lol superuser house bots, it always devolves to this when all other logic is used up

Yes, I even heard this is how Phil Ivey does it.

How about you bust out your however many hand database, tell me what the odds are (since you "know" it happens too often, you must know how often it should happen) then show me that you see it too much.

If it's so clear cut just from watching it happen, it would stick out like a sore thumb if you actually analyzed it. I might be wrong, but wouldn't action flops make the average pot numbers a bit higher?

Stars and Full Tilt both have average pots of ~15 bbs right now, at least from a quick look at their microstakes games. This might be a stretch, but wouldn't this mean they either both rig the action the same way, or are both equally random?

So you would code the most obvious rigging system ever then?

No. I didnt use the term because it is a poor choice of terminology, for bots and even for the UB/AP scandal. Being a superuser implies a lot more where I come from than the simple read only access required for what I was saying.

This is the shallow mind that you shilltards all have in common. Just because the AP/UB guys were too stupid to do it subtly, doesnt mean its not doable in a better way. But Again, as i said in my first post regarding this, I dont consider this the elegant way of doing it and would prefer to see something much more complex.

If i was to code a rigged system, this is exactly the kind of thing you tap into.

rolmao

What else does it imply? In the UB & AP scandals, the super users were able to see everyone's hole cards, just like your house bots. No other special features required.

Also, you do know that there's no reason for a site to have an account with such access, right? IE for auditing, software testing, etc, all they need is to see hand histories after the hands are dealt. I would imagine most competent poker sites close such access so as to avoid problems.

That's not to say that a site couldn't/wouldn't be able to code such a thing if they were into a nefarious plot like you describe. Just pointing out that the access shouldn't be there on a routine basis.

Look up the term and tell me if read-only access as described here and in the case of AP/UB sounds like what a superuser might be. It was only used there because computer illeterates such as yourself applied it incorrectly.

Is there any evidence that theses superuser house bots exist, or is this yet another one of those idiotic discussions where the word 'possible' is taken, beaten into a meaningless pulp, and then spewed back up as some sort of glorious demonstration of nonsense?

I think we should get some kind of prize if this thread ever hits page 1200 .
What were the odds of that happening when this subject began ?

I was not making an accusation Josem, you can turn the aggressive attack dog defendertard button off. I was speaking in the hypothetical realm.

.

ATTENTION SPADEBIDDER

Since you have leaned on the maths to fuel your argument agasint the rigged sites, I present to you a new debate based on physics. Surely you are at least somewhat up to date on general physics theories and accept what the latest greatest minds in the field tell us is happening down there at the quantum level. Therefore we must accept the theory that comes with it of the multiverse where there is a universe that plays out every possibility of every single nano decision that could ever be from a single photon going left or right as it leaves its light source and everthing else.

Therefore it must be the case that there exists a universe where poker sites are rigged in such a complex way that hand histories cannot detect them. Does not even matter if it means extra profitability because theres a universe for that too. We have no proof that this isnt that unverse so all your studies are now rendered useless in this debate thread as I have put together PikachuDemolisher's Grand Theory of Rigtardation.

**** happens bro. Without irony wed be no better than the muslims.

I was speaking in the hypothetical realm.

Well, try speaking in a realistic realm next time. Not all of us can understand you when you speak from this hypothetical realm you're from.

Not a bad attempt at humour. But in all seriousness, I don't think the multiverse would hold that in some universes logical impossibilities are suddenly valid. This should include math, no? So really, in all the infinite universes the stats would still tell the tale.

Now, if only we lived in a universe with no rigtards...

^ Sorry, I meant to post that in a hypothetical forum.

Spadebidder has accepted that it is mathematically possible to rig the deal in an undetectable manner, but that it would not be profitable. Therefore the key there a matter of impossibilty as just about anything is truely possible. Just a matter of whether the site owners care about the profit increase of such a decision, and that is the key, the decision.

Obviously you've never heard of the hypothetical universe where most of the riggies pull their logic out of. There is no math there. It was eaten by the hypothetical black hole (hypothetically)

Reality stops there. DUCY?

I am going to find out who you are and report you to the better business bureau for aiding and abetting in the crime of rigged poker sites. I have already contacted a lawyer.

Sigh.

Has it ever occurred to you that the term has been borrowed from geek-speak of days gone by, and used in a slightly different way here? The term superuser or root account really isn't used too much with today's computers, at least not the ones most of use on a day-to-day basis. Pretty much everyone who uses the term in the context of the AP/UB scandal understands what is meant by it, and aren't too concerned that it isn't exactly the same meaning it originally had. And it has nothing to do with lack of computer literacy.

Maybe you'd also like to nit at everyone's "incorrect" use of the term spam on this forum as well.

I also must say I enjoyed your inability to spell the word illiteracy, even though it's being used in a different context here. Almost ironic. Almost.

Really, the condescending attitude is pretty silly. Reminds of the times when you don't agree with Spadebidder's methods, and then call him out for not not knowing what he's talking about.