AP got caught first. UB continued to happen after that. There was some overlap. They may have gotten caught, but what has it really cost them? They are still in business.
And consider the fact that before they got caught, people like you were there calling people names (ala rigtard), if they so much as mentioned something like that could ever happen.

well, wiki has patently answered the rest,
capable as ever,
but if the sum of your argument, in a thread titled, 'poker is rigged' is something about how the deck was not rigged then i suggest that you are scratching for ideas to provide a reasoned argument for why you propose that poker is rigged

but maybe you are saving that as your trump card

Indeed. I've always thought that if you were wanting to do something dubious the easiest and safest method would be to run robots and give them a very slight edge by allowing them to see other's hole cards or what table cards were coming up.

Provided you weren't greedy you should be able to get away with that indefinitely.

We're not claiming that poker - b&m or online is or must be fair. We are merely claiming that doing something unfair by rigging the deal would be:

1) Difficult
2) Risky
3) Pointless

so why would anyone do it when there are far better ways of cheating?

That's not to say we think anyone is - just that it's possible and rigging the deal would be a particularly daft way to go about it.

And yet it's something the rigtards constantly obsess about.

You must be ignoring all the threads where people posted detailed evidence to back their claims of super users, collusion and bots. AP/UB scandal, Stars DoN issue, and the Stox Poker issue are examples (check out the analysis done on the last one to see how real evidence is presented). The responses to those claims were completely different than to a guy like you who thinks maybe something is wrong with "the deal" with regards to the outcomes you specifically obtain.

Your beliefs and riggie beliefs in general are based on the premise that a site rigs the games specifically against YOU (though they may add in a line about saying others may be affected as well), and the reason you get the rigtard/Lizard People response is that your beliefs are basic unfounded paranoia and nothing more. The reality is you nor I not any player matters enough to have a room rig it against them.


Do not confuse the fact that you do not know how to do an analysis with the belief that nobody else knows how to do one that is effective. The marketplace is very powerful and the customers and competitors watch each other very carefully, and any basic riggie belief system (and they are all generally ones that an expert could prove within minutes if true) would have been discovered by now if they existed. Many riggie theories completely contradict each other as well (ie: small stacks win too much vs large stacks win too much) and both want proof that their beliefs are not true.

Others have the skills that you (and I) lack in this regard. In fact they have more skill than you can even imagine. Again, dig up the Stox scandal and look at the analysis that was done to determine the softplay - it is a tad more complex than "big stacks win too much" or "new players get boomswitches."


Josem keeps posting answers to this but riggies ignore them. Even if they were audited 100 times a day by the US government, the Pope and Lizard People that would not stop riggies from needing to believe it is rigged.

Riggedology is a belief system based on faith, it really is that simple.


P.S. More tk Lizard People posts

It might keep them quiet for a little while, though.

A few days ago I saw a post from someone who had been using RealDeal who stated that the 'texture' of the deal was quite different (and, from his POV, more 'realistic' ).

I don't know how long it will be until he decides that the different 'texture' is just as rigged as any other.

This.

funnily enough,
i have just been sent this by a guy offering me poker coaching...

For example, not many players know but when you get dealt a pocket pair online and the flop comes with a pair, it’s a high probability that one other player also has a pocket pair. I don’t know why, but it is very common. If you know this and you have a middle or weak pair and you know that the other player in the pot gets married to his hands, you have to be certain that your pair is better, and if you’re not you can let it go and save yourself a flop and turn bet. Likewise, if you know he is a rock and you have a low pocket pair you can probably push him off his hand.

did you know this?

Removing two different-rank pairs from the deck does slightly increase the chance that another pair was dealt, from 78/C(52,2) = 5.9% for any particular player, to 68/C(48,2) = 6.0%. Not "high probability" at all, and not enough to be a consideration for your play whatsoever. This coach heard something he didn't understand and has embellished it. The difference isn't even enough for human observation to detect it.

Further, the chance that another player was dealt a pair when you have one is close to 40% at full ring all the time, regardless of what the flop holds. That's pretty high normally.

Oh wait, I forgot what thread I was in, sorry.....

this coach talks himself out of getting any work.. no, thanks for taking the time,
was just an example of a pro getting involved in riggard thinking that popped into my mail box just as i was posting my entry a little while back

I think the shilltards need to get together and form a World Shilltard Union. They're clearly not getting paid enough for their brilliant analysis: somewhere in the neighboorhood of $6.50/hr, I would imagine. The online poker rooms need to do right by their valued employees.

I say:

SHILLTARDS UNITE !

Didn't you know?

We're paid by the post.

That means that every time some moron posts some ******ed nonsense about the deal being rigged for action on full moons (for example) and we reply we get £25.


BTW, thanks for your 35 posts in this thread. The £875 is a useful wedge to go towards replacing the Merc.

I have been playing online poker full time for 5 years, and during this time I have played PP,FTP,PS,CAKE,and AP. Any of the observations, information, or disturbing tendencies that I mention here are strictly based on my own play and opinions, which is all relayed to the best of my ability and knowledge in this thread.
For starters, I would suggest reading " Kennedy vs.Ftp ", "Joseph Menn poker article 4-05-10 " and also enlightening yourself about the server locations.
Have you ever noticed how quickly $12 ( 180 man turbos ) fill on Stars ?
Have you ever wondered why the online beats are clearly accentuated as opposed to live play ?
Have you ever looked at the leaderboards on Stars or Ftp and noticed the geographical locations of the players in the prizing positions ?
If not, I suggest you take a look........Germany,Netherlands,U,K. Canada,Brazil,Spain,and Russia clearly dominate. Meanwhile where is Italy, Japan,China,U.S.A. Africa,France?
In fact, Germany is #2 in the world in online players ? This is a very disturbing fact per population , and would certainly lead me to question the validation process or the actual programmers themselves. Where is the PPA ?
Why must these operations position themselves on ungoverned islands, and locate their servers on Indian reservations if they are conducting business within the confines of total transparency ?
I have now become so keen to who the bots are on Stars , that I can tell you who will cash any 1 table sit n go before it starts,,I shouldn't be able to do this but I can.
To the poker purist who give responses like " see so many more hands online ", or " German player had pot odds to call with 39 when he cracked AA " or my favorite " it happens live too " I say, " keep a close eye on where the players are from in padded setup scenarios, and tell me what you see ? Watch which player is preferentially dealt and take note how close he lives to Germany 75% of the time
Here's what I see: Deutschland ( or somewhere real close) handing out many many of the online beats
These programs are bot laden, fraudulent, and in serious need of a revamped regulatory system that gives every geographical location a fair shake

As a change of pace (though I know this will never happen) I would be curious what some of the more recent riggies (Gordias, Fated and the guy who writes vertically) think of this riggies geography based concepts as well as the super power he claims to have about being able to predict who will win every sit and go in advance.

After all, he claims to have played 5 years, so despite the fact he is a brand new poster with a single post what he says should be taken at face value.


We all know how Wiki would respond to this guy (as he likely will), and how I might (though I tend to ignore the one and done riggies), but let's see how other riggies can use their reasoning skills to break down and analyze this player's first hand perspective of online poker.

I know no riggies will ever take this challenge, but if one did I would give props for their effort (assuming it was genuine).


All the best.

Xenophobic claptrap!

(Were you correct, Monty - I'll trust you to tell the truth?)

ahhh wiki

i was just about to post that and you beat me by 0.4 of a sec

It really doesn't warrant further analysis, does it?

I've seen some pretty bad examples of xenophobia on this forum but that post undoubtedly caps them all.

It is sad that someone who has been playing for 5 years comes up with this rigtard nonsense.

Oh, and according to you theory I should be a super duper winner handing out beats by the dozen, since I'm from the Netherlands, right? Well, guess again.

Maybe I am just reading between the lines, but isnt he saying that he thinks sites are programming their own bots into the software to take a big chunk of the prize pool away from players thus fattening up their bottom line? I think he is also saying that for some reason, these online site program bots are pretending to be from your area of the world.

Maybe the title of this thread should be changed to, "Are The Poker Sites Cheating Their Customers?"

Maybe we should have a new thread: "Random accusations of cheating with no supporting evidence - collected threads edition".

No point in corrupting the purity of this thread.

I think both of those threads should be started. It would be fun. I support your separation of threads approach because it does get really muddy, gooey and ******ed in this thread. I think that is part of the fun though, there is some comedic value.

Ok, Here is how I would respond.

Dear Allyasia,

I am not mocking you when I say that I cant understand what you have posted here. Please work on your English or get help putting your next post together.

If you are going to accuse any site of cheating it's customers, please post proof along with your hypothesis since we at 2+2 take these kinds of accusations very seriously.

Once the information you think is proof has been posted, there are a lot of intelligent people here who will comment on the information that you have supplied.

Please understand that if you don't follow these guidelines, you will most likely be trolled and mocked to death.

Sincerely,

Donko The Clown

Let me guess what kind of a person you are:
1.A moron who never know what you are talking about;(40% odds)
2. Hired by poker sites to come here to discourage people from finding the truth(60% odds).

Hey, I think you are on to something because those are the odds I get when I am deep in a tournament and am all in as the favorite. There is a correlation here, a parallel, a sequence, a pattern, possible proof that programmers who troll around in these threads forgot to hide their non random penchant for specific numbers and groups of numbers.

Oh...I have finally solved the mystery, Rigtards rejoice, unite and celebrate! A class action lawsuit will be started today by the end of the business day...anyone know a lawyer who will take this on contingency?

Spot on.

Particularly (2).

And thanks for the chance to earn another £25.

Please post again.



BTW, in instances like this it's not necessary for the probabilities to add up to one.

Good audition. We'll get back to you on your application for the posting job.

Thanks, I could use the extra money for my online poker bankroll to get me through this latest bad run of variance.

Can I get that in T$ at 1.5 to 1?