So, your point is that Spadebidder's analysis only applies to what he analysed?

Obviously if someone plays on a site not covered by Spadebidder's analysis, then Spadebidder's analysis won't be relevant. That's self-evident and truistic.

My opinion is worthless but I foresee PS in the US market legally before any other...

Half of some of this seems to be in code. I dont understnad it. I am older than most here but am new to the online poker and so yes

I do not understand some things.

Is there a better article or long paper written somewhere that goes over the arguments for the online poker rooms being fixed or altered in their deal?

People on this website are becoming passionately enraged at some suggestion of shady business.

Who are you and what is your agenda? What do you have with people speaking truth and rumor?

Thank you

There aren't any credible papers on online poker being rigged, 'cause pretty much everyone who passionately believes this to be the case is:

a) wrong

b) ignorant

c) incoherent

d) unable to put together several consecutive paragraphs of logical thought

The code you speak of is probability maths. Wikipedia explains the basics (See: Mathematical treatment)

I'd suggest learning that (not just the wiki) and then you will be better able to analyze your hands.

Basically though, hundreds of millions of hands have been analyzed and there is zero evidence so far of any rigging. So that makes a lot of us confident that rigging of the RNG is probably not going on.

Actually there was a nicely produced video of a "Full Tilt Audit" by the APCW guy jtodd, where they had some volunteers play a few thousand hands and then they made a bunch of conclusions, and the video "proved" that Full Tilt was rigged. It was soundly debunked and he actually apologized for doing such a poor study. I'm pretty sure they pulled down all the copies of the video they could find floating around and removed the discussion from their forums, it was so embarrassing.

This guy:
http://www.apcw.org/webmaster-video-feed.aspx

Nice, now they're being sued for employing Bots....Embarrassing...

No, embarrassing to the producers of the video, who retracted it. Full Tilt didn't worry about such rubbish. It was 2+2 who debunked it (mainly).

Since your no longer ignoring my posts, I'll stop takin jabs at ya...

It actually amazes me that that the median is 100 i.e. 50% of people are below that.

Does explain a lot though..

When are you going to learn to:

a) Read?
b) Understand what you read?

I just did a manual hand analysis of how I busted in the last 100 tournaments on one of the big sites. Here is what I have found...

24 times I had the larger stack dominated and lost

48 times I was in a coin flip situation and lost to the larger stack

6 times I was all in against a bigger pair, KK vs AA, etc.

The rest was short stack desparation and tilt play.

I am going to continue going through my hand histories to see if the trend continues or gets worse. What I am seeing in the hand histories is exactly what my brain was telling me. There is no bias here due to my fallable human brain. There is some sort of un natural occurance happening on this site. This is exactly what I have been seeing most of 2009 until present.

No matter what I do, As soon as I decide to push, someone calls and gets lucky against me. This in most cases is during the first time that I am all in. I believe this is manufactured. For what reason, I have no idea.

Donko, why do you vacillate thus?

yep, gettin old

after what i saw on tables tonight i can say with out a doubt online poker is rigged

After what I saw in the post above this I can say without a doubt that poofinger is an idiot.

Prop bets are just for fun. Some people don't like them, obviously.

LOL This is a little bit of poker discussion and a whole lot of flaming and insulting.

Actually, nobody has taken this rigtard up on the bet I proposed. There have been some counterproposals and a lot of insults, but nobody has taken the prop bet even though I made it attractive.

BTW, make it easy. I play on PStars all the time, no need to escrow. If you don't trust me, obviously don't take the bet. But I'll make it a little more attractive. If you lose the first bet, I'll automatically give you another chance and you don't have to pay anything until the second bet is complete.

The way I handle casual bets is with trust. If trust is betrayed, I don't make any more props with that guy.

That's because they know they'd never get their money.

If they didn't get their money, I'd be flamed forever. Don't worry, they'd get their money. This is the way I do business. It's not for everybody.

BTW, I said $100-$50. Obviously, not interested in putting serious money into it, just enough to be interesting to me. And the proposal has already worked for me.

Can you understand why people do not really take that as a cast iron guarantee when it comes from someone with a post count of 50?

It isn't that no one wants to bet you, or even a matter of trust for the money (for me). It's that your bet doesn't follow from the point you originally made and now you just want to bet on a virtual coin flip for no real reason. Originally, your reason was "the dealer ain't square" and you were willing to bet on it. But your bet is now essentially betting on nothing but pure luck. I know some people like silly prop bets just for the hell of it, but it doesn't interest me. My interest was in proving a point to you, that you will in fact receive a normal distribution of small and big cards. I would bet much more than you proposed on this. But betting that you will have a single card more or less than the mean is 100% luck. It's exactly like saying, "I bet the next card dealt is black." Ok, so what?

I am still and currently reading the information provided by the kind persons here.

To taunt me with betting is insane. I don't gamble where there is not an advantage and I have no idea on what the code is so there is hidden knowledge from me.

THANK YOU

This is the most ******ed and flawed post I've read in 2 years of reading 2+2.