Then entire article is enclosed in quotation marks - that should be enough to prove it's legit.

oh hi there...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...0/#post7935900

just the kind of proof only a former employee could provide.

57000 hands! holy crap!

lolplaymoneyriggaments

I'm pretty sure this all has to be true.

And yet there are thousands of players out there with databases tracking their Fulltilt hand histories and none of them have come up with such anomalies.

Clearly they must be working for Fulltilt as well...

lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r89tSAxAu0c

this ^^^ from this --http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28/internet-poker/great-poker-rigged-debate-collected-threads-edition-255990-post7935900/#post7935900


gtf op

can't we just ban these nut jobs or move this redic post to the 'online poker is rigged' threads.

it's so sad some people might believe this and in 2010 these stupid articles are still trying hold back online poker.

yes your probably resentfull to the new breed of young online pro's... but just go back to local casino 'to play real poker' and pedel this drivel to the other ******s that nod in agreement as to why thier house is foreclosed because they want somebody else to blame.

Where can I enroll in A Major University? Are there hotties there? Oh wait, that's not the name of a real school! You failed to give us the name of the school and a link to the study, instead you made some **** up just like a friend of a friend of my brother saw aliens!

how do u get on the good side?

This makes perfect sense... DUCY?

Either name the study, it's authors and link to it or to their academic webpages, or gtfo.

fwiw, i posted a link to the article on the last page

any proof you can provide for your recent job.
Post docs

+ why have taken part at a university study to exploit Full Tilt when you work as a programmer for Full Tilt, i dont get this.

Explain

Hey man, EPT is a Pokerstars event, no reason to send your thugs in there!

Full Tilt is a legitamate company making millions of dollars. Why would they risk all that by rigging their site? Simple answers are greed and that they can.

Bernie Madoff's returns on investment couldn't possibly be a fraud. Why would he risk all he has with all those regulators constantly watching? Greed and he could do it.

I hope the truth comes out.

Because people see an ace in their hand and they're like ZOMG I HAS AN ACE AND AM NOT PRESSING FOLD BUTTON, I CALL/BET. duh

OMFG I NEVER LAUGHED SO HARD

Alright, guys. I did an experiment with two 9-man SnG's. I think the results are interesting enough.

In each tournament I followed a very robotic approach to every hand encountered. I only played the following premium hands:

9-6 people: AA-QQ, AK
5-4 people: AA-TT, AK-AQ
3-2 people: AA-77, AK-AT <-never made it here, though

The play: all-in preflop no matter what position, stack size, action before, blind level, etc.

(Terrible strategy for sure, so don't bother mentioning it)

Tournament 1:
79 hands
None met the standards
Final hand: Ks2s vs. KcTd (Blinded All-In and Lost)
5th place

Tournament 2:
193 hands
AcKs, all folded
AdQh, all folded
AcKd, all folded
AsQc, all folded
JcJd, all folded
AsQh vs. AhAc, won (straight)
very next hand
AdAc vs. As7s, won
KdKh vs. As9h, won
Final hand: Ad8c vs. KcTc (Blinded All-In and Lost to a flopped straight)
4th place

What you cannot see from this summary is that after the table became 4-handed, I received MANY very shovable hands. None of them were matching up with my standards, however. It was as though I were being enticed to play, but I held to my guns and folded every single one of them.

In the end, the chance of seeing as many Aces as I saw is less than 1/20th of a percent. 47 of 386 cards (14 of them after 5th place). Doesn't sound like much, but the odds are strongly against this. 99.96% chance of receiving fewer Aces (roughly). Should happen once of every 2000 groups of 193 hands or so? (looks to Spadebidder for verification) I guess I just got lucky. Oh wait, no I didn't, I lost anyway with one of those lucky Ace hands.

Other oddities: the whole winning with AQo vs. AA and then the very next hand getting AA vs. A7s and winning that too. Nothing felt more contrived than that. That is, other than the slew of Ax hands that followed the departure of 5th place. I had something between AJs-A4s, AJo-A6o roughly every 3rd hand starting with the very first hand after 5th place went out (AJo).

Why were these two tournaments so vastly different from one another? Why could I seem to not lose in the 2nd tournament until the bubble was reached? After that, I lost the first time I was at risk. Does it mean anything? I don't know.

If anyone I trust here would like to review any of this, I am willing to share my HH's.

Right, in his first thread he never gave any detail he just posted this:

This is such a Minor University response

today my AK lost against QQ, sooo rigged

What? Did I miss something?

A 'major university' that never heard of variance before.

That fake post has been floating around a couple years, and every calculated probability in it is wrong. Whoever made it up couldn't even make it believable. They don't teach math at that university.