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 01-28-2010, 04:56 AM   #12601
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 tk1133 View Post
Can it be done?
The problem with that question is that the only honest answer is: nobody knows.

Simply because you cannot prove a negative.

There is no fundamental law of computer science that say it could not happen but a poker server is a much tighter piece of code than a general purpose program such as a web browser or general purpose web server and is thus much easier to lock down.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 05:19 AM   #12602
SwedishMedusa
journeyman
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 390
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by indianaV8 View Post
qpw - agree with all you wrote, except this one:



The more "security" on FT due to the different dealing does not make difference in practice. Gaining access to everyone's hole cards is pretty much the same as gaining access to everyone's hold cards plus the upcoming community cards.
I think he meant that on PS the deck is shuffled and set before the deal. On FT it is continuously shuffled. Meaning that on FT you couldn't gain access to upcoming community cards* because it is not determined until the card hits the board.

*Unless you didn't also crack the shuffling algorithm but the "seed" is random anyway so that's not possible.
SwedishMedusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 06:35 AM   #12603
Majunken
stranger
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 14
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

FT is only rigged when i lose, and only legit when I win. Atleast thats how I am going to continue to justify myself and my game

tonight... it was rigged from 8pm to 11pm, but from 12am to 2am... NOT RIGGED. oh except for the suckout in the 90 man sng, ofcourse he was flopping a set to my KK... RIGGED! :P

lol, I def. dont think the sites are out to get anyone, but it sure is fun to think they are... helps mend the soul! Fin DOOMSWITCH!
Majunken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 09:38 AM   #12604
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,099
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
Well, why don't you stop acting like a little girl with your silly little outbursts of bitchiness?
Seriously, your fixation on dudes being little girls is a tad creepy. Pick a different tact. You should be better than that.



Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
You are starting to sound like tk1133.



You really are starting to sound as daft as any of the 'tards, now.

Unless someone makes stupid mistakes about the rules of the game it's hard to see how anyone could possibly reach such a conclusion.

It's usually a sign of s rigtard who's run out of anything intelligent to say and just starts flailing around handing out nonsense.

Well, the funny thing is, one of the few issues I kind of agreed with tk about was when he would delve into whether you actually even play. Even this response above is all bluster which ironically is direct from the riggies handbook when they are put to the test with a simple yes or no question.

I will ask you the exact same questions I ask riggies when they make all sorts of vague claims about their play (which nearly always ends up being microstakes at most)

Do you play? Yes or no? If so what do you play? Let's see some proof.




Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
There is no passion in a belief.

A certain tenaciousness, maybe, in resisting the promulgation of spurious information.
Semantics combined with an addiction to synonym.com is simply more bluster. I never doubt your convictions, however, I completely doubt whether you have much valid actual first hand experience to really talk about the games other than from a theoretical perspective.





Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
As you've now taken on the mantle of the most desperate rigtard I'm going to ask you the same simple question that I and many others ask them:

Evidence?


All the best.

How about we both answer your remark.

My user names on nearly every site I play is Monteroy. You can search me on tableratings, sharkcope, opr, pokerlabs or any of the other sites you like. My play for the past year or so has been primarily on Stars, before that I was doing a lot of systemic abuse to the Cryptologic network. I do play some on ipoker still as well, though not as much these days.


Now it is your turn. I like transparency. How about you?

Good luck.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 10:08 AM   #12605
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 Monteroy View Post
Seriously, your fixation on dudes being little girls is a tad creepy. Pick a different tact. You should be better than that.
There's no fixation. I've never suggested that about anyone else here. Indeed, in two and a half years the only mention has been in the last few days.

You, however, do act like a woman with PMS the way you periodically get all bitchy and go completely off topic to do so.

Quote:
Well, the funny thing is, one of the few issues I kind of agreed with tk about was when he would delve into whether you actually even play.
Yes, as I said, you have joined in the intellectually bankrupt distraction from the topic: Is online poker rigged in order to discuss something completely irrelevant.

Quote:
Even this response above is all bluster
Not bluster at all. Just a refusal to play your silly game.

Quote:
Do you play? Yes or no? If so what do you play?
Yes. Yes. None of your business.

Quote:
Let's see some proof.
You seem to have an extremely inflated sense of your own importance.

This thread is a debate about whether or not 'Poker is rigged', not 'Who plays poker at what stakes'.

I have no intention of playing your silly game. What, and indeed if, I play is none of your concern.

You can get your panties in as much of a bunch as you like and wave your arms about and squeal about refusing to answer the question but the bottom line is that it simply is not any of your business.

Quote:
Semantics combined with an addiction to synonym.com is simply more bluster.
Sorry if you had problems. I'll try and use shorter words for you in future.

Quote:
I completely doubt whether you have much valid actual first hand experience to really talk about the games other than from a theoretical perspective.
You seem to be confusing me with someone who gives a damn.

Even if I had never played a game of cards in my life and had no intention of doing so, it would have no bearing whatsoever on my ability to debate this issue.

Now, why don't you go and get some hormone therapy or something and quit with the off topic bitching?

Quote:
I like transparency.
Indeed. You have a transparent mind.

Sadly, that in no way implies clarity of thought.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 10:25 AM   #12606
SwedishMedusa
journeyman
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 390
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

ok this is kinda fun but why does it matter if he plays or not?
SwedishMedusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 10:31 AM   #12607
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 SwedishMedusa View Post
ok this is kinda fun but why does it matter if he plays or not?
this (not that I really want to interrupt this little exchange: ).
Arouet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 12:10 PM   #12608
batair
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
batair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: idiocracy
Posts: 16,806
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
You, however, do act like a woman with PMS the way you periodically get all bitchy and go completely off topic to do so.
I think he just needs to get laid or try some weight lifting or something.
batair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 12:30 PM   #12609
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,099
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
There's no fixation. I've never suggested that about anyone else here. Indeed, in two and a half years the only mention has been in the last few days.

You, however, do act like a woman with PMS the way you periodically get all bitchy and go completely off topic to do so.

As I said, if fixating on me with these aspects of misogyny in your personality does something for you emotionally then go for it. I'll just ignore it from this point on.



Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
Yes, as I said, you have joined in the intellectually bankrupt distraction from the topic: Is online poker rigged in order to discuss something completely irrelevant.


Yes. Yes. None of your business.

Is it though? Credibility can come in many forms. spadebidder for instance has demonstrated immense credibility in his ability to analyze data and discuss theories related to that area. How much and what he plays is not really that important.

Josem has a ton of first hand experience playing as well as now working within the biggest site in the world. He has "cred" to talk about the issues he talks about.

I play a ton, and I am a fierce student of the game, so I have credibility in that aspect of the conversation. I do not pretend to have it when it comes to the things spade does.


What do you bring to the table exactly? As I said, you are entertaining, and you clearly get a rush from these types of chats which is perfectly valid, but as a person who does play a ton I look at you and think you are a lot of talk about the game but you are more of an observer.

Even that Mears guy you hate PMed me with his play history, which granted was pretty much standard losing player stuff, but he did play a decent volume, so at least I know his nutty theories are based on that as a foundation.



Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
You seem to have an extremely inflated sense of your own importance.
If you do something, do it well. Reality is nobody here matters all that much. You just happen to matter a tiny bit less, so my importance is really just a matter of perspective.



Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
This thread is a debate about whether or not 'Poker is rigged', not 'Who plays poker at what stakes'.

I have no intention of playing your silly game. What, and indeed if, I play is none of your concern.

The play history is a part of the debate as well. Nearly all of the riggies are casual or semi regular players in microstake games, not 20 table grinders at 100NL. There is a reason for this, and their play along with their personality (paranoid) is a large part of how their standard selective memory/conspiracy concepts emerge.

I play so much that I can see first hand through all of their silliness, much like how I essentially set Donko straight in how to look at the games. I have been there day in and day out facing painful beats and running crazy hot or cold, so I see how they can believe what they believe.

Playing matters. That's why I always ask riggies what they play because usually their play history will show they lack the experience to really make a proper judgement on their situation. That's also why I am asking you the same thing, and I am not really surprised you are going with the "I'm not saying my name" answer, which was exactly what that mears and the bannedonlinepoker guys said as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
You can get your panties in as much of a bunch as you like and wave your arms about and squeal about refusing to answer the question but the bottom line is that it simply is not any of your business.



Sorry if you had problems. I'll try and use shorter words for you in future.



You seem to be confusing me with someone who gives a damn.
Project much?

Whether you give a damn or not is secondary. If you are a non player (which it seems clear you are) then your opinions about actual poker play are diminished somewhat. That's just normal. You can keep your secrets, but that is the result. You can say you don't care as well. Does not change that.




Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
Even if I had never played a game of cards in my life and had no intention of doing so, it would have no bearing whatsoever on my ability to debate this issue.
You can debate it all you like, it just makes your opinions lighter in significance since you do not actually play. You are at times amusing and entertaining so you certainly should continue to do that as that is definitely part of the charm of this thread.



Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
Now, why don't you go and get some hormone therapy or something and quit with the off topic bitching?



Indeed. You have a transparent mind.

Sadly, that in no way implies clarity of thought.

Heh. Creepy direct personal attacks. I can see you smashing the keyboard to get those gems out over and over. They are never as impressive as you think whether they are directed to me or riggies, they just make those who hurl them seem small and overly emotional.


Hope this helps some.

All the best.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 12:52 PM   #12610
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 Monteroy View Post
As I said, if fixating on me with these aspects of misogyny in your personality does something for you emotionally then go for it. I'll just ignore it from this point on.
Is it though? Credibility can come in many forms. spadebidder for instance has demonstrated immense credibility in his ability to analyze data and discuss theories related to that area. How much and what he plays is not really that important.
Josem has a ton of first hand experience playing as well as now working within the biggest site in the world. He has "cred" to talk about the issues he talks about.
I play a ton, and I am a fierce student of the game, so I have credibility in that aspect of the conversation. I do not pretend to have it when it comes to the things spade does.
What do you bring to the table exactly? As I said, you are entertaining, and you clearly get a rush from these types of chats which is perfectly valid, but as a person who does play a ton I look at you and think you are a lot of talk about the game but you are more of an observer.
Even that Mears guy you hate PMed me with his play history, which granted was pretty much standard losing player stuff, but he did play a decent volume, so at least I know his nutty theories are based on that as a foundation.
If you do something, do it well. Reality is nobody here matters all that much. You just happen to matter a tiny bit less, so my importance is really just a matter of perspective.
The play history is a part of the debate as well. Nearly all of the riggies are casual or semi regular players in microstake games, not 20 table grinders at 100NL. There is a reason for this, and their play along with their personality (paranoid) is a large part of how their standard selective memory/conspiracy concepts emerge.
I play so much that I can see first hand through all of their silliness, much like how I essentially set Donko straight in how to look at the games. I have been there day in and day out facing painful beats and running crazy hot or cold, so I see how they can believe what they believe.
Playing matters. That's why I always ask riggies what they play because usually their play history will show they lack the experience to really make a proper judgement on their situation. That's also why I am asking you the same thing, and I am not really surprised you are going with the "I'm not saying my name" answer, which was exactly what that mears and the bannedonlinepoker guys said as well.
Project much?
Whether you give a damn or not is secondary. If you are a non player (which it seems clear you are) then your opinions about actual poker play are diminished somewhat. That's just normal. You can keep your secrets, but that is the result. You can say you don't care as well. Does not change that.
You can debate it all you like, it just makes your opinions lighter in significance since you do not actually play. You are at times amusing and entertaining so you certainly should continue to do that as that is definitely part of the charm of this thread.
Heh. Creepy direct personal attacks. I can see you smashing the keyboard to get those gems out over and over. They are never as impressive as you think whether they are directed to me or riggies, they just make those who hurl them seem small and overly emotional.
tl;dr

Seriously, get out more or get laid.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 01:11 PM   #12611
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,099
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
tl;dr

Seriously, get out more or get laid.
Cool job combining all of my separate comments into a lump sum to remove any of the content and context of them. Very advanced trick... Here, let me try with a recent post of yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
There's no fixation. I've never suggested that about anyone else here. Indeed, in two and a half years the only mention has been in the last few days.
You, however, do act like a woman with PMS the way you periodically get all bitchy and go completely off topic to do so.
Yes, as I said, you have joined in the intellectually bankrupt distraction from the topic: Is online poker rigged in order to discuss something completely irrelevant.
Not bluster at all. Just a refusal to play your silly game.
Yes. Yes. None of your business.
You seem to have an extremely inflated sense of your own importance.
This thread is a debate about whether or not 'Poker is rigged', not 'Who plays poker at what stakes'.
I have no intention of playing your silly game. What, and indeed if, I play is none of your concern.
You can get your panties in as much of a bunch as you like and wave your arms about and squeal about refusing to answer the question but the bottom line is that it simply is not any of your business.
Sorry if you had problems. I'll try and use shorter words for you in future.
You seem to be confusing me with someone who gives a damn.
Even if I had never played a game of cards in my life and had no intention of doing so, it would have no bearing whatsoever on my ability to debate this issue.
Now, why don't you go and get some hormone therapy or something and quit with the off topic bitching?
Indeed. You have a transparent mind.
Sadly, that in no way implies clarity of thought.

tl;dr

Do I win now?



Just keep up with the direct personal attacks on everyone and avoiding the simple question of whether you actually even play or not.

Best thing anyone can do to counter you is just ask that, so maybe riggies will learn.

qpw, do you even play poker?


All the best.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 01:22 PM   #12612
Arouet
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Arouet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,433
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Monteroy, I like a lot of what you write, but I think you're really barking up the wrong tree with the relevance of how much someone plays, at least with regard to this thread. I'm just a casual microstakes player who goes up to $1/$2 only when I can find the time to get to the casino, and would play lower there if they offered the stakes. While certainly up lifetime I would not call myself a great player and would basically say that I'm good enough to have a hobby that pays for itself and usually our hotel room when we go down to Niagara. Now, does that mean I lack credibility ITT? I guess according to your definition.

But as I've repeatedly said, this is a thread primarily about critical thinking. My involvement is peripheral at best but I tend to focus on trying to get the riggies approaching this problem from a more rational standpoint. I don't like seeing people being led astray, or being paranoid, or unduly distressed, although I do admit to taking some pretty good entertainment value along the way.

This thread is also a lesson for myself in critical thinking and I've grown from reading your posts, QPWs and Spadebidders (among others). Dude, both you and QPW have thrown your share of good-natured "witticisms" at various posters. QPW has turned a few your way and you're showing a pretty thin skin IMO.

Take your own advice and as NFuego says, don't be a muppet!
Arouet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 01:27 PM   #12613
Wiki
Pooh-Bah
 
Wiki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: [2,5]
Posts: 5,849
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
Here, let me try with a recent post of yours.

tl;dr

Do I win now?
That MIGHT have worked except for the fact that you've already answered that post.

As it is it just makes you look (even more of) a dick.

You've obviously got some weird personal issues somewhere but there's no need to be an ******* about it.
Wiki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 01:31 PM   #12614
smithcommajohn
grinder
 
smithcommajohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: acceptance
Posts: 533
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

I think playing the game (especially online) has relevance to this thread. If someone has played 300k hands online and another person hasn't even played 1k hands, who is more apt to have picked up on any abnormalities if they were to exist? I would put much more credibility (maybe incorrectly) in the person who has seen 300k hands.

I'll give props to Monteroy for the transparency.
smithcommajohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 01:36 PM   #12615
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
Monteroy, I like a lot of what you write, but I think you're really barking up the wrong tree with the relevance of how much someone plays, at least with regard to this thread. I'm just a casual microstakes player who goes up to $1/$2 only when I can find the time to get to the casino, and would play lower there if they offered the stakes. While certainly up lifetime I would not call myself a great player and would basically say that I'm good enough to have a hobby that pays for itself and usually our hotel room when we go down to Niagara. Now, does that mean I lack credibility ITT? I guess according to your definition.

But as I've repeatedly said, this is a thread primarily about critical thinking. My involvement is peripheral at best but I tend to focus on trying to get the riggies approaching this problem from a more rational standpoint. I don't like seeing people being led astray, or being paranoid, or unduly distressed, although I do admit to taking some pretty good entertainment value along the way.

This thread is also a lesson for myself in critical thinking and I've grown from reading your posts, QPWs and Spadebidders (among others). Dude, both you and QPW have thrown your share of good-natured "witticisms" at various posters. QPW has turned a few your way and you're showing a pretty thin skin IMO.

Take your own advice and as NFuego says, don't be a muppet!
Muppet show was quite good actually.

Seriously though, all of your posts focus in on logical constucts and critical thinking, and as such you have an established history when discussing those topics, and they all tend to be very solid posts.

qpw's feature a ton of personal attacks on riggies and often times mocking of how riggies play. Aside from finding that a bit petty (particularly how he calls everyone ******ed), as a real player I do find it a bit annoying to see a fake player mocking bad players on how to play.

You don't do that, you just stick to the emotionless logic part of the equations though you do get led in by a Donkostyle gimmick troll once in a while, because you try to explain rationality to those who will never embrace it.

As well, it is fun to mix it up once in a while in this thread (was getting beaten down by all the lame gimmick accounts recently), so now that I have given the genuine riggies a very simple tool, I can sit back and watch them use it or not.

By the way, if you were the one that coined the term riggies then good job.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 01:36 PM   #12616
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 smithcommajohn View Post
I think playing the game (especially online) has relevance to this thread. If someone has played 300k hands online and another person hasn't even played 1k hands, who is more apt to have picked up on any abnormalities if they were to exist? I would put much more credibility (maybe incorrectly) in the person who has seen 300k hands.

I'll give props to Monteroy for the transparency.
The person who has more credibility is the one who makes better arguments.
Arouet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 01:43 PM   #12617
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 smithcommajohn View Post
I think playing the game (especially online) has relevance to this thread. If someone has played 300k hands online and another person hasn't even played 1k hands, who is more apt to have picked up on any abnormalities if they were to exist? I would put much more credibility (maybe incorrectly) in the person who has seen 300k hands.
That might be relevant if the argument in the thread was along the lines of:

a) I've noticed x about the distribution of cards.
b) I've noticed no such thing.

In which case you might give more credence to the person with more hands under their belt.

However, as Arouet mentions, this thread is about critical thinking.

Monty now seems to want to turn it into a pissing contest.

I have no intention of being bounced into telling the world and its dog (or anyone, come to that) where and what I play.

If a point of logic is made and someone can show it is faulty, kudos to them. If on the other hand they say: "Well, I don't agree with that because I don't know how many hands you've played" they are only going to make themselves look extremely foolish.


BTW, love your new location.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 01:44 PM   #12618
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 Monteroy View Post
tl;dr

Do I win now?
Only if you're trying to win a "who can embarrass themselves the most" contest.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 01:48 PM   #12619
DonkoTheClown
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 741
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
Muppet show was quite good actually.

Seriously though, all of your posts focus in on logical constucts and critical thinking, and as such you have an established history when discussing those topics, and they all tend to be very solid posts.

qpw's feature a ton of personal attacks on riggies and often times mocking of how riggies play. Aside from finding that a bit petty (particularly how he calls everyone ******ed), as a real player I do find it a bit annoying to see a fake player mocking bad players on how to play.

You don't do that, you just stick to the emotionless logic part of the equations though you do get led in by a Donkostyle gimmick troll once in a while, because you try to explain rationality to those who will never embrace it.

As well, it is fun to mix it up once in a while in this thread (was getting beaten down by all the lame gimmick accounts recently), so now that I have given the genuine riggies a very simple tool, I can sit back and watch them use it or not.

By the way, if you were the one that coined the term riggies then good job.
YOU RRRRANG?
LOL!

Thought I'd stop by and say hello.
I am still in the woodshed on my game.
I got deep yesterday in a tournament on Stars and donked it off right before the money with top pair against an easy read. (the guy had a set). I told my girlfriend to beat the crap out of me on that. I am playing in the $1100 $100k guaranteed for first place tournament at Viejas this weekend. Wish me luck! If I cash in that one, I will have more donkonline money to deposit.

I am still on my 3 month no talk of rigged sites journey.
Talk to you guys later.
Joe
DonkoTheClown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 02:02 PM   #12620
smithcommajohn
grinder
 
smithcommajohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: acceptance
Posts: 533
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arouet View Post
The person who has more credibility is the one who makes better arguments.
They earn more credibility for sure with better arguments, I don't think anyone is refuting that. I'm just saying that playing online poker has relevance ITT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
That might be relevant if the argument in the thread was along the lines of:

a) I've noticed x about the distribution of cards.
b) I've noticed no such thing.

In which case you might give more credence to the person with more hands under their belt.

However, as Arouet mentions, this thread is about critical thinking.

Monty now seems to want to turn it into a pissing contest.

I have no intention of being bounced into telling the world and its dog (or anyone, come to that) where and what I play.

If a point of logic is made and someone can show it is faulty, kudos to them. If on the other hand they say: "Well, I don't agree with that because I don't know how many hands you've played" they are only going to make themselves look extremely foolish.


BTW, love your new location.
We all feel imbarrsed now and then.

Honestly, I thought you and Monteroy were on the same page so often, I can't tell if you guys are even being cereus about this whole thing.

Incidentally, me giving Monteroy props isn't a call for you to do the same. I don't think you need to share your playing history, as I certainly will never disclose mine. If that makes me less credible, so be it.
smithcommajohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 02:08 PM   #12621
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

I'm pretty sure LVGambler first used "riggies" here. I like it too.

On this recent bickering:
Monteroy, although sometimes arrogant and often deliberately condescending, does have more poker cred than most posters in this thread. He adds valuable context to the discussion, and often a sharp and clever wit. qpw has done a good job keeping up the deserved ridicule of stupid rigged posts (as opposed to others that warrant discussion). He also is one of the most articulate posters on 2+2, and I'm pretty sure that isn't a contrived image, it shows real intelligence. So both of you should just finish measuring your dicks and move on. I enjoy posting with both of you (and like you), but not this bickering.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 02:18 PM   #12622
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
feature a ton of personal attacks on riggies and often times mocking of how riggies play. Aside from finding that a bit petty (particularly how he calls everyone ******ed)
This I agree with. I remember early on in my involvement ITT that I made some post saying I agreed with what QPW said but not the way he said it. But QPW is hardly the only one, so let's bring this critique out wider. I think making fun of the riggies is counterproductive. I mean, some good-natured teasing is par for the course, as I've said in the past, but too often the substance of an otherwise good post gets lost because the recipient focuses only on the perceived insult.[/QUOTE]

Last edited by Arouet; 01-28-2010 at 02:19 PM. Reason: Oh, and I don't think I coined the term riggies
Arouet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 02:28 PM   #12623
smithcommajohn
grinder
 
smithcommajohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: acceptance
Posts: 533
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arouet View Post
I think making fun of the riggies is counterproductive. I mean, some good-natured teasing is par for the course, as I've said in the past, but too often the substance of an otherwise good post gets lost because the recipient focuses only on the perceived insult.
Well put, Arouet. +1
smithcommajohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 03:47 PM   #12624
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 Arouet View Post
This I agree with. I remember early on in my involvement ITT that I made some post saying I agreed with what QPW said but not the way he said it. But QPW is hardly the only one, so let's bring this critique out wider. I think making fun of the riggies is counterproductive. I mean, some good-natured teasing is par for the course, as I've said in the past, but too often the substance of an otherwise good post gets lost because the recipient focuses only on the perceived insult.
Also, don't forget that I have stated on many occasions that by no means all, or even most, of the 'riggies' are '******ed'.

That only applies to those who continually ignore logical argument (note; ignore, not simply disagree with) and resort to irrelevancies such as accusing others of being shills or not playing poker.

I suppose there may be a problem where the term 'tard' is used and people for whom it is not intended self include.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 03:53 PM   #12625
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,099
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
I'm pretty sure LVGambler first used "riggies" here. I like it too.

On this recent bickering:
Monteroy, although sometimes arrogant and often deliberately condescending, does have more poker cred than most posters in this thread. He adds valuable context to the discussion, and often a sharp and clever wit. qpw has done a good job keeping up the deserved ridicule of stupid rigged posts (as opposed to others that warrant discussion). He also is one of the most articulate posters on 2+2, and I'm pretty sure that isn't a contrived image, it shows real intelligence. So both of you should just finish measuring your dicks and move on. I enjoy posting with both of you (and like you), but not this bickering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arouet View Post
This I agree with. I remember early on in my involvement ITT that I made some post saying I agreed with what QPW said but not the way he said it. But QPW is hardly the only one, so let's bring this critique out wider. I think making fun of the riggies is counterproductive. I mean, some good-natured teasing is par for the course, as I've said in the past, but too often the substance of an otherwise good post gets lost because the recipient focuses only on the perceived insult.

Basically, I will move on but every day I play against riggies, donks as well as the real engines of the poker economy - the guys who do not utterly suck but they are not nearly as good as they think they are at the game. They also tend to be the ones that hurl all the direct personal attacks and mock others about their play - whether it is donks playing bad or better players totally outplaying them (in ways they do not understand). To be blunt - that is qpw.

If you are in the grind day in and day out it's those guys that eventually tire you out with their petty little mean remarks (just look at the past 5-6 posts by each of us and add them up for each - he definitely wins that contest handily) to the world and annoy you way more than the riggies or -85% ROI donks ever will.

Hence as someone deep into the grind it does eventually annoy me when someone who clearly is not into it makes fun of others in petty ways while lacking that first hand experience to even make many of the actual game based comments.

The same does not at all apply to those of you who focus in on the pure mathematics or logic of the topic itself as that is separate from whether you play 1 or a million hands of poker.

Anyway, off to the grind. Search me if you like (though I have all chat off).

All the best.
Monteroy 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 02:33 PM.


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