Quote:
Originally Posted by NewOldGuy
I've never seen anyone post in this thread that a poker site is definitely not rigged or that there is no chance of this happening. The position of most rational posters who understand poker and math is that they have never seen any evidence of a rigged deal. And this is reinforced by the fact that in over 20 years of online poker generating billions and billions of hand histories, not one site has ever been shown to have a rigged deal. And not one ex-employee has ever come forward, even with many dozens of former sites.
well, i dont see (any) tests being made either. as a rational poster shall i take the position that tests have not been made for 10 years, because the last evidence of a test is about 10 years old? as an outsider how should i distinguish between a riggie claim and your claim? how do i know you didnt make an error while conducting your tests? what were you testing for at all? rational people dont make claims of being sure of rigging not happening for the very reason of the impossibility of generalization. that is you can only make a finite set of claims that certain kinds of rigs (that you thought of) dont exist up until certain points in time. (until sampled)
in software development it is standard procedure to maintain tests for proving the robustness of the software up to a point. yet bugs do exist and come to existence as time goes by. the same procedure could be applied to hhs, but they are not (to my knowledge), still people make overly bold claims and expecting to accept their word for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewOldGuy
The mocking tones are because every story told by a riggie in this thread never stands up to scrutiny. And after years of the same bad beat whines over and over, the regular posters are just hardened to it and dismissive of such claims without any justification. They entertain themselves poking fun at silly unjustified claims of a crooked deal just based on someone's personal bad beats.
when a riggie story doesnt stand up to scrutiny it can mean a multitude of things: maybe the idea is indeed stupid, maybe the observation is misunderstood or misrepresented, maybe the idea is not conceptualized well enough, maybe a combination of these. let me use your logic again: if it is so trivial to prove the silliness of riggie ideas, why is there no proof of them? why are there no public tests of hhs, forum topics proving the silliness of each individual ideas. monty used to have a list of riggie categories for the purpose of mocking. i guess it would be easy for actual smart guys to maintain another list where these riggie claims are actually proven wrong.
please note: i understand that it is not your (and the ones whose point of view you represent here so to speak) job to analyze/rationalize/prove/disprove someone else's lousy claims, i just want to point out that unless you do all of these voluntarily the weight of your words is no different than a riggie's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy
I appreciate you trying so hard with the riggie psycho analysis approach, but again - many, many riggies before you have tried that bit, and some of them were kind of fun with it. Your material is kind of meh, and you just seem generally frustrated, so my suggestion to you is figure out a way to be more competitive with me in the future, as that would be a lot more fun if and when a riggie that makes me stretch my skills appears. Has not happened yet, so when you come back again in a few years try to bring a better game.
its etology im suggesting to you. Common chimpanzees use strength, intelligence, and political alliances to establish and maintain alpha position. Alpha males who solely use intimidation and aggression to keep their position often provoke dissent. Coalitions will eventually form, which at some point will topple the alpha male...
please dont take it literally!
Last edited by Mike Haven; 06-25-2020 at 11:23 AM.
Reason: 2 posts merged