Thread started out downhill.
I fail to see the connection between the two, other than the sort-of rhyme. Cup cakes are quite awesome though.



(In before ice cream sammich)
Yup pretty much. Here's how that post should be:
Here's a better variation:

In after "E-Harmony is Rigged".

OK, it's been 12 hours. Proof or GTFO.

Firefox is rigged, ldo.
wat

yes I was being sarcastic...

PS is most likely as rigged as Absolute!

Yes, let's have a laugh at you talking to yourself.

And because you are a ******ed idiot.

You come on here with lame theories that have been aired 1000 times before and then when people analyse those theories and demonstrate their falaciousness you start whining about people performing a logical analysis as if that were a bad thing and indicative of some sort of conspiracy.

Yes, if you continue to come on here and spout rubbish you will continue to have your ******ed assertions mecilessly exposed.

Just as you have by the golfing community in your 'steven mears' guise (and God knows how many other long suffering communities that have to put up with your hare brained witterings).

Essentially you are just a joke now.

It's funny to watch you comming back time after time with nothing new and getting ****ted by every serious poster here.

Why don't you set up a new account and come and give yourself a bit of support?

Even if they are not the same person the PMs would be fun to read. Rigtard and rigtard discussing rigged poker with no voice of reason chipping in. Oh I can just imagine some of the conversations.

Please post the PM's tk, I'm sure they would be classics.

Two pieces of major BS in this email.

1. "We have nothing to gain by favouring one player over another". O f course they do, it would be foolish to allow the sharks to clean out the fish. Do you think they get 200000 players a night because they ve allowed the sharks to clean out the fish. I dont think so.

2. " Lets assume a pokerstars employee gets sick of it and releases compelling evidence". Well that would be smart to let every employee in on the scam wouldnt it. Staff come and go so it would be great for them to have a load of staff running around outside their employment knowing its rigged. Only the owner/very senior management and I assume very well paid software programmer are in on it. Just a handful of people, certainly not low level employees like Josem or qpw for example.

Also the first line.

" Our company makes profit by rake and registration fees". Exactly! More players = more profit. Keep fish in the game and dont let sharks win what they should = more rake/fees.

Nothing to gain by favouring one player over another, Please! What you have to gain is a billion dollars or so.

You may be surprised to hear that I agree with you to a certain extent. There would be some financial reasons to rig games so Stars reply is simply what you would expect them to say.

Where me and you differ is:

1. there is ZERO evidence to show they are.
2. If they did rig it players HH's would prove it. There are gazillions of HH's out there and the only evidence I have seen is that it conforms to expectations.
3. the sites already make millions in profit so while there may be more to be made in the short term by rigging and cheating this is far far outweighed by the fact they have far more to lose when they got caught.

1. Correct.
2. Not so sure we ve all seen players with ridiculous downswing and terrible beats but the problem is the word "variance", any bad run can be blamed on variance. Ive suggested that say 20 accounts being opened by same player with same conditions for say 10k hands and results analysed looking for boomswitch or initial luck could go a long way to proving a sites legitimacy. Though its against the rules to multi account of course. What could be considered evidence though? When everything unusual is summed up by "hey, thats poker" or "variance".
What evidence would convince you Rek beyond a reasonable doubt. What would it take?
3. Greed. Just look at some of the major corporations in the world. Oil companies being the no.1 example. Companies simply dont stop when theyv emade a bit, they want it all.

Most of us don't need a "beyond reasonable doubt" all we are asking is for something over an extended period or something that is abnormal. If you, or anybody else, actually came on here and said "hey guys, look at these figures what do you think" we will tell you. If it's so wrong then people can delve deeper and we can all look at our results and see if a pattern is developing.

All we get though are a few bad beat stories and these happen to every player and are actually expected. If they never happened I'd be the first shouting rigged.

I don't really know what you mean by 20 accounts for the same player and tracking the results but there would be nothing wrong with getting 20 players to sign up to a site and come back after an extended period of play, present the results and talk about that.

But the oil companies, like all companies, are formed to make as much money as possible. The majority of these do that in the most legitimate way they can. The rogue companies that break the law or cheat their customers will eventually fail because they get found out. Evidence eventually comes to light and its this evidence we seek. Surely you can see how unfair it is to say to any company "I think you are breaking the law, I have no evidence though on anything but can you prove you are not?"

Sooper, I am probably wasting my time here but you were at least asking questions and I am assuming you are just someone that has doubts rather than an out and out rigtard.

Without evidence what do you expect to happen? There are more losing players than winning players because with rake being paid that is the way it must be. I have won consistently across many sites over large periods at almost identical rates (apart from 1 site that will remain nameless where I am a breakeven player but I have not carried on over an extended period to find out the reasons. Perhaps there are just better players at that site). Now, unless all these sites have miraculously got together and decided that every time Rek makes an account he will get very similar results I can only assume that the deals are fair and that my ability gets me my results as does everybody else's ability.

+1 to just about everything in that post, especially the part about posting figures that people think are off (again, check out that thread where some guy did just that, and eventually we all figured out that it was a PT glitch that was fixed in an update). This isn't entirely necessarily true. Think about a scenario where you have 5 excellent players at the table, and one horrid fish. Now think about the opposite scenario: 5 horrid fish, and 1 excellent player.

But I think over the whole of the on-line poker community it must be the case that there are more losers than winners.

FYP.

Why is that? I'm sure it is the case and probably always will be, but why must it be?

EDIT: Yeah, the difference between the original post and the fixed post.

Good idea. 20 different 10,000 hand samples from the same person playing 20 different names is much better than 200,000 from one person under one name. The "initial luck" theory is ridiculous just based on how much effort it would take the sites. They'd have to spend money on buying even more servers, specifically to keep track of rigging it for certain players in the short term, meaning to recoup the money spent on the servers, they'd have to rig it even more, then they'd have to buy more servers, creating a vicious cycle of spending all the money they got from rigging the site on buying more hardware to rig the site.

But that's definitely a more likely theory than 95% of poker players being losing players, who are encouraged to continue by short term winning streaks.

I don't think it must be, but there are a couple of reasons why I think it is the case:

The rake. We know that all players taken as a whole must show an overall loss. If the players are split exactly evenly on either side of this loss, there will be more losers than winners.

Losing players quite before winning players, or play less than winning players. For every guy winning $1,000, there needs to be someone losing more than $1,000 when the rake is factored in. Not sure if that figure would be $1,500, $4,000, or something in between. Either way, it's likely that will be more than one player - probably multiple players to make up that loss.

This is an over-simplification, of course, but I think it illustrates the point.

I say 'must be' for two reasons:

1) The rake. (So that isn't really a 'must' be since it could be reduced quite a bit).

2) There are always new players arriving who aren't very good. They tend to play for a while and then move on. I think these players will always outnumber the good, profitable, players.

So I should perhaps qualify what I siad to 'must be in the current climate'.

see, what's hilarious about that is the standard rigtard reply will be a variation of "why? if I bring evidence you will just ridicule it, so why bother?"

thus (in the zany rigtard brain) justifying NOT providing any proof.

Let's put this scenario into a court room...

Prosecutor Who Can't Debate: "Your honor, I think that tk is a childerne mulester. I'm not sure why but I can see petterns.

Judge: And what evidence do you present to the court?

Prosecutor Who Can't Debate: Well, none, your honer. Because even if I did, his lawyer would just pick it apart and say that it was just me being sad about my parents dying when I was a child and the contiyou'd manifestashun of blaming others for my own perpetyouel failyers.

Judge: Case dismissed!

I have some information that the industry average is around $300/month/player in rake and fees. We also know that ~90% of players are net losers in tournament play since that is widely tracked, with only 10% being net winners over time in tournaments. In cash play the numbers are harder to come by but the skew is probably not quite as dramatic. But the bottom line is that there are many more losers than winners.

Think you may want to take a step back and take a deep breath already Mark :P

Systemically online poker creates the perfect environment for conspiracy theories as the vast majority of players lose in the end. Granted much of this is offset by the reality that many losing players do not care as they are playing for fun.


People having doubts and believing it is rigged is in and by itself not a bad thing, as in theory these people will help form a checking mechanism for the system. This was how the super users at UB/AP were exposed.

Problems arise when the rigged beliefs take more of the form of a religion to believe in purely on faith, as this generally creates some rather non logical beliefs. Issues such as risk are ignored (the risk a site would take if caught) are somehow ignored for instance.

The standard rigtard beliefs also distract from concentrating on genuine real forms of cheating that takes place, collusion and bots for instance, and much of my frustration comes from that effect. If somehow we could channel the rigtards to use their super powers for good it might actually produce some positive results.

Ganging up on a rigtard who lacks communication skills about his grammar/grammer/grammur is kind of pointless.

depends on what you hope to accomplish imo.

True. If your goal is to have a rational discussion (with a bit of snark added for fun) about the nature of online poker and the beliefs within, then you are missing the mark (yeah yeah pun intended)

If the goal is getting in a huge "na na na na" fight with a guy who generally exists at that level anyway, then mission accomplished. Kind of takes away from any serious discussion.

Guess choice is yours.

It's purely an aside to ganging up on them because of their ******ed reasoning capabilities.

Does anyone know of some sort of mathematical/statistical "proof" or analysis that it is possible to beat poker over the true long run (infinity hands)? I would be interested in seeing something like this.