Its kinda like how a woman knows her man is cheating. Shes hasnt caught him yet but little signs start to add up and her gut starts telling her he is. This is what all the 740 players who voted yes in this poll are experiencing.

And they all say. When a woman thinks her man is cheating, its because he is.

Then you do it and go ahead and show us where it's going wrong. This would be ridiculously easy to do, moron.

Auditors of poker sites don't test poker outcomes afaik. They test the raw distribution of the deal, which is the purest and most accurate test you can do with a large enough sample, and I'm pretty sure they generate something like trillions of cards. Your example changes the distribution to something other than normal at several levels which can be tested in much smaller samples. Anyone can test board textures, river card frequencies, all-in vs. equity comparisons, and a handful of other skewed patterns you create with that theory. It doesn't take enormous samples to do pattern testing and specific poker hand tests. You just aren't getting that.

Are you going to respond to my prop bet, or make a counter offer?

No, you were talking down to a lot of people. It's been demonstrated and quoted. Stop talking out your rear end please. The last thing I'd ever want to do is have to meet a clown like you.

What would be the purpose of such a meeting? So you can just act like a buffoon in person the same way you do on this message board? So you can challenge me to a fight like an immature teenager? Get a life.

Then demonstrate it. Prove it. Quit your yapping and blow the cover off the whole thing. It's laughable to see you try and debate somebody who understands this stuff infinitely better than you do.

And people looking for it can find it. You shouldn't make such emphatic statements until you really know the answer. Let's do the test. Design the riggerupper.

Edit : are you going to respond to the prop bet or make a counter proposal?

So you want to totally change the subject now to how poker sites get audited?

They get audited every day by millions of players, that's how. If you think regulators can ever prevent someone from rigging online software, no matter how rigorous the inspections or what government is in charge, you're mistaken. But if it helps you, go read the auditor reports on major sites. Then go read the methodology documented on those auditors' own web sites. Then go read the regulations at the Isle of Man and the Alderney gambling commissions, and the UK ones too. They have tons of stuff about control systems and audit requirements, and right to random visits, and documentation of software changes, etc etc. Knock yourself out.

Audits confirm that the software works as designed, and that RNGs spit out random streams. Audits don't keep sites from cheating. There are other regulations for that which you can research if you like, but mostly consumers and business logic is what keeps sites from rigging the game. And the fact that it can't be done without detection being inevitable. By players. The ones who receive the output of the system.

How about we get back to your challenge that you can rig the deal and it not be detectable? How many times are you going to avoid a direct question? It's ok to say no, and it won't mean anything other than you started thinking through your hasty claims, which will be respected.

I don't follow... these are hands that I participated in. Whether I played them out completely or not should be irrelevant. But anyway, I figured when it came down to it that I'd be "shunned" and nothing owuld be explained.

The question was simple... What is the probability to see that many "big" hands in such a short amount of time? But alas, I will not continue to ask questions that I'm told can be explained through "mathematical probabilities" but never actually is explained.

Good day.

Dude, participate, or not, but this whiny child routine is getting old.

Whiny child? How so? Why is it your side of the "debate" always resorts to insults and flames when put into a situation to provide an explanation backed by the probabilities you all speak so highly of?

I mean, did he not ask me to post the hand histories? Did he not then say he would break down and explain the percentages and post the results here?

What happened to that... what, because I didn't play each and every one of those hands to show down they're all of a sudden irrelevant even though I participated in them at one stage or another?

If you do it I'll send all my Cereus HH's. Nobody will look at you differently for how you played your hands or whatnot.

I posted a link to said tourny several posts up :P

As far as how hands were played... you'll likely find 2 patterns. My wife's, where she calls damn near every pair (trying to get her out of that "what if"), and mine where I tend to bet more aggressively. Whether people think of me differently or not is up to them and has no actual bearing on the mathematical probabilities of the hands/tourny in question.

If you spend some time around here, you'll see that I'm not one to just throw around insults. I'm talking about the following:

It's your attitude I'm talking about. This is a discussion forum. A debate forum. There is back and forth. Spadebidder has been dealing with you seriously and trying to engage you in a serious discussion. Your so focused on being flamed that you can't tell when you're not being flamed.

So I'm saying, get involved in the discussion, or not, but stop whining about how all you're getting is flamed and no one is engaging you in a serious manner.

They were mostly hands that you observed someone else at the table make, according to what you said.

In a loose game of 6-handed 5-card draw (what you played in) I think you could easily see somebody make 2 pairs or better close to half of the time. I'm not expert at this game but I know that the things you saw don't sound unusual. And in a freeroll it would be very loose and crazy. Before the draw, with no wild cards, the pat hands 2-pair or better happen over 8% for a single player. For 6 players it's something like 30% of the time, before the draw. I didn't even know online sites dealt this crazy game.

At any rate, knowing the game it was now, there isn't much more I can tell you. Sorry.

You started with a claim that you could devise an undetectable scheme to rig the preflop cards for more action. I challenged that and you shifted to auditing.

I gave you some suggestions for researching auditing. You could also PM one of the site reps on here and they would be glad to point you to more information.

You should go ask that question in the probability forum, where the Math PhD's and professional statisticians post, some of whom are also professional poker players. I urge you to do so. I'm just a rookie.

Edit: and to be clear, what everyone means is that to rig it to an extent that could have a significant revenue benefit to the site, which of course would be the only motivation for them to do so, would be detectable with available hand histories.

Understood. And for what it's worth, my original hand statistics were off, and while they still seem quite high, the odds are a bit more in line with the following probabilities/stats:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25...stions-308573/
http://www.pokerteam.com/5draw-hands-probabilities.html

I'll run the numbers myself when I have some extra time and see how in line or not they actually were.

Those links gives the odds that YOU make the hand, not that somebody at a table of 6 shows down that hand. It's much higher, so keep that in mind.

Right.. I assumed, for simplicity sake to divide those numbers by 6 for an overall probability.

Arouet and spade - come to the dark shill side, it's calling...


He contributes to the overall entertainment value by pointing out your gaping holes in logic and thinking. Just be happy he has left your questionable hygiene alone for the time being.

Whiners are fun. They squeak when annoyed.


Riggie Commandment 2: Thou shalt state an opinion and declare it a fact

Good job.


I am a big fan of "someone tells when it gets too big"

Hmm, someone told in that case as well.

Somehow nobody of the hundreds involved with the conspiracy to screw you out of your french fry money has told yet.

Impressive.




Maybe go with the ENRON ENRON chants instead. Still completely unrelated and pointless but it rolls of the tongue better. You will drool less as well.



Honestly, you are not too bright. Sorry. Never reproduce.



See guys, so much easier to deal with whether he is a gimmick or just a genuinely stupid guy angry because he loses $5 once in a while as an unskilled player.

Come to the dark shill side or as this Mumu guy would say

cOme two darrk side, Enron Enron not immprosible.

WOW! You really expect anyone to take you seriously after this post.

I was playing a live game in Vegas last week at a prominent casino. At first, I wasn't paying much attention. But, I noticed that I had been dealt two face cards at least twice in a row. I payed close attention on the next hand, and noticed that I was dealt KQ of spades. Well, long story short, the person across from me had A of hearts, K of spades. This was very upsetting because I lost $10 on that blackjack hand. Clearly it's rigged!

Read the thread idiot. Your slanderous statements will get you nowhere as most anybody who has participated in this thread for any amount of time will back up the fact that I've engaged and contributed plenty of serious discussion, only to be met with morons like you living in their own little fantasy world and talking around everything without having a clue.

Next time ask the dealer (if she is hot) that you want to physically inspect her RNG to make sure it's not rigged LOL

wrong