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
TJ is 100% a troll who thinks he is being funny.
His schtick just doesnt make sense.
I would suggest ignoring him.
Waddy however I believe to be sincere.
He is not very bright but i think in his case it all checks out.
What the hell is a spinning silver star on full tilt by the way guys?
They both post the same kind of bs. They are the same lonely loser probably.
And the PVI is a metric indepently of RNG, its been shown and said everywhere but you decide to read over it every time. Just because its poker-related its suddenly within the same bounds, well then the font size of the poker lobby must also be affecting the RNG because its within the same "poker code" right???No wonder 99% of your posts are in this thread, information just won
The font size analogy is a category error. Font size is a static UI element, it does not change based on player behavior or rake distribution. PVI, however, is a dynamic metric derived from the very data (player activity/rake) that the software processes. Because PVI is a variable dependent on the system's internal data, the possibility of a link to the RNG exists unless technical proof of isolation is provided.
Furthermore, you are using whataboutism by bringing up my comments on live poker to avoid answering your original claim about PVI. My opinions regarding live poker are a separate topic.
You keep saying "it’s been shown everywhere," but you haven't produced a single white paper, audit, or technical document showing the mathematical decoupling of PVI and RNG. "Everyone knows" is an assertion. I am asking for evidence. If you have no proof, simply say so.
You see TJ you cant on one hand acknowledge the problem with proving a negative and then turn around ask for exactly that.
Its just not believable.
Maybe come back on a new gimmick and try again.
You see TJ you cant on one hand acknowledge the problem with proving a negative and then turn around ask for exactly that.
Its just not believable.
Maybe come back on a new gimmick and try again.
You’re missing the distinction. I'm not asking him to prove a negative. I'm asking him to produce the evidence he claims is "everywhere."
He asserted that it has been "shown and said everywhere." I am simply asking to see the proof he is referencing. If he can't show it, then his claim is invalid. It’s not a gimmick. It’s called holding someone to their own standard.
Yeah no not buying it.
Nobody is this stupid.
You need to sprinkle in the absolute lunacy of course if you want to stay entertaining.
Normal dumb doesn't cut it I agree but this is just too over the top.
If you prove the sun is solely a star you also prove its not a planet, even though their both up in the sky
If you prove that PVI is solely a rakeback determinator you also prove its not a runout distributor, even though they both exist within the poker software
But I agree that you are clearly a troll. You say you dont play online poker yet 99% of your posts are in this thread. The fun had been had, you clearly have no intention just to mess around. Thats why you keep misunderstanding basic things.
They are not, of course the topics align perfectly. Its whether poker is fair, online or live.
We both made claims, for which evidence was asked.
I at least provided several materials that told exactly what a PVI is, you showed nothing. But if you dont accept those articles I see why you would struggle to find any evidence that supports your claim while also fitting in with the standards you conveniently hold.
Which you said is not a gimmick.
So again, where is the proof of your statements?
And dont do that bs its a seperate topic. You need to uphold your own standard 😉
Ive had businesses and i have businesses, either statement i use on any given day is true
Ive had the flu and i have flu... they somehow seem different and you know they are
But its always funny so to see you dig deeper when you've hit rock bottom
LOL, I think this might be why you are struggling waddyboy
When you sit down at a poker table you think its "us versus them" while the other players are playing you.
bizarre to you that i would gamble with bookmakers/gambling sites unless i truly respected them.
Like gamblers usually absolutely love the bookie with whom they place their bets and lose their months rent... like they shake their hand and tell them how much they respect them as a human being when they lose a fair bet ... what planet are you on????
What planet are you on?
You dont have to truly respect them but you despise them. You think they are just terrible people. So for 25+ years you hang out there. You're an idiot.
How many times have you lost months rent and had to shake hands waddy? And what does it have to with an RNG.
Please take your medicine.
Unfortunately you are not business trained to understand basic logic or basic math.
You are hilarious.
I believe these things are clear to you.
Its called paranoid schizophrenia.
If you prove the sun is solely a star you also prove its not a planet, even though their both up in the skyIf you prove that PVI is solely a rakeback determinator you also prove its not a runout distributor, even though they both exist within the poker softwareBut I agree that you are clearly a troll. You say you dont play online poker yet 99% of your posts are in this thread.
You are now hallucinating claims that I never made just to avoid answering my question. Feel free to quote my claims if you think I'm wrong.
I am asking you to produce the 'everywhere' evidence you claimed exists. You have provided definitions, but zero evidence of causal isolation between PVI and the RNG. Since you have chosen to respond with personal insults and arguments against claims I never made, there is nothing left to discuss. The burden of proof remains on you, and you have failed to meet it.
You're only way out is to acknowledge that you were talking complete ****. There is no way to know what a site is doing with their PVI calculation unless you have access to the code. But you decided to be an idiot instead.
Ultimately, your pattern of making grand assertions without providing any substantiating data is exactly what defines a "riggie".
