How to play online poker according to a software algorithm - iPoker, Red Star Poker room

Nath, only now I realized, why you said that -

Man, when you fold your hand, other guys (pros of higher limits, I do not play micros) stay in game! And you watch what they played, how, and why!
I don't watch my hands to check if "I played my hand well". When I watch my tournament after the game, I watch all the tournament flow!

I didn't even get your comment, because for me it's natural to watch everything (!) what influenced on the development of the tournament played.

P.S. Moorman's book is written in the style "played hand -> hand analysis", it's simply the same as your would watch other guy playing. Even in case it's outdated, it's simply the same style of best player's experience learning.
By the way, I'm not a fan of Moorman. I would say, I don't like his story much. I just gave you an example there.

What do you mean with "i do not play micros"???
John thats all you play
Over the last 6 years in cash games you have not played higher than 10nl... with a lossrate of -20bb/100 by the way
And you avg stake on sharkscope is $0.43... with an ROI of -1, 2% by the way

So not only are you a pure microstakes player. You are also a microstakes loser.

Lol, he is back... ))

I do not consider testing the soft or playing vs software as a typical poker gaming.

If I play poker, I do play postflop, and this is my key strategy. I try to play cheap postflop to slowly increase my stack.

When I play VS the software on micros - I play to check, how well do I "read" the software, to describe it's logic and algorithms. It's totally different gaming. I do not play postflop during this "gaming", because I need to check preflop hands distributing process. I only push hands or fold them. This is a different story. And i'm surprised that you don't appeal too -
"Hey, John, you say it's strange that you lost on 0.2$, while you are an experienced player. But cmon, you didn't play those micros optimal. You just push and refuse playing postflop, are you sure it is possible to do +EV like that?".

Instead of this, rofl, you do say - "You lost microstakes, because you are bad" which contradicts to Everything else. All the other information shows I'm pretty far from being a newcomer.

Man, you, guys, can't even choose the right strategy to discuss the problem... )

Yeah, that is not reviewing your own play with good players to see what you did right or wrong. That's just watching other players.

Ah, you mean working with a coach, Nath.

I would probably go for this, in case it didn't appear that I win 45% final table all-ins instead of 55% on the final tables of Pokerstars, and my adjusted ROI according to a "normal" luck-factor would be 99.2%... Doesn't look like I need a coach, right? )) But it's another topic. We are on iPoker now. 0.2$ limit 😃

I mean, you need a coach, if you play a fair game, man. But when I play heads-ups (SnGs) all my life, winning then.

Then I come to iPoker, and can't win 0.5$ heads-ups vs online-regular players who open 4+ tables.
Then, knowing schemes of online poker rooms software, I decided to check, how iPoker deal cards. And open Sit-Out hands.

What do you think I see there?

This is a part of my analysis -

The full version you can see here -
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=58995918&postcount=93584

WOW, really? While I try to outplay some newbie on 0.5$ he hits every fucking flop on a high BBs? Cool!

And I don't see it in a normal game, since I can't call every hand to check what a cool handie he collected this time! Definitely I need a coach - a programmer, who will develope a random poker software, lol.

Man, if you get more info from my research, you will accidentaly find out, that I most-likely need to find a random game, but not a coach. Would be a good start just to find a fair game.

To be fair, your reactions tell me, that you simply do not know, what really happened on iPoker, Nath. The game was litterally proved to be rigged. In a craziest possible way. I opened hands of my opponents.

But Curacao simply ignored my message. Same as iPoker's support (was predictable they would ignore though... they can't answer this. Nothing to answer except "Yes, we rig the game").

Or even peers. Anybody. Do you ask anyone about hands you played and whether you made the right or wrong decision? We have a bunch of strategy forums on this website that are completely free.

Okay, a minor turndown.

The game evolves. You can evolve or you can make excuses for how you aren't winning even though you studied in 2014 and that must mean the game is rigged.

Ah, look, yes. But I should mention, that my buddies, who regularly play offline, and, one of them - an online pro player, was still too far from me in understanding of the game.

Look, there was a funny story on Gipsy team forum.

Guys asked me to play vs GTO trainer to watch my gameplay. And one of hands was -

You can see here 7 opponents with 2BB stacks. I got 2BB stack too, and I'm in UTG.

I push my 2BB with K7o and GTO Trainer shows me a small -EV (-0, 02BB). Guys say - "look, you missed here".

I say, "guys, look, books say, that it's acually right. I should have pushed my K7o here, because the next turn I will have to auto-call any two". They ask me "Oh cmon, John, which book says it".

I open a book of David Sklansky - old times I knew this book just word by word "Tourney Hold'em". And show them an example of Sklansky regarding exactly this ingame situation.

As a result, we figured out, that GTO trainer gave me -0.02BB because we didn't turn ICM funtion on. GTO didn't take into account ICM situation.

So, I was absolutely right, man. This is understanding of the game. And this is your "outdated" books. So far, Sklansky is not the last person on the forum, right? 😀

Do you need to work with a coach? May be, unless I do my best to use my own abilities and can analyze the information.

Look, regarding "the game evolves". At some point I agree with you, but depends on what tables you choose to play.

But, anyway.

It's a very easy maths, man. Please, take a look on my logic, please.

I do know, that on a 6max/9max table I take from 45% to 55% of pots, where I'm on the flop with
- no a pair
- no a flush/straight draw (only gut shot counts)
- no overcards

Pure garbage in hand.

And to hit 7 successful bluffs in a raw - "inside chances of it" are 0.8%. And this streak happens every 253 hand of this type, right?

If you take 20% of this pots, "inside chances" to hit 7 in a row are 0.001%. And this streak can be found in your hand history once in 97 100 hands of this type.

If you take 10% of this pots.
Inside chances of the streak (7 in a row) = 0.00001%, and it might take a while to find it in your gaming history, because it happens once in about 7 000 000 flops of this type.

So, I ask any of online pros. Guys, if you bluff really well. If you are winning online cause you are good poker players. Could you, please, spend 5 minutes and show me 7 consequtive succesful bluffs in a row?

If you wanna ask me - "John, are you sure, you bluff +EV. May be you just lose your chips while bluffing", I will answer

"Yeah, guys, I'm kinda sure I bluff +EV" -

Because I regulary checked it while playing, since bluffing is a key part of the game of a pro poker player.

I'm looking forward for the screens, guys.

Nath. Regarding the situation in a whole.

Look, I did prove iPoker favors weak players. But you suggest me to learn the game to keep playing the scam. I try to understand you real life logic here. What for should I (and many other players, who wanna win according to their intellectual abilities) read forums, waste huge time to learn the game? To get rubbed by managers of the room?

My apologies, John. I must have stepped out of the room for a bit.

What is all this BS about 7 bluffs in a row winning? You bet bad hands 7 times in a row and everybody folded? Congratulations! You must have won a ton!

How can you say this is a streak? People without good hands fold all the time. It means nothing. You can't say it should happen that everybody folds only once in X times.

Have you been drinking the VAT again?

Mike, always glad to your participation in the discussions. To be fair, I'm really impressed by your performance. Personally, I don't understand how do you manage to control such a huge forum? It's a great job, really.

Let me add some irony ))
I'm also appreciate, that you managed to check my results on this tournament.

Mike, exactly, I took the 19th place of 288 participants on this bounty MTT, and my ROI = 264%. Yes, was a successful tournament, thank you.

Speaking a bit more serious: this is my start of the tournament -

A guy pushes garbage and I call him having 88. Looks like a good all-in for me, do you agree?

But, EV of this all-in is 160, 500 chips * 71% (all-in equity) - 79, 000 = 35, 000 chips.

Now look at these two bluffs, which happened a bit later -

This decision gave me 102, 000 chips

This decision gave me 73 600 chips.

A huge problem that amateur players do not understand, how effective bluffing in poker is.

But the room's managers understand it perfectly -

Look, i'm bluffing here
(this is another, but the same structure bounty MTT)

And now look at the next hand -

Don't you find it strange, that i'm (a bluffer), don't even call (nor push) AJ with a chip-leaders stack on a bounty (!!) MTT?

You gave a brilliant phrase. No irony this time, i'm serious -

This is the second most important information about game of poker. The first one - is a list of poker combinations according to it's ranking.

But I reasonably suspect, that online pro players are not aware of this second most important "law" of poker gaming.

You say, that people fold good hands every time. But, Mike, people only fold, when other players bet something, when their opponents make pressure. If we don't bet - they will never fold.

And in case an online pro don't make pressure on a bad hands, he doesn't make others fold their awful hands. Do you agree?

Why I ask online pro players to show me 7 consequtive bluffs on weak postflop hands -

Because I seriously doubt they do bet on a weaker hands often enough for call themself pro poker (poker! random!) players. May be some other game like "online-poker", but not a real, fair poker gaming?

So, yes, a streak of 7 pots won is an interesting test to see if online "pros" are aware of poker basics.

According to discussions on the forums and to reactions of players to my words I reasonably doubt they are aware of a real poker gaming. Otherwise, players would NEVER ask me while watching those hands if i'm aware of basic stuff like preflop ranges/push-fold stage ranges, etc. But, at the same time, many of them decided (not Nath, he is very correct, actually... I don't like that I react not enough polite on his phrases, but other guys were so disrespectful and I became less "calm" and less positive) to accuse me to have been a bad player.

I do not understand what for they do this, while they don't know me. And while we discuss a totally different topic, where comprehensive materials were presented.

Nath, to be fair, I agree with you. More information regarding the tournament stage is necessary. Thank you for the explanation.

Still this is a nice example of a push-fold understanding. The decision is very "close".

I don't agree with your comment -
"I don't know what tournament you'll ever find yourself in at a table where everyone has exactly 2BB".

Is it really important what stack other guys got here, in case we are not on a buble? It's important what MY stack size is (2BB).
What for would David Sklansky describe this situation, without even mentioning of the opponent's stack sizes, if it was not any important?
Can't agree with you here.

Yes, and it's important in any sphere, I respect that. The same I did, and improved my gaming to a pro level in 2020. (In 2020! And then I moved to iPoker to finally finish the scam. When I saw that they simply controll a profitability of players according to some parameters. I was winning 7$, but I was losing micros, since there are too many new/regular players of the room).

Look. When I read this chat, I can see that according to the discussion I worked on two things simultaneously -

1. I obviously worked a lot on my gaming, modern gaming, not some outdated. And I worked really deep.
2. I proved the game is rigged.

Yes, it's hard, but I managed both. I also think these two things are connected to each other.
I'm surprised you only see my comments about rigging. Looks like I'm confident in both - statistical analysis and poker gaming. Why do you divide it and exclude my will to improve? It doesn't come from our conversation.

And a key question.

In my opinion, the game should be fair. But you are kinda "avoid" this conversation, like it's something which is not any important in a card game, where real money are involved.

At the same time, many people would agree, that fairness and randomness of the game, is not the second, it is THE first main question in a poker game.

Looks, like you are simply sure the game is random on iPoker. Am I right?
Do you totally exclude possibility of the game to be rigged?

Imagine the fragile ego you must have that you rather convince yourself that EVERY site is rigging against you than to believe your game isnt flawless. Even though everything is pointing in exactly that direction.

I guess this is what Trump & Putin must feel like every day. Then again, Johnmir is a proud Russian so the apple doesnt fall so far from the dictator :P

As far as your "proving of the RNG" goes, you have only proved you can lose with the way the RNG works. You always claim if you play according to its "hidden rules" you would win, but you never put an effort in this. Very sloppy if you ask me. And no, of course, you cannot say you've won 15 years so that proves it. Games evolve as you might know.
So your next challenge in your data should be:

If you want to prove the "hidden rules" Johnny its not OK to just play and lose. That way even Paisting and every other microstakes loser like you is "proving the hidden rules". As a self-proclaimed top analyst you should know this.
Why dont you play according to the rules you've come up with for a while and actually prove that playing according to those rules makes you a winner.
Could you be good for you as well to end that (at least) 6 year losing streak.

What's interesting to me is that John seems to have figured out something on his own that solvers confirm-- namely, the human population tends to significantly underbluff.

But he still seems to have the mentality that if he takes a bad beat*, he should be trying to bluff his way to get the chips back and start playing trash hands to outwit the RNG. (Again, why are you playing 72o?) There's still a difference between bluffing smartly and bluffing foolishly, and a difference between solid hand selection and being convinced you need to do weird things preflop to trick a computer.

(* - I'll add that bad beats are not evidence of rigging. 3 out of 10 times is more often than you think it is.)

Again, you can focus on the fundamentals, or you can avoid confronting the leaks in your game and doing the work and spend time coming up with excuses instead.

I never say never, but I don't think you've "proven" anything remotely to the degree you think you have. You've "proven" that you take bad beats sometimes. Every player does, so so what? Even the very best players take bad beats, but they do everything well enough to win in the long term despite that.

Sure it is, and this is one of the biggest weaknesses of solvers, the lack of being able to study asymmetric situations. If you have 2BB and everyone else has a relatively healthy stack, then there's no real expectation you can fold your way into moving up. If everyone has a 2BB stack, there is, because some people will be ready to get all in with a decent hand-- and if you're at a final table, folding there can make you money because it gives other players a chance to bust. I think this concept is pretty straightforward.

If there's no impending money jump, then no, it doesn't matter as much, but it matters a little.

One thing I think is commonly misunderstood in solvers is that their best use is to find patterns in their outputs and then understand the concepts behind them-- why we choose certain bet sizes with certain hands on certain boards; why we might bluff with this hand but not that hand even though they look fairly similar, etc.

I really dont understand why you waste your breath trying to explain anything to john.

he has made it abundantly clear that he is so blinded by his ego that he just cant fathom not being one of the best players in the world.

You see others have other opinions because they are just not as good as him. He isnt here to learn. learn from whom? Did you ever bluff 7 times in a row? no, well shit up than!

His friends are beating higher stakes than him. Well thats because poker is rigged.

There is literally a 0 % chance that he will learn anything, improve or admit he is just wrong about something.

Forgot poker was just like tennis, its all rigged.
I know donjonnie is way better in tennis than federer djokovic & nadal, but they won everything.
Well, thats only because they play according to the "hidden rules" of tennis. Not because they are more talented or work harder obviously. Every tennis coach is just a scam artist, they shouldnt be teaching players how to hit the ball properly because the ATP will just rig the tennis balls...

Nath, in fact, it’s a bad idea to play vs a computer, exactly, I agree with you. In fact, it’s senseless to play if you think the game is rigged.

My life situation is pretty unusual, that is why guys can’t believe, that I went down to micro limits to analyze the software of poker rooms. Yes, it’s a specific task. I'm not interested in winining micros, you are an adult man, I think you undertstand that these bets are not any sighnificant for a real life aims.

Look your phrase regarding “bad beats” let me understand, that you are not aware, what exactly I provided to the public. Because I don’t even use a term bad beats.

I proved dependencies to be implemented in the iPoker gaming. My researches do not even include results of gaming, it’s all about random events.

Nath, this is a special phrase.
I do not “think” how often bad beats happen. I do “know” how often it happens. I’m an analyst. I calculate a probability an assess chances. I don’t need to guess.

Many people here claim they know variance. But they can’t calculate any variance.

I show 31 of 47 flops been hit (my starting non-paired hand matched with a flop), and they don’t even understand it’s 0.000 008% (8 cases of 100 million tests). I mean, bad beats are about numbers. It’s not about “personal feelings”.

Nath, you suggest me to ignore the most important stuff in poker gaming – fairness of the games. You are an adult man (according to you style of conversation keeping).

I guess, adult people here understand that every card game, with money involved, starts from this topic.
And looks like we got a huge problem here, man. Because 2+2 forum nor Gipsy Team didn’t manage to disprove my calculations and it’s conclusions.

Curacao – ignored my message
iPoker’s support – ignored my message

Nath, I hope, people here are not THAT naive to believe it’s because the materials are senseless. They don’t even look senseless. It’s a professionally prepared research. Just ignored? This says a lot.

Nath, I don’t even analyze bad beats in my research.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=58995918&postcount=93584

My research is about dependencies in the game which are confirmed with a confidence of 99.999 999 992%.
Do you trust the airplane, when you are going to fly? 😀
I do.
Once I say, that 99.999 999 992% is not enough to consider the game is rigged. The next step is to refuse flying by airplane.

You suggest - "John, don't pay too much attention that the game is rigged. Just learn the game and you will win it!". Man... )) It's hard to agree with this.

Nath, look. It’s normal, that you haven’t got enough time or will to watch my materials. But it’s not reasonable to consider them to be wrong, if you didn’t study it.

If you are sure the game is random – it’s a totally normal answer.

But if your point, that my research is wrong (It’s not about bad beats!), then it’s a good idea to discuss it, to point out my mistakes.

Me, personally – I can’t understand how is it possible to disprove my research, in case I say “guys, the software puts me on good postflop combinations in case I folded my hand preflop. Why? Because to test the software I started to fold AJ-AK, TT+ on preflop”.

And then, Nath, in several days we got this –

99.98% to be rigged.

No? Mistakes, please.

A week later we get this, because I see that people do not understand "the wave analysis of algorithmic dealing" -

I show this and explain it in the easiest possible manner. Because I realyze people are not fluent with statistics -

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=58980160&postcount=93513

And in 111 hands more (after all the discussions!) we get this 31 flop been hit of 47, which is 0.000 008% inside chances.

I got a reasonable question and a suspection -

May be you intentionally ignore this information?

Yes, I agree with you here!

Slugant ))

You mention things, that I "suppose are like that". It's not a statistical proof.

The experiment that you suggest is interesting. No kidding. It's a good idea. But it's a real life time.

I didn't want to play multitabling, so I didn't try that. I just watch how my buddies played, and how other online pro players played, that is why I formulated this opinion. It was a result of my observations! Not more!

It's funny, DJ, that you see this like that.
You, guys, explain me? I feel like I explain you basic maths!

Man, I wanna hear a clear agrument regarding the research! ))
Who cares if you or me are good in poker. It's all about rigging the game - "yes" or "no" + arguments.

Then what about admiting that iPoker is rigged? I provided you a clear proof of that it is. Or do you think that 0.000 008% (31 of 47 flop been hit) happened just "accidently" right after I announced it? Man... Who would believe that?

2+2 forum members,

This is an easy way we could unite our forces to fight against the fraud in online poker gaming, specifically, in iPoker net.

On the 8th of July 2025 I sent a letter to iPoker’s client’s support, where I described in details one of the dependencies in poker games, organized by the net.

And I provided all the analysis regarding the dependency, which proves, that poker games are not random there.

But Ipoker’s support ignored my message.

In case you are not satisfied with the gaming process in iPoker, and you have got a suspicion, that the game is not random. But, at the same time, you can’t provide a comprehensive analysis of your personal playing history to prove rigging –

The easiest way that you can try to influence on the situation – using my letter and the information, provided by me, and send to

[email protected] (or use another support name, depending on a concrete skin of iPoker, you play in)

a letter with the following text (you may correct the text to the one, which fits to your comfortable style of communicating):

“Hello!
My nickname in [a room you play in] is [your screen name].
I suspect that card dealing in poker games, which organized by your organization, is not random. And you mislead me by implementing non-random algorithms into the game.

On the 8th of July 2025, one of your clients, Yevgeniy Mirskiy (screen name – Johnmir, Red star poker room), sent you a letter with materials, regarding the dependencies, found in the game. But, according to his messages on 2+2 forum, you ignored his letter.

I would like you to explain me, why did you ignore it? And I would like you to give an official answer to his materials.

Kind regards,
[your name]”

Guys, you do not need to agree with all the details of my materials. The key point of the message, which I suggest you to consider – why did the organization ignored accusations in rigging its games and in providing unfair provisions.

You can read the full version of the letter below –

Spoiler

Show

Good afternoon!

This letter is addressed to the support team of iPoker, specifically to analytical team.

Client — Yevgeniy Mirskiy. Nickname — Johnmir.

While participating in games, organized by Red Star Poker (RSP Entertainment N.V.), I decided to test if the software developers, according to the room’s managers directives, implemented into the software algorithms, which equalize all the poker players in game, to maximize the room’s profit and to keep the most part of players satisfied with the game results.

As a result of my investigations I managed to describe the algorithm of the software, which is supposed by players to be random. But, in fact, it appeared that the software of Red Star Poker fully controls the game by generating predictable positive and negative “waves” of hands to players. And one of the key technologies for this — is alternating of “clean”/”trapped” good starting hands.

As an example-illustration, this is the end of the tournament –

And this is the start of the following tournament (the 2nd hand of it) –

According to this model I started to push or fold on a preflop strong starting hands “one after another” – it depends on my current EV$ (in general) of my decisions in previously played games, how often should I push or fold my strong starting hands.

You can make sure in my understanding of iPoker's algorithm of distributing starting players hands between each other while monitoring my decisions here, on the period of playing where I controlled my EV$ on “Double or nothing” type of Sit&Go tournaments, to describe the algorithm of iPoker's software –

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MQJooycvGnbrOjzJTC7pYq_qa1dBmPCT/view?usp=drive_link

(the hand history of games, played by me from 11.23.2024 to 11.30.2024)

But since I can’t know all the opponents hands, I can’t statistically prove that poker games, organized by iPoker, are not random. So, I wouldn’t contact you just having this information.

The reason, why I contact you, is that your software is also designed to “provoke” (most-likely, this is the aim) a conservative player to join postflop gaming by dealing waves of combinations “in a row”.

And, as a reaction to my frequent folding of extremely strong preflop hands, the software starts to deal flops (community cards) which abnormally often match with my starting hand’s cards with a huge “splashes” of matching — in case I have folded my starting hand on a preflop. And these splashes confirm, that the process of dealing the flop cards is not uniform (not random). It applies to a non-random algorithm.

And, this time, I’m able to provide you a comprehensive information that you rig the flop cards by implementing non-random algorithms into your software.

On the 7th of April 2025 I announced on gipsyteam.com poker forum, that I was going to test the dependency. I took into account all the hands, which apply to the following conditions –

I folded my starting hand on a preflop
My starting hand is not paired (does not belong to 22-AA range)
The flop cards were dealt by the software to other opponents

So, I provide you the results of a concrete test, which was specially performed to check the dependency.

After I played only four tournaments, I decided to calculate deviations (from 32.4% expected value, plus taking into account a flopped combination strength), and, as a result, I got the following wave-effect of my starting hand, which was folded on a preflop, matching with the flop cards frequency –

A link to the report and the statistics (MS Excel) —

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pTBeqEYxS6jUrXy9wSW2cStpJ7qk8yv2/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=106366561548744833761&rtpof=true&sd=true

And these calculations show, that probability of the card dealing process manipulating by Red Star Poker’s software is at least 99.98%.

But I continued testing, and played 7 tournaments more, in 10 of which I got significant splashes of my folded starting hand matching with the flop cards, dealt to other players.

A link to the hand history of the test (4 + 7 = 11 tournaments) —

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ongy4N0sCVREK4VYZFY9fTBlUpGtTAVJ/view?usp=drive_link
A link to the report and the statistics MS Excel —
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yK2VAMX7_hvBejf1sFlJKHVXW3MJozfn/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=106366561548744833761&rtpof=true&sd=true

It's a pure algorithmic dealing of the flop by the software. And it is NOT random with a critically high probability.

More then that, while I kept playing, I was recording this kind of statistics. And when I played 8 more tournaments, I got the following part of distance -

Where my starting hand matched 31 times of 47 flops (66% in stead of 32.4%). And this splash (taking into account the combination flopped strength) happens in a random game once in 60 million hands in average, approximately. But I only played 111 hands of this type.

My position is that you misleaded your clients, misleaded me personally, announcing random and fair poker gaming while, it is not fair and it is not random (not uniform).

My demands to RSP Entertainment N.V. (Red Star Poker) –

On the main web page of Red Star Poker (and, also, on its mirror-sites), directly under the software download links, should be specified, that poker games, organized by Red Star Poker, (iPoker) do not comply with common rules of poker gaming and go according to non-random algorithms, which adjust the gaming process

On its main pages of the online-casino, and separately on gipsyteam.com poker forum, RSP Entertainment N.V. must apologize for providing unfair services, such as implementing non-random algorithms into the software, which interferes into a work of the Random number generator, ruining a random card dealing process

RSP Entertainment N.V. must stop rigging of poker games, organized by the online-casino
Kind regards,
Evgeniy Mirskiy

For players from The United Kingdom.

On the 20th of February 2025 I sent to The UK Gambling Commission (UKGC) a message with all the materials regarding the fraud of iPoker, which are presented here on the forum –

The organization properly answered me. But I can’t be aware of the process of the situation investigation in Playtech PLC (the owner of iPoker net), because I’m not a citizen of The UK.

But you can also address them a email to

[email protected]

With the following text (feel free to modify the wording):

“Hello!
I’m [your name], and I’m, also, a client of iPoker, which belongs to Playtech PLC.

I suspect, that poker games, organized by iPoker, are not random. And iPoker provides unfair provisions.

On the 20th of February 2025 Yevgeniy Mirskiy sent to your organization an information regarding violations of a random, fair card dealing in iPoker. Since Playtech PLC is the owner and the software developer of iPoker. Could you, please, give an official answer to his materials?

Kind regards,
[your name]”

To all the members –
On the 24th of March 2025 I also sent a letter to The Curacao Gaming control board. And provided all the materials regarding the fraud.

They also ignored the message.

To influence on the situation, I suggest you to send a message to The GCB –

[email protected]

With the following text:

“Hello!
I’m a client of [the room you play in] which is a part of iPoker online-casino net. My name is [your name].

I suspect iPoker is providing unfair provisions and is using non-random algorithms, implemented into the software.

On the 24th of March 2025 Yevgeniy Mirskiy sent an information regarding violations of a random, fair card dealing in RSP Entertainment N.V. (Red Star Poker).

Could you, please, give an official answer to his information?

Kind regards,
[your name]”

Good to read you also know you are just "supposing things" and its not statistical proof.

The experiment I suggested is not just interesting, its essential in your whole study.
You say when you dont comply with hidden rules, you lose. But when you do, you win...
Thats 50% of the statement right there you are not even willing to test and add to your study... That is seriously insanely sloppy work for an amateur analyst, let alone the top analyst you are. No wonder Curacao doesnt take you seriously, your information is far from complete.
And you want people to ask the site about your studies???? First finish those studies lazy man. Right now you are being a very lazy analyst instead of a top analyst with some dual groundwork.

You cannot base the information on watching others multitable, because they dont play like you. They dont know the awesome correct bluffing frequencies you do. This again is very very sloppy from a top analyst, you must agree with this.
You are basically ditching half of your investigation just because you dont want to multitable???
Man that is weak effort, I thought you were trying to uncover a rigged rng but turns out you are just lazy and not doing the work because you dont feel like it. Thats not the mindset of a top analyst dear Johnny.
And you know this.

You are saying multitablers win because your "buddies" and other pro's win??? Where is that data in your entire investigation. We havent seen a shred of this in your works and neither has Curacao.
Now its just your opinion, you say so yourself. Opinions dont get us anywhere.
If you want poker to be fair in the future you need to do some work.
Why dont you want to mulitable??? Its makes you a winner you say. Would you really rather play another 6 years losing at microstakes?? This made you the bitter man you are today.
You could take your time screenshotting hands & making another excel sheet and put it in multitabling and winning actually proving something but you refuse to some real investigating.
Perhaps you dont want poker to be fair after all.... It certainly doesnt look like it now.

As long as I'm finding some value in doing that or reading these threads, whether that's entertainment or a little light workout for my own thought processes to make sure they're sound.

I think your continued use of this number (which I don't even think is really accurate) and the spreadsheet screenshots you post display a fundamental misunderstanding of probability and variance.

There are 22, 100 possible flops in Hold 'Em. That means every time a flop is dealt, there is a 1 in 22, 100 chance of it being that specific flop. Does that mean the game is rigged because it's such a low chance of any specific flop coming out on any hand?

All you've proven is that any single exact sequence of events is relatively rare. You have not proven that hitting a pair or better on the flop 31 out of 47 times is proof of rigging. Something that happens about 1/3 of the time happening about 2/3 of the time over an exceedingly small sample is not proof of rigging and isn't even that far out of expectation given the short-term variance inherent in poker.

And your argument that "it happened just 'accidentally' right after I announced it"... so... you're now arguing that iPoker is monitoring your 2p2 posts and changing up your luck to throw you off? At micro stakes? I think you might have some "main character of the universe" syndrome here.

Look, Slugant has already checked my calculation on a calculator.
(you can find it in the middle of this message of him - https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...)

But he uses a chance for matching of a starting hand with a flop as 33%.

Then, this number (31+ hits of 47 flops) is 0.0003864%. And, Nath, this is more then enough.

But I aslo take into account combination flopped rank. Because a chance to hit a pair or better is 32.4%, but a chance to hit, for example, two pairs or better is 3, 4%.

Then, yes, this number is exactly 0.000008% (according to binomial calculation).

And no, man, usually, people who work in risk departments of huge european insurance companies are "fluent" with variance and probabilities. Would be strange if I committed the mistake you mentioned. Otherwise they wouldn't work there... Man, it's insurance. It's all about the risk probabilities and the variance.

Nath, this is exactly what I mean. If you watch my research, you will see, that I didn't calculate exact sequence of events, because it's simply senseless to calculate it - you are right - in case you aim to assess confidential interval of the variance to belong.

In our example of 31 flops of 47. I calculate a chance to hit 31 flop or more (!) of 47.

And you can check it if you doubt the number is correct

In easy words, I do exactly the same calculation as tournament variance calculators do. They tell you what is the chance to deviate from your "true" ROI to, for example, ROI of 20% (in stead of true ROI 30% on a concrete distance).

I calculate what is the chance to deviate from 28.1% chance of the mean (average expected value of matching with a flop) to 66%+ (31+ of 47 hits) on a distance of 47 flops.

And you are saying something like -
"John, okay, you said, that the coin falls on "heads" extremely often and you claim, that it's an unfair coin. We thrown it 47 times, and it fell on "heads" 41 times of 47. So what? The distance is too small..."

Well... I say, "okay, Nath, good luck playing with this coin, I'm going to another "casino".

I had to reread this comment. Didn't understand what you meant here.

Look, I say different stuff. You didn't get my point correctly, I think.

There is a big difference between

A. You see something rare, and you say - "guys, wow, look at that, I got AA 5 times in a row!!".

Many guys will ask you - "Okay, cool, but how many millions of hands have you played before it happened?"

B. And another situation. You say "guys, I will get AA 5 times in a row in next 100 hands."
And people are like "Oh, cmon, Nath, it's impossible".

But you get your AA 5 times in a row in these 100 hands and people will reasonably suppose - the game is not random.

Statistically, these two situations A and B are critically different. Because if you just observe something rare - it's normal, because you should take into account that it happened on a whole (!) distance of participation in games.

But once you border and experiment distance and put a task to test "if this happen now". You should only consider the distance of the experiment.

Sorry, I don't know how to comment it better way.

I don't mean that iPoker is monitoring me, lol. I mean, that this "accident" is not really an accident since it's predictable and it's a dependency.

John, you've fallen off the wagon again.

I did check your math with the probability calculator, the difference is i got 1 in 260.000 and you got 1 in 60.000.000
So do not pretend we were agreeing.
You changed every odds for that specific happening AFTERWARDS. Thats not how you do analysis.
You've calculated that in those 47 hands you got exactly that many pairs & 2 pair etc (even though you said how it would be possible to hit flop 31/47), not any dependency.
If you guessed it before hand it would mean something but you've already tried that on stream and failed.
Its like me getting a flop of Jh8h7d and they say "wow it must be rigged, the chances of getting exactly that flop in 1 in 50 million!!!!"Now if i said beforehand the flop would be thats telling. But you keep on doing afterwards calculations without realizing that they dont mean anything...
I started last session with A9 66 54 73 J9 64 22.
WOOOOOWWWWWWW what are the chances of starting with those exact holecards?? 1 in a billion perhaps??? Uncanny, what does this mean?????? I tell you, Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

These afterwards calculations of what the chances are that flop came doesnt mean anything. If it did, it would be applicable to the future. And it clearly isnt.
Try to paste that logic on other samples of 47 hands and its completely different each time. So its meaningless.

But most importantly, these 31 hands dont have much impact on your whole investigation.
You have 6 years of losing because you didnt follow sites rules,
Now do a year of winning because you DO follow sites rules.

Stop being a lazy amateur analyst. No wonder you are not a financial analyst anymore with this lazy amateuristic attitude. Did you only do half work there as well???

😃 Man, I always got a chute behind!
It's all good!

Look.

You use 33% for a flop to be hit. Right? (Why?? It's 32.4%!! Should be 32% if you round it up... But ok.)

Yes, according to my calculation, if you input 33% you get 0.000 3864% for the case (which is critically rare! Man)

But I use 28.1% value! Cmon )) Attention here!

It's much more rare - 0.000 007 7%

Man, lifetime, the clock is ticking ... 😀
I was injured, and could afford myself to spend my time describing and proving this "circus" to be unfair rooms fraud. My time for this is over! ))

Dont lie, you are here creating enormous posts & excel sheets, you can spend that time multitabling.
You dont want to multitable because then you'd have no excuses left for losing. And you know you will lose. Because deep down you must realize you are terrible and making shit up. Cmon man on stream with your $13 bankroll waiting half an hour for a 0.20 sngs because the others were too high... Now thats the life man.
You could end it by playing according to the rules and win, you refuse. That proves you are full of shit more than anything you ever proven.

You had 6 years of losing while 1 tablig microstakes. Why not 3 years prove how to lose, 3 years how to win.

Than you would have had a decent study. Now you got nothing. Very amateur level analyst this. No wonder you lose at poker.

PS:
Note to self: If I ever get injured obviously do the logical thing of spending 6 years losing at microstakes to "prove a point"

Man, in case I calculated that the way you describe it, we would never got the same number of 0.0003864% for 33% chance for event to appear...

Cmon )

And no, man. I announced it before (!) this variance of 31+ of 47 flops. Sorry. It's documented in the forum.

Lol! I try to concentrate on my real life stuff, while you suggest me to play this "playstation poker" (I like TheWaddy's terminology 😃). I'm wating when people finally get my point, and i'm free))

The only things more unlikely than you being a top poker player or analyst is you focusing on real life stuff, just today you've spent hours creating posts on 2+2. Time completely waisted.

And since you can use quotes... where did you predict of connecting with 31 out of 47 flops beforehand??? Nowhere
I saw you predict on stream remember
You got everything wrong!
And then you quickly deleted the stream like a spineless weasel of a man would bury evidence of his wrongdoings

But do you understand your current research is far from finished John?

You had 6 years of losing while 1 tablig microstakes. Why not 3 years prove how to lose, 3 years how to win.
Than you would have had a decent study. Now you got nothing. Very amateur level analyst this. No wonder you lose at poker.
You can still prove multitabling leads to you winning instead of defending and showing your unfinished product.
You wouldnt buy a car without an engine and steering wheel now would you?
You wouldnt buy a book with the last half of pages ripped out...
So why would anybody buy your investigation?
Stop being a lazy amateur analyst and come back when you've proven playing according to your rules makes you a winner. No wonder you are not a financial analyst anymore with this lazy amateuristic attitude. Did you only do half work there as well???

Guys,
due to a huge discussion of the game integrity specifically in iPoker net, and, generally, in online-poker sphere, it became reasonable to summarize all the materials, explanations, ideas, which build a whole picture, of what is really going on according to my researches, tests, calculations and views, how online poker rooms work.

I would like to mention, that the materials are not only based on my personal investigations and statistical calculations, but it is also based on a numerous conversations/discussions of the topic of rigging the game with pro/amateur players on poker tables, forums, chats.

I mean, I don’t pretend to describe the whole sphere alone, even though, I took a significant part in uncovering of the fraudulent scheme.

Feel free to read and to use this list of links according to your interest/speciality/needs.

I believe, these materials, in total, cover almost all the possible questions - how does the sphere work?

Pay attention to the discussions, which follow after the messages mentioned below. So that, you will also assess different points of view, provided by other forum members regarding my statements.

Also, feel free to share your views, your experience, regarding any topics, mentioned below
(In case you met something very similar in gaming on a regular basis – dependencies in poker games. You contacted to the supervision authorities of countries, which are mentioned in my research – what was the outcome? The response?)

Chapter I. Proofs of rigging in iPoker – the materials and its explanation

Chapter II. Explanation of key rigging schemes of the deck

Chapter III. Player’s account management by the room

Chapter IV. Online gaming and strategy

Chapter V. Statistical hints for proving rigging in the room

Chapter VI. Atmosphere during the discussion of the information regarding rigging in online poker sphere

Chapter VII. Motivation and psychology

So what you are saying is that its fiction?? Good to know, people like to read fiction. Just dont get it confused with the truth though:p
I bet you take into account a very unbiased discussion point where you dont just listen to people complain because they are losing but also listening to all the pro's saying poker isnt rigged... oh wait

But in all seriousness, instead of copying stuff from the past why do you refuse to finish your investigation?
Your main point as to why pro's win is that they comply with the sites hidden rules...
You have 0, 0000000% where you actually comply with the rules and make a pro's salary out of poker. According to you it should be that easy.
And its a very vital part (the most important part) of the entire thesis... yet its nowhere to be found
No proper analyst would approve of this.

I was inspired though and I didnt know it was that easy to write a book
So I made a short comic book about our antihero Johnmir

What really missing here in a stream of you trying to prove your thesis but getting everything wrong and very frustrated in the process 😃
But of course you deleted that. Just like a trustworthy person would 🙂