Right, that's why I said it perhaps could be considered cyberbullying, but I think it's a stretch. No threatening or intimidating going on, and even harassing is questionable.

Well, LOL @ me and my assumptions then.

He did not make his simulations clear.

"The site owner of Pokerstars could be a programmer or part owner. They are not going to tell on themselves."

Thank you for this.

Even though I do not believe online poker is rigged I yet find it so ridiculous how in every single thread where the legacy of online poker (specifically PokerStars) is questioned, there will be a bunch of aggro-clowns that are trying to bully everyone who have questionmarks. If you ask me they do not belong in the poker community, they are just a bunch of worthless stinky rats. Plenty of them in this thread but one of them stinks the most. Thats all I had to say, I will not come back here to argue with the rats.

I'd say sneering more than bullying. You only have to click back a page to see the word rigtard mentioned twice in the same post. Yeah, debate.

I never really look in this thread because of the sneer fest but you can't help notice it in the forum list with the same old posters replying like they have the thread on an alert alarm.

Thank you.. I am not native English speaker so I could not find the right word. Sneering is accurate, agreed.

If by "one of them stinks the most" you mean Monteroy, as he's the one that usually has most of the fun in this thread "battling" riggies, then do a quick search of the thread for his posts. I do agree that he can come on as a bit aggressive, but most of what he says is just for gigs as most of what the riggies that he "battles" say things for gigs. I actually laughed quite a bit surfing through the "conversations" that took place between Monteroy and some riggies.

But I don't think that anyone, not even him, has ever said anything than what most people say about this topic. And this is that there is no evidence to suggest online poker is rigged. And it isn't like people haven't been looking. All the analysis conducted up to this point suggests that people are getting a fair shake at the top sites.

Let's take Stars for example. Stars is an online poker room. They claim to offer a fair game. The way things go in the real world is that things are okay by default. You have to demonstrate the contrary in order to make a purposeful conclusion. So, by default, Stars are offering a fair game as they say. Their RNG is certified by Cigital, whom I know to be a reputable company that works or has worked with the US army ( that's a plus ). They allow you to record your HH's, so you can collect massive amounts of hands that can be stored in your database and then conduct an analysis on them to see if something fishy pops out. This has been done. Nothing fishy pops out.


http://www.spadebidder.com/ This is the biggest study done that I know of.


So, all the facts lead to the conclusion that Stars is providing a fair game in terms of card distribution. Does that mean Stars is providing a fair game with 100% certainty ? No. But there is nothing to suggest otherwise and all the facts gathered up until now lead to the conclusion that Stars is not rigged.


So, to "worry" about something that has no evidence to it is basically knocking at the doors of the realm of paranoia, wouldn't you agree ?


And in regards to your disapproval of some people getting bashed in here for their "questioning" of online poker fairness, AFAIK, only people that come in here and spew things like "online poker is rigged because FD's hit 50% of the time or Q 7 is the hand that wins most hands online" or other wacky **** like that are getting mocked and bashed because these things have been looked up and would get caught immediately if they were true. And after somebody explains to them in a calm manner why they're wrong, they usually end up calling those people shills and that they're in on the conspiracy.

And of course, there's Jungmit. I'll let your curiosity tick on this one. Do a quick search on this thread about him. If there ever was a riggie deserving a bashing, he's on top of the list. See if you agree with his line of reasoning on how he questions the integrity of the sites.

You likely lost the attention of the Rat Simulation riggie two sentences in your post (if that). He just came here to vent and get a little back and forth, and as much as they say they hate it, they look forward to the negative feedback, as it energizes them.

Bringing up sites like spadebidders (for what its worth I don't think Stars hands were in the study as PTR at the time did not track it, and he used a variety of sites) are pointless. These riggies will never try to understand it.

Instead offer them simpler things like the following picture of a band of rats playing music. Riggies like simple things.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/54/d8...5b6e74301a.jpg


All the best.

I remember when I first read the study that Spadebidder said somewhere that he had hands from Full Tilt and I assumed ( wrongly as it appears ) that he had hands from Stars too.

The little rascals in the picture are cute.

The instruments have probably been photoshopped in.

So you are suggesting it is all a simulation...


Rats!

We will never know!

Can anyone explain to me why I always lose with AA and KK after cashing out from the different sites ? It doesn't matter of it's Pokerstars, 888 or Unibet. The first table I sit down whether it is CG or MTT and if I'm dealt AA or KK I know I will end up losing. The record is being dealt 8 AA or KK the day after cashout and I lost them all.

Lets say I have cashed out 100 times in 2 years. There is a pattern here, don't tell me it's all a coincidense.

So I assume you fold them now?

When there's action on my table I do fold them to avoid losing too much. Most of the time I was right.

So, is it all the time, or most of the time? And if it's all the time, why would you only fold them when there's action? If they lose all the time, they should be folded all the time.

This should be trivially easy to provide evidence for, BTW. I mean, it would be a bunch of work, but it's simple enough to filter for once you have your dates.

It's certainly not a coincidense. But I think that the word that can describe your experience is "coincidence".

Fold every time you are dealt AA or KK on the first table. That will foil their evil plan, at minimal loss.

Perfect strategy.

Wait. So it's not true that you'll lose every time when you're dealt AA or KK on the first table?

As it's not true that you lose every time, your entire memory of the games played is probably not true either. You should use a tracker. (You'd be able to give some evidence of your imagined discovery, too.)

Let's say you have cashed out 10 times in 2 years. You probably didn't receive AA or KK on your first table more than once or twice. Losing them is not really a big deal.

It's a coincidence.

***

Edit: Note to other shills: Pile on, guys. This guy has some damning evidence we need to quash.

This is correct. The data on the site refers to Site A and Site B, which were those two sites. All the data was from those only. I forgot which was which.

This study is very interesting. Every one can use it as a tool with his samples. After 10 years of poker ( wining ~ 25 k online mtt 10 k cg) i have decided to quit online and closed all my accounts to focus exclusively on live poker . I may be wrong or not, but i m fed up.

https://issuu.com/ionutapahideanu/do...r_-_rigged_or_

And my last question is : is the equity from starting hands going to showdown respected on X billions hands when the final pot is puting you more than 30 BB and/ or 50 % of your stack ?

It's been discussed in the Probability forum and some big flaws pointed out. The writer doesn't really understand statistics and probability very well.

I can't find the Probability Forum discussion, but it was mentioned briefly earlier in this thread: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...ostcount=83902

Yes, I don't think the article was ever discussed in the Probability Forum. I can only remember a few posts in this very thread (which Mike Haven pointed too above).

i like the 'stones tongue' logo crop circle. good to see the aliens have a penchant for the british R&B invasion. i wonder if they still paid attention after the 'some girls' album.

I mean If I fold after the flop , before turn/river. With action preflop I go all-in and always lose . Yes I agree , I could go through the hand history . What works for me now after cashout is to take a 2 week break from the site, then deposit and only play at micro tables, then move up when I feel it's "back to normal".