how bout u prove it

Prove your theory with my hand histories that I said don't support it? hmm

You hit the flop 80% of the time in some way

I wish I could hit the flop just 50% of the time in some way.

Yes a lot people do lose at poker and yes it is because us winning players have higher IQs than the losing players. As proved by rigtards making up their own stats without evidence ^

Seriously man, instead of thinking online poker is rigged and blaming the sites ( which you still play on, even though you think they are crooked ), how about you make an effort to improve your game and BR management. Everything requires work. I'm just getting so sick of people making up lies on this thread and playing the victim.

The things some people are saying in this thread are just blantant lies.

HensonLosesLots has been...let's say "involved" with numerous horses.

Feel free to prove you haven't, my good man.

On a more serious note, HEM's built in filters can prove or disprove your brilliant "theory".

Another system flaw identified. Easy to adjust for to make millions.

Raise every hand.

Shove every flop since you will always have a lot of equity.

Make millions.

Send me a cut.

Thanks.


I can make a killing as a consultant once riggies start exploiting their pattern mapping knowledge. They just seem to need some help in the simple exploitation of the systems with their secret information. Hope they pay for it from their massive profits.

Henson got pretty deep

So just for fun, how often should you flop top pair, a flush draw, or an OESD? Obviously you feel it's not 80% (and we agree on that), but all you say is that it seems like it happens 80% of the time, which is too often.

I've already filtered the small sample I have on this computer, and I'll post the results in a bit. How many players should be losing? You realize that around 85% of live players lose too, right?

I'm happy to chuck in a further $500, but only if it is PokerStars that is found to be rigged* (I'm not willing to comment or bet that some site like RealDealPoker has a flawed shuffle technique).


*Rigged as far as I'm concerned means that the shuffle is not truly random.

That's $1500 riggies. So many of you are adament in your belief that online poker is rigged, yet when we offer you money to prove this you all suddenly go silent

Again, that's a silly argument.

There's no tangible way to prove this either way. So, offering silly rewards doesn't solve a debate.

Actually there's no way rigging could occur that you would be able to observe yet wouldn't be provable in a tangible way, is there?

This "debate" will never be "solved", because there are people whose minds will never be changed no matter how much common sense and logic you throw at them.

I suspect they are part of the 6% who think the moon landing was staged.

Look, there is no way to prove it one way or the other. I do know one thing..the arrogance of you "non-riggies" is almost mind-boggling. You guys are attacking people ruthlessly as if your life depends on it. One thing I do know, and trust me, this has nothing to do with me other than pure observation...is that some people do seem to run consistently better than others. And by "run" I mean win more flips, hit more draws, get paid off on their big hands and most importantly, they manage to avoid the big suckouts. Some of these people are certainly not better players..they just seem to "run" better than most.

Now I'm sure all you "non-riggies" are going to attack me like a pack of rabid dogs for even making such "observations."

Of course it would be possible to prove such things beyond a reasonable doubt.

Such data could include:

-hand histories showing a rigged result
-confessions from the authors of the software
-etc.

GOVERNMENT SHILL!!!!!!111

Seriously Bobo must be in on it the shadows were vary abnormal and the timing was all off.

Bubble gum in the stacker, imo.

Hi, Jer, welcome to the site.

I really believe that one of the main problems that people who believe they run 'too' bad have is that they really have no idea just how many (or what proportion of) times a low probability event has to occur before it's even slight evidence of something untoward.

Combine that with the selective memory we all suffer from and it's a perfect recipe for untenable beliefs.

Some people run better than others? Incorrect

Over time friend, you can't fight probability. Everyone after they put in enough volume will hit almost the same amount of flushes, almost the same amount of sets, get their aces cracked close to the same amount of times, get put in similair situations etc etc

All poker is is streaks of data. Now the road I take to get to point x might be different from the road you take to get to point x. As in you might run consistently with little variance over 500k hands and I might run unbeliavably good for 250k hands and then shockingly bad for 250k hands.

But believe me, if we both play 500k hands this year and then compare notes. We will both be at point x. As in, we will have made a flush after flopping a flush draw almost the same amount of times, we will have our aces cracked almost an identical amount of times etc etc etc etc.

Whoever handles these situations best wins. Simple.

Don't just sit there and say, oh he runs better than me, he's luckier.. That's bull. If he wins more than you over a large sample it means he's a better player. And I'm not trying to be rude, arrogant or anything of the sort but... If you genuinely believe poker is luck like you have implied in your post and some are luckier than others then you will never be a really good player.

You have to learn the game, study the game and practice the game if you want success at poker. Kinda like anything in life ya know.

I think I've heard every pro poker player at the top make this exact statement at some time or another. Makes perfect sense to me.

In theory I agree with you, but in reality the vast majority of casual players will not play enough hands for "luck" to even out, and it's not even close.

Check out this post, including a graph showing 100 players with identical EV and their results after 500k hands:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=256

That said, I do believe that most players who come here to complain about their "bad luck" are simply just much worse at poker than they thought.

Level?

unfortunately.....................

it would be really interesting to see what a rigtard regulation would mean. likely it wouldn't mean a random deck per se but restrictions on how often various things are allowed to happen in a very short time frame.

oh and also auditers who could unannounced and very frequently bust into the sites office and stand around looking at the physical RNG to make sure it runs fine.

Interesting point.

I think the 'regulation' rigtard is the sort of person who has blind faith in 'the government'.

They think something needs to be done and they assume that 'the government' are the people to do it without having any very clear idea about what 'it' is.