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

The guy that posts endless diarrhea and can't answer a yes or no question with a yes or no response says my posts are mental and mathematical gymnastics. LOL

In all honesty, I just want you to walk through the math you did in a math forum with math people instead of this thread, where it is quite noisy. The first serious reply to your posts I shared in that thread had several questions. I don't see why you can't simply answer them

You have made it quite clear you're an expert and have proven everything so it should be trivially easy to respond to mild scrutiny. This thread is not that thread and you can just straight up ignore Slugant

Here's something, ACR no longer provide hand histories when asking them for hand histories..

Now, why do you all think that is? Really stop and think for a moment why on earth they would make that decision...

Why would unregulated gambling websites not allow you to chat or download hand histories?

Aren't they trying to provide a fair and safe game? Why wouldn't they want you taking to each other or able to run through your hand history?

Gee golly Mr idk.

Edit: let's also be clear here. None of you ******s who think this is normal EVEN PLAY. Hahah

You LITERALLY can't even play on these websites yet you invest SO MUCH of your time trying to disprove this stuff.

Also, again let's be clear, who is the ONLY ONE providing ACTUAL hand histories and ACTUAL proof of this? Not the ******s saying it's legit that's for sure.

Run the math for me bois. Make it make sense bc not one single ****** saying it's legit can provide anything outside if their own nonsense rants as proof of anything.

the only thing you provide is entertainment you clown.

the reason for anonymous tables and hand histories that can be downloaded is to protect fish like you from trackers and data mining.

That being said it obviously makes collusion more of a concern.

I mean its pretty obvious you are a bad troll or pretty dumb but what are you even asking for?

Do you want me to post hands I got the best hand in and won? what good would that do?

You didnt even ask a yes or no question. First mental gymnastics.

Some people like to substantiate their views with actual evidence and proof.
If you dont have any, messages get quite short, like yours..
You cannot dispute anything I've said so you just complain about a long posts, you can deliver nothing of substance.
You havent made a normal distribution, you havent accounted for bigger stacks, you havent got an unbiased sample, you havent listened to your textbook and you havent listened to AI.
Quite a lot of mistakes for 1 person but you've accomplished it so bravo i guess. Your posts were a lot longer too when you thought you've had something but by now you already know you're wrong so thats all you can say.

But feel free to argue your case that your mathematical gymnastics are correct here or in the math forums... but I guess you are out of figments of imaginations that can provide that.

More blah blah blah from Slugant.

Let's post some of those mathematical gymnastics Slugant claims are BS.

Starting stack 10000 chips (100 BB) compared with 20000 chips (200 BB)

First hand you go all in head to head with pocket aces against pocket kings and lose.

Adjusted Differential for 10000 chips (100BB) starting stack is:
20000 (200BB) x .8 = 16000 chips (160BB)

Adjusted Differential for 20000 chips (200BB) starting stack is:
40000 (400BB) x .8 = 32000 chips (320BB)

Hey look the the all in adjusted differential is higher even in big blinds. What a surprise..... to Slugant. But when you want to claim basic algebra is voodoo math you either know nothing about math or are lying.

When you are dealing with someone who is so obviously willing to lie or is a verifiable moron there is no reason to to take anything he says seriously.

Nooo waayyyy.... you mean the differential is twice as much when you playing a pot twice as big in both stacks and bb's LOLOLOL.. of course it is you dumbass, its literally twice as much in every aspect. E1 is 100 big blinds. and E2 is 200 big blinds. You cant make this **** up.

You are argueing a quote something nobody said. Where did I say that when you lose a pot of 2x times the amount in stack and bb's you will get the same result?? Nowhere, of course. If you want to claim I said something was BS, quote me on it. What are you describing is a purely hypothetical I never said. Just like the rest of your nonsense, it only exist in your head.

Also you keep saying all-in differential when its just EV, you know that right?

Your examples are kindergarten poker maths.
In the first example you lost 100bb with 80%, in the second example you lost 200bb with 80%.
So yes, of course the second ev is twice as much in bb as the first. Because you lost twice as many stack and bb's with the same equity, its perfectly weighted to bb just like i said. Literally nobody ever said this is wrong. Again you are arguing with the voices in your head, nobody said that example was wrong, the only time that example was used was by you just now. I cant think of any reason why you wouldnt understand this besides a severe lack of oxygen.

What I actually said was (and this is how you quote)

Its funny how you are saying other have blah-blah while you are the one investing conversations and arguments out of thin air.
Wanna read that quote again and have a think about whats the big difference here? In my example it was both 100bb but the bigger stacksize had 50% of the weight in your own invented flawed "formula" even though it was 1 out of 1001 tournaments.

Lets put that into context of your own example calculations above:
2.000.000 (100bb) x 0.8 = 1.600.000 stack but 100bb
2.000 (100bb) x 0.8 = 1.600 stack but 100bb

Hey look... even though stacksizes differ immensely you got it weighted perfectly to big blinds. Yet you came up with dividing the ev by net result. Which again would be weighted super heavily towards to 1 big stack tournament which causes the imbalance and crookedness you love so much.

Its like explaining maths to a ******ed 6 year old.
You cannot dispute anything I've said so you just made something up thats never been said. Or you simply dont understand, that could very well be the case.
You havent made a normal distribution, you havent accounted for bigger stacks, you havent got an unbiased sample, you havent listened to your textbook and you havent listened to AI. And the latter of the 2 were your friends until you read that even they claim the rng is fair and they dont support your math at all. Maybe you can try wikipedia again:p
An insane amount of mistakes for 1 person but you've accomplished it somehow.

You dont even understand the basics of math but if you think you do, please come and argue your case in the math forums... Maybe you can invent some new things nobody ever said and argue about that to distract from whats actually happening. People bringing evidence and numbers to the table to tell you you're absolutely wrong.

Sighhhh, you would say I’ve cherry picked the hands, you would say I’ve only posted those to suit and blah blah blah….

After the last post, are you actually just going to ask me to prove something that can’t be proved again!????

Before I will make substantial claims I would need proof.
And what you are describing is actually very easy to prove, but even if it wasnt
I would put in effort to prove it.
And I wont make crazy statements without the proof.
All unlike you.
I kinda hope someday the cops are at your door and go "We dont have any proof, but we do have instinct... your going to jail for a long time buddy"... I wonder what your stance on proof vs feeling would be in that case

But again you tell a story and say "it cant be proven" while it so clearly can be proven.
You are simply refusing to add evidence to your claims.
Avalanches of 4 outers, the same players hitting each <20%. These are things easily shown instead of just typed, you do understand that right?
Even losing to a player now that you always beat in the past is something easily shown in a tracker. Why do you always choose not to demonstrate what you claim??
If I wanted to tell this forum that I always won to a player but now suddenly lost I will go to the vsPlayer tab, screenshot all my results with him to show im not making **** up and show that indeed something odd has changed. This would take me about a minute.

I really want to know this. Why do riggies and you specifically do have time to write the posts but never time to add a screenshot or data that is only a minute's work???

So at this point we have determined in this thread that online poker is definitely rigged and that its so obviously rigged that everyone can clearly see it even over a tiny sample size. Yet at the same time the rig is impossible to prove.

Well unless you are John mir then it can be proven via excel sheets and because the flops are provoking him.

In amazing case he runs under ev if he filters for all hands he lost.

Waddy finds the biggest fish in the history of hu sng who rematches not just one night but all the time.

Is this in the 2$ plot high low hung? I wonder where they still spread those i remember them from way back in the day on stars but thats about it.

I wonder what we find out next!

This Sky Poker we are talking about. There is no such function. You can’t even get a profit/loss up, nothing works since they moved to Ipoker.

Also I don’t feel the need to spend time gathering info backing something you will never accept as proof.

I write my experiences here, for those who are interested. I am also interested in other people’s experiences. You and Donjonnie are not interested. Yet you are the 2 who stick around the most.

Clearly you are two people who feel threatened you may lose PlayStation poker, we have established this.

You believe in the deck, you think everyone suffering impossible amounts of beats are idiots. But you stick around. Weird.

You have nothing to offer to this thread except insults.

You have no proof it’s real (we know it’s not), yet insist we are wrong because we also have no proof.

I have proof its real. RNG certificates, they have been checked and cleared. If you dont accept that as proof that is your problem but in any case its more proof than the riggies side have provided.

You say "I don’t feel the need to spend time gathering info backing something you will never accept as proof.".
This is utter nonsense. I explained clearly that it will take you about a minute to confirm your claims with data, you could have done it in the time it took you to write this post. I also explained how that proof would look like and you claim "i will never accept it"... untrue! you are making that up. I in fact said that if i was claiming the same thing I would add that as evidence... so why wouldnt I accept it??? You are just weaseling out because we both know you dont have the evidence to back up your claims. Because it only happened in fantasyland.

You claim sicne the move to iPoker you cant get the necessary data.
But even that is not true, because on the ipoker network there is not only an internal hud & hand history but its also supported by the normal trackers like hem & pt4:

They have hand histories which are supported by trackers. You can easily get a profit/loss up just by importing those hh's. At which stage it would only take a minute to take the screenshots of the stories you claimed that I will definitely accept.

Furthermore I know sky poker didnt have hh's around 2014 but at least 4 years ago they did have hand histories stored which you could check.
So you said you dont add the info because its "not working".... proven to be a lie
You said you dont add info because i wont accept.... Also completely untrue since I said actually how you would retrieve that data

For those who are still on the fence🙂🙂 one side is showing proof and hasnt been caught out on a single lie and the the riggie side hasnt provided one piece of proof and is lying about why they dont add the proof or are falsely claiming that it cant be proven simply because their stories are lies.

Am not completely sure if you are deliberately lying here or just ignorant, but even on the sky poker website itself it claims to support hand histories and tracker import

You can read more here: https://support.skypoker.com/app/answers...

And about your inability to see how much you're up or down.. thats also a lie. Obviously you can see it in a tracker but also in the software. More on that here: https://support.skypoker.com/app/answers...

Now there is nothing in your way to easily show:
- The avalanches predictable of 4outers happening each day
- The same players hitting < 20% every time !!!
- The fish that got crushed every time but suddenly now always wins

Of course, if these things didnt happen it still would be awfully difficult to show them... which would be the only logical conclusion if we still dont any proof.
And dont say i wont accept it, that's a fallacy. Because I show you exactly how to do it. You said you couldnt.. but now I showed you that you can after all. Who would have guessed huhh🙂

Of course I did already say nothing like this is working on Sky Poker at present, due to integration with ipoker, but feel free to ignore that.

The lobby also shows Razz, NLO8, etc but actually none of these games are available. They say a lot of things Sky, but there’s little action, they say it will eventually all appear.

I also doubt that hands off the old site will ever be there, but we shall see.

Again, you seem just to be here for the needle, there is absolutely no need for a player who thinks a rigged deck is nonsense to even check in hourly here.

Unless you have a vested interest of course. Do you want to come clean that you are a shareholder in ACR poker or the likes? I can’t think of any sane reason you would spend this much time doing this.

if I was a shareholder of acr why would I be defending the rng of other sites???

You seem to have no logic whatsoever.

And yea sure because of integration with ipoker now suddenly the hand histories are all gone and all your crazy stories cant be proven... otherwise you would have obviously... bullshit!
Because it its not working in the present, why havent we seen things from the past either?? we havent seen bloody anything

Sky has their own tables and tables that are ipoker network, you can find the games there. You can also easily import hand history or watch the hh's in-client. You claim these dont work, they do work for others, so you either are lying or really really ignorant with the software.
Anyway, I know you dont like proving things but i do... heres a hud with tracked hands on sky poker, you can do the same... No more excuses to not add any evidence to your wild stories

not my hud or hand btw, but just one google search away. But even that is more effort than you are prepared to put in.

Furthermore I dont know if your point is skypoker is rigged or all sites are rigged? because your fellow riggies believe that.
At least every site they've played is rigged since they didnt do well there (oh what could the reason be)
But if you play skypoker you are likely from the uk or ireland... there is plenty of choice man.. why play on skypoker?? especially if you think its rigged.
Why not play stars?? or is that rigged too?? must also have a fault in the hand history department huh 🙂

I guess dozens of online poker sites owe me back pay and/or vested stock options!

Nope you failed again. Unlike you I actually took and easily passed statistics. And when you have samples of different scales you have to normalize the data. Just standard practice in statistics, which you would know if you actually took statistics. But not surprisingly you just make crap up because you can't deal with the facts. Like when you said "for 50% of players the all in adj is greater than the total (in your case total losses)", then were exposed for your BS statement, then subsequently claimed you said "50% of the players run above ev and 50% run below it". It's all there in the forums and you still lied about what you originally said. LOL

and you would know about making **** up wouldn't you?

How would you think the distribution looks like or should look like 100% of players running neither above nor below ev?

Yeah I printed that textbook and made it all up. LOL

Bud he referred to all in adj in his original statement not EV. They are not the same thing moron.

I took and passed statistics, quite good at them. Thats why I can beat poker 😉
You

You "normalize" by dividing the ev diff with net result... but the bigger stack difference is nowhere in that formula so you'll remain having the exact same ratio. In the example above the 50% weight of 1 tournament out of 1001 will remain 50% after your formula.
You've done nothing to change the ratio, putting it in big blinds will. I showed you this, you clearly cant understand because you couldnt dispute it. You just mentioned something I said weeks ago instead.

You claim I switched from
"for 50% of players the all in adj is greater than the total (in your case total losses)"
to
"50% of the players run above ev and 50% run below it"

This is not a switch you poor silly manchild, this is same statement worded differently
There is probably no way of getting this into your confined mind but:
The net notal is the green line or the bottom line. And the all-in adj is the ev!! So for 50% of players the all-in adj (i.e. EV) is greater than the total (GREEN LINE). And 50% of players run above/below ev (i.e. all-in adj).
So I said exactly the same thing twice, and thats out there in the forums for everyone to read. And everyone can read that you dont know basic poker terminology LOL

Its also very very telling that you havent disputed my math once. You just say irrelevant and fictional stuff like "you failed statistics" but please correct my math or jump in the math forum any time you like. But you cant. So therefore you distract and go back to a so-called switch of claims from weeks ago that wasnt even a switch. You just dont have the ability to read and comprehend on the level of a 5 year old child.

But you are on the level of a 4 year old with a very rich imagination. But please grow up and stop inventing fairy tales and show the facts. But since you havent done that even once we shouldnt be expecting anything relevant from you ever.

You showed one page that nobody is disputing, its a normal sample distribution.
But the rest you made it all up.
Where in that textbook did it say you have to divide your all-in adjustment with net winnings huh??? Nowhere
Where did it say to filter for only lost hands??? Nowhere
Where in that textbook did it specify a difference betwen all-in adjustment and ev line??? Nowhere

And what do you think the all-in adjustment is adjusting for if not the expected value of the all-ins?
Serious question, I want to know what a riggie microstakes players thinks here

Yep, make a claim about all in adj then change it to EV and claim you didn't lie. RIGHT!

Yes, I am right. Running above/below ev or running below/above all-in adjustment is the same thing you muppet. If not, tell me the difference then.
And I'll ask this again, what do you think the all-in adjustment is adjusting for if not the expected value of the all-ins?

But lets take a look at one of your past posts where you filtered for only lost hands:

You yourself even selected the ev-line (orange one) in your screenshot graphs to show your (and i quote) "all-in adjustment differential", therefore you must think they are similar too. Otherwise why would you show the ev-line to prove something to do with all-in adjustment???
You are even saying the allin adj differential is hovering around zero. But there is one line hovering around zero and that is clearly the all-in ev line in hem3.
Are you lying now or was that all a lie from you then??? LOLOLOL you cant have your cake and eat it too. And you cant contradict yourself so many times 😉

Because I substantiate my words. You should try that sometimes.

Ever notice how amazing always dodges questions and instead just invents lies, to which he never adds any evidence. He just says someone was exposed, but never adds the post that shows this.

I show a post of you where you call the ev-line the adjusted all-in differential.
So they are similar things to you. As they are to me.
So when I interchange between those 2 words with the same meaning (even in your own posts) I am somehow a liar?? Then you must be a liar as well since you did the exact same thing.

But since you would obv never lie, answer this truthfully, you somehow ignored it and made a big deal about the difference between running above ev and running above all-in adj...(even though they were interchangeable in your very own post😉)
So according to you, what is the difference?
And what do you think the all-in adjustment is adjusting for if not the expected value of the all-ins?
You seem to get really hung up on this specific use of words so surely you can explain easily.