Why I think online poker is rigged

[Cheetah]

I agree. In fact while we are it I think we should take this opportunity to stamp down on all creativity, free-thinking, and deviations of opinion from the mainstream. Otherwise, well the world will just become chaos.

Furthermore, I think CC should change the T & C's to stipulate that all posts be accompanied with a Wikipedia cut & paste job to substantiate anything said (because Wikipedia is God!). This will ensure complete bias, sorry I mean impartiality, consesus of all thought, and a further step towards world peace.

BTW, Cheetah, I think when you do such cut & paste jobs in future it would be best to show that many sides to an argument (as there are in all academic disciplines) rather than just cherry-picking the parts that suit your argument. Though maybe you were just trying to demonstrate to us how a "Selective Memory" works in those people that believe in "theories" that online gaming is "not at all rigged for action"

For anyone interested here is the rest of the Wikipedia doc that Cheetah CHOSE to ommit:

"Modern behavioral psychologists have disputed Skinner's "superstition" explanation for the behaviors he recorded. Subsequent research (for instance, by Staddon and Simmelhag in 1971) while finding similar behavior failed to find support for Skinner's "adventitious reinforcement" explanation for it. By looking at the timing of different behaviors within the interval, Staddon and Simmelhag were able to distinguish two classes of behavior: the terminal response, which occurred in anticipation of food, and interim responses, that occurred earlier in the interfood interval and were rarely contiguous with food. Terminal responses seem to reflect classical (rather than operant) conditioning, rather than adventitious reinforcement, guided by a process like that observed in 1968 by Brown and Jenkins in their "autoshaping" procedures. The causation of interim activities (such as the schedule-induced polydipsia seen in a similar situation with rats) also cannot be traced to adventitious reinforcement and its details are still obscure (Staddon, 1977). Eduardo J. Fernandez of the Department of Psychology of Indiana University sought to follow up on Staddon and Simmelhag's debunking of Skinner's hypothesis and to "further contrast superstitious versus functional interpretations of behavior" in pigeons. In a 2004 paper titled "Superstition Re-revisited: An Examination of Niche-Related Mechanisms Underlying Schedule Produced Behavior in Pigeons," he demonstrated that what Skinner had seen as "superstitious" behavior was accounted for by the natural foraging behaviors of the species he used as test subjects"

Source: B. F. Skinner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Providing an incomprehensible disagreement with that original research doesn't prove anything, especially with respect to superstitions in humans.

As for providing a comprehensive treatise on the subject, I trust that interested readers have the ability to click on links and find the relevant information themselves. Obfuscation of the main point only results in an unreadable and boring post.

You can easily express your "creativity and free-thinking" by simply providing some statistical proof in the form of pokertracker stats, for example.

Many have posted and asked the conspiracy theorists to do so, yet no one has done that yet. In the absence of such statistical proof, all you have is air.

Let us summarize your position:

I am of the opinion that 2 + 2 = 5. I cannot prove it, but this is an expression of my beliefs and creativity, and therefore, it must be correct. :laugh:

 

[Cheetah]

There must something CC can implement for anyone who attempts to use "Rigged", disallowing the post to go through.
Then, if they still want to post about it, they'll have to be calm and sly enough to do a work-around.

If they are disallowed to post conspiracy theories, they will be even more convinced of their conspiracies!

I don't think they should be disallowed because there is no way to draw a clear boundary what is acceptible and what not. Besides, it is funny to read some of these posts.

But I think one possible solution is for the mods to create a sub-categery somewhere so that all these posts can go there. That will make it easy for people to skip them. I would go there once in a while for the commedy value they provide.

 

[DaFrench1]

Providing an incomprehensible disagreement with that original research doesn't prove anything, especially with respect to superstitions in humans.

To make it more comprehensible to you: The research information you provided in your earlier post to flame 'conspiracy theorists' (that our mod also thought was so great!) has been TOTALLY DISCREDITED. It dates from the early part of the last century when 'Behaviourism' (behaviour conditioned by reward and punishment) was the dominant paradigm in psychological research.

You can easily express your "creativity and free-thinking" by simply providing some statistical proof in the form of pokertracker stats, for example.

Ya, Cos thats really creative and free-thinking! ROFL

Many have posted and asked the conspiracy theorists to do so, yet no one has done that yet. In the absence of such statistical proof, all you have is air.

Can't prove it is, can't prove it ain't. Your position is no more solid. Another thing, a scam that could be easily detected by widely used commercially available software wouldn't be a very good scam now would it?

Anyway, next time you want to flame then just put in a post that says :bird:, because we all know what you are trying to say anyway, and that way you can avoid trying to be clever, because it really doesn't suit you.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

 

[K_Kahne_Fan]

Does anyone have a pissing match icon?

 

[Tygran]

I definitely agree with the 2/4. Although 2/4 had both of us overstacked and may have thought we were both drawing and therefore (to them) it was worth a shot. I only had $1.50, so "all-in" post flop in my case was not much. And to think my QJ may be the best flush is a decent call. Could someone have Ax, or Kx suited, sure, but with $1.50 it was worth the call. Not to mention if someone had A or K with an unsuited connector and another heart on turn/river would've killed me. I understood all this, but that's what they call a gamble.

Fair enough, in your case yeah I would have been all in there as well. In my defense your screenshot didn't say how much you had personally invested in the hand. If you had invested alot my comments would have been more valid about the play being "suspect". Still it shouldn't be a shock when a hand that isn't the best for the 5 on the board loses.

I didn't mean to attack you and rereading my post later I did come off more confrontational that I think I intended too. For what it's worth the angst in that post is more about the whole idea of using one hand or even a whole, statistically insignificant smattering of hands, to argue for some rigged conspiracy. The point still stands..bring meaningful evidence, not anecdotes.

For the record I wasn't trying to say "never play JQ suited" I play JQ suited if I can get in cheaply with it fairly often. However what I am trying to say is this: Don't blame the site if you lose when you *choose* to get all into a hand where you know you don't have the nuts. If you don't have the nuts and you get called there is a good chance you will lose. That's all.

 

[Cheetah]

Can't prove it is, can't prove it ain't. Your position is no more solid.

You obviously have no understanding of elementary statistics. It is impossible for me to explain this point to you for at least the following reasons:

1. You don't have the desire to learn
2. You don't have the capacity to learn
3. I don't have the desire to teach you
4. No one has the abilities to teach you anything
5. You will continue to belief regardless what logic and facts say

Your continued efforts to promote your unsupported point of view leads me to the inevitable conclusion that you are not interested in a debate that is based on substance, but rather one based on personal confrontation.

I am not interested in such debates and for that reason I will ignore all of your future postings.

 

[MR X]

...

 

[Cheetah]

...

I am all for free expression.

But a picture where someone beats a horse (or any other animal(or human)), is not my idea of free expression.

I find this profusely offensive. Would one of the mods please stop that.

Thank you.

 

[Alon Ipser]

On my way to work this morning, all the stoplights changed to red just as I got to the intersection. Thats 10 out of 10 lights. Now I don't think they were targeting just me. I do believe they would have changed to stop any car. My point is that stop lights are rigged.

 

[withawedge]

Cheetah,

Mr X was not being offensive with his picture.

It is (if I am not mistaken) "Flogging a dead horse".

It is very apt in all these rigged threads

 

[Cheetah]

I can see what you are saying and what he may mean. Nevertheless, it is very disturbing to me to see a picture where an animal is being beaten.

Have we not already done enough harm to them?

 

[Debi]

AAHHHH!!! I read 3 posts by Dak in a row - I guess this means CC must be rigged!!

Don't be silly -the odds of that happening are astronomical lol.

 

[F Paulsson]

Another thing, a scam that could be easily detected by widely used commercially available software wouldn't be a very good scam now would it?

I could be wrong here, but my interpretation of how you mean the pokersites would rig it without it being statistically provable would be to not rig the hole cards, but instead rig the flops for "more action" which would be much harder to find.

If they DID rig the flops for action, wouldn't that mean that, for instance, boats, flushes and straights would be more common place than they ought to be? Because in that case, straights - a hand that is supposed to be rare - would lose more often than it "should." A flush wouldn't hold up as often as expected, etc.

Or am I missing how you're saying this could work?

 

[DaFrench1]

You obviously have no understanding of elementary statistics. It is impossible for me to explain this point to you for at least the following reasons:

1. You don't have the desire to learn
2. You don't have the capacity to learn
3. I don't have the desire to teach you
4. No one has the abilities to teach you anything
5. You will continue to belief regardless what logic and facts say

Your continued efforts to promote your unsupported point of view leads me to the inevitable conclusion that you are not interested in a debate that is based on substance, but rather one based on personal confrontation.

I am not interested in such debates and for that reason I will ignore all of your future postings.

:bird:

Ya, best to quit while you're behind and cut your losses.

 

[DaFrench1]

I could be wrong here, but my interpretation of how you mean the pokersites would rig it without it being statistically provable would be to not rig the hole cards, but instead rig the flops for "more action" which would be much harder to find.

If they DID rig the flops for action, wouldn't that mean that, for instance, boats, flushes and straights would be more common place than they ought to be? Because in that case, straights - a hand that is supposed to be rare - would lose more often than it "should." A flush wouldn't hold up as often as expected, etc.

Or am I missing how you're saying this could work?

No, you are spot on. That is what I am suggesting. Only that it doesn't need to be such power hands to achieve the goal, again that's going to be obvious.

But you know, seriously I wonder if actually it is not a necessary evil, because otherwise you could end up being at a table for over an hour without anyone being eliminated and tournaments could drag on for an eternity, and who would want that? not me and probably none of you either. I don't like the word rigged either, it has too many negative conotations. I would prefer to say that it's 'juiced'.

Now, I would like to point out for the umpteenth time that this doesn't bother me too much as long as I am still making money. Why should it? I'm not crazy because I think its juiced and I still play it, in fact it's a very rational decision. Likewise, if you believe its 100% not rigged then it is also a rational decision to deposit and play, whether you win or lose. However, If you think it is rigged, are losing money, and still insist on continuing to play it, then that would be irrational, ya.

Now, being that my belief system is what it is and being that it is just as rational as the other camp's views. Tell me why I shouldn't be able to express that without fear of being flamed or being on the receiving end of an 8 against 1 bully/intimidation job where my intelligence, credibility, belief systems and sanity are all going to be viciously attacked?

THAT is why I'm always on these posts when I see this behaviour taking place. If you look back through the spats before you will actually see that I DO NOT agree with most of the OP's on their points. But I believe
that they have the right to voice their opinions without fear of attack and that actually this is something important to stand up for. I have a serious dislike for people that use ridicule rather than debate though unfortunately I fight fire with fire when I come across it and tend to use their own tactics against them (not pleasant is it Cheetah?). I've even received an infraction on this site for doing just that on another occasion, go figure.

 

[F Paulsson]

No, you are spot on. That is what I am suggesting. Only that it doesn't need to be such power hands to achieve the goal, again that's going to be obvious.

But this is testable in PokerTracker (Misc Stats tab). And since the relative rates of hands - i.e. how often should I hold a full house at showdown - is something that can be calculated with pen and paper, surely this falls under the category of "things that can be checked with big pokertracker databases."

For example: Of the hands I get to showdown, only 3% are flushes (618 times this year), but of those times I win 85%. Etc.

 

[DaFrench1]

But this is testable in PokerTracker (Misc Stats tab). And since the relative rates of hands - i.e. how often should I hold a full house at showdown - is something that can be calculated with pen and paper, surely this falls under the category of "things that can be checked with big pokertracker databases."

For example: Of the hands I get to showdown, only 3% are flushes (618 times this year), but of those times I win 85%. Etc.

Nah, that doesn't do it. The only way to test it is to know ALL the hole-cards that were dealt and then checking the flops to see how many people hit or get a draw, and then compare this to real world. You would also need to correlate the strength of the hands to stack size and also record the frequency of hands where more than x number of players get a strong hit or draw on the flop as it doesn't happen EVERY hand. As I also suspect field size to be a variable in the level of juicing then I don't see how this can be detected without a site operator providing access to their systems or complete tournament records. Never gonna happen, right?

 

[F Paulsson]

I don't think I get it. You're saying that they're not singling any particular player out, but they're "juicing" the game in general. In that case, I wouldn't need to know everybody else's holecards since they would have the same - juiced - distribution as my own. Therefore, if I can show that my pairs, two pairs, draws, flushes, straights, full houses, trips and quads come with the expected frequency, and that they WIN with their expected frequency (this is a major difference) then we're well on our way.

Testing for stack sizes can probably be done as well, depending on what you're looking for. How do you mean that they might juice the games with the stack sizes as a variable, and can that variable actually not be eliminated? I.e. are you saying that if we look at the distribution of how the hands play out without regards to stack sizes, you'd expect to see a fair distribution, but if we look at "only short stacks" for instance, we might see a disproportionately large shift towards, say, top pair hands?

 

[K_Kahne_Fan]

Does your poker tracker record if you fold 5-3off and flop comes out 3-5-3? I'm still unsure how I feel about all of this, but I can definitely say I've folded many hands that would've completed to something great had I played. And these were hands that with a little experience you "know" to fold, but maybe a new player would at least limp in to see (3-5 could give them a str8) and end up sucking out on your pocket J's or whatever. Or heck, a newbie playes the 5-3, you play AQ, flop comes A-2-7; now newbie and you are playing... then they catch the miracle 4 on the river.

 

[ellisman7]

With the Bodog hand in the screenshot above, I'd love to know if someone folded the 9 5!!

EDIT: Actually I didn't see the 6 on the end was diamonds. Damn, who still uses 2 color decks!

i usually do.

 

[bubbasbestbabe]

Blah, Blah, Blah. Poker is rigged or the site is juiced always comes out when you are at the losing end of deal. But wait, what about those times you tried to steal the pot with your 8-10os, got called on it with pkt As and the hand winds up with you winning with a boat? Forgot about that one didn't you? This is where most of the rigged threads seem to veer away from.

The bitching starts when you are having a run of bad luck. It happens to all of us. And after whatever the time period is it will flip back to a winning period. It has nothing to do with the sites either being rigged or juiced.

So you sit back and go with the flow. And if you don't have the temperment to ride out the downswing then don't play. Read and study until you are clear in your head enough to go back into the fray.

 

[aliengenius]

Does your poker tracker record if you fold 5-3off and flop comes out 3-5-3? I'm still unsure how I feel about all of this, but I can definitely say I've folded many hands that would've completed to something great had I played. And these were hands that with a little experience you "know" to fold, but maybe a new player would at least limp in to see (3-5 could give them a str8) and end up sucking out on your pocket J's or whatever. Or heck, a newbie playes the 5-3, you play AQ, flop comes A-2-7; now newbie and you are playing... then they catch the miracle 4 on the river.

Yes, it does record that. Anyway, try never folding again, and see if that increases your win ratio.

Can't prove it is, can't prove it ain't. Your position is no more solid.

No. Not only do you not understand statistics, you clearly don't understand basic logic. You don't get to claim "I believe there are pink gremlins under the bed" and then say it has just as much weight as "pink gremlins don't exist" because I can't "prove" that they don't.

 

[Chiefer]

"poker is rigged, blah blah blah, boo hoo, i can't win and i'm a poker god."

"no it's not, your just a donkey, blah blah blah."

flog a dead horse (British, American & Australian, American)
to waste time trying to do something that will not succeed. You're flogging a dead horse trying to persuade Simon to come to Spain with us - he hates going abroad. (usually in continuous tenses) Do you think it's worth sending my manuscript to other publishers or I am just beating a dead horse?
See also: dead, horse

flog something to death (British, American & Australian, informal, American) to use a particular style or to discuss a particular subject so many times that it is not interesting any more. He basically takes one theme and flogs it to death for three hundred and fifty pages. No sporting event is beaten to death more than the Sugar Bowl - it is analyzed again and again by the commentators.

or in this case, poker is rigged theories.

 

[dj11]

Clearly, as a poker player I am rigged as my bankroll has been going up. You should all avoid confronting me as I am rigged and it is predetermined that you will lose!.

Be forewarned!:deal:

 

[Chiefer]

Clearly, as a poker player I am rigged as my bankroll has been going up. You should all avoid confronting me as I am rigged and it is predetermined that you will lose!.

Be forewarned!:deal:

thanks for the warning, much appreciated. now if i could only figure out how to turn you in.