@op

i had the same problem...just switch the site..if you feel the site is against you , its no fun anymore.

In before "proof".

I'll put any amount of money with Fulltilt where they produce every allin I've been in either bet by someone else or by me and have the math done and not only is it not close to being true odds it's laughable. It's laughable how BS it is to be favored 20 allins a day and lose 19 for years.

Why don't you produce them? You wrote "I can prove online poker is rigged".

maybe your just "that" guy

Zaarg thats the CREEPIEST pic ive ever seen lol

[x] can't prove anything

With a name like theorphan you should fully expect to get ****ed

Brag to make people look at sharkscope graph with +52% ROI, IMO (I fell for it)

play 30000 hands ?

You know, that looks more like an exclamation mark than an apostrophe. I hadn't noticed it before, but your post happened to come right after several posts complaining about someone using "your" when he meant "you're," so naturally I had to make sure your "You're" had an apostrophe. That's when I noticed it, and now it's bugging me a little.

Of course, it could be that the corner of Kermit's eyeslit is forming a dot below the apostrophe, making it appear to be an exclamation mark. If that's the case, I take it all back and admit freely that I have too much time on my hands this morning.

I took the OP to mean that he failed to pair his non-pair hole cards by the river "31 freakin percent" of the time, while he expected this to happen only 17.4% of the time.

And that makes even less sense, since it should actually happen

44/50 * 43/49 * 42/48 * 41/47 * 40/46 = 51.3% of the time,

which means he's running so hot that we'd have to consider whether the site was actually rigged in his favor.

TBH, I can't figure out what he was trying to say.

My business was whoring not playing good poker, but i played million of hands.

Whoring is over so its anyway worthless to play for me but i am surprised that so many believe that poker is random and fair. It would be nearly the only that is fair and random. Live casinos , stock markets, ATMs in the bank in all this areas is cheating, attacks..manipulation usual.

Made games for max rake seems verry profitable at low stakes, and verry hard to detect.

In before "YOU'RE A MUPPET!"

YOU!RE A MUPPET'

wat

The random number generators are not random

I have been doing a test with my boyfriend with 5 poker sites:

Poker Stars
Full Tilt
Ultimate Bet
Everest
Party Poker

For a scientific sample, we played 10 low level sit n gos at each site and assigned scores to the type of hand we were dealt pre-flop:

Group 1: 10
Group 2: 8
Group 3: 6
Group 4: 5
Group 5: 4
Group 6: 3
Group 7: 2
Group 8: 1
Any other Hand: 0

Across the 50 sit n gos we took mode as an average finishing position which was 4 so for fairness sake we extrapolated results up where we came 5-9 and factored down when we came 1-3
(Also when short-handed we noticed we were seeing many more Group 3-6 hands across the board so obviously the RNGs are programmed to give better hands once the bubble has burst so that the tournament can end and more space is available for new SnGs to open up.

The total adjusted scores across the 5 sites were

Poker Stars: 1175
Full Tilt: 1480
Ultimate Bet: 1893
Everest: 1219
Party Poker: 909

When we average out each score across the 5 SnGs our average Group Hand scores were as followed:

Poker Stars: 235
Full Tilt: 296
Ultimate Bet: 379
Everest: 244
Party Poker: 182

so a GREAT disparity between best to worst.

We can see from these results that if you understand how to play your big hands, you will be have most success at the following rooms (in descending order):

Ultimate Bet
Full Tilt
Everest
Poker Stars
Party Poker

We are currently undergoing a similar study into cash games, playing 500 hands at each of the sites, and will post any patterns that we notice when applied against the Sit n Go results

I hope this isn't seen as a scare post and hopefully it will help you with your site selection for the future now you know which ones are 'lucky' or 'unlucky'.

The RNGs obviously aren't as "random" as the sites would like us to think, but with a little study and thought, we can hopefully beat the system.

Thank-you for reading this. If you have any comments or questions I look forward to hearing them.

Marina

you realise those sample sizes are pretty insignifcant right?

Sample size ::facepalm

Airtight study, cant imagine anyone can find flaws.

Do you even know how a RNG works ?... If you did you wouldn't be making this post.

amazing how smart you think you are, and how stupid you actually are.

marina is a total owner

keep on keeping on

I just don't understand. Were you born this ******ed or do you repeatedly hit your head against a wall for fun?