The truth is, the shills don’t know any more than anyone else does about whether online poker is rigged or not. They’re salesman, hired to sell a product: the integrity of online poker. The only people who know for sure are the owners/managers and the programmers. And no one’s talking, except for maybe this guy: http://fulltiltpokerrigged.blogspot....31942233872942

The shills will tell you that this post is from some clown trying to yank the chains of the rigtards, and he is now having a big laugh at their expense. It is also possible that it is an actual post from a software programmer who wanted to expose the truth, but is afraid to reveal his identity. I’m sure most gaming programmers are aware of what happened to the guy who rigged the software in the video poker scandal, so it’s understandable why he would want to remain anonymous. It’s even possible that he's no longer with us, as well. Again, (almost) no one really knows, so it’s just speculation.

The one thing we all know for sure, however, is that at least some online poker rooms hire people to defend their integrity in online poker forums, which the shills have now admitted. (It seems to me that this is a serious breach of shill protocol. Shouldn’t you have continued to pretend that you were just average poker players and not employees of the poker rooms?)

So my question for online poker rooms is this: why do you even care about the paranoid ramblings of disgruntled poker players who haven’t learned how to handle the ups and downs of normal variance? If the question of online poker being rigged were such a far-fetched joke, why even dignify it with a response?

Did you analyze each site separately or put the hand histories together ?

Did you actually read ANY of spadebidder's site?

What possible difference would that make if he can't explicitly tell you which site?

If he found that there were no anomalies in the things he tested for then that means there were no anomalies on either site whether or not the HH's were merged. If there had been anomalies on one site it would still have registered if the sites were tested together.

From what I recall of that "expose", the dude seems to write with no knowledge of programming at all, and it reads more like a rigtard's fantasy of what an evil programmer would do. I could be wrong, since I didn't check the link at work. Link? If you think the admissions were serious, get your head checked. If tongues were any further in cheeks, they'd poke holes. The only site that's been outed as having actual shills here are Cereus and Real Deal, both were here solely to say canned **** like "Man, the action is so soft at [site]!" or "Real Deal's so much better because they use real cards, not software!"

i think not
but also, tis safe to say,
FTP is no rocket scientist

no offence FTP, but this is quite clear from today's posts

Haha, I wouldn't claim to be a rocket scientist, but I'm not sure what I've posted today that would make you think I'm a bit thick ? Any evidence ?

Your posts.

Didn't think so.

You really don't get anything much, do you?

I have read bits of it, yeah, but I couldn't find if it made clear whether he/she was analyzing the sites separately or had lumped all the hand histories together.

I'm hoping the hand histories from separate sites haven't been merged together as this would defeat the purposes of the analysis in many ways.

I'm assuming Spadebidder, that you're way too intelligent to have done that, but I just wanted to double-check.

k
let us sieve through a few of today's gems mate
back in a min

i use my brain? is that what you meant to say?
enuf?

Sorry, I use my brain to work out which sites 'site A' and 'site B' refer to ?

I don't see how that could be worked out.

that sure is a nice big hole you diggin there fella

Why would merging the histories be a problem if the result showed no anomalies?

Clue: It wouldn't.

If any anomalies had been detected then the analyses could have been run against the sites individually.

Got it now?

No, you muppet.

You use your brain to work out that when Spadebidder said: "We will not reveal from [which] PokerSites these hands were obtained".

He meant: "We will not reveal from [which] PokerSites these hands were obtained".

And thus you were never going to find out which sites were involved (unless you were capable of using a bit of deductive logic on what you had been told - admittedly a bit of a tall order in your case).

Since Spadebidder likes to use coin analogies, I'll use one myself.

Suppose you're investigating two (independent) coins for fairness.

One has heads on both sides. The other has tails on both sides.

You toss them each 50 times.

You put the results together and find you got 50 heads and 50 tails, which looks perfectly realistic and what you'd expect from tossing two fair coins.

However, clearly this isn't the case and both coins are unfair. As the coins are independent, the results need to be analyzed independently.


The same applies to Spadebidder's analyzing of poker sites and as Spadebidder is 100 times more knowledgeable than me in this subject, I assume that's what he/she did. I'm just waiting for confirmation from Spadebidder that that is the case.

Hope you like the use of the coin analogy as well Spadebidder.

So, you are suggesting that one of the sites does something such as rigging the deal so that losing players get better hands and the other site manages to rig the deal in such a way that losing players get worse hands that exactly compensates by game, by stake and by type?

If I were you I'd give up poker and grow some more of whatever it is you're smoking. You'd make a fortune.

Nothing that I did combined any hands from more than one site. This is clearly labeled in the work.

Your coin analogy is flawed, but it doesn't matter.

mighty pretty hole,
yup,
mighty pretty

Ever thought of taking reading lessons, FTP?

Thanks for clearing that up, assumed you'd analyzed them independently, no harm in checking.

Haha, it matters to me, can you tell me where I went wrong please ?

Unless the two sites were rigged to create basically opposite effects then it wouldn't make a difference.

If you have one coin that is weighted for heads and another that is fair, once you flip them both enough and then combine them you will still get an anomaly. The only way you might not is if one of them is weighted to heads in the same way the other is weighted to tails.

Get it? Probably not.

Of course it is still wise to do them separate as if you do get an anomaly it would be easier to see which site created it.