The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition - Page 629 - Internet Poker

Two Plus Two Forums Online Poker Sites & Marketplaces Online Poker Sites Discussion of Poker Sites

The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

View Poll Results: Is Online Poker Rigged?

Yes

3,502 34.89%

5,607 55.86%

Undecided

929 9.25%

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 629 of 3721

First

129 429 529 579 609 619 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 639 649 679 729 829 1129 1629

Last

Page 629 of 3721

First

129 429 529 579 609 619 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 639 649 679 729 829 1129 1629

Last

03-03-2010 , 01:35 AM

#15701

spadebidder

Actually Shows Proof

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,905

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizeagainst

if u play on cake people will limp/call u for 12 BB with QTo bro

Which is what you want to happen. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't play.

Quote

03-03-2010 , 01:40 AM

#15702

Arouet

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizeagainst

if u play on cake people will limp/call u for 12 BB with QTo bro

I should check it out, but I'm kinda digging this rush poker on FTP at the moment. Plus I'm working through a bonus. Maybe once I'm done I'll check them out.

Last edited by Arouet; 03-03-2010 at 01:41 AM. Reason: yes I know it's probably not 'real' poker but I'm a casual player...

Quote

03-03-2010 , 01:40 AM

#15703

otatop

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 12,721

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizeagainst

i was the one with AA bro

Oh cool, thanks for making that clear when you posted.

Quote

03-03-2010 , 01:47 AM

#15704

pooflinger

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 850

Just had a great night wining 4 out 4 sports bets on the poker site i play on.
So i sit down at cash table get kk first hand flop set and lose to aa come on and tell me this **** isnt rigged humor me

Quote

03-03-2010 , 01:47 AM

#15705

Mitch Evans

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 5,633

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMEC0404

i didnt avoid any bets at all. I simply took the first offer.

So that means you're still going to take Josem's action, yes? After all, that would be proper bet etiquette, and we know how you feel about that.

Quote

03-03-2010 , 01:49 AM

#15706

LotsOfOuts69

3+1 Commish

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 2,371

If its not too late, I will take the original bet offered in OP. Must be overwhelming proof that the 2+2 community has agreed with.

Quote

03-03-2010 , 01:51 AM

#15707

dmkai3

veteran

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 2,619

This thread need to be deleted IMO.

Quote

03-03-2010 , 01:52 AM

#15708

rizeagainst

banned

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,179

Quote:

Originally Posted by spadebidder

Which is what you want to happen. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't play.

.............where was the part where I said I didn't want that to happen??

Quote

03-03-2010 , 01:52 AM

#15709

Mitch Evans

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 5,633

Quote:

Originally Posted by LotsOfOuts69

If its not too late, I will take the original bet offered in OP. Must be overwhelming proof that the 2+2 community has agreed with.

Nah, he already clarified in the thread that the only proof is anything he deems credible, and the 2+2 community has no word in the bet.

Quote

03-03-2010 , 01:58 AM

#15710

Doc89

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,687

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mitch Evans

Nah, he already clarified in the thread that the only proof is anything he deems credible, and the 2+2 community has no word in the bet.

Actually, this is what he said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMEC0404

OK, how about this. this is an offer you cannot refuse.

same rules as in OP, but you only pay me when you are personally convinced or the evidence is sooo entirely overwhelming that anyone in their right mind cannot possibly argue against the proof.

So I only have to pay when I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the RNG is rigged. What the 2+2 community or anyone else for that matter thinks is completely irrelevant.

Quote

03-03-2010 , 02:04 AM

#15711

Rusemandingo

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 14,067

You should probably set the parameters on how reliable of a source the reporting comes from. Could you just turn around and quote some dudes blog saying that tampering had been proved?
If you'd done this in 2002 betting on proof coming out that Iraq had nukes, the New York Times would have won you that bet. How did that turn out?

If you're doing this for real you should change it to like either a formal statement from a Stars or FT exec stating this has occurred or from some kind of governing body.

Quote

03-03-2010 , 02:04 AM

#15712

NFuego20

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 4,295

I'm happy to draw a line inbetween. Obviously it's not acceptable for proof to be anything OP deems credible, nor is it acceptable for me to me to judge. That's why Josem, who will have a $50 stake in this, will draft up a basic set of rules to be agreed to. If Josem and OP can agree on that, I'm happy participate in the bet under the same terms.

Quote

03-03-2010 , 02:05 AM

#15713

Mitch Evans

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 5,633

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc89

So I only have to pay when I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the RNG is rigged. What the 2+2 community or anyone else for that matter thinks is completely irrelevant.

Yes, good luck in believing that he will stand by this amendment.

Let's see.... you go on a downswing and lose $10,000 and feel it's rigged, so you go ahead and ship another $2500 to him. At that point it's cheaper to believe you suck and save $2500.

Quote

03-03-2010 , 02:12 AM

#15714

Doc89

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,687

lol, I'm not gonna be losing too much sleep over whether he will "stand by" that amendment, because he shipped me the $100 first.

The whole reason I took the bet was because

a) he offered to ship first
and
b) because I know beyond any reasonable doubt that the probability of me having to ever payout is essentially zero.

Quote

03-03-2010 , 02:21 AM

#15715

pooflinger

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 850

go play live poker for 6 months straight no online and you will wish you never made that bet

Quote

03-03-2010 , 02:29 AM

#15716

Bobo Fett

Carpe Diem

Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 56,896

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizeagainst

i was the one with AA bro

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizeagainst

.............where was the part where I said I didn't want that to happen??

Forgive them; we see so many riggies in here they automatically assume anyone who posts a hand history is one as well now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pooflinger

Just had a great night wining 4 out 4 sports bets on the poker site i play on.
So i sit down at cash table get kk first hand flop set and lose to aa come on and tell me this **** isnt rigged humor me

Just curious; have you ever made a post on this forum that was of any substance? Something that actually contributed meaningfully to the discussion?

Quote

03-03-2010 , 02:31 AM

#15717

pooflinger

adept

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 850

Yes i speak the truth and you sir dont

Quote

03-03-2010 , 02:33 AM

#15718

Bobo Fett

Carpe Diem

Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 56,896

Quote:

Originally Posted by pooflinger

Yes i speak the truth and you sir dont

I don't imagine you have any more evidence of this than you do of all your rigging claims, do you?

Quote

03-03-2010 , 02:35 AM

#15719

NFuego20

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 4,295

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobo Fett

Just curious; have you ever made a post on this forum that was of any substance? Something that actually contributed meaningfully to the discussion?

I can answer that.

No.

He's like the cake version of BucketFoot. Nothing but baseless crap.

Quote

03-03-2010 , 02:41 AM

#15720

Josem

human chemical weapon

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 18,190

OK, here's a proposed rule set:

Quote:

1) The full rigged 'proof' must be published in a format that is publicly accessible;

2) Somewhere in the world, the proof must be reported in a publication or broadcast program that provides news and feature stories to the public through appropriate distribution channels. Publicly available television, newspapers with a circulation of over 10,000 copies, and so on, count. Blogs don't count. The publication must be by a publisher not associated with the author of the claimed 'proof'.

3) The proof will be reviewed and approved by a qualified statistician, employed for his/her statistical qualifications by a university (the university must receive some public funding) somewhere on earth.

4) The experiment showing the non-randomness must be reproducible. To reproduce it, after publication of the proof, five samples of at least one million hand histories must each show the same non-random result greater than five standard deviations from the mathematically predicted mean. If the degree of non-randomness is not reproducible in one million hand histories, then the number of hand histories can be revised by mutual agreement to a higher number.

5) If the proof or test relies on analysis of community cards, then it must account for card removal effects. See www.spadebidder.com for a reasonable overview of this effect and mathematical analysis.

Anything I forget? Anything that should be added? I'm open to suggestions from both people who believe online poker is rigged, and online poker is random.

Quote

03-03-2010 , 02:43 AM

#15721

NFuego20

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 4,295

Quote:

Originally Posted by MumuTrader

So basically youre saying you will do wahtever Josem does and says just as youve been doing forever. Got it.

Basically I trust people who have proven themselves to be knowledgeable, professional and trustworthy.

Such a person is capable of setting reasonable terms for a bet.

You wouldn't qualify.

Quote

03-03-2010 , 03:10 AM

#15722

rizeagainst

banned

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,179

Quote:

Originally Posted by pooflinger

Yes i speak the truth and you sir dont

The fact that you sat in the game to begin with shows that deep down you don't think it's rigged. You only use it as a post session excuse for why you lost.

There is no sane person that stands outside a bank yelling "ZOMG DON'T GO IN THIS BANK, THEY'RE GOING TO ROB YOU!" then you watch hours, days, months, years after people enter and leave happily. Then you look around, see that nobody has joined your cause, and decide to enter the bank for yourself. It's clear you yourself don't even believe what you are saying, it's just a nice excuse to have.

Quote

03-03-2010 , 03:14 AM

#15723

Mitch Evans

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 5,633

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc89

I realize all this, and it's fine. It's just I wouldn't want to be pestered by this guy all the time for a $100. I don't enter into agreements with high-maintenance people unless there's some money to be made, but I understand your position. NJOY the moniez.

Quote

03-03-2010 , 03:20 AM

#15724

NFuego20

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 4,295

Josem your proposal is fine.

I'd even add that site admission (specifically related to the RNG and cards being dealt in a non random way) corresponding with player reimbursement would also be acceptable and would make the other steps unimportant.

Naturally, it should be provable anyway but in the event that something is uncovered that encompasses a short period of time in which millions of hand histories are not available, I would accept that as an alternative.

That should satisfy the rigged theorists who suspect a site is turning the RNG "on and off".