Another is that using deceptive betting in poker, a game where deception is absolutely essential and a core part of the game by design, is wrong. He should just quit.

Oh.

So Full Tilt have moved to the jurisdiction of Californian courts?

When did this happen?

So, let me get this straight:

Check raising to try and get money from someone is cheating but bluffing for the same purpose isn't?

What about slow playing. Seems a pretty damn underhand way to carry on to me.

And bluffing isn't?

How the f*** can you possibly know that?

Actually, they aren't. (Think about it )

If I had played in poker rooms with similar rules, I would not have checked and raised. It is very simple - the place where you play decides what the rules of the game are. No site I have ever played in has prohibited checking and raising. You have played on a site which prohibits using bots, and still done so (or claimed to have done so, no offense but I doubt your claim very very much).

I know that this is mostly an online poker is rigged post, but I'm going to attempt to get some rational responses anyway. I'm a US player. I have played at Poker Stars in the past, but I don't like the lack of decent rakeback, the point system or the tight players. However, I trust PS's RNG because of several studies that I have read proving it is fair.

Since 2007, I have mostly played at sites like AP, Cake, FTP and Merge. I played some at Microgaming before it left the US market and some at Bodog. I play at NL25-NL200. Before this year, I averaged about 3 big blinds/100 after rake back. I never thought that any of these sites were rigged or unfair except maybe FTP because I had awful luck at FTP and won at every other site.

However, this year has been a nightmare for me. I started playing at AP and Cake. I dropped Cake and added FTP, but dropped it because it was still awful for me. I have been playing mostly at AP for the last few months and some at Carbon Poker on Merge. Still even after rake back, I am a slight loser this year and way behind on EV according to a new program for HEM called SECT. The last two days, I have flopped top 2 once when another player flopped bottom set, flopped a set that lost to a higher set hit on the turn and flopped top two pair that lost to a set hit on the turn. Plus, I had KK v. AA. The problem is that this has been typical since late March. At least, the first three months were profitable, but not great. I've gone from playing 4 tables of NL200 to 6 tables of NL50 and occasionally a table of two of NL25 which I had not played since 2007. My losing streak is now over 300,000 hands.

I am beginning to wonder if FTP, AP, Merge and maybe most sites, except PS, does not deal a random deck after the flop or even after the deal to protect bad players because it has become more difficult to replace players. I have no real proof. I may just be very unlucky.

But I do know that I won at AP in 2007 and 2008 and cannot get a break on that site in 2009. Same thing happened at Cake which was so bad this year that I left it. Also, I want to play at the sites that permit HUD programs.

So do you believe that any chance exists that these sites are rigging the deck after the deal or after the flop this year (when they have not in the past) because of the difficulty of players to deposit or am I just in a very unlucky losing streak?

The chance is less than a fraction of a percent. As has been asked before, what does a site have to gain by rigging the deck agianst you?

I've played hundreds of thousands of hands on Full Tilt and my EV graph looks pretty normal.

Go here and you can see the actual lawsuit. It was filed in California.

http://pokerati.com/wp-content/uploa...t-bot-suit.pdf

Best

This goes back to the clubs, thirty years ago

Sounds like you are just not a winning player. Seriously, how else can this be interpreted in a logical manner?



300,000 hands is a hard amount to be unlucky the whole time.

You may not be a winning player in the games you are playing.



The games have improved over time, so while you may have been a winning player , you may not be any more if the skill level of the games have passed you by.


I think the odds that multiple sites are rigging it specifically against you is 0%.

I think you may want to consider dealing what may actually be the root cause of your losing.

My answer to both, if you want to learn Holdem, you better buy a BOT. Because you would be surprise what you learn. And beside that, it will teach you, how to recognize a BOT. This is important because it has been indicated that 7 out of 9, could be BOTs

60% of the time it's a bot, every time

I don't doubt that but it has nothing to do with the discussion. Full Tilt's CURRENT rules prohibit the use of bots, not their rules from 30 years ago. The fact that my check-raises may have been cheating in some podunk town thirty years ago is neither here nor there.

I would take the under on 1 in a 100 being a bot.

Bob Smith told him it was 7 out of 9. Case closed.

Sure is a shame he did so poorly on the test NFuego posted earlier. He hasn't proved it wasn't him, let alone denied it, so I guess it was him.

Never mind the crap about 7 out of 9 players being a bot, wtf does this sentence even mean?

If nobody wants to believe my estimate regarding BOTs playing in the game. Just prowl the Internet, and see "How many BOTs are for sale, How many is freeware" Now nobody keeps making BOTs unless they can sell. Well they are flying off the shelve.

So prepare yourself to play against them. Get to know their concept of poker.

It means he wants to find more people to talk to.

Been working pretty well for him so far. Still is.

Are you kidding?

Detecting how freely available bots work is a trivially easy task for online poker sites to do. If nothing else, they can just download the software themselves.

This has been in palce from the very begining of online poka. The ole time pro call is the ACTION SHUFFEL.

and it is easy to prove. the atempts to prove online is rig shuld analize how offen the underdog wins through the riva card.

IT WILL NOT BE THE RANDOM AMOUONT.

If I took this test, it sure news to me. Yes I have a memory of a 72 year old.
Ok I'm curious myself, got to see what you come up with. No I never took this test.

Interesting, what amount will it be?

the drawing out will happen mo offen than it shud by normal statistic

I understand that, but by how much? I'm curious...

proof?

I declare this as a victory for the protectors because he didn't prove he didn't take the test.

i caint posibly no, not a math student

but

if it was increase by 2 or 3 percents, this wuld be a tremendous amount, enuf, fo exampel, to change the way folks paly all ins late in tourneys

Fair enough, but then how can you possibly say whether the underdog is winning more or less than he or she should?