The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

You are the one that dodged me and you know

For you goes the same still. We can play any site you want, how many tables you want. Minimum 200nl though

I am obviously not flying to eastern europe or russia, are you mental? the answer is yes.

But we can start the challenge tomorrow, you up or still chicken?

This is getting a bit pathetic from both sides now.

Slugant you very well know neither of them will never accept a online challenge.

While mag and John very well know their challenge of hey lets fly for hours and play for weeks somewhere live for a few thousand dollars are dishonest in nature as obviously nobody in their right mind would consider this.

So lets just move on from this and get back to laughing at they outlandish theories.

Mag what was it you think they rig again?

It was also the basic i am not winning so the games must be rigged complaint, right?

And it just so happens that this is exactly the issue here. Neither of them lives in reality or are in their right mind, if they ever had one.
But why would i know they will never accept an online challenge? They constantly see them themselves as superior players and brag about their accomplishments. Beating me would be easy then. Its almost like even they dont believe their own lies. And as long as they twist stories to claim I dodge, I will make clear that I am waiting for them at the tables. And maybe they surprise me one day, finally putting their money where their mouths are.

Do you really think people buy it if you turn down live poker challenge by refusing it and offer someone who no longer plays online poker an online poker challenge in return?
And then you act like I'm chickening out?

Airpump
LOL

Yes, everyone who isnt delusional buys that. In fact, everyone that can read will buy it because we were discussing online poker when the challenge appeared and you chickened out by making demands that only a mental patient will make. You also were "busy with projects" for the next months so even in your silly world you werent up for the challenge.
You really think people buy that a challenge is that I fly to russia/eastern europe where you "know a casino" which will set up a midstakes table for us to play while on cam and i have to be there for weeks? Have you read your own demands back to grasp that they are beyond ridiculous?

Why do you not play online anymore btw, tired of losing at microstakes? 🙂

LOL
So everyone that is not supporting your opinion is dellusional? Nice circular reasoning.

Bro you can not even seperate eastern and central Europe. I would say that everyone supporting your gibberish is more like a m0ron.
😃
The terms were playing in a capital of central Europe that I name. (Because I will be there) That could mean:
Berlin, Vienna, Prague, Warshaw, Zuerich/Bern (Swiss has no real capital) and also beautiful Budapest. Ever been to Prague, or Vienna. Prague has probably one of the most beautiful centers capitals worldwide.
I let you figure out the countries of the cities I named yourself.

The beautiful Croatia could also be regarded as central Europe, but Russia is not central Europe it is: EASTERN Europe.

Your comments are entertaining though. 😃

Nobody else reads the demands you make (live webcam in casino in capital you name to play low/midstakes for weeks but have to wait a few months because of "projects") and thinks that is anything other than delusional. So in fact im only calling you delusional. Because everything thats been said, its here out to read for everyone. And you are the only one that reads English that bad (more likely you decide to read it a way that complies with your own misconceptions of things). I know you are not a native speaker, but your comprehension is dramatically low. That goes for reading and poker.

This is the first time you are naming capitals fyi, you only said before a European capital of your choosing. But why te **** do I have to fly to an EU capital of your choosing? Why cant I pick a capital like Madrid? Especially since you do not want to play high stakes and I think its unlikely that I am spending my days and nights there for free right? And furthermore you said you are "busy with projects" for the next months so you cannot play live either way...
So it makes sense to play online, where you know the algorithms of the sites and I dont. You should make bank on that advantage LOL. Cmon man dont dodge me a 10th time.

See that is the thing about you. You need to make stuff up and gish galloping constantly to keep your head above the surface in a discussion.
A challenge is a challenge. You can cry all day about the terms and conditions that I laid out. It will not change the challenge, and the fact that you did not accept.
You can cry all day about the fact that I have projects to do and could not have started a challenge earlier, but no one cares about 3-5 months, if one is really into it.
In fact others like Dwan and Jungle or Antonius had challenges over longer periods of time.
That is just something that mature people call:
REALITY
I am not a m0ron living in a cave like you that has no responsibilities and is talking out of his butt. 😃

And I am not TALKING about capitals the first time, I was EXPLAINING to you that these could have been potential capitals in CENTRAL EUROPE, while YOU can obviously not read when I challenged you in a CENTRAL EUROPE capital of my choice, and keep crying about flying to Russia.

Please read the sentence above twice ore more times before you gish gallop on false premisis again.

And my English is pretty good, your desperate language train riding won't help you either

Wtf 😃 dude stop taking illegal substances.
At this point I am just having fun here, seriously.��

The reality is that we can start our online challenge tonight... why wait? Especially since you know the "online rng algorithm". Why not put your money where your mouth is? The reality is you dogde any online challenge just like Johnmir even though you claim to have superior knowledge about the RNG.

You said EU capital of your choice and because of your terrible English comprehension I assumed it was eastern europe since that is the standard there. But perhaps you are just an underdeveloped central-european player, that seems likely as well.

But even you must understand that the demands you made about a challenge arent being met because they are insane. I need to fly to central-europe to 1table a lower limit than I usually play in 3-5 months time even though we can start playing poker tonight. Why on earth would I need to do that to play a 1M+ online winner like yourself? Unless thats all a lie of course, which it so obviously is.

I am having fun at poker too, which combines really well with winning at it. You seem to hold a grudge at (online) poker because you cant beat it. Which leads to ranting about all online poker being rigged. Because what could be the real reason right?? It certainly isnt your lack of skill. The Paranoia has gotten to you, which is a side-effect of taking too much illegal substances. I am not a big fan of those and therefore I actually live in reality. You and Johnmir, who think all online poker is rigged because they cannot even beat microstakes, are living personifications of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[[ACR / WPN]]

Hi all,

A little bit salty but want to hear your opinions.

I run into what I think are house bots / bot farms on 200NL Blitz / Cash, SnG's etc.. and ALWAYS on the odd $50 Jackpot SnG that I play while waiting for a tourney.

It's basically all the guys on the top places of the SitNCrush leaderboards as pictured below. They seem to be multitabling 6-7 200NL games, Jackpot SnG's.

Super shady players, obviously all Eastern European accounts. Any of my shoves seem to be dominated and I really mean always, K10cc vs A10hh, AQcc vs AKhh, 88 vs 99; I'm thinking about cooling off ACR to see if these guys seem to go away? My 200NL WR is 12bb/100 on GG, 14bb/100 on Global but ACR is like my Achille's heel with these bot guys.

Thanks!

Thank you Slugant for the great answer.

I suspect they're bots because they handle polar situations / bets very badly.
They insta-fold to the vast majority of 4-bets pre unless they have huge premiums (I tried doing it with complete air like 95hc and such as tests), in the Jackpot SnG's they insta-fold to 1bb block bets on rivers even when I'm beat. I would suppose their algos have a hard time figuring out raise sizing?

What really gets me is their All-In win percentage, I can't fathom always being dominated so this where my House bot suspicion comes from.

Also, I know crushers exist everywhere but I don't see it feasible for "normal" humans to be multying 7 200NL games and as many SnG's at once. MTTs sure.

The Eastern European comment is a bit offhand, haha, but if ACR's top crushers all come Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia maybe we should the website's name 😀

I'll definitely stick to GG and Global but I have fond memories of ACR from past years and figured I'd play on it a bit, too, but alas I guess.

Given the history of botfarms on ACR it its possible.

From what you are saying (accounts from the same country who play exactly the same, especially on "weird lines" like folding to 1bb bets) I get the suspicion of botting. But why did you suspect they were HOUSE bots? Seems more likely to me its just another Russian botfarm that is not affiliated with ACR but decides to play there because of poor security.

But then again, 14tabling crushers dont surprise me at all and could very well be human. The style of play with the same stats is way more a signal of botting.

In the past botfarms have been caught out by public data on tracking sites. You might want to look up their profiles on smarthand or something. If they show way to many similarities this will be enough for most sites to investigate the players (maybe not for acr though:p)

1. Never said that I know an online poker algorithm. You lie about that, insinuating Johnmirs statements to be able to cry about me not playing you online, which is rediculus, as I don't play online anymore for the reason that it is rigged and also cheating like RTA, colluding and having someone else playing me is way easier.

2. I clearly said central Europe, stop making excuses about BS bad English, to build rediculous excuses upon your rediculous lies you freak.

3. I am a winning player that ran under EV on almost every site. Btw not under this name here.
Running under EV and still winning = Beating the games you crybaby sissy.

Your constant lying and mixing up facts to build excuses on that is beyond pitiful.
Total Embarrassment.

You can be happy that I offered you a 5 month period to study headsup strategy, because I played headsup constantly for almost 20 years and I am up to date with the latest high level strategies. I would rip you apart in a fair game. You'd beg for more challenges, to hand me your bankroll. M0ron. You are truly a freaking chump.
Go play your 6 max online games on your favored account and stop replying to me.

You dodged!

Which is good, because I probably couldn't resist, to also give you a nice lifechanging smack into your face, that would make you forget your own name. 😃

If you play poker the same way you act on this forum you probably tilt away all your money is no-time 😉

You challenged me and I accepted and told you we can start today, you just name the site and the stakes. Even the number of tables. You dodged with the brilliant tactic of saying "come fly for a couple of weeks to an EU capital of my choosing in 5 months time, I know a casino that will set us up with a lowstakes table with cam". This is insane and obviously a lie. Then you come of with a list of central-european cities in which you somehow all know a casino that will go the efforts of doing this even though they regurly run higher games. You wouldnt even go beyond 400nl ffs.

You claim every site is rigged because you lose there and have not even the slightest clue about poker. That is why you are stuck at microstakes and dodged the challenge once it became apparent that I am willing to start asap. You are clearly behind your computer every day, so man up and play me. You are "up to date with high level strategies" and as you say you are the HU player, not me. So it should be free money for you right? So why do you keep chickening out? Because everything you claim is a lie. That you keep on saying things like "in a fair game" and "favored account" just shows you are a bitter loser. All the sites are not rigging against you or in favor me, just deal with the truth that you dont know how to play properly, that is the only reason you are losing. Or for once put your money where your mouth is and play me. Until then, know your place as a microstakes loser with a lot of talk but no set of balls to make good on your rantings.

But, just like for Tom Dwan, it best for you to just step away from poker altogether. You have a very unhealthy attitude towards it. It seems like poker is your enemy and its angering you that it is not going the way you hoped. Perhaps you have other skills you could focus on.

Dear colleagues, forum members,

this is the final message regarding statistical research of Red Star Poker’s (iPoker, Playtech PLC) software.

As a result of a huge discussion on the biggest Russian poker forum (Gypsy Team) my research was corrected, optimized and filled with additional data of several tests of the room’s software.

In the message I'm going to summarize all the results of hand dealing process analysis in the room. I won’t only describe registered dependencies in Hold’em poker games organized by Red Star, providing you probability assessments of the observed deviations (according to expectations – theoretical values of a random uniform distribution of each virtual deck’s card position). But I will also provide arguments of the Russian forum’s members with my answers to it.

I will cover in details all the tests, provide the materials which confirm that hands were played in the casino (videos based on Red Star Poker’s hand replayer, hand history from Hand2Note base) and, also, files – analytical reports.

In the end of the message, basing on the analysis of all the performed tests and frequency measurements, I will present you the final probability of absence of the algorithms implemented into the software which manipulate the game.

So.

Topic 1. The game against a “sit-out” player.
Test 1.

Dates of the experiment –
From the 10th untill the 22nd of July 2022

The evidence (materials) –
Video-record of hands played in Red Star Poker’s hand replayer
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16d2YB55...
Hand history for poker trackers (HM, H2N)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12YmCRjs...

Analytical report -
The analysis of sit-out hands with all the cards opened Red Star Poker room
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...

Initial post on the forum -
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...

Probability of the card dealing process manipulating by Red Star Poker’s software - 99,99986%

In June of 2022, basing on my playing experience, I noticed unnatural gaming process and I made an assumption that Red Star’s software manipulates the game using an impossibility to prove rigging since the most part of game cones opponents don’t see hands of each other at the end of the game cone.

And on the 10th of July I got an opportunity to open hidden hands of my opponents.

While playing heads-up games (Sit&Go game type) I started to meet players, who left their PCs and I intentionally didn’t start to steal their chips. Even though they would automatically fold their hands due to my raises. I started to “complete” the pot by betting 0.5 big blind’s size to announce “check” on each next stage – on the flop, on the turn and on the river.

As a result, I managed to consequently open every of opponent’s cards by leading each game cone (being in position of a small blind) until a showdown to get the opponent’s hand uncovered.

During “checking” the hands and collecting the data I noticed a significantly exceeding game cones winning frequency of my opponents on a showdown in the late stage of the games. Every time, when I was close to take an opponent’s starting stack off the game, he was “coming back” increasing his stack, in spite of a constant losing of chips in position of a small blind, where the software automatically folded his hand due to his absence on the table.

And this “specifics” of the gaming process was clearly visible in the collected data (watch the graph below)

Having a stack size of 80% or more of all the chips in play, according to average chances to win my hand on a showdown (on the river) of 51.6%, I still won 78 hands of 181. Means, I only won 43.1% of game cones.

The probability to deviate from the average chances so much (from 51.6% to 43.1%) on a distance of 181 hand played right in the first experiment of opening opponent’s hands is 1.3% (once in 75 cases).

This kind of the software’s behavior, in case of the intentional rigging of the game by managers of Red Star online-casino, completely complies with the motive of an income maximizing with an increasing of the commission for the game collecting. Means, likely, the software was “waiting” for the “sit-out” player to come back to the game, or, while programming the software algorithms, developers of the software didn’t take into account the situation of “going a player away off the table”. Means, they didn’t prescribe potential possibility to open the fraudulent scheme by leading a “sit-out” player until a showdown in each game cone played in position of a big blind.

The detailed explanation of the room’s managers economical profit by equalizing of a weak (in this case – the “sit-out” player who always folds his hand in position of a small blind) and a strong players, and, as a result, multiplied increase of the games played number until a total loss of the starting players bankrolls due to the commission of the room for the games, you can listen according to the link -

https://youtu.be/EKvqjXv5hKc?si=G8pyN3wf...

or read it in the thread’s post following the link -

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...

I also noticed, that the reason of such a high opponents starting hand’s winning frequency on a showdown in the end of the game, besides other nuances, was extremely exceeding frequency of the opponents starting hand flop hitting. (Here and later. Flop hitting – matching of at least one card of player’s starting hand with the flop cards dealt by the software). And you can see this on a slide below -

In total, on the distance of 181 hand played, where my stack size was 80% or more of all the chips in play, my opponents hit the flop 75 times. And it is 41.4% frequency, in stead of the expected 32.4%.

The probability of such a high flop hitting frequency of 41.4% is 0.66% or once in 151 case. And this is without taking into account of the strength of combinations collected by the players.

It’s important to understand, that the subject of the deviation analysis above is not only searching for dependencies through the check of offsets of random events frequency (such as an opponent’s starting hand matching frequency with the flop cards, frequency of a hand’s winning on a showdown), but, also, an analysis of random events realization process itself. Means, in this case, an analysis of a preflop and a flop cards dealing process algorithmization (non-randomness).

The following analysis of Red Star Poker’s software comes down to an assessment of the probability of algorithmization (non-random algorithm interferes into the game to manipulate it) of the card dealing process.

I’m coming back to considering of my opponent’s starting hand flop hitting frequency.

You can see below, how significant the “wave” effect of the flop cards dealing process of Red Star Poker’s software is –

On the distance of 431 flop (non-paired starting hands, nor preflop all-ins) ten splashes or decreases of the opponents flop hitting frequency is observed.

Chances to observe each of the waves separately on the distance are specified in the column named “Chances of the wave to appear”.

I want to draw your attention, that the term “wave” itself – it is a verbal characteristic of the event. But, literally, it’s a segment of the gaming distance where the opponent’s hand flop hitting frequency is significantly higher or lower comparing to it’s expected (theoretical) value of 32.4% chances for the hand to match with the flop cards. The task of the analysis is to assess the probability to observe segments of

- at least this length
- at least this high/low frequency of the opponent’s hand flop hitting

on the same distance simultaneously.

Basing on simulations of random uniform events sequences in MS Excel, I performed the calculation of chances to observe one wave separately on the considered playing distance. And, during the discussion, this calculation was successfully checked by a Gypsy Team forum member TiredOfRng, who has also performed modeling of these sequences using Deep Seek AI software. (Here and later - I don’t upload a link to his calculations, because it will lead you to another poker forum).

Moving forward, basing on fundamental laws of the theory of probabilities, calculation of chances for non-algorithmitized (random, iniformly distributed) hand dealing process of Red Star Poker software, means – calculation of chances to observe ten segments of extremely exceeding/decreasing opponent’s starting hand flop hitting frequency on the considered playing distance simultaneously, comes down to calculation of multiplying of the probabilities to observe each of the waves on the distance separately.

This basic method, developed by me, was also approved by calculations of TiredOfRng, who, using simulations of Deep Seek AI, calculated the probability to observe two “waves” on the same distance and compared it to a multiplication of probabilities to observe each of two waves separately on the same distance (minus the length of the second wave).

But, since, the waves “compete” between each other, blocking the distance for other segments of exceeding/decreasing hand’s flop hitting frequency to appear – it’s necessary to implement expert correction factors to the final calculation result according to a number of exceeding/decreasing frequency segments observed on the considered distance. Aiming to avoid underestimation of the probability to observe these waves (means – not to overestimate probability of conclusion of rigging the gaming process in Red Star Poker room), I implement a ratio 1.2 to the final probability of the case.

More than that, as a result of discussion of the calculations with Gypsy Team forum member Zhangler, a number of testing assessments of the “basic wave effect” inside the similar random events – coin flips and 3 faces dice flips – sequences were performed, basing on a random number generator of programming language Python.

There were calculations provided, which gave the outcome –
Sequences of similar uniformly distributed events on the comparable distance in case of implementing my methodology of variance analysis demonstrates the wave effect of 0.3% - 2.9% probability.
As a result of this investigation, I adjusted the calculations by implementing to the final probability an additional valuable correction ratio 1.2% - an average value of four those assessments (avg. between 0.3%, 2.9%, 0.5% and 1.0%).

Thus, the final probability of a non-algorithmitized, random card dealing process of the room basing on the opponent’s starting hand flop hitting frequency analysis is calculated according to the formula -

= 62.6% * 58.8% * 46.9% * 29.8% * 8.3% * 47.9% * 9.9% * 25.0% * 21.1% * 21.4% * 1.2 (number of segments/waves ratio) / 1.2% (basic wave effect ratio) = 0.023%

And, thus, the probability of an error in the conclusion that Red Star Poker room is rigging and is manipulating the game is equal to 0.023% basing on the variance analysis of matching of the opponent’s starting hand with the flop cards.

Arguments of Gypsy Team forum’s members (there is some contest in the discussions, please, take it into account)

I going to cover the analysis of the preflop cards dealing algorithmitization.

And the basic method for the analysis of starting hands dealing process I choose an analysis of Red Star Poker’s software dealing of the following range of hands:

- premium hands - AJ, AQ, AK
- pocket top pairs - 88 or better (88-AA)

A general analysis of the flow of the mentioned starting hands range ( AJ+ ; 88+ ) dealt by the software didn’t register any dependencies. But, while considering the sequence of starting hands been dealt in the concrete players positions, significant deviations are registered.

As a result of the preliminary analysis I take for consideration the most valuable anomaly – an algorithmic dealing of the player’s starting hand in position of a big blind.

The methodology of the variance analysis is described in details in the previous chapter of the current message. So, I’m presenting you the result of hands AJ+, 88+ dealing frequency wave effects in position of a big blind -

The same way, as it was performed in case of the opponent’s starting hand flop hitting frequency analysis, the probability of a random (non-algorithmitized) hand dealing to a player (to me, in this case) on a preflop is calculated by multiplying probabilities to separately observe each of the waves on the distance, with implementing the respective correction factors (ratios) -

= 2.4% * 34.1% * 7.1% * 72.6% * 27.7% * 57.0% * 1,1 (number of segments/waves ratio) / 1.2% (basic wave effect ratio) = 0.62%

Thus, the probability of an error in the conclusion that Red Star Poker room is manipulating the gaming process is equal to 0.62%.


Test 2.

Date of the experiment –
The 22nd of April 2025

The evidence (materials) –
Hand history for poker trackers (HM, H2N)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13oMYDCi...

Analytical report -
The analysis of sit-out hands with all the cards opened Red Star Poker room Experiment #2 (adjusted on 05.14.2025)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...

Initial post on the forum -
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...

Probability of the card dealing process manipulating by Red Star Poker’s software - 99,65%

During the discussion of the situation in Red Star Poker (iPoker) on Gypsy Team forum was announced an assumption, that the “anomaly” I personally met on the distance, while I was playing against “sit-out” players in 2022 and was opening their hidden hands, was a one-time case – just an accident.

And in April this year I performed retest similar to the first one, where one of Red Star Poker’s players assisted me to gather the stats once again.

Being personally limited in time, I only made an analysis of the flop cards dealing process algorithmitization of Red Star Poker room’s software.
And this appeared to be enough to make a conclusion regarding rigging of the gaming process in the room.
The analysis is performed basing on literally the same methodology of the “sit-out” player’s starting hand flop hitting frequency splashes and decreases assessing.

The final probability of a random (non-algorithmitized) card dealing process of the room basing on the “sit-out” opponent’s starting hand flop hitting frequency analysis is calculated according to the formula -

= 52.9% * 15.5% * 2.6% * 17.5% * 10.4% * 1,1 (number of segments/waves ratio) / 1.2% (basic wave effect ratio) = 0.35%

Thus, the probability of an error in the conclusion that Red Star Poker room is manipulating the gaming process is equal to 0.35%.

Arguments of Gypsy Team forum’s members

Topic 2. Provocation of a player to participate in a postflop stage (flop hitting of a folded hand)

Dates of the experiment –
From the 7th of April untill the 4th of May 2025

The evidence (materials) –
Video-record of hands played in Red Star Poker’s hand replayer
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HPf2urc...
Hand history for poker trackers (HM, H2N)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ongy4N0...

Analytical report -
The analysis the folded preflop hand flop hitting (provocation to a postflop) Red Star (adjusted on 05.14.2025)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...

Initial post on the forum -
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...

Probability of the card dealing process manipulating by Red Star Poker’s software - 99,98%

On the 4th of March 2025 on Gypsy Team forum in the thread regarding Red Star Poker fraud I announced, besides other nuances, my observation of a non-random dependency in the gaming process of the room -

In the message above I say, that the software of iPoker provokes a player to take part in the postflop stage of the game (to join the flop) with demonstrating completed combinations on the flop, in case this player folded his hand on a preflop.

A month and a half later, when I brought statement up once again, players expressed disagreement with the statement to be true. That it’s irrational to make conclusions regarding this dependency basing “on several hands”.

I found it was an opportunity to illustrate card dealing process manipulation by the room through such a visible and easy to interpret dependency in the game.

As a result, I performed a number of tests with the following probability analysis of the flop cards dealing manipulation by online-casino Red Star Poker’s software.

Similar to algorithmitization of the flop dealing in case of opening the starting hands of my opponents who went “sit-out”, I provided an analysis of my starting hand matching frequency splashes and decreases with the flop cards according to a condition – “I have folded the hand on a preflop”. The research was done for non-paired starting hands.

The calculation of the wave effect is presented on the slide below -

The final probability of a random (non-algorithmitized) flop cards dealing by the room, basing on the analysis of my starting hand matching with the flop cards been dealt for other players in play in case of folding my hand on a preflop, is calculated according to the formula -

= 70.9% * 70.6% * 4.9% * 50.85% * 42.35% * 0.3% * 64.7% * 27.9% * 95.7% * 56.35% * 1,3 (number of segments/waves ratio) / 1.2% (basic wave effect ratio) = 0,017%

Thus, the probability of an error in the conclusion that Red Star Poker room is rigging and is manipulating the gaming process is equal to - 0,017%.

A comfortable to understand and less complicated regarding the calculations methodology explanation of the registered dependency can be found in my message in the current thread –

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...

Arguments of Gypsy Team forum’s members

IN TOTAL

Three tests provided – and I also upload all the tournament history of my participating in games, organized by Red Star Poker, starting from the 25th of May 2022 until the 25th of April 2025 downloaded directly from the online-casino data base using its client program –

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z_3y2zq...

1. Opening of the hidden hands of opponents, who went “sit-out”

The probability of an error in the conclusion that Red Star Poker online-casino’s software is rigging and is manipulating the flop cards dealing process is equal to 0.023%

The probability of an error in the conclusion regarding manipulating the starting player’s hand dealing process by the software - 0.62%

2. The retest of the flop cards dealing process algorithmitization by Red Star room’s software

The probability of an error in the conclusion regarding manipulating the flop cards dealing process by the software - 0.35%

3. An analysis of dependency of the starting, folded on a preflop, player’s hand matching with the flop cards, dealt to other players in game

The probability of an error in the conclusion regarding rigging and manipulating the flop cards dealing process by the room is equal to 0.017%

Chances for the false conclusion regarding rigging the flop cards by the online-casino -

= 0.023% * 0.35% * 0.017% = 0. 000 000 014%

Chances for the false conclusion regarding rigging the starting hand cards by the online-casino -

= 0.62%

The probability of that in all the provided experiments the deviations from the statistical standards were accidental, and that the software of online-casino Red Star Poker (iPoker net) didn’t manipulate the gaming process during any of the tests -

= 0.62% * 0. 000 000 014% = 0. 000 000 008 5%

Thus, the probability of that online-casino Red Star breaks rules of fair game, interfering into the gaming process, implementing additional non-random algorithms into the game - 99. 999 999 992%

According to the common decision-making in spheres of life (including professional spheres) – it is proved reliably. Red Star Poker room (iPoker net) carries out fraudulent activities, providing unfair services, misleading its clients regarding the rules of the games.

Oh my, sure there are a lot of layoffs and bankruptcies on the way once this bombshell info hits the poker world. Better cash out now.

Guys, I will come back to the chat a bit later. The report regarding the fraud in iPoker took a significant time )) So, I missed some of the messages

man and all of this because your ego is too fragile to admit you suck at poker.

But hey you do you.

jfc the insanity is truly strong on this one

But I also did some research on the genius who is blowing the lid of online poker. And remember, he does research on ipoker but as soon as he was shown he loses at all sites he claims those were rigged "exactly the same way"

This is the man who holds all the knowledge about online poker and its rigged RNG:

Ladies and gentlemen, the beautiful mind of an "expert level player"

And since excel sheets prove something in the mind of Johnmir, here is 100% proof John is wrong:

WOW just look at these at these numbers. 100% of what is he says is not true. I literally proven this now 100% and if you argue with me on this you are a paid shill by the lizard people!

And John, we can read and translate the russian forum, just like here. You have 1 or 2 bystanders here and that goes the same there. The rest tell you that you are truly insane but 1 or 2 others like your story because they cannot win at poker either and are very mad about it. You should create a "sore losers clubs" instead of a "poker is rigged because we 3 are geniuses club"

Johnmir

When you have a mind like yours, it's simple.

I'm afraid your post is too long for me to read and try to work out what it is all meant to say, but, bottom line, are you concluding that anyone in particular or everyone in general can forsee what card is going to fall next and who is going to win that hand?

Have you seen his results? Of course he can't

Mike, look, the analysis of the cards dealing process which I described above is a separate investigation.

It shows that non-random algorithms are implemented into the software of iPoker.

BUT

Besides that, yes, I went much further, and I also claim that in the vast majority of cases I can predict -

If my current starting hand is the best on the table or it is beaten by some other player, like I illustrate it here (this is just examples, so that players could understand what I predict) -

My demonstrational game for Russian players (again, it's just an example) -

In these examples I predict that some of players behind me - who didn't take their decisions - still got a better hand. (The last screen - I know that noone got a better hand behind me, so I push A5s from UTG.)
So, I know something that I couldn't know in a random game, since they didn't even took their decisions yet.

(Many players ask here, in this moment - "Why don't you win so much if you can predict this?"
The answer - once I start to use this, the software, according to my gaming efficiency, starts to generate negative game cones for me extremely more often, then before. And any player can test this, in case he tries to use the algorithm -
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...)

John, you claim that "once you start to use this trick the software turned on you"

But from the very start you were losing at microstakes. So when did you "knew something about the rng"? From day one apparently.. but how???? The reason you are losing is not because the RNG is mad at you for discovering its dirty secret (you lunatic), its because you are terrible at poker.

Btw, I am great at predicting hands as well in the replayer
But you say "Besides that, yes, I went much further, and I also claim that in the vast majority of cases I can predict -
If my current starting hand is the best on the table or it is beaten by some other player, like I illustrate it here (this is just examples, so that players could understand what I predict)"

You dont say how you predicted it, what led you to his prediction. You just show random screenshots of hands were you had a good hand but not the best one.
Now if i show some hands of you with AA/KK/QQ vs JJ/TT etc does that "prove" that the RNG is in fact favoring you??? Because thats the exact sam level of evidence.

Johnmir,

I have a very old and basic, but good, program for HE, 5CS, and 7CS, including HiLo, that shows expected wins in percentages against up to six unknown or specified hands. ("Poker" at http://www.oocities.org/thetropics/cove/...).

When I put in the five examples you have picked, with everyone all-in PF, assuming a fair deal, I get the following results:

AQ vs 6 unknowns wins 22%
[AcQh vs KhKs and 5h3h and 4 unknowns wins 15% (KK wins 34%, 53s wins 13%)]

AQ vs 2 unknowns wins 47%
[AdQs vs AhKh and Ts5d wins 22% (AKs wins 52%, T5 wins 26%)]

TT vs 6 unknowns wins 25%
[TsTd vs QsQc and AhAs and 4 unknowns wins 13%, (QQ wins 15%, AA wins 39%)]

77 vs 2 unknowns wins 46%
[7s7h vs 8s6h and QcQh wins 15% (86 wins 12%, QQ wins 73%)]

A5s vs 6 unknowns wins 19%

[AA vs 6 unknowns wins 44%]

Looking at the KK hand, you only lose 7 hands more out of every 100 AQ hands played than if you didn't know an opponent had KK.

Looking at the TT hand, you only lose 12 hands more out of every 100 TT hands played than if you didn't know an opponent had QQ.

Looking at the AKs hand, you're going to win 47% of the time, so folding AQ when you "feel" that one of your 2 opponents has AA, KK, QQ or AK doesn't seem like a good strategy, in case your feeling is wrong. You're going to beat him 22% of the time he has AKs, anyway.

Obviously, you will argue that it isn't a fair deal, but as no one has ever provided acceptable proof that it isn't, 99% of winning players who study their own thorough statistics will disagree with you. Using their knowledge and strategy of how to win with a fair deal, when they know how they should play a hand in the various circumstances of the bets and traits of their opponents, regrettably I think you have wasted a great deal of your time and effort in trying to convince them that folding, let us say "unusually", is the way forward for them.

Please either give up the game of poker and get back to your other work where you presumably have demonstrable and provable skills, or else turn your attention as to how you can win at a fair game of poker by reading books and strategy forums and websites; perhaps even paying for some coaching if you want to be serious about it instead of treating it as a pleasurable hobby where you don't mind paying a bit for the competitive enjoyment poker can give.