LOL.

Pot, kettle.

Nice try at deflection but it doesn't alter the fact that you've been throwing tantrums and getting extremely hostile all day and have only just managed to get yourself back on a fairly even keel.

I noted your claim that you and QPW were conspiring in your earlier disagreements. I've PM'd QPW1 and if he still looks in here he may come and tell us whether your claim is true of not. It certainly didn't look orchestrated to me.

Perhaps you'd care to consider whether your claim was true or if you were 'mistaken'.

What ?

I think you need to check those sums before coming straight out with sarcastic comments.

Two years would be at least 730 days. A million divided by 730 would work out at 1370 hands a day.

Don't think you'd need to be playing either 114 tables or 24 hours to reach 1370 hands in a day.

I'm sure it won't be forthcoming, but I'd suggest an apology might be in order.

Yes they could rig that prob but if they did then they would risk being detected and losing all credibility thus losing 500 mil in profit for years to come for 50 mil. They doesnt seem too wise

Yes, I did note two posts above yours that I'd got it badly wrong.

And, yes, I apologise for taking the P when what you said about the hands you'd played was perfectly feasible.

rofl wiki get a ****ing life you douchebag...you're still here trolling these forums? hahaha....what a no life virgin...

Anyone who makes a post like this has no business criticizing Wiki. At least do it with style like Monty does.

Well since you played 100's of 1000's or even mils of hands it means you multi-table, it means you're using tracking software like PT3 or HEM and huds (you're not multi-tabling without that are you?) so you can analyze most things yourself there.

For more advanced stuff check out http://www.spadebidder.com/ - a statistician guy from this forum that created it, they have 1 billion hands you can ask for certain analysis.

I'm sure there are sites that can analyze your hand histories too, google it.

I can propose a way the sites can rig the game wihtout being noticed and yet get an increase of 30% in their revenue.

Im going to make a general assumption but it can be applied to every site:

Imagina a site that gives you 30 % of rakeback, I play at a site that does that.

I play more or less 8K hands in a week to generate 100bb (aprox) of rakeback. (1 buy in)

This 100bb/week means 30% of the revenue the site would have with the rake I generate.

If they put a superuser to play just 1 hand of the 8K im going to play in the week, and the superuser bad beat me this 1 time, taking my stack (100BB), they have already get back the 30% of their revenue in rake they would give me trhough rakeback that week.

Obviously its impossible that 1 hand in 8K can change any stat anaylis of my HH.

This can be done to every player. Very simple, very easy to do and it increases 30% in the room revenue.

Good no?

Are they doing this to you only once? Or every week? Are they doing it to everyone? Does the superuser just show up for the one hand, stack you, and disappear? Is this happening to everyone? The superuser shows up for one hand, stacks someone, then leaves the table? Then another superuser shows up for one hands, stacks someone else, then leaves the table?

I could come up with more questions, but that'll do to start.

Why is this obviously impossible? It seems absolutely guaranteed to me, after all 100bb/8k hands = 1.25bb/100. You don't think running that far below EV would show up after a year or so?

Not really.

For it to make a difference to their profit that would have to be doing this a great deal.

They couldn't have the superuser just winning as that would be easily detectable. And if he lost at a normal rate then they'd have to pay his buy ins.

They would always leave a trace one way or another.

1)In the model Im proposing they have to do it 1 time every aprox 8K hands I play, or get 2 times half my stack every 8K hands I play, whats is important is the proportion.
Obvioulsy they have to that to every regular player in the room and the proportion that in my case is 1 stack every 8K hands will be a little bit different to each player.

2) Havent think abouit it, but the easiest way would be if they just vanish, so they stats couldnt be analysed. This doesnt applies to rooms like Cake, where you can change nicknames everyweek.

3) repeated question.

1.25bb/100 its winning rate, I dont think this have anything to do with EV.

Perhaps you should think about it a little bit.

In your model when anyone analysed the hands from one of the data-mining sites they'd find the signature of the rigging writ large.

And dont forget, Im talking about 1 hand in 8K to get 30% increase in the revenue which is a very very very big increase.

If the site wants to increase his revenue "just" 3% they will have to stack the player 1 time every 80K hands!!!!! Thats yet a very good increase in the revenue and a lot more unlickely to be detected by stat analisys.

Very good deal it seems.

Except that it's easily detectable.

Ignoring points and questions that probe your model's viability won't convince anyone.

In your model when anyone analysed the hands from one of the data-mining sites they'd find the signature of the rigging writ large in the winnings of the superusers.

Are you trying to hide my post or you just have some kind cognitive defict?

Why do you think a superuser cant enter the room every 80K hands (and when i say a superuser im talking about the nickname, because obvioulsy the real person operating the account can be the same), win my stack and go away and never appear anymore, how could I "track" him?

And how can I datamine the stats of the possible superusers in rooms like cake, where the nickname can be changed every week and doesnt appear at PTR?

Aside from turning up Spadebidder style meta-analyses, remember, in your system, its happening to everyone. You don't think people aren't going to notice a bunch of players who show up for one hand, stack someone and leave? It would be happening all the time, on every table. It would not take long to become quite conspicuous.

Wat?

If they were doing this habitually the stats would show a large number of users with an absurdly high win rate.

It has to be admitted that it would be a great deal easier for Cake to rig the deal in a way that would be harder to detect than it would for other sites.

If you don't trust them, don't play there. I suspect, however, that a lot of players feel that the ability to hide from dataminers compensates for a hypothetical easing of the ability to rig the deal.

I think you are not getting the point, its 1 hand every 80K played to increase 3% in the revenue! Its not "everytime" at "every table"!!!

And besides that the "hit and run" is the most plain way to do it. The superuser dont have to win and go away, they could lose some money to each other perhaps, to disguise what they are doing, there are so many more intricate ways this could be done....

None of that will disguise the fact that you have a pool of players with suspiciously high win rates.

Remember that people notice if certain players only play with other players and raise merry hell about collusion.

Im not going to answer you anymore.....

Indeed we are expected to get a lot more bad beats than 1 in 80k hands, so how could anyone be suspicious because 1 of the bad betas they get in the 80K hands pool? Its just another bad beat or cooler.

Of course, if you just ignore points that are brought up showing problems with your idea you are going to be able to convince yourself that your plan is sound.

You won't convince anyone else, though.

Yes, but you still don't explain how they are going to hide the fact that a group of players have an absurdly high win rate.

toltec I've always suspected you were a muppet to some degree, but I honestly can't believe you're serious with this "rigging" technique.

It would be detectable in so many ways. Yes, it DOES have to do with EV if you're getting "bad beat" and will show up. Yes, the "superusers", whatever they do, will have an absurdly high win rate. And since this stuff will be happening to everybody, enough hands will pile up where it will skew a large stat analysis.

You've clearly demonstrated that you have no clue what you're talking about and are filled with paranoia about things that simply are not happening.