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 to Full Tilt six months ago. The first few months were much better over on Full Tilt.
Now Full Tilt is worse than Poker Stars ever was. The past month has been brutal. Tonight I've had pocket aces six times. All six times I lost to someone with a lower pocket pair.
I can't tell you how many times (at least 100 times the past thee weeks) where someone needs one card, especially two or three hours into a tournament, and they hit when odds are 90 to 95% in my favor.
You tell yourself that's poker until it happens time after time after time.
I enjoy playing poker online but I'm about ready to give it up. There doesn't seem to be a site to where it plays out like a casino. You see bad beats in a casino but NOTHING like Full Tilt and Poker Stars back when I played over on that site.
Curious as to others observations. Is there a site that's on the up and up or is it time to retire from online poker where you start to get the feeling the deck literally is stacked against you?
*
Edit/MH: See:
I hereby confirm what Bobo said for the record:
It is possible to rig random number generators. Everyone please refrain from making false statements about what I said and didn't say. I made that exact statement several times itt. Here, i acknowledged it.
It was acknowledged at least a combined 500 times from about every non-riggie posting itt, yet riggies keep repeating that point over and over, because they don't really care about correctness.
Does a single riggie acknowledge that
*
Edit/MH: An interesting article from 1999: https://www.developer.com/tech/article.p...
Yes, of course, because they don't.
Well, it is basic, that's for sure. But that's why it has some pretty big flaws. Of course the very basic approach would be to look at a single hand and say that $2 rake is more than $1 rake, so the larger pot is better for the site. However, if a site wants to be more profitable, they're going to look at the bigger picture. I think this example is a good one:
If a site rakes at 5% of the pot up to a rake cap of $2, then whether the pot is $40 or $100 the site only receives $2.
The recreational player with his weekend $100 might lose his $100 in two HU $100 pots of which only $40 of his money has been raked, him earning the site $2 before he disappears. It's obviously much better for the site if the loser loses five HU $40 pots, when the site rakes all $100 of the loser's money, him earning the site $5 before he disappears.
He's arguing that smaller po
Exactly. And even better than that would be if the player swapped those small-mid size pots for a while, resulting in even more rake on that $200.
Unfortunately, all you could come up with for a reply was this, which in no way addressed the example:
He already admitted most pots are small or medium (not exceeding the rake limit) and if they are currently doing it, the recreational players are still playing.Regardless you can't make a claim and expect it to be taken seriously without any evidence, and neither have actually provided any evidence. Because I say so isn't evidence.
What are you talking about? You've been given a very clear mathematical example above; do you disagree with it? I'm pretty sure that 2 x $2 (rake on two $100 capped pots) = $4, 5 x $2 = $10 (rake on five $40 pots), and $10 is more than $4.
As I acknowledged it is a balance, but it is a a balance sites like GG know better than anyone here, and that's not debatable. For example they probably know the average time recreational players play and what they will tolerate losing and still return. And GG also returns the largest portion of their rake-back to losing players which they use to ensure their recreational players return.
Agreed. Well, I don't know who has the highest RB, but if you say it's GG, I'll take your word for it.
And I would argue most recreational players don't want to grind so a little more action isn't necessarily a negative for them.
OK, but if it makes the site less money, why would they want that?
That's basic math. That fact that GG has increased the rake over the years proves that the game could tolerate a higher rate. That's a fact.
So why don't they just increase the rake some more? Seems like a much simpler approahc than some convoluted rigging scheme, doesn't it?
But you pretend that you proved they haven't rigged the game for action with zero evidence and pass it if as logic.
I've not pretended, suggested, or implied any such thing. This all started with a simple question to you when you suggested they had rigged their games with more action hands, and I asked "Why would they skew things to make less money?" You're the one making the claim, which you've not provided any evidence for, and more importantly, you haven't shown how "more action hands" even makes them more money. It's not impossible that it could, but you've yet to provide any solid reasoning for it.
