Dude, no one is questioning that if you just rig one or two hands that it would go undetected. The whole point is that you need a large sample to figure things out.

Well, this was an assumption I was using, but I'd guess the winning hand at showdown is a lot more likely to be a set/FH or top two or something like that. If so, that means either a pair or a couple of high cards are no longer among the starting hands.

I don't know the answer to that for sure, but (for example) a 4 is pretty unlikely to be in the best winning hand (a lot less than an Ace). Sure, you could get a wheel, or if you have 44 you could hit your set or something. It'd be pretty easy to simulate, and as I said, I'd expect an effect on the non-loser's starting hands. How big of a sample size to detect is another issue...

Note: what I'm saying is that K5 is going to be the final winning hand less than JJ, or 93 less often than AQ--and both of those should have some effect on a player's starting hand distribution.

And mumu keeps showing he doesn't understand what's going on. Priceless

It takes a "special" person to be as dense as Mumu.

Why don't you go one better, take spade up on his original bet to you.

Maybe it is not good to be putting ideas out here.

MumuTrader Please change your avatar, it's confusing reading posts when it sounds like you're arguing with yourself.

'cause you don't even bother to read this thread, I'm not going to bother retyping all this stuff:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=14061
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=14924

Heh bitter stalkers.

I play in $55 MTTs most days. $215 ones on Sunday. I also play in $3/5/10 rebuys many days and $22/27/33 freezeouts. Omaha ones have much more of a limited buy in levels so I play in the $17 and sometimes a smaller one. Thus, the "average" buy in will likely be lower than the $55 level for now, especially when you include a lot of my smaller tournaments from years ago in the mix. I am also experimenting with 45/90/180 mans at the $11 level which will impact my "average buy in" but then I am not as obsessed about that figure as you are for some reason...

Anyway, after a quick OPR search, it looks like my average buy in of all MTTs now is $15 or so for "full tracking" $21 for 2010, and $25 for NL tournaments in 2010 (note that rebuys tend to be undervalues in terms of averages for this as well), so how you got a $12 figure is a bit beyond me. Feel free to link where you did your research.

Most people lie about their own play, you lie about others. By the way, how are your $1 games going? If you think I am lying then feel free to prove you play something other than that by providing a screen name. Kind of like what I did with your lies Gee, wonder why you have not so far...

gg donk



As for spades challenge: it is actually rigged (because nobody will be able to win)

Realistically I cannot see any way to raise revenue by 5-10% as contrary to what riggies think there would be zero practical purpose to rig tournaments where the rake is paid in advance. Zero.

Any rigging would need to have the following components:

1) Fewest people involved as possible
2)Simple
3)Hard to track with conventional software
4)NEVER target any player whether for good or bad
5)Very hidden in terms of being noticed

I cannot stress the last point enough. Rigging is about money, not about making losers into winners and vice versa, that is so impractical that I cannot help but laugh when bad players use that to justify their losses. Those who think rigging would ever take place in hands like AA vs KK vs QQ are truly insane, that would be the last place anyone would rig hands as they STAND OUT and GET NOTICED like someone with a BAD CAPS LOCK FETISH.

This is why I would propose my "non-action flop" theory.

Basics are this:

In cash ring games 1 hand in about 30 or 40 will be a pre-selected "non-action hand" with the goal being to encourage a HU match on the flop and then a quick bet/fold line post flop.

These hands would take much less time to play than an average hand, and at many limits where the bulk of the take is earned when a flop is seen even 1-2 hands extra per hour adds up (though again, nowhere near 5% figure which is an insane requirement to win spade's money the cheap bastard)

Thus, a typical 9 man hand would be something like this

Player 1: trash hand
Player 2:KK (raise)
Players 7-8 : trash hand
Player 9 (BB): 89 suited or 22 (call)

Flop then comes K73 rainbow. If it goes check check turn is another 3

One does not always need the BB to have the call/fold post flop hand it can be pretty much any player.

Now, will this hand always play out the way it "should?" No, but that does not matter as long as it usually does, as all this is about is getting rake in the pot and having the hand end as soon as possible to deal the other hand.


As nearly none of these hands would go to showdown, the cards would not show in most of the players databases. Since, these hands would happen randomly a couple times an hour they would NOT target any player for the good or call/fold hand, so the effect minimal for each player in terms of hand distributions.

In theory if this system could generate 2 extra hands per hour that would mean $2-6 more in rake per table of mid to high limits (no point rigging baby stakes contrary to riggie beliefs), and if 500 tables are running that would mean about $2000 or so an hour or $50k per day roughly or about $18 million a year in extra rake.

Wow that sounds good till you realize Stars made over half a million in rake in that special Sunday Million alone last week.

Also, a lot of this kind of got trumped by "Rush Poker" which does everything I am suggesting only without needing to rig it by increasing the rate of play. Riggies obsess about whether a 8 hour MTT finishes 3 minutes early to encourage people to join more while Tilt came up with a way for people to play 3-5 times as many raked hands per table per hour. Seriously - heh.


See, that's what riggies fail to grasp, they look at their own plight and assign a theory to make it seem real, when the reality is the rooms have much easier ways to crank in extra money (Rush Poker, turbos, hyper turbos, "fast" tables etc) to appeal to those who WANT to play faster.

Those that want to play slow - join a HU no blind increase sit and go and play for the next 6 hours, or play 20 hands an hour at realdeal poker.


And that's the problem with rigged theories. Mine may make the site an extra $18, 20, 40 million more a year, but the reality is they have tools that can do that and more just based on offering faster games to those that want to play fast that make that and a lot more all without taking the risk of getting caught.


Still, that's my entry.

In the number swapping game somebody posted, the swapped cards must have some relationship to the hole cards of the players in the hand to be relevant at all. So there must be a rule that says, "if a live player has X in the hole, and the turn/river are YZ, we want to deal ZY instead." Incidentally, in the example posted, it appears the flop card order was swapped, which means absolutely nothing and doesn't change the game. So we'll assume the poster meant that this would happen somewhere that it actually matters.

All players in the hand (not just the one with X in the hole) will absolutely have an abnormal hand distribution on both the turn and the river. And the more times you do this, the more it will skew their statistics.

Finding a later time to perform the opposite card swap to cancel out the skew is impossible to do. In just a heads-up game, on average we will wait C(52,6) or 20.3 million hands before finding an opportunity to swap those same cards back and cancel the effect. So we can pretty much rule that out. If we ignore suits and hope nobody notices, then on average we'll wait C(13,6) or just 1700 hands to make the partial correction. In that scenario, the rig would have a very short lifespan. Either the queue would overcome the opportunities to rig more hands and grow unconstrained, leaving everyone's distribution skewed, or the musical chairs would just get so astronomically complicated to make it unworkable. We also have a constant distribution skew of the size of the current queue, that can never be corrected.

These are just a few problems I can think of in two minutes.

Edit: you can multiply my intervals above by each player's starting hand percentage too. So maybe 5x more, or 100 million hands between corrections.

ban

ban

Yeesh,. why am I even replying, but whatever.

First, I have no idea where and how you magically get from 1,000 to 5,000 tournaments a day ( I assume through rigging). I guess I could ask, but based on how others have responded to you ( I have barely read any of your posts) , I will assume you never answer much directly anyways in terms of detail.

Still, is 5,000 tournaments better than 1,000? Sure if you do not simply cannibalize your players. Stars can run 500,000 tournaments a day but that would not increase revenue after a while. If you cannot figure out why, then again what is the point in even debating this.

Thus I will suggest to you the following knowing that doing this is a complete waste of time:

- Adding tournaments will add value only if you increase the total amount of rake paid, so assuming all tournaments have the same entry fee (lets use $1 rake) then having 1,000 tournaments with 500 in each will generate $500,000 in rake

Going magically to 5,000 tournaments will not mean all of them will have 500 in each of them for OBVIOUS reasons, so you need to look at the marginal gain of adding more tournaments., as well as the costs (tournaments earn rake much, much slower than cash games so people that play both joining "extra tournaments" after a rigged bad beat may cost them if they avoid the cash tables that they would have joined otherwise)

Still, let's assume there is a tiny marginal gain from this. The reality is that this gain would be absolutely insignificant to the rake increases a site could make with doing a variation of "non action flops" in cash games, or inventing something called Rush Poker.

Thus, if a site were to rig it they would rig it in the area that would make the MOST money, even if this means you cannot explain your losses in $1 MTTs anymore.

That's my lone entry in this "debate" with you because frankly I still do not believe you are a genuine riggie. To your credit you seem to have mastered using the quoting functions here, not all riggies can say that.

All the best.

MumuTrader, has lost this debate so he's on to another

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...rigged-722828/

When players test hand histories, it means everything.
Only rigtards even care about auditors. If you want to ask them about audits, call these people:

(PS) IoM Gambling Supervision Commission +44 (0) 1624 694331
(FT) Alderney Gambling Supervision Commission + 44 (0)1481 825500

They can tell you what they test. Be sure to tell them how much you lost.

Ever so closer to the dark side...

Hey, I entered your contest, I wanna see how my entry does!!

Pretty soon I'll be reduced to posts that only contain:

ban
or
wat
or
[failboat.jpg]

or maybe the superman ****** pic

why do you guys post in this thread 24 / 7 no one buys your bs

ban

ban

I had AQ cracked by KJ earlier. This **** happens too often for my liking.

This is a great debate thread, so I must debate this with you by pointing out some reasons why your logic might be wrong.

There are forms of poker that have much less action. But these games don't guarantee that the fish will be in the games longer: they might be bored and never play again. The game needs the proper balance of "action" to make the fish love it enough to reload. That is how you truly keep them in the game longer.

Also, the money the fish originally deposited is not lost just because a certain fish busted out. In fact, it can multiply.

For instance, let us say that the action hands do not cost the fish too much more than 12 big blinds on average. If it is more, these action hands might attract fishermen that notice the site is lucrative. .

Fish A plays 3 action pots and loses 3 big stacks. Fish B plays 3 action pots and wins 3 big stacks. Fish B will not withdraw, he will simply continue to play more hands, the hands that Fish A may have played if not for the action hands. The original money deposited still gets played and eaten up at nearly the same ratio of lost to fishermen and lost to rake as before; but by Fish B and not both Fish.

Meanwhile, Fish A had his rush of enjoyment and so he reloads. Now, there is more "FISH" money than ever before. The fisherman makes very close to the same as he always would have anyway and so very little extra is withdrawn by that fisherman.

This really can keep bad players playing this game of holdem longer. We already know that holdem has a good profile, but I'm not sure it couldn't be even a little better with just a few more action hands.

100 $1 pots might lack the occasional rush needed to keep the fish in the game, long term.

You compare action pots with one huge roulette bet by a casino patron. In those cases, the patron has a good chance of leaving a winner and quits if they lose or win.

This is far less likely to happen in the online poker world where they tend to play again and again if they win. And again, if they then lose, they are possibly more likely to reload because they have had an exciting experience.

Therefore - it is now no longer self-evident - that high variance situations are not good for the site, and therefore, we have not proven that action hands are not good for the site.

So he really was a fake riggie? What's with these fake riggies? Just another example of Poe's Law. But at least this one was successful in spawning some really good discussion about how these kind of schemes could be detected.

But I feel mostly bad for the real riggies. They see someone like Mumu and find a hero. They cheer him on and send encouraging PMs. They finally have someone who can really stand up toall those shills and really bust this conspiracy wide open! How they must feel when they realize that they pinned their hopes on little more than a mirage.

Poor, poor, real riggies. Give up not hope, your champion is out there yet!

Yup, looks as if we've been rumbled.

God, I'm going to miss those cheques from the sites each month.

Looks as if I might have to get a job.

Or, maybe, take up playing poker (except I gather the deal is rigged).