Seriously, no idea what's with all your hostility, or why you care what I do or don't play. I've played plenty of online poker in my life. Who cares?

Now, can we move on and get to the bottom of what you mean by "hacking scandals"?

Edit to add: Something I forgot to respond to in your last post - I never put words in your mouth. I said "If you're talking about compromised accounts", because I wasn't positive what you meant. As opposed to your post, where you said "First you think", telling me what I think, which was incorrect.

Did you ever think that if accounts there can be hacked, that maybe other things are susceptible too? Or that if they were already caught cheating in their casino, that maybe they'd be cheating in their poker room too?

Boba, send me a bitcoin address. I'll pay for your swiss chalet delivery tonight pal.

If I was an employee/manager/owner I'd play on other sites when I wasn't making sure the integrity of my own site's games were up to the highest possible standard. That's just me though. What the actual people who work there and own the site do on their own time is anyone's guess.

No I don't have 100k hands at 10/20. I think it would be ridiculous to assume one stake is rigged while the rest aren't. I have many more than 100k hands of data at other stakes.

I consistently win over a large amount of hands played. That's how I analyze the data. If I thought it was rigged I wouldn't play here.

If you want more information on how to know if something is rigged then visit the link Bobo provided you.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...dition-255990/

Please stop derailing this thread. Thanks.

So if you owned the site and could see people's hole cards, you'd spend as much time playing micro as you would high limit? Yes, ridiculous assumption!

You expect us to believe the conspiracy theory of the guy who has a new account, 12 posts and thinks it's rigged instead of the opinion of the high stakes pros that post here? They all have lots of data about the players in those games. If anything was fishy they would have posted about it. If there is one account, or even multiple that seem to be related, taking most of the money out of the games in a way that appeared to be a super user then the high stakes pros that play in those games would have noticed by now.

I've been nice enough to answer your ridiculous rigged claims respectfully. Please take the rest of your rigged claims to the appropriate thread until you can provide proof that it is rigged. Thanks.

Attack the post not the poster.
Most times when you encounter a poster with 50k+ posts, the odds are he knows LITTLE rather than a LOT. Take mmmutiny, a sharp who plays 10/20 NL vs. BOBO who apparently doesn't even gamble anymore.
But you want to mention my POST COUNT??

While I agree, that's a bit rich coming from you.

You were talking about hackers sitting at the high stakes tables, now you're talking about players' accounts being hacked.

I've yet to see a "my account was hacked" thread or post about where it was definitively determined the site itself was hacked. Typically, I believe that those cases are a result of something on the players' end - poor security on their part, phished account details, Trojan installed on the player's computer.

Is it possible that the site itself has been hacked? I suppose so. But if that's what's happened, I'm a little surprised we've never (that I can recall) seen a run of this kind of thing. TBH, I can't even recall seeing many claims of hacked accounts on Chico, relative to some other sites, but I could be mistaken.

Regardless, I'm not sure what makes you think those hacked accounts leads to and/or is related to hackers sitting at high stakes tables. Perhaps you can explain.

Could someone explain me how they analyze softwares to find out if they are rigged or not? What is the system? Does it only take into account all in equity, how often certain draws are hitting/randomness of boards in general? I would love to know if they check if there are unreasonable amounts of coolers at times. What I have experienced is that there are times for me where the amount of ridiculous coolers feels unreal and impossible to not be rigged.
Lets take spin and go's for example. Shoving Ax into higher Ax blind vs blind for 12bb and under etc. Does someone know?

There's no one "catch-all" analysis - such a thing wouldn't be possible. One needs to take a large sample of hands (usually from a tracker like PT or HEM), and test for each situation.

But why a site would choose to make less money by having more coolers is beyond me.

What do you mean when you say they would make less money?

In other games like EA games f.e theres dynamic difficulty adjustment. They change parameters in the game and adjust things in order to prevent players from getting frustrated or bored etc. Its in Pokerstars interested to keep as much people playing as much volume as possible. Why not hand over an unusual number of coolers to someone with a big winrate? Make bad regs and fish benefit from that. You dont think that makes any sense?

When players get all their money in the middle, one player (or more) loses their buy-in, thus ensuring they received less play for their money, and the poker site receives the least rake possible, as the rake is capped. Not only that, it would be the most noticeable rig - nothing grabs players' attention more than when they lose their stack, and they're always going to remember every bad beat they took that way.

I would think the ideal rig for a site would involve players constantly getting involved in smaller pots, trading money back and forth while the site slowly rakes it all away. Keeps players getting more value for their money and thus more willing to deposit more money, keeps more tables full, and generates more rake from each deposit.

ok i have seen a lot of things over the last few years but the last 200k hands on stars(100 buyins below EV while also getting coolered every hand) feel rigged
I'm literally losing every hand for 200k hands straight

I don't think literally means what you think it means.

But if it does, you now have rock solid proof that it is rigged, and should post your evidence.

Yep, this exact situation is why live poker rooms invented limit poker, because when they spread no limit games the weaker players got crushed quickly and the rooms got very little rake for their efforts. If the sites could make a game where everyone had to ante just enough to hit the rake cap and then allowed no more bets super popular, they would.

Im talking about spin and go's especially (Tournaments are kind of the same). The only factor is how much games you are grinding, nothing else. So it would make sense to manipulate games in order to satisfy as many players as possible.

Hello all,

I am writing this post to get some feedback from other players that use any of the winning poker network skins like ACR or BCP. I am having a hard time believing that they are operating with a true RNG and I wanted to get others thoughts on this.

Let me start by saying this is not a rant from a fish that took a bad beat and is now complaining because that won't do anyone any good. I also am a winning player that has made money on Black chip poker as well as betonline poker and withdrawn more than I ever deposited so I don't think I am too bad at poker. I have however tracked some things a lot of things on the betonline, bovada and winning poker network that a several standard deviations away from the norm that I am wondering if anyone else has noticed.

To describe my situation I am a senior in Chemical engineering and business at the University of California Berkeley graduating in 3 months and I have been player poker for about 4 years now. Aside from playing at stones cardroom in Sacramento before I transferred to Berkeley I mostly played on betonline over the last year depositing $100 and getting it up to at the highest 3K and then just getting kind of stopped from winning any more by the cards before I withdrew and tried my hand at bovada and Black chip.

the pattern that keeps seeming to happen is I get on a site and win at a very high rate at first over the first few thousand hands and then reach a point where it seems the sites recognize this and decide not to let me win anymore. It happened several times on betonline where after winning at a high winrate (20+bb/100) for 5-10k hands I then breakeven getting coolered or taking a bad beat after everytime I win money from someone that is making mistakes I would never make. examples being things like one time I had a streak of getting dealt KK vs AA 13 times without ever getting AA vs KK.

This happened several times on betonline and then I would leave for awhile and try another site like ignition and bovada where again the same pattern would happen. I win 1k or so in a week or 2 on playing 100NL and then I would hit a wall where no matter how well I played I could not win because of the cards being dealt.

When I would go back to betonline I would see this yet again where I would win at first and cards would seem to be fair and after winning at a high rate for a few thousand hands I would start to get limited by permanent "runbad" that woud last well over 20k hands.

I would use pokerdope to calculate variance and see that given the winrate I had over the first 5k hands even if that came from me running the top 1% luckest I could, I would have a true winrate that is incompatible with breaking even over 20k hands (hopefully you understand that analysis although its hard to explain typing). I decided this was proof the RNGs were rigged to stop winning players from winning too much and withdrawing.

because of this I withdrew my winnings and tried black chip poker where I deposited 750 and within 3k hands at 100NL I had got it up to 2k. I withdrew 850 to take my money back and continued playing but now I over about 15k hands at the cash games I am back to breaking even getting coolered nonstop and taking bad beats.

I understand variance and that bad beats happen in poker occasionally but the math of what has happened and the pattern I am seeing over more than 100k hands is pretty clearly not a normal distribution. And it is making me wonder if I am wasting my time on these sites trying to make money.

I am planning on moving to vegas after I graduate for the summer to play during the WSOP and when playing live I can deal with the variance fine because I know bad hands are real. but on these US sites it seems like it is not and they are doing what is obviously in their best interest and rigging the game so that losing players don't lose too fast and winning players don't win too much.

I know it is in their best interest to have everyone be even so they can rake all deposited money and it seems very much like that is what is going on with all the US sites that are not regulated to make sure this doesn't happen.

Has anyone had similar or differing experiences with these sites? Your thoughts and own stories would really help me figure out if I should just stop wasting my time after I make the first 1 or 2K on these sites.

While you may not be terrible, you're probably also not as good as you think you are. I say this partly because that's the case with many beginning players, but mostly because of some of the naive-sounding statements peppered throughout this post.

What things, aside from winrate?

The only reason that seems to exist for you when you can't win any more is that it's the cards; no mention of examining your own play. Perhaps you aren't good enough to win long term. Or since you seem quite obsessed about the cards you're getting, maybe when you have a bad run, it affects your play - either by tilting you, or getting you to put more money in when you know you're beat, just to prove to yourself that the "fish" sucked out again.

Or have you done a lot of self-reflection and study, and just not mentioned it?

While it's good to see that you're at least trying to be more analytical about this, it would be interesting to know more about how you came to this conclusion. Seems to me that it would be pretty tough to do when you don't have any idea what your true winrate is with all these small sample sizes.

They should happen a lot more than occasionally, especially if you're playing a lot of rec players. But if you can't get out of this mindset, you probably are wasting your time, regardless of whether it's rigged or not.

You'll find lots of people in this thread who've had similar experience, and others who have had differing ones. You'll also find many people who've had differing experiences in the individual threads for each poker site (but this discussion doesn't belong there). Really, you're going to need to decide on this for yourself in the end.

Yea I brought this up here before, but not with any real evidence. Always found it weird when I would run like god after i deposited on these sites. Running 200 up to 1200 or 2k and then boom i would get hammered after I cashed out a little. I think there is something to this and i have seen other players complain about new players run good. Would like to see and hear more about this...watch out for monte......

The thing about the "new player boomswitch" is that it should be trivially easy to prove. I mean, you're right about seeing other people complain about it - I don't think I've seen any rigged complaint come up more often, or at least not one that's as specific and easy to demonstrate as this. Yet for some reason no one ever gathers evidence of it. But perhaps that's because a lot of people who are aware of it are too busy, creating accounts on every site they can to take advantage of it.

Its nice to finally see someone else bring this up. Whenever I have taken breaks from playing on certain sides for a longer peroid of time and came back.. I ran amazng. Pretty much binked a small MTT in my first session every single time. Ran at 110 chipev for 1k games in spin and gos etc. This has happened to me on winamax, pokerstars.eu,pokerstars.es. So this is not only connected to depositing. It works after being inactive aswell. After a while the run changes to the worst thing you can imagine.

My theory : Lure inactive players/new players into the game. temporarily boost their run by making other players run worse. Repeat.

Forget about actually proving this easy to document rig if it actually existed, the frustrating part for riggies is they have yet to find a way to exploit this trend for profit. Easiest 6 figure income ever if true...

All the best.

LOL, what???

I can't speak with certainty to the "Boomswitch" but I can say it certainly feels that way to me as well.
I do run HEM2. I will do a similar search AA & KK. I am very interested in Learning my own Trend.

Regarding Run-God / Run-Bad. I totally agree.
BOTS these days are not same as the Screen Scrape play ABC poker play cards/position only of ten years ago.

There are BOTS linked with Hand Histories. I believe what you are running up against is Running Good against current crop of BOTS. After a period you have some identified exploitable weaknesses and then #runbad. You leave a skin for a few months and come back with a fresh rotated in BOT-crop.

You seem like a thoughtful player.
I would be interested in knowing what would happen if you created multiple accounts on ACR or Blackchip or Any Winning Network.
Run-good a few thousand hands and switch to different account on same skin and play a few thousand more.

Back in Day when I first started playing you could actually change your screen name on many sites. Haven't seen that option anywhere in over a decade. Seems like a simple option to incorporate on a site - yet no site does this (Reason?)

What does BOTS stand for? Brilliant Omaha Teaching Star? Bonanza Of Technological Stupendousness? Busted On The Strip?

Or are you referring to bots?

Not sure you even realized it, but this is the first time I've seen a new player Boomswitch/Rungood theory that actually has merit, or at least is rational. If I understand it correctly:

1. Bots have become prevalent
2. Bots keep player history databases to improve their play
3. Bots get to know your tendencies so they can exploit them
but then...
4. You then begin to run worse than you did when you started

The big flaw I see with this theory is #4, and "run bad" is not the same as just being outplayed by smart bots (or smart humans). If your opponents get better while you don't, then you will lose more, but you won't "run worse". Meaning your all-in hands won't fare worse, your board cards won't hit less often, etc. You will just get outplayed.

So you don't "run good" against bad players and "run bad" against good players (or good bots).