Funny because it is almost exclusively bad players who claim it is rigged because they just lost their roll. How does that factor into your theory?

Thanks for the answer Boba Fett.

I did feel there was some good points in his part 1,2 and 3 posts and its a shame to see them wiped.

Does it not seem a little strange to you that the same posters were continually disagreeing with Stephen hour after hour in that thread as if it was a personal matter for them.

i didnt know that PMs could be wiped.

BTW I think there should be a rule that any rigged conspiracy theory thread should have some sort of real mathematical evidence to support the claim. I think that would cut down on the horrible OP's like this one, but still leave room for debate. If they don't they should be locked...not because of the topic, but because they provide no insight at all and just waste time and space.

If they rigg the RNG to keep losing players around then losing players should be happy they rigg it.

don't worry, you can still see his "article" by going to the Real Deal Poker blog or right from their home page!

or at least dinosaur pics.

What about ice cream sandwiches?

Yes I think you are right. There will be players whose lose all the time due to their bad play and its easier for their ego to say its rigged rather than look at their play and try to improve. I 100% agree with you here, "the bad sportsman blames his equipment".

I believe some of the sites are rigged simply due to what I ve seen at the tables and through my own experience, strange bad beats at certain times. Unexplainable decisions by other players that result in them winning with runner runner or catching one or two outers, being rewarded by a lucky card when they ve made a huge mistake.

so 2008
if they didn't get rewarded with their five-percenter (you know that means FIVE TIMES OUT OF 100 it'll get there, right?) occasionally (probably 1/20 times or so) they wouldn't play.

today I folded J2o from EP. The flop was J high, the turn was a J and the river was a J. What could explain me folding pre-flop? Why on earth did I make that decision!!!?!?!?!

What do you say to the thousands of hand histories that have been analyzed that always seem to fall into correct levels of variance over large sample sizes? Personal experience arguments are extremely weak as they A) are always too small of a sample size and B) memory effected, ie. you remember bad beats, suckouts etc and don't remember the thousands of other hands that were played normally.

Wait, I'm confused...I thought dinosaurs=ice cream sandwiches.

I dont have the means/time/expertise to get the evidence. Evidence isnt everything. OJ killed his wife hired a clever lawyer and got away with it. The police arent even looking for anyone else why because they know he did it. People get away with bad things all the time because of a lack of evidence.

So your agreeing with me know saying it is rigged?

When I say bad decision I mean the Villain raising pre and then calling your large re raise pre flop. Villain hitting inside straight draw and calling your pot sized bet and hitting that Str 8 card, or shoving with J 10 on the 10 2 3 board when you ve made it clear you have overpair and the J or 10 comes too often.

When you are making a claim about something you better have some sort of evidence other than "this happened to me a bunch of times so it must be rigged"...

BTW, OJ was found guilty in the civil case...he didn't really "get away with it"...so bad example.

Absolutely not. There are likely many thousands of 2+2ers that feel the same way. Of those that post in the Zoo, the vast majority of them just can't be bothered any more. Most of them would probably be happy if everyone stopped arguing with the rigged OPs and let the threads die. There's a select few (I have to admit to being in this category sometimes) who are willing to continue bashing their heads against the wall for a while. Motivations?

1) Some are concerned about the integrity of the game they play either for a living or as a hobby. They don't like seeing the game's reputation hurt by unfounded allegations.

2) Some have a more direct stake. I'm sure a few of the posters that argue in these threads could be affiliates. I can only think of one that represents a poker site, Josem. Of course, he was making all the same arguments before he started working for Stars.

3) Some people just can't tolerate ridiculous statements and arguments not based in logic. Internet forums are full of people who enjoy debating.

Personally, I'm a little of 1) and a little of 3). One day I might fit into category 2) as well, who knows.

Stephen was a special kind of rigtard. I found him to be one of the most annoying ones yet, and that's saying a lot. The way he would fill the thread up with other peope's unsubstantiated allegations as if that proved his point, how he would pick and choose what he responded to, and how he would then accuse others of doing so when they actually hadn't, all made him extremely aggravating IMO. I'm quite pleased he is gone. Guys like him don't help anyone. They really hurt their own "cause" much more than they help it.

I think you are over estimating the ability/thought process of your run of the mill poker player. There are a lot of players that like to go for the big pot with a gutshot even if they know they are most likely behind 85%.

that is one of the worst analogies ever.
but they're rarely convicted of bad things WITHOUT it. funny how that works.

how do you not have time to gather the evidence, but you DO have time to post your suspicions and try to debunk every reasonable reply to your question?

this is what I said:
How you think that means I agree with you, I have no idea. But it does say a lot about your comprehension level.
when you can show, statistically, that the J or T (yeah, that's how us poker players type it) comes too often THEN YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING. A quick guide for you would be the quote of mine above - when a five percenter comes more than five times out of one hundred. But I'd really appreciate it if you would tell me if it happens say, 600 times out of 10,000 before ya bother us again.

Your the one going on about mailboxes bombs and Elvis,wtf has that got to do with anything.

I wish online poker was legit but I know after playing on and off for the last 5/6 years that it is and I'm sticking to live from now on.

Evidence can be manipulated/planted/destroyed/tampered with. It could be argued that evidence is irrelevant. $$$ talks more than evidence and some of these sites are making big $$$.

urge to alf rising...

Up until now, it seemed like you were one of those on-the-fence guys with an open mind. This post is terrible, though. Evidence is irrelevant? How are they tampering with your hand histories? Have you checked and noticed the results were different than what happened at the table?

Its often a tactic of people like you to attempt to belittle a poster, call them a conspiracy nutjob, insult them etc.

So Im bothering you am I. Im simply stating my opinion based on my own experience. You dont need to be here replying if you are getting bothered by this.

I hope your ok I wasnt looking to upset you.

you realize you just said you online poker is legit, right?

I assume you meant you know it's not. Great. Bully for you!

I don't get how you "know" it is since you never showed us any proof, but I hope you feel better sharing your feelings.

The rest of us adults have considered your opinion and will make our own decisions. It won't really affect you one way or the other if we continue to play online, will it?

As I suggested to your hero Stephen, perhaps you can find a Cigar Forum and tell them that you have a feeling that Tobacco is unhealthy. Maybe some of the people there will stop smoking and live longer. Then you'll be a hero!

It's often a tactic of dumb people who make unsubstantiated claims to insist they are being railroaded, even after they make obviously incorrect statements.

Rigtard: Ford is run by lizard people, Lee Iacocca bought a lizard robe from my brother.
Skeptic: Lee Iacocca didn't work for Ford
Rigtard: Oh, because you don't like my opinion you're going to attack me!

And if you want to state your opinion, do so and let it go. We read it. We stated ours. Move on.

Or, better yet, start a rigged blog and spend all your time (which is too precious to use gathering actual evidence) telling everyone your every thought on everything.

But since you didn't mean to upset me, I won't hold a grudge.

No I am not on the fence. I believe that some of the sites are manipulating the game in favour of the poorer players. How exactly they do it I dont know. If you have played over a million hands your stats are going to end up close to where they should.

So are you saying that because the stats are close to what they should be that the occasional hand hasnt been manipulated in favour of a so called "boomswitched".
account

What I think is going on is something like action flops are thrown in every once in a while and certain hands are altered in favour of poor players. This isnt going to have a massive impact on your database.