Yes but if you just convince yourself you know what's going to happen because you 'see patterns in your head' but cannot make money out of your prescience you probably don't actually know what's going to happen.

Hmmmkkkk...Please share with the thread as to why you are superior in knowlege and your poker abilities that justifies your rude and 13 year old, FullFlush behavior?

Wait a minute, so maybe I don't have ESP? This changes everything...no wonder I keep losing.

I thought when somebody "read" a player, they were reading their...nevermind...I'm ashamed...

Certainly.

Reading, learning, listening to others, thinking, practice.

It's easy and anyone can do it.

You should give it a try.

No, I'll just hide behind actual inteligent posters like QPW, and BoBo and scream "*******'s!" from the back of the crowd like you do...

Oh nvm, thought the red line was adjusted EV on their

Juk

just wanted to get that off my chest this morning

Wibjik edo semis anset terbelic.

Comprendez?

Are you dense J.C or just stubborn.

I think he's being deliberately obtuse.

He's made no attempt to clarify what he's trying to get across.

If super users on AP counts as an example of being "rigged", then yes, it's rigged!

It doesn't.

Rigging is a subset of cheating.

Cheating is not a subset of rigging.

Ok....Your wrong. Thank you for proving my point.

I am trying to set an example by not personally attacking you for that post.

My wrong what?

You see, tk, you need to explain why he's wrong (although what he said seems spot on to me).

Just saying 'You're wrong' doesn't cut it - we need reasoning.

If I goto my friends house and play poker, yet everybody there cheats, I don't play their bc the game is "rigged."

If somebody calls for a recount on a Political election, some might think the protest is b/c the voting was "rigged," (Recently in Iraq's elections)

In all seriousness, If He is correct, I never would of posted my jumbled, words, that I call a "sentence" in this thread.

BTW theres an article in Poker Legislation that sums up my goals...

your wrong

Making "rigged" a synonym for "cheating" just removes meaning from the word "rigged". In any event, language is an evolving thing and depends to a large extent on accepted usage. Your personal definitions aside, TK, the vast number of people posting ITT are using the word "rig" to refer to an unfair deal. Quibble with definitions all you want, THAT is the subject of this thread.

This thread is not about cheating in general. It shouldn't be (it's long enough!). It is focused on one manner of cheating by the sites: that is, the rigging of the deal and topics that come out of that. There are plenty of other threads dealing with other forms of cheating and if you start such a thread it won't likely be merged here.

kai?

Wicked.

So, IF Full Tilt employed SUPER BOTS/Super USERS, and they were networked with the master server, it wouldn't be considered a "rigged" site?

Rigged=Can't win no matter what

weren't you going to make a case against one of these super bots you found?

And no, that's cheating to the highest degree (it would be straight up theft) but again, it's been widely accepted that we're talking about a rigged deal. This isn't a superuser thread.

I will agree to that.

Although off topic tk, if you firmly believe there are such superbots in existence or whatever you want to call them, you really should do some work on it. I don't for a second believe they exist, but if they did I'm rather certain it could be proven if your analysis is thorough enough.

For example, do these bots show up once never to appear again? If not, we should be able to track their long term results. If they do, we should be able to find multiple cases of players who make a score and then disappear. We should also be able to see if these players are playing at a vpip that should ensure losses, and them winning despite that style of play. That's just the tip of the iceberg off the top of my head. Random suspicions are useless if you don't put some work in to uncover it.

If something like this were to be uncovered I don't think there's a single person in this thread who wouldn't come down on the sites in the same fashion as UB/AP. It after all would be roughly the same thing.

Hello, I am back with some additional thoughts on why I would like to see a Full deck dealt and why it would be nice , imo , to have a 3rd party dealing the cards .
Partly why I like the full deck dealing better is the deck exists prior to the hand . Let me give an example even though I am not saying it is not random . If each card is dealt randomly each time rather than from a complete and orderly deck it could be like playing at home and taking a card from the middle of the deck and still be random even if noone knew what card it was . I wonder if all who were sitting at the table would like that kind of deal . I know I wouldn't .
Lets go a step further and say you go all-in on a bet and in quick succession the cards are dealt randomly to the board . Now we compare this dealing of the cards to just making a non all-in bet and the cards are dealt , we wait a minute and bet again and another card is dealt . In the meantime the RNG has chosen cards for other hands or games to fullfill it function . Can i believe that the same cards will appear now ? Even though it may still be random the hand may turn out differently . Can I assume this is correct? If so it seems a bit of a seperate reality from a full deck type deal .
This is why I have likings of the full deck being created before each hand . It also takes away the chance of any insertion . I would think it would be much more difficult to find a deck to fix any hand because of the variables of people folding or staying in the hands that affect it .


I just give this scenario as an example :
If I were to be the person fixing hands to favor a "player" I would insert cards that benefited him financially to win hands at higher payouts then give him some bad beats or losers at lower levels . I would suspect you would have to consider his entire HH to evaluate for any out of the ordinary spikes overall . An argument could be made that he wins the bigger hands but in reality he loses to . It just becomes an unprovable comparison much different than the AP superuser off the charts type winning .
I hope I am not feeding the frenzy but just pointing out my preferences to a degree .

This is the psychological effect I was talking about. But it's just different ways of being random. The effect on the game is identical. It's just the concept of fate changes. The fate lies in when you decide to make your move, for example, rather than the fate of how the cards were initially shuffled. The game is still the same, the cards will still fall in the same general manner. The difference, really, is all in your head.

However, this has nothing to do with whether a third party sets the RNG: pokerstars, as noted, does just that: sets out a full deck before the start of the hand. Other sites do it differently. Makes no difference to the game, though.