Yeah I don't understand not everybody has ignored him by now. It's like going to church saying god probably doesn't exist, it's futile no matter what you say.

This repost is for jungmit only, as he doesn't know how to scroll back to see earlier posts. The bolding of some of the words is by me in an attempt to assist his understanding of the short post. "Hands" mean hands and include hands folded on the river, whether or not the players who saw the river called any river bets.

"After seeing your data, I was quite concerned and did some research. I broke down and pulled the hand histories for a .50/1.00 holdem game for 2 hours of play. This was from hands played during a 2 hour time frame on table **** $0.50/$1.00 Limit Holdem from 11:00 p.m. EST - 1:00 a.m. EST on **** 17th and 18th.

Here is what I found:

Winning hand on the river -
No Pair - 4
1 Pair - 18
2 Pair - 14
3 of a Kind - 4
Straight - 6
Flush - 2
Full House - 8
Quads - 0
Straight Flush - 0
Hand did not go to the river - 14

I was actually able to see the hands where someone bet the river and everyone folded, so these are accurate "statistics".

This table was 9 or 8 handed most of the time, and out of the 70 hands, an average of 6.2 people saw every flop. So take this into account.

70 total hands
An average of 3.35 players saw every river. So you can see that many more hands will be made in this limit because the average number seeing the river is very high.

Of the 70 hands here is the %:
No pair - 6%
1 pair - 25.7%
2 pair - 20%
3 of a Kind - 6%
Straight - 8%
Flush - 2%
Full House - 11.4%
Quads - 0%
Straight Flush - 0%
No River - 20%

I don't know exactly what these statistics are supposed to be, but I can guarantee you what I have recorded above is in no way incredible or amazing. This is very typical."

I am on the riggie side but I have to say this makes no sense at all. If if it's not a game is skill how are the sharks being bad players then?

RIGTARD VS RIGRARD GO GO GO

Gimmedatdolla, I think that what Jungmit was trying to say is that sharks beat bad players. He just typed "being" instead of "beating".

But I have to say, I am curious to see a riggie vs riggie confrontation.

I realize the following statements will only make sense to people already familiar with how poker and statistics work.

In small samples, we expect to see "weird" stuff occur. In fact, it would be strange if nothing "weird" occurred. Randomness does not imply regularity. Randomness is linked to clumpiness (clustering).

jungmit:

What is your point?

That your post, below, is totally wrong:

and that Lego05's post, below, is right.

Not sure why this is going to matter tho. People made a full house 9% more then a flush. And he sees nothing wrong with it? He is also saying people who folded 72 may have hit a flush. Who cares tho? This is not really a help if u ask me. I still think its possible for a site to make things happen in streaks. As I said from the beginning the streaks are much more common online then a live game. When u get into a winning streak u can play blindfolded and not lose and wine u get in a losing streaks flopped quads won't hold up. U can't tell me this is normal.

You are not normal.

That's exactly what he is saying, and it explains why, with his method of checking, there are more completed full houses than flushes. Any pairs weren't folding, and one-, two- and three-flushes were, before or after the flop.

Streaks are just a gambler's superstition.

Ahh ... streaks are looking at the past and seeing when the same thing happened for a certain interval.

"Past" being the operative word.

jungmit thinks that if he's won the past few hands he'll win the next few. Until he transitions into a losing streak. (How he'll know this when he is blindfolded is another of his unique talents.)

Obviously that grandpa's whatever streak theory is silly as it would effectively make any player a super user who could print money, but that is just his latest iteration of being the lonely guy who wants any kind of attention in intermissions between riggies.

However, streaks in a way can exist, though not because of some silly rig RnG. Many times a passive player will start to play a bit more agressive after they have run hot for a bit, which likely does increase their chances of winning near future hands more. Similarly someone who tilt-folds (ie: thinks the world is against him and cannot win a hand) will likely lose more hands than normal due to their short term poorer play.

Another example would be what I saw in the Omaha MTTs years ago on Stars. If a tournament had 200 players then about half were regs and the other half were casuals with a chunk of those being the play every hand type of hand type of player. Assume about 20 of those 100% VPIP players were in the tournament. Odds were that most would be gone within the first hour, however it was very common for the chip leader to be one of them during the mid phases of the tournament because that was the one that got lucky/got hands and built a stack due to never folding.

The interesting thing was as the tournament got deeper their 100/0 style was not as bad as it was early on (when they often would lose massive pots post flop after lots of players saw flops cheaply) due to the blind structure. They were playing better despite themselves simply due to being the one in that tournament who ran well and built a stack, and then their play style became more appropriate (not that they knew it).

Now these players were also capable of being 1/12 with more than 75% of the chips and then finish 12th (which was nearly impossible for a reg), but certainly from their perspective it would seem like they were riding a "streak" that tournament, because

- They were the one that had the luck early on when most of their bad player brothers failed

- They started playing better (while not knowing this) which led them to win even more hands simply due to the stack dynamics.



I am sure there are many other examples of how streaks can happen due to the mentality of players or the structure of a tournament, but none of this is directly related to grandpa geezer's streak belief which if true would be easily seen and exploited for millions. He will just make up a new theory the next intermission and perhaps someone will waste time by trying to explain to him how 2+2=4 without success when that happens.

Jungmit, how old are you ?

No jungmit does not. But if u are trying to deny that streaks exist u are not realistic. U never ran bad ? U never ran good? All I hear is about the run good....as they say. Well u. Ant run good with a streak.

Actually no it wouldn't. U don't know u are in a streak until u are already in the streak. Winning or losing 1 hand will not define a streak. U need more to tell. When a winning streak ends it does not end with losing 1 hand. U will lose multiple times before u realise. The u get aces and figure this is it, cracked. At that point u may realise u are in a streak.

MONTROLLING

Older then you. Why do u ask?

Just out of curiosity. I am 23 for what is worth so it isn't that hard to be older than me on these forums :P

He is a couple generations older than you which is partially why you cannot relate/communicate with him, though most of that is due to his minimal understanding of basic concepts.



You said prior that you knew in advance which days you would win and which days you would not, and you were very clear that you could identify these streaks when they happen and in fact you only won at poker because you exploited them. You never explained why a streak would reset at midnight on your time zone, but then most of your stuff makes little sense.

Regardless, now you are claiming that streaks cannot be identified while in them, so that brings up the standard question you face - were you lying then or are you lying now? Obviously you will not answer, because you never answer direct questions in a direct manner, but it is always fun asking when you present the opportunities, because you do literally lie all the time.

As a side note, you did not understand my post that you commented on, but you never understand anything so that was standard. You probably will not understand this one either.

All the best.

Winning 1 day is not a streak tho. The word u are looking for is trend here not streak.
MONTROLLING

Feel free to give a specific definition of what a streak and trend are, and how long a streak lasts (min and max number of hands or time) and the same for a trend.

You are the one who makes up all sorts of theories about winning and losing streaks and trends without any proof, so this is all part of your personal imaginary science, and while that allows you to make up whatever terms you like whenever you like, it will help if you better define them, because no doubt you will change that at later times when you forgot what you said earlier .

Obviously asking you to define things in a specific manner is a trap, because you tend to contradict yourself a lot and you do lie all the time, so the fewer specifics the better from your perspective. Given that, I know you will not answer any of these specific questions with specific answers - no need for us to do a prop bet on that one! Still, it is fun to ask to see if you come up with a new way to avoid questions, which is a bit more entertaining than watching other shills try to have a logical debate with you or explain a simple concept to you. No idea why they continue to try that.

All the best.

One would assume that this thread would reflect the opinions of the poll. Hundreds of different people have posted in this thread their experience with online poker and why they feel its rigged yet a handful of people on the non rigged side sit on this thread and tromple their posts with the same old redirect, sites make so much money why would they rigg it, you just suck at poker bla bla bla. Just once it would be refreshing to see one person on the non rigged side come in this thread and share their experience and reasons why they dont feel its rigged.
On a side note without analysis on a crap ton of hand histories or the laughable way the cards fall in online poker. Has anyone in the hisory of online poker ever once deposited and immediately bust out? It seems to always follow the same script deposit then double ,triple or quadruple up followed by a brick wall of unreal bad beats where your cards are worthless and nothing goes your way.

I was interested in jungmit's theory on streaks in online poker and how streaks clearly show that online poker is rigged.

To help me better understand how often streaks occur purely at random, I pulled 100 random number flips (say 1=Heads and 2=Tails) from R. Here is the sequence of the 100 random numbers.

1 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 2

Anybody see any streaks in that sequence? Maybe random number generators are indeed rigged!

PS: in response to post just above this one, the "non-rigged" camp has consistently demonstrated that purported "evidence" of rigging can easily be explained by the simple straightforward "variance" (streaks, clumps, non-regularity, etc.) inherent in random processes. See this very post!

Lots of riggies create many posting accounts to this thread (when old ones get banned or to troll). The Thai hooker riggie had dozens of accounts.

One would assume with all of that multi posting account effort that riggies could get the riggie side of a riggie poll in a riggie thread to be the majority, but riggies tend to underachieve.



If it was rigged in nearly all of the ways that riggies propose then it would have been proven by now easily, and/or someone behind a rig would have talked by now. That is why I don't believe the RnG is rigged for any of the major sites at this point, because if it was it would have been proven by something other than riggie memories and special super powers. People like you have been in this thread for a long time as well, so I guess I would ask what you think is incorrect with that belief structure at this point.


Tons of people. Look at the crazy sharkscope graph thread here and you will see many examples. Not sure why riggies think this is impossible when it is commonplace, perhaps you can explain.

That script would be almost as easy to exploit for a ton of money as grandpa's streak/trend theory.

All the best.

I see that only about 9100 people voted on the poll. That is a very tiny little sample, don't you think ? From what I understood from previous posts, multiple people created multiple accounts that voted yes in the poll. I've also understood that some people voted yes as a joke in the poll. Not that the poll really matters, but even if it did, if my eyesight doesn't lie to me then the majority voted "no".


I would be lying to you if I said that I never asked myself the question " Is it rigged?" after a few months of playing online. What I did when this question popped up in my head is do a little bit of research. Heard of this forum, that it's the biggest and the best in regards to poker ( live or online ) and asked a few questions and read through the threads concerning this matter.


After my research I discovered that along the years a lot of people have made a lot of allegations of how a RNG might be rigged without having any evidence to back them. I have also discovered that some people did statistical studies on multiple billions hand histories and came to the conclusion that the deal was fair. More than this, I've also seen that some people that are very good at maths/stats agree upon the fact that if the sites were ever to rig the game in such a way that it's profitable for the site ( and of course by this it means that it's detrimental to the players overall ) it would be detectable.


I find it quite astonishing that people good at maths/stats analyzing the data over the years haven't been able to discover a rig in the RNG if there ever was one. This is why I rest assured that the online game is not rigged and if it ever were, they will be caught, either by the players or by the regulatory jurisdictions. There isn't such a thing as the perfect crime. And I haven't even mentioned how would something that is/would be International Fraud hasn't been detected and at least revealed if not shutdown to the world in about 20 years ?


"Has anyone in the hisory of online poker ever once deposited and immediately bust out?"

Me. Twice in a row. It wasn't much. A hundred dollars each time. But still, didn't double up, went straight busto. This highlights my bankroll management skills a little while ago. And of course, a ton of other people.



The tenth number was a 2 followed by 1 1 1 1. The sixty-third number was a 2 followed by 1 1 1 1 1 1. This is clearly not random and it is indeed rigged. Grab the axes, prepare the boats and set sail to the Isle of Man. Who's with me ?