Your posts have been ridiculous since day one.

I actually stood up for you for a while because I thought you might just be expressing yourself badly.

Now I realise that you are just as stupid as everyone said you are.

Nice piece of self contradiction in two sentences.

If you believe it's probably fair then why not STFU and go and do something useful with your time instead of bleating on and on here.

You might be a child molester, a shoplifter or you might beat up and rob pensioners. The most realistic assumption might be that you do some of those things and not others. I don't know.

I'm not particularly passionate about it. I just don't like to see people engaging in witch hunts (which by definition do not start with evidence) and going unchallenged.

No vendetta. You stop making statements that implicitly state that someone has a case to answer when you have no evidence (and, further, that case can only be answered by proving a negative) and I'm off your case. Simple as that.

Otherwise you're just another lame duck rigtard with a slightly different approach.

I didn't contradict myself at all.

I chose two and a half years ago to try and make my living as a poker player. I play many hours a week. My livelihood kind of depends on the site I play on.
That's why believing it's fair isn't really enough. I'd like to know for certain whether it is or not.


Again, one rule for you and one for everyone else. Whether I'm a shoplifter or whatever else you suggested has no relevance to this thread and should not be a part of it. Anyone else who went so off-topic would be shot down by yourself.


Nobody has any 'case to answer.' As I said earlier, the sites agree they need to provide evidence. As someone whose life is so dependant on their dealing, I'd quite like to see some of this evidence.

Yes you did: "I have no idea if online poker is fair or not. I believe it probably is fair."

Then you'll need to study probability maths, stats, and computer science and do some work on that.

It's trying to get you to see something that you are so unbelievably dense that you cannot see any other way.

Because it demonstrates something you can't deal with you try and shoot it down.

It's not going to work.

As long as you keep implicitly alleging that poker sites have some case to answer without any evidence I'm going to keep trying to penetrate that armoured skull of yours.

Good, we're getting somewhere.

Now, why not go away and do something productive such as improve your game?

Each site has demonstrated how far it's going to go down this path. If you're not happy with any particular site's policy on this, play somewhere else.

There are no other answers for you, here.

Folks, here's the thing. If you just have a vague uneasy feeling that the deal isn't right, yes of course that's hard to test for, because there are any number of potential ways the deal can be rigged. However, I would suggest that if all you have is a vague, undefined feeling, then you should not consider that feeling to be reliable and not worry about rigging, but more about your game. If you can't pinpoint why its rigged, but still believe its rigged, then you are not thinking logically about the problem even if it is, in fact, rigged!

If you have a particular concern, something you think you have noticed, then that is easily testable using only your hand histories. Why only your hand histories? Because that's all the information YOU had when you noticed something was wrong. You can then analyze your hands to figure out if what you thought you observed was actually what you observed.

Regarding greater studies: there is Spadebidder's, and the links Josem posted. Also, if you go back a few months, Spadebidder did some analysis on AMEC's hands over a large sample and found that while he was indeed running badly, it was well within expectation.

Also, if you spend some time going through this thread, there has been a LOT of discussion about how to approach analyzing your own HHs. There is a lot of fatigue from the people who posted that advice at this point, so you're getting much less detailed posts from them and a higher degree of snarkiness (born out of frustration). My advice is to actualy go through this thread - skim it for the substantive posts, they are not that hard to pick out. Yes, you won't get it done in an hour, but if you really want to learn about how to approach this problem, in between the insults there is a lot of good advice here.

LOL at "they get every single hand" though.

This is usually the answer. The perception of frequency of something in casual observation is almost always biased. An analysis of hand histories will usually disprove that perception, or at least show that it was not extreme and not outside the range of normal fluctuation. This has been the case every time someone did it. I'm still waiting for someone to show that any event has happened to them more than 4SD from the mean expectation. And of course that does really happen, about once in 16,000 samples (or about half that if we only look at the "bad" side of fluctuation). But I've never seen an example of it shown for poker hands yet, other than when the UB cheaters were caught, but that wasn't the deal that was off, it was winrates.

Sorry, Wiki, when I said, 'I have no idea,' I just meant it as a figure of speech, for 'I don't know.'

'I don't know if online poker is fair, but I believe it probably is,' is what I was trying to say. I apologise for the confusion.


You seem to have some problems with using the quoting yourself in your previous post, something you mocked me and swore at me for a few days ago.


You need to calm down with the insults. I'm certainly not 'unbelievably dense,' comments like that aren't necessary at all. I understand the analogies you are trying to make, there's no need to keep making them over and over. You're talking about evidence and proof in a criminal sense, whereas I've been talking about statistical evidence and analysis, something which is clearly completely different.


You keep telling me that loads of people have looked into this with loads of hand histories. What is your view on this ? I thought you said anyone who dared to do so was accusing the sites of criminal activity ?

It seems to me, (I may have got the wrong end of the stick, so don't bite my head off), if someone comes on and says, 'I'm investigating hands because I'd like to show the site is fair,' that's ok with you, but if someone says, 'I'm investigating hands because I'm not sure or because I think the site is unfair,' then you think that is terrible and accusing the site of being criminals.

No, I just wanted to add a short quote to give some immediate context to what I was saying.

There's a big difference between a short piece between quotation marks that is obviously intentional and the great wodges of text that you left in your post with only half the necessary markups to identify them properly.

No I don't. You need to stop providing cause for people to insult you.

Evidence here would seem to indicate otherwise.

Evidence here would seem to indicate otherwise.

Nope, we're both talking about casual implicit allegations out of the context of any legal framework.

You are allowed to check your change in a shop. What will get you into trouble is suggesting that the shop might be shortchanging people without any evidence that is the case.

Nope.

If someone is investigating hands that's fine.

What's not fine is if someone comes on over and over and over again and says that it's necessary that there should be a major investigation just to be sure.

That's what you are doing and that's what's unacceptable.

Just noticed the custom title ...

nice


.

AS A COMPLETE NEUTRAL, I would have thought that 1500+ pages and two years of debate, a 5:3 split in opinion in a reasonably large survey and the vast, vast, VAST sums of moneys and large amounts of people whose livelihoods are involved, would merit a sizeable investigation.

I think most neutrals, (poker fans or not), would agree that those levels of debate merit an investigation.

As someone with a maths degree, I know how easy this would be to do as it is something that can be done mathematically. It's not like we're having a 1500 page debate about moon-landing or 9/11 conspiracies, something we could never investigate because we'd need access to government files and may come down to opinions or whether someone was telling the truth or not.

This is something that can be analyzed using probability and will give a definite answer. We also have access to most, (maybe all ?), the information we'd need in order to carry out the investigation ourselves.

Some mods put that on me unknown to me.

What is stopping you?

+1

What, from investigating the fairness of online poker ?

It's not a job that one person could do, that's pretty clear.

I've only played a significant number of hands on one current site. I'd happily investigate those hands/provide them for investigation as part of a larger investigation.

We'd need to investigate many different sites, many different statistics and many different players' hands at each site.

It's a huge job, I have no doubts about that, but there must be tens of thousands of posts in this debate, perhaps that time could be put to use as part of an investigation.

If you analyzed as few as 10k hands to determine the frequency of your losses in this (or ANY) spot you'd be applauded as the first "skeptic" ('cause we've already established you're not a full-blown rigtard) to do even a little bit of research and or data analysis.

The whole reason we pick on the rigtards is they make silly claims then yell "shill" and slink away when asked for proof to back them up. Feel free to break the mold at any time. You'll probably end up with several knowledgeable folks offering to help make your findings more legitimate.

Folks like Spade aren't afraid of finding improprieties, they just haven't after checking pretty hard for a while, whereas the riggies haven't looked any further than a Google search of "Stars is rigged" or whatever.

Then put in SOME freakin' effort to figure it the **** out, would ya?
Do you STILL not get that analogy? You really think people are concerned whether or not you rob, molest, abuse or felch?
If only in the last few years of professional poker play you had figured out how to save your HH's. I imagine you wouldn't have to supplement your income with old ladies dole checks or turn tricks in boys town.

Good luck with your poker future. You'll clearly need it, as your attitude here proves improving your game isn't a priority.

there you go with that filthy "E" word again, Wiki.

since it's such a big undertaking, better you hang around here than putting in one lick of effort yourself, huh?
how would you do this? you said you never save your HH's?

I'm a little skeptical that you've played a significant amount of hands on any site, or even every site. I'm not saying you're lying, but there are very easy ways to investigate this if you provide the evidence. There just needs to be transparency here because folks who go around implying others may be guilty of wrong-doing and claiming to be victims of crimes that may-not-have-even occurred should be required to provide, at the VERY LEAST, their screen names.

Sounds fair, doesn't it?
if you ever get yours, feel free to analyze them or have someone you trust do it for you.
or perhaps a search of this thread would help you find some of the existing research which has already been done?

FatedTpPretend felches?

Actually, I'm A COMPLETE NEUTRAL on whether or not he does.

But I think it would merit a sizable investigation.

^^^^ pssst...

he doesn't get that joke. it just escapes him for some reason.

Can't imagine why.

I had to look this word up and it was TMI for me.

So did I and, yes, I'm still suffering from information overload.

Ack! Why did you make me do that!

aka "The Nectar of Satan"