Curacao IGNORES information about the fraud of iPoker (Red Star Poker – RSP Entertainment N.V.)

)) Man, I started from Absolute poker long time ago. It was fun to play cash vs some strange "players", who appeared to be the room's bots? I don't know, but they "played" really strange.

To be fair, I always was so far from "news", and don't know what happened to Cereus, can be interesting. Something was proved regarding them? Was it closed?

And, Scimpanzini, it's good that you managed to notice this on Absolute. But for iPoker - is not a theory anymore, thankfully. It's proved, and anyone can check this just watching my stats with all the hands opened.

If we talk about iPoker - the game is not natural too much there. I mean, I understand, that many people are keeping silence about what is going on. Since they win there, it's not profitable for them. But speaking seriously about iPoker as about a poker room... This game is too far from what we used to call poker, guys.

Man, you have already said that in another thread. You got an answer. But you repeat this again. In case iPoker benefits weak players, it's doesn't mean they win. Lol, if you play against a weak player, you can do 5BB/100 or 20BB/100? Do you see the difference?

Benefiting of weak players is necessary for rooms, otherwise this weak players will lose their bankrols to stronger players too fast and stop playing. The commission of the room will be very low. And I have already explained that in another thread 3 times. The same speach.

Sorry for the repeat, guys. But it's pretty understandable for players, who are experienced in the sphere.

Man, I can't tell you exaclty, how rooms manage their client's accounts. More then that, I don't know why they don't rub Linus, but rub many other good players. You ask me something like "If he stolen your car, prove that he stolen my car! Then come back. Before you prove he stole another cars of the city, don't even ask to give your own car back".

You talk about "why", I talk about - what is going on. Why? It's another question. I can just guess, that in case NO ONE wins online - then NO ONE would ever play there.

And I want to remind you that Moorman, who didn't manage to make a **** in a random game, when he decided to play offline tournaments - at the same time he was the most successful tournament player of online...

Correct me, if i'm wrong, guys.

I was winning 10$+ limit all my life, and then lost on micros right when I started to fold Premium hands with no reason? I played it attentively, I wasn't fooling around.

It's pretty obvious, that software put me in the "basket" of an irrational "bad" players who fold strong hands and push weak hands, even though I folded premium hands in time. And every time I pushed "right" - noone called me on a weaker hands, since the software distributes it "specific" way.

Just think man, how did 10$+ limit all-time winner lose 6500 SnGs on 0.1$ limit. And it's not the first story about this, if i'm right.

This is what I'm talking about. May be you are not attentive enough. May be you do this on purpose. But it takes a huge time type the same stuff to you every time.

What is these documents then?

Man,

22, 33, 44 ... AA - is a paired hand
KJ, AJ, 97, A8 - is non-paired hand

"Paired" means starting hand structure. It is not about combination of a flop. Sorry, if I didn't mention "starting hand". Just expected guys to understand what I meant there.

Yes,that is exactly what my friend said:benefits weak players is not meant that they make them winners,but that they make them just last longer.

However ,proof that RNG is rigged…it is almost impossible :you should Analyze millions of hands to contrast the variance

So you only write down non-paired hands, thats the most of them. So if not 12 hands, how do get knocked out every tournament in ~ 15 hands??
Are you still openshoving 55 for 75bb like you did in the deleted livestream?
Why dont you reupload that, you finally gathered some evidence. Only it was not the evidence you've hoped for 😉

Clearly from your results they dont have to win. So you as a very weak player get benefited from the rigged RNG but still lose.... at microstakes! not a particularly strong field. Yet you lose all the time. Even in this soft field you didnt reach 20bb/100 or even 5bb/100 as some do. At 10nl you have a nice -20bb/100 lossrate. Well done John!😀

Is that why your bankroll is only $13? I saw it on the livestream you deleted to hide your shame.
Is that also why you dropped down to 0.20 sng's?

Its your theory John. You say they do this. If you can 100% claim they do this you must have some evidence of how they do this. Yet you cant tell.
You are the one that yells they are stealing your cars yet can show 0% of any car ever existing, let alone if its yours.

If you want to tell tales, at least have some backing. You make up a way pokersites screw the great genius johnmir over, but never ever explain HOW.

Its because you weren't, you are making stuff up. Every hand ever tracked of you online show you were a loser from the start and it never changed.

They seem to be extremely close-up bad taken pictures, as if to hide something important.
Like your name... or the truth.
I know your name from the streams, nowhere to be found.
If you wanted to photograph your own diploma (if you had one) surely you'd make a proper photo and you proved me wrong.
You know nobody is falling for this nonsense photo right?
At one point you gotta realize that maintaining all your lies isnt feasible anymore.

how is it impossible then?
I played 15 mil + hands lifetime
You can easily buy 100 million mined hands and download them today

If you want to prove something, start analyzing

And also, you do know that when you say "they benefit the weak" you belong to that weak section right? And even IF a lot of weak player were benefited there are still a lot of big winners out there.. how can they beat the flawed RNG and you arent?? Could it be that some people are actually better poker player than you geniuses???

Man, it depends on the variance level, you know. In my case I got something which is only possible in 0.000 000 008 5% cases...

I mean, my analysis is already gives a probability of rigging = 99. 999 999 992%

You know, you can lose 501000 of 1 000 000 coin flips and this will be

But if you lose 100 of 100 ... I can't even provide you this value. It's all about chances, it's not only about distance.

First: calm down with me ….
Second:I never complained about rigged Ipoker (I don’t even play here),I just reported what my friend said ,which he is for sure a respectable player,indeed I was surprised when he declared this….

I’m very happy with my result in online poker play and no,I don’t belong to these “weak” sections.

You have never ever in your life lost 100 flips in a row.
You know this.
You are making up a hypothetical situation and then reacting on it like its true.

Your analysis is 99. 999 999 992 certain?
Than why wont you take a bet to control this algorithm?
You certainly need the money with your $13 bankroll and how can I prove something wrong if its that certain? Stand behind your words you weasel. This could be the first time you would actually make some money out of poker... if you're right that is.

First, you said you couldnt do analysis because it would "require millions of hands"
I am just pointing out that is is very easy to get tens of millions of hands to do analysis on. Its a matter of choice.

Secondly, your friend that said that iPoker is favoring the weak. Did he perhaps supplied any evidence to strengthen that statement? He would be the first one. And it would be about time. Since he is a "respectable player" surely he wouldnt make that statement up out of thin air, he must have some evidence. I think every poker player, winning or losing, would like to see that evidence then. Without evidence I guess its just a meaningless sentence like Johnmir saying he lost 100 flips in a row or his algorithm is 99.9999999% certain. To be taken serious, there NEEDS to be evidence attached to a bold statement like that, otherwise its better not to make a silly statement in the first place.

Man, this comment is for people, who can compare different information -

In case you lost 100 flips in a row - it's 99.999...9% rigged.

In case you lost 99 flips of 100 - it's 99.999...9% rigged (but a bit less chances then 100 of 100)

Where should we stop? Because losing even only 80 of 100 flips is -

Man, I believe that you do know what an "analogy" is.

You will lose 80% of 100 flips or more only once in 1 000 000 000 tries. Do you understand that? Do you understand that distance is nothing, when the chances are extremely low?

In my case, iPoker rigged 900 hands so much, that we can say the game is 99.999 999 992% rigged.

And man, I have already commented this huge number of times.

I provided players two separate things:

1. Statistical proof of the game on iPoker is rigged (99.9...2%)

2. And algorithm of predicting if you get the best starting hand on the playing table on a preflop - on iPoker (Pokerstars)

Man, I know you don't read me attentively, but in case you are a good cash player, you should know, that rigging is unprovable without all the opponents starting hands opened.

You can't buy 100 million hands with all the cards opened. If you could, the scam has been already stopped.

You should have stopped when you were making up a hypothetical situation.
But since you think an analogy is a way of providing evidence, I got one too:

Imagine this. Player A has played exactly 100.000 flips in his life.
He won 50.000 of them, which is exactly 50%, the expected value.
BOOM evidence that the RNG fair!
This is your logic and your way of proving the rng in case you havent noticed.

You say that number. But then again, when push comes to shove you back away from it and not believe in it.
You havent proving anything, you typed some stuff in an excel sheet. Same work as your hypothetical scenarios.
If a RNG check is done over 100M+ hands what makes you think your measly 900 hands hold any value? You also thought you are good at poker because over a couple of sng's you were barely winning, but over 500k+ hands you were a significant loser at microstakes. This is cherry picking. You dont seem to understand numbers in any way, shape or form.

So tell me this John, if you are so certain of your algorithm:

1) When you did your livestream to prove your algorithm, why did you get literally everything wrong?
And why did you sneakily delete the livestream? Were you afraid your lies were caught for everyone to see?

2) Why do you refuse a test on the algorithm.
I know you only have $13 in your bankroll so I understand that you wont take a bet, espcially with Putin paying your welfare and all.
But why do you refuse even an honour bet on your 99,9999999% certain algorithm?
I am willing to test and im sure within a day I have found many errors with it which should never happen according to your math.

Do you want to finally put your honour where your mouth is or will you weasel out again?

If you were an attentive reader, or even a less braindead reader you would see clearly that it was a reply to Scimpanzini who said it would be impossible to analyze because you need "millions of hands". I told him its not so tough to get those hands.

And even if most of dont go to showdown there will certainly be a lot more showdown hands than in your 900 sample where you are basing a whole fable around

Shouldn't this thread be merged into this one?

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28/di...

Saw the thread-title, was shocked, read the thread, had a good laugh and concluded, that working at a gambling authority is something I wouldn't wish for.

OP is active is that thread as well saying the same nonsense

I guess the argument can be made that the thread you link is specifically to discuss if the RNG is rigged, or at least that should be the discussion there

This thread aims to tell the fable that a Gambling Authority is deliberately working with poker sites so they can continue their rigged RNG

In a few weeks time there will be a thread started that the UN is covering for the Curacao gaming commission.
Than a few later that the United Alliance of the Universe is covering for the Earth Poker Rigging Society.

He is funny this Johnmir, not on purpose though.
You should have seen his livestream where you tried to prove his algorithm and got everything wrong. "villain cant have anything here because of the algorithm I know so well so I am openshoving 55 for 75bb"... ofc Villain shows AA 😃😃

Too bad he was so ashamed of this livestream he deleted it.
Thinking of it. Johnmir, since you like to delete evidence, wouldnt a job at the Curacao gaming commission suit you?:p

I'm sure Johnmir realises there must be some sort of variance built into the "RNG", and that particular sesssion was unfortunately only the 1% hit that even he must know will happen every now and then.

I'm hoping he'll undelete it and show us a number more as a package where he will be able to demonstrate overwhelmingly the results that he expects.

Johnmir - how about it? Your audience awaits with bated breath.

Johnmir doesnt understand variance

Also, it isnt 1%
Since his algorithm is proven 99.999 999 992% by his own words the chances that even the slightest mistake happens is 0.000 000 008%

That is one in 12 500 000 000 times.

You would say cannot possibly happen right. Those odds are insane.

Guess what, Johnmir start the stream. First 5 hands, all wrong.
I mean, what are the odds of him being right and that happening
Its 0.000 000 008 ^5 = 3.0517578 e+50 % (that fifty zeros after the comma)

If the algorithm is as certain as Johnmir claims this should not be happening in a millions lifetimes. Yet it happened in the first 5 hands of his stream.
I am not even cherry picking a sample from years ago. These were all the hands he streamed before he knocked out openshoving 55 for 75bb against AA.

I have know proven with 99. 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 999 % certainty that Johnmir's algorithm is wrong.

And that why he quickly deleted his livestream, like a liar caught in the act.

Man,
tournament 1 - 85 hands played, place 2 of 9
tournament 2 - 11 hands played, place 9 of 9
tournament 3 - 8 hands played, place 7
tournament 4 - 23 hands played, place 7
tournament 5 - 89 hands played, place 2
tournament 6 - 19 hands played, place 7
tournament 7 - 25 hands played, place 5
tournament 8 - 21 hands played, place 6

Average place is 5.6 (a bit below 5 - avg. equal gaming place)

Hand history -
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jx2g1fx...

I openshoved 55 becase in case I don't shove - you won't see his hand. That is why I missed. I could have skipped 55, just fold it. But then, players can say "You skipped the best hand on the table!". This factor confused me and I shoved. It's not a poker gaming in general. My aim was to show, that the game was predictable. But I missed with predicting, because there are too many nuances, when I stream. I need to play the way, so that people somehow managed to see that I push/fold in the right moment.

I tried, but it's impossible to reapload. OBS Studio didn't record it, I think I should have chosen options to "save it on my hard drive", something like that. Anyway, it's a 7 hands stream. Not interesting. Since I even aploaded it on the Great Rigged Debate. I missed, so what... I warned you, that I don't play now, predicting of every single hand - it's hard, many nuances involved, yes.

Solid being 5.6 out of 9 in 0.20 sng's, real professional level player stuff!!

Your aim missed. Do you know that if you decide not fold 55 its an option to not shove for 75bb?? Some winning players open it for 2,2-2,5bb for instance.
In the stream you also announced that villain wouldnt have anything.
Again Johnny, and you keep ignoring this question. If you say you didnt fail on stream, why did you suddenly quit and deleted the stream?

Sure, you quickly deleted the stream but you did try to reupload it. Yea, everybody believe that. You just got rid of some evidence that proved you are lying.
Also a 7 hand is quite interesting since according to you the algorithm is 99.999999% certain yet you made several mistakes during those 7 hands.
Now is that possible with such certainty numbers???
btw, kudos for lasting 7 hands in a 0.20 sng, again real professional level player stuff!!🙂

You've actually shown your own ignorance here.
Because you show a hypothetical of 99 out of 100 flips lost which deviates a lot from the expected value, and I show a hypothetical were there isnt a deviation from the expected so in fact the variance ran out even over a large sample. Whether there is a lot of deviation or a tiny bit, its all variance. And over the long run variance plays a lesser and lesser part. Variance doesnt just exist when you under- or overperform.
Winning less than half of your flips is 50% chance and winning more than half of your flips is 50% chance. So winning exactly half is the equilibrium.
I suggest you take a look at the primedope variance calculator before you make an ever bigger fool of yourself.

You could have moved up where there were actual games running, but you lack the skill and therefore the bankroll. Registering for a $1 sng must be scary when you have a $13 bankroll huh Johnny?🙂

Also, you made more than 1 mistake. But even if you made only 1. Thats 1 out of 7 which is 14,2%
Now how the hell is that possible on an algorithm you are 99.99999999% certain about??

Well i can 100% say you're a microstakes losing idiot. There is no margin of error in that.
And you are the one saying its 99.999999% certain, dont get mad when people round that up to a hundred.
If its an economic or mathmetical model, show us the model.
Many economic models are difficult and intricate, but at least they exist. People have made them shown. They dont just exist vaguely in the head of some old russian guy.
You claim to know this model, show us. You are a self-proclaimed math genius so for sure you know how to make this model. I studied econometrics so I will be able to check this model of course.

Seems better than playing 0.20 sng's and losing at them tbf. Maybe you should make the switch😉

Wow, you must be the most inapt person and getting irony. He is messing with you John. Get that through your skull.

Johnmir: "you need to play some long distance"
Also Johnmir: Shows 2 hands
Also Johnmir: Bases entire research on 900 hands but disregards 500k+ hands of him losing in a normal fashion

Once again even if you miss 1. Thats 1 out of 7 which is 14,2%
Now how the hell is that possible on an algorithm you are 99.99999999% certain about?? Because you are making stuff up and you know it. Heck if im 80% sure of something im willing to take a bet on it. For honour or for cash. Its a very +EV bet (a concept you dont seem to grasp in poker from the looks of things). You arent even willing to stand behind your claim of 99.999999% certainty. And you studied math LOLOL

I do like that you call the different flops when folding or not folding an "idea" because thats exactly what it is. Not a proven theory, just an idea. An idea of a madman that is.
Now you claim if you fold a hand you get better flops but when you see a flop you get worse flops. This is something a model with data could describe for instance, and rember distance is important😉. But its also something everyone has to deal with. How come there are many players who actually win big even though their flops are different depending of whether they fold pre or not but a guy who exactly knows how the algorithm plays out whether he folds pre or not is stuck losing at the micros? Will you ever every acknowledge that you just arent good at poker.

Could you, please, keep the dialog according to my answers. I'm not sure you take into account my own comments.

I confirm that I missed on the stream, more then that, in another thread I uploaded all the hands and said that the stream was totally unsuccessful.

Your reactions ingore the dialog.

And the same here, man -

I never said algorithm is 99.999999% certain. I said - the statistical analysis of hands played for testing the dependency confirms rigging with a confidence level of 99.999 999 992%.

It is not connected to the algorithm description in any way.

And I have already said this about 5 times. You simply misread me several times in a row regarding the same subject.

I deleled that 7 hands stream, because on youtube people don't have the full chat of 2+2 and Gipsy Team forums. And those videos on youtube are "illustration of the gaming process", it's not a proof (except the first main video).

At the same time, if you watch attentively, you will see, that I keep several videos on youtube for Gipsy Team forum, where I missed many times. Why didn't I delete it?

Because there are a lot of my comments and useful information. And these streams last long enough to watch it and to get the logic of the software algorithms implemented.

Look, I say, that a chance to hit (match) 31 or more of 47 flops is a varience which belongs to 0.000 008% confidence interval.

What are you arguing about? Okay, you say that you know how to calculate variance like I know it. Then what is you point? 0.000 008% confidence interval is calculated the wrong way?

Give your number then, please. It's a concrete mathemtical task. Binomial calculation.

Hand history -
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jx2g1fx...

Calculation of the variance interval, basing on the chance of matching 28.1% (including the strength of combinations flopped) -

Good point here.

I didn't move to 0.5$ or to 1$ because it's another limit.

If you try to change the limit on any online-poker room, you will see that the game "magically" changes there.

I guess, it happens, because one of the inside factors of the room is ratio = bankrol/current limit.

In case it seriously changed, the software significantly corrects distributing of hands between players. And this account gets totally different "logic" of positive/negative waves of game cones.

I'm sure everyone of experienced online players know, that the game significantly "changes" if you change the gaming limit. 10$ -> 100$ or 10$ to 1$.

You disagree?

No. I'm not obliged to provide the model.

But I can describe a common logic of the hand dealing process. It is described here.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oEZRof3wiDNFQpCfHAFzK0ZkDVb9LTBK/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=106366561548744833761&rtpof=true&sd=true

Google Docs

Detailed description of Red Star Poker room software algorithm (ENG RUS).xlsx

It a special case here. Usually this kind of comments people recieve from not too "deeply thinking" people.

You don't even understand premitive analogies.

Like you say "your research is only based on 900 hands".
You do not take into account what happens there on these 900 hands.

I say - "If you lose only 100 all-ins in a row, the game is, almost sure, rigged".
And I try to explain you, that the distance is not the key factor to assess relevance of my sample size.

But you can't understand the analogy and say "you have never lost 100 all-ins in a row in your life". Just crazy.

And you call me "idiot" after this. Sounds like a joke. I realyze the internal "unspoken" rules on 2+2 now, but the cause of this is that moderators don't ban you for insults. As a result, you can keep acting like that as long as you are talking here on the forum. No punishment, no resposibility for the words.

You do not understand that for one research you can use a low number of hands played.

And for another research you need to play a significant number of hands.

If we talk about "all-in" like events - 1000 hands can be more then enough in case of critical deviations -

But If i need to guess one of 169 possible combinations of hands JT / 55 / AK / 77 / 75 to be "trapped" - yes, you need a significant prehistory.

For you - it's not important what you analyze. You take 1 million

- of all-ins
- air flights
- sunny/rainy days of the previous years (rofl)
- theft cars
- bankrupt banks (1 million lol...)

You take the same distance for any analysis, cause you don't know how to analyze the variance, how to calculate deviation chances and to check if the variance belongs to a concrete confidence interval.

This is a problem, you can only open primedope and give some number from there, which you can't even correctly interpret.

That is why, you say that 0.000 008% assessment is wrong, regarding 31 of 47 flop hittings. Cause if you knew how to calculate it - you would just give your own correct number, man.

Look.

1. I have never said I have got 99.999...% sure algorithm available.
2. I can always commit a mistake. I'm a human. To predict that 55 vs AA I had to remember -

- my last 10 situations when I got 55 and which of them met stronger pocket pair
- my 30 last situations when I got 22-77 and which of them met stronger pocket pair
- 3-5 starting hands of several tournaments before
- my current EV$ (5-10 previous tournaments)
- my overall EV$ (100+ previous tournaments)
- my current bankrol growth

AND many other stuff to compare and to decide if this 55 is better, or it is worse then my opponent's starter.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oEZRof3wiDNFQpCfHAFzK0ZkDVb9LTBK/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=106366561548744833761&rtpof=true&sd=true

Google Docs

Detailed description of Red Star Poker room software algorithm (ENG RUS).xlsx

It is a complecated algorithm, mate. That is why it is described only now, 20 years after all the scam started...

Mate, what is a proof for you then, lol... It is proved.

All the materials are published.
Just check it.

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

Look. In my opinion. This happens exactly because -

It is not any important regarding the topic. Even if i'm bad, iPoker won't stop rigging the game. It is a question of facts. And I provided all the facts. It's impossible to do more.

Chance of rigging the game is 99.999 999 992%.

My reactions are about what you said on-stream. Not about what are you saying here.
In the stream you were predicting outcomes, you never said you were going to shove 55 so that we can see the hand. In fact you said because of the algorithm villain wouldn't have a big hand there. Yet he showed AA. During the stream you never you were shoving "for show" and you were totally bewildered after he showed AA and you lost.
You are making stuff up afterwards saying you shoved for different reasons but thats a lie. And if you hadn't deleted the stream like a coward everyone could see this.

Thats a ridiculous cop-out. "Hey guys, i developed a model that shows poker is rigged with 99,99999% certainty, yet it only works some of the time."
You can say there is a big distinction between the two but they are massively correlated. You can only prove the rng is rigged by showing how it is rigged. If the "how" changes every time and more often wrong than right, there is no proof its just nonsense.

I have read the gypsy thread. The overwhelming concensus there is that you are mental patient. And that coming from your fellow countrymen.

Hey, theres a new one. Another factor. I play multiple limits and the game is the same across them with the only logical change that on the higher limits opponents are generally better. Also, wtf do you know about playing $100. You are playing $0.20 sng's and being scared to play a $1 sng because its 1/13th of your bankroll.

You say everyone knows that it magically changed, but again no proof whatsoever. Not even what changes... do we run better or worse when we move up? will we hit more flops or less? Show us data supporting your crackpot therories.
If you start running good when moving down you should we running like god on those microstakes of yours🙂

But Johnny, you are the savior this poker world needs. You have the power to unveil one of the poker most biggest and darkest secrets, the rigging of the RNG. You claim to have this knowledge and everything else should know about this...
But you also refuse to provide the model and keep it to yourself???
This is not a particularly good lie Johnny. Its extremely obvious that you are not providing the model because there isnt one. Not because "you are not obliged too"

No you are missing the point. I told you countless times you dont prove anything with analogies and hypotheticals.
You say that i dont focus on what happens in those 900 hands... But what comes next:
"If you lose only 100 all-ins in a row, the game is, almost sure, rigged".
IF.. everything is IF.
What is your point that your 900 hand sample is solid enough to prove evidence: "IF this happens, IF that happens". IF johnmir knew anything about poker he would not be losing at the microstakes.

And again... IF. Yea those number would suffice indeed Johnny, IF they were there. Which they arent. Somehow you have gotten analogies and actual happenings missed up.

This sounds like the stuff you could put in that model. You know, the one you have but wont share LOLOL
You really think that the fact that villain had AA (which you didnt predict btw) has to with your "bankroll growth:smirk" and your last 22-77 hands (why not 88 btw, you just liked that cutoff point?) and not that villain just got dealt AA. You know sometimes people just get dealt AA.
Not for Johnny, he likes doing mental gymnastics where every hand or board has to with an intricate system created to keep him, the microstakes loser, down on his luck.
John, we all know you are making rules up. And you are very very sick.

"In my opinion". Your first and only true words in that complete post.
In your opinion the game is TOTALLY controlled by the software. Therefore profits arent determined by skill whatsoever, just matters if the software likes you.
Now here is the thing Johnny. Why does the software like me so much?
Because I have played around 20 different networks in my life. And won on all of them.
I cant be that lucky that every site choses to give me profits and some other poor guy the losses right??
And not just me, but any pro. Linus and other greats are up on pretty much every site. While the Paistings and Johnmirs of this world are down on pretty much every site.
Tell me why do software pick some guys out who get a positive RNG and not only that, why do other software pick exactly the same guys to win and lose?

Lets change that opinion of yours into something factual, although it would be quite hard:p
Maybe you can say you do have the facts but you are not obliged to share them hahahah

Here the "if" is really unnecessary. We've seen your results, we've seen you play... You are bad.
And it does matter because you made it matter. You introduced yourself here, on gypsy on youtube and to the gaming commissions you've mailed as a self-proclaimed professional level player. But you are clearly nowhere near. So you start off with telling a lie in the first sentence of your speech. Not a great look Johnny.

Also, to expertly say something on the subject of poker, you need to have at least some skill in poker. Just like in any other sport or business.
Lets say you are looking for someone to tell you all about tennis. Would you listen to a guy who says he is an expert but mishits every ball and never won a game, or would you listen to someone who is actually making a living playing tennis?
The mishitting guy might have the best stories about tennis. He says he is one of most knowledgeable people in tennis and knows every dirty secret about the sport. He says he might be better than Federer, who knows. But he is clearly lying. And he very clearly doesnt have the slightest clue what he's talking about.

I finally managed to come back... Sorry for the delay, guys, I can't waste all my life to open online-poker scam. 2-3 years is enough! 😀

Had to concentrate on other life directions, but still -

Man, how did you manage to see me playing poker, since I haven't played it for 5 years. I played vs the software of Pokerstars on micros, and, than, vs iPoker. On micros too. But it's not even close to a real poker gaming.

Once I played for Gipsy Team forum a bounty MTT (I only played 9 non-freeroll MTTs in last 5 years!) and this is one of them, that were made for preannounced test of the dependency. I took, 7 of 9 pots having nothing -

(I show every single pot where I didn't get a pair/draw. Yes, I won each of the first 7 such pots)

4 players in

The same hand, ending. One player left in game

4 players in

Next hand - preflop

Flop (he calls)

Check-check on the turn, and the ending

We are 4 on the flop again, everyone checked, I play on the turn

The following pots of me with nothing on the board -

And only here I decide not to go for a bluff. The first time in the tournament.

The same here, I fold. Decided it was irrational to bluff here too. 50/50 decision though.

I mean, I took 7 of 7 flops having nothing, when I first played poker after 5 years break. For me it's just mechanics of the game. You won't find 7 of 7 bluffs won streak in your whole carreer. Because if you bluffed really well, you would never succeed online.

And I have played hundreds of tournaments with Stars and Party's regular players from 10$ up to 109$ limit. I saw how they play. It's not a poker gaming in general - what they do.

But look, it's not a problem, it's really cool that guys win. What is the problem?

But let's just announce the rules of the game. So that anyone wouldn't waste his lifetime for "poker" and could normally rule his life not been cheated -

- no bluffing
- more tables = +ratio from the room
- more bankroll/limit level = +ratio from the room
- ROI of every player is limited by the software

By the way. While I was playing this, I had to also fold -

Why the **** do you think I fold these huge hands, since I perfectly bluff

(pro players - real pro poker players know, what is this - winning 7 of 7 flops having nothing, you need to understand moment of joining the flop, exact bet sizes, all the opponent's types, always changing lines flop-turn-river, always changing timing. There is no any amateur who manage to perform this. And how many online-"pros" will manage?)

Because after bluffs software recognize this as a "negative decision" and immediatly "trap" the player with huge hands which are impossible to win on a postflop. It's just an arcade game with a hidden rules which comply with the room's max profit.

Because 88 belongs to another "basket" of hands according to the software.

I know this, because I analyzed the cyclicity of hands distributing between players -

Because your playing "style" and bankroll management perfectly complies with the rooms rules of accounts management.

If I open several tables and will start to play stable closer to my hand (with no bluffs and other "unnecessary ****" rofl) it will be all good. But I don't wanna play low level game being limited by the room.

That is why I refused to continue result-oriented playing online in 2008 even though I made 2500$ of 2$ starting bankrol, which I won on a freeroll.

About the stream, I missed on the stream with 55, because I need some huge info, that I had, when I played these tournaments -

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

I was calculating my EV$ after each tournament and checking this table -

That is why, I guys check these tournaments - I perfectly predict the software's dealing. Those game are impressive and clearly confirm that the gaming is simply predictable and is not any random.

But I don't wanna gather this stats once again. It's enough that I explained players that -

iPoker, Pokerstars, Partypoker (almost sure), Coin Poker (most-likely), PokerDom (high probability) are using the same logic of distibuting hands between players -

You push Ax hand. The next upcoming Ax should be folded, because the software expect the player to push it once again. And players can check it in a week. Very easy to check.

You played 2-3 80% all-ins? Next premium hand AJ-AK should be folded preflop. Is it hard to check? It works everywhere.

Yes, it's hard to notice. But rofl, someone explained you this. You CAN check it now, you don't even need to be good players to check this. But my participation in checking/streaming and other stuff is really over, guys, cmon, I need to do other stuff.

If I would have listen to advices of "cool guys", I would never become a certified coach with good marks. Because level of modern tennis is simply crazy. Same as modern poker btw.

What I did? I tried to use my own brain and to analyze what different people say about the game - amateurs, pros, national team coaches. And I gathered this all and developed my own methodology of training tennis players.

So, I don't expect anyone to listen to me. I expect to check the logic and to check the materials, and to make YOUR OWN opinion about the information above.

Otherwise - good luck waiting for another data analysis professional who get injured and decide to waste 3 years playing ****ing micros and analyzing the software's behavior of an online poker rooms.

P.S. By the way. I found some time and sent a part of my proof to iPoker's support team. About 10 years ago. They are silent. And we will use it later.

Dont beat yourself up. It was the right thing to leave :p
Also, you've said before that you know its a scam since 2008 to its actually 17 years you've wasted, not just 2-3😉
Also, you are still playing. Just not that much because your bankroll wont allow you too. You know people can sharkscope you right? Anyway, the evidence is down below :p

First of all, I saw you play on your live stream remember?
The one you made to prove you could predict the outcomes of boards.
You got literally everything wrong, then quickly ended the stream and deleted it. Like a murderer would remove all evidence of wrongdoing. Once you see someone openshoving 55 for 75bb you can already tell he'll not be any good 🙂
Furthermore you have several other streams on your youtube and you've posted enough hands here from which I as an actual professional player can quickly determine that you are bad. If I ever saw you at my tables (I am hoping for this) I will label you the fish tag within seconds.

Wise words. Its obviously those who bluff very poorly that do well. Is that why you fail so incredibly hard in poker.. because you do everything right? I think you actually believe this and its sad to see someone so delusional and sick.

Listen to the rules of poker everybody. This guy knows what he is talking about since he has a lossrate of -20bb/100 at the tables and a negative ROI on microstakes sngs😃😃

Linus is bluffing a lot, so are many HS crushers. So how do you explain that since according to you they shouldnt bluff to make profit
More tables is more profit??? But especially on high stakes there arent many tables running. So these guys often 1 table or 2table. Yet these are most successful poker players, how do you explain that?
More bankroll is better ratio lolol. You gain a bankroll by being better than players. Thats why on your livestream you only had a bankroll of $13. Its not that you have bad luck because your bankroll is low, your bankroll is low because you're bad at poker.

Once again, because you're bad at poker. Why would you openshove 55 for 75bb into AA on livestream... because you have no clue what you're doing.

You havent played me. You never reached those stakes. My playing style is overbluffing, exploiting weak scared players. It is the exact opposite of what you say is perfect for a favored rng.
I also keep the littlest amount possible on the pokersite and cash out very frequently. Which again doesnt comply with what you said about how to get a favored rng.
And I dont play many tables at 1 site since on my stakes those tables dont run that much. So I multi-site but often 1table or 2table a specific site. Again, that would mean the rng is against me. On all 3 counts!! Yet I win and you lose... HOW?
Although, the fact you're losing might have something to do with you saying bluffing is unnecessary😉

Ohh Johnny, you never had any results. You have said you are a professional level player but you are the exact opposite. So you're just living of welfare from Putin.

But just to remind ourselves of this genius OP who knows all there is to know about poker and self-proclaimed tournament specialist🙂
A lost of players dont know the rng algorithm and still win, so I wonder how someone who actually knows the rng will perform:

OOFF thats not pretty at all.
Lets take a look at last week, even though you said you werent playing anymore:

ahh poor Johnny.. playing 0.20 sngs because your bankroll is almost gone :(

For the last 5 days you played every day Johnny.. why not just leave poker for your other "life directions" hahaahah
Also, with all the sites that are available why do keep playing on a site you think is rigged?? You've already had 99.99999% certain evidence so its not to gather more.. Why do you keep playing sngs on a rigged site old silly Johnny?

Afterwards you're pretty good at it. But then again, so is everyone.
On livestream you were 100% wrong though... is that why you deleted it? you wanted to dispose of the evidence.

Have you even played coinpoker, what are you basing this on?

Now this is a hypothesis we can check.
So if anyone finds a hand where they pushed Ax the previous hand and now they push Ax again and it works out your hypothesis is disproven. This seems like a very simple rule to check. And of course, if someone disproves it you will be the first to say you got it all wrong huh??

This one is particularly interesting because you specifcally added it works everywhere.
So even if 1 person shows you that they played 2-3 80% allins and won with the next premium hand AJ-AK... your whole algorithm has failed and is therefore wrong.

Since this works everywhere it should never not happen.. Surely you want to bet on something where its 100% in your favor right Johnny??? But I still will take the bet, how much shall we do?

Mate, you show games of June which were played before streaming. It's July now. Haven't played a hand in a month. Right after I finished the stream.

Lmfao. You can't even check the dates. If i'm old - are you 90 then?

Guys, I don't know what is going on. But this guy is probably crazy, or, like other guys say he is a really paid by the rooms forum troll. He simply keeps repeating the same lie... Reasons?

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...o...

To be fair, I asked the mods to ban him for multiply insulting. But they didn't do anything, even though it is forbidden in the rules. Looks like we have got an antouchable person here, who just defend the rooms and distruct discussion of any information regarding rigging of the game (Excuse me, Mike, I just have to repeat it here, cause Slugant keeps acting the same. I admit you explained me the situation).

Cool words. Show me 7 successive "72 like" bluffs in a row in your whole genius online carreer (yeah, I did that in 9 tournaments, two of which I joined top 6 and top 20 of 300 players) and we will talk about your level. At the moment you "somehow managed to win in a rigged game".

Do you feel the difference?

I show you hands.
On Gipsy team forum I show self-programmed push-fold calculator, and self-made ICM-calculator. I shown them my own bluffing guide.
Shown them EV$ ICM of a tournament calculation (not an average EV chips calculation - it's just an estimation of trackers).

You just "talk".

I show you checkable evidence of rigging. But you just talk.

Cool. You are a hero of a fake world were the mods let you do anything you want while you don't have a real responsibility for your words. Very brave respectable person you are!

Shame!

Also, you missed a couple of questions. On purpose of course, since you have very selective decency.

Why did you remove your stream that "proved a rigged rng"?

Originally Posted by Johnmir View Post
But let's just announce the rules of the game. So that anyone wouldn't waste his lifetime for "poker" and could normally rule his life not been cheated -
- no bluffing
- more tables = +ratio from the room
- more bankroll/limit level = +ratio from the room
- ROI of every player is limited by the software
Listen to the rules of poker everybody. This guy knows what he is talking about since he has a lossrate of -20bb/100 at the tables and a negative ROI on microstakes sngs

Linus is bluffing a lot, so are many HS crushers. So how do you explain that since according to you they shouldnt bluff to make profit
More tables is more profit??? But especially on high stakes there arent many tables running. So these guys often 1 table or 2table. Yet these are most successful poker players, how do you explain that?

Youve claimed you have evidence on the rng.
You also made 2 very hypotheses.

I asked you too to stand behind these words. These are rules of the rng you've provided, based on evidence.
Of 1 in particular you claim it works everywhere.

Lets see how much you actually believe in your hypothesis.

If I can disprove both in a week you send me 1k. If I cant, i send you 2k.
Again, these are the rules of the algorithm you've provided. An algorithm you claim you have proven and is 99.99999999% certain. If you really believe that than taking this bet on is free money. So declining a bet like this would mean you actually dont believe what you say. That deep down you know its just all nonsense. But lets see how much of a backbone you have....

Do we have a deal?