Aaaaand he's ignoring you

Why does this matter?

They want to play the fish, ldo.

In theory it would help verify what you are claiming. People in this thread lie all the time (even if they believe their own lies).

Very few riggies ever do much more than you are doing - whine about something with no evidence, so nobody really expects you to provide any - when they ask it is just to see how you will avoid the question.

Anyway, your next report should be along the lines of "I am happy that I never play on Stars any more, I even closed that account. Now I only play on 888." We can waste time asking you why you waste time losing at 2NL at Stars instead of crushing 20NL+ on 888, but generally that is pointless.

Odds are you will continue to lose at 2NL on Stars and whine about it, as perhaps you enjoy being a whining loser. Your choice in the end.

All the best.


P.S. LOL - you cannot beat 2NL!

I might play some 30nl on 888 as well. My sn is 'Husker'

Despite him making it increasingly obvious he's just a (bad) troll, I bet this is how a lot of riggies actually think.

So basically, if you are winning at a site then it's fine, but if you're losing then it's rigged?

Nearly all riggies actually believe the opposite of what he is posting in terms of how it is rigged. They all believe it is rigged, so I suppose why worry about the details.

Anyway, he is a dude that claims to not be able to beat 2NL which is funny in and by itself, whether legit or not.

This fish is a 7bb/100 winner on a non-rigged site.

888 cash tables aren't tracked on sharkscope, so I don't see how providing my screename would 'verify' anything. I've already posted lifetime graphs which prove I'm a winner on 888.

The reason why I wanted to build a bankroll on Stars was because 888 limit you to 6 tables. So if I can load 6 tables on 888 then maybe 2 zoom tables on Stars, I can get a lot more volume in. However I wasn't aware of the Pokerstars rig before. Never had anything like this on 888, the cards are dealt fairly over there.

Don't you think it's highly unlikely a 20nl winner can become a 2nl loser on Stars? Sure you can say Stars has the tougher playerpool, but if it was to the extent that 20nl on 888 was softer than 2nl on Stars, guess what...every 2nl grinder would move to 888 and make 10x the cash. Clearly I should be able to beat 2nl on Stars, but I can't because it's ****ing rigged.

I don't think there is any way to analyze hand histories to figure out *when* they were randomly shuffled.

In that respect, it is exactly the same as a real physical deck of cards: if you shuffle two decks, use one immediately and the other a month later, they are both basically random.

Does that make sense?

It's pretty likely that the game is played a lot differently at 2NL and the playing style that will win would be different. Some games you can play super tight ABC poker and win, some games you have to be very loose aggressive to win, etc. Just because you know how to beat one game doesn't mean you know how to beat another one.

I'm not some idiot who only plays one way, I do adjust according to the tables.

On 888, I've built my bankroll from a no-deposit bonus, starting from 2nl. So even if the games are different at Pokerstars 2nl compared to 888 20nl, I've already shown I can beat 2nl games.

Bottom line is, someone who beats a stake 10x that of 2nl should not have any problems crushing 2nl on any site out there, even Pokerstars. Let's face it Stars 2nl regs can't be that good or they'd have moved up, wouldn't they?

What's your explanation behind the fact my redline is negative on 888 and positive on Stars, and vice versa for blue line? The only explanation for that is I never get dealt a hand on Stars so I end up having to bluff more, and river rigs screw my blue line over.

Perhaps you should stop bluffing players that cant be bluffed and calling river bets just to "prove" that it's "rigged"?

Guy has to me the most dedicated troll ever, even creating posts in beginners questions while not answering to most of the replies.

I have to bluff. Don't you understand - I NEVER get dealt a hand on Stars. I never flop a single ****ing thing. If I didn't bluff I'd be check folding every single time.

And the rare time I do actually catch a pair, Stars is sure to give villain his 3 outer river card to screw me over. Complete BS. Such crap never happens on 888, or at least it doesn't happen beyonda reasonably expected amount. I totally get that sometimes a 3 outer will make it - I just don't expect it to happen 75% of the time which is what happens over on Stars.

Makes perfect sense and it was the point I'm making, I just wanted to get it agreed to upfront. Also the difference in a real deck and this hypothetical virtual one is that the real one has a one off deal opposed to the virtual one, which can be stored and reused at a later date. To put it another way, if playing at a live table with a real card deck we can be fairly certain that deal is not predetermined, however with the virtual one we have no way of knowing that using individual hand analysis.

Now using that agreed premise that HHs won't detect predetermined outcomes as long as they were initially/originally achieved through a random process, I'll work from there to try to find out if there are methods to exploit that "blind spot" in HH. I think we all can agree that SuperUsers on anon sites could, which while disturbing, isn't "rigging" the deal. However it does disprove the constant assertion that HHs is a catch all against SuperUsers. So when someone wonders if they have been cheated by a SuperUser, people should stop falling back to the default position of, "use your HHs to prove it", at least on anon pokersites. Also to the constant position of "if HH can't prove it your can't observe it" I disagree. Using the same SuperUser premise on an anon pokersite, a player observes several different players over time, on different tables, make plays like these http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/show...=12075548Using they would be observing SuperUsing but HHs couldn't prove it.

Focusing on a "rig", I find it shortsighted for anyone to base their confidence in the lack of a "rig" being used, on the absence of HHs detecting one. It would make common sense that if any pokersite offering HHs intended to rig the deal in some way, that the first goal would be to avoid detection through HHs. That's like someone saying they trust their bank to never cheat them because it would be obvious in their ledger/bank statement, all while banks cheat them in other unseen ways, like using their money to create other money out of thin air many times over and only compensating them a very small percentage.

This thread and likely debate as a whole, has been centered around "I observed something online that makes me suspicious of rigging", "prove it", "how?", "HHs", "I can't using HHs", "then what you observed wasn't rigging". So again, I'm attempting to establish a foundation for an argument against individual hand analysis being a catch all for detecting a "rig", then work my way from there, if possible. Then that would inherently dispel the notion that players can't observe a rig that HHs can't prove, like with SuperUsers, which can hopefully further this "debate".

Please use common sense to explain how a rig could be undetectable in hand histories.

To be undetectable over a large sample size, the deviation from what is expected in a random deck would have to be so small that the "rigging" would have no discernible effect on the typically small sample sizes that most players experience.
That is to say, if the rig is so subtle that it's undetectable and has no major effect on players, what's the point of doing it?

Most of the rigtards in this thread are sure they've spotted "obvious" anomalies in small samples, but you seem to be arguing that there could be tiny anomalies in large samples. I'd argue that if these tiny anomalies existed, they would be indistinguishable (in the eyes of a player) from a truly random deck.

I think you're precisely wrong.

In a B+M environment, there's no record of the hand after the cards are thrown away. You can't even try to do any analysis on the random shuffling because you have no information to work with.

What do you mean by 'anon pokersites' here? This phrase doesn't mean anything to me.


This doesn't make any sense. The purpose of any 'rig' must be to alter the cards. Therefore, if you're altering the cards, the record of those cards must also be altered. Therefore, any 'rig' must be reflected in the HHs.

No, your analogy is not what you're describing in the previous paragraph. A more accurate analogy would be a murder where there's no dead person.

If there's a murder, then someone has to die. You can't start with the premise of a murder happening... but with no dead person. Because if that's the case, then there's no murder. The idea is obviously nonsensical.

If you're going to have a murder, you must have a dead person. If you're going to have a 'rig' then you must alter the outcome of the hands. You can't have it any other way, because otherwise it makes no sense.

No, it's not.

I've played well over 15,000,000 hands online and I know what variance is. You don't, and you have no idea. You are an ignorant fool. Literally. (I'm not usng that term as an insult.)

You have a preconceived idea of what should happen, but you are not experienced enough, not good enough, and not smart enough to know better. You are close-minded and have little chance of recognising facts and evidence put in front of your face. You are the poker equivalent of a religious fanatic.

You need to "see the light" and completely re-wire your way of thinking. Instead of dismissing what I'm saying, you need to allow yourself just a brief moment to ask yourself "Is there any chance that there is any truth in what he's saying?" Unfortunately for you there is virtually zero chance of you beng capable of doing this.

Amen.

Fine in theory, very unlikely in practice. Sample size, small difference in skill levels between sites, and [lack of] OP's ability is all that is at play here.

Well that's what I'm hoping to do or lead up to at some point if possible but it's not something I believe to be so simple as to snap my fingers and figure out at anyone's whim. If such a rig is at least possible, I would think considerable thought went into it so considerable thought would likely be required to expose any portion of it.

This assertion keeps being made and I keep asking where is it proven out? Is there any link or something that I can be directed to that offers a formula or explanation for how much manipulation can occur to originally random outcomes before they can be proven to be no longer random, using something equivalent to HHs? Until it's proven that a rig undetectable in HHs isn't profitable enough to bother with, no one should be just accepting that as fact.

I continue to disagree with this because in the link I posted earlier, players were observing obvious cheating, in regard to another player being able to see their hole cards but had it occurred on an anon pokersite, they couldn't of proven it through HHs. So likewise, IF there is a method to rig the deal without it being proven in HHs, players could very well be observing it.

I don't know how we got crossed up here but I will try it again. In the B+M environment, using a real deck of cards it's obvious that they are not using hands that were dealt before because it's live, in real time. However with a virtual card deck, it's possible to have hands that are not being dealt in real time, that have already been dealt before hand, with no way of HHs denoting any difference.


pokersites with no player names, ie Bovada.



Huh? Maybe I'm missing something but how is that an explanation or rebuttal to that, the first goal would be to avoid detection through HHs? Are you claiming it's impossible to alter the cards in anyway that couldn't be proven in HHs or is it your position that they can be altered and undetected but not enough to matter? Either way, again what is the proof or method behind this claim, other than "because I say so" or "that's how online poker cheating has been uncovered in the past"?


LOL, my bad for starting the analogies because they seldom go over well, especially on a message board, so I'll just say I see it more as a murder with no body or at least one with any indisputable proof of foul play, rather then one where no one died.

Then why not let them come play you and take their money too?

I think that choosing the boogieman behind the curtain as your first explanation for losing without exploring the dozens of more likely reasons, is a lazy copout with no logical basis.