You left out the most important line:

xantheman: this was set up and rigged

But of course this ain't his first rodeo.

lol, wow, impressive! I've never paid too much attention to the shuffled order before. Well done!

Corrected.

Spade: You don't chat initially and also have hidden your stats. Obvious bot is obvious.


I read an article about that MP3 shuffle thing, of course it was really random but people complained to the manufacturers that the shuffle algorithm was broken because sometimes they'd get the same tune twice in a row... I think actually most MP3 shufflers nowadays are in fact rigged to keep that from happening (play through all songs once in a random order, and if you have it on repeat it randomizes all songs again for a new lap), since that's often not what the listener intended when he selected "random".

Edit: obv the latter way of shuffling songs isn't rigged/less random... it's just the difference between picking one song at a time and shuffling the order after each song before picking a new one, and shuffling all songs at once and set them in a random order and then play through them from first to last...

I also have read studies where people have been showed numbers generated randomly by a RNG, and numbers generated by a human. Most people will claim the human generated sequence to be more random than the truly random one. Similarly, when people are asked to produce a random sequence of numbers, we have a tendency to not do very well (we start to think about things like "oh but I just had two '3's in a row back there, so I shouldn't write that again because then it wouldn't be random...").

Like Josem says, most people simply have a very poor understanding of what random really means.

Yes. Most people think that random implies a somewhat even-looking distribution pattern in small samples, just not exactly even. It actually means almost exactly the opposite, as the even pattern will be much more rare than not.

I think there is some amount of "randomness" that our brains expect to see, but true randomness is incomprehensible because of the way we are wired. Somewhere between evenly distributed and a "clearly" contrived pattern. That's what people will construct when asked to write down a random sequence. So things should be mixed up "just enough".

Just want to say Ive been reading the very interesting debate here every day. For what its worth,my compliments to the intellegent posts by most, not all. Sarcasm and name calling is certianly not needed by us "Noobies". my personal conclusion is, since online poker rigging, doomswitching, etc. cannot be proven one way or the other, Im going with it can be rigged. Since I love playing poker and feelits a fair game I will be moving to Realpoker,slow or not. To both sides of this debate-Good Luck

and by the way Go Canada in Vancouver!!!!!!!

Hi, Steven.

The best approach for you, but it is what I have said before, riggies need it to be rigged whether it is rigged or not. Even faith that it could be rigged is enough to validate your results.

I am not actually saying this as an insult, what you have chosen is a very common and powerful form of belief structure that many use to rationalize all sorts of beliefs and behaviors, and if you are playing casually within your bankroll the reality is that it is fairly harmless whether you believe in the rigged boogie man or not.

The guy in spade's amusing post (though spade needs to work on the smack talk a bit, this is a guy who definitely can be pushed over the edge with some effort) shows a different side to the riggie mind.

That guy is a hard core grinder, and if you look at his sharkscope you see he was a losing player at first, and then ran hot as the sun for an extremely short period of time (literally in a 30-40 game stretch amid his 3,000+ games) which pretty much represented everything he has made from poker.

No doubt that guy started to believe he was WAY better than he actually is, and once the freak hot streak stopped his results flattened out to the break even player he is and has been for 99.9% of his poker play.

That guy still thinks the 0.1% stretch is who he is, not the 99.9% because he desperately wants to be the guy that wins every time.

When that stopped happening, he could either work on his game in the way I have suggested to many in this thread or he could choose to believe that other reasons are why he is not a winner.

You can see the bile and anger as he plays. Everyone is a bot, everyone sucks, he reports everyone etc etc. That's just angry loser talk from a guy who cannot accept why he does not win long term.

That brand of riggie is the real fuel of the poker economy even more than the "I believe it might be possible" casual playing riggie.

Personally, I do not mind the riggies like the one I quoted in this post though I think their belief system is a bit silly, and they are mostly harmless. The hard core playing riggies I do find a bit insulting as they actually mock the game of poker and those who succeed in it with their beliefs, simply because they lack what it takes to win. I am glad they play, but they suck to be around even when playing against them. These guys exist live as well, we have all seen and heard them as they endlessly whine. That is what that type of riggie is essentially - a whiner.


Agreed.

If your an action flop theorist and think the RNG is rigged you should play at site with the least incentive to rigg it (which would be wpx with their low rake.)

To bad rake free didn't take off there. It would make no since to rigg the RNG for action and you could just refer rigged folk to them.

Finally. Proof that you are a shill and a house player with a superuser account and access to the programming so that you can change the cards on the flop, turn, river and rabbit hunting feature...

So I'm playing satellites for the Sunday big tourney, and I've raised the 75/3 drooler at the table out of the pot 3 or 4 times in a row, some preflop some post. He limps in EP again, I look down at JJ and raise it up to 5x. By this time he's tired of folding to me so after a brief pause he shoves it all in. I instacall. He shows K2 offsuit.

Flops a K, holds up. So f'ing rigged for stupid people.

HOw can you hide youself from these sites Like OFFICIAL POKER RANKINGs?

Is that what the man was talking about when he said that this character SPadebider was hiding himsef?

How do you hide.

For Official POker rankings, I just look at my results. For SHARKSCOPE i had to sent them money from POKERSTARS. Then they unlock me.

A lot of loosing players are not "opted in" but I could alswys tell when I looked them up on Official POker rankings?

I never found one that played and did not exist.

How does someone do this, In orer to hide yourself form being identified as a winner or llossing mule, ?

I am sure nost of these loosing mules would have loved to hide themselves on OFICAL POKER RANKINGS.

I stoped playing SIT and Go's but ,

Also, If you hide yourself to the public, can you still privately see your results?

You just can't make this stuff up. See serious response to me below.


I like the pride part about making play money.

Foobar has two options: 'random' (which is pseudo-random) and 'shuffle' (where the order of the tracks is adjusted, so no song plays twice until after every song has played once)

It's a fringe benefit for shills, you aren't allowed.

Well, he does have to pass by the threshold of thinking of visiting the site, clicking on the FAQ where one can likely find the answer to his question.

Hint here is how it begins...


Q: I don't want my poker results and poker statistics on OPR, can you hide my data
A: Yes, send an email to

Maybe now he can find the rest. Figure it's 50/50

well you finally posted a complicated post earlier on which did convince me you may know steven after all.lol good luck

I had visited the site, thank you MONTROY.

But I had not seen this.

I had to sign up with them, and was given a password to use to log on like here.

I did this, I did not look at all the information there.

I have not gone back since I stooped playing SIT AND GO's

Personally, and I think this is simply my own thought and not the concerns of the majority.

EVERONE's screen-name should be listed. No, I think it should.

I want to know if some mule is playing me or if the person has a history of winning.

FREEDOM of thought and information. I do not care for secret talk and inside knowledge.

FOR ONE, FOR ALL.

I understand WHY a good player AND a MULE would wnt to hide, I just do not think they should.

I am not saying, I think that I should know WHO the mule is in REAl life situation, that is different.

BUT i want to know what he knows about me.

I never hid my information, though I did not know i could. though if I did I still would not.

Which is very basic.

I was remembering how I programmed mine and I realised that the code does not even call 'rand()'.

It's done entirely by a set of algorithms with some quite complex data structures so that it seems to be entirely random.

Shuffle play, which is exactly what it says, can have all sorts of things that seem non-random, such as the same artist on consecutive tracks or consecutive songs from the same album on two non-consecutive played tracks.

It's a fascinating demonstration of how, to appear random, some things have to be very carefully worked out to a sequence that is almost as far from random as it's possible to get.

The converse, of course, is that genuinely random events such as poker hands (probably) often seem to follow one or more of any number of weird and wonderful patterns.

And here is an example of a set of random words that magically almost appear to be saying something intelligible.

Mr. Giblet - is it fun playing a semi-literate geezer character? How does it feel to immerse yourself in that mindset? Is it something like the Strasberg Method? Do you find yourself walking around speaking that way, or making faces in the mirror?

I asked you once, to not attack me. I ask a question on something you post. YOU need not answer it.

YES, I know what STRASBOURG METHOD IS, I imagine you think yourself witty, perhaps this is some veiled attack on me?

No, but listen. I am not a GEEZER. BUt perhaps older then you. Not important. I can lift my twice weight and then some. I think perhaps you find it safe to attack me, fine NOT a sweat to me.

AND my friend, I assure you I have read more than YOU will in a life i hope Is very long, I do not ILL WISH AS MANY DO.

I do not follow mathematics, as some do. But again, I read more by the time I was half your age then you might give a life of lifetimes. Sit with a pencil and calculator, was not my choice. Was yours, fine.

But, again, you refuse to answer my questions.

Perhaps, you should stop taking mood altering medicine, YES my friend, I read your posts too. A man is my shadow, I like to know the outline he makes.

Also, I ask to the men who post here, not you in particular.

ALso, I have not used a COMPUTER until a few years ago. Was not my privelgae, but it very funny to speak in roundabout and quicktalk.

MORE LOL and assorted idiot speak.

Well read, indeed, number cruncher,

shut up geezer

idiot speak is my privelgae (is that Latin?)

Jim Henson liked butterflies.

You dishonor that man.

I meet aggression with wisdom.

I see there is nothing but Pent up Rage and associated ill rumblings.


I ask legitimate questions on how one can HIDE from OFFICIAL POKER RANKINGS?

And this is the response,

Surely this is the reason people are suspect of those who defend ONLINE POKER and speak against Truth and RUmor.