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 56.00%
Undecided 893 9.06%
Voters: 9860. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-17-2010, 01:48 AM   #12176
DonkoTheClown
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 741
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShortShorts View Post
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.
I am focusing on how I am running in those all in late in the tournament situations. Simply put, most of the time I am a coin flip or much better, yet I have busted out in the last 100 tournaments in a row even though I have placed myself in pretty good situations most of the time to double up and have a shot to get much deeper. Also, what I am saying is that I have more histories showing the same. But I am going to top out at somewhere around 500 or 600 tournaments on this particular site. I do have a 100k hands saved, but what I am trying to get you guys thinking about is how a site could manipulate the numbers to show that nothing is amiss when you look at a 100k hands, but in reality, if the focus is a bit more covert and sniperlike, you could really ruin a decent players results. You could also make a really good player much less a winner.
DonkoTheClown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 01:49 AM   #12177
otatop
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: unstuckpolitics.com
Posts: 12,727
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown View Post
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.
You said 48 times it was a flip, 24 times you were ahead, and the remainder (28 times) you said were either dominated by an overpair or just way behind in general. Even if we say half of your flips had you as a favorite, you still got it in behind more often than ahead.
Quote:

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.
I was actually referring to how many games you used to get your ROI numbers. Going from 80% to the negatives is a pretty big swing, but having an 80% ROI over a decent sample is...difficult to say the least.

Going from what I can see on Sharkscope, you've played less than 400 SNGs on FTP, and somewhere around 550 total tournaments. That's not really enough to get an idea of true ROI, and it looks like those tournaments have been at varying stakes.

EDIT: Looked your Stars name up on TopShark, and it looks like you've played around 1,000 MTTs and SNGs combined there, and that's over a year and a half or so.
Quote:
So it is all explained away as variance and bad play.
If this was the case, there would be tons of people with samples (albeit small) that were well outside the expected range.

That's pretty much exactly how the Cereus superusers were uncovered, if I recall correctly. nionio and potripper didn't play a ton of tournaments, they just played so suspiciously in the few that they did that their results were impossible, even with such a small sample.

Last edited by otatop; 01-17-2010 at 01:59 AM.
otatop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 01:49 AM   #12178
KingOfFelt
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
KingOfFelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: West Coast
Posts: 7,233
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown View Post

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.
So he sucks out three times in one tournament and you are using this to judge his overall abilities? You aren't learning anything about sample sizes in the thread are you?
KingOfFelt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 01:50 AM   #12179
DonkoTheClown
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 741
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown View Post
I am focusing on how I am running in those all in late in the tournament situations. Simply put, most of the time I am a coin flip or much better, yet I have busted out in the last 100 tournaments in a row even though I have placed myself in pretty good situations most of the time to double up and have a shot to get much deeper. Also, what I am saying is that I have more histories showing the same. But I am going to top out at somewhere around 500 or 600 tournaments on this particular site. I do have a 100k hands saved, but what I am trying to get you guys thinking about is how a site could manipulate the numbers to show that nothing is amiss when you look at a 100k hands, but in reality, if the focus is a bit more covert and sniperlike, you could really ruin a decent players results. You could also make a really good player much less a winner.
If I looked over these same 100 end game scenarios and saw that I was behind most of the time, then it would be a lot easier for me to see why I have not netted better results.
DonkoTheClown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 02:00 AM   #12180
DonkoTheClown
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 741
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfFelt View Post
So he sucks out three times in one tournament and you are using this to judge his overall abilities? You aren't learning anything about sample sizes in the thread are you?
No, he is a pretty good online poker player and has some pretty good results. His attitude is what really sucks. He uses the same arrogant and sarcastic approach almost everytime he posts. It is all coming from a very over inflated ego.

I post one hand here that I played badly and he has been harping on it ever since. This is just irritating and pointless to me.
DonkoTheClown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 02:02 AM   #12181
ShortShorts
centurion
 
ShortShorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 128
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown View Post
I am focusing on how I am running in those all in late in the tournament situations. Simply put, most of the time I am a coin flip or much better, yet I have busted out in the last 100 tournaments in a row even though I have placed myself in pretty good situations most of the time to double up and have a shot to get much deeper. Also, what I am saying is that I have more histories showing the same. But I am going to top out at somewhere around 500 or 600 tournaments on this particular site. I do have a 100k hands saved, but what I am trying to get you guys thinking about is how a site could manipulate the numbers to show that nothing is amiss when you look at a 100k hands, but in reality, if the focus is a bit more covert and sniperlike, you could really ruin a decent players results. You could also make a really good player much less a winner.
You really can't group together flips and situations you have your opponent crushed. Obviously, you are going to lose flips half the time, and lose hands where you have your opponent dominated roughly 1/3 of the time, which is what your own statistics are showing you.

For such a small sample size of 100 hands that you have lost (you also really need to look at the times you won, otherwise it's just a biased sample), it's reasonably statistically accurate and not the correct data you should be looking at to either improve your game or to determine if a site is legit or not.
ShortShorts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 02:08 AM   #12182
DonkoTheClown
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 741
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by otatop View Post
You said 48 times it was a flip, 24 times you were ahead, and the remainder (28 times) you said were either dominated by an overpair or just way behind in general. Even if we say half of your flips had you as a favorite, you still got it in behind more often than ahead.I was actually referring to how many games you used to get your ROI numbers. Going from 80% to the negatives is a pretty big swing, but having an 80% ROI over a decent sample is...difficult to say the least.
Ok so if the numbers were a much larger sample size, say 50k, I would expect not to bust almost half of the time right?

I am not going to rule out that I am just running bad in those situations in the short term, but lets also not forget that 24% of the time, I was way ahead and still lost. These all ranged in the 2-6 out range.

I did a quick triage to get some feedback to see if it even made sense for me to continue looking through these in the specific way that I did.

Thank you for the feedback.
DonkoTheClown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 02:15 AM   #12183
otatop
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: unstuckpolitics.com
Posts: 12,727
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown View Post
Ok so if the numbers were a much larger sample size, say 50k, I would expect not to bust almost half of the time right?
If these were your only all ins, yeah.*

Your methodology's a bit lacking though, since only looking at bust out hands and using them as your sample is like only using cash game hands where you lose more than 50BBs. Of course it's going to look like you're running awful...because you lost the hands.

*I am not an accredited statistician, and only have a moderate understanding of very basic stats.
otatop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 02:17 AM   #12184
DonkoTheClown
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 741
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShortShorts View Post
You really can't group together flips and situations you have your opponent crushed. Obviously, you are going to lose flips half the time, and lose hands where you have your opponent dominated roughly 1/3 of the time, which is what your own statistics are showing you.

For such a small sample size of 100 hands that you have lost (you also really need to look at the times you won, otherwise it's just a biased sample), it's reasonably statistically accurate and not the correct data you should be looking at to either improve your game or to determine if a site is legit or not.
Ok, So if none of us can run these last hand of the tournament scenarios to see what our expectation should be, what is to stop a site from using this area to manipulate the results? (outside of not wanting to break the law or get caught)

Also, I would think that it would be interesting and useful to see how you are handling your end game scenarios to see if you are making some huge mistakes that could be affecting your bottom line right? What you are doing in these areas of your tournament play provided that you have not been able to build a big stack early seems very critical in my mind. All it takes is for you to make a few big mistakes a month in these areas and you could very well have a losing year instead of winning one correct?
DonkoTheClown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 02:18 AM   #12185
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by otatop View Post
Your methodology's a bit lacking though, since only looking at bust out hands and using them as your sample is ...
... completely invalid.

You always lose the one that eliminates you, 100% of the time. If you get all-in 3 times in a tournament with an 80% favorite, it's a coin toss to survive them all (51%). Four times and you only have 41% chance to survive. To evaluate all-in luck, you have to include them all, not the bust outs. By themselves the statistic is meaningless.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 02:29 AM   #12186
pooflinger
adept
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: run bad
Posts: 850
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

for what its worth on cake poker if you talk trash about there site in chat they wait untill you have nuts and your almost all in then bam you lose conection and there employe bets on river and scoops pot . happened to me and i got a little msg from buddy hinting what they did.
pooflinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 02:29 AM   #12187
ShortShorts
centurion
 
ShortShorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 128
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
... completely invalid.

You always lose the one that eliminates you, 100% of the time. If you get all-in 3 times in a tournament with an 80% favorite, it's a coin toss to survive them all (51%). Four times and you only have 41% chance to survive. To evaluate all-in luck, you have to include them all, not the bust outs. By themselves the statistic is meaningless.
What I have been trying to say but have seemingly failed to.

While reviewing your bust out hands can show how you are busting out of tournaments, it alone can not be the judge on whether or not a site is legit. It is focusing on incorrect and insufficient data to make an entirely different point.
ShortShorts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 02:31 AM   #12188
DonkoTheClown
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 741
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by otatop View Post
If these were your only all ins, yeah.*

Your methodology's a bit lacking though, since only looking at bust out hands and using them as your sample is like only using cash game hands where you lose more than 50BBs. Of course it's going to look like you're running awful...because you lost the hands.

*I am not an accredited statistician, and only have a moderate understanding of very basic stats.
Do you agree with me that you could take separate samples of a specifc size (lets call it 50k) of two different players bust out hands (all in a row) and see that one of the players expectation should be higher than the others based on the scenarios they were in each hand?

Example:
Player A - last 50,000 in a row heads up bust outs - 25,000 coin flips, 15k dominated other player, 10k was dominated.
Player B - last 50,000 in a row heads up bust outs - 20,000 coin flips, 5k dominated other player, 20,000 dominated.

Player A's expectation should be higher even if his results are lower than player B's right?

Getting to 50,000 of these all in and busted out scenarios would take a very long time. Couldnt a site hide a good portion of their rig here?

Last edited by DonkoTheClown; 01-17-2010 at 02:37 AM.
DonkoTheClown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 02:41 AM   #12189
ShortShorts
centurion
 
ShortShorts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 128
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown View Post
Do you agree with me that you could take separate samples of a specifc size (lets call it 50k) of two different players bust out hands (all in a row) and see that one of the players expectation should be higher than the others based on the scenarios they were in each hand?

Example:
Player A - last 50,000 in a row heads up bust outs - 25,000 coin flips, 15k dominated other player, 10k was dominated.
Player B - last 50,000 in a row heads up bust outs - 20,000 coin flips, 5k dominated other player, 20,000 dominated.

Player A's expectation should be higher even if his results are lower than player B's right?

Getting to 50,000 of these all in and busted out scenarios would take a very long time. Couldnt a site hide a good portion of their rig here?
Bust out hands mean nothing without also including hands a player won in the same situation.
ShortShorts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 03:16 AM   #12190
otatop
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: unstuckpolitics.com
Posts: 12,727
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown View Post
Do you agree with me that you could take separate samples of a specifc size (lets call it 50k) of two different players bust out hands (all in a row) and see that one of the players expectation should be higher than the others based on the scenarios they were in each hand?
No. Looking at bust out hands alone is a cherry picked biased sample.
Quote:
Couldnt a site hide a good portion of their rig here?
If they did, it would show up in earlier all ins. If their evil plan is to let people last until the money, then knock them out (it lures bad players to play more if they cash or something, right? Didn't one of you say that a while ago?), they have to make the people win more often earlier on. You could easily see it if "bad" players were winning more often than they should early, and less often than they should after the bubble burst.

There's no way to just tweak one stat without having to tweak every related stat. If you just tweak one stat, you end up with a graph that looks like this:
otatop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 07:31 AM   #12191
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by pooflinger View Post
for what its worth on cake poker if you talk trash about there site in chat they wait untill you have nuts and your almost all in then bam you lose conection and there employe bets on river and scoops pot . happened to me and i got a little msg from buddy hinting what they did.
Can you post your evidence for this rather fanciful assertion?
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 07:38 AM   #12192
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,099
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown View Post
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.

Give me a break. This is the type of analysis you always do, incomplete and pointless. I did run hot in a 5 rebuy recently, but you know what, that was after literally dozens of very deep finishes in that same tournament without a FT, including some brutal beats with 10-100 people left. Look at my full record and look at all of the top 100 finishes in that tournament which usually has a few thousand people in it.

Thing is 40th pays a whopping $50, so my recent decent score helped finally offset a ton of finishes like that.

This is not arrogance, it's pure annoyance because all of my early posts genuinely tried to help and get you on a path where you could improve your game, and instead all I got hit with was weird paranoia and gimmick accounts of fake old people from you. You are totally un-coachable (from anyone - even nice people).

So yes, after that you started getting the sarcasm treatment laced with my letting you know that indeed you are number 1, and you can guess which finger is in the air to prove that.


In your use of cherry picked data, what you leave out are the ton of tournaments where I play well, get it in fine and then lose to the extremely bad players, which is sadly part of the variance of the game.

Here, from a 10 rebuy recently, unconverted to actually prove it happened. These happened deep


PokerStars Game #38186310588: Tournament #262011114, $10+$1 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level XVI (1250/2500) - 2010/01/15 2:33:40 ET
Table '262011114 106' 9-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: fugazi17 (33242 in chips)
Seat 2: Monteroy (112744 in chips)
Seat 3: civitaquana (55370 in chips)
Seat 4: maskaveli (245953 in chips)
Seat 5: IteatsCards (172631 in chips)
Seat 6: hateordie (14332 in chips) is sitting out
Seat 7: KingMercu (39198 in chips)
Seat 8: Ben436 (73809 in chips)
Seat 9: beardog1961 (47633 in chips)
fugazi17: posts the ante 250
Monteroy: posts the ante 250
civitaquana: posts the ante 250
maskaveli: posts the ante 250
IteatsCards: posts the ante 250
hateordie: posts the ante 250
KingMercu: posts the ante 250
Ben436: posts the ante 250
beardog1961: posts the ante 250
Monteroy: posts small blind 1250
civitaquana: posts big blind 2500
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [Ah Td]
maskaveli: folds
IteatsCards: folds
hateordie: folds
KingMercu: folds
Ben436: folds
beardog1961: raises 7500 to 10000
fugazi17: folds
Monteroy: raises 102494 to 112494 and is all-in
civitaquana: folds
beardog1961: calls 37383 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (65111) returned to Monteroy
*** FLOP *** [8s 8c Jd]
*** TURN *** [8s 8c Jd] [6h]
*** RIVER *** [8s 8c Jd 6h] [3h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Monteroy: shows [Ah Td] (a pair of Eights)
beardog1961: shows [Kd 6d] (two pair, Eights and Sixes)
beardog1961 collected 99516 from pot


PokerStars Game #38186324210: Tournament #262011114, $10+$1 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level XVII (1500/3000) - 2010/01/15 2:35:16 ET
Table '262011114 106' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: fugazi17 (32392 in chips)
Seat 2: Monteroy (71711 in chips)
Seat 3: civitaquana (50520 in chips)
Seat 4: maskaveli (247803 in chips)
Seat 5: IteatsCards (168781 in chips)
Seat 6: hateordie (13482 in chips) is sitting out
Seat 7: KingMercu (38348 in chips)
Seat 8: Ben436 (72959 in chips)
Seat 9: beardog1961 (98916 in chips)
fugazi17: posts the ante 300
Monteroy: posts the ante 300
civitaquana: posts the ante 300
maskaveli: posts the ante 300
IteatsCards: posts the ante 300
hateordie: posts the ante 300
KingMercu: posts the ante 300
Ben436: posts the ante 300
beardog1961: posts the ante 300
IteatsCards: posts small blind 1500
hateordie: posts big blind 3000
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [Ks Ad]
KingMercu: folds
Ben436: folds
beardog1961: raises 9000 to 12000
fugazi17: folds
Monteroy: raises 59411 to 71411 and is all-in
civitaquana: folds
maskaveli: folds
IteatsCards: folds
hateordie: folds
beardog1961: calls 59411
*** FLOP *** [6c 2s 6h]
*** TURN *** [6c 2s 6h] [5c]
*** RIVER *** [6c 2s 6h 5c] [9h]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
beardog1961: shows [9d As] (two pair, Nines and Sixes)
Monteroy: shows [Ks Ad] (a pair of Sixes)
beardog1961 collected 150022 from pot



Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown View Post
No, he is a pretty good online poker player and has some pretty good results. His attitude is what really sucks. He uses the same arrogant and sarcastic approach almost everytime he posts. It is all coming from a very over inflated ego.

I post one hand here that I played badly and he has been harping on it ever since. This is just irritating and pointless to me.
Yes, I can be an arrogant putz at times, with full recognition of when I am doing that. I even pretty much make that clear that is one of my character routines here vs the standard riggedologists.

With you it is different, it is genuine frustration because I wasted time trying to be helpful (as others keep doing with you) when you are simply incapable of learning. Try to educate someone over and over and over and continue to get hit by weird paranoid replies that feel semi-fake and this is the reaction you will create. Look at this thread, you are frustrating a ton of people with your inability to accept any form of reason or logic. All you keep doing is creating fictional worlds where sites can rig the games magically against you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown View Post
Do you agree with me that you could take separate samples of a specifc size (lets call it 50k) of two different players bust out hands (all in a row) and see that one of the players expectation should be higher than the others based on the scenarios they were in each hand?

Example:
Player A - last 50,000 in a row heads up bust outs - 25,000 coin flips, 15k dominated other player, 10k was dominated.
Player B - last 50,000 in a row heads up bust outs - 20,000 coin flips, 5k dominated other player, 20,000 dominated.

Player A's expectation should be higher even if his results are lower than player B's right?

Getting to 50,000 of these all in and busted out scenarios would take a very long time. Couldnt a site hide a good portion of their rig here?
Yeah sure, whatever, they are creating a long term evil plan to slowly screw you in 3 buck tourneys. Whatever. Other guys can waste their time and energy trying to get you to see the flaws in your "logic" as all you do is reply with even weirder rigged worlds to possibly explain your continued losses.

Hint, you lose because to be blunt

You

Suck


Suck less in these tournaments and you will lose less. Seriously.



With all of the above, add in all of your admitted gimmick account trolling, and what type of response do you really think you deserve at this point.

The ONLY reason why I think you are semi legit in your complaints is that your results actually do suck, but it is not your one hand, it is literally your ENTIRE approach to the game and people who waste time trying to help you that is flawed.

Last edited by Monteroy; 01-17-2010 at 07:45 AM. Reason: Had an "all the best" at the end. Removed it.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 08:26 AM   #12193
SwedishMedusa
journeyman
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 390
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
Can you post your evidence for this rather fanciful assertion?
I will answer for him. Here's the evidence:
SwedishMedusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 11:36 AM   #12194
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishMedusa View Post
I will answer for him. Here's the evidence:
Thanks.

Having examined it and analysed it in detail I have to say I'm not 100% convinced.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 11:51 AM   #12195
TwoMoos
adept
 
TwoMoos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Uncertainty
Posts: 1,090
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
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.
You have a curious way of accepting the proposition.

My original prop was posted late on Jan 14 and would have started on Jan 15. Do you want to include Jan 15, 16 and today, or set a different start date? I suggest starting on Jan 20. It takes about five days for me to accumulate 2000+ hands. From Jan 10-14, I played 2319 hands. From Jan 15-19, I'll play a little more, probably, and so on into Jan 20-24.
TwoMoos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 11:53 AM   #12196
Arouet
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Arouet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,433
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
This is not arrogance, it's pure annoyance because all of my early posts genuinely tried to help and get you on a path where you could improve your game, and instead all I got hit with was weird paranoia and gimmick accounts of fake old people from you.
Donko admitted to being old moose? when did that happen? I don't remember reading him admit to being any gimmick?
Arouet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 11:55 AM   #12197
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arouet View Post
Donko admitted to being old moose? when did that happen? I don't remember reading him admit to being any gimmick?
Maybe he's that turkey giblet guy who is leveling a bunch of threads. On second thought, that one is pretty cleverly done though.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 12:28 PM   #12198
Mr. Giblet
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 708
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

I DONT understand.

SOMEONE called me a donought. Now turkery. Im posting in more than one section. Is that not allowed. SOME OF you have lots more posts than me. IN lots of differnent sections of the website.

I DID not learn the HIGHER MATHS. IT was my choice. YET but do not hold this over my head like a carrot to a starving dog. I understand what I can.


THANK YOU
Mr. Giblet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 12:34 PM   #12199
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,099
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arouet View Post
Donko admitted to being old moose? when did that happen? I don't remember reading him admit to being any gimmick?
Yeah he did, and there is no chance I am going to dig through and find it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
Maybe he's that turkey giblet guy who is leveling a bunch of threads. On second thought, that one is pretty cleverly done though.
I just assumed he is. He has decent skills in creating troll characters. I just ignore all of his new gimmick accounts, and I wish others did. Shame for him he does not use the same energy to work on his actual poker game, if poker matters to him (who knows, maybe it is all some wacko elaborate level).


Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoMoos View Post
You have a curious way of accepting the proposition.

My original prop was posted late on Jan 14 and would have started on Jan 15. Do you want to include Jan 15, 16 and today, or set a different start date? I suggest starting on Jan 20. It takes about five days for me to accumulate 2000+ hands. From Jan 10-14, I played 2319 hands. From Jan 15-19, I'll play a little more, probably, and so on into Jan 20-24.
Let me make this as simple as possible for you. As long as you send your money to a trusted source first and we have spade analyze the data separate from your handling of it, you can choose any date and time to "start" the bet.

You can also do as many iterations of this bet as you like, I suggest we do it 50 to 100 times.

As I already said, no matter how many times and when you want to do the bet, I have already arranged to arbitrage it with others so that I will win no matter what the results, so seriously the more you want to do these degen bets the better.

There is absolutely no bet in place until you agree to send and actually send the money first to a trusted middle person, again I suggest spadebidder (if he is ok with that). If he is not (which I understand) then we will find another trusted poster here to serve that purpose.

Once you send the money and I send the money , you can pick whatever exact starting time you like, pick one that feels lucky or unlucky, I truly do not care as my win will be locked in already. Do mystic voodoo chants if it helps.

Also, feel free to chase your losses over and over if you lose. I will honor this bet as many times as you like.

How's that?
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2010, 12:36 PM   #12200
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Giblet View Post
I DONT understand.

SOMEONE called me a donought. Now turkery. Im posting in more than one section. Is that not allowed. SOME OF you have lots more posts than me. IN lots of differnent sections of the website.

I DID not learn the HIGHER MATHS. IT was my choice. YET but do not hold this over my head like a carrot to a starving dog. I understand what I can.


THANK YOU
You just use one glib term after another.

YOU'RE WELCOME
qpw 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 12:28 PM.


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