I don't think you understand the subject at hand.

Huh. I read your definition and before I read your blurb, I thought you were posting it to exonerate PS. They aren't doing it to be deceptive, they aren't doing it to be dishonest, and they aren't doing it to fix a desired result.

who is being swindled here?
what is dishonest about it? Stars are telling everybody how the game is played.
what is the desired result here and which player is it fixed in advance for?

By definition of the word it seems totally inappropriate to me. I still think Stars were misguided in changing the rules but anyone who ignores the obvious I would question their motives also.

Rek,

1. They are still hiding the information outside of these forums as has been stated and shown numerous times before. My email was answered in no uncertain terms at all by somebody in management - not just first level support. He said with absolutely clarity that they deal the game exactly like it is done at a live casino. That is a flat out lie. Another poster also questioned them and was similarly lied to until explaining that he knew exactly what was going on - at which point they suddenly became completely open.

2. It was stated in my thread, by a respected Poker Stars representative, that the purpose of the rigging was to quote: "[make the game] better and less aggravating." This is not a site's responsibility. When I miss a set 20 times in a row it's rather aggravating. But if a site decided that they'd start letting me hit sets 30% of the time, I'd be out of there in a heart beat. Obviously their rigging is going to have much less of an impact, but there is no room for shades of gray here. You don't covertly change the rules of your game for any reason - period. And you damn sure don't covertly change the rules of your game and then display the game in a manner such that the vast majority of players playing the game are going to be led to believe that they're playing under "normal" rules.

can you do everyone a favor and just never post again?

Dire, this saga is being fragmented with too many threads IMHO. I would suggest you requesting this thread be locked and your main one in the zoo continue as you are still keen to flog this to death. The purpose of this thread was obviously the change of title. Whether you agree with that or not this thread has surely dealt with it.

As we continue to research the method of reshuffling used in live and online games, we have found that it's not as standard as I thought. UB reshuffles different than the live version (they include discards from other players on the reshuffling round) and there is an interesting blog about the WSOP triple draw event. Skip to the discard controversy discussion:

http://pokergrump.blogspot.com/2008/...from-wsop.html

Barry

sup barry

It seems that 14.26 was a general rule (as opposed to a game specific rule) that was not likely written with 27 triple draw in mind, as it would then leave the game in an undefined state if more than 22 cards were discarded at a 6-man table, for example. And that's far from impossible in a soft game.

I believe Poker Stars only has two options - as is, or all cards are shuffled. Even the option of not shuffling discards from the current street would be insufficient as then all 6 players discarding 5 results in an undefined state in the game.

"rigging" is a perfectly reasonable word to describe what is going on. The people who don't think it is appropriate do so because they don't understand or because they have a lot of goodwill towards Stars.

However using the word "rigged" has two bad effects on your thread: firstly it makes reasonable posters dismiss the thread as sensationalism, secondly it drags a million tards out of the woodwork to use the thread to float their own conspiracy theories. Neither of these are good for the thread and didn't help get the issue discussed.

These are 2 good reasons to change the title. I agree that whoever changed it should have made some indication that the title had been edited, because otherwise they are putting words in your mouth.

Echoes my sentiments much more succinctly than I did.