Ok, so tell us how those two sites were rigging.

The definition of rigging is to to manipulate fraudulently. I would say that accepting deposits hours before you close down a site with no notice would fit right in there.

That's obviously really bad, but there is no manipulation there. It's just plain stealing.

Personal attacks and jokes is all you got.

Its already a FACT online poker has been rigged before. And its a Fact sites have stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars from players. And its fing halarious that some suckers like yourself can't believe some sites would have super user accounts or other installments in place to rig the site for profit.

Casino owners and gamblers have been looking for suckers for well over a hundred years now and I laugh at anyone so foolish and so blind to think it's not happening online. You have a false sense of security. You have probally never even met an owner of a poker site and have no idea how they are run.

This is not my gimmick account, but I'm starting to like this guy...

To manipulate fraudulently for profit is stealing

Of course.

Because he's almost as big a ****** as you.

Who know, given time he may prove to even more ******ed - although that would be difficult.

Non sequitur.

PokerProLv FAIL.

Good point, atleast your not throwing the "morals and ethics" around anymore...

Well, I've certainly got one more joke since you appeared.

If you'd bother to read the thread you would have seen several analyses and even some maths.

But you ******s prefer to just post whatever comes into your heads rather than logically analysing what has come before.

Your posts are 'fing halarious'.

Keep posting. We like a good laugh around here.

What I find hilarious, is that this guy seems to be making the same points I've made scattered around my +1000 posts..yet more clearly and sensibly.

Perhaps he's a hybrid "******" of me...

my prediction...With the new, "online poker is legal in the USA proclaimation", you will see more and more new players and more and more of these posters...Until regulation is enacted in the USA

Wat, no.

I understand that the discussion went along the lines of:

"Should we have the ability to see the hole cards of hands in play?"

"No, that'd be a pretty big security risk and it is not needed."

Well, I don't know what you call it, but it is certainly an error/mistake/etc. to write poker software with superusers. It simply isn't needed and is just bad design.

It's sort of like designing a house without having a lock on the back door. It's just bad house building to do so. What you call it - a "mistake" or "flaw" or whatever is literally semantic.

Lets break it down for those like your self who dont understand

Steal - : to take the property of another wrongfully.

Still cant see it can you? You are just too blind.

No, you just get an honest and clear explanation.

Just too hard for all you non RIGTARDS to believe that sites will shut down with no notice and steal everyones money. But they would NEVER do it in other ways..

I note that I responded in depth and explained why you yourself proved the fallacy of your own argument, and that you only responded to your error about sheep/ship.

I don't know if you have some sort of fundamental problem with your brain, but reading your posts, you have:

a) Complained that online poker cheating is undetectable, and then used the fact that online poker cheating was detected to support your nonsensical argument; and

b) Complained that people only responded to the sheep/ship comment, and ignored the rest of your dribble, while you only responded to the sheep/ship comment, and ignored the rest of the response.

Like, are you trying to play some sort of joke on us? Is this for real? Are you stoned or drunk or something?

Dude, no one is saying that bad **** can't be going on. The point is that accusations should not be made based on mere potential motives. If you have evidence of wrongdoing, you should bring it forward, let other people evaluate it, and perhaps something can be done. Just shouting "They're all crooks!" is counterproductive. It creates fear and anxiety with no upside.

The hit-and-run scheme you are talking about is certainly a concern and one of the big reasons I would never sign up for a small, unestablished site. Those type of things are going to happen, as I said, stay away from small sites and the risk of that is low. Also, people shouldn't make a habit of keeping their whole bankroll on a site. Minimizes the risk.

You have described yourself as an online poker insider. Instead of making vague general warnings of doom, why not provide specifics of particular nefarious things going on? If there is evidence, I think you will find the people you are critiquing here will be at the forefront of trying to bring those sites down.

First off like all non rigtards who comment here you seem to be more like flamming ******. You have to start everything with a personal insult and are hardly worth my time. But ill go ahead and give you the little respect you deserve and answer your questions.


1. Matusow did play in rigged games and I am not going to go into the details but you can research it or just read his book.

2. Yes your correct it was proved by looking at the hand histories and analysing them.

However this does not mean my argument is wrong.

Question 2 is interesting because Matusow and others were noticing the cheating before it was looked into by hand histories. It would not take much effort to see others hole cards and make normal plays for big cash that were not noticable at the table or by reviewing hands. And with fresh screenames every session you would never notice.

You cannot take 1 case and assume that everyone with a superuser account would abuse it that openly and stupidly. And even then it takes Much abusing to get alot of attention, and probally no attention at the lower limits.

This hand below is a great example of how hand history is hard to prove anything. Mislick? Most amazing read ever? Information for future hands?

And my point stands hand histories only mean so much. I could look at the TexasLimitKing against Neverwin. Limit Hold'em game. With the board reading Q 2 6 Q 6, Neverwin bets out on the river and is called by TexasLimitKing, who shows pocket fours.

First off I have not been sitting here yelling that they are all crooks anymore than you are not denying that bad **** has gone on before.

My main point here is that online poker has been rigged before and probally is now. This is figured out by the use of probability in economics and logic. And as long as the sites continue to be run where there is no consequences and true regulation it is going to continue.

Second off I believe UB and AP to be in the top 5 largest poker sites and people got burned on them.

Can you please provide a link to Matusow suspecting this before it became public as a result of 2p2 discovering it?

FWIW, here's some info on him commenting on it after we proved the misbehaviour: http://news.bluffmagazine.com/matuso...imatebet-2427/

So use your probability/economics/logic to show us where the cheating is happening?

Surely it is not reasonable to accuse everyone in the entire industry to be cheating, is it?
No, combined, they are 7th: http://www.pokerscout.com/

Not at the time this took place.

You have said you are an insider: do you have ANY evidence of wrongdoing other than a site taking in deposits shortly before shutting down?

+1!

As I have stated in a couple of my [limited] previous posts, I think this forum is fantastic. The wealth of information, on a plethora of subjects is outstanding. I never intended to post, I am far more inclined to listen, and hopefully be entertained, but I suppose this subject intrigues anyone who plays online poker. I don't understand the utter venom displayed by people, calling people ******ed because they have a point of view that differs from your own, jumping on people who make typos, or grammatical errors. Arouet, you are someone who's posts have impressed me, you don't stoop down to explain, you acknowledge that there is no certainty either way, but the burden of proof is on those who think the sites cheat, and I believe that's the only way to approach it.