^

Come on BoBo what am I suppose to think when you have like 8 accounts on here that all kiss eachothers butts lol and then turn around and flame other people. I mean his post was like being typed from his knees. I mean it just looks like some employees who ban together everyday to put down any claims of wrong doing. We might have a few guys from FTP, a few guys from Stars, and few guys from other sites. I mean its no secret they monitor this forum so why wouldnt they post in here? Josem does it on a regular basis. Why wouldnt ftp guys in here doing the same thing? I mean it just looks obvious. Players have no reason to be in here day after day (the same people) defending the sites. Theres no motive to pursue it so passionatly. This is just common sense.

And I hate to burst your bubble. But just cuz you're a mod doesnt make you the god of whats reasonable and whats crap. out of everything I admit to Ive never seen you admit to any of your faults (the negative way in which you post constantly). And Im not the only one that thinks that lol. Come on. Lets proceed without extreme hypocracy from now on. Just try it out

And what's your motive for being in here day after day slandering the sites?

There seem to be three types of people here:

1) Riggies and rigtards
2) Riggie debunkers
3) Observers

However, (1) and (2) are not two sides of the same coin.

By and large the members of group 1 (there are certainly exceptions) tend to post ill thought out and illogical rhetoric that is not supported by any evidence. When their assertions are debunked they respond by either ignoring the rational argument supplied or making absurd claims (as usual, not backed up with any evidence ), that the debunkers are employed by the poker sites.

On the other hand, members of (2) tend to post well thought out responses to even the most absurd theories propounded by members of group (1).

that is due to the fact that no software on the market can provide it.
if you haven't notice, they hate it even more when people asking for such software.
especially request coming from winning rigtard with large database.

Do you have any evidence that people 'hate it even more when people asking for such software'?

It seems a standard 'tard '"I'll say anything irrespective of its veracity" response.

search

Now this is funny. Maybe the funniest post so far

I posted it 7 (if it was actually 7) times, but only because you offered and then simply never followed through. Did you read my post about being stuck like 700 big bets, yet still being up 10,000 big bets in 675K hands? Trust me - I can point out your leaks, and if you play limit poker I could get you to crush these low limits. (Well... maybe not because I don't think you have the mental capacity to understand the EV behind the plays). That's fine; you actually make a good point... why should I give you a free lesson? Keep the fish, fish. Good day, sir.

I thought it was a nice analysis, but I am surprised you think exposing a riggie as a standard microstakes marginal player who fails to understand variance would change anything.

I respect what you and Arouet post, but frankly both of you are totally insane with how you handle some of these riggies when you try to take them even partially seriously.



Riggies come in a variety of flavors, and I will use some Dog Whisperer language to help identify them:

1) Snake/gimmick guy - Red zone case. A standard extremely angry guy who is not too bright. He thrives by getting attention and that is it. Nothing he will say will make much sense in a logical way, he is all emotion.

Talking to that variety of riggie is a total waste of time as you are never having a discussion, he is just looking for someone to yell at. Best to just ignore him, even a big ol TSST will not help snap him out of it.


2) Banonlineguy - Dog with an obsessive behavior issue. In this case a standard xenophobe. Not as generally angry as the snake type, but still fairly angry that he cannot beat the low stakes. He makes it more of a single cause - in this case that it is evil non - Americans.

This guy is similar to that Mears guy - single issue focus, blind to everything else and will take anything someone says out of context to fit his agenda. Look at how he partially quotes people to do just that.

Talking to that variety of riggie is also a waste of time, but not as frustrating since he will not jump all over you like an attention starved dog like the first kind of riggie as he is just too focussed on his singular issue - in this case not trusting anything but Americans.



3) Xev guy - more of a nervous, submissive dog. He likes playing and wants to be good, and maybe with work he can be a decent player, but after a bit of a bad run he starts wondering if maybe he is now a target of evil forces. After all, these other doggies are barking about how rigged it is and they bark loudly so maybe there is something to it. He is not sure, so he will ask questions in a nice way. Then more questions. Then more questions. Then more questions.

Talking to this riggie is a matter of choice. Once in a while like Donko they can be TSSTed into at least trying to approach the game in a more calm, rational way, but realistically the odds are that this is a person that is sliding deeper and deeper into the land of riggiedom.

Speaking to this type of riggie will take a lot of time and energy and will be a bit frustrating, but it will at least feel better than wasting time with the first two types.


I hope the "shills" in this thread will re-evaluate how they look at and respond to the different types of riggies in the future. If so, then i am glad this analysis helped in some small way.

All the best.

screen names or ur not crushing anything

I very much doubt that he cares about what you believe.

I think we need a player-type system, similar to the passive-aggressive/tight-loose (PATL) system for poker players. We could create a riggie quadrant with something like

logical <<<-->>> psychotic on one scale for their reasoning ability.
and
paranoid <<<-->>>stoic on the other scale for their degree of irrational fear that it's rigged.

So the archetypes would be
logical-stoic (LS) - he thinks it's probably rigged and actually puts forth an argument, but also doesn't worry about it and knows good play still wins and he works on his game. TwoMoos ?

logical-paranoid (LP) - he understands math and non-rigged arguments but just can't get over his feeling that the bad beats are just wrong and believes that dishonesty is inevitable with big business and lots of money.

psychotic-paranoid (PP) - snake. Nuff said.

psychotic-stoic (PS) - Meares/R4R. Makes ridiculous conspiracy arguments with pattern/timing theories and undetectable rigging, and writes long theories about how you have to play to beat the system.

Feel free to refine this, this is just a quick outline of an idea. Gotta head off to work.

Funny how he seemed to nail it, yes.

Of course, I'm sure you are deluding yourself into believing that your debating with others here is a match of equals.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have not posted a response sooner since I was wining and dining my wife enjoying the fruits of a good marriage on Valentines day. I am going to review every point you made right now and try to understand what you are saying.

And yet with regard to my serious response to you?

:crickets:


Monty, Spade: you are no doubt correct, but I do like a challenge. And you know I don't get this involved in every case, but every so often I do like to do this. It worked with Donko. I honestly doubt that it will work with this guy (as he seems to have no intention of responding to me, despite his statements otherwise, soon it will be) but there's those 7 guys who pmd him about how thankful they are to see him standing up for their interests. I hope they see that he's not, nor does he appear to have any intention of it. Otherwise, why would he even bother replying to the noise posts? He has no real interest, but others' do.

His attacks on Josem, who was instrumental in bringing down UB/AP, are inconceivable as he should be asking Josem for advice rather than dismissing outright anything he says (also J I also appreciate the analysis you did- I tried to key in a tournament number but I couldn't fit all the numbers in)

Anyhow, I'm winding down with him, unless he actually answers one of my posts.

Bobo Fett,

For most of the over the top posts that should result in a message board moderator warning, there seems to be someone or a few people pouring gas onto the fire creating the scenario.

I suggest calling out the other players in this dynamic that are not promoting a positive message board atmosphere.

Thanks.

Wat?

You should be able to figure out my win rate from my post, but I'll warn you ahead of time - it will take some basic math skills learned in grade 3.

Yes, I would like +infraction points for all my positive posts.

Why does asking for security in online poker, mean somebody is stupid/dellusional?

No its not.

If i think someone stole from me but they wont let me or the cops in their house to look for my stuff without a warrant and probable cause. But i go around anyway saying they are crooks, im wrong for doing so.


They already have you just dont like the way in which they do it.


Yes its wrong to damage the reputation of a multi billion dollar company without evidence of your accusations.

You're are not challenging anything with your theory. It takes proof to do that.


If you want to say online poker needs better regs, ok. If you want to say without better regs you wouldn't trust them, ok. If you want to say you think they are cheating, get some evidence first.

And how would you fare if your contributions were analysed? Just because you agree with the popular conceptions in this thread it doesn't make you comparable to the people putting forward intelligent responses. That last response of yours makes you look even sadder than you already did, if that was possible, because it shows that you have an obsession with being regarded as "intelligent and funny" by people who care not one jot about you personally.

A lot of people go through a period in their poker career where they begin to question the randomness of the games they are playing, it is nothing to be ashamed of. People like Josem and Spadebidder do a great service in providing actual data that refutes the allegation of internal tampering with the rng, but they also back up what they say with a bit of empathy for the person asking the questions.

People should be able to post in this thread without having to deal with the constant insults and distractions that you contribute.

You are called a "shill" (not an insult by the way) because you act like one. Why would you even care how other people deal with the "rigtards" enough to make that last post about it??

It's stupid asking for something when it already exists.

It's stupid asking for more of something when there is no evidence that the current amount is inadequate.

It's stupid asking again and again and again and again in a place that has no power to grant your request.


Hope that helped.

People can post here without being insulted.

The insults are reserved for those who repeatedly:

a. Make libelous statements against poker sites without evidence.
b. Make libelous statements against other posters without evidence.
c. Ignore carefully constructed answers to their concerns or answer them with more instances of a & b above.



And PLEASE: no riff-raff in this thread.

riff raff, I don't read this thread much but I do know there is an ignore feature. You could use that if you want.

I do, and I'm sure there are some that ignore me One day it'll just be one big silent board!