It wouldn't matter because the odds of two sites rigging the deal such that the effects canceled out are astronomically low. Something would have shown up and then a more detailed analysis would be carried out.

Of course, as Spadebidder points out, there's no reason to merge the databases - that is just another red herring that you introduced as you fumble for more reasons why you can claim that Spadebidder's study is not useful for your 'problem'.

You really do need to calm down on this obsession you have with me.

I've told you I'm not interested in that kind of thing and these name checks aren't going to make me change my mind.

Bots are not automatically good players simply by virtue of being computers. There might even be more bad bots than good ones at this time, but that has little to do with their creators' poker skill.

It's a common belief that a game playing bot, whether it's poker or chess or go or whatever, cannot play better than its creator. Even Spock said something like that on the original Star Trek, and it does seem to make sense. It isn't true, though. The creator of Deep Blue, Feng-hsiung Hsu, was a lousy chess player when he first started creating his monster, and this was back when he was still a college student and not massively funded by IBM. Hsu improved as a player over the years, but his very first chess-playing bot, Chiptest, was better than he would ever be, and it was made when Hsu himself was a weak player. His last bot, Deep Blue, was better than anybody in the world, apparently. By that time, of course, he was part of a team of grandmasters and computer scientists, but that's not important. The thing to notice here is how good Chiptest was at a time when its creator barely knew the moves of the game. It played master level chess.

Chess bots got better not because their programmers improved their chess skills, but because chess programming techniques were shared and absorbed by chess programmers. Chess bots evolved in this way. Hsu didn't have to be a great chess player -- he just had to understand the programming of the bots that had been made public and figure out ways to improve on them, and it wasn't chess skill that allowed him to do this.

The same thing will happen with poker bots. The more information is shared about bots, the faster they will evolve. There is more incentive not to share information about your poker bot, but many will share what they know, anyway. Mad poker skill would be helpful to a bot programmer, but it isn't essential. What is essential is that the programmer have access to what has been done before, an ability to understand poker fundamentals, and a knack for programming. If on top of all that he also has a willingness to share, then he will push bot evolution that much further along. Every time some programmer shares a new technique or insight, the new baseline for poker bots will be a little higher than the previous one. The programmers themselves might never improve as poker players, but their bots will.

These days no chess programmer can even come close to defeating his bot. Almost nobody else in the world can, either. It took 4 or 5 decades to reach this point in chess. Maybe it will take that long in poker as well.

Good post.

If I may troll a couple of points.

As you say, the oft expressed idea that a computer cannot perform a reasoning task better than its creator is incorrect. It has sometimes been refined to say that computer cannot perform a reasoning task better than its creator has the potential to.

Even this is incorrect by most reckonings because now computers are so fast that they can achieve in a few days things that no human could achieve in several lifetimes. Of course, if you were to allow that the human mind could work as fast and as long as a computer you could, perhaps, say the revised claim is correct.

On the subject of chess programs becoming better because the programmers advanced their programming techniques rather than their chess playing techniques, that is absolutely true, but there is another very important factor: Computers are now mind blowingly faster than they were when chess playing programmes were first developed.

The first chess playing program I encountered could easily beat any non-serious chess player. (i.e. someone who knew the rules and played occasionally but had never really studied the game). It certainly could not beat and 'reasonable' player. That ran on a £1,000,000 machine that had 1MB of memory and could perform around 1 million instructions per second.

For less than 1/1000th the cost you can now get a machine that will, across all its cores, perform ~24,000 times the number of instructions per second and spread its data out over ~16,000 times the memory space. This makes a significant difference to the capabilities of chess programs that are, in effect, 'brute force' solutions.

Someone read my blog entry on basic trashtalk. In addition, I used this same mundane routine many times myself in this thread. The only thing you left out was calling me "maam" if you really wanted to copy my "imply the other person has an obsession on me and force a response to validate it" schtick.

In your mind you win by literally never shutting up. Ever. Even when they banned you here that stopped you from posting for about 5 seconds before qpw2 was created and then the Wiki account. Eventually when Wiki gets banned all that will happen is Wiki2 will be posting 10 seconds later.

With weirdos/trolls like Fated it can create such a mess that it is literally painful to watch and impossible to read, even in as stupid a thread as this. You guys act like a whiny couple. Did you beat him yet in your mind? Who knows, I just saw the volume more than the content, and good luck finding me another human aside from the two of you who read all the posts.

With the pure dumb riggies you can own them because they are utterly stupid. Congrats on that. Most of us take 1 or 2 shots and move on, you pound them into the ground.

Even the "shills" post a ton less in general and you are most certainly a huge part of that. That's the one positive thing you have done (as most of the "shills" should ignore this thread for the most part).


You don't play poker, and you have no real insight on how that industry works either from a players perspective or someone who works in the industry like Josem. The one thing I can't figure out is why all of these dumbass riggies think you are some kind of shill. No company would hire you to defend them.

What they do not understand is your compulsive need to win every argument and debate creates this image that you literally care about the integrity of online poker. You may in a passing manner, but the key here is you have your thread to call your own where you take on and win every battle in your mind. No doubt you have done this with other message boards, likely with other topics, in the past.

You are not a poker player, nor a shill. You are kind of a keyboard warrior, but a tiring volume based one at that. The word that best fits is you are a nerd.


Anyway, let me give you another victory in your mind. Congrats on being the second person I actually put on ignore in these forums (and I dont even remember the user name of the first one I put on ignore a couple years ago at this point). What can I say - riggies may amuse me, but in the end nerds always bore me.

At this point you can go wild replying to whatever I say knowing I will not see it nor respond to it, so imagine all the last words you can have in your mind. The fact that almost nobody reads the contents of your posts much anymore should not affect you from carrying out your mission in this thread.

After all, you own this thread. Keep at it, nerd.


All the best maam.

It's wonderful the way you can repeatedly get a screen-full from Monty with just a couple of lines of nonsense.

You play On PS.

I don't agree that all rigged sites would have this goal or the same goal. The most likely goal is to benefit a few insiders.

Depends which 'tard you listen to.

Having said that, I think that if a site was going to do something dishonest, that would be the way to do it rather than these fanciful schemes for making the site more attractive to some sub-group of legitimate players.

Is there a sole owner or ceo of poker stars/tilt? or do the pros there all have a %.

Well, there's almost certain to be a CEO.

That would be a cheating site (AB/UP/PBP), not a rigged site. Generally the word is used to mean the deal is not random, but consistently skewed according to some set of rules. Lots of sites have cheated people, but none have been found to have a non-random deal (yet).

If a site wanted to cheat its customers, rigging the deal is probably the harder route to take. Theifs are lazy. Much easier to just "super use" and look at hole cards. BarryG had an interesting question which was could superusers also see all the streets ahead of time. I believe the answer to that was no.

From a programming stand point, rigging the deal to benefit a certain group of players (new users, for example), would be very CPU intensive. The "deal routine" would have to know HOW to benefit these players. And how does it handle a table full of newbies.

But, i have proof this is not the case at Poker Stars.

Yeah its so random, when I can call out the exact cards in the chat box and people think wtf.

You can play less than a 100 hands and hit a million in one bad beat odds every single.

Its nothing to lose 70-90% fave ten times in a row.

Good luck trying to win 5-7 in a row of coin flips in real life.

I can bet 10 random sports games at -105 and I would bet my life I won't go 0 for 10 or even 1 for 10.

Plenty of shills have to defend it, part of business and money.

But only a fool would be believe anything online is random, anything.

Since you can call the cards out in advance in the chat box, how about a prop bet on that skill.

We watch a NL table of your choice and you call the upcoming turn cards 100 times and we see how many times you get it correct. How about we make it if you get 15 or more correct you win $3 for every $1 you will wager. Minimum wager you have to make is $100 in advance and in escrow.

Bonus $500 if you get 95 or more correct (aint I generous).

Since you can predict the cards most of the time this will be the easiest bet you can make. You may repeat the bet as many times as you like.

As well, you can pick the site if you feel you know the rig better at certain sites.

Spadebidder could give you the odds of getting 15 or more turn cards correct in 100 guesses, but I have no doubt I am giving you odds that can best be described as creative given your innate skills. I suspect he would be happy to book even more of your action as well.

Easiest money you will ever make, just let us know when we will be doing this bet so you can make $$$ from your super powers.

All the best.

I'd rail this.

So, if you know the cards in advanced, you must be a winning player? I know I would be. You know your AA will get cracked, so fold them. Right? I mean, no one in their right mind would ship it all in with AA if they knew the outcome was a loss. Right?

15 correct (including suit) out of 100 isn't really even in the realm of possibility if you keep trying it the rest of your life. Getting 10 or more correct out of the next 100 has about 1/17K chance with 47 unknown cards. BINOMDIST(90,100,1-(1/47),TRUE) = 1/17,377


But based on his claims I'm pretty sure he is just a troll and can't be that stupid. For example:

Worst bad beat possible in hold'em is 989 to 1. That's a long way from a million.

Let's say it's 80% average. Losing 10 in a row is about a 10 million to 1 event. It probably happened to somebody somewhere in the history of poker, maybe even a few people. I'd bet it never happened to you.

Well let's see. Let's flip 1000 coins. The chance to have a streak of 7 heads in a row in there is 98%. How about 100 coins? 32% chance. Pretty common if you ask me.


Monty: no riggie ever accepts prop bets, because they don't even believe what they say. I offer them sometimes for fun, and to get them to actually think about how ridiculous their claim is. But yes, if you get any action here, I'll take some too.

It's one of the great mysteries of life why no riggie ever tries to profit from his knowledge of the scheme. They "know" what is being manipulated, yet they keep betting against that very thing happening. Seems insane to me when such knowledge would be a lock to riches.

Maybe he is young.

He does have super powers as well.

OK, given the new information I will offer 4-1 odds.

Don't forget I told him he could pick his site, even the one where he knows the rig the most. Did you account for that?



Didn't that one angry guy actually pay $50 for a bet that one time? The one that had rather regular results that then converted them into rigged results somehow?

Obviously freeroll newbies like this one will never do a prop bet after they make stuff up, but one never knows, and if they ever reply to them (rare granted), they can sometimes entertain even more.

I seriously love this thread.
N8@all

Except that you can't.

Except that you can't.

Except that people rarely do.

Not equivalent to what you mention above and not at all rare.

Dunno. The garbage spewed by the rigtards seems pretty random.

Although I can see a few patterns in my mind.

This has got to be the longest/dumbest thread in internet history, so I wanna be a part of it for at least one post...

Nobody can prove one way or another whether online poker is rigged. That's what makes this thread so dumb. And people who defend online poker as not being rigged look just as dumb and naive as those claiming it is. You just don't know and cannot know.

I'll tell you what I think will go a long way towards showing something meaningful. If online poker ever gets legalized in the United States, you can bet regulations will be so heavy there that there's almost no chance the deals will be anything but fair. Then we'll see. For now, I voted "rigged". I still think good players crush bad players online. But I think the deals are juiced causing far too much money going to rake. If there existed a full proof answer somewhere I'd be willing to bet on this. But such proof doesn't exist so we'll have to wait for US casinos to open online poker rooms. I'm thinking this will forever change the state of online poker and I'm not sure if it will be for the better or worse.

Have to disagree with one thing.... your post is way dumber than anyone who may be "defending" online poker.

Then we don't disagree b/c I didn't say it wasn't. I just wanted to be part of internet history. Any post involving this subject is gonna be dumber than the next imo.

But you set the bar so high!