Do you think you could , maybe add something constructive like actual evidence to back up your random accusations?

the problem is
this thead is rigged from start
1.no software
i am only going to use pen and paper if the screenshot of my hand writting can be accept as proof.
funny how talking about creating such software put the non-rigged on tilt and start attacking outside of this thread as well.
what are the non-rigged afraid of?
microbob has already stated that pt3 and hem are not design to do this and will not be able to give any useful information. so please....(Monteroy)

2.no predefine set of math
non-riggist leave themself another out just in case somebody manage to pull it off.
i'm still waiting for the spade due to get back to me on how often does 3 of a kind win. (nature card dealt, taking out game play)
all i got is Monteroy give me an outter limited example and then say something how often the hand win don't matter, and don't proof a thing...WTF
if 10k hands of AA vs 22 hand
AA will lose money if AA never bet and only call.
but
a only call and never bet AA should still win 8k hand of the showdown vs 22
because AA vs 22 is 80/20 favorite.
if somebody produce the proof that AA vs 22 is only 55/45 over 10k match up.
it defienly proof it's rigged. BUT you can expect Monteroy to come out and say it's meaningless because you never bet.

th'all lizardmen

Like, no.

Wat?

Really? So when some people come out with theories that are theoretical, but lack long term conclusive data such as "the greenhouse effect" you will place the exact same weight on the opinion of a PhD in that field as you would to a guy on a street holding a big sign pointing to the sky (who were likely the pioneers in that belief as well as many more doomsday stuff). OK.



I think you may find in the real world the reputation of the person proposing a theory has some weight in how well it is received.



While I am obviously being silly with the riggies, and while proof of a theory/beliefs is obviously eventually important, again in the real world the quality of the messenger often times plays a huge role in how well a message is received.


They generally admit that is what they are doing as well, though they are at times so frustrated it just feels good to go to variations of the riggie side if even for a moment. That's not unusual human behavior, we all do that at times with "maybe I will win a coin flip again in March" type statements after a bad run of luck.




Hardly. I totally respect micro players who

1) Play for fun and enjoy themselves regardless of how they do

2) Take the game seriously and work on their game and play hard regardless of how they do


Not all micro players are riggies. Nearly every riggie is a micro player. If I have minimal respect for riggies that does not mean I have minimal respect for all micro stakes players, just that sub-section of their population.



Honestly, you just seem to like talking about penises a lot. Everyone has a hobby.


Cool - you have two hobbies. No need to tell us how you merge the two.

All the best.

Monteroy, I don't know what your problem is but you are now beginning to appear just about as batty as the riggies. I think at least five people have tried to explain this to you already but you seem to be obstinately sticking to your invalid position. At the risk of banging my head against a brick wall I'm going to have a quick try to get this across to you.

If someone makes a claim but does not provide evidence or a sound logical argument, then, yes, it is sensible to base the credence you give to their claim at least in part on their perceived authority (experience, qualifications, etc). On the other hand if someone provides evidence or a sound logical argument then unless you are incapable of understanding the evidence or argument you will, if rational, base your opinion of their claim solely on what they have presented.

You continual harping on about how much people play and at what stakes is a pointless distraction. In this debate what counts is evidence and logic and evidence and logic alone. You really are making yourself look as foolish as the riggies with your apparent campaign to have the stakes or the amount people play taken into account when examining the validity of their evidence or logic.

What you choose to bang your head on is your business.


I have always been very open and transparent about why I post in this thread - it is a fun diversion from my play, but the reality is now that spade has done all that great work there is nothing left in the conventional riggie debate to discuss other than Lizard People/Superbots/"What if they secretly do" style theories which has gotten boring real fast.

Figure may as well mix up the debate a bit.


Ironically many riggie arguments do follow a logic flow, however they are often based on a set of beliefs that are unrealistic in the real world, such as every major poker site are shells for a massive conspiracy to screw specific players.

Many riggies make very sound and reasonable points if indeed all of the sites are secretly targeting them for losing in freerolls.

Realistically most people who seriously play just laugh at and ignore this whole debate regardless of which side they are on. I just enjoy this thread as a hobby for reasons I have stated earlier.

Wiki I completely agree with what you're saying but I think you're missing Monty's point.

Example in the context of this thread:

Person A makes a post stating they believe online poker to be rigged, and they claim to have proof.

Person B also makes a post stating they believe online poker to be rigged, and they claim to have proof.

Now without knowing anything about those individuals we can't really make any assumptions about their claims.

BUT

Say that you know that person A is a losing micro stakes player who has played 765 hands over 10 sessions, and does not know how to store hand histories from the games. If that is the case I'm gonna go with my previous experiences and assume that the "proof" person A is referring to is that they saw AA got cracked by 62o or something like that. My reaction to the post will very likely be "lol rigtard".

On the other hand, if person B makes that post, and you happen to know that he is a reputable high stakes player who has logged over a million hands, is saving all hand histories and has a very analytical approach to the game. I don't know about you but I'd certainly go "whoa, wait a minute, I really would like to take a closer look at this!".

By knowing something about the messenger, we can draw certain conclusions about the validity of what is supposedly in the message.


It seems to me you're talking about 2 different things. Monty is talking about how serious a claim should be taken when no proof is provided, while you are talking about how valid any proof (assuming such exists) should be deemed upon examination.

At least that's how I understand it.

This is of course completely correct, though I am also gently picking fights with a couple of shills as well when the opportunity presents itself, which is why I chose not to post what you did in such a clear manner

Party pooper...

Hmm, do you play?

Monteroy, do you even play? I mean, yeah, you provided your screenname you use on various sites and those screennames show a history of a lot of playing, BUT...

How do we know you're not some kind of Lizard Person who designed some kind of crazy superbot to play? (on a Desktop computer, btw)

I think the more substantial point here is that the same skills that would make someone able to identify a massive international fraud (critical thinking skills; mathematical/statistics understanding; self-awareness) are also the same skills that are useful in being a good poker player.

Similarly, the attributes that make bad poker players (self-delusion; no self-criticism; lack of personal responsibility; ignorance of mathematics) are also the same attributes that make people falsely think the sites are rigged against them.

Josem, do you even play? I mean, yeah, I know your whole story from TV and that whole superuser scandal and yada yada yada... but do you play???

These days only very occasionally. But rush poker got me a bit hooked again actually.

So I just finished a 20 minute session on AP playing the 100 NL cash game. Yes, thats right, 20 minutes. 3 buyins and 3 coolers to the same guy. First hand I have 99, flop comes 3 9 T. He bets, I raise, he shoves, I call, he shows TT. Set versus set. Minutes later I have 56 in the bb. Flop comes 4 7 8 rainbow. Same betting sequence as before, he shows 56c and hits runner runner flush. Nice, flop the nuts and lose. Then comes the clincher. I have A4 in the bb, he makes standard raise. Flop comes 44A. He bets, I raise, he shoves, I snap call....he shows 99 and I watch in horror as a 9 falls on the turn. I fully understand variance and all that, but seriously, this is just sick. Bad play and donking off your stack is one thing, but to constantly run into coolers like this in such a short period of time has me thinking I am fighting an uphill battle.

Call it selective memory or whatever. My very first time playing at AP ever, I joined a 9-man SnG after depositing. In my first 10 hands, I had AA twice, KK twice, and QQ once... all held up. I went on to win the tournament easily.

In their cash games I got stacked 3 times in a row (sessions, not hands) holding KK vs. AA.

This obviously proves nothing, but after I built my balance back, I withdrew all my funds and never went back.

This sounds like a good idea at the moment. But having said that, there are so many terrible players there that I just can't do it. I have deposited a total of $200 in 4 years and I have withdrawn numerous, numerous amount of times. So overall, I do very well. However, I just can't help but think how much more I could be winning if it weren't for these horrible coolers/setups/bad situations that rear their ugly heads.

I will agree that the players there (in general) are terrible. For me, it felt like... build up, build up, build up, cooler all of it away... build up, build up, build up, cooler all of it away. Again, this is how it FELT, the actual events may have varied.

This, is EXACTLY what happens to me on a consistent basis. I am not saying it is rigged. I really don't think the site cares whether I win or lose, but sometimes the action seems a bit "off the wall". Almost like they are trying to create big pots. Again, I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin.

Here is another scenario I would like to share.

So I was up after my first 30k hands on Full Tilt having almost doubled my initial buyin, my PTR rating was close to 70 and my Hot or Not was right around 70 too. My overall grades for the level I was playing at was a B+ and I was determined to make it an A.

Then blam, it felt like I hit a wall. I went on a terror downswing playing the exact same aggressive style using stack to pot ratios to pot commit myself with tptk hands that never seemed to hold up. I would assume that toward the end part of the losing streak was due to poor play because I think I ended up playing very scared but my grades on PTR were improving as well as my Leak scores in HM.

I felt like the site was out to get me.

So I started discussing online poker with a friend of mine. This person runs an underground poker circuit in my local area for 2/5 and 5/10 cash games every night. He and his roomate make money online and I wanted to know what their take on online poker was. They both also thought there was a good chance that some of the major sites were rigged and that they have found a few ways to exploit them.

One way that was mentioned was the use of a new account. They felt that more often than not, a new account allowed them to run better just as I experienced. I was very sceptical of this and just kinda blew them off as being luck crazy. That was until I later found out that one of them actually cleared 80k the previous month. I am not sure how they continue creating new accounts or any other details and this is all they shared. They also said that they do not ever play micro stakes online for whatever reason I am not sure.

I am a microstakes player and I wanted to see if the new account exploit was for real. Now I know that I would need a large sample set of new accounts to come to any conclusions on this matter but I would like to share what happened when another one of poker friends who was also running bad on Full Tilt opened up a new account to test "the new account exploit". He had been running at a 7 PTR rating in microstakes cash games and Hot or Not of about 10 for his past 7k hands on his old account.

Now I know it is against the rules to do this and I would like to clearly state that it was not me...

He called me about two hours into the experiment and was totally shocked and felt kinda disgusted with how well he was running. He said he almost felt like he could play any two cards and most often than not he would hit the flop hard. Just while he was on the phone with me he was telling me about hand after hand that he was winning with stupid preflop holdings and how most of his draws were completing and he was getting paid off.

His new PTR rating by the end of the days sessions was in high 60s as was his Hot or Not score. This was the same player, playing the same stakes just with a new account. He had also tripled his bankroll in one sitting.

And he was not happy about any of this since he felt that he was getting ripped off on his real account.

As a side note, after participating in this discussion I have actually moved back to the middle of the road on if any site is really rigged at all but I thought I would share this last story with the community. I wish I had some hard data to show you but I think sharing their online handles would not be a bad idea.

Feel free to dismiss all of this as heresay and luck (as it very well could be) but it is a major factor for why I have suspicions about online poker.

Could I have just been unlucky when I felt like I hit a wall and had huge cliff drop downswing - yes
Could the roomates running poker room playing online poker be lying to me - yes
Could the new account test have been due to run of luck - of course
Could some of the major sites be rigged? - possibly

Not really... thats why i want you to stop measuring yours in every post.

It can be messy.


You dont think i get that and am playing the same game? Thank God for donkaments or you might come up short in your measuring hobby.

My point is everyone knows most rigged folk are losing players. So asking them for stats is more done to humiliate them than to help them gain respectability on their assonie theories. Do you really think monty hall here is trying to help anyone gain respectability when he asks for stakes and stats form the dude who is saying his first time deposit boomswitch has been shut off. I mean come on.

imo asking for stats is a way to get the rigtard to actually do that and then look at it and notice that "I wasn't actually losing 90% of the time with AA, oh..."