If you honestly care about whether you're a donkey or not, forget all this rigged crap first (it's not), and start focusing on strat. To be honest if you simply posted your statistics like VPIP/PFR/AF, att to steal, and stuff like that, it would already provide a general idea where the leaks might be.

Anybody who plays enough poker will find ways to win and lose hands in crazy ways. Over those 700k+ hands I've one outed people and been one outed. But no, it doesn't happen constantly and I certainly don't see a higher frequency of "action flops".

(Oh, and you'll notice on that graph how my all in EV line tends to go in the same general direction as my winnings..... so that pretty much kills YDWard's arguments on many of these hands already)

Ok. I'm not making this up. I just played 3 SNG's. 1st one is a 6 man. 3 people left in, i'm short stacked, UTG raises with Q4 suited, I go all in with KK. He turned a set of 4's to send me packing. Next one is 9 man, flop QJ3, I have AQ, aggressive guy goes all in with KQ, he has me covered, i go all in. Turns a K. I'm out. Next SNG, 1st hand, Guy raises 3 blinds with pocket jax, blinds are small I make a loose call with Q/10 suited. Flop comes 8QQ, no ****. He goes all in, I really figured he has AQ, but hell I called. I see Jax and think thank god. Turns a boat. I'm out. This really happened.

How do my stats matter when things like this happen over and over. I've been playing on and off for 5 years online, I think i've had 3 good weeks. Don't give me variance crap, and "Oh it's poker." I've learned my lesson and i'll stick with a live game. I can't play online without seeing 4 of a kind. I've seen it once in a casino. Lose every now and then sure, i've had bad beats live and seen some strange things but everytime I log on. Come on!

Stopped reading there. Anybody who says this is beyond reach. I just posted a graph where I've played more than 700k hands. How many have you played? What about my results isn't convincing. Is it rigged only for me?

You're too fixated on the bad beats that are going to show up every day if you play enough instead of your actual game. Good players shrug a bad beat off knowing that the player who laid the beat on them will make them profitable in the longrun, while other players will spend so much time focusing on patterns they see only in their mind that they don't even bother addressing their game. That crap happens in poker, ONLINE AND LIVE. Accept it, play a solid game, and still profit. Or, don't.

Cliffs: I don't care about your bad beat stories. I used to complain about beats too, until I realized that all the regulars who play the same game as I do deal with the same stuff daily. It's called poker. They got tired of hearing my complaining, and now I get tired of hearing other people who share their beats with me. It's COMPLETELY STANDARD and a part of the game.

Not only you, Tom Dwan also. See #5 in PokersRigged23's screed.

Well FTP clearly rigged it for Tom Dwan, but I'm legit because my graph includes UB and Party Poker in the early hands. I actually had to adjust to the tighter games on FTP. I lost 2k my first month on FTP because people actually knew how to use position to make my life difficult. A poker player has to be adaptive. Maybe I adapted to the rigging! Yeah, that's the ticket.

Fair points NFuego, but how do you explain the person's comment about four-of-a-kinds ? They claimed they couldn't play, (presumably a session), online, without seeing four-of-a-kind and yet had only witnessed it once live.

I have to say I'd probably agree with that, and I've heard similar from several people.

There are many things that make people question the dealing online, but one of the ones that jumps out at me would be the apparent overly-frequent appearances of four-of-a-kinds.

Also, I assume you're an intelligent person, I don't think you make yourself look very clever when you come out and say definitively, 'It's not (rigged),' when you don't know that. If you did, then surely we wouldn't be involved in a 2 year, 25000 post debate.

One or more of the following:

1) They've played a hell of a lot more hands on line than live
2) They haven't played much at all and it's variance
3) Selective memory
4) They're lying

I wonder if these "overly-frequent appearances of four-of-a-kinds" are apparent to people doing a proper analysis with a contiguous sample of HH's of a suitable size.

Presumably not or they would have reported their finding.

Can you show where he's said that?

I mean, where he's actually said it's definitely not rigged?

When idiots are arguing an unsupportable case, be they rigtards, 9-11 conspirators or 'there were no moon landings' buffoons, the argument goes on indefinitely because they are immune to the effects of facts and logic, effects that limit the length of an argument with normal, intelligent, people.

We've been over this a million times, but if you'd like I clarify my "it's not" rigged comment, it's HIGHLY LIKELY that it is not rigged, based on even distributions of hands I've received, based on spade's analysis of flop textures, and based on everything I've ever seen in a long history of playing online poker. I didn't come out and use the word "definitively", you did. So what we're really disagreeing about here is about .1%. I'm about 99.9% sure the deals are not rigged, not 100%. For all intents and purposes there's hardly a difference, and yes I do believe a player who is struggling should focus on their game and not this rigged crap. Is it possible there's some exception out there and something is rigged? I suppose, it's POSSIBLE, but I'd consider the probability of that to be remote for soooooo many reasons already discussed.

As for the four of a kinds, my first response is something along the lines of "I call bs". People love to exaggerate, especially when they haven't done any sort of analysis. From what I've seen, most of the people making these claims that something happens too often don't even know how often they should happen! As for me personally, I sure as hell don't see 4 of a kind very often... but in a day where I play 1000 hands, good chance I'll see it once or twice.

Let's take the example where QT gets all in against JJ on a QQ8 flop. That hand should hold up about 12 out of 13 times. Is he tallying all of the times it does, or simply noticing the one that it doesn't? I can assure you of one thing, it is CERTAIN that if you play poker long enough, you WILL see that hand lose, multiple times, over and over again. And you know what? See that graph I posted with the red line and the green line? If crap like that is happening all the time, the red and green lines should diverge pretty drastically. Yet, they don't.

That would make quite a good T shirt (someone may have done it already, of course).

"FTP rigged it for me!"

Right. So, 'highly likely' does not equate to the definitive, 'It's not' statement, which you made previously. You can see that as well as I can. This debate is complicated and lengthy enough without apparently intelligent people like yourself stating as fact things which are merely opinions.

Also, nobody is saying you used the word 'definitively,' I'm saying you made your statement definitively.


Spadebidder's analysis was based, (I believe), on two sites and as you said 'flop textures' and a few other things. Given that there's hundreds, (thousands), of poker sites out there and infinite ways that their deals could be flawed, his analysis is really very small in the grand scale of things, don't you think ? Spadebidder could sit and prove within an inch of it's life that FullTilt has realistic dealing, but this wouldn't show us anything about whether Ladbrokes Poker, for example, had realistic dealing or not.

I don't think many of us have played on a great number of the available sites out there, as there simply isn't the time. So, for that reason, I don't think many of us are in a position to make sweeping general statements about the fairness of 'online poker,' as every site runs independently of one and other.


With regards to the four-of-a-kinds, you're right, I have no idea how often it should happen and imagine it's quite complicated to work out, given variables like how many hands you fold preflop, fold on the flop, hands which go to showdown, number of players involved in the pot, etc. Most people, like myself, probably don't know how often they should see this.

What I do know and other people suggesting this would also be more likely to know, is roughly the ratio of how often they've played online, to how often they've played live and might, like myself, feel that the ratio of occurrences of four-of-a-kind, for online to live, does not match the ratio of number of hands played. Make sense ? The same is often said applies to flops with 3 cards of the same value, (eg. 8, 8, 8).

I often read in forums that the playmoney games at Stars are rigged for more action. Stars Reps allegedly admitted it. Is this true or false?

Making a big deal out of someone forgetting to put the word 'probably' in a post is just a stupid distraction technique.

So he left out a 'probably'. Big deal. Why do you have to drone on and on and on about all these irrelevancies?

This is exactly why there are not more of these analyses publicised. Rigtards will always find reason why they don't apply to whatever is bothering them. We know that. They are ******ed. That's why they're called 'rigtards'.

We can make general observations because there are plenty of people playing on any given site and there will always be a few who could carry out a competent examination of the deal if they saw anything suspicious.

The fact that we do not get credible reports of anomalies within deals allows us to make general observations about the overall likelihood of any deal being rigged. That observation being: Not Very.

OTOH, anyone with a very basic grasp of probability will be able to work this out very easily.

We know that people keep coming up with these 'observations'.

We also know that not once has anyone come up with any credible evidence to back them up.

It's all just uninformed speculation based on selective memory and variance - and, occasionally, outright lies.

Seems unnecessary.

When people are playing with fake money they don't seem to need any excuse to provide as much action as anyone could want.

90%-100% seeing the flop is not uncommon. 70%-80% is typical.

Would make sense as it's presumably not illegal, nor regulated and it would encourage people to deposit and start giving the site their real money.

Would be pretty disgusting if they did do this though.

Only if you've never watched a play money table.

You're just trolling at this point. I'm more than willing to say "it's not" when I have 99.9% confidence in something, and will continue to do so. ONLINE POKER IS NOT RIGGED. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT IT'S NOT.

If you choose to continue nitpicking then it's no wonder you get anywhere in your debates with people. You're perfectly intelligent enough to get the meaning of what I'm saying, if you want to argue over the 0.1% of uncertainty I have, feel free to harp on that, but it's not worth wasting my breath over. I will not qualify my language for it.


This is utter baloney. First of all, the largest 5 sites/networks probably make up 90% or more of the total hands played anywhere. If people want to play at smaller fringe sites and worry about the deals there, be my guest, but enough of this crap about thousands of sites. In terms of sites with traffic there are very few. And if you want to start focusing on some little guy somewhere then just present the data, there surely won't be much of it though. So no, in terms of the grand scale of things, spadebidder covered it pretty well.


And yet they continue to talk about as if they know definitively that they see it too often.

I'm not sure what you'd like anyone to do about this. People's selective memory patterns really shouldn't concern anyone. If one thinks something happens too often statistically then they need to go into the data and show it. And not knowing how really isn't an acceptable response. LEARN HOW before going around complaining about it. People educated on matters such as these really aren't going to have the patience to deal with every person who makes unfounded allegations, nor should they.

And now we're back to saying online poker is not regulated. LOL, I'm done.

Good point.

I always add the 'probably' but that just because I'm generally pedantic.

(Plus it echo's those old lager adverts - 'probably' the best lager in the world.)

No, we're not.

I said PLAY MONEY games on PokerStars are 'presumably' not regulated, as there is no reason why they should be.

Don't twist what people have said.

Do you have any credible citation for your assertion?

If so, provide it.

If not, then stop being a jerk.

Making unsupportable allegations just marks you out as a dishonest fool.

In your mind people twist everything, yet you're more than happy to twist everyone else's words. You've gone out of your way to nitpick over irrelevancies. When I say I'm done, I mean *I* am done trying to reason with people who can't be reasoned with. No sense in arguing with blatant trolling.

To the prestigious NFuego20 ignore list we go.

Once again, we have one rule for the regulars who believe online poker dealing is fair and another rule for everyone else.

It's not constructive, it's not adult and it's not fair either.

This is nonsense.

Who do you believe is setting these rules?

All NFuego20 is saying is that he's not going to pedantically qualify 'not rigged' every time he uses the term because he's taking the entirely reasonable stance that any intelligent person knows perfectly well that he means that it's very unlikely to be rigged, what with the lack of any evidence to the contrary.

That is quite different to a rigtard who say 'it is rigged' because even if you allow that they mean 'probably', given the complete lack of any supporting evidence their position is untenable.

Why do you feel the need to keep up this perpetual mewling and whining like some snotty nosed little girl?

It really isn't impressing anyone.

Even your fellow rigtards.

Fated, it really is pathetic. It's not us, it's you. Trust me. I've seen enough blabbering and useless threads from you to last a lifetime. I really am done.