Your response is similar to Wiki's above. I don't understand, if there are thousands of sites and I think there are a few that are rigged, what would be the option 'closest to my beliefs ?' 'Yes,' as I think some of online poker is rigged, or 'no,' as I think the majority of online poker isn't rigged ?

I wasn't disputing the 'yes' or 'no' bit, I was just meaning that isn't 'online poker' a bit general ?

Clearly 'online poker' does not operate as a whole and there are thousands of sites that operate independently of each other. So, surely the question needs to be either, 'Is any of Online Poker rigged,' or 'Is all Online Poker rigged.'

I assumed as moderators, it would be your responsibility to make sure polls make sense, but again perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick with that ?

So, how many options would you need?

1) Yes
2) No
3) Probably
4) Probably not
5) Probably some
6) Probably some of the smallest
7) Probably none
8) Probably none of the largest
9) There may have been some at one time
10) There may be some from time to time
11) Very likely
12) Very unlikely
13) It's possible
14) It's not possible
15) Don't know
16) Wat?
17) Bastard!

The poll is reasonably adequate as it is.

It gives us an idea as to how many think that 'yes' is the closest to their detailed opinion and how many think that 'no' is.

post some quite amusing stuff on what, essentially, is a rather dull topic; it is, it isn't - on no it isn't, oh yes it is etc etc

Nobody takes that poll seriously. I'm pretty sure it was added as a joke and it should be pretty obvious that it is, based on its simplicity. You have a 1651 page thread (yeah I know it depends on your settings) and yet the poll has 2 options. You can't do a reasonable poll on something like this. Trying to dissect any meaning behind the poll at this point would be a futile effort. Some people answered it as a joke. Some people interpreted it one way or another.... but you can't interview everyone who answered it.

Me personally? I said no simply because I don't play on fringe sites and I've never seen one bit of data presented from the larger sites that would lead me to believe that there is an altered deal. Quite frankly I doubt that ANY site, including the fringe sites have an altered deal. They could have security problems, bots, superusers or whatever but it would defy logic to have a rigged deal. Nobody in this thread has even yet come up with a way that it could be done to provide a material amount of increased profit to a site. And there are some pretty bright people in this thread.

A rigged deal is not something a poker site could go into implementing lightly. They first have to make sure it's undetectable, then make sure that it somehow increases the bottom line while still being undetectable. Then it would have to be kept a secret, and you can go on and on. All this effort while you already have a simple enough profitable business model sitting right out there, involving just dealing random cards and collecting rake. All this discussion is more than silly. And the fact that there are people on EVERY SINGLE site (including RealDeal!) thinking the games are rigged..... that just tells me all I need to know. The problem isn't the sites, or the deal, it's the stupid people who get paranoid about it and can't look beyond the leaks in their own game.

I thought my views of what's acceptable were pretty standard.

As we're not 12 years old, I don't see any reason to belittle, mock or abuse people, whether they share a different opinion to me, or they post something which is clearly flawed, or they post something I've heard many times before.
I don't think the fact that I'm sat in front of a computer and will never knowingly meet them gives me the right to do this either.

Think about it, someone signs up for this forum today and comes on here and makes a post relating to this thread. You've been here for years and have heard similar posts hundreds of times before. That person doesn't know that. They can't be expected to read the millions or billions of posts on this site to see if this has been posted before. By all means respond and point out their errors, but there's no reason to come back with a mocking post. As I said, you don't have to respond. Despite many 'hilarious' posts claiming otherwise, you're not paid to be here. Surely if you've found yourself losing patience to the point that you're being offensive to people, it's time to stop responding rather than responding in an insulting manner.

Most have done so many times but it got old. You have to read back to see many very good arguments for the not-rigged side. Nobody's going to keep doing it in the face of an endless parade of no-evidence riggie beliefs without any rational basis.

I already made clear in my post I wasn't disputing the 'yes' or 'no' options.


I know it's very difficult for you to agree with me on anything Wiki, but let's see if you can manage on this one...... As you yourself are someone who likes definitions and such like to be correct, you can see that lumping 'Online Poker' as a whole, in the question 'Is Online Poker Rigged?' does not make sense, as each site operates independently and it's not one collective operation.

Can we take a huge step and let that be the first thing EVER that we agree on ...... or do you want to come back and say, 'oh, it doesn't mean that, it implies such and such and isn't meant to be taken seriously' etc.

Funnily enough, most people think that of their own views, most of the time.

It's generally when they post something that's been posted a hundred times before and it's obviously seriously flawed and when it's explained politely to them they respond by screaming: shill.

The mocking posts tend to be the ones responding to someone who keeps repeating a mistake after it's been politely explained to him. (Occasionally it's a first strike when it appears that it's yet another gimmick account or someone posing a single HH as 'proof' the on line poker is rigged.)

Proof?

For a long time 'the regulars' here would make detailed and helpful posts to people and those people would just come back time and time again telling us we had no credibility because we were obviously employed by the sites.

How do you know that they were wrong?

Sorry, FTP, but this thread is not your personal fiefdom. It has taken on its character over a couple of years and most of the people you're complaining about probably expected something quite different when they first spent time carefully crafting helpful responses only to get insulted for their efforts.

The 'flavour' of the thread is something that has come about 'organically' as a result of thousands of posts and various people adapting to the responses they get.

And no amount of whining on your part is going to change that unless you can convince the moderators that your views should supersede those imputed through the thread's natural evolution.

But, as I said before, that is not the new poster's problem. They don't know that their point has been made before. They don't deserve to be on the end of impatience, or abuse, simply because of what has gone before.

You Spadebidder seem to be one of the more intelligent of the 'regulars' I was referring to and don't usually resort to such tactics. You can see the same as I do though that there are plenty who are here to merely get a kick out of mocking people, knowing that they have 10-20 others who won't say anything or laugh along or join in.

It seems a bit playground level to me.

As some of you regulars love analogies, it's like someone working for O2 and every day they have 2 or 3 people phone up and ask them how to send picture messages on their iPhone. They don't start mocking or abusing the people after a few days, they continue to be polite and patient and respond properly to each person, as each caller doesn't know that this has been asked many times previously.

Wat?

You said:

The only way to make that poll make sense is to provide an unfeasible number of options or split it into an impracticably large number of sub polls.

Only because you post so much nonsense.

Of course. I didn't design the poll.

It was designed by a rigtard and superseded one that I had set up that would have yielded some more interesting insight into the workings of the rigtard mind.

Wouldn't know. Do you spend a lot of your time in playgrounds?

Can you not see a difference there?

For one thing the O2 people really are being paid to advise customers and for another the customers are actually seeking advice, not making unfounded claims that O2 is rigged.

If you are still reading this after the daily Wiki/Fated exchanges, then some of the things you need to consider are the half life (for lack of a better term) of each game in terms of reg development and efficiency varies.

NL took years to finally hit the point it is at with the help of many factors such as

- Overly generous bonuses (that effectively paid everyone to keep playing)

- Massive growth spurt which shoved a ton of really bad players into the game (Moneymaker effect)

- Extremely popular specific game


The same effect (soft games become more difficult) happens all the time still, however the period of time this happens will be shorter. The Omaha DoNs took about a year for the games to properly mature. Rush Poker even shorter.

This is the natural progression of each poker game within the poker environment. They are always changing based on the players and the general industry changes.

Lower win rates in established games (on average) are a natural progression. They can be offset by larger volume (more tables) and also by adjusting one's game to adapt to the new situation.

Many players also find new games to play.


Those that slack in this regard post the way you do. Frustrated posts about how the games are "different." They are different. They will always change, and your job (if you want to keep playing hard core) is to learn how to adapt to those changes.

The US legislation will do absolutely nothing with regard to proving whether the games are fair, and whether it is put in place or not will do nothing with regard to the riggie community as their beliefs are based on faith (which can never be changed).

What it might do is change the nature of the industry that might make the games better or worse for a short period of time (depending on what it does), but in either situation the games will mature yet again like they always do.


I have no idea if you have the skill set to compete any more, but if you do then you have to change how you are working your job quite a bit to continue to be successful.

Just a few points:


1. As you said, the mocking posts 'tend' to be against people who keep making a mistake. Your use of the word 'tend' shows that you know that there are times when this is not the case and other people receive mocking and abuse as well.


2. I certainly don't believe this thread is my personal fiefdom, (don't know what it means, but I don't believe the thread is my personal anything.) I'm trying to discuss and find out what people think is acceptable, never once have I suggested it should run to my tune, that would be silly. By discuss, I mean hear lots of people's opinions, not just the standard issue, 120 seconds, 'last post by Wiki,' response.

I used the phrase 'playground stuff' previously and that seems to be the case again. I was interested in hearing people's individual views on what's acceptable. You came back with a 'everyone else is mocking and belittling people, so it's fine for me to do it,' response. You're an adult, surely you can form your own ideas of what YOU think is acceptable, not copy what everyone else is doing ?


3. Tell me how from reading an internet forum, you can establish someone is 'whining.' ? That's a belittling comment in itself. So, your posts are stating your opinion, but mine are 'whining.' ? Based on what ? I don't see the fairness in that, but I'm sure you'll point it out to me.

Please Wiki, read my whole post, before having a go.

Just above that, I've said the following: 'I wasn't disputing the 'yes' or 'no' bit, I was just meaning that isn't 'online poker' a bit general ?'

I suggested changing the question, I think to, 'Is any of Online Poker rigged,' or, 'Is all Online Poker rigged.'

That's the bit I suggested changing, not the choices of answers.

'Sorry FatedToPretend.'

'That's alright Wiki.'

Yes, as I said, people who post one or two HH's as justification for saying that poker is rigged.

If they don't already know that's animal stupid then we're doing them a favour pointing that out to them.

And, of course, being you you have to go the effort of informing everybody of your woeful vocabulary rather than just looking it up

That isn't actually what I said - although I'll grant that with your limited English language comprehension skill that's probably what you got from it.

It's not a question of 'doing what everyone else does' it's a question of fitting in with the prevailing mood of the thread. Something that you are incapable of understanding, let alone achieving.

In you case it's because for every on topic post you make in this thread you make a dozen more mewling and grizzling about the way people respond to you.

FTP, please go and have a nice play on the motorway.

I don't understand. (I'll leave a space for 'funny' response/jokey insult from Wiki.)

It's only you who's allowed to post tedious/irrelevant analogies ?

Or only people who agree with your views on online poker ?

I'm done with you mate, I really am.

I hope people can see that I'm genuinely polite and friendly with you and I don't carry over any grudges because we've had disagreements about things in the past. Yet, you feel the need to not only pick apart every post I make, but EVERY PARAGRAPH of every post I make.

Again, people can read the posts relating to your quote above and see you made a mistake, but rather than coming out with an apology, you tell someone who has said nothing insulting to you to, 'Go and have a nice play on the motorway.'

I'm not going to be forced out of posting here due to your harassment and abuse, as I keep saying, you are supposed to be banned from here and you really need to take a look at how you treat people.

You commented on my 'woeful vocabulary,' if I could just point out, Wikipedia claims that the word 'fiefdom,' to which you were referring, is infact incorrect and when I read that it was related to 'medieval European feudalism,' I stopped reading as I realised I was being dragged down an irrelevant road.

Again, I hope everyone else can see that not having come across a particular obscure 16th century word before, does not equate to someone having a 'woeful vocabulary.' I'd guess you can see that as well Wiki, but decided to pretend otherwise so as to come up with another insult.

So, you'll get no more responses from me Wiki. Many people have told me before to regard you as a wind-up merchant and ignore you, I didn't want to resort to that and tried to sort things like adults, but after reading your posts today, that seems like the only sensible option.

I will continue to post in this thread, as it is a topic which interests me and there are many people here whose opinions I am interested in and respect. I hope that everyone can see that even if we disagree, I'm always adult and polite with people and I hope people can perhaps see the extent that the harassment I've received from Wiki has reached and how unnecessary and misplaced it is.

wiki does a great job earning us some spare cash to splurge on the rigged sites, we wouldn't put it into the non-rigged sites, cos that would be immoral, but fated, please keep our wages on an above-average keel this month, ta

Eh ?

There is a word for that, called grunching.

I know it's difficult to catch up on a thread this long, maybe not possible anymore. I've suggested before to the mods that this idea has played out, having one giant thread to dump everything in. But the alternative is to have 20 new rigged threads a week, which isn't much better. They all tend to follow the same course, with the rare exception of someone presenting some data that deserves serious responses, usually just to show the poster their mistake or misconception. Those threads don't get dumped in here until they deteriorate to the usual irrational riggie defenses.

Once again, you post something stupid and then start to whine when someone points it out.

It's a not a case of any one person or group being 'allowed' to post analogies but if you post one that is not analogous with what you're claiming it is expect that to be commented upon.

People often object to my analogies. The only difference is that I don't then make a post whining about it.

Once can only hope.

Or they may just assume you are being passive aggressive.

You do get a bit wearing with your incessant mewling.

But as you're not a mod ...

It's incorrect when referring to a medieval manor but, by common usage, it is accepted when equivalencing something to such a manor. See Here. It's typical of you that you only do half the research before jumping in and complaining something's wrong.

For someone who claims to be educated to degree level you do seem to have a very poor vocabulary and unbelievably poor researching skills. My main objection was not that you didn't know the word but were too lazy or useless to do a simple dictionary lookup.

Is that a promise?

It is rational, and here's why. When I first started playing online poker, I never even considered the possibility that the sites may be rigged. And whenever I ran into a long run of bad cards, I was confident that it would eventually end, as it always had in the past. At first, when you run into that monster bad beat run from hell, you think it’s like every other bad run of cards. But as it continues, you begin to consider the possibility that something may be happening that is not a normal expression of variance. Then you go online and find out that thousands of other players are having similar experiences and doubts about online poker. It was eerie for me to discover that the very first post in this thread was identical to my own.

As with the first post in this thread, the normal thing to do when you hit the bad beat run from hell is to change sites (unless you’re one of the many diehards we all read about, who are determined to stick it out and end up losing their entire bankrolls). And the thing that makes you begin to believe that some sites may be rigged is the fact that when you move to a new site, the bad run instantly stops. Clearly there is the possibility that this is a normal phenomenon, but your rational mind tells you otherwise.

Then, after you build your roll many times over at the second site and you eventually meet that old friend once more, you change sites again. But this time you play both your new and old sites side by side. And when the bad beat run continues on one site, but there is no evidence at all of it on the second site, you become convinced. Under these circumstances, what other conclusion can your rational mind come to but that the software is being deliberately manipulated, and that individual accounts are being targeted in order to affect player behavior?

The only remedy that will satisfy everyone is the full audit: access to the software and every line of code in it, as was being discussed not long ago in this thread. And the only possibility of that happening is the legalization of online poker in the US. Even then, who knows if the relevant gaming commissions will take thousands of players’ complaints seriously and do a full audit of each site? Time will tell. In the mean time, I’ll steer clear of the sites I’ve had a problem with in the past.

I'll agree that if that is what has happened or, more likely, what you perceive to have happened, it is not irrational to come to that conclusion - or at least to consider it as a possibility.

So if that has happened to you for a significant number of hands then you basically have the evidence that something may be amiss.

Of course, there are a number of other possibilities including that old favourite 'selective memory' (from which we all suffer) and that the players on one site just got better and the players at the other didn't.

This will satisfy no one for more than a week or two.

Yes, they would be dancing round the flagpole for a while but as soon they experienced the old problems they'd be starting threads on here demanding to know why the regulatory authority was not taking its responsibilities seriously and really investigating the sites.

The lack of US based sites really is a godsend to American riggies because it gives them somewhere to focus their complaints and allows them to imagine some Nirvana where they would always win at the rate they thought they should when, in reality, nothing much would change from the 'fair site' POV.