Please post a link to anywhere where any of the regulars has made a statement that poker sites are definitely not rigged.

And the definition of a rigtard is someone who is sure that sites are rigged despite having no evidence. Simply wondering if they are does not qualify you for the epithet.

So the only generalisations made were quite valid.

I called both sides moronic, and let me be clear, I'm talking about the extremists on both sides.

As far as I'm aware there are no extremists on the rigtard debunkers side.

The whole point to disagreeing with them is that there is no credible evidence that the sites are rigged and that means that you can't say anything definite one way or another.

Where is the extremism in that?

Is that your take on Russell's Teapot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot as well? The believers and disbelievers in the teapot are equally fanatical, you give the disbelief the benefit of the doubt, but who really knows?

These two newish posters,goomba and smithcommajohn, are trying to create a classic 'argumentum ad temperantiam'.

If you can make out that those who are debunking the rigtards are equally far from a logical argument then you can appeal to the middle ground which you can try and misrepresent as there being equal probabilities that on line poker is rigged or not.

This is, of course, not true since there are many, many, people monitoring the sites and no evidence has been found.

I'm not claiming anyhting. I belive most people lose because they are not as good as they believe, and online you get to see that very quicky due to the sheer volume of hands. Some people deny their own faults and say rigged.

However, I won't defend the other side as it is very possible that a site could rig a game, or put it's own players in, or do some of the other things that they are accused of, out of greed. To deny that this is very possible, is simply hiding your head in the sand.

Another point I'd like to make, is that it isn't up to me or anyone else to prove foul play. I'm the customer. I just need to decide whether or not I want to give my business to someone. I will leave it to the poker rooms to decide how to gain my confidence.

Many of the posts here seem to fit these two molds:

1) These sites are so rigged! I lost a lot of money!

2) You're an idiot! Learn to play poker and you wouldn't lose your money!

The first one clearly states that they think the sites are rigged. The second one only implies that they are not, but it is still supporting the idea of sites NOT being rigged. It doesn't imply they are PROBABLY not. It implies they are DEFINITELY not.

How are these not two sides of the same coin?

Yes, but you see, with all the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people playing on line poker and thus being exposed to the behaviour of the sites, only in the particular case of AP/UB has any credible evidence been presented for misbehaviour by said sites.

And when that happened the community here was down on the miscreants like a ton of bricks.

The fact that someone could be doing something is utterly meaningless without evidence that they are.

You could, for personal gain, be grooming all the under eights in your area for sex and then running parties at which they are abused.

However, without any evidence I think most people would say that you probably are not.

I don't think anyone in this thread would disagree with this statement and I wonder why you think they would.

Which part of:

Rigtards say that poker sites are definitely rigged despite there being not one shred of evidence for this position.

Rigtard debunkers say that sites are probably not rigged because there is not one shred of evidence that they are.

are you having difficulty understanding?


If you can equate someone saying they definitely believe something despite the fact that thousands of people are watching and have not found evidence with someone saying something is probably not happening because thousands of people of people are watching and have found no evidence, then you truly are a fool.

It's called a 'straw man argument'.

Not being able to say one way or the other isn't good enough for me to take a side. The name rigtard in itself implies that anyone who believes the possibility or poses the question of an unfair game, should be scoffed at as losers with no proof.

My own feeling is that a disinterested third party would have to do a full audit on the sites in order to have anything credible enough to say for sure.

I specifically stated a few posts back that believing in the possibility of rigging does not qualify you as a rigtard.

You see, you are promoting a straw man argument here.

Quite.

That is the position of the rigtard debunkers. You would need to do what you suggest to have EVIDENCE to say for certain.

Just as we would have to get you investigated to be certain that you are not grooming under eights for sex with adults.

In the interim, however, we can say (in both cases) that as there is a lack of credible evidence, the malfeasance is probably not taking place.

Again, I think you're overgeneralizing. There are definitely people on both sides that take more/less extreme views.

You and I are not as far away from our view as you may think. I will state again, I give the poker sites the benefit of the doubt. This is just another way of saying "online poker is PROBABLY not rigged". However, I would never called myself a "rigtard-debunker".



Control the language and you control the argument.

I agree.

qpw,

qpw,

Do you believe there is a reasonable chance that the sites cheat their players?

So do I

Don't confuse the humour people use (in good taste or bad) that some of the debunkers use against the rigtards as extremism on that side. While I stand to be corrected, having read the entire thread, I cannot think of a single post where a debunker said that they believe that there is absolutely no chance of rigging going on and the sites are honest. Certainly not among the regular posters.

When they say that the sites wouldn't do that they are not saying that because they think the sites are honest, but that most of the sites would correctly feel that they shouldn't rig because the chance of getting caught is so high. But even then, it's possible some idiot owner would do it with a profitable site, more likely it would be done as a hit and run by a non-profitable site just before going out of business.

Can't say the same for the rigtard side. Some would literally bet their life on FTP/Pokerstars being rigged.

qpw,

The fact that you would insult me as part of your argument, just killed your credability with me.

What, all of them?

All I can say is there is a finite chance - what each person considers 'reasonable' is another matter.

I do also think that at some time in the future there is a finite chance that evidence will come to light that a site has been cheating its users.

This I agree with.

Sorry, could you just highlight the part in the piece you quoted where I insulted you?

Not, I have to say, that having credibility with you is at the top of my list of important achievements.

the fact that you perceived an insult in his post, along with your misspelling of the word "credibility" sealed your reputation as a fool with me.

I think you may have misread his post. I don't see an insult there.