Some of it has been done:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/32...ncement95.html

Number 12, 12.01, 12.02.

Somebody who wanted to expand it could work with CMAR.

What

But that's over in the Beginners Forum. Anyone who has advanced to a level of sophistication to be able to detect a rigged deal is clearly beyond demeaning themselves by reading an FAQ in Beginners.

You follow current events much huh, US is about to legalize online poker but only if the sites are US based and governed by real gaming regulation. That means no more hiding on Indian land. No more secret locations for the hardware and no more site bias, rigging of results to keep more players from losing and a fair shuffle. Will be great to play and FT and PS will either have to play ball or lose all their players.

They are regulated already. You follow events much?

"rigging of results to keep more players from losing and a fair shuffle"

So more people win then?

LOL

You seem rigged.

You mean no more questionable outfits based in rinky-dink, third world countries and Native American Nations, run out ramshackle buildings in strip malls? You mean a real US Gaming Commission with the teeth of a Nevada-style Gaming commission, with unfettered access to the software and the power to levy heavy fines if they're not running a 100% clean game? Who sponsored the bill, I want to read it. Have either houses voted on it yet?

This is a tough one for me to believe. You wouldn't be pulling my leg, would you?

I think "about to" legalize is pretty strong language. This could take years if it ever happens. You have to remember is that most of this country is made up of right wing bible thumping nuts who will never allow online "gambling" to be legalized.

While I wouldn't (or couldn't) write an entire FAQ for this topic, I'd certainly be willing to write a section (say, on confirmation bias, or evidence based reasoning). Anyone else willing to join forces to put something together?

You got that right. It's a wonder this country has made as much moral and rational progress as it has over the years with so many delusional, intellectually-challenged “proto-humans” trying to block advances every step of the way. Fortunately, however, it's not "most," or Obama would have never been elected. But it's close enough to 50% to make continued progress very difficult.

Have you seen the footage of Sarah Palin at her church having the “demons cast out of her” and incantations being spoken by her pastor to “protect her from witches”? And she thinks Jesus is coming back to save the world in her lifetime. Can you imagine this delusional piece of work being a heartbeat away from the Presidency? You want her finger on the button? Pretty frightening stuff.

No I meant a real gaming regulatory agency, not someone who keeps quiet since they are on the payroll.

Your wong on both counts. If this bill progresses it could be law in a year and this country is not a majority of far right people. If this was the case how would have Obama been elected? The majority of people in the US are middle of the road moderate Republicans like myself. Who are not against online gaming as long as it is run properly. The far right is a fringe just like the far left and is not a representation of the USA. If the hearing taught us anything is that this bill can pass as long as we lose the third world tax dodge, and protect children. It will pass.

You know, I can put up with the bigots, xenophobes, paranoid nutjobs, degens, gimmicks and bad beat whiners as in the end they all pretty much have to survive with their own life fails, but your refusal to give up this thread once and for all has to be the strangest of behaviors of them all!


The "no shills" experiment showed this thread literally dies without "shills" playing in it because all you have left are people muttering about patterns and Indians. Let it die already. Spade's billion hand study did nothing to change any riggie's mind, so now you think a group effort sticky post will?


Seriously, stop already, and if you want to contribute to the poker world in a manner that actually is not a joke (as anything with this thread is by default) then you know there are ways where that can be done!

Monteroy, my involvement since the experiment has been a few jokes and then this FAQ business. I haven't engaged the rigtards at all. I think an FAQ might be a good final thing to do, if others are interested.

But yes, there are other ways!

I think people just like to argue too much to ever let this thread die. If we ran the reverse experiment, with riggies being silent for a week, the result would be the same: dead thread.

I don't see many of this thread's regulars leaving for long periods of time. You're a rarity. People just enjoy this too much.

I've got a substantial archive of material that I've used at work (which largely isn't used any more) and that I've slowly been uploading to my website if that's of interest.

Hi "Middle of the road republican"

So how do you regulate an RNG emulator? What measures are you going to put in place? what sample size?

Tell me how it is going to work.

you didnt answer my question either - about if there are losers there must be winners. So the sites must be targeting "susceptible/potential gamblers" that they "know" will redeposit?

FWIW, when I dropped in here for the first time several weeks ago it was because I was going to work on the Beginners FAQ including expanding the "Is online poker safe?". But I haven't actually had the time or interest to work on it...

IMO the existing FAQ does a pretty good job with juiced pots and the cash out curse. I think the only major flavour of rigginess it doesn't address is big stacks vs small stacks. There are obv other minor species like country specific riggs, too many flush draws, or downswings as added punishment for other offenses (particularly chat bans) but I think those are fairly minor.

The existing sections touch a bit on cognitive biases but a section of cognitive biases that relate directly to poker (confirmation bias, negativity bias, pareidolia, need for closure, etc) and particular rigginess would also be helpful. (wikipedia has a good page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_biases)

Any submissions would be more than welcome (obv I reserve the right to not use anything that sucks )

Whose bill is it? Barney Frank? Please give me some info so I can follow the progress. You're starting to get my hopes up. Thanks

I would just like to thank the shills and haters itt that have opened my eyes to this game of internet poker and to think outside of the box even if it doesnt make mathematical sense.... hey maybe other accounts are set up differently but changing my play based on statistical evidential patterns based off of my database has lead to a desired result. I am still working out some of the kinks and continue to improve daily but boy was i wrong trying to play this game based off of real mathematical statistics...

- Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

What are you going on about? Once real regulation is allowed to inspect the hardware and software it will be easy to make sure the results are truly being decided by a RNG. Similiar to a slot machine.

Watch CSPAN tomorrow

I certainly hope you're right. I'll believe it when I see it.

Any chance of a bit more of a clue?

There are 3 CSPAN channels, and watching one of them all day would be pretty hard core, never mind flipping between them.

Won't be hard to find it, go to the website they probably have a schedule on what hearing will be when etc. It's not hard

It isn't similar at all. The only thing regulators monitor in a slot machine is that the specified percentage of money put in, gets paid back out over time. That's all that a "fair" slot machine means. Poker is not played against the house and can't be monitored that way.

There is no reason to believe that oversight of the randomness of the poker deal will change one bit if the U.S. regulates poker sites, and it isn't even an enumerated topic in the bill being voted on. Standards for fair games aren't even detailed at this point, but it is likely they will require the exact same kind of inspections as are in place today, and leave the same holes for an unscrupulous operator to exploit (that will always be there). The thing that prevents that is the marketplace, and smart long term business strategy. Not regulations. But you don't get that because you want a good conspiracy to get behind. At least thinking the U.S. government can solve one is a nice change, even if it's misguided.

Now for another week or two ignoring this thread. I just couldn't help myself because you are so obtuse (perhaps deliberately so).

Quote me where I agreed to a perma-vacation.

This is the schedule on the website ...

I don't see anything there that would be even remotely related to online/gambling or even commerce of any kind