The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition
Bad beats are part of the game. I understand that. But after absorbing more than my fair share on Poker Stars I switched
GG has been caught allowing superusers and very obvious collusion and they have PVI (player value index) which handicaps good players and helps out the fish
Now where did I read stuff like this before... oh yea
I actually said above that I find the PVI very shady. Whats shady about it is that they advertise 50% rakeback but when i was crushing the games too hard i calculated that my pvi was 0.25 and I only got 12,5% rb. Leaderboard volume crushers who were losing pre-rb got a better PVI but still not the rb advertised. This is shady business to me.
multiple times I was advocating against GG in many ways (i kinda broke my shill duties a bunch of times) like high rake, unknowable pvi system, bad software and i think showing people their graph with the rake paid shown as profit is very sketchy.
I dislike GG for many evidence-based reasons, I dont think their RNG is rigged. If that makes me a shill thats fine
Dont like their PVI slashing my rakeback while paying way too much rake to begin with because of preflop rake.
lol, if you make a claim like that you should read my post history a bit better and you'll see i have a lot of objections with GGThey have preflop rake without a flop, they advertise a rakeback which is severely lower due to PVI which you cannot see for yourself, their promos are nowhere near as good as they advertise, i dont like their software, their graphs dont include rake
You cant read that well cant you?Ive said numerous times what I think is wrong with GG and its a lot.I think with superuser you are indeed referring to the moneytaker69 situation where a hack allowed him to see the equity percentage. But they did not "allow" him to superuse, of course not. Obviously very very bad stuff but this does not mean poker and the rng are rigged, comple
Quite a few posts from me in this thread alone about why I dont like GG. I am clearly doing a terrible job at being an obvious shill :p
The last one actually was directed at you, but your reading (or memory) skills seem to be quite bad. Or perhaps you are just messing around and dont know what you are doing just like you did on GG :p
And just to stick to the facts, GG didnt allow superusers. Someone find a breach in an update and they took advantage of it. Horrible stuff obviously, shouldnt have happened.
I also thought they were late to find this out, mostly because players supplied facts.
Same way players brought facts to the table and superusers, colliders, rta-ers & multi-accounters have been caught before.
For some strange reason though, a rigged RNG has never been found.
But dont be scared, according to your fellows the RNG doesnt target players personally... yet somehow they all suffer from it while others benefit
DJ... Man.This reaction is more than expected if you have no arguments.I don't even doubt that you beat HU&SnGs online, since the game is not random. Same as that guy on 500$ Spin&Go "beating" others, by hitting 1.35% trips on the flop, after the limp on A5o in the start of the game.In fact, I have played guys on Pokerstars, who just play HUs by check-calling 80% of their hands
I actually gave you a lot snd gave you some insight in how to think about and play short handed with small stacks.
It is just useless to try to have a discussion with you.
You are first of all co vinced that you are an expert and want to have a high level discussio . Which is impossible as you are not even at an amateur level.
So to discuss even one hand I have to start from the very very bottom . I even tried that. But even that went straight over your head.
See the thing is that you are constantly over valuing your own skills. You have created this weird fantasy in which you are the hero all evidence to the contrary be damned.
So whenever I show you something you dont get or show you why its wrong your defenses spring into action.
Your whole identity is threatened as so much of it depends on beeing this expert teaching people.
In essence before we could even start to discuss poker we would need to get past your defenses.
My behaviour therapy would help.
But this is way out of scope what can or should be done here.
You are currently whether knowingly or not using a very common tactic in debates to discredit experts.
You throw so many nonsensical statements at me that I will either will skip at least some of them or waste the whole day debunking them one by one.
When I consider my time too valuable to waste it on this nonsense you declare yourself the winner of the debate when I reality you are just holding my time hostage.
Never argue with idiots. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
In essence you are hopeless.
You will never learn.
I cant wait until you start playing live and that turns out to be rigged to because you cant win.
By the way when I played husng as my main game I was one tabling most of the time.
How does that fit your theory?
I also have logged thousands of hours of poker in casinos across 4 continents beating the games handily.
How did the online algorithm help me achieve that?
Slugant is so desperate he searched up my old stats from a very small sample size when i was messing around but doesnt post my real stats after that where im up 20K while winning 32% of 45-55% all in situations (flips)... Not only am i good i am very good haha. Do you even play poker? how are you on this forum all day? and why?
Yeah, the same here.
In fact, Slugant just tries to move discussion of rigging into any other possible direction. It's his job, man.
The most fun - to be fair, I was sure, that I misunderstood something from the first look - is to include 333 hand in cash games (333 hands!! LOL)
Am I right? That cash gaming stats is based on 333 hands? ))
I was inspired though and I didnt know it was that easy to write a book
So I made a short comic book about our antihero Johnmir
Just a great job, I feel like I got involved into some news section! 🍰
I will learn this style, btw. Nice experience exchange!
I'm also glad, that that DJ is back, because I was really worried. Wasn't sure he could handle that discussion of the online regular player!
Hope, he has already finished the homework, and, finally, checked his bluffing efficiency
- overall BB/per hand won in "nothing on the flop" situations
- overall % of hands won with "nothing on the flop"
- % of hands, where he went for the bluff with "nothing on the flop"
- % of success, if he went for the bluff
- BB/per hand won, if he went for a bluff
To be fair. If you are a pro online player (it's impossible to check these things, if you play offline) - it's pretty hard to play normally, if you don't check +/- ratios of half of hands played. Really strange to play without this.
If you bluff half of the pots you take part in, of course... I mean, if you do play poker on some higher level, then new players do!
Since I consider myself as a high level player, of course I do check something, that my game is based on (it is bluffing for pro players, cool handies come once in 10%-15% cases, too rare to win in a random game).
Brb later.
Yeah, the same here.
In fact, Slugant just tries to move discussion of rigging into any other possible direction. It's his job, man.
The most fun - to be fair, I was sure, that I misunderstood something from the first look - is to include 333 hand in cash games (333 hands!! LOL)
Am I right? That cash gaming stats is based on 333 hands? ))
To no surprise whatsoever you are completely wrong
How is the same as you, I found all your data of the last 6 years but now you say I also took old hands from you??? isnt that what you want because you were "pro" then
Also, where did you see any cash game hands???
You somehow didnt only mistook from the first look but also the second and third
Its sharkscope so its 333 tournaments,
considering your entire research is done over ~900 hands and 43 flops this is a huuuuuuggge sample
I know you do Johnny, you are a very ill man
Of course you are high level and everyone that outperforms you (which is a massive group) are actually worse. Even though you claim the rng does not target personally all these players are favored and you are screwed. Of course.
But this is what you've been doing exclusively for 6+ years.
How can you call yourself a high level player when you've been non-competitive (i.e. losing at micros) for 6 years+? This is delusional
Look. It's important, if all the other guys on highstakes play multitabling. If all of them don't multitable, then it is not any important, if he plays a single table. Same luck-factor for everyone then, man.
Also, it is important, if the software rig high stakes, I don't know this, because I never checked these games, never played there.
LOL of course you didnt. But solid evidencial stuff there man, cmon. You describe yourself as a top analyst and this is what you show.
He wins because he multi-tables!
What, he only plays 1 table??? Then he wins because others are 1tabling too!
But same luck-factor.. he must actually been better yea?
So if you play and lost to someone who also 1tables (same luck factor) its simply because the other person is better yes??
Also, I am still willing to 1table while you can multitable versus me... according to you you would have the luck factor in your advantage.
And you are a high level player!!! How can you lose???
But you will chicken out AGAIN and not stand behind your words AGAIN
Mike, I’m changing the “style” (the structure) of messages, to let the chat be more comfortable to read.
Thank you for merging the posts, and sorry for that I didn’t manage to constantly gather all the messages into one in time (sometimes, while I type answers to another posts, the time to correct the previous answer is over and I can’t add new comments to the latest post of me…😉
Man alive, i even mentioned this specific hand in explaining that i had to call with any hand in the end
Spoiler
Man alive, i even mentioned this specific hand in explaining that i had to call with any hand in the end, as the end result i felt was already set in stone. I mentioned it specifically in the post, as i absolutely knew it would only be this hand you would lay into to, its what you do. To fold would just make the double up bigger for when i eventually would have to call. I know
The same here. TheWaddy, I tried to provide similar “analogies” showing some hand to help the reader understand my playing logic better. That since I fold huge hand preflop (knowing – it’s a software trap), I can push A5s (significantly weaker hand) from UTG.
And Slugant might ignore this kind of stuff )) Bl, man ))
Wish you more patience 😃
I have a revolving silver star at FullTilt for Omaha hi lo. Funnily enough i am aware of hand strength. You have to be under the age of 20 to be writing this?
Spoiler
It’s not important!
The idea is to announce - “TheWaddy is playing Omaha badly, otherwise he would win [Yes, you win, but who cares…😃], because the game is fair!”
Spoiler
That is probably why i did a big thing on the coin flip odds in the original post. Somehow though, you have interpreted my post as suggesting they are bad beats and that i dont know the odds. Is it a wind up, or is this guy really thinking hes getting one over on me with these replies? Plain weird.
Look, if I remember right, you have shown this stats in The UK Gambling Commission. Or you haven’t? It’s interesting, what they answered you.
By the way, I made a review on Trustpilot and on some another site. But it was dedicated to Red Star Poker (specifically). There is no “iPoker” net in general. Pity, guys from other iPoker’s skins won't see this review…
Riggies lying their ass off = fine & none of his business -> others stating inconvenient facts = shilling
So, who is lying and where, man? Because we don’t really know, who you are talking about??
Spoiler
I’m not sure it’s rational to tell them something about rigging. Looks, like they are not in hurry to comment, if it is possible (how often) to hit 31+ of 47 flops right after the dependency was announced :P
Guys are too busy lately. Surprised, they decided to comment Amazing’s screenshots. I would say, I’m even jealous 😃 Expected to get some of their attention…
(Seriously, I enjoy the silence, because I would have to comment nuances otherwise… Instead of preparing to the future tennis trainings
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25/pr...)
How is the same as you, I found all your data of the last 6 years but now you say I also took old hands from you??? isnt that what you want because you were "pro" then
Spoiler
Slugant, the chat remembers totally different story. After I published my materials, you appeared with the following message -
Spoiler
I did some statistical analysis myself, on one specific player on 2 different sites to see how it differs.The player in question is called Johnmir.These are the stats of a self proclaimed player of professional level.iPokerAnd starsThis the the guy that knows everything about poker and can predict every outcome yes loses -23bb/100 over 9k hands. On a limit of 10NL (hahahaha, im
You didn’t check any tournaments, which I have played on iPoker – you checked the tournaments only later. At that moment you shown only 4K hands on iPoker and 4.4K hands on Pokerstars, which I could lose just by losing several huge all-ins (and this is very close to the truth). LOL.
Just the same as for Lil Larusso. You just pick the worst part of distance and publish it. Irrespectively to a sample size. Very strange stuff for a cash pro, man.
Looks, like it’s done on purpose of discriminating someone posting unprofitable information for the rooms -> as a result it’s also an unprofitable information for 2+2 forum, right?
So,
This one, once again, goes back to you, man. You are completely wrong.
Spoiler
considering your entire research is done over ~900 hands and 43 flops this is a huuuuuuggge sample
Spoiler
Slugant… I wrote a HUGE BOOK for you… But you, obviously, need my help.
Let me guide you there.
Look, you open the book –
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
And go to the Chapter V.
Spoiler
Then – point “A”
Spoiler
And read there –
"For analyzing poker hand data, a good sample size for reliable results is generally at least 50,000 hands, and ideally 100,000 or more, especially for online cash games. However, the optimal size depends on several factors, including the specific statistics being analyzed, the game type, and the desired level of confidence."Pay attention to this phrases – “the desi
Summarizing -
In easy words. Every variance is “acceptable” for each distance and for each data to be analyzed.
So,
I still decided to upload a proof regarding iPoker, because, even though it was initially based on 900 hands, but it proves rigging with a level of confidence 99.999 999 992%.
Man, read books, please. If you lost 80 of 100 all-ins played (50% equity in average). And it is almost impossible.
It doesn’t mean that 333 or 4-10K Cash game hands are enough to assess player’s efficiency in gaming. This is a different analysis, and it needs different data samples. Because a number of possible outcomes/events (flops structures, opponents decisions, all-ins) is critically big and various to assess a gaming level of a player, using only 4-10K hands.
Comparing to all-ins (80 of 100 losses), there are only two possible outcomes – “won” / “lost”! So, yes, 100 all-ins might be enough, in case of –
Was reached.
How can you call yourself a high level player when you've been non-competitive (i.e. losing at micros) for 6 years+?
Spoiler
Very easy.
The book of rigging, Chapter IV. Online gaming and strategy
Point – “The way I worked on my gaming (the middle of the message)”
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
Man, I haven’t played anything serious for 6 years and you still can’t show me your bluffing efficiency!! Even this!
You do not know, if you bluff well. No one of you (?)
Does anyone of you compare his starting stack ICM share on the final table and the final EV ICM$ on the final table?
You do not know, if you play on the final tables well. No one of you (?)
Slugant, I’m slightly ahead of you in question of gaming analysis. And a chance, that I produce a high level of playing in a Random game is critically high. I know it, because I checked that.
Guys, you are improving very slowly… 6 years passed. No improvements. Pushing 20BB stacks on a push-fold of MTTs, after waiting for higher BBs without any bluffing and small ball playing the postflop.
He wins because he multi-tables!
What, he only plays 1 table??? Then he wins because others are 1tabling too!
But same luck-factor.. he must actually been better yea?
Spoiler
Look, what I really think about this (Linus) situation, in total.
Yes, if they all are playing single table, and the software put them all on the same “luck-factor”, then he wins because – important – The software recognizes him as a better player.
It doesn’t mean, he does play better. It means, that the software keeps his Winrate on the concrete level
(The book of rigging, Chapter III - Player’s account management by the room[/COLOR]
Article – “The room puts everyone on a predetermined profit and strictly controls it”
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...o...)
And it is important to copy his game, in case we wanna win online.
But don’t forget, that, also, there are many other factors like “Playing after a break”, “Bankroll amount factor” and others.
Please, read that book! (Chatper III[/COLOR])[/SPOIL]
He wins because the software recognizes him as a better player??
Then why do you lose?
Does the software (just like the rest of us) recognize you as a bad player?
And just fwiw "writing is a book" isnt the same as quoting all the past quotes of yourself and people who also think the rng is rigged
If it was, I also wrote a book. Just read all my posts back and those of donjonnie, teflondawg, nath etc.
And all the posts on gypsy calling you a mental patient and an inferior player.
Thats a huge book with all evidence that you are a bad player who doesnt accept he is bad 😉
But please finish your research by actually proving these factors weigh in and make a player win.
For instance, by complying with those factors and actually making a pro's salary at poker.
If you do, I will applaud and recognize.
But unfortunately you show zero effort to actually do something meaningful. Perhaps because you yourself know very well you wont be able too?? Maybe the pro's are better after all 🙂 (if they arent, prove it dont just claim you are of a higher level, show it)
Slugant it doesn't matter.
John gladly shows his ridiculous stats when it pleases him and talks about it like they mean something.
Aside from the fact that he looks at the wrong things and looks at them the wrong way he gladly trots out his bluffing efficiency analysis and what ever while if everything is rigged what the hell does ot matter?
He also gladly agrees with people that describe riggs that are impossible to happen while his rig is happening.
In the end it doesnt matter.
John and other riggies feel like they have been treated unfairly by the software and thats all that matter.
Their results are not based on that they are bad.
Waddy i havent looked up your stats but if you are actually winning and still cry like a little baby because reasons that even more pathetic.
From the way you talk about omaha high low its clear though that you dont reallly get that game.
Weird also how in one paragraph you say that equities run pretty much 50/50 preflop in omaha yet you manage to get some guy all in preflop with 80% equity like a 100 times in a row.
Weird also how in one paragraph you say that equities run pretty much 50/50 preflop in omaha
I remember this phrase also. I'm not any good in omaha. More than that, I refused to play it, because wanted to keep 100% focus on improving holdem skills.
And it sounds unexpected to me, that preflop all-ins there are closer to 50/50. Is it really like that?
In hold'em we got standard all-ins like 30%, 70% (dominating), 40%, 60% (Ax vs 87, etc), 20%, 80% (pocket pairs), 45%, 55% (AK vs 55, etc). And all-ins equity might deviate from 50% pretty often.
Yes preflop equities do run very close in Omaha.
Its just really hard to be counterfeit or dominated in a meaningful way.
Really sorry if its a repeating question (54 pages man), but is there any published statistical researh / paper on online poker RNG? I didn't manage to find it on google, but this topic really seems to be interesting and rewarding to study scientifically
Really sorry if its a repeating question (54 pages man), but is there any published statistical researh / paper on online poker RNG I didn't manage to find it on google, but this topic really seems to be interesting and rewarding to study scientifically
1. Look, there was some research regarding this -
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
The link doesn't work, but Mike helped - recommended to
This has been discussed a few times in this thread since 2017. Search the thread for posts with "issuu" in them.
P.S. I managed to find this document -
https://www.academia.edu/34059393/Online...
2. You can read my statistical research, it's comprehensive and proves that iPoker's software containes non-random algorithms, which interfere into the gaming process -
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
All the materials of me regarding online poker gaming, communication with gambling supervision authorities, additional researches, ingame factors, which take place in online gaming, you can find here in the "book" of links -
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
Chapter I is dedicated to "Proofs of rigging in iPoker – the materials and its explanation"
(unofficially, this information is also applicable to Pokerstars and Partypoker rooms)
... 2. You can read my statistical research, it's comprehensive and proves that iPoker's software containes non-random algorithms, which interfere into the gaming process ...
Johnmir
For the sake of accuracy, you should change this to, "in my opinion, it's comprehensive and proves".
A number of readers here do not agree that it is either comprehensive or proof.
Johnmir
For the sake of accuracy, you should change this to, "in my opinion, it's comprehensive and proves".
A number of readers here do not agree that it is either comprehensive or proof.
Thank you for correcting, Mike.
My motive to use this form comes from, that this research is about numbers. And once I add "my opinion", many people might "translate it" like it is not a statistical analysis, which I probably miscalculated, or I just based my point on "visual observations".
But, in general, you are right, and I will avoid this statement next time.
He says he has proven non-random algorithms, but dont test him on it. Because he will back down immediately.
Also, I would strongly claim that a half-done reseach isnt proof. Any good analyst would agree.
Your thesis remains:
Play not according to sites hidden rules -> lose (you have proven you could lose John. Quite extensively in fact)
Play according to sites hidden rules -> You can make a pro's salary even when you're bad at poker
Sounds like a ludicrous claim but its what he did :p
Yet, in his research not a single trace of the latter can be found. So to say its comprehensive and proven is objectively wrong. Because its lacking the most important part.
Coincidentally its the part you seem eager to avoid at any costs.
Btw, its not just readers here who seem to think this is not proof whatsoever. Every board or council or regulator, website or anybody in poker that has any credit takes it as the ramblings of a man with zero knowledge of the game of poker.
I do really enjoy the last phrase though
"(unofficially, this information is also applicable to Pokerstars and Partypoker rooms)"
John, everything you do is unofficial. You do realize that right?
Also, isnt a bit lazy to copy-paste your 47 flop research on iPoker directly to other rooms? Where can be read and see they work exactly the same way???
Its fine you want to convince others the RNG is rigged and you know the algorithm, even though you refuse to take any bet whatsoever on things that you regard as proven.
But dont throw in words like "proven" and "official" when even you know its none of that.
Lachesis, to answer your question factually.
No, there has never been a case of a proven rigged rng. Even though millions and millions of hands have been studied. For reference, Johnmir's "study" deals with 47 flops.
Other forms of cheating i.e. collusion, botting, superusers, chipdumping, multiaccounting, datamining, account sharing etc etc have all been proven and its not like if you join a major site that means you can play in perfectly fair circumstances because off those cheating possibilities. Everywhere where people play a game for money you have to be careful, its as simple as that.
But when the room has a RNG license checked you have no reason to fear the RNG is out to get you.
Really sorry if its a repeating question (54 pages man), but is there any published statistical researh / paper on online poker RNG I didn't manage to find it on google, but this topic really seems to be interesting and rewarding to study scientifically
1. Look, there was some research regarding this -https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...The
Thanks, I'll study it
Your thesis remains:
Play not according to sites hidden rules -> lose (you have proven you could lose John. Quite extensively in fact)
Play according to sites hidden rules -> You can make a pro's salary even when you're bad at poker
My main thesis is different -
1.
Thus, the probability of that online-casino Red Star breaks rules of fair game, interfering into the gaming process, implementing additional non-random algorithms into the game - 99. 999 999 992%
Spoiler
(The book of rigging.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
Chapter I. Article "A".)
2.
The key idea of the message is that the software helps “new”/ “weak” players of iPoker by making them equal to stronger players, to maximize the Company’s profit. So that, all the players bankrolls “melt down” as a commission for the game. And, as a result, the income of stronger players is reduced to a minimal level.
Spoiler
Example -
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
(The book of rigging.
Chapter II. Article "How the software helps a weak player after a mistake on SnG tournament (illustration)".)
Statistical proof -
Topic 1. The game against a “sit-out” player.Test 1.Dates of the experiment –From the 10th untill the 22nd of July 2022 The evidence (materials) – Video-record of hands played in Red Star Poker’s hand replayerhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/16d2YB55...Hand history for poker trackers (HM, H2N)https://drive.google.com/file/d/12YmCRjs... Analytical report -The analysis of sit-out hands with all the cards opened Red Star Poker roomhttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...Proba
(The book of rigging.
Chapter I. Article "A".)
And this is more than enough. What else do we need to consider the game rigged and unfair.
Unfortunately, you are right. Since Curacao Gaming Control Board ignored my messages (unlike The UK Gambling commission and 5 more countries) we haven't got any official way to stop this fraud :(
Spoiler
(The book of rigging.
Chapter I. Article "C) Results of communication with Gambling Supervision Authorities. Ignoring of the fraud in iPoker by Curacao".
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...)
Also, isnt a bit lazy to copy-paste your 47 flop research on iPoker directly to other rooms? Where can be read and see they work exactly the same way???
Spoiler
Slugant ))
I have got stats for Pokerstars and Partypoker too.
But when I talk about these sites I just share my opinion. Is it based on numbers? Well, everyone decides himself according to his intuition and to his real life experience.
I just give some statement here. But, yes, you are right, I'm not ready to publish researches regarding Pokerstars/Partypoker at the moment. Pity, because it is very interesting info, actually ))
You would enjoy it! ♥
Lachesis, to answer your question factually.
No, there has never been a case of a proven rigged rng. Even though millions and millions of hands have been studied. For reference, Johnmir's "study" deals with 47 flops.
Spoiler
Let's check the latest messages of Slugant -
Wow, here is a statement -
considering your entire research is done over ~900 hands and 43 flops this is a huuuuuuggge sample
Someone just illegally joined your account, man!
Because another "you" knew, that my research is based on 900 hands! (In fact, it is based on about 1500 hands in total).
Just an example of the research based on only 100 hands -
"Hello, guys.
You remember, a month ago we decided to check if the game is fair in "Easy money poker" room.
And I played 100 all-ins on the final tables of MTT last month.
Here are my results -
"
The answer -
"Omg, man, your variance hit a 0.000 000 056%". Once in 1,000,000,000 tests? Yes, looks like the "Easy money poker" room steals your money with rigging of the final table all-ins".
But when the room has a RNG license checked you have no reason to fear the RNG is out to get you.
Spoiler
Lachesis,
Here Slugant means, that in case a taxi driver has got a driving license, he will never brake any rule on the road. He just can't cross any line, can't pass on a "red light".
So, since a room got a licensed software (RNG), he can't rig it. It's too hard for programmers of the room.
P.S. The owner and the software developer of iPoker is Playtech PLC (the owner and the software developer - both!).
I mean, Playtech PLC can, and it does, change its software to maximize its own business profit.
The owner and the software developer of Pokerstars is Flutter Entertainment. The same here.
Yourwelcome, feel free to ask any questions regarding the materials, while I'm acitve on the forum!
Not many guys do understand my statistical analysis. It could be useful for them to read our discussion.
"The key idea of the message is that the software helps “new”/ “weak” players of iPoker by making them equal to stronger players, to maximize the Company’s profit. So that, all the players bankrolls “melt down” as a commission for the game. And, as a result, the income of stronger players is reduced to a minimal level."
So how come there are pro's making a living out of poker even though the software favors the weak?
And how does that comply with your previous statement that the rng doesnt target anyone specifically?
Where in your proof can we see which accounts/players are being helped and which are disavantaged?
And you do realize that your taxi driver license analogy makes no sense right?
Taxi drivers get fined for speeding just like anybody else.
If a site broke the rng fairness they would get fined, but they dont, because never was found on it.
I remember you saying that they would just turn off the rig-switch when the rng-certificate guys would enter the building. And now these weird lines. It makes me think you dont know what an RNG is at all.
And why are you shocked that the owner of playtech is also the software developer?? You do realize this is the most common thing ever right?
I just realized, the owner of the ATP tennis tour also developed the ATP tennis tour. Therefore tennis = rigged.
Do you want every poker site outsourcing its software development???
It also has nothing to with the RNG. This test was done by TST which is a 3rd party independent company. They tested millions and millions of hands and nothing non-random was found.
Yet John believes he did find something non-random.
He knows the algorithm, he in fact knows how easy it is to become a pro. They arent even good players, they just play according to how the sites like it.
And John knows exactly how to do this.
Yet he chose to lose at microstakes for 6 years.
You asked regarding evidence what else do we need??
Its been told before John. If you can switch your style of play to how the software likes it and make a pro's salary in online poker in a year I salute you and I will eat my hat.
I will literally eat my hat.
You claim you know how to do it and its that easy.. you would finally built something close to proof. And all you seem to want is to let others know poker is rigged and to be regarded as a good poker player.
You can kill two birds with one stone.
So why wont you?
Only curacao ignored you john?
Which actions are the other gambling commission take? what feedback did they provide regarding your " analysis" ?
Old habits die hard I guess but again we are hearing stories of something that happens 100% of the time!!! Yet what we see is 1 hand where qq loses to J8s which happens 18% of the time.
I already have 5 worse bad beats today and I just played my first session.
Its not really compelling evidence.
But good for you for never ever playing there again, because in your own words, if you did you would be utterly ****ed
I just have one question how do you justify that in a game like online poker where the site's deal so many more hands at a faster pace, that losing players actually lose slower?. They will lose faster and alive game, slower and online game. Like my theory is if you could have a winning player play live poker at the rate of 1,000 hands a day they would almost never have a losing Day live. But many players do that online a thousand hands a day and they lose half the time. I just don't understand it
I wouldn't be surprised about house bots on anonymous sites at all. I would be massively surprised if the site riggs the rng for therm.
But house bots yeah sure. I mean we know for sure that some sites use liquidity bots.
How do you arrive at your conclusion Jungmit?
I dont think thats correct at all.
I just have one question how do you justify that in a game like online poker where the site's deal so many more hands at a faster pace, that losing players actually lose slower?. They will lose faster and alive game, slower and online game. Like my theory is if you could have a winning player play live poker at the rate of 1,000 hands a day they would almost never have a losing
Last sentence sums it up perfectly.
Because your theory of...
"you could have a winning player play live poker at the rate of 1,000 hands a day they would almost never have a losing Day live. But many players do that online a thousand hands a day and they lose half the time."
...is simply untrue. But if you would like to prove this theory to be true I would like to see the evidence/numbers
Just as a reference and a bit of info for you, here are tracked results from 50nl online of last month
Now you can say a lot about these online fish, but not that they are "actually losing slower"
To be losing quicker than that live you pretty much have to openshove every hand
I wouldn't be surprised about house bots on anonymous sites at all. I would be massively surprised if the site riggs the rng for therm.
But house bots yeah sure. I mean we know for sure that some sites use liquidity bots.
How do you arrive at your conclusion Jungmit?
I dont think thats correct at all.
everybody says online players have a smaller win rate. So if when is have a smaller win rate online that means the inverse is true that losers are also losing at a slower rate. I don't understand what causes this because if you're playing online you're playing way more hands than you would be live so shouldn't you be losing faster if you're a losing player and shouldn't you be winning more if you're a winning player?. But it never works out this way.
It never works out that way??
Have you seen the list of losers just above your post
They are losing at an alarming quickly speed
Cmon the top loser lost 107 buyins in 1502 hands... if thats not quick enough for ya I dont know what is :p
And your sentence "So if when is have a smaller win rate online that means the inverse is true that losers are also losing at a slower rate" is a wrong conclusion.
At midstakes the typical online table consist of 1 weak player and the rest are regulars.
In a live setting its way more often a few weak players and a few regulars.
Thats the main reason online wr's are a bit lower.
If you have only one -30bb/100 fish at your table (online) your winrate is significantly lower than when you have multiple of the same -30bb/100 fishes at your table (live).
And this doesnt mean the fish is losing "more quickly"
Live regs are just benefiting from a more favourable reg:fish ratio
It never works out that way??Have you seen the list of losers just above your postThey are losing at an alarming quickly speedCmon the top loser lost 107 buyins in 1502 hands... if thats not quick enough for ya I dont know what is :pAnd your sentence "So if when is have a smaller win rate online that means the inverse is true that losers are also losing at a slower rate" is a w
But I'm sayint if you took those same losing players and made them play a thousand hands a day live do you realize how much more money they would have lost at the same stakes? It would probably be three or four times more than that. Now obviously I have no proof I'm just saying when you play live you see how much money these guys lose. I mean I don't know anybody can play live and online and have any doubt that you will run out more ridiculous outcomes in an online game then you would live. Like I just can't see somebody putting in a fair amount of volume at both live and online and somebody saying oh it's the same. I mean I've been probably played three to four million hands of online poker in my life I probably played 500,000 to $700,000 hands of live poker and I'm just saying for my scenario I don't see it. Now maybe I'm just unlucky that every time I give somebody a free card it gives them a perfect hand when I play online I don't know I guess that's a possibility
