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
Why do you quote articles without source if you havent read it or disagree on whats in the article?
Why do you keep insisting if poker is rigged is open for debate yet you are sure it is rigged and and "are here to warn beginners about the magical cards"?
Why do you refuse to blame variance for run of the cards but are copy pasting a 0.01% rig possibility event though variance weighs 8960 times heavier?
Why do you keep playing poker on a site you know is rigged and every session see the proof of?
Why do you keep posting when you've said farewell multiple times before?
So many questions and so few answers, none actually
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 inter
I feel you are maybe suffering from some kind of Autism in your posts. You take things literally and simply never understand what is actually being said.
Although i did not write this post (before you say again i did), the point this guy is trying to make is that if they tweak odds in a very small way to benefit them, it would go undetected. You have taken 0.01% completely literally, where he has just used this as an example figure.
Although i have shared this post ... and read this carefully.... it is not neccessarily going to be my thoughts to an absolute tee... although you cant seem to get of the taking things absolutely literally out of your posts. Maybe Autism.
Once again you are deliberately misreading and misinterpreting very simple things, as in all posts.... point 4 in the childs list.
the point this guy is trying to make is that if they tweak odds in a very small way to benefit them, it would go undetected. You have taken 0.01% completely literally
Perhaps because he/you literally said 0.01%.
But you just take some random guys example (not facts) as good enough to bring into an argument? Yet when others bring up variance as an example you shoot them down... Thats some double standards for you right there.
For once you are somewhat right. I am literal, because I like facts. You have an opinion although it alters from "poker is rigged" to "we cannot be sure if poker is rigged or fair" and you are making up examples to fit that narrative or you'll find examples from other people that fit that narrative.
But never facts, never ever facts. And I work by facts.
So yes, a lot is literal with me. Especially numbers and statements written as if they are facts. But everything by you is plucking out of the thinnest air.
If i Quote Galfond saying 'its not easy but yes online poker sites could rig', you cant seem to be able to understand that this is all im quoting to get a point across
Your point being that we simply cannot know if poker is rigged or fair.
Yet you yourself are also undoing that point by saying:
If you believe your own point you clearly shouldnt be warning beginners about magical cards because we dont know if they are there.
I insist poker is rigged, because that is my side of the debate.... the same as your stance is that it is not and insist on it. I insist its rigged as i have eyes and have seen it unrelenting hour in, hour out for 25yrs. Please, please... dont do it.... please do not say prove it.
Again, you go directly the opposite way of your own point.
You shouldnt say poker is rigged because you claim it only COULD be rigged, then again it could not.
But very wise of you to spend 25 years hour in hour out playing a game you know is rigged. Thats just so intelligent. And you clearly have a very healthy and fun relationship with poker. So very smart to keep doing this.
Because what your eyes have seen in those 25 years of poker your computer has as well, in the form of hand histories. So you can actually show us. Then the whole world can see what you've seen and maybe you can finally reach someone. Looking forward to this 25 years of proof 😉 Then again, that would be data and functs and you dont do those right? What people deserves are baseless and meaningless examples!! Thats where thewaddy thrives :p
i have adjusted my game to avoid obvious situations which will play out differently to actual odds, play really small and can make modest money for holiday spends
So the only way to beat the rigged RNG is to play an adjusted style and play really small
Somebody please tell Linus & Prodigy that they need to adapt their game quick!!😃
But you are here to warn beginners about the magical deck.... right? You've said so yourself.
Those beginners count on you, dont let them done with fabricated reposts.
Who else will be the vigilante this poker world so desperately needs?
Lets look at the 'proof' you have the mind of a schoolboy;1 You think its funny to say im named in the Epstein files. I dont recall anyone saying such a thing to me since school.2 You dont seem to be able to absorb subjects that have been discussed and answered in full.... and bring it up multiple times.... 3 You have stated many, many times that online poker is EASY to prove a
This post is mainly point 2 (repetetiveness), point 4 (deliberate misinterpretation) but I will point to point 3 here on the child list.
You live in this debate.
Live in it.
You post conclusive proof that the decks are random. Otherwise you have no right to speak as far as your own standards are concerned.
Slugant is going to post conclusive and irrefutable proof right here, right now that poker is random and that everyone who doubts will instantly change their mind.
Otherwise he will have to leave the debate. Or just keep repeating standards he doesnt have himself.
For someone who doesnt like repitition you sure are quoting your own post a lot 😉
You want proof that its fair, no worries. They actually test this kind of stuff you know.
iPoker Evaluation and certification
https://471dba781145c0b4e9a4-68ba33ff646...
Once you finished these 20 pages you might enjoy the Playtech evaluation:
https://471dba781145c0b4e9a4-68ba33ff646...
GG also passed the test:
https://ssl.gg-global-cdn.com/bd/front/i...
And so did Pokerstars:
https://access.gaminglabs.com/certificat...
All tested if the deck is random. All passed.
And look at how the links are there to be clicked so anyone has the source. Then there is no need to copy paste a whole lot of nonsense or tell stories. You can just show data and facts 😀
Now we want to see your evidence (not stories or examples, but actual evidence) or by your own standards you will have to leave the debate 😉
Oh and if you dispute the RNG certifications you also have to show up with not only stories or example but... you guessed it... some evidence.
Otherwise, by your own standards, you will have to leave the debate 😉
Good luck with the reading materials and I look forward to your coherent and well-thought out response
pretty weird actually that all these platforms are evaluated by different third-party companies
Because, as everyone knows, the only way to say a poker site is fair is by saying ALL of them are fair LOLOLOL. So you actually just need the one 😉
For someone who doesnt like repitition you sure are quoting your own post a lot 😉You want proof that its fair, no worries. They actually test this kind of stuff you know.iPoker Evaluation and certification
Again could we have conclusive and irrefutable evidence that online poker is random to the extent you changed the non believers opinion?
I think you know full well that all you have done is posted certificates that has been widely discussed in here as being tested for how often cards come out and not how they affect the hand or overturn odds.
Discussed many, many times. Comes under the child list point 2 (repetetiveness)
So now we are clear that you can not prove it, you have to stop this by your own principles.
Slugant said; Now we want to see your evidence (not stories or examples, but actual evidence) or by your own standards you will have to leave the debate
This comes under the child 'misquote'. This was your principles, never mine. Its an open debate, to voice opinion... it was you that insist i have no view without evidence.
Its about a childish a comment you could ever make as an adult.
How can you still argue its an open debate when you are maintaining its 100% rigged. Those two statements completely contradict each other. Another contradiction is that its OK for you to claim the RNG is rigged in this debate thread but when others claim it isnt rigged they shouldnt be allowed because its an open debate. You claim its rigged, I claim its not. I just happen to have all the facts on my side. And when you cant provide any you run to the teacher to get the other guy kicked out of school. And you have the nerve to call others childish. Its like you live on contradictions.
And who exactly is discussing that RNG certificates are wrong? You do. And with absolutely no backing whatsoever. But im not shocked you dismiss clear evidence and dont provide any on the contrary, its what you do. If you want to surprise us, please deliver us proof that the RNG checks are incomplete.
The test show they are 100% random, if runouts are tweaked they would not be random. This isnt rocket science. You clearly dont know how RNG checks work and have never spend any time learning about them.
And in case you havent notice, you arent exactly in the position to tell others they spend too much time in this thread. Something about throwing stones in a glass house 😉
How can you still argue its an open debate when you are maintaining its 100% rigged. Those two statements completely contradict each other. Another contradiction is that its OK for you to claim the RNG is rigged in this debate thread but when others claim it isnt rigged they shouldnt be allowed because its an open debate. You claim its rigged, I claim its not. I just happen to
I think everyone knows you live here, whilst i have had two short spells here... you have even referenced that many times. (comes under deliberate misinterpretation of a situation) I think you also know that it is only YOU who insists proof is the only way to debate and not me, so there is no contradiction. Its true i suggested you should stop, as your thoughts is you cant have an opinion if you have no proof (deliberate mistruth).
If RNGs are trusted by those who dont believe, there is no debate. I can have a belief they cant be trusted to be doing anything but checking how often each card comes out, as i have made attempts to ask testing houses;
1 to disclose what they actually test for
2 run my hands against certain players and give full results
In both instances after an intial response of boasting of their 'award winning technology', they swiftly resorted to totally ignoring my requests (Comes under repetiveness, ive repeated this many times) NOW WHERE AS SLUGANT WILL NOW INSIST THAT IM CLAIMING IM 'PROVING' SOMETHING HERE, IM NOT... I AM SIMPLY EXPLAINING WHY THERES LITTLE TRUST IN RNGS AND WHAT THEY DO, ON THE PART OF NON BELIEVERS.
I can argue in an open debate my opinion and put this across as my strong belief (ive have never used the words 100% rigged, comes under deliberate misquote) because;
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
debate
/dɪˈbeɪt/
noun
noun: debate; plural noun: debates
a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.
Notice how a debate does not have to involve concrete proof to prove either way, as a debate is always something that DIVIDES OPINION and as the Dictionary quotes, usually ends in a vote. The vote here resulted in a close split decision (which you will undoubtedly somehow attempt to deflect, by insisting the 55% means much more than the other 45%)
Such a close decision and 3600 pages, clearly leaves the debate completely open, as no-one is able to prove anything and the figures on the vote conclusively PROVE this point.
I HAVE HAD TO PUT THIS IN A WAY THAT A CHILD CAN UNDERSTAND... A DEBATE (TITLE OF THREAD), A VOTE, 3600 PAGES, NO-ONE ABLE TO PROVE EITHER WAY. THIS IS FACT.
Really disappointed @Mike Haven allows this to continue Slugant will clearly, clearly continue to repeat, repeat, deny its a debate, repeat, ask for conclusive proof that is not available either way, repeat and not offer anything new unless its untrue, misquoted, or misinterpreted, usually on purpose to deflect or mislead.
An opinion or argument based on proof is always worth more than an opinion with zero proof.
I get that you disagree with that, otherwise you would have to change your view on the riggedness of poker.
You think its weird that someone puts more faith in facts than in belief. Like we have to believe your words. But if you had the response from RNG certification companies, why not show it, take away our disbelief. Its just common sense.
If you dont say its 100% rigged why do you say
If its not 100%, you should warn beginners about the possibility of the magical online version right? Or is this direct quote somehow also a misquote
And you continue to run to the teacher to get me expelled like were in kindergarten. If you think I dont offer anything new thats fine, but what news do you bring to the table? Absolutely nothing!
You want an open debate but you also want the opposite site to get banned? You need to read your definition of debate again since it doesnt really speak about that
a formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote.
Funny that it ends with a vote, since that is wat has been done in this thread:
And the votes are in.... boy this is exciting:
Undecided 9%
Rigged 35%
Not rigged 56%
There you have it. Opposing arguments have been made, and the people have voted.
The "not rigged party" has won!
So according to your definition of a debate... it has now ended?
Poker is a really dangerous game. Look what it did to TheMaddy's mental health. He's ready for a life in a padded cell...poor guy.
TheWaddy said; The vote here resulted in a close split decision (which you will undoubtedly somehow attempt to deflect, by insisting the 55% means much more than the other 45%)
Slugant said; And the votes are in.... boy this is exciting:
Undecided 9%
Rigged 35%
Not rigged 56%
There you have it. Opposing arguments have been made, and the people have voted.
The "not rigged party" has won!
Sooooooo predictable i even tried to nip it in the bud before what he predictably would answer..........
You want conclusive proof..... the vote is 56% thinks its random, 44% are not convinced (again as i know the reply i will pre empt it.... 35% not believing and 9% undecided = 44% not convinced) If you think this result proves the subject is now not open to debate, whilst just about showing a bigger result that could get, that it is... i pity you!
Mikeeee Havennnnnnn, stop this child!!!!!!!!! Lookat the repeated bunch of crap he has wriiten in the first 2 sentances of his last post... over and over and over and over, the same things, over and over.... and BobtheSlob, Slugant would clearly do that to ANNNYONNNEEE!!!!!!!
TheWaddy said; The vote here resulted in a close split decision (which you will undoubtedly somehow attempt to deflect, by insisting the 55% means much more than the other 45%)Slugant said; And the votes are in.... boy this is exciting:Undecided 9%Rigged 35%Not rigged 56%There you have it. Opposing arguments have been made, and the people have voted.The "not rigged party" has w
u cant add 9% like that. ur trying to make it seem closer that it actually is
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Slugant said 'You think its weird that someone puts more faith in facts than in belief. Like we have to believe your words. But if you had the response from RNG certification companies, why not show it, take away our disbelief. Its just common sense.'
Like when you said quote 'You said Phil Galfond said something. He didnt' and i put up the screenshot? That you then conveniently ignored and no apology after proving you wrong???. I waste my time over and over with you!!!!
You would even claim in 300 pages time that he didnt say it again.... like you did 400 pages back!!!... Why is he allowed to thisssssss?????? BobThe Slob, please organise that padded cell for me!!!!
NB UnluckyPlayer.... of course i can, the debate is 'is online poker rigged'... 56% say no.... which means 44% are not convinced.... how else would you read it??? Not convinced is a very fair way to describe a 35% yes and a 9% undecided... in fact its only 9% who are not convinced so its even more than fair....
Slugant said 'You think its weird that someone puts more faith in facts than in belief. Like we have to believe your words. But if you had the response from RNG certification companies, why not show it, take away our disbelief. Its just common sense.'Like when you said quote 'You said Phil Galfond said something. He didnt' and i put up the screenshot? That you then conveniently
See kids, this is how a stable, long term winning player sounds who also happened to find a magical way to just play around the riggedness.....
Btw, he has about 5k games on SkyPoker, basically nothing as are his claimed "winnings" lmao.
... Mikeeee Havennnnnnn, stop this child!!!!!!!!! Lookat the repeated bunch of crap he has wriiten in the first 2 sentances of his last post... over and over and over and over, the same things, over and over.... and BobtheSlob, Slugant would clearly do that to ANNNYONNNEEE!!!!!!!
Please cease and desist from repeating the *same off topic post or you may well be banned for disruption, without further notice. (*More than 44% the same, to try to stop your next petty argument.)
Btw, this thread exists more for a place to dump the myriads of non-factual "feelings" posts that pop up every few days or so than for a serious debate. (They're generally not deleted nor censored just in case someone one day posted some actual proof of their allegations.)
You want conclusive proof..... the vote is 56% thinks its random, 44% are not convinced (again as i know the reply i will pre empt it.... 35% not believing and 9% undecided = 44% not convinced)
I know undecided is also unconvinced
So yes, 44% are not convinced its random
And with the same logic 65% (56%+9%) are not convinved it isnt random
So the vote has been again by the non-riggies, by almost two-thirds actually.
Math really isnt your thing huh
And open debate isnt either even though you so cleverly posted the definition only to have it bite you in the butt.
"We must have an open debate, this must be an open debate. Waittt hold up, someone has a different opinion... Mommy mommy, get rid of him."
Thats the last resort tactic for someone who wants to join an open debate without any founded arguments.
You are spot on the money with this one though😉
I would say that you would be suicidal if anyone took this away from you. Its your life. There has to be some protection from the Moderator there. I wasnt asking for a ban (again misinerpretation of the truth), i was asking for him to stop the posts from mass repeats... ie remove them if they repeated more than 8 times.... which would severely limit you.
I honestly believe if you were not on the side of random online poker, this would have happened longgggggggg ago. It is of course now me under close watch, because Online Poker lovers (massively different group to Poker lovers) get very upset when their bizarrely weird version of the game is under scutinisation.
BobTheSlob said; Btw, he has about 5k games on SkyPoker, basically nothing as are his claimed "winnings" lmao.
Its ok Bob, its par for the course that 'your findings' are what you want them to be. Im presuming this is Sharkscope, which just seems to have stopped recording anything, unless you are opted in these days. Certainly my name under Full Tilt is still there with a revolving silver star (proof for massive profit), but even that shows no figures anymore. Big winner on Sky for the levels i play, but as i say not opted into Sharkscope and i know of no other database. Enlighten me.
I do understand all online poker forums are EXACTLY the same.... aggression towards those who dont like Playstation outcomes, although this accounts for 50% of all online players... favouritism for those being overly aggressive, misquoting, misrepresenting comments if they support online decks... and always of course, a Moderator who gets tired supporting the game/people he knows are unhinged, as it starts to take its toll that he sold out Poker for this!
I will gladly move on, something Slugant could/would not ever do, give someone else a chance and of course, let Slugant start from scratch alllllll oveerrrrr again. Im sure you will enjoy watching that!
Each to their own! Jesus H Christ........
I would say that you would be suicidal if anyone took this away from you. Its your life. There has to be some protection from the Moderator there. I wasnt asking for a ban (again misinerpretation of the truth), i was asking for him to stop the posts from mass repeats... ie remove them if they repeated more than 8 times.... which would severely limit you.I honestly believe if yo
Do you understand what projection is?
Please cease and desist from repeating the *same off topic post or you may well be banned for disruption, without further notice. (*More than 44% the same, to try to stop your next petty argument.)Btw, this thread exists more for a place to dump the myriads of non-factual "feelings" posts that pop up every few days or so than for a serious debate. (They're generally not deleted
I love how TheWaddy calls in the moderator complaining about others, and is basically shut down and told that he's the one misbehaving, and furthermore, that this thread is just a dumping ground for people to post evidence-free nonsense that's left open in the off-chance that one day, someone might actually post something worthwhile (spoiler alert: it hasn't happened yet).
I'm a rep Ok, Waddy, please tell everyone itt what sportsbook(s) I represent
I made 5 figures profit from online poker again in 2025. Neither of the sites I played on are sportsbooks. You are not bright
yeah somehow he thinks that if he rages and in the support chat and offers random bets to these websites they should be licking their chops.
Just like poker he also doesnt know anything about how modern gaming companies are run.
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 c
If you tweak something by such a small margin that the tweak isn't measurable neither are the results.
I would say that you would be suicidal if anyone took this away from you. Its your life. There has to be some protection from the Moderator there. I wasnt asking for a ban (again misinerpretation of the truth), i was asking for him to stop the posts from mass repeats... ie remove them if they repeated more than 8 times.... which would severely limit you.I honestly believe if yo
Bro if everything that has been said before would be banned from the thread every of your post had to be deleted. Go back in the thread you are neither new nor original.
There have been droves of people who claim to have irrefutable proof of cheating. yet they cant post it. Guys who are total crushers yet the tracking sites mysteriously dont track that.
you are not special. you are just some dude who is not good especially good at poker and a sore looser. Its really not a big deal.
Yes but i can spell 'loser'......... Quite ironic that so many people use this word who cant even spell it....
I agree the majority modern day players need much more from poker than an ace high pot win! The majority of todays kids need AsKs v KdQd all in preflops to produce flopped trips which turn into a nut straight for the other hand.....
There is little to no call for anything else! And so the birth of 'ADHD 3 minute Jackpot Spin and go it could be you All in watch and see' sit and go's.
Enjoy your Playstation Poker guys, it may not last forever! Hopefully.
Thankfully, just like everything else you would say, its completely wrong
Well, if anyone has to its you 😉
Can you really move on??? Because you seem to obsessed with what I would or wouldnt do. Like I would attribute all your findings to variance and therefore you dont show any 🙂
I dont really need to move on. I have a good relationship with poker and it doesnt infuriate me like it so clearly does to you. I dont spend day in day out playing a game I believe to be rigged, because only an insane person would do that.
Also I never found it necessary to announce my goodbye from this forum only to return the same or next day. Which you have done multiple times. From 'last post' to 'see you in 6 months' the time has really flown by :p
Or maybe, just maybe, the player who still plays a rigged game after 25 years isnt that capable of moving on himself 😉 who would have thought
John, please dont fall off the wagon again
I was hoping in the time off you would have came to your senses and realized you havent proved anything. Even though you did that terrific live stream in which you got everything wrong :p:p
Btw, why did you delete that immediately afterwards again? Because a 99,9999999992% algorithm is a lot confidence haha. What are the odds that you get everything wrong with that confidence level, yet you managed it😉
If everyone sees your "evidence" as ignorable, does that tell you anything? Or does it just make you believe this conspiracy involves everyone in poker from top to bottom? Because that would be a major sign of unstable mental health.
But just to give some actual facts. These are the stats of Johnmir, a self-proclaimed elite level player and someone who clearly knows the algorithm.
Really a force to be reckoned with 😃
Also, TheWaddy is going to get real mad at you John, just wait and see
He always says its an open debate and it simply cannot be proven if online is poker rigged and here you are claiming you've actually proven it:p
Cannot wait to see his fury about such a silly and childish statement, he might even ask a moderator to remove you 🙂
