It's all the people wondering how it got so long and then lengthening it to tell the world they're wondering how it got so long.

yup,
apologies wiki, i am part of the problem here
i shall shut up now



















maybe

Those of us who are defending on line poker against the more outrageous allegations (the shills) discovered that we were a major part of the problem when we all stopped replying to the thread and it virtually died.

how about a better way
proof it
riggist can't proof that online poker is rigged
non-riggist can't proof that online poker is not rigged
i will look at the facts then take your word for it.

We shills don't prove no goddamn negatives.

It's against our union rules.

ahh wiki, see, you have got me going now
well
i did say maybe

Pretty sure you can prove a negative, though disproving a negative becomes trickier.

I can offer my DNA to prove I am not a Lizard Person, but if a Lizzie wants to believe I am a Lizard Person who can mask my DNA I have no way of disproving that belief. I will always be a Lizard Person to that individual.

With regard to poker, Spade pretty much proved it was not rigged with his 1 billion hand analysis, but if riggies want to believe they can see patterns (that they somehow can't make money from) and those magical patterns mean it is rigged in their mind then there is no way that belief can be disproved.



Bit of semantics - just doing my part to help (since this thread is driven by "shills" and I admit I did find the last batch fairly entertaining to read).

I've been wondering when someone will question the 'you can't prove a negative' statement which the shills have been using as long as this thread has been in existence.

There are two obvious observations to be made:

1) Any request to prove a negative can instantly changed into a request to prove a positive by simply recasting the request. The English language is rich enough that you can usually find an antonym that will allow you do do exactly that very easily.

2) As you point out with your 'lizard person' example proving anything gets you precisely nowhere unless both parties agree on definitions which can also be stated as 'standards of proof'.

In fact, the type of negative that cannot be proved is limited to that type that would require unfeasible amounts of evidence to be examined. After all, it's perfectly easy to prove that in any right angled triangle the cube on hypotenuse is not equal to the sum cubes on the other two sides.

Goldbach's conjecture, however, hasn't been proven whichever way you wish to express it.

So whichever way you cast it you can prove that online poker isn't fair or is rigged by finding a single example but you cannot prove (absolutely) that it is fair or isn't rigged without continually checking all hand histories.

To be fair, that study only proved that a lot of the most common riggie beliefs were invalid. There are still an almost unlimited number of off the wall possibilities that have not been disproved. It is the sheer number of these possibilities that has dissuaded me from undertaking any such studies myself.

monteroy, did you even read the analysis from spadit?
1. it's not finish (i think i told you that twice already)
NLHM is a 7 card game, not a 5 card game.
i think turn and river should be the important next step.
i am interest to know how turn and river impact to change win/lost result.
after that spadit need to do one more analysis
1) do a vpip 40+ (fishes) only report out of those 571million hands.
then compare the fishes report with his everybody included report.
if on average. people suckout on turn or river to win say 25% of time.
and the fish report show that vpip 40+ suckout turn and river 30% of time.
then we know there is problem

here are some number from my own
sample size 333316 hand
preflop allin 787
average win% 55.5
actual win% 52.9
off by 2.6 =20.46 hand
average pot $100*
me go rob $2040
flop allin 878
average allin 58.7
actual allin 58.1
off by 0.6% =5.27 hand
average pot $100*
me go rob $527
allin turn 646
average win 60.6
acutall win 61.5
off 0.9% = 5.81 hand
average pot 100*
me rob people $581
so i got rob $1986 in 2311 hand that is allin
that is alot for 50nl
i'm pretty sure if there is cooler remover effect, i get rob at lot more.
cooler remover = AA vs KK and set vs set+ and overpair vs trips
* i'm not going to filter down on exactly the pot size for every allin. but average is pretty close.
there is definely some ground for people that want to know more about the fairness of the RNG about their favorit poker site.
we want to see facts instead of some people on the internet, that i don't even know.

Yeah, I looked at Spade's data though I will not pretend to speak on behalf of it.

Spade's a math guy, they are dull when it comes to stats - they let the numbers show if something is right or wrong. They don't root for results like you and other riggies or create patterns. They just analyze data like a computer.


Your 40 vpip thing is just your weird pattern twist. Others have said "check big stacks they win too much" or "check small stacks they win too much" or check new players" or" check after a deposit" or "check players who play on laptops" (seriously)

Sharkscope Dex Bexter on Stars. He plays 95% VPIP. Think he is benefiting from your pattern yet?


If spade lost all sense and actually did your silly study and showed nothing was wrong all that would happen is another riggie would spring in your place and ask "check on people who drink milk" or some other random belief.


It's all Lizard People stuff.

In the meantime my suggestion to you is to play at a 41% VPIP to ensure you maximize profit. Speaking less like Tarzan will also help your cause a little.



In the end some degree of common sense needs to be applied. Years ago on the Canadian forum one poster claimed he lost all-ins while dominating 70/30 or better 80% of the time over a 2000 sample.

I recall someone pointed out that the odds of that were like winning the lottery every week for his life and several generations after him as well, but he countered with "well, it is possible then," while maintaining there was 0% chance his data was flawed.

That's the realm of fantasy which this thread is about and the "shills" are essentially the gatekeepers to keep the story moving. In the real world riggie complaints get nowhere for a reason.

What do you guys think of the possibility of a player profiling system, one in which certain players are marked for bad beats at a frequency just below their "quit" threshold, but enough to keep them redepositing?

For instance the software is built around a complex psychological analysis of certain player archetypes. They are as follows:

1) Avg player on permanent runbad: winrate -2bb/100.
This player is willing to redeposit over and over ever few weeks/months, from small amounts to large, due to a seemingly unrelenting amount of bad beats holding him back from success. He doesnt lose so badly that he feels he should give up, and he books a few wins here or there reminding him of what it's like. But overall he just cant seem to keep TP from getting sucked out on by 2 pair, flushes never hit, races against pocket pairs always draw dead, and overpairs get killed by quads and other action flops that he just cant make a profit.

2) Winning reg: winrate 5bb/100
This player has his downswings with appropriate intervals, and as such is able to bounce back from them and maintain a profit. If he were to notice such remarkable lengths of runbad he would likely become suspicious and quit the site. However he is not targeted because said software already knows this. The psych profile of this player clearly states he will switch to a competitor, so it's best to leave him alone.

3) Rich maniac: winrate -78bb/100
This player needs no profile. His probability of losses are in line with reality. He is loaded, he will redeposit thousands at a time and has no concern for winning.

4) New fish: winrate -33bb/100
This is the player used as a profiler against player #1. He has just deposited $100. He has never played before. He has 400 hands logged collectively. If he busts it all in his first day he will quit for life, pokerz is hard. If he wins by a landslide it would become too obvious thanks to sites like PTR recording all hands. So he wins against the odds of statistical probability, because there will never be enough hands logged to verify such probability. The profile says he will bust and quit eventually, he cant defy odds forever due to the PTR factor. However he needs to exist in order to keep player #1 reloading, by being involved in just enough bad beats that he's happy to have deposited, and keeps player 1 in the game.

Sigh.

Wot 'e said.

Yes, we know that most of the riggie stuff is unadulterated nonsense but their tenacious grip on the possibility that some weird and wonderful method of rigging is being employed makes any further analysis -EV IMO.

I think Spade's analysis took things just about as far as it's sensible to go.

and just when/where did sensibilities enter into this debate i wonder?

The program I saw was "Breaking Vegas", ep. "Counterfeit King". You can see it here:
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/ca...846170XgcCNCDh
Fascinating stuff, seems easy to do the same with poker if you have the knowledge.

Maybe if it were 1989 and true RNGs didn't exist. Even then, "easy to do"? Really?

This totally destroys the arguments from your rigtard colleagues that a "NGC-style" regulator would prevent cheating.

lol at the majority here thinking an unregulated form of gambling is not rigged.

Double lol at the rigtards who think "not regulated by the US government" = "unregulated".

A valuable contributor to the forum, evidently.

I foresee a great things from him.

I see cups of beverage, cheese, fruits ...

Was Spadebidder's analysis not done solely on Pokerstars hands ?

A lot of you seem to be holding this analysis up as if it's cleared up lots of things and talking about it as an analysis of 'online poker,' when that isn't the case at all.

There are hundreds of sites out there, Spadebidder's analysis was only for one of them, (I think), please bear that in mind when holding it up as an example.