Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > > >

Discussion of Poker Sites General discussion of online poker sites.

View Poll Results: Is Online Poker Rigged?
Yes 3,445 34.94%
No 5,522 56.01%
Undecided 892 9.05%
Voters: 9859. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-26-2009, 04:27 PM   #976
Brokedurrrr
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 58
Re: Is Full Tilt rigged?

Rigged naw. When my quad aces get snapped by a royal on the river, case ace makes both a royal and quads. Push all in with AA two callers with 99 and 99. Beat by the flush. all part of the game, I just don't play pokerstars anymore, I have taken some sick beats and PS. FTP it happens just not as often and dramatic as PS.
If I thought it was crooked i would not play
BD
Brokedurrrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 04:45 PM   #977
syncmaster
old hand
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,588
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Am I the only one that did odds and probabilities in 2nd grade?

Stay in school kids, you don't want to end up like some of the posters here.
syncmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 04:53 PM   #978
DMoogle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DMoogle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northern VA, USA
Posts: 7,132
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

A much more interesting topic:

Is OP a magician?

I vote no with a 51% probability. If he is then OP's life must be rigged. Thoughts?
DMoogle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 05:00 PM   #979
stackerhound
stranger
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by syncmaster View Post
Am I the only one that did odds and probabilities in 2nd grade?

Stay in school kids, you don't want to end up like some of the posters here.
What I find interesting is how simple you have to make your examples so people will understand and they still don't get. 3 groups as a see it:

1. They do understand but have an interest in making sure people dont understand. (Like employed by the online poker industry). These are the people that want UIGEA repealed but voted for Bush and continue to vote republican.

2. They truely dont understand.

3. They do understand.

Group 1 you waste your time replying to their posts. They are probably the ones most likely to hurl insults in their posts as well.

Group 2 usally they dont even know they dont understand but continue to post as if the do.

Group 3 read and respond intelligently as well as make points that give u pause for reflection and help to sharpen your presentation.
stackerhound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 05:03 PM   #980
mao
adept
 
mao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Detroit.
Posts: 986
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

OMG you a genious.
mao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 05:15 PM   #981
DMoogle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DMoogle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northern VA, USA
Posts: 7,132
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate"

People who understand have an interest in letting other people understand. Because it's good for business.

It's the people who don't understand that are bad for business.
DMoogle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 05:23 PM   #982
farf
newbie
 
farf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 17
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate"

Quote:
Originally Posted by stackerhound View Post
What I find interesting is how simple you have to make your examples so people will understand and they still don't get. 3 groups as a see it:

1. They do understand but have an interest in making sure people dont understand. (Like employed by the online poker industry). These are the people that want UIGEA repealed but voted for Bush and continue to vote republican.

2. They truely dont understand.

3. They do understand.

Group 1 you waste your time replying to their posts. They are probably the ones most likely to hurl insults in their posts as well.

Group 2 usally they dont even know they dont understand but continue to post as if the do.

Group 3 read and respond intelligently as well as make points that give u pause for reflection and help to sharpen your presentation.
Ok, so which group are you in? 2?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stackerhound View Post
Great job with the smoke and mirrors argument sir! Some deviation does not mean things are rigged. Cheating can be disquised and the best cheaters know this. If I got cheated 1 hand out of 100,000 - could I prove it to anyones satisfaction by statistical evidence alone. Obvioulsy not. The greater the sample size the easier to dilute the easier to decieve.

Hypothetical : I cheat you in live game by dealing off the bottom of the deck and win a $5000 pot off you. You dont see it and I only do it once. You win the rest of the hands. You end up down only $1000.00. Walk away never suspecting a thing. Just got unlucky.

But what if I deal off the bottom of the deck every hand and every hand u lose. So u start watching how I deal and u see Im dealing off the bottom. Im busted. You shoot me or never play with me again.

Now if i spread that dealing off the bottom over a much larger number of hands (sample) u are less likely to notice and I am more likely to make more money off you. I let u win sometimes and tell u see you just have to play 100,000 hands to see if I'm cheating.
Your arrogance aside, (and yes thinking that you must be right because you say so makes you arrogant) here are a couple things for you to consider...

1. Thank you for pointing out that the facts I brought to this arguement are smoke and mirrors. If you do not want the arguement to go beyond playground tactics, then hey, you win. But Im rubber and you're glue and what ever you say bounces off me and sticks to you..unless you say something nice about me.

2. When making chosing a hypothetical comparisson, you should really try to stick closer to the topic at hand. Your "If I were to cheat you in a live game" arguement is flawed because:

if you were the type of player to cheat at poker it would not be just once because human nature would require you to do it more often. you know that whole greed thing. now, you can argue this point as much as you want, but you will never be able to find any solid proof.

if you were cheating, there would be enough of a question in the 'losers' mind, assuming they had one, to realize something was funny. they would then, more than likely, look for proof. Now, I am not talking 'gee my aces got cracked both times i had them in the last 50 hands' type of proof, im talking 'oh gee, look at that, hes bottom dealing' proof. at which point it ends.

3. Your original arguement, which is based on the premise that 100K hands is too large of a sample to get really analytics, is faulty because your premise is faulty.

As I stated originally, there are 8.06 x 10^67 (80.6 thousand vigintillion) possible combinations for a 52 card deck to be dealt in. To take a sample, even as small as 100K is not enough to make a proper analysis. If it were, companies like Cigital, Inc. and Rational Entertainment Enterprises Limited would not have needed 103 million hands to resolve 'Is poker a game of skill'
But hey, what could those data analysis companies possibly know about stats and analysis and standard deviation.

When you respond, as I am sure you will, please try to actually have some facts or a proper basis for your arguement other than 'I think its too big even though I have never studied statistics'. Assuming you can do that I will happily continue to show you the holes in your logic, if not..."Im rubber and you're glue and whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you...unless it is something nice."
farf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 05:32 PM   #983
Mitch Evans
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,633
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate"

Quote:
Originally Posted by stackerhound View Post
If I got cheated 1 hand out of 100,000 - could I prove it to anyones satisfaction by statistical evidence alone. Obvioulsy not. The greater the sample size the easier to dilute the easier to decieve.

Your "the larger the sample size the easier to disguise" makes no sense if it's being done regularly. Either they are cheating you or they are not. If a large sample doesn't reflect the cheating, then the cheating must be minimal, and a larger sample is required to prove it. If the cheating is larger and or more frequent, then the sample can be smaller to prove it (e.g., potripper), but a large sample would prove it just the same. If they're shaving 2% off QQ vs AK it's going to show itself whether the sample size is adequate or a billion trials - it's still going to reflect -2% under expectation.

Your concept of selective cheating (your example of cheating in a large pot instead of cheating every hand) online, would require some very complex algorithms to determine who loses when, why, with what, how often, how much, vs which players and so on. Probably best just to work on your game.

Last edited by Mitch Evans; 03-26-2009 at 05:43 PM.
Mitch Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 06:18 PM   #984
syncmaster
old hand
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,588
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by stackerhound View Post
What I find interesting is how simple you have to make your examples so people will understand and they still don't get. 3 groups as a see it:

1. They do understand but have an interest in making sure people dont understand. (Like employed by the online poker industry). These are the people that want UIGEA repealed but voted for Bush and continue to vote republican.

2. They truely dont understand.

3. They do understand.

Group 1 you waste your time replying to their posts. They are probably the ones most likely to hurl insults in their posts as well.

Group 2 usally they dont even know they dont understand but continue to post as if the do.

Group 3 read and respond intelligently as well as make points that give u pause for reflection and help to sharpen your presentation.
The only thing I don't understand is what your talking about and why you quoted me. What exactly do all these people understand or not? That its rigged, not rigged, could be rigged if they wanted to???..

And this may or may not be directed at you, I have not read all of your posts. But lets all be sure to play the superuser card in rigged posts from now on guys. We all know it was discovered after a random rigged post by a guy with 10 posts and no data.
syncmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 06:20 PM   #985
batair
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
batair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: idiocracy
Posts: 16,806
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by stackerhound View Post

1. They do understand but have an interest in making sure people dont understand. (Like employed by the online poker industry). These are the people that want UIGEA repealed but voted for Bush and continue to vote republican.

2. They truely dont understand.

3. They do understand.

4. dont give a ****

Group 1 you waste your time replying to their posts. They are probably the ones most likely to hurl insults in their posts as well.

Group 2 usally they dont even know they dont understand but continue to post as if the do.

Group 3 read and respond intelligently as well as make points that give u pause for reflection and help to sharpen your presentation.

Group 4 just come for the
.
batair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 07:10 PM   #986
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by stackerhound View Post
What I find interesting is how simple you have to make your examples so people will understand and they still don't get. 3 groups as a see it:

1. They do understand but have an interest in making sure people dont understand. (Like employed by the online poker industry). These are the people that want UIGEA repealed but voted for Bush and continue to vote republican.

2. They truely dont understand.

3. They do understand.

Group 1 you waste your time replying to their posts. They are probably the ones most likely to hurl insults in their posts as well.

Group 2 usally they dont even know they dont understand but continue to post as if the do.

Group 3 read and respond intelligently as well as make points that give u pause for reflection and help to sharpen your presentation.
Occasionally people who believe that one or more sites may be rigged make intelligent comments or ask intelligent questions and are answered intelligently.

Most often, rigtards are idiots like yourself who offer no intelligent input to the debate and may safely be dismissed as the wankers they are.

You don't have a clue about probability and from that sad inadequacy all the further inadequacies of your 'argument' follow.

And for ****'s sake don't make the usual rigtard's lame response about 'hurling' insults.

You were born to be the recipient of insults. It's the one and only thing that makes your sorry existance on this poor, forebearing, planet worthwhile.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 07:12 PM   #987
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate"

Yes, of course they're rigged.

Whatever makes you feel better.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 07:12 PM   #988
hazillow
journeyman
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 329
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate"

I'm too lazy to read this thread. Did you guys settle this or what? What's the verdict -- rigged or not?
hazillow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 07:31 PM   #989
farf
newbie
 
farf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 17
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate"

Don't know if they are rigged or not, but then again, no one really has enough of a hand base to make an accurate analysis.

Personally, I like to believe that they are not and when I am outplayed it is because I was outplayed and when I get sucked out on it is because I get sucked out on. And when I cannot understand why my opponent cold called a 5X raise with a 3-9 off, I just assume they were a donkey. Sure I get sucked out on more online than live, but I have also played more hands online than live.
farf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 07:33 PM   #990
DMoogle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DMoogle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northern VA, USA
Posts: 7,132
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate"

There's a reason the smiley was added to the set. It's impossible to convince people who ignore logic and reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
Occasionally people who believe that one or more sites may be rigged make intelligent comments or ask intelligent questions and are answered intelligently.

Most often, rigtards are idiots like yourself who offer no intelligent input to the debate and may safely be dismissed as the wankers they are.

You don't have a clue about probability and from that sad inadequacy all the further inadequacies of your 'argument' follow.

And for ****'s sake don't make the usual rigtard's lame response about 'hurling' insults.

You were born to be the recipient of insults. It's the one and only thing that makes your sorry existance on this poor, forebearing, planet worthwhile.
In before smoke and mirrors.
DMoogle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 07:47 PM   #991
mrdurdenptp
veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: $100-$100k-#SNE
Posts: 2,821
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate"

of course poker is rigged.

Good players win and bad players lose.


RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGGED!!!!!!!!! !111111111!!!!!!!!!!1%#$#@
mrdurdenptp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 07:57 PM   #992
stackerhound
stranger
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate"

Quote:
Originally Posted by farf View Post
Ok, so which group are you in? 2?



Your arrogance aside, (and yes thinking that you must be right because you say so makes you arrogant) here are a couple things for you to consider...

1. Thank you for pointing out that the facts I brought to this arguement are smoke and mirrors. If you do not want the arguement to go beyond playground tactics, then hey, you win. But Im rubber and you're glue and what ever you say bounces off me and sticks to you..unless you say something nice about me.

2. When making chosing a hypothetical comparisson, you should really try to stick closer to the topic at hand. Your "If I were to cheat you in a live game" arguement is flawed because:

if you were the type of player to cheat at poker it would not be just once because human nature would require you to do it more often. you know that whole greed thing. now, you can argue this point as much as you want, but you will never be able to find any solid proof.

if you were cheating, there would be enough of a question in the 'losers' mind, assuming they had one, to realize something was funny. they would then, more than likely, look for proof. Now, I am not talking 'gee my aces got cracked both times i had them in the last 50 hands' type of proof, im talking 'oh gee, look at that, hes bottom dealing' proof. at which point it ends.

3. Your original arguement, which is based on the premise that 100K hands is too large of a sample to get really analytics, is faulty because your premise is faulty.

As I stated originally, there are 8.06 x 10^67 (80.6 thousand vigintillion) possible combinations for a 52 card deck to be dealt in. To take a sample, even as small as 100K is not enough to make a proper analysis. If it were, companies like Cigital, Inc. and Rational Entertainment Enterprises Limited would not have needed 103 million hands to resolve 'Is poker a game of skill'
But hey, what could those data analysis companies possibly know about stats and analysis and standard deviation.

When you respond, as I am sure you will, please try to actually have some facts or a proper basis for your arguement other than 'I think its too big even though I have never studied statistics'. Assuming you can do that I will happily continue to show you the holes in your logic, if not..."Im rubber and you're glue and whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you...unless it is something nice."
You definately fit into group 1. Your argument is so meritless and off the point you must truely understand mine, know it to be true and are unable to attack it except through misdirection and mistatement.

BTW nice of you to admit that live poker and online poker are different. I'm convinced now they are. Thankyou!

You mistate my "premise" - which is you dont need to play 100,000 hands to figure out your being cheated. Or wait YOU might need to play 100,000 hands to know - you absolutely right. I apologize you belong group 2.

Also cracks me up how this thread got moved so soon. Buried would be a better term I suppose.
stackerhound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 08:02 PM   #993
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Markusgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate"

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMoogle View Post
People who understand have an interest in letting other people understand. Because it's good for business.

It's the people who don't understand that are bad for business.
wow.

Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 08:03 PM   #994
jukofyork
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
jukofyork's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Trollstopia, UK
Posts: 11,610
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate"

Is this now the official rigtard thread? If so, I think this makes a nice addition:

http://www.billrini.com/2009/03/14/crazy-rigtards/

Classic rigtard all the way.

Juk
jukofyork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 08:30 PM   #995
farf
newbie
 
farf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 17
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate"

Quote:
Originally Posted by stackerhound View Post
You definately fit into group 1. Your argument is so meritless and off the point you must truely understand mine, know it to be true and are unable to attack it except through misdirection and mistatement.

BTW nice of you to admit that live poker and online poker are different. I'm convinced now they are. Thankyou!

You mistate my "premise" - which is you dont need to play 100,000 hands to figure out your being cheated. Or wait YOU might need to play 100,000 hands to know - you absolutely right. I apologize you belong group 2.

Also cracks me up how this thread got moved so soon. Buried would be a better term I suppose.
Great, so now my argument is 1. all smoke and mirrors, 2. meritless 3. off the point and 4. I am only 'attacking your arguement through misdirection.

At least you are 1. backing up your statements by showing me where I am wrong as opposed to saying 'you are wrong because you disagree with me' 2. backing up your arguements by giving any amount of analyitical proof beyond 'i was cheated'. 3. dealing directly with questions posed (I asked which group you belong to. I know which group I belong to) and 4. man (or woman) enough to post under your real name/user ID. Unless you expect the forum to believe that you, an obviously experienced online poker player, who just set up a twoplustwo account today for the purpose of making this rant. And before you answer, remember, you were the one who "found it funny that it was moved so quickly"

As to me misunderstanding your premise, I will try to explain in smaller words using your examples so you can better understand the truth (because as much as you may want to believe, the numbers are not going to lie)

When you flip a coin, there are only 2 ways it can land. Heads and Tails. But to determine if the coin is fair, you would still have to flip it more than a couple times to have reason to believe you are being cheated. Sure the chances of it coming up heads 10 times in a row is remote, but it can still happen. But for the sake of your arguement lets say you only need to see 5 flips, or 2.5 times the number of possible endings.

When you deal a deck of 52 cards, there are over 60.8 Thousand Vigintillion different combinations that the cards can come out it, but yet you are determined that you can know if the online site is cheating you after a sample so small in comparison to the whole it would be considered insignificant.

Now, at the same time, lets assume that I am purposely avoiding your issue of it doesnt take 100,000 hands to see if you are being cheated. And that statement I will agree with you on because if it does take you that long, well... anyway, the problem with your arguement is you, from the statement it does not take 100K hands to see if you are being cheated, extrapolate 'online poker is rigged'. And that there is a problem with because for you to be able to statistically determine if a site is rigged, your less than 100K hands is not enough.

Now, if you are going to continue to argue, please make your point, and back it up with some modicum of evidence, please. And also, really, who are you.
farf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 08:31 PM   #996
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Markusgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate"

Quote:
Originally Posted by jukofyork View Post
Is this now the official rigtard thread? If so, I think this makes a nice addition:

http://www.billrini.com/2009/03/14/crazy-rigtards/

Classic rigtard all the way.

Juk
This is fun too imo

http://www2.itsgames.com/forum/viewt...&sd=a&start=75
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 08:49 PM   #997
xZEDZDEDx
journeyman
 
xZEDZDEDx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 211
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate"

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdurdenptp View Post
of course poker is rigged.

Good players win and bad players lose.


RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGGED!!!!!!!!! !111111111!!!!!!!!!!1%#$#@
****... relax, take a pill or somethin...
xZEDZDEDx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 08:51 PM   #998
IceCreamSammichGuy
newbie
 
IceCreamSammichGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rigged & Delicious
Posts: 35
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate"

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdurdenptp View Post
of course poker is rigged.

Good players win and bad players lose.


RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGGED!!!!!!!!! !111111111!!!!!!!!!!1%#$#@
just use the right affiliate and you can play both sides imo.
IceCreamSammichGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 09:00 PM   #999
farf
newbie
 
farf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 17
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate"

Quote:
Originally Posted by IceCreamSammichGuy View Post
just use the right affiliate and you can play both sides imo.
So....if I figure out which affiliate is "paying their dues" I can avoid the doom switch?
farf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 09:54 PM   #1000
mrdurdenptp
veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: $100-$100k-#SNE
Posts: 2,821
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate"

Quote:
Originally Posted by xZEDZDEDx View Post
****... relax, take a pill or somethin...
releveled?
mrdurdenptp is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive