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...
This has been discussed a few times in this thread since 2017. Search the thread for posts with "issuu" in them.
Mike...
Look at that, this man shows something that happens once in 100 million hands!
I show something that happens one in 8,5 trillion!
100 000 000 hands vs 8 500 000 000 000 flops (hands)
Lol... You kidding me guys. I though that was serious.
I mean, he made a good job, but i'm talking about PURE rigging of the game. Something simply obvious and seen with eyes, without even calculating!
Let's check your latest ideas/messages:
a) "poker is not for you, guys, move on"
b) "wait.. if you are 100% sure GG is rigged.. why do you keep playing there? are you delusional?"
c) "if its not possible to win btw, why do you keep on playing?"
d) "but who killed JFK?"
e) "You call yourself an expert level poker player.... how come?"
f) "Its a bunch of incoherent rambling and I suggest you seek help before things spiral out of control."
But, personally, I like reading your posts 
c'mon man, you forgot my best post which still holds up
Im very thankful that the site operators on the site I play online poker on were gracious enough to allow me to win. I feel bad for everyone they chose to rig poker against
TeflonDawg... We have already discussed that.
1. We don't need to save regular players, they do win. It's all good. And what's bad in that you win? Nothing. That is why rigging is good for you.
And here, on the forum, it's not forbidden to be agreed with rigging. All the regular players can just type (look, i type what i want btw, it's easy!) - "ONLINE POKER IS RANDOM AND IS FAIR". Sign.
THAT is WHY - I sent it to gambling supervisors. There is no need to discuss with guys, who win money playing r
Doing yeoman's work! Now go run your robust and compelling experiments on all the other sites plz!
Im very thankful that the site operators on the site I play online poker on were gracious enough to allow me to win. I feel bad for everyone they chose to rig poker against
Thank you, man (if you are serious).
I mean this is really good reaction of mentally healthy person to admit that the fraud is really possible.
The best you can say to a player "Man, i'm winning, and the game looks random to me, but in case you got involved to a fraud, it's really pity".
Poker community is simply crazy, lol.
I know the game is rigged and I tell guys, who win rigged game - "Guys, it's cool you win, really. You shouldn't change anything. At least someone wins!"
They answer "You are idiot, you dunno how to play". So awful. Really. In fact it's just disappointing. I mean we won't stop this wars and misunderstandings in the international society since huge part of people behave like that.
Doing yeoman's work! Now go run your robust and compelling experiments on all the other sites plz!
Too much life waste, man. I think i did my job just describing the software algorithm of 90% online rooms and sent proofs to Supervisors.
Starting from this time more and more people will start to understand how it works. It's hard to find, but very easy to understand the description.
Are you an alter ego of Paisting or just related?
No one can convince me Betonline isn't rigged. Variance is a thing but seeing constant 1 in a million situations every time you play is crazy.
I've been playing for about a week no 10nl boost and the exact same players are constantly seeing these situations.
My AK vs QQ 3x against the same player having flopped nut straight to them hitting runner runner house.
2 hands later QQ v KK same ****ing player.
10 hands later another player AA vs J9 they hit trips.
These are CRAZY situations to see in poker on their own individually. To see them happen CONSISTENTLY over and over every single I play is unfathomable.
Guys, can you explain me who is Paisting? Seriously - I don't know this, sorry
Am i right he is some guy, who lost crazy amount of money playing online?
To save you a search, read https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/174/p...
cmon John, you're an elite player and analyst. You can figure out how to use the 2+2 search engine or google "paisting"
In fact, i have never read forums. The fun is that, i was reading Sklansky's and Malmuth's books, but i'm really new on ANY forums... I haven't EVER posted anything before 😃
What you describe (the gameplay) is very similar to Ipoker also.
I haven't ever seen that on Pokerstars or Party, but Ipoker does really put VS the same player under domination. From the same positions. Again and again. It's crazy, because it's "visible" for players.
Pokerstars and Party's gameplays are much more "natural"
It gets even better. I ended up getting quads 3x with 1 being for bad beat jackpot.
It gets even better. I ended up getting quads 3x with 1 being for bad beat jackpot.
What is going on there? 😃
Looks like a small arcade game
Lol that's how betonline is on phone.
You know what's absolutely insane though? I hit quads 4x that night w 1 being for BBJ. I also lost KK to AA and AK to AA all in preflop.
The odds of that session happening are 1 in 134 trillion. No other human in history will ever experience it. It's absolutely insane and that's not even all the crazy **** I saw.
They won't allow me to download my hand history however which really ****ing sucks bc I would pay to have someone run it through some software and find all the astronomical **** I saw that night.
I'm still flabbergasted
Guys, some new info has come regarding the topic 😀 (due to a discussion of iPoker case on the biggest russian poker forum)
https://twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58917...
Can be interesting for those who are interested in "what the variance is in poker in numbers"
Brand new information!
They won't allow me to download my hand history however which really ****ing sucks bc I would pay to have someone run it through some software and find all the astronomical **** I saw that night.
When they restrict your access to your hand histories it's very suspicious. When I decided to review my 2023 and beginning of 2024 hands because of too many unbelievable outcomes I found out GGPoker only let you download the last 3 months. In 2024 I am only winning 49.33% of my EV and I think 2023 was worse.
Hitting four of a kind is approximately 2500 to 1 assuming you have a pocket pair. Without a pocket pair approximately 100000 to 1. To calculate the actual probability you need to know how many hands were played but even if it was 100 that's approximately 18 standard deviations from the mean. So something like 1 followed by 100 zeros to 1, or something like that. In other words, impossible.
It was comfortable to prepare my research, cause, fortunately, iPoker allows you to watch any statistics of previous years.
It's good, cause after leaving Pokerstars my Holdem manager 2 stoped working properly.
When they restrict your access to your hand histories it's very suspicious. When I decided to review my 2023 and beginning of 2024 hands because of too many unbelievable outcomes I found out GGPoker only let you download the last 3 months. In 2024 I am only winning 49.33% of my EV and I think 2023 was worse.
Hitting four of a kind is approximately 2500 to 1 assuming you have a pocket pair. Without a pocket pair approximately 100000 to 1. To calculate the actual probability you need to know how m
If you truly believe this, then I'd try to get a hold of someone who has a large enough database of hands to analyze, and correctly. I'm still pretty sure you and Johnmir basically don't know what you're doing and getting weird results because you don't know what you're doing and/or aren't looking at enough hands. And that's aside from the fact that it seems you're both openly admitting you think certain sites are rigged and yet, you're still playing on those sites, which makes you look like a pair of morons. You two are not exactly building credibility coming on here for months at a time and literally just complaining and saying the same thing over and over...It makes you look looney
Regardless, there is a poster on here, named "Josem" I think. He played an invaluable part in uncovering the AP and UB cheating scandals (note: it also proved the sites weren't rigging the RNG shown through proper analysis I believe). Maybe DM him for help or guidance? In all honesty, seek a professional in the poker community to "peer review" the work
If you truly believe this, then I'd try to get a hold of someone who has a large enough database of hands to analyze, and correctly. I'm still pretty sure you and Johnmir basically don't know what you're doing and getting weird results because you don't know what you're doing and/or aren't looking at enough hands. And that's aside from the fact that it seems you're both openly admitting you think certain sites are rigged and yet, you're still playing on those sites, which makes you look like a p
I wasn't going to calculate the odds for 4 quads because I know the odds of hitting quads 4 times a one session is astronomical. So yes the numbers on this are not accurate, but it doesn't change the fact the odds are astronomical.
As far as what I posted, I posted my results, how to calculate the odds based on statistics (directly from the textbook) and what the AI models have said. Here is what you guys have said, you need 200000 hands and as I predicted you are still claiming that. That's BS and I proved it. You are just not man enough to admit it because clearly your level of mathematics is algebra.
If you truly believe this, then I'd try to get a hold of someone who has a large enough database of hands to analyze, and correctly. I'm still pretty sure you and Johnmir basically don't know what you're doing and getting weird results because you don't know what you're doing and/or aren't looking at enough hands. And that's aside from the fact that it seems you're both openly admitting you think certain sites are rigged and yet, you're still playing on those sites, which makes you look like a p
1. "I'm still pretty sure you and Johnmir basically don't know what you're doing" -
Look, do you really understand my analysis?
1. Which hands do I exclude in the analysis?
2. Which criterions do I use and is it acceptable to use it to border data for the research?
3. Who does decide the significance of the distance and decide an acceptable probability for the variance registered?
If you say "i'm sure you both don't know what you are doing" tell us if you got basic stuff of my position. I'm looking forward for the comments, man ��
2. "aren't looking at enough hands"
Look, I have got a comprehensive analysis of Pokerstars and Partypoker's stats based on 50 000+ hands. But i decided to close this scam starting from iPoker with 500 hands only.
a) If you flip a coin 100 times, but get only 20 tails - it's a huge reason to change the coin.
Why - the answer is on the picture above.
b) If you or any player gets 30 AA's in a row in any room - it will be closed. At least, officially.
Since it's about absolutely incredible deviation. No one will EVER believe this is random.
So, there are two cases:
A) You are not competent enough in questions of variance, do not understand what I nor Amazing are talking about (how would you comment the distance without taking into account the event's probability?)
B) You win, and this information is not profitable for you
3. "you're both openly admitting you think certain sites are rigged and yet, you're still playing on those sites"
a) I have already explained guys Many times. I did play on iPoker - ONLY to analyze the software. I have no other reasons to play rigged game. (Except time killing, may be)
b) Amazing is probably playing because he believes they will let him win some ROI, may be 20%-30%, and it's not bad. My opinion - it's a risk of a time waste in case he doesn't start to play more tables to increase his luck-factor in game
4. "just complaining"
Personally, i do not complain, cause i do not try to win online. I have no reasons to complain. I want to stop fooling of people, because i understand the problem.
5. "Maybe DM him for help or guidance?"
All the analysis is professionally prepared (i'm not some amateur analyst) and has already sent to supervisors. Looks, like you didn't read attentively. They are ALREADY considering the information. Some of them has ALREADY considered it.
6. "seek a professional in the poker community to "peer review" the work"
This comment is actually rational and thank you for this.
In fact, I don't think that any pro player would manage to reach something here without a significant stat. analysis. I don't think we need a "player" we do need a professional analyst here. And we got it. It's me, man, hi there! ))
I wasn't going to calculate the odds for 4 quads because I know the odds of hitting quads 4 times a one session is astronomical. So yes the numbers on this are not accurate, but it doesn't change the fact the odds are astronomical.
As far as what I posted, I posted my results, how to calculate the odds based on statistics (directly from the textbook) and what the AI models have said. Here is what you guys have said, you need 200000 hands and as I predicted you are still claiming that. That's BS a
Do you understand what "peer review" means?
1. "I'm still pretty sure you and Johnmir basically don't know what you're doing" -
Look, do you really understand my analysis?
1. Which hands do I exclude in the analysis?
2. Which criterions do I use and is it acceptable to use it to border data for the research?
3. Who does decide the significance of the distance and decide an acceptable probability for the variance registered?
If you say "i'm sure you both don't know what you are doing" tell us if you got basic stuff of my position. I'm looking
Same question
This is about a simple logic, Amazing. I mean, it's not about maths actually.
If you forgot your keys in the house 3 times in a row - it's not about an accident. It's about "something else takes too much of your attention when you leave home". Only 3 times is enough to understand what to do and to change the "priority". But Teflon Dawg suggest you to keep moving, "just play" he says. Keep losing your keys. The distance is too low to change something!
But if we talk about some maths -
I "overplayed
Your analysis of statistics is cool and all, but isn't particularly interesting to me. What it looks like to me is that both of you are performing flawed experiments in different ways and then obsessively posting about it here. Amazing even mentions using AI to assist and his own post referring to DeepSeek literally says it's possible the experiment/analysis is flawed
Hence the suggestion of peer review. If your response to me really is that you're experts and don't need it, well, alrighty then...Have fun never being taken seriously (not that I mind, this thread is pure comedy at this point)
On the biggest russian poker forum we got new topic in a "news" section. Some team performed an analysis (it's pretty known research) about "skill" and "luck" role in a poker game.
Famous players refer to this analysis. And one of them is Maria Konnikova, known female player from Pokerstar's team.
The result of the research is poker game is based on a skill 56% vs luck factor 44%. Means, poker is a game of skill more then of luck.
TeflonDawg, are you agree with this analysis (just your thoughts, wh
Not sure what the point of this post is, but yes, poker is a skill game, with skill levels among participants obfuscated by luck
I don't particularly care what the %s are or if they are even truly quantifiable to an exact %. A HU match between two highly skilled players aren't going to see very many showdowns compared to, say, a microstakes game where half the table isn't even playing fundamentally correct poker in any particular regard...It's kind of why a lot of people go on here to complain. The variance is higher when opponents play more cards, raise more pots, and refuse to anything other than see the river. They can't handle stuff like that emotionally even though those players are literally free money. Either that or they simply don't have or understand the importance of bankroll management, nor the discipline to do it properly
Do you understand what "peer review" means?
Same question
Your analysis of statistics is cool and all, but isn't particularly interesting to me. What it looks like to me is that both of you are performing flawed experiments in different ways and then obsessively posting about it here. Amazing even mentions using AI to assist and his own post referring to DeepSeek literally says it's possible the experiment/analysis is flawed
Hence the suggestion of peer review. If your response to me really is that
Thank you for the opinion, by the way.
I wanted you to see, that they performed the research basing on 277 hands only... 😀 And it's simply crazy in my opinion.
Because they assess luck/skill influence on all the stages - preflop, flop, turn and river. There are a huge number of different gaming situations there, and they only take 277 hands!
In my opinion, it's a mistake. But if they try to explain a low ROI level of online players like that - why not? )) That's why a room's representative uses this research in her speech.
"Hence the suggestion of peer review. If your response to me really is that you're experts and don't need it, well, alrighty then...Have fun never being taken seriously (not that I mind, this thread is pure comedy at this point)"
I don't think it's actually possible some of known experts will go to approve such kind of research, you know. Irrespectively of it's significance. The topic is too "dangerous" for the reputation.
But me personally, I paid attention to your idea. I got it.
