I can answer that for you. There is none. Nada. Nil. Zero. Zip.

It's funny., the sites themselves don't even claim to be offering a fair game but the shillies will shout from the rooftops that it couldn't possibly be rigged.

Shillies are to be laughed at and sometimes pitied.

And below is the shillie way of thinking.

Have a nice day shilling.

not exactly. i say you should spend some (not a lot of!) effort on obtaining actual knowledge, and not for the benefit of the riggies or anyone else, but for the benefit of yourself to become actually distinguishable from them.
of course this is just my opinion, but you give me the impression that you are actually interested in the topic (aside from the entertainment value that you always refer to), but find yourself incapable of effectively contributing to the field. i just want to encourage you to learn basic maths, stats, programming. they are not magic, and are accessible to anyone.

you ask why i dont engage in certain conversations? the answer is simple: i dont get paid for it, therefore i am free to only reply when i am intersted.

This is because....you am dum.

Like everything else, you cannot comprehend anything. The IS mathematical evidence. Your tiny hamster cannot run fast enough to energize your brain cell.

The concern is when presented to a jury of his peers, people like you cannot understand it and may say not guilty. That is because you cannot even recognize it, let alone understand it.

Much like when I will not spell things out for you, you are rendered lost when the math was not spelled out to you in the Postle thread.

It is amazing how little you can grasp that is not directly pointed out to you. Yet, you maintain such an arrogant position about yourself. That is the joy you bring to the thread. Hubris riggie.....

Crush is many steps up the ladder from you. He was fairly confident in several matters due to ignorance of them. When told of different waa to understand/resolved them, he offered the perspective of looking into them. Where his credibility dropped off quick was his adherence to a naive understanding of NDAs. It is surprising to read anyone can believe they cover wrongdoings, yet here we are.

You should stand up now and then amd allow proper circulation to your brain. This may prevent you from making daily posts declaring your lack of thinking ability.

No evidence/math in the Postle case....lulz. Thanks for the morning chuckle.

The main issue with his mundane riggie logic that he is so proud of (and has been presented over and over in this thread) is that following it through it creates the following type situation.

A random riggie says that he is cheated in a random game by a random player. A total of 3 hands were played at the same time by both players and he lost all 3, and he knows he was cheated.

Since there is likely no way to prove that person was cheated in those 3 hands, a riggie will then say - see, that means there can exist situations where a person may be cheated, and it is not proven. See! I told yaz!

The problem with that approach is of course that means that literally every claim, even weird ones from randos, needs to be taken equally seriously because situations may exist where every form of cheating cannot be 100% proven. A standard riggie variant of the disprove a negative approach (a riggie commandment). That is the very nature of the riggieverse, which is why I enjoy trying to get riggies to work with each other on their theories and why in general riggies avoid each other as much as possible in that regard.




No need to worry about me. I have some fairly well developed skills at identifying opportunities and flaws within systems, and I use a very math based approach to many of these situations. Part of why I find a lot of riggie stuff so amusing is just the simplistic level of how they look at things, when if what they believe was true there would be people much, MUCH better at them exploiting these rigs.


That is because I am good at playing the character I portray in this, and people like you buy into it. I do not care at all about any specific riggie's individual belief (unless one somehow provided actual proof - which will never happen). Some riggies are more fun than others, and I have fun at their expense, as I am doing with you, and I like the fact that nearly all of you do not get that, even when I make it clear.


And yet you do engage. You just avoid talking about other riggies specific beliefs, because obviously you know those beliefs are silly. Riggies protect each other in that way, even when they have opposite beliefs, it is literally one of the riggie commandments. I find it fun trying to force you riggies to work together, but I know you will all resist that for the above reason - you all think only your riggie beliefs are valid, and other riggies (while you will be happy they think its rigged and they hate shills) actual rig beliefs are not something you believe in. If you did, you would talk about it. Basic human behavior.

All the best.

Actually, the house has the edge on these apps once you load your money. They know they'll make money off of you guaranteed. Just like in casinos, where they give the big spenders ( Whales ), these apps seem to do the same, and what I mean by that is the big stack. How many times have you been ahead of the big stack that raised pre, only to get killed on the river or get hit with a setup turn card and then killed on the river. Poker bros and pppoker plo, you'll experience this over and over. Why is that.? Poker Bros sucks to me, it's like the person who raised first pre gets rewarded and will win the hand no matter what. It's like people raise to get the RNG in their favor. Im not just talking, cause if you play Bros, I'm sure you have experienced this. That app and Pppoker is just not right. You'll never see so many flops with paired boards in your life like you will on these.

If only there was a way to exploit this type of rig...


See, as I mentioned to the other riggie - if there is a flaw in the system then others will identify it and hammer it in a much better way than riggies here (who never seem to be able to monetize their riggie gifted insights).

Of course you are not just talking. This is important stuff, and as you see with the riggie disprove cheating does not happen approach - this claim of yours should be taken as seriously as literally any other claim.

Unfortunately, you will not find another riggie who will likely talk to you about your concerns specifically, even if I encourage that. They will be happy you know it is rigged, but they will ignore your "he who raises first wins" concept specifically.

On that, my suggestion to you is quietly exploit the rig, and this is how to do it. Ready?

Always be the guy who raises first!

Clearly some hands that will not be possible, as others will raise before you, but you should be able to do this in 25%+ of your hands played and just in those hands alone you can greatly offset the pre-flop fold losses (binds and antes) to make a good amount of money.

Use this approach for a few weeks and then report back on all the money you made, or better yet - keep doing it while not bragging about your new riches.

There you go - genuine advice on how you can make money from your rig, and I offered it by discussing your specific rig concept that is important to you. Good luck getting another riggie to do that, and be sure to spend your new riches wisely.

All the best.

Not really. You're just a silly little shillie who has wasted his life away on an internet forum. We enjoy having a laugh at you.

It's usually about this point that I'd ask someone to show the evidence. But we've been down this road before with you, several times. Each time, we've gotten nowhere. In other words, you're full of ****.

Have a nice day shilling.

did you arrive at the solution of this very math based approach by yourself, or you asked a maths guy/stats guy for help?

i understand that you try trolling people (including me), but thats not what i was referring to. along with your 15 year of sample i see the unjustifiably excessive humility and over self-explanation where it is undue when you try to talk to people you respect, which makes it obvious that you are scared to be percieved as stupid. i believe that is also why you enjoy playing the character you have here. and this is exactly my point: you could actually be the person who is only a facade now that you enjoy, your words could actually matter. but you must spend time on obtaining a base of knowledge!

the idea that i am somehow obliged to talk about something i dont feel like just because you decided so is hilarious. thank you.

i really didnt care about you calling me a riggie because i never thought it had such implications. a warning about this would have made me want to be much more defensive! now i dont want to be a riggie! should i ask the maths guys in the probability forum about my concerns?

I suspect that you don't know my posting history in this thread. I have said many times that I am open to the possibility that there are rigged poker sites.

In theory, every poker site has the means, motive and opportunity to rig their games.

Having said that, the reason for lack of substantive debate in this thread is that there has yet to be presented compelling evidence of ANY specific rig.

In summary, just saying that "rigging is possible" (which I believe to be true) doesn't , in and of itself, help us discover if there is any ACTUAL rig.

Addendum:. I got paid $25.25 to make this post....Off to Sizzler for lunch!

I should add that "Poker sites also have the means, motive and opportunity to provide a fair game for their customers."

Oh, you would get zero direct links from me until you show anything you claim. You entered the thread making stupid claims and have shown nothing.

Like all the other examples, I'll direct you to them and see if you can figure it out on your own.

The Mike Postle thread discusses probabilities of all his hero calls/folds/bluffs at being 100%. Polk and Ingram have videos with discussions of it too. The issue for someone like you is, you have to have an elementary level ability of comprehension. Even the legal people that responded have discussed the math evidence and most have said it would. E tough to explain to a jury of Postle's peer, ( naive people such as yourself) and attain a guilty verdict.

At least one would claim it doesn't matter because they do not grasp math. It takes a fairly simple understanding of odds and probabilities to realize what he did could not be accomplished on his own. Someone will dismiss the math due to not understanding it and insert feelz like....maybe he just got lucky. Math is scary for some people.

Most sites do and instead of taking their word for it, we can prove it from massive amounts of hand analyzed for statistical anomalies.

Guess what is found when massive amounts of hands are analyzed? Bots, collusion, players cheating. The real issues and threats to players. Sites that play games are quickly caught.

Of course, there are some individuals, cough ConspiracyTheoryJuice cough, that believe there is some nefarious doings by network mgmt and would deem those same networks safe if the suspected nefarious agents made X available for his mighty inspection.

Thinking a site is shady and relying on the shady people to provide you with the proof they are shady is lol stupid.

Yeah, I gave up on about the 5th attempt of trying to explain this concept to juicebag. He's definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed. A tool, though, that is for sure.

I use the skills I have and work well with others and use the skills they have, and they use the skills I have. Standard way professionals operate, and I totally get that it is not something you understand, respect or would ever think about doing for yourself.



Riggies call me stupid all the time. I have no problem with that because I look at the source. You are trying right now, and again - no problem with that, it is slightly more amusing than any interaction with the Boredom riggie, but in the end you are a standard rando riggie - so you know, who cares what you think .

You can believe whatever it is you like. Riggies have created all sorts of fantasies about me in this thread. I always ask them to give me a nice title like Supreme Rig Overlord or something. I assume you will become a semi stalky riggie like others before you, as you are posting like the past ones. No problem there, most of them have vanished for good at this point, so a good time for some replacements to be found.



You can talk about whatever you like. I simply point out that riggies very rarely discuss the details of other riggie beliefs, and I find that amusing and I try to get riggies to work together for that reason, but usually riggies resist.

Sure, I always encourage riggies to post their concerns in the correct forums. Most never do. You never will. That is the way of riggies, and why I have fun with them at times. Glad you understand your role.

All the best.

Nice slight of hand but we know your silly little shillie tricks by now. I’ve read the Postle thread, the is no mathematical proof in it. Likewise, Polk and Ingram making videos is not mathematical proof. Therefore, Postle could not have been cheating according to your shillie logic.

Actually, that is pure riggie logic applying riggie standards to a position. Just a variant of disprove a negative. A boring variant at that.

How about you specify your position on a situation I supplied.

Random riggie says he suspects cheating. Let's assume it is on a room with no downloadable HHs, and his total example is from one session of about 20 minutes where he know he saw something wrong. Pretty common riggie type of complaint. A recent riggie posted 1 cherry picked hand from such an experience.

How will you approach this type of position? After all, there will not be sufficient evidence to prove anything, so given the source of information - is your inclination to assume that indeed cheating is happening, because one cannot prove it is not in that specific situation?

Evidence matters and it can come in a variety of ways. Obviously hand histories are great at proving all sorts of things (even as riggies such as you dismiss them as a tool completely), but also the source of the information matters as well. A rando will not be believed as much as someone with an established reputation or with established expertise in the area. So, you tell me. Why should a rando disposable riggie like you who has vague concerns without any data, that refuses to talk to actual experts in your areas of concern merit any real consideration. Give a reason why, and then the next step would be that every rando riggie with a whine has to be taken seriously, including AQ<A5 guy, pocket pair guy, whoever raises first wins guy, profiling guy etc.

Are you going to take the 6 post guy who says the person who raises first always win seriously? If not, why not? If you will not take him seriously, then why should you be taken seriously with your claims or with your beliefs with how things should work. You both have a similar reputation and amount of actual evidence.

You can try to manufacture credibility all you like, but you are still a rando complaining in only a riggie thread. There is a hard cap on where that can go (pretty low one) and you are clearly frustrated by that (easy to see the tone difference in your posts now from when you first posted your whines with some genuine feelings), but there really is no other way that should work. Other than being a source of amusement for others, you really don't have anywhere to go with how you present your concerns and who you are, and that combination is the downfall of all riggies. You just manage to be boring while doing it. Note, this post was too long for you to read.

All the best.

Sleight.

Correct. Do you think Postle cheated?

Dude, there is plenty of statistical analysis in that thread to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. I've read that thread. You saying that there is no math in that thread is just lol.

Please don't slight (!) River Flush guy and Monotone Flop guy in the list of recent concerns that went nowhere.

eta: I and 99% of all other posters in this thread are open to the possibility that online poker sites are rigged (RNG purposely skewed in some way). Some of us have personally analyzed databases of millions of hand histories and have not found any systematic deviations from random card distribution and are therefore skeptical of such claims. But new sites pop up all the time and anything is possible.

eta2: All that is required is a modicum of credible evidence of a rigged RNG and people will help with the analysis, help publicize the results, etc.

I didn’t say there was no math. I said there was no proof. Big difference.

We’ll see if there’s enough evidence to prove cheating beyond reasonable doubt. There’s only a civil case at the minute so we may never find out.

You're wrong. The math is the proof.

The civil case was dismissed before it reached the merits, on the basis that gambling disputes are not resolvable in court in California.

Lol. You're such a simpleton.

List of probabilities, 100% rate of success on dozen or more long shots.....

Correct, no proof, no nuttin....

must be blind as well as bald dumb and ugly then. I see tons of proof of a rig in this thread.

you mental defects know that that's what a rig is.

something that happens to someone that doesn't happen to someone else.

or else it wouldn't be a rig.

you should check my history. Because im not shutting up or going away ever. Regardless.

I admit that I did not check through the history of your other 3 posts, but I am sure they are robust and present a new and innovative approach to discovering, proving and exploiting rigs based on what you wrote in this post.

You also seem to be someone who has an inherent interest to learn more, so exposure to your culture will only help in that regard. Here is a link to the list from earlier this year, and you should go through it and find a whole variety of theories and quotes that will help you along your epiphany that ideally you will continue to share here in an entertaining manner.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...ostcount=84034

Feel free to give some feedback on that resource, and also please share the details of your belief structure and encourage some of the other current riggies to comment and help build it. They tend to be a bit shy to support different riggie theories, so stay on them for that.

All the best.