Well, the evidence for one side is "It's rigged, I can feel it", so of course it's incomplete. Rigtards quickly give up reasonable doubts once they're cleared up, and start in with "Oh, well now check for a million hands dealt on a Wednesday between 6 and 7 PM GMT, between a Russian who deposits frequently, an American who cashes out a lot, and the Russian has .5 more BBs".

(these aren't the only examples, but I'm not gonna waste too much time looking for more)

Why do people, and its usually the riggies, get spadebidder's name so wrong. Makes me wonder if they've even visited his site, let alone read and made an attempt to understand what is posted there.

This is the difficulty with this whole online poker is rigged argument. Both sides feel that all those on the other side have no credibility.

The persons convinced that all the sites are fair and honest believe that anyone who doubts it are conspiracy theorists or worse. Those who are convinced that all the sites are rigged are convinced that all those on the other side are just gullible rubes.

Sorry about getting Spadebidder's name wrong. I've been to his site. I was anxious to read all the final results, but work has been halted for a couple of months or more. The last preliminary work was on the 169 hands all in pre-flop win rates and seemed to suggest that the better hands were not doing as well as they should and the worse hands were doing better. But Spadebidder cautioned that the date was not final and pulled the date from the site. So far, he has not posted any additional results.

The riggies do have some evidence such as an APCW audit that weakly suggested that FTP may not be random. They have some questionable alleged industry insider statements. OTOH, the online poker is fair and random have only questionable so-called Certificates of Audit of RNG programs without any evidence that such program is the one always in use and without any evidence of hand histories to show that the site is fair and random. The "not riggies" state that the sites would not risk their reputations by rigging because they are making so much money. However, Cereus is still in business despite its scandal. In addition, in a environment in which player replacement is difficult, caused by the UIGEA, the sites might have an incentive to balance outcomes so the weaker players do not lose all their money.

Thus, I don't know whether all the sites are fair and random, some are fair and random and some are not or if all or most are not fair and random. I still have an open mind. I want to believe that all or most of the sites are fair and random. My instinct is that most of the sites, including the big ones are fair and random. However, my observations over the last 18 months versus the prior three years makes me wonder if something has changed in the deal of the cards.

In conclusion, this is a big reason why I support passage of a US federal licensing and regulation law for online poker. Such a law would require that a real audit for fair and random dealing of the cards by any site seeking a US license to offer online poker services to US citizens.

Made your post more realistic.

Who are those people? Have any ever posted in this thread?

On the other hand, there are tons of "another bad beat omfg its rigged 100%" posters who have no concept of the effect luck (aka variance) is supposed to have on a game like poker.

Perhaps I am naive, but I feel the sites aren't rigged. I think that with the number of hands we are dealing with it is possible that weird occurrence can happen. For every statistical anomaly of someone running as hot as the sun and never loosing a flip and good hands holding up, there will be another person running as cold as Neptune, losing EVERY flip and good hands never holding up. Does that mean its rigged? Nope. Thats reality. There are edgeliers (sp?) in both directions.

That's much better phrasing than the usual claim. Most people say something along the lines of, "You can't prove a negative," which is not only obviously false but also logically false since the statement is itself a negative and if anyone ever managed to prove it to be true, the act of proving it true would render it false.

Countless negatives can be proven. "I am not dead." "The world is not resting on giant elephants." "2 added to 2 does not equal 597."

But the burden of proof is always on those making a claim. In this case, the claim is that online poker is rigged. It is up to those claiming this to prove it; it is not up to those disputing the claim to disprove it.

You are not the mythical people I was referring to.

You have a view that is realistic and pragmatic until you see evidence to the contrary. That's normal.

I agree that the burden of proof is on the claimant. In this case, I feel that it is a burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. So the rigged claimants cannot prove their case.

However, my point is that the same standard must be applied to both sides. The claimants, including the sites, that online poker sites deal the cards in a fair and random manner have the same burden of proof. So far, these claimants have not met this standard. They have met the less stringent "weight of evidence" standard, but not the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Just because little evidence to the contrary exists and it is a pragmatic view does not prove that the sites deal the cards in a fair and random manner. Reasonable doubt that some do not still exists and that worries me because I like playing online poker. Stating that all rigged proponents don't understand variance and are losers does not prove that they are wrong.

The sites will do what the market demands. If people's distrust were greater than their desire to gamble online, then the market would have to adjust. That hasn't been the case, because most players either believe the game is fair enough, or don't care. There is no obligation for a poker site to prove anything. Vote with your feet. If a lot of people did that, then the sites would do something different in order to meet demand. Nobody has to play online poker, particularly nobody who has serious doubts about whether they are getting a fair game. Those who lose a lot of money and blame the site (and really believe it), yet continue to play, have a mental disorder or an addiction. There are lots of other forms of recreation besides gambling.

You obviously play so I will give you more respect than I do the standard riggies who are clearly casual players at most.

Here is the reality check you really need.


The games have changed, though not in the crazy dramatic ways some may think. They have evolved over time and the "fish" have changed though they still exist.

The common 2006 loose passive fish is much more rare now. The fish of today know some basics, have read some books, have watched poker on TV, know starting hands and even know some general poker concepts, however they lack the insight to properly use this information in a very effective way.

I see players all the time that will do plays and explain their plays but will at the core have no idea of why the play is or is not effective. They slow play to induce a bluff without understanding that the situation will never generate a bluff from their opponent (random example), however they understand the concept of slow playing (sort of).

The old fish just drool and play a level 0 game. The new fish are not as bad as the old fish, and you will not beat them for as much as the old fish. As well, the regulars are far more efficient than the old regs, and with more of them out there the profits from the weaker players are divided in a greater manner. Add in that the rooms are not as generous with bonuses and you have a fun mix.

Using the Omaha DoNs I have played (though not as much as of late due to time limits). In 2009 when the games were new all the best regs made 15-17% ROI with minimal variance over thousands of games. The weaker regs made 5-8% ROI. Even the horrific regs broke even or lost a little. The very bad casual players paid us all.

At this point the really bad regs pretty much vanished and the marginal regs either got better or they fell behind as the games got too difficult for them and they could not adjust.

Sharkscope RollTideRoll for an example of a reg who crushed the games when they were very easy to crush, but got crushed when they got harder.

The games are harder now, but the best hard core regs (sergol72, lodgeistics, a_damn_pimp) still do fine, though now they make about 12% instead of 15% because they money from the weaker regs dried up a bit. Mine is 13% over my last 500 games and only 9% over my last 1,000 games for instance.


They (and I hope I) have made the adjustments needed to keep up with the changing games and even so the best regs are making less than they did when the games were easier 12-18 months ago.


You are in the exact same situation. You are not magically unlucky. The sites are not rigged against you. None of those beliefs make any sense other than as a means of rationalization. I would ask you why the sites would even rig it (let alone rig it vs you), but how can such a silly question be answered in a serious way.

Time for you to "man up" and recognize your part in your inability to beat the current games. Note, you may very well have the skills to beat them, but you may not be using them in the way you need to beat them. You may want to find help from those who can show you what you are missing as well.

You are hardly the first player to reach this point, nor will you be the last, and I have seen a ton in exactly your situation that have acknowledged their situation, dealt with it, and adjusted properly and they now and do quite well. I have also seen many just give up in frustration citing all sorts of bizarre reasons (which may as well be Lizard People)

The US regulation (whatever it eventually is) will not change a single thing with regard to riggie beliefs. Riggie beliefs will always be there no matter who regulates what or who audits what.

I have asked this of other players in the past and it is simple.

Are you a player or are you a riggie?

Choose and then do the appropriate steps to be the best player (or riggie if you choose that) you can be. If you choose to be a player then drop the riggie stuff as all it will do is get in your way. Leave the riggie stuff for the guys who post freeroll beats or claim Russians and Germans are after them in $1 games.


All the best.

But there are no such people, at least not in this thread. There are many of us who have seen no evidence of rigging from their own play, and therefore want actual evidence before they will believe that a particular site is rigged. Don't confuse not being convinced a site is rigged with being convinced that it isn't.

In other words, they have no credible evidence.

Yet, many other problems have been discovered with evidence. An exploitable RNG at Planet Poker about 10 years ago. Superusers at Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet. Collusion rings and bots at different sites, including Stars most recently. It's not like anomalies and problems can't be proved.

Those of us who are not concerned about the sites where we play being rigged don't rely on this. We rely on what we've observed in our own play and a lack of evidence from others to the contrary.

Here's the problem with this from my point of view. I feel no need to prove or disprove anything until I believe something has even happened in the first place.

Let me try a crude analogy, that I know won't be perfect, but I believe illustrates what I mean. Someone calls me and tells me that they saw my neighbour steal my car. I look in my driveway, and my car is still there. I don't feel a need to prove whether my neighbour stole my car or not, since I don't even believe my car is stolen. Convince me my car is stolen, and we may have something to talk about.

JP,

I would not take bobo's posts seriously. He is biased due to his working for 2+2. He is nothing more than an online poker telemarketer.

Karma

I sort of agree with you, but maybe not the exact time period. The tougher environment has resulted in lower win rates than a few years ago. I have not seen a much tougher environment than 18 months, but I play NL Holdem, not PLO.

One thing that lower win rate cause is that winners will experience longer periods of non-winning or losing due to negative variance. This probably explains my experience. But, no one knows for certain. I never stated that I believe that the sites are rigged. I stated that I, and no one else, knows for certain and that worries me to some degree.

The good news is that if HR 2267, or some similar legislation is passed by the US Congress, then we will find out the truth. The online poker sites that want to obtain a US license to serve US citizens will have to provide audits to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their deal of the cards is fair and random.

I think you've been misinformed. The current proposals won't change the game certification process much at all. Some sites probably won't have to change anything in how they certify their games, because the current process will qualify. There is no proposal for the kind of actual game results audits you mention.

this thread is awesome

Hi Karma,

I've had about enough of your passive aggressive trolling. Remember this post from 4 days ago?

What happened to that?

That's what you posted after I again refuted several of your statements and you decided you didn't want to discuss it anymore. Much like what happened in your ridiculous Victory Poker thread where you simply moved on from topics where you were refuted and didn't have a good answer, and you used the same "agree to disagree" tactic with Henry17 after accusing him of having a stake in Victory Poker, something you repeated in another thread without qualification, as if it were a proven fact. This is a disturbing habit of yours.

Anyway, after your "agree to disagree" post ITT, I let it go. You started your Cake/TSTGlobal thread today, and I stayed out of that as well. Now, out of the blue, you're in here with more unsubstantiated crap. All of my views I stated in my last post are views I've held long before I ever came to work for 2+2, which is only since March of this year. Nothing that I said in that post has anything to do with my employment.

I usually do everything I can to avoid dealing in a moderation capacity with posters on matters that directly involve me, but if this keeps up, I'm perfectly willing to make an exception. The unprovoked trolling with unsubstantiated accusations, of me or anyone else, needs to stop.

passive aggressive. lol. bobo, you are not on my educational level to discuss such technical subjects as we were attempting to discuss. What advanced degrees in computer science, math or stats do you have? Please inform me so my unsubstantiated claim can be put to rest. Do you have an advanced post bachelors degree in either field mentioned above? If so then you have refuted one of my claims. If not well..one for me then..eh mate.

The victory poker thread was dead on. Again, we disagree. Oh and the victory poker ceo's best bud and partner getting caught and charged with a felony is meaningless or the video showing his partners friends dumping money/drugs from a pickup truck are not facts either? Or the victory poker ceo's boat being confiscated..lol. Yeah I was so off base

Henry17 did nothing but personally attack me and did not counter any facts presented. What did you say to henry17? nothing..lol. No double standard there eh mate.


Yeah, asking a question to verify what is advertised on cake poker network is trolling?


bobo, you are stating that I MUST accept that your statement is the truth and nothing but the truth. A bit circular. Pause and think about that for a moment. OK. Next, you state that your employment is not mentioned. You are correct it was not overtly mentioned but the fact that you are in employment by 2p2 equates to your employment being a factor in any conversation thus I was correct. It is implicitly implied.

yes, the threat comes. I guess I hit the nail on the head eh mate :P


Karma

I can tell by your name...

ty for this post, made me lol

I have found exciting footage of Data with a minor: