You cannot be serious.

I have something more serious. I was laying in bed, and it hit me. I'm also getting cussed out by my girlfriend for getting out of bed to type this.(Swear to god)

Yeah, ive heard that Ivey, Negreanu and company all get their asses handed to them at the play money table. Sites definitely cant allow them to clean up there.

You've made this same statement before, but then went missing for a few days when it was pointed out why you are wrong now you are back hoping it has been forgotten.

The problem with your theory is that in poker when someone wins another person loses. So if they were to rig it in favor of one play money player they would be rigging it against another. There is no rake in play money remember. There is no benefit to rigging it in favor of one player.


EDIT: Just re-read the post and due to the part I bolded, I'm fairly certain you are a gimmick and just leveling. No one could be that stupid...I hope.

This is BOG standard rigtard behaviour.

When one of their claims is comprehensively answered they just leave it for a few days and then come back with exactly the same nonsense.

Occasionally they will call the person who comprehensively answered their nonsense a shill for good measure.

For $290 I will drop the concept...

Until then, the idea is not that it is the exact same special hand, but one of a variety that would play in a very expected way, so instead of AK suited it could be pocket 9s and the bb could have pocket 3s with flop being Q95 rainbow type thing (obviously just making this up).

Obviously any scheme is a huge fail in the risk/reward if done on a small ball concept to avoid detection.

The one concept that in theory would work is for a rogue site to do a smash and grab type job like Potripper where they take as much as possible with little concern of being caught. Of course simply not paying out withdrawals does this in an easier way, which is what some shady sites have done in the past, so it fails the no shame crime test as well compared to much simpler plans.

Also agreed that play money conspiracy guy could very well be a level, though many in this world are in fact that stupid. If he is genuine I suggest he look at the want ads in his local newspaper to see all kinds of similar evil plots based on his interpretation of a routine job posting.

Yes, and we choose our variety of non-action hands such that all possible holdings are represented in exactly the proportion they should be if the game was random. i.e. we have a very long list of 'non-action' hands and we pick one at random to be dealt at the appropriate time. These hands would also need to have flops s.t. every statistic that could reasonably be tested matches the expected value, i.e. monotone flops, three-straight flop, pair+connector.

Thus if any individual player looks at his holecard data then nothing is changed. If he analyses the ranks/suits/whatever of cards that came on the flop then nothing is changed.

Some things are still changed. Number of turns seen, is lower, but we don't have any way of testing for that because it depends on how people play. Number of, say, flopped set against set is lower, because we can safely assume that if two players flopped sets, they would not fold on the flop.

I wonder how large a list of 'non-action' hands you would need to be able to pass all statistical tests on flop rank/texture/suits, and holecard rank/suits. It is probably a significant number but maybe we could write a computer program to generate them?

I don't think poker is rigged.

Weird, random **** happens in real life.

Weird, random **** happens online. Get the **** over it.

It's just that when it happens online people feel the need to blame the software. Same with the random-number generators. No, they are not *really* random. But they are so-fooken-close to it that for our purposes they are totally random. They use thing like "number of milliseconds since 1981" in order to create a seed for their random numbers. So if you wait 1/10th of a second longer you get a totally different number. Sure, if you could go back in time and press the "call" button (or whatever) at exactly the same hundredth of a millisecond in time then you *might* get the same result (depending on the environment of your CPU). But to say its "not really" random is just nonsense. Scientifically, no it's not. For our purposes, it's totally random. If you think it's not working properly, wait a 1/10th of a second longer and the result will be totally different.

Having said all that I just had a hand on PKR holding QQ. Villans had KK and AA. The chance of that would have to be incredibly slim. But it's exaclty the same chance of them holding 76 and J4. **** happens.

By the way guys I'm sorry I haven't been around as often lately to shill. Hopefully the site(s) I'm shilling for don't notice I haven't been doing my job in this thread over the past few weeks. I just haven't felt like being as active on 2+2 lately.

Probably the most succinct and apposite response to this thread that one could imagine.

In before the rigtards start seeing evidence of Monty's scheme on every poker site, and to a much greater extent then he proposed. (I mean look at all those tables with less than 20% seeing the flop!)

what do a supposedly rigged RNG and the absolute poker scandal have in common?

the device put in place to regulate and oversee the accountability of online poker sites was deliberately withholding information about the scandal. even when they were approached with the numbers and the graphs from this "superuser" they still denied any sort of wrong doing. it wasnt until the story was made public, via the media, that a statement was made.

so you still trust this governing body to ensure an honest game?

well said. but just as scientific theory about evolution or the cosmos or global warming is not sufficient for the religious hardliners, the same goes for online poker players. you literally need to bash them in the head with iron-clad proof before they will even begin to doubt their beliefs.

heres a classic someone just posted on my forum:

Hand Information
Game: No Limit
Room: PokerStars
Blind: $10 / $20

Table Information
Seat 2: Hero ($1490)
Seat 3: ctoka ($1350)
Seat 4: b.p.rabbit ($2450)
Seat 5: 4n0nym0us ($2270) Dealer
Seat 6: menno_c ($1440) Small Blind

Dealt to Hero: Qc Qd

Preflop (Pot:30)
FLOP ctoka
CALL b.p.rabbit $20
FLOP 4n0nym0us
CALL menno_c $10
RAISE Hero $120
CALL b.p.rabbit $100
FLOP menno_c

Flop (Pot:280): 9h Ah 3h

CHECK Hero
BET b.p.rabbit $200
CALL Hero $200

Turn (Pot:680): 9h Ah 3h Ac

CHECK Hero
BET b.p.rabbit $350
ALLIN Hero
CALL b.p.rabbit $820

River (Pot:1850): 9h Ah 3h Ac 2c

b.p.rabbit win the pot: $1850


here is the link in case you want to watch it play out:
http://www.pokerisrigged.com/showthr...2609#post32609


guy gets check raised holding 5 high on the turn with an all heart flop and still calls.

it doesnt really have the same effect until you see it - but i assure you its just another one of those totally absurd things you see online but never see live.

Which governing body are you talking about?

If you look at what happened to Enron or, years after the relevant authorities had time to learn and beef up the system, Lehman et al, I certainly would not trust any body created by the US government to ensure an honest game.

Those who are, de facto, most responsible for ensuring a fair game are the players. A proportion of whom are sufficiently interested and have sufficiently good maths and stats to spot ant malfeasance on the part of the site.

If anyone had even the slightest credible evidence that a site was on the fiddle, we would begin to go through their stats with a fine toothed comb.

It's all down to the 'E' word (), you see.

Quite. And coming up with iron-clad proof that any rigtard will believe is all but impossible.

So we just have to accept that they are incompetent arseholes who can't play poker and will not take responsibility their weaknesses.

Please link to the "iron-clad proof" that you claim to have.
Rockart,

A quick check of 'ctoka' on PokerTableRatings shows that he has never played $10/$20:

http://www.pokertableratings.com/sta...r-search/ctoka

The same thing for the other players at the table:
http://www.pokertableratings.com/sta...arch/4n0nym0us

Can you please explain why you are lying and making up false hand histories?

Why are you trying to lie to us? Why are you trying to defraud us?

I note that the 'rakeback' link on your website links through to another website that provides rakeback for a series of websites - in fact, pretty much every major online poker site except for PokerStars.... coincidentally, the target of your demonstrably false hand histories.

Why is this?

Can you please explain this?

Is it true that you're not just a lying liar that lies, but also deliberately trying to con people for financial gain?

Rockart,

I also note that the fake "hand history" that you have posted does not include rake. Is it because you forgot to consider it in your attempt to defraud us?

Why are you trying to con us?

It's pretty ironic that you complain about the integrity of others, yet you're the one who is posting false evidence and telling lies like a lying liar.

Modern RNGs are truly random, they don't use a seed as you are describing it, they are using for example input from a thermal noise source which is truly random.

ROFLMAO.

Rockart you are so pwned!

Did you check to ensure it wasn't a tournament?
That would explain why there was no rake as well

Yes, the marked mendaciousness of the malign misleader makes malicious mendacity morally moribund.

It looks like it's really tourney $, not a cash game, and those players do have PS tourney history. It's probably a $2 tourney, which explains the behavior. Or play money.

It might well be a tournament - that's entirely possible (even likely?) - but the hand history that Rockart posted included the dollar signs.

PS tournament hand histories don't include dollars in the hand histories to avoid this very confusion.

Whether it is a hand that is entirely manufactured (to be fair, this is unlikely) or just one that is fundamentally altered, it doesn't really matter - it shows the adjustment of hand histories to prove his point.

If you post a hand history claiming to be "$10/$20" then the reasonable assumption is that it is a poker hand with blinds of $10 and $20.

I agree. What was claimed to be some sort of evil plot involving thousands of dollars, is now a micro stakes bad beat.

Well, if its play money, that explains why its so rigged!