So, is it rigged then or what ?

Josem, do you actually assume I read the 19,000 posts in this thread previous to posting here?
Do you believe any rigge has?

No.

Also, I don't see what that has to do with my post.

I don't even think you read the posts to which you respond.

Not properly, anyway. Not with any degree of comprehension.

As the above quoted post demonstrates very clearly.

Pre-flop raise is a little big but depending on the opponent can be fine ... but I think it should be a bit smaller.

Bet the flop. Should probably bet the flop with about 100% of your range here.

Though actually with the stacks so ridiculously short (you have 22K left in a 30K pot, right?) checking this flop is alright particularly if he can tend to get bluffy. I'd just shove after he bets though .... it'd be just over a minshove and don't want him checking back draws on the turn plus he'll be unlikely to bluff air on the turn since you'd be getting just over 5 to 1 and the perception is that you would basically never be folding.

The crazy stack sizes on the flop make this kinda an awkward situation when you have air ..... though the only air you should really ever have would be AK and maybe AJ and it shouldn't be too bad with those hands --> either open shove or if the guy calls very loose pre and gets very bluffy when checked to then check/shove.


Not sure what your point is though.

I'm a few days behind; are the Focus On The Family shills still in here trying to discredit online poker?

What's the focus when I'm not around?
Seriously?

How will you know?

If you can't understand the posts in question what makes you think you will be able to understand the precis?

They're Christian Bible thumpers that are against poker and gambling.
"Poker is the devil"

I'm glad to see that QPW's new Gimmick account is still going strong...

Can you provide a single link to back that up?

Or are you just spewing your usual nonsense?

That's not evasive.

For once, you are correct. It isn't.

I don't think any of them are really poker players.

Funny thing watching an old episode of Numbers and the Math guys were saying there is no such thing as a Random Number Generator. They said show me any RNG and ill show you a pattern.

Wow you posted something someone could use

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/soci.../gambling.aspx

Unless you meant BS being QPW's monkey account, in which case, mea culpa.

They also had an episode where "hackers" hang out in "IRC" and speak "1337" to each other, but thankfully Ameda could translate. Or, more simply put, it's a TV drama, not a documentary.

This post of Josem's is closer to malicious, slanderous mudslinging than anything i've ever posted, I think.

To be unwilling to consider that poker sites have a vested interest in this thread, viewed nearly 1 million times, is "legitimately" intellectually bankrupt.
To deduce that paying people to control what has been viewed so often is logical.

To repeatedly demand proof of something that cannot be proven is disengenuous.

To berate someone for not proving the unprovable is pretentious and cowardly.

Oh, I see.

I thought tk1133 was saying that people in this thread were bible thumpers.

It's sometimes very hard to follow the line of rigtard thinking but I see now it all related back to something Bobo said..

It's not the riggies in this thread who discredit online poker. They question it.

You think a lot of nonsensical things.

IF they were bothered the last thing they'd do is pay peopleto ensure it gets even more prominance.

It's actually quite illogical.

It can easily be proven that a rigged deal is rigged.

Obviously it's impossible to prove that a deal that is not rigged is rigged. Is that where you have a problem?

And yet that is what the rigtards do all the time. They ask for proof that the deal is not rigged which is asking for proof of a negative which is generally considered impossible.

Thus the rigtards are, according to your own rules, 'pretentious and cowardly'. (Although I don't think you actually know what 'pretentious' means.)

I decoded the riggie talk using MSRiggie v2.2

Only because of their incompetence and poor logic skills.

[/QUOTE]You forgot

To provide no proof while accusing poker sites of wrong doing and calling anyone who asks for proof [of such wrong doings] a shill is rigtardation.

To repeatedly dismiss basic English writing skills and comprehension is riggieful. [/QUOTE]

Question and accuse have different meanings. You might comprehend that if you would stick with shwag.

[/QUOTE]To not give up on a lost cause even when you know you're beat is beaten senseless.

[/QUOTE]

I gave up pretty quickly. Should I truly seek proof, I'll buy a URL. Keep tempting me.
Just trying to shed light to people who come to this thread and wonder why they get such a hostile reception for asking honest questions and voicing legitimate fears.

No, it can't easily be done. There are millions of way a site could be rigged. If you knew exactly how it was rigged, THEN it would be easy to prove.

Although you miss the context of the post(you do that alot). I was really suggesting that, while it appears obvious, it's impossible to PROVE many posters in this thread are paid employees of poker sites.

I was suggesting that, without cause, berating people is a pretentious and cowardly act(unless they're retarted or in a wheelchair, right? Huh?). I am sorry if I offended you.