it's a tourney. add up the stacks and it makes for 9k chips (1500 starting stacks with 1 player busted from the 6 seat table).

Live doesn't offer $2 tournaments in which players will chase a gutshot for all their chips. Also your implication is that b.p.rabbit is a superuser who knew the deuce would come on the river, not that the site rigged the deal. The latter makes no sense here. So yeah, superusers play $2 tournaments. Bottom line, this hand is not an example of anything but stupidity, both by the player and the person who published it thinking it meant something.

I should also point out that the caller b.p.rabbit had the all-in covered by ~2x, and he still had nearly a par stack even if he lost. So he probably believed the move wasn't totally stupid.

no. can't you see it's iron-clad proof?

If it's a $2 tournament, then it is totally explainable: calling those sorts of bets with gutshot draws explains why the player is playing at those stakes.

Bed time for me now.

(from http://xkcd.com/258/)

Which also explains why there's no BB.

But still, two ******s clashing, one with a good hand he butchered and one with a gutshot, is always sad/funny to watch. And also total, absolute proof of rigging.

Aside from the bad hand example, it's pretty clear now that Rockart's mission is to get traffic to his rigged web site, where he makes money on banners and affiliate deals. Not a bad business plan, there's an audience for it. I doubt he believes his own posts, he's just marketing. Ironic that we finally have a real shill in the thread.

bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
1490+1350+2450+2270+1440
9000

This shows it's a tournament hand from a 6-max tournament, in the first blind stage. Seat 1 has already gotten himself busted. Reckless play in a tournament proves nothing, it might have been a $0.10 6-max SNG, you cannot expect serious play there.

Easy.

Just have the software shuffle the deck, then the first 10 cards are the hole cards of the players and the next 5 are the board (no need to burn online). Before you display them to the players, you determine which hand will win. If you want to rig it, you'd swap the hole cards of the player with a low luck factor with the cards of a player with a high luck factor every one in X times if the low luck player has the winning hand. Then you display all cards to the players.

It's undetectable since all cards are still randomly dealt, just in a different seat now. Also because it's based on the outcome it doesn't mean you deal someone high cards or high pairs more than usual. If the winning hand is 77 with a 7 on the river it might swap it with AK which is going to lose. Since all hands can win the hands and the board will statistically still look like a random deal.

Of course you have to ask yourself why. Sites would gain nothing from rigging the game. A random deal is the easiest to program, why complicate it.

Thought I would cross post an excellent post from Duh in the Pitbull thread for how to approach these issues:

This will result in players with high luck factors getting stronger hands more often than expected though, and vice versa. You could detect it by analysing your hands (if you had a high or low luck factor, not if you had an average luck factor).

nice catch!

my first thought on watching that replay was... "why are either of them pursuing this hand so strongly?" Microstakes tourney would explain it.

Plus, the luck factors for any give player varies with time, anyway.

Wrong. They are not randomly dealt to each player, all you've done is kept the aggregate the same. Very detectable, and more easily than many other ideas. Each player is expected to get every unique starting hand 1/1326 over time. In this scheme, they won't.

I concurr.

http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/run-it-twice

* Please note that maximum rake might vary for hands that are dealt twice.

^^^

lol @ FTP

Also possible proof that the RNG is FUBAR, as pokerfan should only win that pot about 1 time in 50.

Answers demanded!!!

How is that proof of anything, but someone with a stupid name

I saw that too lol.

I didn't know these guys could play poker....

Math fail.

His equity is 15%, so he wins it better than 1 in 7. The all-in is post-flop.

Still? I never did trust the KGC to govern anything even before the scandal. And of course I don't play on Cereus. So what's your point?

I trust in common sense, logic, my own hand histories, and my fellow poker players' analytical abilities. Of course sites could be rigged, but the fact that they could doesn't mean that they are. If I find anomalies in my hand histories, or see creditable evidence that something is amiss posted on the forums, I'll vigorously question what's going on. Until such time, I'll continue happily playing and making money, and leave the unfounded conspiracy theories to others.

To be running a poker forum you are pretty short on real knowledge, shown here and in most of your posts.

The only large poker site regulated by KGC is Cereus, the one that had the scandal (on both their brands). Full Tilt is also a permit holder there because they have servers hosted at MIT, but that isn't their regulatory authority. They have a gambling license in Alderney, in a pretty well respected jurisdiction. Stars is in the IoM with no connection at all to KGC. Do some research.

[x] irony
[ ] understands the math behind running it twice