So here's the thread I assume BucketFoot is talking about:

Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

Not quite the same description, and according to you not the same result as you originally talked about:


I'm not a stats guru, but that makes sense to me. Not sure if it would be "much more" meaningful, but I would expect it to be more. This makes a lot more sense than your original statement:

So I'm glad to hear you're backing down some from that assertion.

Please don't allow your perceived expertise at analyzing business models to ever result in you actually starting a business. And if you do, hire outside help.

They charge more rake because they have way more overhead.


They do have other casino games. Do they subsidize their poker room with the other games? If the other games make money and the poker rooms lose money should they not close up the poker rooms? Why don't they?



What about actual poker rooms? Not casinos. Places that just have poker rooms. What about underground poker rooms? How does that work?

I need to stop wasting my time in here and play more guitar so please just ignore me, because if you keep trying to argue or insult me, I will have to defend myself.

That's true. And in different parts of my post I used the word complete to convey both meanings.

Allow me to clarify with the clarifying marks in parentheses:




Well every time you got AQ did you lose to AK? It seems that if every time you got a big hand you would get coolered you would know that anyway. Every time you get KK do you lose to AA?

If they are setting you up to lose you will know your opponent's hand anyway because they will beat you and show their hand.



And coolers are no bigger a part of the online game than the live game. And true coolers really don't affect your winrate much since they happen equally often each way. It's all the other hands and the spots where you're making mistakes and you don't know you're making mistakes that really add up.



EDIT: btw "hole cards".

Impossible. Basic conservation law.

Rake + cashouts = Deposits

If deposits > rake + cashouts, there would be a loss of money somewhere.

Here, I'll help you out: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/55...ban-me-204579/

3 buyins?

Shut the thread down, we have our proof. GG shills, but this guy lost 3 buyins, in one night! 3!

BucketFace and Demonpolisher, sitting in a tree..
doing what they shouldn't be..
starts with S..
ends with X..
oh my ****ing god, it must be sex!!

Major sites are NOT rigged.
People who post in this thread 300+ times, mostly berating "rigged"....are either shills or complete losers and, most likely, horrible players.
The time spent berating people in this thread has gotta take away from EV.

Very few of the "legit" posters stay above the fray. Most with over 300 posts in this thread add little more than confusion. Either a shill or a loser with nothing better to do with their time than insult.

Where is the progress? I guarantee, If I was a 300+ poster in this thread on either side, progress would be made.

Note, a devoted 'legit' isn't nessecarily a shill or a loser. I am sure the legit "legits" are OK, but anyone who spends any time in this post knows.....300 posts saying "he thinks it's rigged because he is losing" is either a donkey, loser waste of time, or a handy paycheck from an online poker site.

Online poker probably isn't rigged.

P.S. A ****** is someone whose IQ is below 70. Most ******ed people are decent, to say the least, so leave them out of this. If they have the ability, they probably wouldn't spend time in this thread.

These can get a pretty good estimate of an historical figures IQ just by thinks they have written. When I read the things written in this thread.............

I'm a loser! But I have fun being one! And some girls love losers like me. Can't say why though. Maybe they're screwed up in the head/neck area.

Over half of your posts on 2+2 are in this thread.

Yeah but he's not a loser because he'll create a new gimmick account before he gets to 300. You don't have to be a riggie to use riggie logic.

Actually hes right and youre wrong. They are not 1 to 1 functions of each other because there is an unsued pool of money as open balances. If no more deposits occurred, cashouts could still occur, money comes from this pool. As this pool shrinks the business potential shrinks with it. Though it wouldnt be until less games or smaller stakes are actually played. You would be right if you were following individual deposits thru the life of deposit->raked play->withdrawel. But it doesnt work that way. Or if you were considering ALL the money from start to finish.

No, they're both wrong, but db's point is still valid. This was BucketFoot's post that he was replying to:

This is obviously false. The site can grow just fine without this scenario taking place. If the site takes in $1,000,000 per day right now, and there is $900,000 in cashouts and $100,000 in rake, and then 6 months from now there is $2,000,000 deposits per day, and $1,8000,000 in cashouts and $200,000 in rake, the site's revenues have doubled.

Of course, as you point out, that isn't likely to happen. Many people are going to have a certain amount of money on deposit at any given time, and as a site has more players, it's only natural that this amount will grow. So yes, as a site grows, the deposits will likely exceed cashouts plus rake. The formula should actually read deposits + money left in players accounts = cashouts + rake.

But that doesn't mean sites need more in deposits than cashouts plus rake; it's just a natural result of their growth.

Very true.

The excess from deposits - ( cashout + rake ) is an amount of money that any reputable site would be holding quite separately and would not be considered as an asset of the site (although they do, of course, keep the interest paid wherever the money is deposited).

Man, I was really high when I wrote that.

so what would happen if every single person cashed out their whole roll at the same time?

On line poker would come to an end!

All reputable sites would be able to handle that as they would have the player's money in a separate account.

It might take longer than usual as, apart from the extreme workload, sites may have some proportion of their player's funds deposited in accounts that have longer notice periods and higher returns.

Any shady site that was using player's money for day to day expenses (or had effectively stolen it) would be in deep do-do. I know that the Isle of Man regulatory authority requires that player's monies are kept separate and I believe the same is true for Malta and Gibraltar. Not sure about KGC or Costa Rica.

this rigged debate never gets anywhere. most people on BOTH sides are complete idiots (myself included). i believe truly in my heart that something is really wrong and corrupt with online poker. its either rigged, or there is some sort of superuser/mass cheating/bots/holecard reading/whatever going on. Something just isn't right, I can feel it, Ive always felt it, and I'm generally not completely wrong about these things. The world is corrupt, I just can't see online poker being all roses and candy bars... that goes for the sites and the players.

i sort of did take some of your advice Arout, I self reflected a little. I came to this conclusion: 1) I believe its rigged. 2) I believe the better players STILL win in the long run. 3) I'm not going to quit playing. 4) I'm not going to do anything about whatever is corrupt.

Focusing on whether or not its rigged, does nothing for my game, even if I'm right!

The same for Alderney (Full Tilt). The regulations say they can't touch the player deposits.

KGC has no such rule, and Costa Rica has no rules whatsoever for gambling sites, other than whatever regulations apply to general business operations. They don't license online gambling at all. Hence things like PitBull happen down there.

Edit: incidentally, in checking now it appears that Full Tilt has now completely separated themselves from any connection to the KGC, and they no longer mention it in their legal docs, but only refer to Alderney. They also now have Cigital as their auditor, just like Stars. It used to be that FT had sort of a dual licensing with their gambling license in Alderney and a permit from KGC too, which was apparently because of servers being housed at MIT. It looks like they followed Stars example and completely separated themselves from KGC and moved their servers, which Stars did a while back.

To confirm this I just did an IP trace on the game software while playing and the server was in Ireland at a colo called Blacknight.

So whoever keeps talking about Indian tribes isn't talking about any of the top five poker sites in the world, as I've said before. Time to STFU about that.

Happy Easter Everyone.
I went to a site this morning and entered a low stakes NL holdem game . The first hand I was dealt to my surprise was AA . Yahoo I thought , what a nice start to my Easter to find this egg laying at my feet . I decided it was about as good a hand as any and went all in after someone raised in front of me . The guy who raised in front of me had 10 10 . Of course he hit his set . Darn I was unlucky in that hand . Needless to say that was the only hand I played and closed the site and moved on .
Enjoy your Easter and don't eat to much as I probably will end up doing just that .

Pocket Aces... I don't know where the math comes up with the percentage of them winning, and it might be right on paper, but online, it never seems to come out that way. I've practically gotten to the point that unless I'm playing heads up, I'd just rather fold them pre flop

As for it being rigged? (I honestly didn't read every thread, so more than likely reiterating). I'm still undecided. There just seems way too much action, especially on the river, for my taste. I know the whole arguement of "Well, you play X times more hands than live", but I'd have to boil it down to either the rng isn't perfect, or the quality of players is just bad. Probably a bit of both. I've noticed my roi is actually higher on higher stakes than lower stakes.

I'd probably say for the major sites, they're not rigged, rather, the sites are predictable and can be exploited. When I look at my hands honestly, my stats are normal for regular games. It's just those ******* super turbos. I do decent for normal poker games, but can't seem to win the super turbos for anything, yet they're so addicting.

Last night I was in a 9-man SNG on Absolute (don't ask). A friend was watching me play over my shoulder and I was explaining what I was doing and why. We were on the bubble for quite awhile. I went from lowest stack to midstack to lowest stack on numerous occasions with various hands, shoving a lot due to the blinds. On one hand I got crippled when my AKo lost to a shorter stack's 88 AIPF. I had about 4bb's left and the other stacks had me covered by at least 4 times.

Two hands after, I receive AKs on the SB. Both the CO and Button fold.

I turn to my friend and say, "This is an easy push, but I will lose this tournament right now. The BB will call with just about any hand and it will win despite the odds." I had been all-in on several occasions during the fight on the bubble, but this was the only one I mentioned I would lose.

The BB calls and show T8o. He receives 2 pair on the turn and river to win, knocking me out.

I turn to my friend and say, "There's just nothing you can do about that situation."

The point is not that particular hand. He had 2 live cards and wasn't a HUGE underdog. The point is, I knew that was the end of my tournament. Folding AKs there is so -EV I would never do it, no matter what prediction I had of the outcome. As time passes with more and more tournaments under my belt, I'm becoming stunningly accurate on predicting the outcome of key hands (even ones I'm not involved with). This knowledge is not something that can be 100% exploited. I have used it to avoid particular confrontations that were borderline decisions with good success, I even placed in a tournament I would have been knocked out on the bubble had I played it strictly by the numbers. Sure, I only took 3rd, but much better than 4th, eh?

So what can I do?

1) Keep playing and keep my mouth shut and squeeze a small profit.
2) Tell others on 2+2 and get called names.
3) Give up on online poker altogether and only play live.

So far, I've chosen 1 and now 2. If I am no longer able to post a profit, I will resort to 3.

This post is for those of you in this thread (and lurkers) who have their doubts about online poker. Like most things in life, you have to find your own way, as no one will do it for you. Anyone who is trying to push you one way or the other is doing so for their own selfish reasons. Focus on what is happening over a long period of time and you will see the truth of it.

No type of post, study, or audit will ever trump my own experiences with online poker. Nor should any post, study, or audit trump yours.

Happy Easter.

This, it's all about volume. Last night I took some horrible beats. Twice I went into the river an 82% fav, yet my opponent hits his 3 outer. If I were in the same situation 9 more times then I'd get sucked out on one more time, and the other 8 times my hand would hold. It's basic math.