Obviously sir, you don't understand neither. You see that bad beat JP that everyone is playing for? That's just a percentage of how much money a site/app made.. You'll notice the same concept also used on progressive slots. Online poker uses an RNG just as well as a slot machine uses one.. Does a casino know everyone who wins money out of their slot? No, and they don't care cause they've already have the machine programmed to make their money, they just need players, just like this app does. Programmed to get the money in and have you reload. I went back and looked at a post here with the picture of the guy ANON4567 losing the hand with his set of 7's. Look how the flop came ( 734 ) a straight right there. This happens all the time on poker bros more than the other sites I've seen. I talked about this in my last post and I believe in one earlier as well. All action buddy. I bet if these apps paid a jp for fullhouse vs fullhouse, I bet you'll see a difference in the software. Btw. In all the feedback im getting, I've yet to hear anyone explain the video I posted of ALLINMAN. Oh, and just in case you missed it. https://youtu.be/13ntcXSYuv0 ... Again, I'll wait

I have no idea what you think that You Tube video of a freeroll tourney shows. There have been several internet videos over the years in which someone goes all-in every hand and wins a tournament. IIRC Gus Hansen won a TV live one-table "tournament" doing the exact same thing (this one was under special circumstances). I guess you are greatly impressed by such videos.

Anyway, it seems you believe the deals on a particular online poker site/app are not random. That's fine and dandy. You are free to believe anything you want. If you want to persuade other people to share your belief, I recommend providing some amount of credible evidence. Maybe a specific way in which the deals are non-random. And maybe more than a small number of strange hands.

People in this thread are open to helping identify poker sites/apps whose deals are non-random. And as one poster stated recently, many people in this thread would be very enthusiastic in doing so as it would be quite a noteworthy accomplishment.

I look forward to any more evidence you can provide so people can join in the investigative hunt to expose those crooked deals.

I think you may have posted the wrong link. I already responded and spoke about how absolutely unremarkable it is win 5 out of 6 all ins in a row in a freeroll. Was there a different video with something of interest that you intended to link to instead?

That does sound very similar, but I can think of one key difference. There is no reason to expect any empirical evidence of god's existence. As an atheist myself, I'm certainly no expert, but I've always understood that there's a whole lot of taking things on faith involved. Rigging, on the other hand, is for the most part very provable.

Feel free to explain how "action hands" are going to make the site more money in cash games, or for tournaments, how they'd be a better solution than simply tweaking the format so they end quicker if that's their goal.

If action hands existed and they were geared towards keeping losing players in the game longer, wouldn't that make the site more money in the long run?

Why do you need action hands to do that? Seems rather foolish to use hands that are most noticed by everyone, easy to find evidence of, and are less efficient at generating rake due to caps.

Why not just have money swapped back and forth in smaller pots? It would mean the rec players get more bang for their buck, and the poker site generates a higher amount of rake/dollar turned over.

You're asking different questions now. Initially you wanted an example of how action hands could make the site more rake. I gave you one.

Action hands would be more efficient than losing players simply going broke. They could be a method of transferring a buy in from Reg X to Rec Y. I fail to see how that doesn't help the site.

How do you guarantee smaller pots? Good players like to build bigger pots against weaker players in the right situations. The site can't stop poor players from getting involved in those hands. So the weak players are 100% going to go broke at some point. Either quickly or slowly. It's much better for the site if they hang around a bit.

If I was putting forward a theory for action hands, that would be it. But I'm not. I simply think the idea that action hands wouldn't benefit the sites is based on a false premise.

Wait, what?

In case I have not mentioned it recently: Online poker is rigged as hell! This is just an expression, of course. Hell does not exist, and if it does, then it cannot be rigged (I guess a rigged hell would be a paradise...)

On request for comments about the out-of-this-world success rate of certain accounts against me (~90%) over fairly large samples, here are the responses from two sites.

Site 1: While we do not share results of our investigations in relation to specific accounts publicly, we can assure you that upon findings, appropriate action will be taken.

Site 2: I would like to let you know that we are not meant to provide you with any specific investigation results, analysis or anything like that. Of course, if any report turns out to be valid even in the slightest, we do take all necessary measures be it towards a customer or a technical issue, for example. Having that in mind, you should not expect any such details to be shared with you as this is confidential information and only a specific security department within the company is entitled to having access to it.

I had similar reposes from two other major sites.

So I must trust them, right? Apparently I did not trust them enough on a first place, if I had concerns about certain accounts...

I do not know, I might be paranoid (the thought police, aka shills brigade here will certainly say so), but to me these responses sound like: Yes we do have out-of this-world accounts that collect your money, and we like it that way; now scram. I, the mere mortal, who left tons of money at their sites; I am not supposed to know anything. Nice! Someone definitely deserves more protection than I do. See, I would not have any problems if another player find my playing strange and inquires or expresses concerns about it; I do not mind if the site shares a "report" on it with that player. But then, I am just a depositor, not a site account... They expect me to trust them, well, tough luck. The only ones who trust them are those who get the regular paycheck. The situation reminds me about the idea of equality within certain societies, where the understanding is that "all are equal, but some are more equal than others".

Right. You gave an example, and I had a follow-up question.

As would non-action hands.

The same way you guarantee bigger pots - rigging the deal.

Actually, there's no way to guarantee either. But I expect there would be ways to nudge things the way you want them.

They could be made to benefit the sites, but it wouldn't be the best method.

No, of course not! Why are you even communicating with them? You're convinced that every online poker site is rigged; you should have quit playing years ago. Seriously, what the **** is wrong with you?

Won't bother to discuss the silliness of your belief that sites should tell you all the details of other players, but I will offer a couple suggestions to this latest claim of yours.

1) Post your data. You have a "large sample" so it must be stored somewhere. Filter your database to show the relevant stats of your opponent and post them here. Should be easy to do, and since you are all about the sites sharing info like this, why don't you do what you can in that regard and share your info with us in a proper format. How large is this sample? What software did you use to accumulate this sample? What specific stat is off when you play against these players? These should be easy questions to answer, so go for it.

2)
This riggie suggests the site create action hands to help losing players such as yourself. Do you agree with his assessment? If not, then how are his riggie beliefs wrong? Perhaps the two of you should work together to unify your beliefs.

All the best.

How can I help you Mike? What bit are you struggling with?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I wasn't giving my beliefs, I answered a hypothetical that Bobo asked. Clearly not a debate you're capable of having.

We agree on the first bit. It could benefit the sites, which was my point. I've seen a number of people recently posting the opposite, as if it's some sort of truth which can't be debated. Glad we cleared that up.

If a better method exists, then you'd need to explain it. For example, changing tournament structure doesn't have the same benefit because it doesn't guarantee transferring money from stronger players to weaker players.

Do you believe your hypothetical situation actually exists? If you do then you clearly have an opposing riggie belief to dacy. If you do not believe your hypothetical actually exists, then why not toss out more fun ones like Lizard People randomly get players to do bad plays to lose money via mind control. I mean - it is just a hypothetical...

What are your beliefs about the rig? Do you agree with dacy , a long time losing player, that rooms intentionally target long time losing players to lose more to then get them to deposit more often? His belief is not hypothetical - he believes in it. What do you think of it? Don't worry - noone expects you to answer, because you literally never answer specific questions .

I assume you will just your schtick of continuing to play the devils advocate, and will have no idea why changing tournament structure matters - you will probably just say it does not, because newbies gonna newbie . That is the way you have a "debate" while telling others they are incapable of having a debate. Still, mildly amusing to expose you for what you are, so let's chat about tournament structures!

What does changing tournament structures (with the intent of reducing the skill edge between players) do then? Go ahead and break it down for us, that could be amusing to see, though you will never do that since you do not ever back your ideas or "hypotheticals" with actual reasoning, and along with answering specific questions - those aint things you ever do . Kind of why you are inferior.

All the best.

I'm countering the notion that action hands are of no benefit to the sites. Therefore, I have to play devils advocate to a certain degree. I think most sane people could agree that keeping losing players in the game longer generates more rake. As for whether it's actually happening or not, I have no idea!

Changing tournament structure does reduce the skill gap. That doesn't counter my point. It provides no guarantees on the transfer of money from the strong to the weak, so it's not better than action hands for that scenario. As I said previously, you're not capable of having this debate. You should take slowtroll's advice and do some studying.

Well, now we know your thoughts on the Lizard People mind control rig. Hypotheticals and all...

Guess dacy will have to wait for another day for you to fully commit one way or another on his specific rig. You can have a race with him - which happens first - he posts specific data or you answer a specific question. The two of you can perhaps bond over that competition (which will have no winner) and then you may finally have that riggie buddy you crave. I mean you did say this

which seems to imply that dacy is not sane, but perhaps that is how you try to make friends.


All the best.

It's really not about who I agree with and who I don't. I'm simply prepared to accept that multiple things can be true at the same time:

- There are bad poker players out there who don't understand math and variance
- Many players don't actually understand how bad they really are and want to blame losing on other things.
- The sites could be juicing the action up a little to generate more rake.
- House bots could win a larger than expected number of big pots

None of those things are mutually exclusive. The debate is about how likely some of the unknowns are. Your mind is just too closed to have a reasonable discussion.

You may as well toss in Lizard People to your can't really prove / multiple things can be true list and a whole lot of other fun beliefs. That is the innate flaw of your approach. It literally means nothing, since it can include everything. May as well add every riggie belief found on the riggie list!

Anyways, while I am generally great at predicting the style of simplistic riggies like you, once in a while I will be surprised a bit, and you did it with this statement about tournament structures.

I assumed you would not understand that changing tournament structures is significant (most riggies do not think it matters), and a tool most of the sites have been using to try to level the field. You managed to take a variant position that somehow managed to be dumber.

Money eventually moves from the weak to the strong, and changing the tournament structures to reduce edge will in a macro sense slow down that process, often quite a bit. Go to the extreme - the all-in shootouts, where every player is all-in every hand. In that format there is no long term flow of money form any type of player to another based on their skill.

A change in structures has a dramatic change in the rate in which money moves from the weak to the strong, and the sites get a lot more rake in the process as the money churns more frequently from the now slightly more competitive players (degen donks like dacy are too far to the extreme to be helped much).

The other thing about changes like this - they are not a rig, so no need for hundreds of programmers for all the live and dead sites to keep it a secret. They are done openly, and many times they create formats that players (especially the casuals) like more. 9 man slow speed SnGs (huge edge to skilled players) are long dead. Faster formats like spins and hypers (where there is still edge, but not as extreme) are popular among the casuals. Perfect for the sites - they have a format which churns them more rake that is popular.

If your only counter argument is that money moves still, but the rate in which it moves from weak to strong does not matter - not sure what to say about that, other than you will not have much success in this industry if that is how you think things work . Inferiors gonna inferior in the end.

All the best.

"Action Hands" theories are usually aimed at cash games, with riggies mistakenly thinking that bigger pots means more rake, so the site would want that. Anyone who applies it to tournies is typically suggesting that they would do it to end tournaments more quickly, and thus make more money - something that could also be done (and is done) with different tournament structures. When you talk about "transferring money from stronger players to weaker players" in tournies, that would just be about making weaker players win more often. The size of individual pots is irrelevant.

Yes, the idea of transferring money from stronger to weaker mostly applies to cash games. Changing tournament structure was something you mentioned and I was responding to but your take on tournies above makes sense.

How many pros are playing all-in shootouts?

As I said above it makes more sense in cash games.

And sites are trying new formats of cash games as well. Check out Tempest on Stars for instance. While it will not ever be as big as Zoom, it is a format where skill edge is definitely different than standard cash games. Sites also created tables to prevent those that would do non exploitable short stack play. Similarly, they made changes to prevent people from leaving a table and re-joining with a min buy in. Antes have been added to the lower level Zoom games on Stars, with them likely being in all games eventually.

Sites are constantly changing formats all the time, and often it is to reduce the skill gap while still presenting a game of skill (all-in shootouts would have minimal appeal as even donks like to try to play with skill). These changes are often a combination of new player demands (quicker formats, tablet/phone friendly formats) and those that will allow the sites to churn more rake, and the latter is often when changes slow down the flow of money from the weak to the strong.

Nonsense like action hands and too many quads and whatever are silly. They are claimed to be seen by riggies with their own eyes, yet somehow can never be proven, and most of the time these would make no money and would have a huge risk of being caught. If you want to declare all of this stuff as "who knows - anything is possible" then whatever - toss in Lizard People. The reality is the sites do a lot of dramatic changes to the games that riggies completely ignore, because riggies have never been good at understanding how this industry works, yourself included.

All the best.

Yes, I agree with all of the above. It's entirely possible to generate more rake fairly. However, as you acknowledge many players will simply not play those games due to the skill edge being reduced.

This is where you let yourself down. You're not prepared to accept any other point of view. Action hands are possible. In fact, they exist naturally in the game itself. There is no need to dream them up. If a site really wanted to do so, they could fire in a few more here and there to transfer money and generate more rake. There's really no point debating that any more, it's pretty obvious. The only question left is the likelihood of it happening.

That is an incorrect assessment. There are huge Spin stables. Large Zoom stables. How they do the deals are quite a bit different than a standard backing deal to account for the format differences, and the need for volume (to overpower the lower edge) is part of that structure as well. The strong generally adapt, which is why the sites constantly try to change things up.

It all comes down to what the eventual edge can be in a format, and often with a new format the edge will be bigger at the start (when few know how to play properly) and then flatten out as the regs learn the best approaches and the reg/donk ratio reaches a point where people can extract enough money.

Some formats, like all-ins (which some sites tried) are obviously by definition unbeatable, but they tend to not last, because while donks are needed as food, the games also need some regs to keep the games going, so sites need to have some skill elements in the mix, though often the new formats require more work from the regs to succeed, which has been a constant trend in this industry for many years.



If they existed in a mathematically significantly amount that is different from expectation then they would be discovered very easily. I have posted several links which show the insane detail work people put into studying hand databases, and riggies still think things like too many quads, or too many monotone flops, or pre-flop is normal / flops are rigged would somehow not be noticed by the same statistical studies.

Seriously, the amount of data that is known by experts is scary, and that is something riggies should be genuinely afraid of, because that data provides those that know how to use it with a huge advantage. Instead riggies worry about silly stuff that would be detected (if it existed) and they ignore the key things in this industry that are actually working against them.

You try to dismiss this with a "action hands and other stuff may happen - who knows." I would counter with the fact that if it existed then the people who obsessively study HHs would know it. They have breakdowns of the games based on pot sizes, and yet somehow these action hands which bloat a ton of pots has yet to be noticed, and the programmers behind them have yet to talk on every site. Heh, sure whatever.




You may as well toss in Lizard People mind control then if you refuse to believe the actual tools and data that the best players have access to and use in their research, and trust me - they are thrilled that most players like you have no clue just how much of an edge they have with the data they use at the tables as you worry about ghosts that do not exist. Means that you will never realize, nor appreciate the power of what does exist.

All the best.

I'm open to the idea that there is statistical proof to show that action hands are not being dealt deliberately by the sites. If you have a specific link, or paper which contains proof of that, then by all means post it. Please don't waste everyone's time with random links which prove nothing.