Why would he do that? It's obviously so rigged against him he only wins when he's a 100% favorite.

So, essentially you are saying that he is a shill for shills?

You already know what I always ask you, if you know how the system works, why not use that to make a ton.

Here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...38/index9.html

Read my posts in that to show how I recognized flaws in systems, and took advantage of them. Some even involve "timing" in a way.

I identified things, and created a strategy to capitalize on it. Why are you still a random losing microstakes guy instead?

Also, if that degen takes me up on his bet them someone let me know, hard to muddle through all the silliness of people arguing with gimmick accounts, likely more Donko ones (to his credit, he sticks to his system of annoying "shills" with doddering weird gimmick accounts and manages to get attention over and over).

As well, to that Moos degen, if you also want to place bets on tomorrow's football games with a posted spread giving me 2-1 odds let me know. You can pick the team in each match. I am happy to do that with any sports even you like on any posted line for any amount as long as I know your funds are somewhere I can trust beforehand. Think of how much you can have the last word if you win (ignoring the fact that I will just arbitrage it out anyway so I won't actually care).

Recognize a flawed system. Capitalize on it. Try it sometime Round instead of whining about it.

All the best.

It has everything to do with it. No matter what the timing or the criteria for dealing a nonrandom flop, it changes the distribution. The data shows that the margin for hiding manipulation is only a few flops per 100,000. Let's be generous and say that 50 wouldn't be noticed if spread out. My breakdown would detect any more than that. So explain how a site would boost their result by fiddling with 5 one-hundredths of a percent of the flops.

Of course it's obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.

It's to ensure that any innocent party that happens upon this thread does not see the puerile crap that you and tk1133 post lying unchallenged and erroneously believe that the rest of 2+2 agree with your nonsense.

BTW, there is no need for me to call you a ******.

You demonstrate that fact with almost every post you make.

Have a nice day.

Because, of course, matters of fact and competently applied logic have no place in your philosophies.

Woo-hoo it's smear's theory of timing.

do-do do-do do-do do-do

Please do not adjust your set.

Smears has taken control of the vertical and the horizontal.

But we were talking about your president, house of representatives and senate.

You may have been asleep during lessons about your own constitution (or, indeed, may not have reached that level yet) but only one of those is a man.

The next time will probably be around 13:30 GMT tomorrow.

TO SPADEBIDDER

I found your website. I have not read most or truly any of it but it looks interesting and I shall.
There was article on ALL IN which is what I have been dealing with. The mental anguish i have is over all ins and their effects.

It says protected.? Are you planing on at some point publishing this.

THANK YOU

You're welcome

Qpw

pp Spadebider.

I proposed a bet that gives anybody who takes it a clear edge. Nobody has taken it. Ok, there can be plenty of reasons to turn down a bet in your favor.

So I improved the prop. If I win the first time, you don't have to pay me and you automatically get another chance.

Obviously, you never pay off if I cannot provide proof that is satisfactory to you. Obviously, I don't try to collect if I don't have proof--I just ship it to you. (Most posters have PStars accounts, I figure. Maybe not.)

That's about as easy as I can make it, and I make the prop because I've been running bad for a long time. I don't have the software to analyze my HH, so it's a tedious process, but this prop gives me added incentive to keep at it.

Since you seemed to not understand my previous post let me be a bit more clear.

I will take your bet.

I will take your bet.

I will take your bet.

Is that clear enough yet? Hmm , better be safe.

I will take your bet.

The ONLY condition I have is that we BOTH send money to someone here we can trust ( I suggested spade or Bobo) because there is zero chance you are trustworthy on your word alone.




Yeah, that was the bet I agreed to take in a previous post and also in this one.

Hmm, maybe I am not clear yet.

I will take your bet.



This a joke? You are a random unknown, so your "reputation" is meaningless. We do not even know your Pokerstars user name.

While I never really care much about reputation in terms of being loved, I certainly will not mess it up over $50, and as I said I will send money to a trusted source before the bet as well.

What's the problem here exactly?


Yeah, I don't really care why you feel the need to do a massively -EV degen bet, I will take that bet any time you want to do it. My point is, unless you are willing to put your money up front with a trustworthy middleperson, all you are is a guy trying to do a freeroll style scam, who is now making excuses to back away from what you even know was a moronic offer all along.

I don't trust you. Nobody trusts you. You are a random unknown whining because you ran bad. You will not get action based on your word alone, it is that simple, so if you are ready to do the bet in a proper manner you say the word. We can do as many iterations of this bet as you like, as I said I will be arbitraging it away anyway, so I will not even care if you win or lose.

Dumbass.

All the best.

the Six Tool Poker Player:
discipline & self control
understanding of the game
introspection
logical thinking
good focus
recall
qualitative mathematical analysis

just read harrington's poker bibles, play small stakes, and you'll do fine imo

definitely not rigged - i've done fine without software but must learn how to use the data for analysis so i can close the many gaps in my game

My point is that I can work my way through these tournaments playing small ball, taking advantage of obvious weakness, not being all in until I am in the money and looking for a final table. The first time I get 20 or 30 bb worth of stack in, this kind of stuff happens. It just seems so set up. You guys are completely ignoring the fact that if the a site was rigged and being selective with how the programming is going to work against you, you would not see anything wrong when you look at all of the hands. If I am running this bad in very critical situations, it concerns me. Especially since I have a whole years worth of this stuff going on. You can see that when I do gamble, I am ahead most of the time. My ROI has plummeted into the negative down from 80%+ ROI. I am not believing it is variance. A 100 tournaments is a small sample, but again, the deeper I get into my hand histories, the more I see of the same.

For you people who say this is getting old, **** You, dont read.

[QUOTE=DonkoTheClown;16154471You guys are completely ignoring the fact that if the a site was rigged and being selective with how the programming is going to work against you, you would not see anything wrong when you look at all of the hands.[/quote]If they tracked each individual, and made sure their distribution of hole cards somehow stayed the same, while favoring certain players, sure. You'd most likely see patches where someone ran way better than they should, and patches where they ran way worse than they should, unless the selective rigging was ridiculously advance. From your other post, 76% of the time you busted out as a coinflip at best, and the other 24% as a "dominating" favorite. You left out stack sizes, M of yourself and villain, and your actual cards. ...Your original post talking about this said:
Feel free to double check my math on this, but if this is from 100 tournaments, then:

Times you got it in ahead: 24
Times you got it in behind: 76

24/100 is not "most of the time" How big were your samples?

Also, referring to your original post about your bust out hands, you don't need to say "xx lost to the bigger stack" as it's obvious the other player's stack was bigger, because if it weren't you'd still be in the tournament. I get that you're trying to support the whole "Big stacks win too often" theory and all, but all of your bust out hands will be against a bigger stack.

Since I'm the person who said it, I'll read whatever I choose to read and comment on it accordingly. You flip flop based on your mood, which isn't a very scientific approach. I call it like I see it. It's getting REALLY old.

You call it like you see it, which unfortunately depends on your current mood.

Changing anyone's hole cards from what they would have received randomly, affects the deck stub left to deal the flop, and changes the distribution of the flops. That's why you don't need all hole cards to determine if the deal is true. You can't modify any part of the deal without affecting every other part in detectable ways.

I'm not a tournament player: is small-ball generally considered a good tactic in micro-limit tournaments?

If stacks are deep I think it can work well at any stakes. In SnGs with 50BB or less to begin (25BB in round 2) it's a terrible tactic.

Heh, no, not at all for the level he plays. Honestly, he just sucks pretty much. The rare times he posted hands gave an indication of how painfully poorly he plays in these.

Still, since this is getting very repetitive, let's just all pretend to agree that the only reason he loses in micro tournaments is that the site is rigged against him, and all of the data he pulls out of his ass is totally compelling.

I keep putting him on ignore, but somehow his posts keep showing up after a while, but I will never pretend to be good at message board techie stuff. Meh, twoplustwo is probably rigged or something.

To clarify, this is not something I can arrange on the basis of some posts on the forum.

Anyone who wants their hand histories zipped up and accessible will need to email support@pokerstars.com and ask for them.

It is if you're better than everyone.

As stated before, my buy in range is not micro. Look for yourself. UhOh_It'sJoe on Stars and Badmonkey619 on FT. Sure, I will play anything from freerolls up to $24 buy ins most of the time. I have played in the Sunday Million a few times. Sure, my results are not good, and I am sure that a good portion of that is my fault. I am talking about what I am seeing in my hand histories. You guys told me to look at them.

Monteroy, I watched you play a few tournaments. In one of them, you sucked out three times in a row to make a final table. I'll bet a be a good portion of your upswing lately is due to you running really well. You are not nearly as good at this as your arrogance and sarcastic nature are trying to suggest. We will see what happens when your luck dries up.

Donko, if Pokertracker crashed your computer it sounds like its just a RAM problem. Have you tried upgrading it?

No, check it again, most of the time I was a coin flip or much better than that. A minority of the hands I was the underdog.

My sample size looking at just these scenarios is not 100k. I understand that to be a good sample size amount for the long haul. That means that I have to play 100k tournaments to see how I am running in those specific situations. So, knowing that, a site could specifically target players who will never reach the long haul investigating these parts of their hand histories. So it is all explained away as variance and bad play.

One of the reasons the post is greatly flawed is because 'DonkoTheClown' is claiming he gets knocked out roughly half the time from losing coin flips to bigger stacks, implying that where ever the hell he plays is biased towards big stacks.

Not only is the sample size he is using horrific, and he needs 100x the sample he is currently using to come up with any evidence that is worth discussing, but he is also not including the amount of times he has won the flip.

To get knocked out of a tournament, he needs to lose all of his chips to a person with more chips, so of course every time he gets knocked out, it will be to a larger stack. Otherwise, he wouldn't get knocked out. To say he always gets knocked out of a tournament to a larger stack is a fact, as obviously can't get knocked out of a tournament to a shorter stack.

My girlfriend just got a new laptop, I am going to try it on hers.