Romper Room is not/is too threads

K

Kinkikos

Guest
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Total posts
24
There are people who say online poker sites are rigged. Many have experienced bad beats, and many of those are thinking human beings or highly intuitive ones who believe they have solid reason to be suspicious. There are also stats-minded people who present indirect evidence that is generally considered solid to show that cheating and/or rigging has gone on. And everybody who has played online poker for any significant amount of hands knows that there _are_ fly-by-night operations that abscond with people's money and resist cashout attempts, so who's to say some of them don't also rig their software?

On the other hand, I haven't seen direct evidence of a poker site being rigged. Such direct evidence would be source code for the poker software as reviewed by a qualified expert, or possibly a debug dump from the server where the software is being run, again as reviewed by a qualified expert. NOTHING else counts as direct evidence. So people who say online poker is rigged are talking out of their butt.

Meanwhile, there are people who scoff any time someone suggests that online poker might be rigged. Most likely resist the idea out of contempt for people who don't have their "insiderness" when it comes to winning poker play. A number are winning players and don't want to consider the possibility that they're winning unfairly. Others merely enjoy online poker and don't want to be confronted with the choice of either giving it up or being dupes. Still others have something to gain from the ongoing success of online poker in general and lie to themselves as to how it _must_ be an honest industry (the lie not being that it _is_ honest but that it _must_ be honest). And still others, I suspect, are planted in fora such as this one by poker sites themselves in order to ridicule and discredit those who clue into possible poker site dishonesty.

And the people who insist online poker is _not_ rigged have no more direct evidence to support their position than the people who say it is. They're talking out of their rear end too.

The fact is, almost no one, including many people who sit in an online poker site's office and operate the poker software, has a clue as to whether the site is honest or not. Almost no one has the expertise to acquire DIRECT evidence one way or the other.

So how about we stop these stupid Romper Room threads where all people do is insult each other because they're discussing an emotional issue and being emotional about it?

I'm posting this because I took an extended break from this forum without disabling email notification of replies. The only notifications I've been receiving over the past two months are in the "Where did you learn to play?" and "Absolute is rigged" threads, and the latter has degenerated into exactly the kind of childish is not/is too discussion I'm complaining about.

Basta! Por favor!
 
pigpen02

pigpen02

Legend
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Total posts
2,978
I'm posting this because I took an extended break from this forum without disabling email notification of replies. The only notifications I've been receiving over the past two months are in the "Where did you learn to play?" and "Absolute is rigged" threads, and the latter has degenerated into exactly the kind of childish is not/is too discussion I'm complaining about.

You need to re-read that thread. Absolute admits it.
 
lilybo

lilybo

Legend
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Total posts
1,175
lol just 2nite after i beat so and so with my A?c fl 2 his k?c fl, he went on and on bout being rigged, i asked him was it rigged 4 me 2 win or him 2 lose was 22funny
 
rob5775

rob5775

Legend
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Total posts
1,002
So people who say online poker is rigged are talking out of their butt.

Right... so where's this thread going?

And still others, I suspect, are planted in fora such as this one by poker sites themselves in order to ridicule and discredit those who clue into possible poker site dishonesty.

Correct again... they pay me in beer.

And the people who insist online poker is _not_ rigged have no more direct evidence to support their position than the people who say it is. They're talking out of their rear end too.

LOL... are you serious? So beyond the fact that many have compared hundreds of thousands of hands and they match up with statistical percentages and variance isn't good enough for you?

So how about we stop these stupid Romper Room threads where all people do is insult each other because they're discussing an emotional issue and being emotional about it?

Too late, you started another one. WTG.:confused:


See the above in blue.
 
K

Kinkikos

Guest
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Total posts
24
Quoting:

LOL... are you serious? So beyond the fact that many have compared hundreds of thousands of hands and they match up with statistical percentages and variance isn't good enough for you?

Reply:

Yes, I'm very serious. That's INDIRECT evidence. Indirect evidence can only suggest that something is the case. Only direct evidence can be conclusive.

BTW, having Absolute come out and say "yes, we're rigged" is also indirect evidence. It's conceivable they're lying. Until someone I trust analyzes the source code of their software for me and/or the debug log of their server while it ran the software, I don't believe anyone arguing either way has a leg to stand on.

Keep in mind that accusations of cheating are the matter taken most seriously in poker over its history. In the distant past people died for making that allegation. I propose we go back to being serious about it.
 
rob5775

rob5775

Legend
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Total posts
1,002
If you want I can link you to more than two dozen threads where this argument has played out in THIS FORUM ALONE!

And you never answered my question. WTF do you think is rigged?

My sarcasm in above blue did not reach you. Why would you make a post about not making any more "rigged" posts and then do one yourself? Lovely.:p
 
aliengenius

aliengenius

Cardschat Elite
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Total posts
4,596
And the people who insist online poker is _not_ rigged have no more direct evidence to support their position than the people who say it is. They're talking out of their rear end too.

This is just false. In any ontological argument the burden of proof is always on the "yes/pro" side. Those claiming "no" don't have to prove anything, or offer any proactive evidence for their side of the argument. For example: I claim that there are pink elephants the size of cats, if you don't think so, provide evidence that there isn't.

It's true that science is based on inductive (not deductive) logic. As such, evidence and arguments can only lend a "degree" of credibility to an argument: if we observe that the sun rises in the east everyday and sets in the west everyday for x amount of days/trials, we can "conclude" that the same thing will happen tomorrow. To that effect I offer you https://www.cardschat.com/forum/general-poker-13/any-point-playing-online-75149/ [dead link~tb] in regard to poker sites not being rigged.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rob5775

rob5775

Legend
Joined
Mar 16, 2007
Total posts
1,002
Thank you AG.... again. The link you posted was exactly what I was looking for. And your argument was just what I wanted to say but due to my intoxication... well, I couldn't. Try me during the daylight hours, pacific standard.:eek:
 
K

Kinkikos

Guest
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Total posts
24
If you want I can link you to more than two dozen threads where this argument has played out in THIS FORUM ALONE!

And you never answered my question. WTF do you think is rigged?

My sarcasm in above blue did not reach you. Why would you make a post about not making any more "rigged" posts and then do one yourself? Lovely.:p

Spoken like a true fanatic. Whenever someone tries to take an independent third-party position, immediately accuse him of being a member of The Enemy. So you, being on the Poker Is Clean Fanatics side of things, deliberately misread my posts to be saying "poker is rigged."

But a careful reader will see that I'm not. What I've obviously said is that there are very specific criteria that have to be met before anyone can claim knowledge that online poker is or is not rigged.

And a careful reader will see that your claim that I've started a "poker is rigged" thread is plainly laughable.
 
K

Kinkikos

Guest
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Total posts
24
This is just false. In any ontological argument the burden of proof is always on the "yes/pro" side. Those claiming "no" don't have to prove anything, or offer any proactive evidence for their side of the argument. For example: I claim that there are pink elephants the size of cats, if you don't think so, provide evidence that there isn't.

It's true that science is based on inductive (not deductive) logic. As such, evidence and arguments can only lend a "degree" of credibility to an argument: if we observe that the sun rises in the east everyday and sets in the west everyday for x amount of days/trials, we can "conclude" that the same thing will happen tomorrow. To that effect I offer you [old link~tb] in regard to poker sites not being rigged.

I'm not sure how the issue of online poker being rigged or not yields to an ontological argument. And the example you provided is highly empirical because it relies on disproof by counterexample. What I believe you're doing in that first paragraph is deliberately posting a lot of claptrap in order to test me and see if I'll catch on. Or perhaps to pat yourself on the back about how superior you folks from the U.K. are because you're sure I *shan't* catch on.

Your second paragraph doesn't relate to the issue, either. The only sensible question that can be asked is "Is this particular piece of poker software written or implemented in a rigged fashion?" In that case there is no question of data sets or probabilities. You look at the source code and the debug dump and see plain as day whether it is rigged or not, just as you'd see whether some specific person has one or two or three or four ears sticking out of his head.

The thread you included a link to features just a bunch of knee-jerk fanaticism on the Poker is Clean side. "Hey, we are profitable players, so everyone who says he played a rigged game is to be ridiculed." Or even worse: "Hey, we're the Poker Insiders, and anyone who disagrees with our position is An Outsider and The Enemy." Blech.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
reglardave

reglardave

Legend
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Total posts
2,264
By God, I've been deluded all along, and to your everlasting credit, I have seen the light. Not only was I under the impression that online poker was not rigged, I had completely missed the fact that Buffalo,NY had relocated to the UK. As a token of my esteem, I offer this:
 

Attachments

  • tinfoil-hat.jpg
    tinfoil-hat.jpg
    24.4 KB · Views: 76
Stick66

Stick66

Legend
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Total posts
6,374
BTW, having Absolute come out and say "yes, we're rigged" is also indirect evidence. It's conceivable they're lying. Until someone I trust analyzes the source code of their software for me and/or the debug log of their server while it ran the software, I don't believe anyone arguing either way has a leg to stand on.
LMAO!!!! Yeah. That would be the perfect thing to lie about. "Let's tell everyone we were hacked! That will surely make us even MORE money!" Sure, that's the ticket.

This thread is the one of the "Romper-Room-iest". Where is your magic mirror, dude?
 
aliengenius

aliengenius

Cardschat Elite
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Total posts
4,596
I'm not sure how the issue of online poker being rigged or not yields to an ontological argument. And the example you provided is highly empirical because it relies on disproof by counterexample. What I believe you're doing in that first paragraph is deliberately posting a lot of claptrap in order to test me and see if I'll catch on. Or perhaps to pat yourself on the back about how superior you folks from the U.K. are because you're sure I *shan't* catch on.

Yeah... I pretty sure you *shan't* catch on:
1. You don't seem to have a very good grasp of geography, so we can't really assume you have that much going on in other areas, such as following an argument, either.
To wit:
2. "disproof by counterexample" is exactly the point: those who claim poker is rigged don't get to assume their position is correct until proven otherwise by the opposite side-- THEY have to provide the proof for their claim; same thing as me claiming the existence of small pink elephants: yo
u don't have to prove they don't exist, I have to provide the evidence that they do.

Your second paragraph doesn't relate to the issue, either. The only sensible question that can be asked is "Is this particular piece of poker software written or implemented in a rigged fashion?" In that case there is no question of data sets or probabilities. You look at the source code and the debug dump and see plain as day whether it is rigged or not, just as you'd see whether some specific person has one or two or three or four ears sticking out of his head.

Wrong again. Examining source code is an empirical observation as well. You can certainly argue that it lends a higher degree of "proof" than examining a data set, but that doesn't make it "fact" any more than it's a "fact" that objects fall at 9.8m/s^2.

The thread you included a link to features just a bunch of knee-jerk fanaticism on the Poker is Clean side.

This is "knee-jerk" reaction !?!?:

Heres some evidence: Ive now got 110,000 cash game hands and 180,000+ tourny hands stored in an SQL database populated by screen scraping tools (I know I know, I REALLY should get out more) and with this size of data you would be able to notice if there was a variance outside statistically rational variance.

These figures are all based (the statistical column) on information that is properly calculated by other math type bods whom choose to do a PHD instead of actually playing, like me (not that I could have done the other route!).

Unlike other peoples posts, you can check these easily online:

ENDING --------------ACTUAL------------ MY POKEROFFICE
HAND ---------------STATISCAL ---------STAT BOOK
--------------------PROBABILITY--------------------------

1 Pair--------------- 0.4225 ---------------0.42246
trips ---------------0.021128 ---------------0.02122
quads --------------0.00024 ----------------0.00024
straight ------------0.00392 ----------------0.00396
flush ---------------0.00196 -----------------0.00197

Now to quantify my data, they come from sites listed in this order *from most to least*

pokerstars (48.2%)
prima network (21.3%)
party (12.8%)
b2b network (8.6%) (couldnt resist, "costa....oker" ;) )

the rest of the play is split up fairly evenly between another dozen sites.


Now, as for statistical variance between sites, this is something that I will have to spend some time analysing, but after quickly kicking out some figures into excel the variance between the 4 mentioned above is under 0.02% - and to be honest this is probably down to the "relative" lack of hands played at b2b so far.

Anyway - thats my tuppence, so if people persist on feeling that games are rigged, they are welcome to not play. As for growth in home games, I support and truly value this "grass roots" poker, and long may it go on.

ps/ figures gathered between 2004/10 & 2006/11

That's one long knee...

"Hey, we are profitable players, so everyone who says he played a rigged game is to be ridiculed." Or even worse: "Hey, we're the Poker Insiders, and anyone who disagrees with our position is An Outsider and The Enemy." Blech.

And here we see you operating within a closed argument: anyone who makes any contrary claims can simply be dismissed as obvioulsy biased and or part of the "conspiracy" to promote rigged online poker.

Blech.
 
T

thasauce7

Guest
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Total posts
122
I see what you are saying, but I'm pretty sure in this case it doesn't work like that. If your talking about who killed Kennedy or something like that, the type of argument you provided would be sufficient to not be considered correct or incorrect, but rather a statement of facts are facts and observations or opinions have no bearing on what really happened.

But this is poker. There is no changing what cards were dealt, there is no arguing the math on compiled hands that match up correctly with the given odds. Take that absolute thread for example, a group of players noticed that the information they compiled did not add up with the accepted values for any player ever and investigated. Now look where that brought them.

In regards to being rigged or not rigged the game of poker can be approached by mathematical methods that you would use in places like a physics lab. What I mean by that is using percent errors, standard deviation, samples, and other calculations to decide if everything adds up. If you don't believe that, I'm not going to argue with you, I'm just going to feel sorry for you.
 
Dorkus Malorkus

Dorkus Malorkus

HELLO INTERNET
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Total posts
12,422
So how about we stop these stupid Romper Room threads where all people do is insult each other because they're discussing an emotional issue and being emotional about it?

Bearing this in mind, what made you think posting this thread would be a good idea? Pretty obvious it would at some point exactly that which you're objecting to, imo.

Oh, and Absolute admitted it btw (and the evidence was indisputable from the beginning if you actually know about poker and stuff :)).
 
Irexes

Irexes

Legend
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Total posts
7,016
Don__t_feed_the_Troll.jpg
 
Dorkus Malorkus

Dorkus Malorkus

HELLO INTERNET
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Total posts
12,422
Too much effort to be a troll imo.
 
pigpen02

pigpen02

Legend
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Total posts
2,978
Can we have a majority vote on a thread lock, ban, something?
 
Egon Towst

Egon Towst

Cardschat Elite
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Total posts
6,794
Can we have a majority vote on a thread lock, ban, something?

I vote against. CC would lose a large part of its entertainment value if it didn`t have at least one live muppet at all times.
 
reglardave

reglardave

Legend
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Total posts
2,264
Can we have a majority vote on a thread lock, ban, something?

Nah, none of that is necessary; as a semi-official road test, this thread is being:
KABONGED!
 

Attachments

  • Kha_El_Kabong.jpg
    Kha_El_Kabong.jpg
    44.4 KB · Views: 72
belladonna05

belladonna05

belladonkin'
Loyaler
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Total posts
13,265
Awards
16
I vote against. CC would lose a large part of its entertainment value if it didn`t have at least one live muppet at all times.
wacka wacka wacka:marchmell
 
bubbasbestbabe

bubbasbestbabe

Suckout Queen
Joined
May 22, 2005
Total posts
10,637
Awards
1
Wait, he is posting a plausible arguement. Look, even the cat knows.
 

Attachments

  • catt.JPG
    catt.JPG
    24.5 KB · Views: 45
Top