really? i say prove the statistics of online poker are equal to live poker and you tell me to prove there is no such thing as unicorns?

wat?

You obviously have a firm understanding of statistics.

OP, one of the faults in your thoughtprocess is that Poker <> flipping a coin.

Yes you don't need AA vs KK 100k times that's true, but to get enough of a sample of all the variations of possibilities / crossection of different game conditions and so on, you need a ton of hands. (not sure myself if it is 50k / 100k /300k.... but it sure a hell is not 1k

Alex Scott already posted proof, and was immediately scoffed at by the OP.

actually it has everything to do with it. it proves that these sites will cheat.

im still waiting for one of you guys to answer this

Do you know what "arguing from a false premise" means?

Please tell me when Stars or FTP have ever been caught cheating.

So, if I can find a single instance of a casino running a rigged game, that means all casinos are rigged, right?

It would be impossible to prove it's not rigged to a person that feels they can determine statistical anomalies in their head from memory. I don't really feel like getting into the whole psychological reasons as to why this is true, so I'll just leave it at that.

I'm have mixed emotions about being the first to bring this to the discussion

If you find out an off duty dealer at the Bellagio works with another dealer to see other players hole cards, do you assume that the Wynn stacks their decks?

That's not at all what you asked him to prove.

i wouldnt take that as undeniable proof. if a few of you guys can produce statistics for the hands that you played and they are on par with live poker stats then ill shut up

I'm just going to stop posting now because I really, really want people like the OP and the other guy to keep playing poker and failing at critical thinking.

That and I have work to get done today...

Late to the party but is OP saying 100k hands is too many to tell if cheating took place?
hahahahaha
if not
hahahaha

yes it is

name some particular stats you want to see

First, the coin flip is a simple example to prove a point. Another smoke and mirrors response. When the deviation is so gross from the expected random result you dont need to do it 100,000 times to figure it out.

Second, the deviation becomes less recogizable as the sample size grows. Break it up over a large number of hands and it becomes less recognizable. The potripper guy could probably gone unnoticed if he kept his stats a little closer to the distribution of other players. He was so far out there people had to wonder whats up. So he distributes his cheating in way that puts in around the other top players that are presumably not cheating and maybe noone finds out.

I said at the begining I dont know whether online poker software is written in a way to generate the most rake. Its certainly possible and easy to disquise. Especially when you get so called experts to argue you cant draw any conclusions untill you have a 100,000 hand sample. A lot of people in the online industry are threatened by that possibility and are quick to defend by insulting people that raise the issue.

Its an issue unlikely to go away when the medium delivering the cards can be programmed and reprogrammed to do anything you want it to - it could rob people blind for 1000 hands - then just rely on take for a million. Someone raises the issue then you hire a "expert" in probability to create your somke and mirrors defense.

There are at least 10 (really low estimate) people on this site with 1,000,000 hand + databases. I think at least one of them would have noticed if they were losing more often than they should have.

I find it hilarious that OP brought up the AP/UB scandal considering that the cheating was discovered by people on 2+2 The whole point OP is that these poker sites are businesses that generate so much money they do not need to cheat. That is not to say it cant happen but you really shouldnt come to the one place that actively looks for cheating and exposes it when it is found and tell us its all corrupt.

why is it that all the the people in here that have all of the statistics from their hands wont produce them to prove me wrong.

if im wrong then i'm wrong, just prove it to me

or is it that i'm not wrong

Ok, I'm gonna troll this up a bit.

So you have empirical proof that UFO abductions are beyond possibility? (Which is impossible...)

This seems more interesting than the OP's idiocy. It doesn't seem fair to lump together something that is easily disproved - e.g. rigtard arguments through basic statistics - and something that is impossible to disprove because of an utter lack of empirical evidence in support of that argument - e.g. that UFOs / abductions do not exist.

Yes, it can be argued that the vast majority of supposed abductees are mentally deranged, but in reality, that speaks absolutely nothing to the actual existence of UFOs / UFO abductions. How could it? That is the equivalent of saying "Some religious folk are mentally deranged, therefore God does not exist." Frankly, none of us are in the know. As such, it is better to not simply repeat what cultural authorities tell us about the existence of such things.

The creationist analogy is much more appropriate as creationism has been widely disproved by empirical evidence.

Regarding the "Prove to me there's no such thing as unicorns" comment - The paleontological record has never been argued to be (and never will be) an all-encompassing record of plant/animal existence throughout all of history. Just as I couldn't prove that unicorns exist, you couldn't prove that they never did, and vice versa.

This is the inherent problem with this line of reasoning that everything cultural authorities (e.g. government, the scientific community, the media) tell us is true. Perhaps these things are [sometimes] likely true. But proven? Let's not get carried away.

This is not to be confused with OP's idiocy.

/End troll

No, it isn't:

We're supposed to trust you that you can tell online poker is rigged, but you can't even remember what you posted five minutes ago?




(Yes, I'm a sucker with no self control).

You do when there are thousands of possible outcomes. You could play 19,000 hands before having two with the same outcome, so obviously a sample of 10,000 hands is nowhere near enough. No, it doesn't.

then just don't play internet poker. I won't drop pamphlets off at your house begging you to deposit.

and maybe don't post in the INTERNET POKER Forum while you're ignoring the whole phenomenon either.

i think the people that say 100k are wrong. I think its more like 100k / table you play. So if you play 4 tables you need 400k.