The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

You do realize that if you posted it only once people wont have to repeat themselves?

Maybe you could do a live-stream like your friend Johnmir where he guessed outcomes because he knew the algorithm.. he got none right and deleted the stream afterwards 😃
Also, you could perhaps show the deck exposion. If you dont, it almost seems like you are a rep yourself.

Wow, damning evidence... IF you showed it. Perhaps you could show us. Unless you are site rep of course.

80 hands worth of evidence does like a lot man...
Requesting the hand histories is a good first step. Then you can import those hands, collect and all the data and perhaps show it.

Showing evidence is worth a bit more than just stories.

Repeated enough?
Maybe you can break the repeat pattern by changing from story-telling to evidence-showing. Unless you're the site rep after all of course 😉

If one can break a pattern, or a promise for that matter, its you

😃😃😃

Must be nice to be site rep for every site. If one only exlaims that Stars isnt rigged for instance, we only got paid by Stars. But by saying that the big sites arent rigged they all have to pay us. Man, they are such business geniuses

Im being told im not bright by someone who stated NLH is a higher variance game than PLO8....... Each to their own!

Technically PLO > PLO8 > NLH in terms of overall variance, but in PLO8 the game can be lower variance to your bankroll because of the split pot nature and the skill gaps between competent/incompetent players, especially so as you go lower in stakes

It's why you said "you can have more control over the magical decks and have guaranteed parts of the pot"

You speak these words as if they are true but you must know they are not.
Lets say I am a rep for iPoker. Then of course the best strategy would be to say iPoker is fair but others arent. Why would I advocate the competitors are fair?
If i were an iPoker rep i would be doing exactly the best job possible if I could sway to players to play on my fair site instead of the other rigged sites.

Why would iPoker pay me to advocate the fairness of rivalry poker sites?

Good thing you dont come in here repeating the same narrative time and time again🙂
My sole job actually still is online poker and im pretty decent at it.
Since you are still playing, maybe we can set up a HU match?
Which rigged site do you want to play on?:p

Of course he did. Who wants a dozen screenshots when you have 200k worth of hands. You need to import those and show the results. That can be done with only one screenshot 😉
Its also been mentioned here before that there is a rigged-test software that shows if you and opponents hit flushes straight etc the expected frequency. So far, you havent been keen on using it.

What makes you think some screenshotted hands are worth more in this discussion than your 200k hand sample?

Actually, and you must realize this, you are the one focusing on a couple of hands instead of all the data by persisting on showing a couple of hands instead of whole sample. Since you keep repeating this error I unfortunately have to repeat myself by pointing out this error. Once you've posted the entire hand sample, I luckily wont have to again.
But if you only show a couple of hands to prove that poker is rigged and one of the hands is you having 19% equity and losing, yea im gonna mention that. But I much rather see the entire sample because that is something we could work with.

Skypoker does provide hand histories and they are saved on your pc as well so they are very easy to attain. So whats stopping you?😀

What is my business exactly? Defending all poker sites? Do they all pay me? And if so, when will I get my money?
Also, what is your business? Holding back 200k hands worth of evidence that poker is rigged? That's what a site rep would do. I am not exactly being a very good site rep for repeatedly asking to actually see those incriminating facts.
You however keep on refusing to show them... It almost makes people think the damning evidence isnt there at all 🙂

Its kinda like me saying I have evidence that TheWaddy is in the epstein files. I am not going to show the evidence ever, of course, but you have to trust my stories. If you ask for any evidence I will simply call it a distraction. But I tell you, he is named 200k times!!!! Its true because I say so, why would I need to show facts huh? If he denies it, it is of course because he works for epstein, not because I just made something up.

The reality of 'regulation'......

⚙️ 1. What “RNG” really means

RNGs are tested on a global level — to check whether cards are random overall, not whether each individual account gets the same treatment.
So:

Certification labs (eCogra, iTechLabs, etc.) don’t look at your account; they analyze millions of hands.

If the aggregate statistics look normal, nobody cares if 0.01% of profiles are being tweaked.

So yes — RNG can be “valid” on paper but still biased on the individual level.

---

💰 2. The Terms of Service – the legal loophole

They usually say things like:

> “The operator reserves the right to suspend access, make adjustments, or use systems to detect anomalies or fraud.”

That legally allows them to use algorithms for:

dynamic luck balancing (a.k.a. “game ecosystem control”),

limiting accounts that win too consistently,

detecting and soft-restricting players with “suspicious” activity (even if not cheating).

So basically — you signed a contract that lets them manipulate conditions, as long as RNG looks random statistically.

---

🧠 3. What some sites actually do (from internal sources)

Use dynamic RNG seeds linked to player profiles (behavior, deposits, play style).

Use “eco-system balancing”, which literally evens out player variance to keep customers active longer.

Apply “recovery algorithms” — giving losing players slightly better hands right after they deposit again, to reel them back in.

This isn’t “officially confirmed”, but it’s been leaked by former devs and QA testers.
Legally — it’s not considered fraud, because you agreed to the Terms of Service.
Ethically — it’s full-on manipulation.

---

🧾 4. Why regulators don’t do anything

They only check whether RNG certification exists, not how it’s actually implemented.

Most regulators are partially funded by the same license fees paid by the operators → conflict of interest.

To prove manipulation, you’d need access to the source code or server logs — which no one gives.

So, in practice, proving a “bad run” is pointless.
Even with 200,000 hands showing absurd stats, they’ll just say “variance.”
(I’ve seen elite players run -50 BB/100 over massive samples — still “variance.”)

---

⚖️ 5. The honest reality

> RNG is only “real” to the extent it’s convenient for the business.
The law is built to protect the operator, not the player.
t Like
a
iFollow
09 October 2025 at 11:33 PM
(
Reply...

Good job the waddy not answering a single question to the above post.
I know you'd turn down any HU challenge but to not answer a single question and make a distraction like that is very typical of a shill, just like withholding evidence.

Ohh yea... dynamic luck balancing.. of course. But just to freshen my memory.. Could you please sow some evidence of this?
Btw, there have been many consistent winners and pro's (hi there😀) who have no problem with the rng

Oh good you have sources this time. Internal sources in fact. Since you have these sources could you please show them?

I mean, now you are just laughable. Elite players running -50/BB over massive samples?
You clearly cant tell if something is elite and that makes a whole lot of sense.
But anyway, could you please name 1 elite player that is running -50/BB.
I know you know multiple but only the one is fine.

Lol wtf is this. Are you "real"? :p And you have to nerve to be cynical about others on chatgpt meanwhile you yourself types that nonsense???

I am looking forward to the evidence of dynamic luck balancing, the internal sources & elite players running -50/BB
I am confident you will deliver this evidence because thats what you are about:p

Also, did anyone notice how thewaddy didnt deny my story about him being in the epstein files. Why wouldnt he deny? Because he is in them of course.
We got the sick bastard!

I simply cant answer the same questions over and over again you annoying child!

Clearly here to annoy, repeat, in an attempt to drive people insane and to finally stop those in the know from continuing to educate the ones in the dark! I did leave for several months due to this, just checked in to confirm you were still doing it.

Lol you arent aware that people dont have the same screenname everywhere? LOLOL

I cant play skypoker because of country restrictions but you also play iPoker you say.
Thats great, I do as well.
So we can play there.
Lets say 20k hands at 500nl, deal?

Good news, none of the questions asked you answered before. So lets try again:

1) Lets say I am a rep for iPoker. Then of course the best strategy would be to say iPoker is fair but others arent. Why would I advocate the competitors are fair?
If i were an iPoker rep i would be doing exactly the best job possible if I could sway to players to play on my fair site instead of the other rigged sites.

Why would iPoker pay me to advocate the fairness of rivalry poker sites?

2) Its also been mentioned here before that there is a rigged-test software that shows if you and opponents hit flushes straight etc the expected frequency. So far, you havent been keen on using it.

What makes you think some screenshotted hands are worth more in this discussion than your 200k hand sample?

3) Skypoker does provide hand histories and they are saved on your pc as well so they are very easy to attain. So whats stopping you?

4) What is my business exactly? Defending all poker sites? Do they all pay me? And if so, when will I get my money?
Also, what is your business? Holding back 200k hands worth of evidence that poker is rigged? That's what a site rep would do. I am not exactly being a very good site rep for repeatedly asking to actually see those incriminating facts.
You however keep on refusing to show them... It almost makes people think the damning evidence isnt there at all

5) Ohh yea... dynamic luck balancing.. of course. But just to freshen my memory.. Could you please sow some evidence of this?

6) Oh good you have sources this time. Internal sources in fact. Since you have these sources could you please show them?

7) now you are just laughable. Elite players running -50/BB over massive samples?
You clearly cant tell if something is elite and that makes a whole lot of sense.
But anyway, could you please name 1 elite player that is running -50/BB.
I know you know multiple but only the one is fine.

8) Why are you mentioned so many times in the epstein files?

I made then numerical to make it easier for you.
As you can see, you never answered any of those questions.
For instance, you've never named an elite player thats running -50BB/100 over massive sample.

Please dont repeat yourself by answering zero questions again. Nobody likes repitition.

I just read the first question, cant be reading your childish repetiveness.... guess what ... yep ive answered it. Question 2 the guy claimed to have something to run (complete stranger, could be nutjob like you) wants me to share my personal account, etc. It would not work for Omaha hi lo anyway and is not gonna happen. So no need to read rest, just be childish repetiveness nonsense.

Now you challenged me to a HU (for the 47th time), knowing i play a different variation to you at lower stakes.... i will repeat myself once again (23rd on this subject), that why on earth would i be playing 500 in a game i know is rigged (round and round and round we go... do you have memory loss???)

So im guessing you would be challenging me at what i play? No? i didnt think so.

Im not sure why your challenge is to play nose bleed stakes at a game i have not played for 20yrs....... for someone whos hot on proof (although theres no proof for your argument either, as we have established 56 times, but then you ask again... and again ... and again), what do you think that would prove for you?

You have to be.... have to be.... extremely young or just extremely immature.

PS Slugant said; For instance, you've never named an elite player thats running -50BB/100 over massive sample.

It was a shared article you nob, do you think i would go to the insane trouble you do, to write that myself????

You didnt, and you still didnt.

And by terrible bad luck you didnt answer the others either.
Like have you already downloaded hand histories to import? If you want to show evidence of the dynamic luck balancing. Or the internal sources that speak to you. No name of the elite -50bb player and not an explanation of why your name is all across the epstein files.
In conclusion, nope, you didnt answer. Anything. Just another distraction from an obvious site rep.

I get it in comparison to you but 500nl isnt exactly nosebleed man. Its 2,5/5,- blinds. You are a 25+ lifelong winner, you got some money to spend dont you.

Why would you playing $5 on a game you know is rigged? Why on earth would anyone play a rigged game.... perhaps you could tell us since you know poker is rigged but keep on playing. And its not exactly that you get a lot of fun out of it do you 😉

You dont write your own stuff?? thats a relief :p

Still, you didnt share anything. You might have copy-pasted a lot of bullshit but no sources whatsoever.
It was you who exclaimed "I’ve seen elite players run -50 BB/100 over massive samples" in a post here
So why is it so difficult for you to name just one?
Writing one down isnt that much insane trouble now is it?😃

ChatGPT? I don’t think you realize everything I said was correct

I said it because you very obviously play micro stakes PLO8

It’s lower variance than PLO and NLH. If you move up in stakes, then it’s different

You really, truly are not bright. In all honesty, you sound like you’re projecting more than anything

Nobody is going to take you or anyone else seriously, ever, if you continue to hurl unsubstantiated accusations

It’s not that difficult. Gather evidence, post in probability forum and/or have your analysis peer reviewed

PLO8 will always, always be higher variance than NLH.... regardless of stakes.... which is irrelevant ....

You say 'your not bright' and 'nobody is going to take you seriously', whilst associating yourself with the incredibly, incredibly childish Slugant, the very epitome of your descriptions!?

Then you want me to gather evidence for a tin pot forum, when the whole poker world is 50/50 on the online poker rig debate.... Get it in to your heads guys, its a debate cos no-one but no-one can prove it either way after 25yrs +!!!!! Thats why we stilll debate it! Stop wasting your time with requests for hand samples!!! This thread would not be even a thing if it was provable either way!!!! Not that bright he says.... good god.....

Variance is not just the game variant you play...

Again, it is obvious you are playing PLO8 micro stakes. You probably do so bc you either can't beat NLH/PLO or you just hate the swings. There is nothing wrong with that, I was just pointing out something a lot of people don't really understand or have a misconception about

Again, you sound like you're projecting. Honestly you sound like Trump on one of his rants lmao

I said, specifically, to post in the Probability forum. It's not that hard and there is no need to go on a rant about it lol. You can simply upload a database of hands and everyone can take a look. Or you can do it yourself and present your findings. This is how people expose cheating and fraud and I fully support that endeavor when done correctly

Your posts, as constructed, aren't exactly compelling evidence...

So to be clear--are you claiming that 99.99% of players are indeed experiencing a fair RNG, because the sites only rig it for .01% of people, and that you happen to be in that unfortunate .01% for some reason?

You were in the epstein files when you were at school? Hahahha I dont think you are making the argument you want to :p
Of course it flies over your head, but its a silly claim based on meaningless accusations with zero evidence. Kinda like a certain someone who is claiming all online poker is rigged. The two cases have exactly the same weight of evidence to them.. namely 0.0%

You keep repeating that you answered questions which you dont
You keep repeating claims without evidence, unfortunately that makes me repeat myself

Very solid point. You are right that in 25+ years of online poker a rigged deck has never been proven. What does tell you? That poker dealings are fair have been proven many times by RNG certificates. That you dont know how they work or you dont trust them is your issue, but the evidence is there.

Guess what? Thats not what he said and you've been told before. He said this

So the person you find credible enough to believe his words and you mention as a great example of an online and real time pro said these exact quotes:

"Major poker sites are not dumb enough to rig their software for more action"

And this one seems to be very applicable to your stance

"I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if you believe any popular site has a rigged RNG, you're not ready to be a real winner"

- Phil Galfond (a great example of an online and real time pro and someone who has played millions of hands and has even owned a site working with IT techs at the highest level.)

Its clear you copy pasted some bullshit, as it ended with:
t Like
a
iFollow
09 October 2025 at 11:33 PM
(
Reply...

Not exactly well written stuff.
I was asking you were did you get his article from, how is that difficult?
You've found it and quoted it, so you know the source. I want to know its credibility.
And if you disagree that there are elite players with -50bb/100 over massive samples, why did you copy paste to be used in an "argument"?

What are you doing to fight for change and regulation?
Keep on playing on a rigged site
Post on a forum without any shred of evidence, not even a clue
Great work man, the poker community really can rely on someone like you :p

Almost as much bullocks as every other word you've written.
If one site was knows for its fairness and all the others were sketchy people would flock to the fair site.
A rep for site 1 wouldnt defende site 2 because he doesnt want players to go to a competitor.. It seems like such a simple thing to understand yet you fail at it.

I did and you'd be shocked to learn that you were not telling the truth. Amazing right?
This is what it said:
Note that under the part "when it can feel rigged" there is a point called Player gap skills, do with that information what you want.

Its not 50/50 and among pro's its 100/0. Yes there are people who believe poker is rigged and they all share a few characteristics. They lose or win barely at microstakes and instead of being self-critical they rather point the finger at someone or something else. Your very good friend Johnmir even said he might be as good as Linus, its just that he has a rigged rng against and for some never mentioned reason Linus does not.

You are also not just collecting evidence for a tin pot forum, you've had greater aspirations remember

So you dont have to post any evidence for me or TD .
Do it for the beginners you want to protect.
Surely they deserve some evidence of this magical online version of poker. You are their hero, without you they would be lost. Provide them with the facts they so desperately need.

If you truly believe it cannot be conclusively answered why are you so 100% sure that you are right?
Furthermore, lets say we agree that it cant be conclusively answered, why do you also refuse to post any indication that its true? You are not even trying to prove 5%, you are just venting off about a game that clearly does you harm but you keep on playing.

See you in 6 months, please bring back some evidence then 😉
Then again, you've said "final post" before and were back immediately..
So see you tomorrow I guess.... please post some facts if you please X

btw, thewaddy if you come back
Take above post as a reference as how to add evidence to a claim, I know you struggle with it

examples:
You say Galfond said something.
He didnt
But if you read he said, add the quote so people know you are not making **** up
I told Galfond said a whole different thing, so I added the quotes, so that there is evidence of what was actually said

You say if you asked chatgpt if poker is rigged its open topic.
It doesnt.
But if you do see this, add a screenshot so people know you are not lying again.
I asked chatgpt the same question and it showed something else. So I added the screenshot.

And if you quote an entire article. Link the source so people can check it.

And if you claim you see clear evidence of rigged hands and mathematical impossible situations (which you've claimed numerous times), show them. Not just tell about them. Show them, its not rocket science.

Its all really not that difficult.

If you want me to be clear, i will be. You have not been intelligent enough to understand the quote. Is that clear enough for you?

The sentence is saying if EVERYONES poker profile is tweaked by 0.01%, no-one will notice, but generate huge revenue as a result for the online sites.

You should maybe get someone to decipher it for you before aggressively confronting and getting it completely wrong.

Secondly, i wasnt claiming anything, i didnt write the article. Its someones take on online poker, not mine. But as sites are doing it and you lot continually ask why and how..... we offer various credible explanations, as no-one knows conclusively.... as there is no proof either way. Hence asking for proof on a debate is fruitless, the same as me asking you for proof, which you guys dont seem to understand works the same way.

I thought this was clear

Apparently it wasnt or did time just flew by :p

You can get bitchy with Plohmygod all you want, but he read it right and you screwed up
The exact quote from the article you mindlessly (and apparenly without reading) copy pasted was "If the aggregate statistics look normal, nobody cares if 0.01% of profiles are being tweaked."
0.01% of profiles means 1 in every 10.000 profiles and NOT 1/10.000th of every player's profile

So why did you feel the need to quote this whole article without posting a like or source? You havent even read it properly
And the claims it make you cant even back up

And then you got the answer that "major sites have regulated fairness and independent third party agencies ensure card distribution is truly random"...

How is that different from what I got?
And its not all saying its open debate, it says truly random with clarity. Your reading comprehension is absolutely atrocious.

And @ the latest image, what do you even think that proves?
"Could they do it, yes but its not easy"
Could my local supermarket be injecting poison in every fruit? Yes but its not easy. WOWWW there you have it guys, I now am certain that my supermarket is poisining us and I will make it my lifes work to let everybody know... You are a moron and that why you are mad at poker, not because the world is rigged against you.

Your time management, so see you in another 6 months OK?😃

Slugants latest post will come under point 4. Having made the point asking AI will tell you the online poker debate is open, it opens with the line 'while there is no substantial evdience online poker is rigged, there remains a major debate due to the frequency of bad beats'.

Does this line suggest there an open debate (my only point, no other), or does this line suggest something different? Lets see the Childs answer......

Slugant focuses on different parts, Quote And then you got the answer that "major sites have regulated fairness and independent third party agencies ensure card distribution is truly random"...

How is that different from what I got?
And its not all saying its open debate, it says truly random with clarity. Your reading comprehension is absolutely atrocious.

You are starting to crumble under the 'Slugant child list' as every post you give will fall under one of these listed items.

Yes due to the nature of the game (high variance, bad beats, skill gaps etc) people with low self reflection think poker is rigged. But all facts point the other way. But by now we know you hate facts.

But answer me this, if you can.
If your main point now is that its open for debate, why are you certain poker is rigged?
If its open for debate you wouldnt know at all.
And if its open for debate why is this your goal:

Why are you here to tell about the certain magical cards that you say are "open for debate"?

PS: and feel free to answer my questions instead of your own 😉
And how do you feel about promising you'd be back in 6 months only to be back the next day??? Is this what happens with you and online poker too and thats why you hate it? Sounds like you have some addictions and anger issues. Your relationship with online poker surely isnt making you a happier person.

Your original quote specifically mentions rigging it for ".01% of people," but now you're talking about everyone's profile being rigged, but by .01%. These are different things. I'm not even sure what "tweaked by .01%" means or how doing that would generate massive profits.

But at this point, it's pretty clear you're not the type of person who forms opinions based upon solid evidence and logic, so there's very little point in continuing the conversation, especially given your unnecessary rudeness.

Furthmore, if they tweak 0.01% of everyones profile that wouldnt make a significant change in players results as well. Big winners will remain big winners and losers will remain losers. This 0.01% tweak would never account for more change in results than variance can and its not even close. With normal variance over a 200k sample a true winrate of 2.5 has a 70% confidence interval of winrates between 0.26 and 4.74 which is a 89.6% change from the true winrate. Which is a 8960 times bigger factor than the 0,01% profile tweak.

That of course is if this 0,01% tweak was happening, which it isnt.

You appear to be on Slugants level (pretty rare, but it seems that way).

Once again, i have to repeat myself. You talk about my original quote and how i am changing what it means. Take some time to consider that i shared someone elses post, i did not write this and therefore, like you, i only have the power to interpret what it actually means.

What part of that are you not getting? Why do i spend so much time explaining obvious things to the pair of you. 3 or 4 times?