should tell Microstakes he has wasted 15 years of his life posting the same crap over and over again. Doubt he cares much. As a low life, affiliate shill, he has virtually nothing to contribute to society anyway, so he may as well whittle away his pathetic existence on here. Same as the rest of the shills really.
Aw, someone is having a hissy fit? Problem is, that does not cure you from being totally boring. Just makes you boring while having a hissy fit.
Do I repeat myself at times? Of course! That is simply a byproduct of allowing the riggies to set the agenda with their whining, and most riggies (such as you) are repetitions of riggies before you. You just happen to be a very boring variant of a dull sub-section of the riggie culture.
Your whole RnG deal is random but then the sites change the cards on or after the flop thing has been tossed out many times before you (and even discussed and debunked with the math guys in detail in this very thread many years ago - feel free to read the early thread and see for yourself). You bringing a boring 2020 variant, with no creativity or originality is your limitation, so indeed the schticks I used on you were used on riggies just like you before you who followed the riggie commandments as fervently as you have to date.
Here is a much better example of a riggie who did your routine. Maybe learn from him when you come back in future (ideally with another new posting account).
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...tally-1706112/
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...41/?highlight=
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowtroll
the problem is exactly that you assume things based on your perspective. why is it a problem? because every assumption acts as a filter on the general case. so when you make a general claim with implicit assumptions you actually dont make a general claim but a more specific one that can only be stated to be true in the subset where your assumptions are satisfied. if you reformulate your claim with your assumptions being explicit, you will realise how little you actually claim, and how an opposite claim could escape your thought to be general claim.
Quite the word salad that said pretty much nothing. Perfect for the riggie thread, well done!!
ANyways, if my "perspective" is in question, then go to the forums with experts in that area and ask them for their much more expert perspective. I suggest that to riggies all the time when they toss out their silly beliefs about math concepts or programming, but none ever do it.
You would agree that doing that, and asking experts about their concerns, would make sense, right? Have a medical concern - ask an appropriate medical expert. Have a computer programming concern - as an expert at computer programming. Math concern - ask a math expert.
Why will riggies never do that as an inherent part of their culture?
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowtroll
lets step back a bit: when you claim "A", and i point out that that claim is not well defined (or context dependent), it doesnt mean i believe "A" is false. it means the claim "A" cannot be determined to be either true or false. it is very important to understand this even if you are just here to fool around.
Instead of "stepping back" in a riggie thread, go to the proper forum, the math forum, and post your concerns there. Here is a link for a forum that would help, but you will never use:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25/probability/
Quote:
Originally Posted by dacy
I hate repeating myself
You certainly do not, but that is part of the charm of this thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dacy
but anyway: I have used trackers; I explained how HM operates; it can only display whatever hand history the site provides, and if the site provides anonymous hand history, that is all you can get in processable form.
Come on. Anon hands are a relatively new thing. You have been around since 2005. You should have literally tens of millions of hands in your databases, more if you did any significant data mining that was possible for many years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dacy
Again, that is what you want me to believe, but I tend to be a non-believer. What if they immediately pocket my ~1K contribution to the pot?
How do they do this? They rake it for $1,000?
I mean if you are going to delve into the house super user stuff - meh, whatever. Kind of fringy even for riggies, and again would be discovered very quickly by players (not like these house super users will win slowly at 5 BB/100 playing a tight aggro game
).
How are they immediately pocketing your 1K?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dacy
I am sure they would not have much problem with my next deposit transaction fees, nor with the next one, etc.
They definitely would not if you spewed it on slots like that end of world slots riggie. Then they get all your money! That is why rooms tried hard to get people in your category to use the gambling platforms that helped them a lot more. They lose a lot when you spew your 1K deposit to a reg quickly. They win a lot if you spew it on roulette!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dacy
That would be pretty much the only transaction fee they will be concerned with. I know how you like the idea of rake; an honest site would be only interested in the rake, optimize the rake; why would they rig stuff if they collect sooo much rake etc. But we are talking about a rigged site, theoretically, and highly improbable as it is, according to you and some others.
You need to go into more detail with how the sites are getting more rake from you than the $3 or $5 max per hand (of which you only contributed half anyway at most). Again, are you suggesting the site is filled with mysterious house super users or something that have never been detected. What is the missing piece here in your belief that $3 rake on a hand is not actually $3?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dacy
Suspecting something fishy is a healthy approach;
Definitely is, but unfortunately riggies always detect fishy stuff where it pretty much does not exist and would flood discussions on real fishy issues with their weird paranoia. Lock Poker paid no players a cashout for over a year and riggies would flood that thread with complaints about new player boom switches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dacy
Just for the record, I was not losing in 2005. It all started in 2006, after the US players left PP.
Fair enough. I adjust my earlier statement to - you were not beating the games in 2006, you aint gonna beat them in 2020. Thanks for pointing that out!
Quote:
Originally Posted by dacy
What if I am interested in the subject of rigging and I have plenty material supporting it? This looks like the right place to be, no?
Well, if you have fun posting here then continue to do so! That is what this thread is about - and people on all sides should have fun, in contrast to Mr Moody Pants I replied to at the start of this post.
As for your information - well, you have yet to provide any for 15 years, so I will go with the safe side in assuming you will also provide no verifiable information for the next 15 years as well
.
All the best.