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

That is a total lie. You may not have said directly it's wrong, but you have always claimed the sample sizes needed to be much larger than what I provided. If your claim is to believed and I never proved anything, you are indirectly claiming the textbook is wrong.

I don't cherry pick anything. You just have no clue about what you are talking about. And we both know you know very little about math and probability. The fact is RNGs will have some correlation and distribution issues but not every scenario will have correlation and distribution issues. Just because every scenario isn't skewed doesn't mean the RNG isn't skewed. Again something that goes over your head or you choose to lie about.

In addition I'm choosing scenarios where I can compile the information easily. As I stated previously there are other scenarios I'm pretty sure are skewed but to prove it would require hand by hand review because the PT and HM software isn't designed to analyze how random the RNG is. So there is no easy way to review it. And again you don't have to prove the RNG is skewed in every scenario to prove it's skewed.

And let's talk about your fake facade you like to portray that you are just an honest skeptic. If you were honest you would have acknowledged, if the data is accurate, it's problematic. But instead you made claims the data is fake, that I wouldn't still be playing if it's real, that I would be suing the company if it was real, etc etc. Yeah, all distractions.

Rigturd "logic": The evil pokersite would rather spend time and money to tamper with an expensive hardware rng than bake the rig right into the dealing software like normal supervillains....

Look Slugant your pathetic little friends are back here to protect you. I've been owned again.

I can easily speak for myself and will do so.

By your logic are Johnmir and tiltboy your little friends then?? Do you have very cheap nights out because everyone's broke?

What are you even on about. The textbook isnt wrong, I said that before and above. If you were able to read you'd understand. Nobody here is debunking sample distribution.
Your sample is the problem. You literally filtered for hands lost and showed a screenshot of that here to prove how bad you run. In case you still have that textbook you're so proud of maybe look up the chapter about input, i think you skipped it before 😉

You say "But instead you made claims that I wouldn't still be playing if it's real"...
This is not as much as a claim from me but more common sense.
You are 100% confident the site is rigged. You keep playing there... Just another of those genius moves of you.

And on the subject of "I'm choosing scenarios where I can compile the information easily... PT and HM software isn't designed to analyze how random the RNG is"

1. You are choosing a scenario of lost hands.. you could also choose a scenario of won hands and the information would be as easily compiled... only with different outcomes.
2. PT and HM according to you dont prove rng riggedness enough, so why do you use it?
3. Because you could actually quite simply and effectively prove a rigged rng with HM and PT. Just import tons of hand histories and struggle through it.

Its quite a lot of effort but then you would finally have something. Winning at poker isnt easy too, its takes someone to put quite a lot of effort in... Oh wait🙂

LMAO, you actually edited your post and added "pathetic"?! Rigturds, amirite?

I've already made my money and don't have to work another day of my like.

Clearly you are being obtuse or are truly stupid. If you claim sample sizes need to be large to prove something is improbable you are also claiming the textbook is wrong. If you still don't understand then it's the latter.

Why I play doesn't prove or disprove if the any of the odds of these outcomes are probable, which is what we are here to prove or disprove. And you bring things like this up because you can't make a dent in the probabilities. In other words nothing to do with the actual issue.

I don't have to show the graphs are normal in the hands I won, it's a given. But again you fail to understand a basic premise. Just because the RNG isn't skewed in in every scenario doesn't mean it isn't skewed. And just a few days ago you claimed my lost hand graphs were normal and now you say I cherry picked them. You contradict yourself much?

My god what are you babbling about PT and HM. They are not specifically designed to prove if an RNG is random and generates outcomes that are within normal parameters (except possibly for the all in adjusted differential) so I can only use the capabilities it has. And one of the few capabilities it has that can be used for that purpose is their ability to sort pockets hands and tag hands. And I still had to manually count the times ace showed up with pocket kings and how many times AK, AQ, AJ connected with the flop. But these capabilities aren't useful for reviewing ever scenario.

I guess you couldn't figure out, after having HM filter the hands, I manually counted the outcomes. Yeah I should do that for millions of hands instead of using statistics. But again you are back to saying you need millions of hands because you don't like the results.

Oh my god owned again. I can never post again.

The textbook is showing basic sample distribution. Never have I said this is false, it would be insane to deny facts and I'll leave that up to you.

I also never said you used a normal sample. I said your graph was normal for the way you filtered it, namely all lost hands. Of course your graph will show runbad. The fact that you cant comprehend this on 100% on par with your lack of reading comprehension. I have always said your cherry picking is wrong, you use wrong input.
Why is it that the graph is normal in the hands you've won, but wrong in the hands you've lost?? You are basically telling yourself that all the hand you've won went just like they are supposed to but the lost hands cant be normal right?? Because why would you lose a hand in poker... it must be rigged. Keep telling yourself that companies with billions of revenue are rigging the rng to screw over some barely-playing microstakes player. Just makes a terrible amount of sense.

If HM/PT cant prove a fair rng, how come you use it to "prove" a rigged rng?? The one does not exist without the other. But I guess in your warped logic its the same as winning hands went fair, losing hands went unfair..
Why not buy some datamined hands at your low limit and show that KK flops more A's. You know you can filter by holecards and flops right? Even though so far you've only managed to filter for lost hands in a failed effort to show how bad you've run all your life.

You are making statements up, just like you are making up but you've never been able to answer how pro's make money with a rng that favors the weak... or that you have any clue about what rng certificates companies actually do.
So here we try again:
"So pro's get more AA vs KK than others?
The RNG is there to benefit weak players, you've said it all the times.
Pro's are the opposite of weak players, how can they sustain the rng rigged against them and still make a living compared to you and the likes that so clearly cant?"

You have contradicted yourself so many times that even your crazy imagination cant think of something that fits that fictive situation.

Same way you ignore this question time and time again. If you fail to answer these 2 (over multiple times) we can just all assume that you have no answer to these questions and no clue what you are talking about. Otherwise you wouldnt keep on ignoring these questions and you could easily explain...

What do you think the rng-certificate company does? You do realize they see millions of hands and see AND JUDGE the outcome right? They dont look at a specific line of coding for the rng and say thats it then. If they only looked at software parts of rng (they didnt, but you believe so) how did all the millions of hands they analyzed for unpredictably and fairness come out clean?

Btw, you know you fit the definition of a weak player right? So if the RNG acts like you claim it would have in fact favored you... and yet still you lose

Please feel free to use AI to answer these. I know you had 100% faith in AI until you saw it claims the rngs aren't rigged:p

Do the odds change in a freeroll or something?

It’s the ultimate show of a decks constant maths busting capabilities due to little folding… so you will see a lot of calling with the likes of 5 5 on a big pot flop of A 9 4… being up against someone’s AA … and the magic turn 5 and river 5 comes.

It totally exposes the deck for what it is. Why you would think a high stakes game would be a better thing to judge the deck by… when that 5 5 ends up in the muck every time…

I have know idea how you reach that freerolls have no standing in judging a magic deck… but then again you do show a highly immature attitude and perhaps a lack of intelligence.

So what you are saying is that grinders love a random deck and that having an actual random deck will mean a retained customer base... Grinders would not have been lost on a random site... in other words: Random decks equal sustainable pokersite

(import logic here)

So therefore you must perceive sites that are doing well like gg, pokerstars & ipoker to have a random deck right? Because grinders keep coming there and they do retain the customers. By your own logic this must mean they use a fair and random deck.

Why dont you be the first to be that authority. It takes some effort, but given that riggies want the world to know the rng isnt fair, this would be a dream job.

I said to amazing that his data was cherry picked, because he used a filter to show all his lost hands!! Cmon man, surely you must realize this is useless. I dont regard you to be on such a low level like amazing. Surely you understand that focusing only on lost hands is holding data back in the purest form (namely holding back all winning hands).

If you import a mined set of hands you could actually find something out. The claim that data was held back is easily disprovible because someone could import the same batch to validate the results shown. I am willing to check your results btw, if poker is rigged anywhere I want to know. I just havent seen an ounce of evidence yet. But I encourage you to be the first one to uncover this. We'd be working with the same set of data and can check results. Its not a task that can be done in a couple of hours but stop saying it cant be proven just because you dont want to put the effort in. Its like me saying its impossible to climb mount everest just because I cant be bothered to do it. And by the way you are describing (an avalache of 1-4 outers by the same players each time) it actually wouldnt take that long to prove. But we havent seen anything tangible that underlines this theory, only in words.

Regulators just give out licenses and check if the site is behaving correctly on a professional level. They do not know tactics or strategy in poker and wouldnt be suitable to say a rng is fair, I'll give you that.
But the rng auditors who give certificates are. They do in fact check millions and millions of raw hands for anything that could show a non-random deck. They havent found any. But whats stopping anyone else from importing millions of hands and checking themselves?

Most bots and botfarms have been caught by the players. Check Josem's thread who uncovered a botring. So many hours of work. But he was sure something crazy was going on and instead of just making claims he imported a shitload of hands and checked the numbers. And he proved and uncovered a boring on which the site took further action, banned them all and reimbursed effected players. This is how its done. If all players were as lazy as the riggies botfarms would have an absolute field day at the tables.

Also, thewaddy im curious how you would explain this. Amazing always dodges this question but you must have an answer.
If players are all playing with the same corrupt rng (one that favors weak players in particular as well) how come there are so many long-term winners and online poker professionals?
How come these players do beat the games comfortably year after year while others are pointing at the rng for not being able to?

Coming from the guy who has information which would blow online Poker sky high but instead chooses to lightly whine about it in some random poker forum. With you withholding all this crucial info, you are basically in it at this point.

The site would have failed no matter what was done with the RNG

You can manipulate the deal all you want, if players aren't constantly depositing or the player base isn't growing (which would bring more deposits), then the site will fail. There are players constantly taking money off the table. You have to outpace that in addition to all the costs that come with running the site

You're so full of it.

I'll put it this way, are you claiming you need a large sample size to determine the probability of the outcomes? If you refuse or dodge the question again you proved you are claiming the textbook is wrong.

Normal where the all in adj is greater than the total loses. Right.

Explain how pros making money proves or disproves the probabilities? When you prove that pros making money proves or disproves the probabilities I'll answer your question. And if you can't explain how pros making money proves or disproves the probabilities it proves it was irrelevant to the question of if the RNG is skewed.

Fact is you never could reference were BMM said it was part of the Poker RNG. And you still haven't. That's a claim you made not BMM.

And by the way if your pathetic little friends thought you were actually getting the better of me they wouldn't be interjecting to defend you. The more I read your incoherent and irrelevant statements the more I question if you even graduated high school.

Sorry to interrupt your tête-à-tête with Slugant, but I think he is saying that you can't just pick a few bad beats, (or whatever it is you've been picking), and get meaningful results from them.

It's not necessary to use an infinite number of hands to prove something, but you do need to use a fair sample of the same basic thing, with no cherry-picking of specific cases within that sample, to create a hypothesis which can then be checked by you and others, going forward.

If you say that on Tuesdays all AA hands are beaten, then you have to use all AA hands played on many Tuesdays in your sample; not use just the ones that were beaten. Others can then look at their records of AA hands played on Tuesdays, and see if their results are similar to yours or not. If you only play poker on Tuesdays until three AA hands are beaten in that session, that kind of important related information needs to be stated, as well. Basically, you have to state something like, "I have played exactly 1,000 hands every Tuesday for the last 40 Tuesdays and these are my results for every AA dealt to me in those 40,000 hands : 200 losses", before your results can start to mean anything useful at all. You or others can then delve deeper and discover that, like Johnmir, you folded every AA preflop. Or, that they lose all their AA hands on Tuesdays, too - and you become famous for discovering a rig.

So, in simple terms, what is your hypothesis that we can test?

Butthurt rigturd is very butthurt lmao. He is probably angry about the undeniable fact that educated, intelligent players are still making a ton of money from playing Poker.

for 50% of players the all in adj is greater than the total (in your case total losses). You know a lot players run under ev but still make a living.

If you want to say I claim the textbook is wrong and I dont believe in sample distribution quote me on saying that. Never said it, you cant read or you only read into things what you want.

You obv need a sample large enough so you cannot attribute the findings to variance.
Throwing a dice and getting 50% sixes on 10 times doesnt mean a whole lot.
Throwing a dice and getting 50% sixes on 1000 times does mean a ton.

But now here is what you do... you take a dice with all sixes, throw it and go "wow look at these results"
You need a fair and unedited input to get results, i've said this countless times so I dont think you are going to understand this time. You say it doesnt matter for the results that you filter it for "hands lost". If the filter doesnt matter, why dont just put the filter "hands won" on it then??? According to you it wont affect the the truth. But it will 100% show you run massively over ev. And even in your losing hands filter there were only 7 cases where you had more than 75% and lost.. only 7. Yet you are here crying about bad luck like a little girl. With only 7 big bad beats... You are a luckbox. And still you lose.

But now your end of the deal was to answer these questions, lets see what you can come up with.
You've uttered before that pro's are still winning because they get more aa > kk for instance... (again, easy to proof but lacking effort).

The RNG is there to benefit weak players, you've said it all the times.
Pro's are the opposite of weak players, how can they sustain the rng rigged against them and still make a living compared to you and the likes that so clearly cant?"

You have contradicted yourself so many times that even your crazy imagination cant think of something that fits that fictive situation.

Same way you ignore this question time and time again. If you fail to answer these 2 (over multiple times) we can just all assume that you have no answer to these questions and no clue what you are talking about. Otherwise you wouldnt keep on ignoring these questions and you could easily explain...

What do you think the rng-certificate company does? You do realize they see millions of hands and see AND JUDGE the outcome right? They dont look at a specific line of coding for the rng and say thats it then. If they only looked at software parts of rng (they didnt, but you believe so) how did all the millions of hands they analyzed for unpredictably and fairness come out clean?

Btw, you know you fit the definition of a weak player right? So if the RNG acts like you claim it would have in fact favored you... and yet still you lose

Please feel free to use AI to answer these. I know you had 100% faith in AI until you saw it claims the rngs aren't rigged 😉

Remembered the name wrong, here are links to botfarm uncovering thread if anybody is interested in taking a took how actual effort and proper analysis is put in.

TylerRM discovers WPN botring:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/ne...

a dewd discovers botring multiple networks:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/ne...

wpt global botring recently uncovered:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/29/ne...

I do not see how you would arrive that I think a random deck equals a retained database from this! Complete opposite as I wrote!

I simply said the grinders on Galfonds site would be loving the random deck and would stay. Unfortunately, it would mean the site would lose all the fish who could not sustain depositing. So it failed. Sites need to retain poor players more than anything, so a random deck is not going to achieve this. Of course grinders are important to a site, but no site would survive with just grinders.

What I mean by someone with any authority, is someone who could bring about change who has the authority to implement it. Clearly thats not me!

Sites had to listen to those who brought about cheating due to bots, but could distance themselves from blame. A rigged deck is totally their doing, so I don’t see the connection with bots being exposed and rigged decks … and information being treated in the same way. Even with bots, the security team dismiss this initially!

Finally on winning players, I am one of these. I feel the play is so bad, I dont win at anything like the rate odds dictate. I play a reasonably niche game in heads up Omaha hi lo and come across a lot of players who have stumbled in to play for the first time. They basically do not know the game, or consider a low, just are basically playing hold em.

In a slow structured heads up game, I would expect only to lose to the most extreme coolers. However, its pretty standard to have them all in needing some kind of insane runner situation, maybe 5-10 times during a single heads up… Them scooping or splitting the lot, then many more sizeable pots hitting unlikely rivers, then somehow going on to win with that said extreme cooler.

I donÂ’t consider my experience of this (over at least 18yrs of this being my chosen game) to be proof, but I consider this to be way beyond ‘highly unlikely’ that I would have had the same results with a random deck.

I believe successful grinders at higher stakes started out like me, able to eeeek out profits and as their status becomes higher, the highly sophisticated deck will play out differently in certain situations. The algorithm of the deck will take all information into account.

The more you play, the more you are spending, the more you will be shielded as the top level valued customer. Most sites categorise you in rewards schemes, such as gold/silver level etc, its easy for them to recognise VIPs.

Similarly at the other end of the scale, fish are also needed to be retained, the algorithm will work out the best way to keep all happy.

Those in the middle like me, im not depositing ever, im withdrawing like twice a year and leaving play money in, in their eyes in im going nowhere, im going to be one to suffer against fish and VIPs.

At certain sites, I have bumped into these so called VIP top site players in freerolls for big buy in tourneys, through points. I can’t tell you how many times I reached the bubble stage and got knocked out to them calling my all in with likes of AKs v K10Â… with their K10 being an easy fold as it would decimate them if they had lost… as a top player, absolute no logic to their call, but just never lost. Same 2 VIP every time.

Thats the way I see it. No proof, just vast experience of what I see everyday.

Yep 50%. You didn't pull that number out of your ass. Does your hand fit in there comfortably?

I asked a very simple question. Do you need a large sample size to determine the probability of the outcomes (in my case it was about 28000 hands and 1187 all in hands which you claimed is way too small). Although statistics is actually all about using small sample sizes to determine the probability of the outcomes and is proven math, you dance around the question over and over again without answering that simple question. And then you provide examples that basically say statistics doesn't prove anything to avoid saying you reject the textbook and the proven math. So yeah you, who have very poor math knowledge and having been provided the proof from a textbook, refuse to acknowledge you were proven wrong.

I said there is evidence the RNG is skewed. I don't believe I ever mention strong or weak players. In fact, if I was a professional and this was my full-time job, I would buy HM and/or PT (apparently PT is better for this stuff but I haven't used it much) and I would review my hand histories extensively to determine if the RNG has any tendencies. And then I would adjust my play accordingly to give myself an even greater advantage. You see it doesn't actually matter if some of the probabilities are skewed against a few of the stronger starting hands if you know it. In fact if you know it, you have a greater advantage.

And you didn't actually explain how professional poker players making money proves or disproves the probabilities of the outcomes. Proving something has to be fact based not your opinion. That was actually the deal. Regardless As I explained it is knowing the actual odds, not just knowing the theoretical odds, that give you an advantage.

As far as the cert all you had to do is take a screen shot of the section where it specifically states the sources of entropy are part of the poker RNG to prove your claim. You didn't do that either.

In the end you will say anything to avoid taking about the math and probabilities which has been what my posts have been all about. So, my work is done here.

Yeah again, grinders love a fair random deck and want to stay where its fair.
But the grinders left... so Galfond site must have had a rigged rng
Grinders at stars, ipoker and GG are staying... so they must have a fair rng.

Its hard for you to understand that around 50% of the players run above ev and 50% run below it?? You must have had a hard time in school

Yet you also claimed HM and PT arent suitable to check a RNG. But now your professional full time job was to review your hh for rng tendencies?? LOLOL
I know you'll just about make up anything but at least keep your lies somewhat believable.

And I gave you a simple answer, and even provided a little example so your tiny brain might actually understand. You must have read over it because thats one of your tendencies. Since ima nice guy i'll answer again:
You obv need a sample large enough so you cannot attribute the findings to variance.
Throwing a dice and getting 50% sixes on 10 times doesnt mean a whole lot.
Throwing a dice and getting 50% sixes on 1000 times does mean a ton.

Tell that to Johnmir. He says if the rng notices a player is playing according to the rigged rng it doubles down and you and makes it even harder. You riggies have such rich fantasies.

First smart thing you said on this forum since you arrived.
Job well done I guess🙂
And Goodbye.

With a little self-deprecation/sarcasm, I posted the screenshots I could find from what you've posted itt in the Probability Forum. Got one reply which has a few questions for you, Amazing3338. I invite you to answer those questions in the thread I s...

If anyone chooses to post in that thread, please refrain from insults and stick to the math. I don't want it to just get vacuumed back into this thread

[QUOTE=Slugant;59048922]Yeah again, grinders love a fair random deck and want to stay where its fair.
But the grinders left... so Galfond site must have had a rigged rng
Grinders at stars, ipoker and GG are staying... so they must have a random rng

YouÂ’re not covering yourself in glory here are you!

Once again, I will repeat myself Â… you canÂ’t have a site survive with just grinders. Grinders would leave due to tables not filling due to all the fish leaving, as deposit limits would see to that. Fish can not survive a random deck. Grinders donÂ’t want to play grinders.

When I say grinders, I mean good players who want to play poker as itÂ’s meant to be played.

There are however, many grinders, who are below average players who aggressively defend and prefer the bigger sites Â… as they realise they have found a way to make a living by taking advantage of how the magic decks there work.

ItÂ’s complicated, but also simple at the same time due to the different capabilities of the grinder!

ItÂ’s why many grinders do not want the regulator looking closely at things. A random deck would ruin the way they are doing things, whereas for real poker players it would be the holy grail.

ItÂ’s why proper poker players do not respect online poker players.

So in the end you originally said "for 50% of players the all in adj is greater than the total (in your case total losses)" not "50% of the players run above ev and 50% run below it" Those are two completely different statements.

If your all in adj is greater than your total you are experiencing a hug number of bad beats. So no, for 50% of the players their all in adj is not greater than their totals. But what a surprise you lied about what you originally said. LOL

Translation: A lot of posts coming up!