Ahh yes, I finally found it. Well, if it's still causing you that much grief, I guess it would be something you'd want to discuss with a moderator of this forum.

But my guess would be that it wasn't deleted because it's extremely obvious that he wasn't actually accusing you of being a paedophile, but using it as an example of a ridiculous accusation.

But of course you already knew that, didn't you?

Did you read the part where they said such a claim (in regards to you being a pedophile) would be moronic and baseless? Do you honestly not understand how that makes it an affirmation that you probably are not?

It was a tool to try to get you to understand the holes in your logic. Its biggest failure is that seemingly you still do not.

It was flamebait, you know it and I know it, he could have taken offense at my post by using the baseless context without using the pedo reference. It was obviously posted to inflame. If I posted that I would have surely been given an infraction and the post removed even I was using it as a way to show something baseless. We are arguing semantics here. You regularly let the opponents of the rigged theory have a ton latitude in attacking, mocking and trying to bait the other side into a personal war. It's a shame this one sided moderating exists here.

So basically, you take offense to someone claiming it would be baseless and moronic to call you a pedophile. Well done.

This is awesome:

TED lecture: The pattern behind self-deception

I'm still thinking about how we can apply all this. Obviously we're not going to start pumping riggies full of anti-dopamine drugs. However, false pattern recognition goes up as sense of control goes down. Which is why there are few long term winning players among the riggy crowd. And why winning players tend to only flirt with the dark side during an extended stretch of running bad and not while running good. I think the comparison to baseball hitters is an apt one. Regardless of how much we intellectualize the game it should be expected that there will be a lot of superstition associated with poker, including riggyness. Is the cash out curse really any different from having a lucky bat?

Given the similarities between rigginess and other conspiracy theories (particularly Agentism) it seems clearer to me that arguing with riggies is pretty useless. Nobody ever argued a 911 Truther or a religious person out of his beliefs. Rather it seems like the best approach might be to help them increase their sense of control (which equates a lot with confidence). In the case of 2+2 this means pointing them to the forums where they can learn to play the game better. Actually beating the game is almost certainly the best cure for rigginess.

It's all well and good for us to understand concepts like memory bias and confirmation bias but when we make arguments like that we are basically asking riggies to admit that their memories are poor (as are everyone's) or that they suck at tracking patterns (as everyone does). Nobody wants to admit these things and we wind up expanding the argument to one of multiple fronts - We're not just arguing that a site isn't rigged, we're also arguing that the riggy's perceptions of reality are flawed. And I think that becomes a very difficult hurdle to overcome as they become emotionally invested in proving the unprovable.

Not sure how you know that given that you've received exactly zero infractions for posts in this thread. But if that's what you believe, I suppose I can't prove otherwise.

Just to be clear, I don't moderate this forum, and try to leave it to the Zoo moderators. I can recall giving one infraction to someone ITT for continually bumping with the same NC crap over and over again (AMEC I think?), and maybe to one or two others that broke pretty clear site-wide rules, but otherwise I leave it to Mike & Mark. If you haven't figured out by now that they let a lot go ITT, I don't know what to say. Infractions ITT are extremely rare, no matter what "side" the poster is on.

I think i undestand you perfectly what you are saying.Is this correct.

One bright mourning in the middle of the night, two dead boys got up to fight.Back to back they faced each other, drew there swords and shot each other. A def officer hearing the noise came and shot the two dead boys.

Oh look, how stupid, he's mixing up "there" and "their" again. so stupid right? And he spelled "deaf" wrong. And messed up the poem. Oh, and he mispelled "morning!' He must be stupid. right? Can I make fun of him for this? Will he laugh and laugh at how he "got" me?

I really feel like I've been beaten senseless...

Guys.. I think online poker might be rigged.

What do you think?

I like your avatar. (though I feel oddly guilty about that.)

Nahhh, you just see the same one and two outers hiit after some donk makes a terrible call all the time. It's just variance that the last 5000 hands I have got my money in 80-20 I have lost 4200. It's variance! You see so many more hands online!

wow, that would be pretty damning. Are you willing to share those HHs?

This should be a sticky for this thread. Terrific video, and great find.

Yep, just prove it and the case is finally cracked. Sweet! We're finally about to settle this once and for all.

As soon as Howard lets someone from NGC to physically inspect his servers, wherever they are.

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. You can't "physically" inspect a server. Muppet. What are they going to find, a "rig" switch?

Sez who?

People actually register to an online poker community/forum to complain all day that poker is rigged? :-O

They can simply check the software being used on site instead of a sheet of paper and source code, something FT and PS doesn't allow.

Man you're clueless.

Why not?

Seems like a plan.

Yes, it might be.

The probability is very low, though.

Really?

Dow would they do that?

What is it about 'tards that causes them to make definite statements about things that it must be obvious, even to themselves, they know absolutely nothing?

Those anti-dopamines are looking a better and better solution.

This is the actual Intel RNG (obviously not in its regular placement).

Ok I am in a 9 person tornament on Full Tilt against a donkey...
I have A3 diamonds and raise 2 limpers on the button and get
2 callers... the flop comes comes with an Ace and 2 diamonds so
I have top pair and 4 diamonds to a flush and I move all in...

Donkey 1 folds and donkey 2 calls my push with A3 off suit..
I flush and crush here down to almost no chips..

Next hand she pushes with 89 suited and I catch pocket ACES (AA) so
I call her and she flops the 8 for the one pair, then turns another 8 for 2 pair
and to add insult to the "rigged suck" out the Donkey river a 9 for FULL BOAT.

OMG?

Why is it that Short Stacks on line suck out 83% of the time?

Anyone else ever see this on take the time to run the numbers as I have?