You could go with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
Or as it is used in the tard thread:
Anyone who does not think online poker is not rigged, and tries to explain to the bad players why they are loosing, using actual math statistics.

Slight edit: Anyone who does not believe that sufficient evidence has been presented to consider it likely that a site is rigged.

Looking at AQs vs. 65o, I don't understand why, after re-evaluating over and over, the pots won and pots tied doesn't change, while the the secs and games/sec changes each time, seemingly indicating a new calculations.

Just add 'tard' to it.

In this definition, shill = rigtard ?

If there ever are serious cliffs for this thread, this should be included.

You are using 'Evaluate All' mode so the calculation evaluates all possibilities and gives you an exact answer. That is why the numbers don't change.

The time and games/second change because of the granularity of the timer.

And to be totally clear, Poker Stove doesn't "calculate" equity, it simply counts outcomes. It deals every possible board and counts winners and ties, giving an exact count which is then simply divided into the total for the percentage. If you use the monte carlo option, which is only needed when doing ranges because the possible deals are so high, then it deals randomly from the available cards and counts outcomes, instead of exhaustively counting all outcomes (the default).

Also, if you specify a generic hand type like AA or AKs instead of an exact two cards, it enumerates all of those combinations against every possible board. So there are six AA hands enumerated against all boards, or 4 AKs hands. You are just using a shorthand to indicate all those hands.

There is a fundamental difference between the value of a shill and a rigtard.

A rigtard believes that the deal is rigged without evidence or logical argument.

A 'shill' (as identified by the rigtards) tries to provide sound logic and reason as to why it probably is not.

Whether the shill is or is not paid by a poker site is completely irrelevant because any moderately intelligent person can check their logic and base their opinion on that logic.

Calling people 'shills' is nothing more than a distraction technique used by rigtards to divert attention from the fact that they have no evidence for what they claim.

I was commenting on the assbackward definition of shill. Rigtard is also a distraction technique, whether intended or not.

I see. txs. I just compared like 33 against AQo with 44 against AQo and it gives the same number of 'games,' which verifies what your saying, because you would expect the same number of possibilites.

Perhaps you could try doing that in literate English so that your meaning is clear?

No it isn't.

Calling someone a 'Shill' is a distraction technique because whether it is true or not is utterly irrelevant. Calling someone a 'rigtard' may not be polite or even correct but it is relevant to their debating capabilities.

For you to understand my English, you would have to read what I was commenting on and see if you could figure it out. Oh, I should not say "figure it out," should I?

You seem to be unable or unwilling to explain what you meant.

Of course, that is fairly a standard rigtard technique. Write something inarticulate and keep a long back and forth discussion going rather than just state what you meant.

It rather leads to the impression that you don't really know what you meant yourself.

Why not?

It's standard, unambiguous English.

Neither rigtard nor shill are terms that add any value to a "debate." You seem to think "rigtard" is acceptable and "shill" is not.

You really do have a problem with simple English, don't you?

Which part of "Calling someone a 'rigtard' may not be polite or even correct" did you have trouble understanding?

I don't know what to say, so I'm just dropping it.

LOL.

Yeah, we noticed.

This thread is directed to those who voted "yes" in the "poker is rigged" poll.

Do you continue to play online?

If you continue to play online, what adjustments do you make?

Are you making money online?

A lot of players who voted "yes" or would vote "yes" are not around 2+2, I'm sure, because a logical response to rigging (real or not) is to quit playing. However, sometimes progress "depends on the unreasonable man" so I hope there is some value in the answers to these questions.

if they truly think its rigged, they would be obviously ******ed to keep playing online.

Yes I think it's rigged
I keep playing due to the fact that I really want to make it big in the poker world
I go all in with the worst hand every time
I am for sure winning money

How is that? It just means the player is sitting on the right site of riggedness (like I do at UB ).

I like going in with the worst hand and winning (who doesn't), but you can't do it every time. What's your rule?

Talking about shills? Just received this email from a friend, he authorized me to post, read carefully, Im getting him here to 2+2 so he can speak/write for himself.

"Because of shills's attitude I usually don't respond to its reports, but this time I'll make an exception. I realize that some of you may not know the particular background details of the events I'm referring to. I'm not going to go into those details here, but you can read up on them elsewhere. Call me snooty if you'd like; I myself will still do everything in my power to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity. Then, I will announce to the world that if shills truly wanted to be helpful, it wouldn't alter, amend, abridge, and censor the record to point the finger of responsibility at others. We must worry about two kinds of amateurish fussbudgets: grotesque and untrustworthy. Shills is among the former. If shills thinks its pranks represent progress, it should rethink its definition of progress.

We must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize shills's cocky cajoleries, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to make the world safe for democracy.) Shills may have the right to rip apart causes that others feel strongly about. It may have the right to insist that our society be infested with mandarinism, antiheroism, antagonism, and an impressive swarm of other "isms". But shills crosses the line when it uses its bully pulpit to sell us fibs and fear mixed with a generous dollop of Trotskyism. Let us postulate that shills's crotchets are a farraginous amalgam of parasitism and despotism. In that case, shills's list of sins is long and each one deserves more space than I have here. Therefore, rather than describe each one individually, I'll summarize by stating that its sophistries are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition". Funny, that was the same term that shills's fans once used to draw unsuspecting toughies into the orbit of shrewish wimps. "

The original post was at other forum.

Its rigged in my favor, no adjustments necessary on my part.