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 10-06-2009, 01:54 PM   #8876
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,099
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Mush View Post
I will choose not to comment on the nonsense about 60 minutes, lizards and paranoia.
Lizard people are silly (or are they...), but it helps demonstrate the flawed nature of your "disprove a negative" way of thinking - which to be blunt is common in paranoid people.

Nobody can prove to you that something is not secretly corrupt in ways that cannot be seen. Similarly no one can prove that Lizard People do not exist. Both are equally flawed experiments to start. Lizard People happen to be cooler.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Mush View Post
In your opinion the Industry has no burden of proof the burden is mine.
The industry provides complete hand histories for anyone who wants. All the hands are easily stored in database programs. Even if you wildly assume there is no checking mechanisms on the software, all the proof is out there in the public hands they deal that can be studied however you like.

How can they prove that superbots do not exist or that ADD based mouse clicking to set up hands (cool new theory posted) do not exist? Or that Lizard People do not exist?

They cannot, because it is a flawed form of reasoning.

The burden of proof is on you.

If a site refused to allow hand histories to be saved and stored THAT would be a cause for concern because that would the site's responsibility to provide.

You want them to disprove Lizard People. They can't. Sorry.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Mush View Post
We totally disagree. Even if it was possible for me to prove anything it still would be in the best interest of the industry to speak the old truth, control is better than trust. Especially for those sites hoping to get back into USA.
Control is better than trust?

Dude, open a dictionary and look up paranoia.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Mush View Post
I declare I am not paid directly or indirectly or have any economic interest in any sites apart from playing on them as a regular customer.
This did make me laugh even though that was not the intent.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 02:02 PM   #8877
DonkoTheClown
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 741
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josem View Post
Well, it depends what you're measuring and what your results are.

If it is AK vs QQ, and AK wins 5k out of 5k times, then there's probably something wrong.

If it is AK vs QQ and AK wins 2550 out of 5k times, then there's probably nothing wrong.
That is true if we are just looking at very narrow range of possibility. If a site is rigged, it would not be smart for them to adjust the show down percentages too far from probability or someone with a tracking program could figure out something is wrong. It would probably need to be a rig that is opportunistic and covert so that it could be explained away by variance and also be very difficult if not impossible to prove. This is why the only way for an online site to shut the players up who are crying foul is to bring a system of supervision in that is as indisputable as possible. Of course, no matter what, there are going to be players who still make their claims, but I would think that a site, if they are in fact legit, would want this population to be as small as possible because business can be hurt by public opinion.
DonkoTheClown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 02:08 PM   #8878
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,099
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown View Post
That is true if we are just looking at very narrow range of possibility. If a site is rigged, it would not be smart for them to adjust the show down percentages too far from probability or someone with a tracking program could figure out something is wrong. It would probably need to be a rig that is opportunistic and covert so that it could be explained away by variance and also be very difficult if not impossible to prove.
You are just making this up to get spade (who has a tad more expertise in the area than you) to say for the 100th time in detail why this would not be possible to pull off aren't you?

Solid piece of trolling, tk can learn from you.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 02:34 PM   #8879
DonkoTheClown
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 741
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
You are just making this up to get spade (who has a tad more expertise in the area than you) to say for the 100th time in detail why this would not be possible to pull off aren't you?

Solid piece of trolling, tk can learn from you.
LOL!
DonkoTheClown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 02:39 PM   #8880
DonkoTheClown
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 741
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
You are just making this up to get spade (who has a tad more expertise in the area than you) to say for the 100th time in detail why this would not be possible to pull off aren't you?

Solid piece of trolling, tk can learn from you.
This is starting to get fun again!
DonkoTheClown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 02:50 PM   #8881
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
Lizard people are silly


The Lizard People are not going to like that!

So long, Monteroy and thanks for your contributions to this thread.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 02:54 PM   #8882
DonkoTheClown
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 741
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josem View Post
I'll be at/around APPT Sydney in some form (given I live in the city)

With all due respect, I simply don't believe you

I'm willing to wager you a beer that it is truly random, and that your results are in error in some way.

The RNG is just a binary stream, which is then converted into numbers. I simply don't believe that it is possible to favour any particular course of action over another: not only does the RNG have no concept of this, but further, the deck is set prior to shuffling. Given that the 'aggressor' doesn't exist until after the shuffle is finished, it isn't possible for the aggressor to affect the shuffle.

To use a metaphor, it's like saying that the wine affects the grapes. Of course, it can't - wine doesn't exist until after the grapes are destroyed. The wine is created by the grapes, and consequently, cannot affect the grapes.

The same thing applies in your survey: The aggressor can't possibly affect the shuffle, since the deck is already shuffled and set.


Obviously this only applies to PokerStars and other sites which have a set shuffle
So the only set of circumstances that could explain occurances the OP is describing is either a random patch of variance, selective memory syndrome or programming set up by someone who works for Pstars correct? We should see the larger sample size if your friend is willing to post it. That should lead to more productive discussion I hope. Although, the sample is going to have to be large enough to show that the occurances are well outside of the population mean or we are going to be back to square 0 again.
DonkoTheClown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 03:17 PM   #8883
DonkoTheClown
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 741
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post


The Lizard People are not going to like that!

So long, Monteroy and thanks for your contributions to this thread.
My cat used to drag lizards into the house and let them go. I would catch them and release them in the neighbors yard. My cat disappeared and ended up dead. Monteroy should not poke fun at the lizard people, they really do exist, my cat saw them...
DonkoTheClown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 04:47 PM   #8884
LVGambler
banned
 
LVGambler's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: EXIT42O
Posts: 4,884
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
The industry provides complete hand histories for anyone who wants. All the hands are easily stored in database programs. Even if you wildly assume there is no checking mechanisms on the software, all the proof is out there in the public hands they deal that can be studied however you like.

How can they prove that superbots do not exist or that ADD based mouse clicking to set up hands (cool new theory posted) do not exist? Or that Lizard People do not exist?

They cannot, because it is a flawed form of reasoning.

The burden of proof is on you.

If a site refused to allow hand histories to be saved and stored THAT would be a cause for concern because that would the site's responsibility to provide.

You want them to disprove Lizard People. They can't. Sorry.


/this gheyya$$ thread
LVGambler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 04:48 PM   #8885
Lucas Davenport
stranger
 
Lucas Davenport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Bigfoot's UFO
Posts: 10
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
Lizard people are silly
your fate has been sealed.
Lucas Davenport is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 07:03 PM   #8886
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

LoL, of course the same people are bashing the same posts...lol. Imagine how stupid PB poker feels for not hiring shills....
tk1133 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 07:46 PM   #8887
otatop
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: unstuckpolitics.com
Posts: 12,727
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Mush View Post
(or whatever setup would satisfy players concerned with integrity)
There's no such setup. If it's 3 random professors, the "concerned" players would simply say "Those professors weren't random, they're shills!" If Stars had a live feed of the RNG hardware, they'd say "That's just random hardware setup in a secret location 25 miles under the earth's crust! Stars's rigged computers aren't on amera!"
Quote:
But after AP, UB, Dan Nedelko, who seems to be well informed, the lawsuit against FT, Russ Hamilton and the AP-cheater still playing golf instead of being behind bars revealing the shady secrets of online poker to escape lifetime, the lies about the UB scandal made by well known poker professionals, UB still not having reimbursed all players that were cheated
Already been touched on, but none of these have to do with the RNG.
Quote:
a few sites ignoring US law and still providing service to US customers
Which law would that be? UIGEA is about bank transfers and applies to banks.
Quote:
(and on and on) it seems to be urgent for online poker to provide some hard evidence they are using a solid RNG 24/7.
So because a whole bushel of apples was spoiled, we need to check the integrity of oranges?
Quote:
So if government controlled gaming industy riggs to earn a few bucks extra despite the fatal consequences if caught, onlinepokersites without any control,
PokerStars is regulated in the UK/the Isle of Man.
Quote:
in violation of laws
Nope.
Quote:
and with the prospect of earning millions of dollars in extra revenue if winning players gets 50% taken off their winnings, are clean as new fallen snow?
If winning players lost 50% of their winnings, it would be ridiculously obvious to anyone with tracking software. You can't "skim" half of someone's winrate.
Quote:
You really think I am the one with the burden of prove?
Your mother was a prostitute and you beat your spouse, and if you want me to believe that's false I'll need notarized documents from 3 randomly chosen professors claiming otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk1133 View Post
.
LOL, tk adding more useless crap to the thread. How original.
otatop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 09:05 PM   #8888
jeanpaulvalley
grinder
 
jeanpaulvalley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: grinding
Posts: 682
Re: Am I Just Bound to Lose? Along with everyone else who does this....?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nuts busted View Post
This part
Yeah, it doesn't say anything like "a player's mouse input is used to randomize their own hole cards", the only way the scenario discussed in this thread could have any relationship to reality. Using a player's own mouse input to determine their own cards adds zero to the entropy pool, because each user knows exactly what their own mouse input is. It only makes sense if you aggregate user input, in which case a player's mouse input can have no discernable bearing on what cards that player gets, but rather an infintesimal effect on what cards everyone gets.
jeanpaulvalley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 09:28 PM   #8889
MicroBob
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
MicroBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 61,580
Re: Am I Just Bound to Lose? Along with everyone else who does this....?

This is perhaps the dumbest theory I've read on 2+2. At least the typical 'rigged' stuff deals with some motive for a conspiracy that the sites somehow would want a certain player to lose for whatever reason. This one is, "I move my mouse differently than other people therefore I lose."

Dude, you lose because you aren't playing well. Period.

Can everyone just stop making up other random excuses for why you lose? You lose if you aren't as good as the other players at the table. OR if you happen to be on one of those unlucky stretches where you catch some beats. But you don't go on unlucky stretches as much as you think you do. And just because you've beaten some donks in a live game (probably over a smallish sample of 20k hands or less) doesn't mean you are as good as you think you are.

If you aren't winning then you aren't winning and it has nothing to do with the way you move your freaking mouse for crying out loud.
MicroBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 10:22 PM   #8890
BucketFoot
grinder
 
BucketFoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 500
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Why is it that the largest stacks at a table are usually some unknown fish, who you are unlikely to ever see again.
I see less and less regs on FTP and more and more unknown luckboxes.
BucketFoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 10:56 PM   #8891
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

As customers, how is the burden of proof on us? We should trust millions of dollars in investements on faith?
tk1133 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 10:59 PM   #8892
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 otatop View Post
There's no such setup. If it's 3 random professors, the "concerned" players would simply say "Those professors weren't random, they're shills!" If Stars had a live feed of the RNG hardware, they'd say "That's just random hardware setup in a secret location 25 miles under the earth's crust! Stars's rigged computers aren't on amera!"Already been touched on, but none of these have to do with the RNG.Which law would that be? UIGEA is about bank transfers and applies to banks.So because a whole bushel of apples was spoiled, we need to check the integrity of oranges?PokerStars is regulated in the UK/the Isle of Man.Nope.If winning players lost 50% of their winnings, it would be ridiculously obvious to anyone with tracking software. You can't "skim" half of someone's winrate.Your mother was a prostitute and you beat your spouse, and if you want me to believe that's false I'll need notarized documents from 3 randomly chosen professors claiming otherwise.


LOL, tk adding more useless crap to the thread. How original.
What's wrong w/ beating your spouse? And QPW, do you beat your husband after suffering a losing session?
tk1133 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 11:10 PM   #8893
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 otatop View Post
There's no such setup. If it's 3 random professors, the "concerned" players would simply say "Those professors weren't random, they're shills!" If Stars had a live feed of the RNG hardware, they'd say "That's just random hardware setup in a secret location 25 miles under the earth's crust! Stars's rigged computers aren't on amera!"Already been touched on, but none of these have to do with the RNG.Which law would that be? UIGEA is about bank transfers and applies to banks.So because a whole bushel of apples was spoiled, we need to check the integrity of oranges?PokerStars is regulated in the UK/the Isle of Man.Nope.If winning players lost 50% of their winnings, it would be ridiculously obvious to anyone with tracking software. You can't "skim" half of someone's winrate.Your mother was a prostitute and you beat your spouse, and if you want me to believe that's false I'll need notarized documents from 3 randomly chosen professors claiming otherwise.


LOL, tk adding more useless crap to the thread. How original.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown View Post
My cat used to drag lizards into the house and let them go. I would catch them and release them in the neighbors yard. My cat disappeared and ended up dead. Monteroy should not poke fun at the lizard people, they really do exist, my cat saw them...
I'm currently in the makes of getting a hold of David Icke, to comment here so we can move on to other important issues...
tk1133 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 11:23 PM   #8894
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 DonkoTheClown View Post
My cat used to drag lizards into the house and let them go. I would catch them and release them in the neighbors yard. My cat disappeared and ended up dead. Monteroy should not poke fun at the lizard people, they really do exist, my cat saw them...
So the "reptoid"(I'll be P.C. since perhaps reptillian humonoids might troll this thread) killed your cat so the evidence of the reptoids can't be proven if your cat is no longer alive to prove it. Lizard people are telepathic so if your cat would catch lizards and let them go and not kill them I'm sure the reptoid showed mercy on your cat. Personally I think your an awful cat handler and maybe if you showed more responsibility your cat never would of been in a position to be taken by lizard people. BTW do you live in LA? Perhaps you could search the tunnels for your kitty. I hope you find it, b/c lots of us are waiting for a witness to come forward...
tk1133 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 11:24 PM   #8895
Josem
human chemical weapon
 
Josem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Getting Trolled
Posts: 17,957
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Mush View Post
I can not get access to site servers and therefore have no chance of finding any evidence of anything, which of course you very well knew when posting this immature answer.
Perhaps you could email the sites concerned and ask them?
Quote:
They could ask 3 well respected professors in a relevant field to conduct these random visits (or whatever setup would satisfy players concerned with integrity)

All sites have chosen not to.
Your claim here is false, and has already been proven false in this thread.

For example, PokerStars operates under the very strict Isle of Man leglsiation, and fortunately, the strict legislation that regulates PokerStars has thought of this eventuality. You can read it at http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/gambling/...ionact2001.pdf under Section 16, where it gives the regulator rights to enter the PokerStars premises at any time.

Quote:
But after AP, UB, Dan Nedelko, who seems to be well informed,
It seems to me that "well informed" is a synonym for "agrees with me" when used in this context. There's no indication that he is at all well informed that I can see. He may well have some sort of credibility on these issues, and he may well be an expert on this stuff, but it seems odd that if this were the case that he would announce his findings through an otherwise anonymous comment on TMZ.com.

Like, seriously. Surely there are more credible "experts" that support your views on this issue than anonymous commenters on tabloid news websites?

Quote:
Do you not agree?
Further, every issue that you raise is associated with an online poker operator that is regulated by the KGC. It sounds to me, therefore, that your problem is with the KGC, not with online poker in general.
Quote:
And also do not miss this point from the PokerEV tread:
variance is bad if you want to prove your RNG is working but variance is unavoidable. Systematic increase in difference between expected and actual performance is a clear sign of malfunctioning though.

I don't understand what you're claiming the "point" is, because as I understand it, it is fundamentally wrong. Over time, there should be an increase in difference between expected and actual performance: that's why standard deviation is proportional to the sample size.

To use a simple example, if you flip a coin once, you end up with either 0 or 1 heads. Thus, your result is only going to be .5 away from the expected result.

By contrast, if you flip a coin a hundred times, you can end up with any result from 0 to 100. Thus, your result can be up to 50 away from the expected result.
Quote:
If there is a bug in PokerEV I am sorry for questioning the integrity of the non-government controlled online poker industy situated in countries with limited law enforcement.......
There is no "limited law enforcement" in countries like Australia, England, Isle of Man, and so on.
Quote:
So if government controlled gaming industy riggs to earn a few bucks extra despite the fatal consequences if caught, onlinepokersites without any control, in violation of laws and with the prospect of earning millions of dollars in extra revenue if winning players gets 50% taken off their winnings, are clean as new fallen snow?
You base your accusation on a series of false statements: there is control at the leading and credible sites, they operate in compliance with the law, and have no prospect of earning significantly more money if they fiddle the shuffle.
Josem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 11:31 PM   #8896
cap217
veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Pushing Strings and Pulling Buttons
Posts: 3,170
Re: Am I Just Bound to Lose? Along with everyone else who does this....?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MicroBob View Post
This is perhaps the dumbest theory I've read on 2+2. At least the typical 'rigged' stuff deals with some motive for a conspiracy that the sites somehow would want a certain player to lose for whatever reason. This one is, "I move my mouse differently than other people therefore I lose."

Dude, you lose because you aren't playing well. Period.

Can everyone just stop making up other random excuses for why you lose? You lose if you aren't as good as the other players at the table. OR if you happen to be on one of those unlucky stretches where you catch some beats. But you don't go on unlucky stretches as much as you think you do. And just because you've beaten some donks in a live game (probably over a smallish sample of 20k hands or less) doesn't mean you are as good as you think you are.

If you aren't winning then you aren't winning and it has nothing to do with the way you move your freaking mouse for crying out loud.


Love this.... You guys take this too serious
cap217 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 11:32 PM   #8897
otatop
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: unstuckpolitics.com
Posts: 12,727
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by BucketFoot View Post
Why is it that the largest stacks at a table are usually some unknown fish, who you are unlikely to ever see again.
Regs don't like playing deep? If "I only see fish with big stacks" is your "proof" then live poker must be rigged off its balls too.
Quote:
I see less and less regs on FTP and more and more unknown luckboxes.
How awful to see fewer regs and more randoms online. How can the nitfest go on that way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk1133 View Post
As customers, how is the burden of proof on us? We should trust millions of dollars in investements on faith?
The sites all provide you with information about how they're run and who they're regulated by. When you basically call them dirty thieving liars, yes, the burden of proof is on you. That's kind of how it is with anything.
otatop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 11:33 PM   #8898
Josem
human chemical weapon
 
Josem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Getting Trolled
Posts: 17,957
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk1133 View Post
As customers, how is the burden of proof on us? We should trust millions of dollars in investements on faith?
FWIW, I don't think you should place blind trust in online poker operators.

I think you should contact the site you play on and question them about their procedures and seek details to satisfy you. I think you should post their responses here.
Josem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2009, 11:49 PM   #8899
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,099
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by BucketFoot View Post
Why is it that the largest stacks at a table are usually some unknown fish, who you are unlikely to ever see again.
I see less and less regs on FTP and more and more unknown luckboxes.
In huge MTTs loose play early will lead to huge stacks or often times early exits. Some good players know this and play quite loose, though well. Bad players do not know this and just play loose.

Play the $3 rebuy on Stars with 9000 entries and a few thousand will be bad to extremely bad. A ton of those will lose as they always do (with their long term deep negative ROI) playing A6o and QJ and 22 as if they are the ultimate nuts.

However, just based on math some of these bad players playing badly will get lucky and those will be the ones sitting there with the mega stacks and people wondering why on earth a player that bad has so many chips.

What they forget are the tons of other bad players who did their dead money role properly.

It's just math. Bad players get it in bad a lot, but a few of them will defy the odds and get lucky. Think of it as putting 3000 donks in a room with a 6 sided die. Only those that roll a 1 or 2 move on, all the others that roll a 3,4,5 or 6 leave the room.

5 rolls later you will still have a dozen donks with mega stacks that cannot seem to lose even though they are always dominated.




While the 9/5 players may whine, how exactly can they get a mega stack playing so tight?
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2009, 12:12 AM   #8900
5thStreetHog
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
5thStreetHog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,687
Re: Am I Just Bound to Lose? Along with everyone else who does this....?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cap217 View Post
Love this.... You guys take this too serious
I think Bob was just being honest.
5thStreetHog 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 11:48 AM.


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