I can afford to waste money!!! sick brag I know.

Yea. I didn't read OPs full post that he did on my thread but I just read it now.

LOL at thinking you having Q3 and hitting two pair on the flop and getting all in vs them having KK and pairing the board is rigged at all. Hope you are trolling.

uh, this is kind of important.

he was the only player with a stack above mine, switched to table the hand before. Have you ever won a big sum on there?

ever won a big tournament or do you work for them?

Yes I have. and occasionally ill play the slots for .20-1$/spin during tournaments if im only playing 1 or 2 at the time and I have won random jackpots twice on there.. one for 3000 and one for 7200 so I know those are legit as well.

OP doesn't win and site must be rigged, seems logic. Even the mandatory accusation of people responding, that don't agree with OP, must work for the site is there.

my impression

Q3 loses to KK so it must be rigged. That must be the worst tinfoil hat online poker conspiracy theory I've ever heard. How are you in the flop with Q3? Did KK open limp into your BB late in a tournament or did you make the mistake of calling a preflop raise with it?

No matter why you came in with that crap start hand, you're slightly worse than a 3-1 favorite in that flop. That is hardly a bad beat, especially since you were dominated in the hole.

Small raise, I was on the button & suited.

lol...but it was soooooooooted

ha^

Cool story bro.

https://youtu.be/XOILKHmZBwc

Live type of poker is one solution (a real/robot dealer, 1 to 2 tabling per limit, minimum limit 200 or 400, some higher rake). The other is a tracker that checks the complete randomness for you (at least 1/3rd of players figure to buy it); it tells you the EV results also when you are not all in. Till then, you have this current situation and sooner or later would do better to stick to live games if you have that possibility with a reasonable rake.

Yeah why didn't they think of that before. All it takes is to completely solve poker and the entire game tree....

Moron.

bovada is rigged 100%. it took me 3+ months to receive a payout. i believe they intentionally delayed my payout so they could drain the remainder of funds in my account. i couldn't buy a hand for 3 months... it got to the point where i was scared to bet top pair because of getting ass rammed by suck-outs so many times. I believe they operate with bots and employee monitoring/rigging. since there are anonymous players there is no way to track anyone or know anything. they can monitor your account 24/7. and they are based offshore which means free roam.. no tracking from regulated gambling what so ever. If i could sue them i would but unfortunately once you download the software and accept the agreements theres nothing you can. Hopefully the U.S government will get involved and lock all these monkeys up.. but bovada keeps it low-profile and stays under the radar.

Thanks for the update, gambling addict.

You appear to have exactly the worst personality for poker.

April 18th: Then you lose a 70/30 hand therefore rigged. Note also the villain got trip 10s when all he needed was one 10 on the board, thus Bovada adding insult to injury! This is a ridiculous exercise in seeing adversity as an organised plot against you.

Apr 23rd: But it wasn't the last straw - you kept on playing at a site you now 'know' to be rigged & 11 days after the above you post something that shows [on top of your other errors] that you don't understand about rake.

May 4th: Are you the guy who has to touch the paint when you see a "Wet Paint" notice? I bet you are - Yesterday you run a test by burning $50 at the Blackjack despite 'knowing' it's a rigged game:

Yesterday: So you believe that Bovada knows you'll blow your funds if they delay payout. And judging by your Blackjack experience they know their mark & furthermore you are STILL playing losing poker at a site you 'know' to be rigged.

Today: I believe you shouldn't be gambling/playing poker - it's not enjoyable for you & your posts are a misery these days. I think you may well be a gambling addict as Obvious Shill Alt says. I hope the amounts of money are irrelevant leisure money. Get out of this nonsense.

It's in his location!

Thanks. I saw that "G.A" & read it as Georgia, USA

But then what does the A stand for?

GA is the acronym for Georgia [I assumed the "." between the letters was The Kid Stu's mistake & he meant GA not G.A]

Yes, I know - I'm just taking a(nother) shot at him. You know and I know, and neither of us are even from the US - you'd think a guy who lives there would have that worked out by now!

Hi random people from the internet.

I was just scouring the net for juicy gossip on the state of on-line rigged poker and I happened upon this thread in google results. I see this site is generally biased towards the notion that, against all forms of common-sense, on-line poker is not rigged. And is so biased that the moderators have decided to accumulate all opinions and ideas on the topic into one huge megathread that no human being will ever read in its entirety and where a selection of laughing-boys all queue up to diminish the latest accusation, mostly with paltry on-liners designed to quickly assign each new relevant post to never-to-be-read-again page 345/756 (or wherever this thread is at).

So, for what it's worth, and just in case no-one's mentioned it before, and maybe to give the shills something keep them busy for another day I'll explain a few things about poker, variance and human nature.

Firstly, poker is a very boring game. No, really, it's actually incredibly dull. A group of people sit around a table and once every half an hour put some chips into the middle of the table. Even on-line in supposedly 'turbo' games it's crushingly dull watching dead space for 2 minutes as everyone takes 10 seconds to fold or check in order to run down the clock for strategic reasons. Or just because a couple of them get disconnected every hand. If on-line poker was a genuine mirror to real poker then the vast majority of hands would be people folding while the small and big blind fought it out in a series of checks and min-raises. Occasionally someone raising on the button, or under the gun if they've got great cards etc etc. Maybe once every dozen hands two people will have what they think is the nuts and go at it, but the flop will rarely favour both and the river will rarely be seen in most cases of aggressive heads-ups.

What makes on-line poker different in this regard? People are more willing to dump their load. I'm happy with this argument and it is an understandable argument. However, just because people are more willing to dump their load, this does not mean that there will be more scoring hands as a result. This does not mean that flops and rivers will fall more often. It usually means there's more cash in the pot for the player who knows what they're doing. This is, after all, how professional poker players make their living, this is the whole reason why professional poker exists as a thing in the first place. If professional poker players just played professional poker players every day then they'd just cycle money round to each other. They don't, they wait for games where morons are dumping money illogically.

Where on-line poker shafts this concept up the proverbial is that in on-line poker the resulting flop and river cards will, almost universally, provide some action for all the hands left playing in the pot. I say almost universally because it cannot be universal as that would be too obvious, there would be no visible 'variance' if that was the case. Occasionally, as a minority, there will be nothing for you in a flop. These are actually the best hands, as these are the hands that allow you to fold appropriately. The majority (of those that are left), however, will see some action. Even if they are drawing dead, they might get a river 5 to an otherwise queen high hand, just to say "we recognise you are in the post but there's nothing we can do for you now, but, hey, we tried, you just left your all-in too late".

Variance... Variance, variance, variance. How wonderful this term is. Mathematical variance only adheres to strict rules over a huge sample size. If you play 10,000 hands you will see pocket aces lose to 9 2 off suit xyz amount of times. Therefore, as long as our algorithm produces a correct'ish number of 9 2s beating AA over 10,000 hands then the system is not rigged. However... one hand can have any variant possible. One hand does not have to adhere to any long-term statistical rules. One hand can, and has been, a Royal Flush beating Four Aces. One hand can, and has been, an 8 high beating a 7 high. One hand conforms to no rules whatsoever.

The primary rules that one hand obeys to are something called human nature. What are the statistical probabilities of a situation where the preflop situation is two people all-in, one with 9 2 off-suit and one with AA. Before you calculate the exact number times a 9 2 off 'can' beat AA you fisrt have to calculate the possibility of that situation occurring in the first place.

I'm a human player. I don't just mean I'm human, well... dur... what I mean is that I very rarely play the cards alone. I'm mostly playing the person. Are they steaming? Are they new to the table? Do they respect my bets? Do they disrespect my bets? Are they a habitual raiser or a habitual checker, etc etc. These factors consume my mind more than my cards.

Now, how many times would I all-in with 9 2 off suit? How many times would an opponent all-in with 9 2 off-suit? How far into a flop would a 9 2 off go before giving up to the relentless raises of AA, from player with a respected table presence? Now the numbers are looking very thin indeed aren't they.

Now you look at the statistics and if you see a site where there is the 'correct' numbers of 9 2 off-suits beating AAs in all-ins then the fact that the numbers are 'correct' is proof that they are rigged. The numbers shouldn't be 'correct', they should be infinitesimally rare occurrences.

So why are people all-in'ing with crap so heartily? Why are people so unabashed to go all-in and raise happy? It could just be because they're on-line and 'don't care'. But when I play chess on-line, people still care. When I play RISK on-line, people still care. People are primarily motivated by ego, they want to win. They are pissed off at coming 2nd, even if second pays $1million. They might not care later, but while they're playing they care. They will be doing everything in their power to get 1st.

So "because it's on-line" doesn't answer the whole question. People are learning creatures. They mimic what they see works. The whole reason people play with such abandon is precisely because they see it work. And not because they've just seen it work once, but because they've seen it work countless times. That guy just won a $10,000 dollar stack going all-in with A-5 off-suit and he beat a K/Q suited, a pair 9s and an AJ off. "wow, he was lucky", he thinks when he sees it the first time. However, after playing in 5 or 6 tournaments and seeing it work... 5 or 6 times... all of a sudden that guy now sees A-5 off as an all-in hand. He has been taught to play with abandon.

So on-line rigging only has to tweak ONE HAND every tournament - remember that one hand has zero statistical rules - at a 'crucial' time in the game, and 4 people have been indoctrinated into considering A-5 a good all-in hand. Resulting in more A-5 all-ins, many of which will fail, providing the required long-term average, but it was that one 'crucial' hand that really had people watching the table... teaching them bad habits. If people still 'play so badly they deserve their results' after 100,000 hands... then it would suggest there's a problem with the teacher, because even an 80 IQ can 'get pretty good' at chess if they cram it.

Rigging just the one hand means nothing in the pool of long-term statistics. But rigging just 'that one very important hand' means everything in the long-term rationale of the player.

When you have player after player coming in here to moan about the 'noticeability' of the amount of times their AJ loses to A7 just think about the amount of people who look from the other perspective and imagine A 7 as a good hand, comparable to AJ.

I've played on-line poker for years. There's no anger here though. At least, no anger from a monetary loss perspective. And It's the same for practically every on-line poker site. I only say practically because I, quite obviously, haven't tried every single one, and if there is a genuine site out there then I would hate to tar them with the brush of the statistical majority.

I'd love to share an anecdote with you of one single hand, but I know full well that if I do that the local trolls will 'state' (not conjecture, but state), that I've based my entire essay on that one hand. This would not be true. I would like to share a hand because it's interesting, because it shows why on-line poker fails so hard at being 'real' poker.

It was a cash game. 2c/4c. Nothing exciting. Just having fun. Anyway this guy to my left likes to raise. He's sensible, mind you, all good play. He's folding and betting and mixing it up good. But anyway, I started to go to work on him. Psychologically. An irritation here, a raise there, an outrageous bluff, shown to full humiliation, some words of banter etc etc etc. Anyway, finally I had him where I wanted him. I'm all-in with A-picture suited, he's all-in with A-number off. Dominated. Red-faced. A game of poker has been played and won. Alas... the final river card was... yeeeeees, you've guessed it. Do I even need to say?

All that work. All that effort. All that fun. All for nothing because, yes, sorry guys and gals for the defence, the players have to be made aware that A-number off is a good all-in. And this kind of thing is not 'isolated', it is only 'isolated' by the concept of one-hand zero rules variance. A teeny rig to have gigantic consequences.

Because the stats aren't just "how many times can an A-number off beat an A-picture suited?" The stats are as above + "how many times will a human being end-up in that situation where that situation has been both planned and built-up towards between two players who are, for one hand only, heads-up?"

So you see my anecdote isn't just the sole reason for the essay, it's a visible example of why 'good' players notice how on-line poker is rigged. This is how 'good' players play... permanently. Every hand. But that final 'one hand' is the one that matters. It's because certain situations, that are bread and butter to professional players, are, for some 'unknown' reason, unable to be replicated in an on-line environment where, supposedly, it's the exact same game as an off-line equivalent.

Because computers don't and can't understand the human element. No matter how hard they try. And if they are trying... then they're definitely rigged.

What makes me angry is not the money. It's not the shameless people who profit, after all, well played ... it's not even the relentless attempts to post unending rubbish at anyone who notices. What really gets my goat and what motivates me to write is:

Why is there not just one site, just one place in the eternal ether of everyone, just one place where an on-line poker site can flop out normal regular poker, so all of us with this melancholic desire to waste our lives watching people fold cards can have somewhere to go and share open banter with the occasional eye-opening fun pot to break the monotony of our existence? You'd think there'd be plenty of custom for such a service, a service so reputable that anyone could check the code at any time and there were neutral monitors of said code at all times.

But then... maybe there just isn't the market there to make such a venture possible? Maybe that's why? I dunno, has anyone ever tried?

p.s.

re: 'Prove it' - I ask anyone who asks this to themselves 'prove' that they are not in some way shills or shareholders or any other non-playing beneficiary of these sites. I have no doubt your ability to 'prove' stuff is up to the job