The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition
Bad beats are part of the game. I understand that. But after absorbing more than my fair share on Poker Stars I switched
Like I said, made claim about all in adj then changed that original claim to be about EV then claimed you didn't lie. If you didn't pull your stats out of your ass you wouldn't have had to change your claim about all in adj to be about EV, which is not the same thing as all in adj. Just lie after lie after lie to cover up your original lie. Ever notice Slugant always has a con
And yet, you refuse to post in the Probability Forum to answer a few basic, relatively trivial questions, but will argue endlessly itt with Slugant about some minutiae better discussed in...the Probability Forum
Back
I have finished reading 10 latest pages of the chat 
(Good job, guys!))
And I made a list of comments. It's pretty big, so I classified your comments. And I will react according to a concrete topics, you discussed.
Topic I. Amazing3338's statistics and proofs
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 vac
First of all TeflonDawg, thank you for this one, seriously. To be fair, I'm surprised that Amazing didn't answer there... Though, may be, he don't wanna start a new conversation somewhere else.
But, personally, i'm not that fluent with the use of 2+2 forum, good that you tried to help the discussion.
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...
And what do you think the all-in adjustment is adjusting for if not the expected value of the all-ins?
I watched Amazing's HEM screen.
If I understand it right,
"All-in adj diff" = Pot size * All-in chances (Equity) %
But EV of the all-in is different -
EV All-in = Pot Size * All-in chances - Bet Size
EV of any all-in, and Teflon Dawg used this explanation, is -
Nobody's "lucking" they just don't get the concept that if you get all-in as a 55% favorite in a $100 pot and win, you didn't really win $50. You risked $50 for a ROI of $5, over and over, forever and ever, until the end of time...IYKYK
It's a good explaination of the "EV" meaning. EV = 5$ here in the example. All-in adj diff = 55$.
Here is the problem, pots sizes vary. That's why it's difficult to determine a normal distribution. I don't see any other way than running a Monte Carlo simulation on a live game with a physically shuffled deck. Almost impossible to compile that data but there actually is a way. WSOP shows all hands and hold cards at the featured table. Theoretically you can compile years and y
Amazing, look how I acted in your situation, but for Pokerstars. I proved PS is also rigged (same as iPoker, but it is not published, yet) by analyzing the all-ins.
How I did that -
I recorded all the percentages % (equity) of all-ins played. Got a table of 250 all-ins
I didn't even bother with EV nor with All-in adj.
Because I noticed, that all the problems on Pokerstars happen on the prefinal (buble) and on the final table.
I marked only those all-ins% that I played on prefinal and the final tables of tournaments. It "magically" appeared, that they are dealt in the following way -
win win win win win win win win win win win
lose lose lose lose lose lose lose lose lose lose
win win win win win win win win win win win
lose lose lose lose lose lose lose lose lose lose
And this happenes because the software of Pokerstars strictly controlls profitability of players. Once you reach some $ of your bankrol - you start to lose prefinal (and the final) table all-ins just in a raw. In the picture you can see that I lost 19 of 20 all-ins lmfao.
How you can use this idea.
If you run seriously under EV, i'm sure, if you take only late stage all-ins, your "luck-factor" will appear to be very low. I mean, you will see, that in stead of 55% all-ins % in average you only won 25%. That's all. And you will get those confidential intervals, which were exceeded by your unlucky streak on GG, and will prove GG is rigged (according to Mike's friend-mathematician statement conditions).
I mean, you don't even need to use chips. If you wanna "include" chips in your calculations just make a limit like - "I concider only all-ins which where played for a pot of 100% starting stack or bigger". Or something like that. Get some assumptions and watch a concrete all-ins in your statistics.
Your aim can be easily achieved by analyzing hands not in asbolute value (chips) but in term of big blinds. And you wont need a formula, you can just check bb ev in relation to bb won. And this way, all the data compiling is done by the software for you.
The idea is good, it's better then just analyzing a clean EV in chips. But i'm not sure it will help him, because, in case he does play different tournaments "structure" turbo/regular/hyper/different starting stack in BBs - some all-ins will be more "valuable" then others. And these valuable in BBs all-ins will influence on a overall result. In fact, I wouldn't even consider EV/EV diff in his case.
I didn't just pick bad beats I picked all the hands I lost. You can look at the screenshot yourself.Here are the numbers compared to the hands I won. I was a favorite on 527 hands and an underdog on 481. I won as an underdog on 130, my opponents won as an underdog 161. Although they had more chances to win as an underdog they won at a 3.53% higher rate and the EV difference is
Amazing, why did you really separate your all-ins to "lost" and "won"? What for did you do this? And, also, why you devide these all-ins to "+equity", "-equity"? Did you notice some deviations according to the factor of "underdog"/"favorite" in all-in results?
Look, guys don't understand your statistics cause of that. It's hard to analyze it for others. They think you only watch all-ins, that you lost. But, in fact, if I got you the right way - you consider all the all-ins played.
3.1.1 Seeding
The OpenSSL RNG seeds itself with entropy drawn from the system, which in turn uses numerous low-level
hardware and software sources of entropy.
BMM checks the poker RNG > The poker RNG draws bytes from OpenSSL > The OpenSSL RNG seeds itself with entropy drawn from the system > which in turn uses numerous low-level hardware and software sources of entropy.Therefore BMM is clearly checking the hardware rng because it is part of the poker rng. The poker rng encompasses both software & hardware. I know you will refuse to g
Guys, look.
In case BMM Labs, while testing GG's RNG, generate the statistics to analyze using the seed, which was generate by PRNG. Then, Amazing is right, they do not test hardware RNG.
In case BMM Labs, generate the statistics to check RNG using the whole Hardware+Software RNG system, then Slugant is right - they watch the stats which were made by using Hardware RNG's seed.
To be fair, I didn't understand this. Just trying to realize the true situation with the BMM certification.
Yes. Remember now I'm only playing micros. During the timeframe I posted my stats (Jan 2024 - March 2025) with the rake-backs and freebees I'm actual up $90. Yep, even with losing over 50% of my EV with a 51.5% all in equity I'm actually up $90. During that time I'm cashing on about 22% of the tournaments, 18.7% overall. I used to play live only and joined in 2020 during covid.
Yes, exactly, you are up $90, because they control your bankrol growth. You will be slowly winning, but never fast. They won't let you. They just won't let you win important (closer to the final table) all-ins. Same as Pokerstars did in my case (but in an absolutely crazy way, rofl).
Did you manage to do good offline? Managed to win something? Or you were not that experienced those days?
It would be very fun to read how you can dig an even deeper hole. Even though you said today that "your work here is done" 😃😃
Amazing, Slugant told me exactly the same while I was just showing statistics from real hands and tournaments played. But fun is that few weeks after we got that streak of 31 of 47 flop been hit... And I immediate get from that "digged hole" back.
I mean, you can just comment the materials. Those guys, who try to understand and are objective will get your point. But it can be important if you "filter" your screens some more convinient for watching way. So that other GG players would get the real situation there.
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
Like I said, you made a claim about all in adj that was exposed as BS, then you claimed your original claim was about EV (which it wasn't), then you lied about it because you were proven wrong. It's as clear cut as that. Not surprisingly you haven't made that claim about all in adj again. Why would that be if that statement was (as you claim) true?
I answer issues that are relevant to the point and I don't waste my time with your stupid remarks or endless stream of lies.
Yes, exactly, you are up $90, because they control your bankrol growth. You will be slowly winning, but never fast. They won't let you. They just won't let you win important (closer to the final table) all-ins. Same as Pokerstars did in my case (but in an absolutely crazy way, rofl).Did you manage to do good offline? Managed to win something? Or you were not that experienced th
Actually $160 now. Finished 3rd recently. Some of the HM data turned out to be useful and I'm using it to my advantage. It's not the ideal program for analyzing the anomalies with the RNG but it's the best program available. That point clearly has gone over some people's heads. LOL
Welcome back John, its honestly good to see you less active here and I dont mean that in a snarky way. I think your relationship with poker is far from optimal and to see that you now have taken many time away from it is a good step for you I think.
I watched Amazing's HEM screen.
If I understand it right,
"All-in adj diff" = Pot size * All-in chances (Equity) %
Clearly not the case if you looked correctly.
And let's add another breakdown. I find it unbelievable that my all in adjusted differential on all the all in hands I lost can hover around 0 for over a thousand hands.
He is saying that his all-in adj line is hovering around zero while the only line we see there is the ev-line. The orange line is the ev-line. He calls it the all-in adj line. Cmon its out there for all to read.
He is using them as synonyms but when someone else does it he somehow gets mad, but whatever happens he refuses to name the difference between the two. Likely because he doesnt know either. And because he was the first the use them as synonyms.
Even in your formula, when you take pot sizes * equity, you get the exact ev-line unless you filter for lost hands in the first and not in the second.
It's a good explaination of the "EV" meaning. EV = 5$ here in the example. All-in adj diff = 55$.
Exactly, maybe unknowingly you are proving my point. If the ev is +$5 and you got -$50, you would run $55 below ev right?? and the all-in adj is what?? exactly, also $55.
Its the same bloody thing. But amazing needed something in his mind to get fuzzy about because all his other stuff was debunked and he doesnt want to go in the math forums and be told that he is wrong again and again. Which is what happened anyway, he just doesnt participate and rather start a discussion about semantic words that mean the same thing. Not only to me, but from his own statement clearly to him as well. But he must have forgotten about that.
Amazing, why did you really separate your all-ins to "lost" and "won"? What for did you do this?
I wonder if he ignores it too if you ask it haha, but this remains a mystery. The only logical explanation is thata filter for only lost hands would include all bad beats and none of the suckouts and therefore would show a graph that "shows bad luck". Which seems to be his only aim
Guys, look.In case BMM Labs, while testing GG's RNG, generate the statistics to analyze using the seed, which was generate by PRNG. Then, Amazing is right, they do not test hardware RNG.In case BMM Labs, generate the statistics to check RNG using the whole Hardware+Software RNG system, then Slugant is right - they watch the stats which were made by using Hardware RNG's seed.To
I've shown the BMM report before, it states very clear that its analyzing the seed. Without the seed there is no RNG. And no major site is using a site that is 100% PRNG. These things are easily checkable.
Also, the stats they analyze are all based on millions of hands. They look at these hands for any discreprencies. All the hands are created with the RNG that start of at the seed. So what they are in fact looking at, the hand histories, wouldnt even exist without the seed. Without the seed there are no hands. And the seed, again, is hardware rng generated.
He wont even comment on the tough questions. He gets mad at someone for saying something he said word for word just a week ago. At least you put some effort in it, although I dont agree with your way of working.
Like I said, you made a claim about all in adj that was exposed as BS, then you claimed your original claim was about EV (which it wasn't), then you lied about it because you were proven wrong. It's as clear cut as that. Not surprisingly you haven't made that claim about all in adj again. Why would that be if that statement was (as you claim) true?I answer issues that are relev
It seems so trivial but you are the one making a big point of that I said ev-line one day and all-in adj line the other day. Its because they reference the exact same thing.
It seems even more trivial, or in fact downright wrong, because you did the same thing.
You showed a graph of your ev-line and said "look at my all-in adj line, its hovering around zero". You were clearly talking about your ev line, so if they are interchangeable or synonyms to you, why do you get so mad when its also the same for someone else??
And since you seem to hung up on me calling the ev-line an all-in adj line, then why wouldnt you answer this. Its not just relevant to the discussion, its the heart of the discussion.
What is the big difference between the ev-line and all-in adj line? (and remember you showed an evline and said it was an all-in adj line after all😉 its shown in the screenshot above)
And if the all-in adj doesnt mean its based on the expected value of the all-ins, what is this line based on in your view?
Furthermore you said by claim about all-in adj was exposed as BS and/or proven wrong??? Why didnt you add this quote then?? It would be super easy and you've finally won an argument. I said you were the one calling the ev-line the all-in adj line and I added a quote of you saying it, why dont you ever show the quote? I dont feel the need to make quotes up out of thin air, why do you?
Actually $160 now. Finished 3rd recently. Some of the HM data turned out to be useful and I'm using it to my advantage. It's not the ideal program for analyzing the anomalies with the RNG but it's the best program available. That point clearly has gone over some people's heads. LOL
Congrads, man!
Yeah, to be fair, when I joined iPoker, I refused using trackers, cause I came to catch rigging and trackers are simply useless in this case. Their EV calculations doesn't even fit to tournament gaming, only for cashe games. Because they don't really calculate tournament EV the right way (they don't consider tournament "flow" - a chronological sequence of the all-ins played).
It's a long story - why it's wrong and how to calculate it the right way (this is what I had to do - to calculate the tournament's EV ICM$ myself). I explained it on Gipsy Team forum.
And I had to input data totally manually. You are right, it's a huge job. Thank god, I'm fast in excel (my ex. job).
Welcome back John, its honestly good to see you less active here and I dont mean that in a snarky way. I think your relationship with poker is far from optimal and to see that you now have taken many time away from
With poker - it's perfect (my relations). But I got some problems with guys (the rooms managers), who sell some funny arcade game for newcomers with money involved and call it "poker" 🙂
For sure, I can finally concentrate on important real life stuff. Coaching a group of Japanese players, lol.
He is saying that his all-in adj line is hovering around zero while the only line we see there is the ev-line. The orange line is the ev-line. He calls it the all-in adj line.
Yes, I think that orange line is a EV line.
Exactly, maybe unknowingly you are proving my point. If the ev is +$5 and you got -$50, you would run $55 below ev right?? and the all-in adj is what?? exactly, also $55.
I didn't get that idea of a new "function" that Amazing was thinking to implement. I just commented those values. Lol, I tried to understand your fights, but didn't manage to get all the details, lol. Waddy's posts where too interesting and I had to concentrate on it!
But Johnny, you've been playing poker since 2006. You are not a newcomer. If you still feel this way towards the game you cant say your relationship with poker is healthy. Or lets specify, your attitude towards online poker is that of someone who should leave online poker alone.
This must be tennis I assume. What a time for Japanese tennis players to travel to Russia to get coaching from Johnmir. They do know tennis is rigged right?🙂
You think thats the ev line??? Cmon Johnny, you know it is. Everyone here knows it is. He is using the ev-line and adj all-in line as exactly the same thing. No big deal, I do too. But when I do it he calls me out for being a liar somehow???
I know he is on your "poker is rigged-team" and I am not, but I thought you had more of a principle with blatant contradictions like this.
I just commented those values. Lol, I tried to understand your fights, but didn't manage to get all the details, lol. Waddy's posts where too interesting and I had to concentrate on it!
And you did right. Because If the ev is +$5 and you got -$50, you would run $55 below ev right?? and the all-in adj is what?? exactly, also $55.
Therefore they are the synonyms of each other.
The function amaz was trying to "implement" had nothing to do with the discussion of the distinction between ev & all-in adj. It was about his effort to weigh tournaments more fairly if one has a bigger stack. For instance if T1 starts with 1million stack blinds 500/1000 and T2 starts with 1000 stack blinds 5/10. In his formula you would divide all-in adj (or ev) by net result.... now how would that weigh things better?? Because if you lose both tournaments the net result in chips is 1.001.000. So the bigger starting stack tournament still heavily outweigh the smaller one, nothing is being done about this. Putting it in bb's would make it equal and you would get a fairer result. John you do math and have read more than 1 page of a textbook, you have to understand this?
Are you unwilling to call his math wrong just because he is on your "poker is rigged-team"?? Because if donjonnie, TD or me came up with wrong math like his im sure you would be on it like flies on honey.
Funny you should say waddy's post were interesting. Unless you find contradiction funny😉
He did claim skypoker (now under ipoker) doesnt support hand histories and importing. I know this isnt true, you know this isnt true, you play(ed) ipoker. It was proven untrue with a HUD and by what skypoker says on its own site.
Why aren't you calling your fellow people out for these very obvious and not so well thought out lies John? You've always presented yourself as someone who values the truth. But now its just all so selective since you let your "own team" get away with the biggest contradictions and clearly made up stuff. And suddenly its "i think that orange line is a ev line" and "its interesting". You've certainly called me a liar for waaaayyyy less than that, but on the other side its all silent. Where has your integrity gone?
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
‘why not play stars or is that rigged too’ … possibly the most thick question Ive heard anyone ask those who don’t believe in online poker decks!
You think there’s a possibility of the answer ‘no stars is perfectly normal but I like to play on rigged sites so I can drive myself insane and moan about it on forums’??
I think we dealing with someone of limited intelligence if you seriously ask on page 3400+ if we think only some sites are rigged… but are choosing to play on only those that are rigged…
Asking why would it be an advantage to back RNgs on other sites if you were connected to ACR is another thick question. Because you would want anyone reading a rigged thread to have confidence in your invested industry, perhaps??
Ive never known anyone misinterpret soooo many posts and ask so many obviously stupid questions!
Think the best one was when I said said honing your game with any best poker books wont work online… as correct poker decisions have to be adjusted to the online game due to highly unlikely outcomes and odds being skewed.
You somehow took this to mean I was saying poker books were in on the rig! It’s just plain low IQ stuff a lot of the replies.
You dont play on Sky Poker, yet know better than me that there are a huge amount of problems, since integrating with ipoker just 2 months ago?
It also shows a lack of intelligence to be the main contributor on a subject you believe is not true and where you think everyone who posts is a liar. What type of person would entertain that all day, every day???
This screenshot is from a week ago.
So clearly since the integration with ipoker the use of hand histories and HUDs works perfectly fine right now.
Ive also spoken with players from the UK who said its the same as any ipoker skin, where hand histories are just easy to download and import, and playability is the same as well.
Anyone from the UK or Ireland can test this.
You claimed it couldnt. Well, ive shown you it does work. Now you can finally import hands and show the evidence about all those 4outer avalanches and same players winning every <20%.
You've told so many nice stories about this happening and now you can add proof so easily, it will take a minute. But you dont... Now why would someone keep evidence against a pokersite to himself huh??? Must be in on the scam. The hatred against pokersites is so strong, surely you'd take a minute out of your busy day to screenshot something that will show an avalanche of 4 outers that would never happen under a fair rng. But you don't... why???
Of course in your world every site is rigged. You brought it specific to sky poker btw, but now stars is obviously rigged as well. Because it cant be you thats the issue right?
Nooo, its way more likely every site is rigged, probably in the exact same way as well.
And why? To screw over a couple of microstakes players... it all makes perfect sense
And somehow never an ounce of proof to be seen. And then to think you can just make 2 or 3 screenshots of your stories and you'll have a case... and you refuse to deliver these.
Oh and to answer this question
"You think there’s a possibility of the answer ‘no stars is perfectly normal but I like to play on rigged sites so I can drive myself insane and moan about it on forums’??"
I've seen stranger things. Almost every player here who says a site is rigged continues to play there for some idiotic reason. If they say all poker sites are rigged they dont quit. What they claim they believe and what they do couldnt be more opposed.
Like you, you have witnessed some things in poker that can only be explained by a rigged rng. And you can prove this.... but you dont. Every other player on that site can import hands.... but you dont. And you dont even try to change it, just throw out there it cant be done and look the other way. No effort to show the info.
Even though you said before you hate poker sites and how they act.
According to your own stories, you have the information to take them down!!! But you refuse to make a single screenshot to actualy take them down.
You are withholding evidence to tackle these rigging bastards to the ground...
You must be a shill then. Otherwise, why would you protect these lying thieving poker sites waddy? The other option is that what you claimed never happened actually never happened and you wouldnt find proof of it even if you did import hands.... But that would make you a liar and of course you wouldnt do that right? Of course it all happened, the avalanches of 4 outers and <20%'s... So why wouldnt you show it.. only reason can be to protect the evil poker sites... You are clearly in on the scam.
(To topic 1 - Amazings3338's stats)
What a time for Japanese tennis players to travel to Russia to get coaching from Johnmir. They do know tennis is rigged right?🙂
I'm surprised they are here, in Russia, yes. But looks like they are employees of some Japanese company Moscow's branch. May be they are working in the Japanese embassy. I didn't ask them. They always come by some "bussiness class" car with a driver. Often, different people come to train. I have worked (on a court) with about 15 different people from 40 to 60 age and with their children (usually, young people of 15-25 age).
Amazing is probably tired to repeat the same stuff and made a mistake in terminology while discussing 😃 I can understand him. To much **** on the fan comes (insults, arguments, fights ), so, people may lose concentration on the topic... )
For instance if T1 starts with 1million stack blinds 500/1000 and T2 starts with 1000 stack blinds 5/10. In his formula you would divide all-in adj (or ev) by net result.... now how would that weigh things better?? Because if you lose both tournaments the net result in chips is 1.001.000. So the bigger starting stack tournament still heavily outweigh the smaller one, nothing is
Look, if i'm right, he didn't suggest this.
Your version of Amazing's proposal -
"New value = ( All-in adj tourn.1 + All-in adj tourn.2 ) / ( 1 000 000 + 1 000 )"
His version -
"New value 1 = All-in adj tourn.1 / 1 000 000
New value 2 = All-in adj tourn.2 / 1 000
Let's analize values 1 and 2 and check, what variance confidential intervals the distrubution lies in."
He doesn't divide sum/sum, he is going to divide each value (all-in adj) separately and analize these values.
Are you unwilling to call his math wrong just because he is on your "poker is rigged-team"?? Because if donjonnie, TD or me came up with wrong math like his im sure you would be on it like flies on honey.
"on honey" - 🍰♥))) Pity, not enough smiles presented here on 2+2...
He did claim skypoker (now under ipoker) doesnt support hand histories and importing. I know this isnt true, you know this isnt true, you play(ed) ipoker. It was proven untrue with a HUD and by what skypoker says on its own site.
On Red Star Poker there is an option - you can automatically download hands from the base by specifying a concrete dates. I downloaded 3 years of hand history from Red Star (iPoker) like that. Does Sky Poker have this option implemented - to be fair, I just don't know. But on Red Star, yes, you can download all the hand history from the poker client program (Account -> Hand history -> Hand history exports). One of Gipsy Team guys (Zhangler) shown me this.
I don't think he is lying, he just doesn't know about the option.
Topic 2. TheWaddy’s points and discussion.
Poker sites are being audited, poker sites are regulated.
How do people not grasp that?
If you think a RNGcertificate doesnt mean anything or the regulators dont do anything, thats your opinion. But its not like pokersites can do whatever the **** they want.
So why did Curacao ignore my statistical report then? (Please don’t say, that information with calculations and it’s describing should be ignored, because “you are a clown”, it’s just a stupid conversation. 18+ chat here).
iPoker can do whatever it wants. Literally. This situation clearly shows, that online-poker site is unregulated, it’s a fact - it’s not an opinion. Regulation must include taking into consideration of outcomes client <-> company relations.
Who would you see as a "proper auditor who knows something about poker". I am a 20+ years pro, so would I be qualified?
If a poker pro (who must know something about poker) checks the RNG and its clear, would you say OK it must be fair then?
Professionally, from the view of competence - yes, it could be good. But, in total - no, because you are involved in gambling. Comparing to me, I don’t want to be an auditor, but I would agree not to play online poker, ever, but monitor the sphere. People who are interested in a concrete results of games can’t be auditors.
In fact, the stable winners (not just pre black-friday) are confident in a fair RNG because they understand numbers.
Critically wrong. First of all stable winners are confident in a fair RNG because they do win, and it’s simply obvious. More than that, it is normal. Simply strange to argue that. If I win on the site I will be most-likely sure the game is fair and it’s is like common real life logic.
And, also - no, guys here on 2+2 don’t understand numbers well enough, because you didn’t even manage to check my research, compare it to the actual statistics. Gipsy Team players did that succesfully.
You don’t understand that 31 of 47 flop hits right after the dependency was announced is unacceptable, since it happens once in 60 000 000 flops in average approximately. And you have got all the data to check it. It’s obvious, that I couldn’t have played more then 1000 hands in 2 weeks between I announced the dependency and the moment software dealt skewed flops, cause you got that stats on Sharkscope.
Once again, guys.
- You admit that iPoker is rigging the game
or
- You confirm that you do not understand basic poker maths.
There is no other way. Logically - no other variants. You can’t refuse that the sun is yellow (because you wanna win the argument), and, at the same time claim, that your sight and colors impression is normal and you can drive a car now. You clain the sun is green = you don't get a driving license.
I notice its a trend to tell stories about "I should have hit 80% but only got 50%" but they never ever provide the actual evidence it happenend. No data, no screenshot. No sharing of the screenname because then we could check them.
Totally agree with you here. I don’t like this too. From one point, it’s good that guys share their opinion. You do this too, you (guys) also ignore numbers. But me personally – I used to provide concrete materials to discuss the situation. I’m a financial analyst in the past, though. No numbers – nothing to discuss.
At the same time, we will change this soon. In case of iPoker – for sure.
You also one or two people here still trust the sites. You did see that in this thread the majority has trust right? And thats in the poker is rigged thread! Riggies like yourself are in the minority.
Everyone who wins will be against changes. It’s normal, it’s obvious. That is why this discussion is senseless. The only meaning is to gather information and to report this to the Gambling supervision authorities.
yeah weird how gambling companies get fined all the time. its almost as if they were under constant scrutiny.
yet never has a site been fined for messing with the rng. must be because in this one area a vig conspiracy is going on!
there is no other explanation!
iPoker is rigging poker games. In a crazy way. Postflop, preflop. Equalizing of players. Provoking of a tight player to play a postflop.
Why is it still working? Well. It’s an open question. Looks pretty obvious that something is wrong with the regulation. Half internet know it’s rigged, but it’s still working.
This is the only area of the business that if they were to tamper with illegally, it can not be proved.
What you are saying is they pass up on that opportunity and focus on cheating on advertising, money laundering and player financial limits instead … the areas that ARE scrutinised by regulators.
Bit of a poor business plan.
Well, look, Waddy, you talk to people, who seriously think that someone who made those statistical reports (which I did) – is an amateur analyst. They can’t even differ amateur and professional work. And when I show the documents with my upgrade in a huge insurance company, they still believe, i'm not a pro analyst and they do understand numbers better then me, even though, it's impossible, otherwise, they would easily reanalized my stats.
They can’t check information in the research. They can’t understand pretty easy explanations of rigging schemes.
They do think, that a guy, who decided not to steal sitting-out opponent’s money, but decided to check-check all the hands risking to lose a heads-up is searching for money and is addicted to microgaming and it’s results, focusing on his ego. Lol, I could "steal" free money, in stead of this, I just check-check and watch hands, rofl. While all the other players try to steal free chips, when the opponent is sitting out. It's beyond a common logic. But these people do not understand this.
Yes, the game almost can’t be proved to be rigged without all the opponent’s cards opened. That is why, once I opened opponent's hands - I proved the game is rigged, immediately, cause they (rooms) rig it in a crazy way, while cards of players are hidden.
And if they broke other rules, they got no reasons to refuse rigging of the deck, which will never be uncovered. You are absolutely right.
But it’s not a talk for this chat. Obviously not this level of conversation, you know. People haven’t got enough real life experience and it’s senseless to discuss common life logic and people’s motivation/behavior here.
And because your believe in AI is so strong I asked it:
How come someone loses at poker?..
This is the answer you must fully trust because its from AI. Newsflash: It does not mention a rigged rng:
You asked AI about optimal gaming. You can lose in poker just cause of a huge missclick of “You are registered to 10 000$ MTT”. Why isn’t it in the AI report?
Obviously, a player can lose in a card game with money involved cause of rigging. Again, it’s about a life experience and simple logical conclusions.
Though, probably, you just say about AI, trying to use guys logic against themselves, but your example is not perfect, in my opinion.
Yes, I agree with Waddy's statement.
1. Online pros do not take into account dynamics on the table, even though it’s critically important (the fact, that many of you play poker and chat at the same time, says a lot about how you play, that you simply don’t pay attention to important details in game)
2. Many of online MTT pros are waiting for a higher blinds and pushing stacks in stead of fighting for small pots in the start of a tournament. And this is simply crazy, unprofitable strategy
3. Online pros don’t take into account timing, which is critically important in bluffing and bluff provoking/catching
4. Preflop gaming – same raise value (2.2 BB/2.5BB) for each hand, from each position is very unprofitable and low leveled gaming. Obviously a bet size on a preflop depends
- on the opponents you are going to play postflop against, their postflop gaming level
- on the preflop aggression level on the table
- on a stage of the tournament (how important the pot to win)
It can be 2.5BB/3BB/2BB/limp, and it’s different very often. 55/97s/54o - all these hands are perfect examples of different betting on preflop according to players level/situation on the table/in the tournament.
But not for online pro players.
5. Online pros use average numbers (HUD) to take decisions basing on information which is mostly inapplicable to take exact profitable decisions, cause information about current situation on the table/tournament stage is much more significant. But it is not simply important in online gaming, since the software assesses level of players itself.
If your opponents just bluffed against each other several times before you - it's simply senseless to go for a bluff in the first upcoming hand. Bluff-factor (fold equity) is critically low. And you can't see this in your stats. But this is what the poker gaming based on. Especially vs amateur players who always correct their decisions (tactics) according to a previously played hands. That is why when I bluff, I steal 7 pots in a row having "air". We will discuss it a bit later though.
What online pros do? Mechanically play separate hands one by one. It's a primitive poker gaming in general. I wouldn't even call it poker gaming, to be fair. Not amateur and not professional for sure.
6. Online pros do not control bet sizes of each player -
- on a top pair
- on a low pair
- bluff
- semi-bluff
Because it is simply impossible to control and remember bet sizes of different players while they play against each over on each table, same as their timing – on 4+ tables simultaneously. And you haven’t got this info in the hud.
And this is the key reason why online-pros play low leveled game according to huge ranges. Because in a professional poker exact bet sizes give you a comprehensive information about a current hand of your opponent. And you don't need to play according to "ranges", you can simply "read" a contrete hand of your opponent.
Playing according to "ranges" - is a gaming of a 6 months experience newcomers. Read conversations of online pros about the game. They discuss ranges, while poker pros discuss "what concrete hand could he play, since he bet this on a preflop, this on the flop, and this on the river?".
7. Many of online pros haven’t got a professional psychology in the game in general. You can’t chat during the game. And you must always check your gameplay after a tournament played. They are not professionals comparing to pros from other spheres.
Questions? Comments?
Any poker player would classify you, amazing & johnmir etc as poor casual players. Must be nice having that favored rng you sell-out😉
No, it is not nice, because it won’t help winning. It will help to lose slower so that other good players won’t manage to take our money. In case the game lasts long enough all our money go to the rooms managers pocket. Good players take a small part of what they deserved.
They resort to aggressive and untrue personal statements. Sites make untrue statements too and act in a similar manner when you try and reason with them. Place your trust in who you like, but these are the type of people you are up against.
This is online poker and types it attracts when its not properly regulated.
Look, you can read this post of me, I described everything that is going here.
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
Why would Slugant invest soooo much time and effort arguing with people he calls idiots, repeating himself over and over … when he could spend what little time he has away from the tables, to rest away from the keyboard, or even just making even more money?
When guys here said, that Slugant is a poker shill, I decided it was a joke. Just didn’t believe that.
But, in fact, look. I have read your conversation with Slugant. He repeat same question which he got answers in another threads. Clear answers. You will see it later. In my following posts when I comment other parts of the thread’s discussions.
It doesn’t look like he just communicates with guys here. It rather looks like his job, really.
When Slugant started to insult me badly, including crazy suicide provokations and other unacceptable stuff, mods didn’t even ban him for this.
In fact, seriously. This is a well-known forum. If we think logically, wouldn’t the rooms control it with it’s representatives? Especially this thread regarding rigging of the game. Of cause they do it. It’s simply obvious. Even if they didn’t rig the game – they control it. I would, if I was a room owner. The forum is too big.
So, talking to Slugant is like you talk to some guys of a room support, but without all this “ethics” and “client-oriented” polite stuff. He talks exactly how poker room managers would talk to you with no witnesses.
John, take a breath, dont fall off the wagon again:p
Amazing is probably tired to repeat the same stuff and made a mistake in terminology while discussing
He was the one naming the ev-line the all-in adj line, and getting mad when someone else does the same
And he is the one repeating this as a reason to call someone a liar. Even though he never explained the difference, so no repeating there.
I think he is tired of coming up with new ways to valify his claims.
Youre not right and you can read it. His formula was all-in adj divided by net result. Nothing else added, you invented that.
You seem so full of trust all of a sudden, quite a change of character 😉
Why do riggies want the world to know poker is rigged but dont even look for an option to get hand histories???
Btw, if you just run a tracker while playing like most players it gets auto-imported, very easy
Likely they didnt see it as valuable and are not going to base something off 900 hands. Also, its just an excel sheet of written down data. They want raw data, like the rng certificate companies who analyze millions of raw data hand histories.
But according to you, these auditors wouldnt be interested in results anyway:
And if you lose its unfair right??? sure, what a very theoritical way to analyze fairness.
with that logic If i lose at tennis its rigged, but when i win a match its fair??? perfect riggie analogy
You don’t understand that 31 of 47 flop hits right after the dependency was announced is unacceptable, since it happens once in 60 000 000 flops in average approximately
A flop hit is roughly 33% of the time. You think that hitting 31 or more flops out of 47 is happening 1 in 60 million??? Where are you basing these numbers off??
Even besides that, how many flops do you think are dealt each month. Even if your numbers are right, which they arent, you've shown something that happens each month. In their better days pokerstars dealt 48 million hands in 1 day.
But still your claim of 1 in 60 million, id like to see your math on it because you likely did something wrong. The computer says this btw and forgive me for trusting its math a little more than yours
1 in 260.000 is still quite something, should happen daily though and is nowhere near as outrageous as 1 in 60mil.
Totally agree with you here. I don’t like this too. From one point, it’s good that guys share their opinion. You do this too
Good to see we agree on something at least haha, but when I say something I do provide evidence. Like the screenshot above, I wonder what evidence you bring to the table as to why the probability calculator got it wrong in your eyes?
Also, when I provide a rng certification people (and you) say, "yeah they just switched it off when the rng certification people walked in"... a ridiculous claim
When I show that skypoker does have hand histories he suddenly is the only one in the world where it doesnt work, cmon be realistic
But you always say you are winner.. you cleaned up $7 sng's. Waddy & amaz always saying they are winners... so why are you not against changes?? suddenly its not normal and obvious like you say.
Do they hide the fold button or something?? You have free will right??
Seems like these pros are doing everything wrong... but they can make a living of poker. Which is why they are pro's.
Maybe thinking that pros are doing so much wrong and amateurs so much right is the reason you are amateurs 🙂
I personally think sinner, alcaraz & djokovic are doing everything wrong in tennis, they hit the ball back too hard all the time. My grandma however does everything right. Somehow she never wins and those god awful pro's do... Must be rigged😉
No, it is not nice, because it won’t help winning. It will help to lose slower so that other good players won’t manage to take our money.
Wait, so without the rigged rng you would lose even faster?? LOLOL
You are the one that said the rng favors the weak... not much weaker out there than someone playing 0.20 sngs Johnny. You get a massive boost out of that rng if it works the way you describe. Sadly it doesnt help.
I never said you should kill yourself and I never will. I said you should leave poker. I still think that. This game has gotten the better of you and you're a trainwreck because of it.
But if you find it insulting to be called idiot, why is it ok to call people a shill or a liar. Or a pro that only wins because he has a favored rng on each site but actually plays terrible. If you cant take insult dont give them, easy as that.
Anyway, looking forward to seeing your maths on the 1 out of 60 million oh and a few more questions come to think of it.
Will you do another stream of you failing to predict the cards, that was so funny to watch?? why did you delete it, it was comedy gold.
Since in your mind youve proven the rng and even gave out rules to follow that will happen every time (your literal words), you wouldnt mind a bet on it right?
You can read it all again here
This screenshot is from a week ago.So clearly since the integration with ipoker the use of hand histories and HUDs works perfectly fine right now.Ive also spoken with players from the UK who said its the same as any ipoker skin, where hand histories are just easy to download and import, and playability is the same as well.Anyone from the UK or Ireland can test this.You claimed
Another War and Peace about people being liars. Plain weird. Absolutely all the questions in this latest novel have been answered before.
Most of it of course, is the ramblings of an unhinged individual. Repeating the same things over and over for 3500 pages.
Here’s a screenshot of what happens when you try to look at your game and hand history on Sky at present.
You could apologise for the aggressive liar accusations, but I have a feeling you will aggressively defend your deranged novel ….
Long post after long post in this thread waffling on with mostly conjecture. Allow me to put this debate to bed now. Online poker is 100% rigged. 100%!! They answer to nobody and by rigging for action they make a LOT more money from rake.
It really is that simple!
I can see it must be paranoia-feeding thinking you are the only one not being able to get hand histories on an ipoker skin
Btw, when I load my hh's on ipoker skins it always gives the same dots for quite a while too. Its far from ideal because its too long a wait for quality software I admit (I played a lot in the same time period and tested it, it took a good minute) but they always show.
Also the hh's are also stored in a folder, you can directly import them into any tracker without the in-client system. Usually its program files / skypoker / data /*playername*
Its all their to see, are you telling if you run a tracker while playing it most likely imports them in the path of choosing. You want the data in a tracker anyway to show the avalanches of 4outers and same players always getting <20%'s you've been talking about. It would take a long time to show that in-client, in a tracker its a piece of cake.
Which btw, is mostly something not talked about in the novel before so you cant play that card.
Likely you are going to say this all doesnt work for you alone either so explain this:
How come other players on skypoker from UK/Ireland do get hand histories and you not?
How come we've seen a sky poker hud from no less than a week ago? Huds rely solely on hand histories. They simply must exist, you can claim their not, but there is no hud without them. And everyone that ever used a tracker in online poker (almost everyone here I assume) will know this.
Why are you so adamant that poker is rigged but waiting/looking for hh's is and importing them is too much of hassle even though according to your stories that would provide 100% solid evidence that the rng there is rigged?
You seem so eager to make your point that the rng is rigged but putting some effort or research out there always is a step too far somehow.
Btw, you've said stars is rigged the same way, which creates yet another window to show your stuff, Im sure you are stoked for this opportunity... Or do they suddenly also cause a problem with hand histories for you? If not, you could show the same thing since its rigged similarly. If for some dark reason you are also the only one without stars hand histories, there must be a conspiracy going on.. or its all made up of course🙂
Long post after long post in this thread waffling on with mostly conjecture. Allow me to put this debate to bed now. Online poker is 100% rigged. 100%!! They answer to nobody and by rigging for action they make a LOT more money from rake.
It really is that simple!
Now this is the closing evidence we've been waiting for 🙂
What on earth are Americas Cardroom doing about this? Most cash tables are just filled with bots
Wait is it rigged or are they filled with bots now?? stick to your story mate
Only a fool would think ACR is not rigged. It's absolutely 100% rigged.
Some players literally never lose. I once witnessed one player for two hours just kept winning every single hand they were in. Can people get lucky streaks? Sure. But for a full 2 hours never losing a hand!? This player literally went up about 20 buy ins. I've never seen anything like it.
Wow another case of a total avalanche of luck... uncanny!!!
Whats even more uncanny is that again no evidence whatsoever is added to this story.
I know for a fact ACR stores hand histories that can be imported into any tracker.
Do that and unmask this rigger who is winning every hand for 2 hours, I would honestly be changing my narrative if you did show.
But again here is someone with the believe that the rng is rigged AND the possibility to show it, but for unclear reasons doesnt put the extra minute in to actually show it. While seeing something like that would end a debate which was your starting point.
I know we live in a time and definitely in a game where showing evidence is somehow less important than telling wild stories but just for fun import those hands and show us what you saw. It will take a couple of minutes and you have your story not just in words but in facts.
It really is that simple!
PS: ACR has been known to have many bots play on there. This has been proven before and is a serious matter. ACR imo has not done nearly enough to tackle these issues.
Must be a big surprise reading this quote from an online poker shill huh :p
Losers keep complaining about poker being rigged.
I can see it must be paranoia-feeding thinking you are the only one not being able to get hand histories on an ipoker skinBtw, when I load my hh's on ipoker skins it always gives the same dots for quite a while too. Its far from ideal because its too long a wait for quality software I admit (I played a lot in the same time period and tested it, it took a good minute) but they a
You have a bizarre way of interacting, were huge amounts of it are based on wild assumptions. I havent touched Pokerstars for around 17yrs. Maybe establish some facts before wildly making long paragraph claims.
Like JohnMir and I have established, you clearly have work for an online poker company as your techniques of aggressive defence is wholly consistent with how sites deal with these questions.
You dont come from the UK but have talked to those who play on Sky to discuss whether they have a problem at present due to the ipoker merge?
Wow, a very niche site and you know players the other side of Europe that play there? Sounds like you may be speaking directly to the sites who all jointly have an interest in swaying these forums huh?
People …. see this for what it is. JohnMir and I have exposed it. The main contributor aggressively defending online poker is clearly part of the industry.
You have a bizarre way of interacting, were huge amounts of it are based on wild assumptions. I havent touched Pokerstars for around 17yrs. Maybe establish some facts before wildly making long paragraph claims.
Like JohnMir and I have established, you clearly have work for an online poker company
LOL at accusing me of making wild assumptions only to follow that with that sentence... do you get irony??? You didnt get it when negreanu said A3 never loses either. You saw that as "evidence" that poker is rigged😃 talk about wild assumptions
You havent played on stars for 17 years now you say.
But just yesterday you claimed stars was for sure rigged.... how do you know that if you havent played their for so long?
You have also said that stars indeed became rigged after black friday... but this was in 2011.
17 years ago was 2008. So you havent played stars after black friday nor the 3 years before it.... How do you know black friday made stars rig then??? See, all your wild claims dont lign up so well😉
If you dont play other sites, how can you know they are rigged??
If you do play other sites and they are rigged the same way, you could show it there.. Its one or the other
I indeed talk to a lot of people in poker, once you've outgrown microstakes you'll find that there are quite big and cohesive communities in poker. They mostly talk strategy though, not rigged rng so it might be nothing for you. But they are often big groups where a simple question like that is easily dropped and answered. Its extremely common in online poker for at least 10 years.. keep up:p
Funny you mention Johnmir cus I was thinking what he would think of your (lack of) actions.
John once saw a flop hit 31 times out of 47 and ran with it. He saw something that he thought was suspicious and literally spent dozens (if not hundreds) of hours to have something to show the world...
Now he sees you and exoflow. You have seen way crazier stuff than he did. Stuff that would immediately prove a rigged rng. Avalanches of 4 outers & same player winning every pot for 2 hours... Insane stuff that would blow the lid of the rng.
But unlike John, you wont even take 10 minutes out of your day to prove it. And that is all that it will take.
I in fact am giving you the tools to uncover this rigged rng. I tell you where you can find the hand histories in your folder, how to import them and what to look for. Not doing my work as a shill so well I suppose🙂
If i ever saw avalanches of 4 outers and a player winning 2 hours straight I would post that evidence, but in 15mil+ hands I never have.
You & exoflow have the smoking gun in hand when it comes to a fair rng. If Johnmir had your info we'd seen it in screenshots, excel sheets & youtube videos....
But you somehow are withholding this info from the public....Why are you hiding this evidence that will incriminate poker sites you seem disgusted by???
Imagine being a rigged site and 2 players have dirty info on you.... but they refuse to screenshot it....
They must be so happy with you 2. With your refusal to show the evidence you are keeping those rng-rigging sites alive... now that is shilling and that is being part of a shady industry.
And I think Johnmir would be very disappointed in you that you actually have information on your pc that proves a rigged rng...
But you refuse to use it.
We have established we can not prove it.
(Absolutely any screenshots you would say itÂ’s not a big enough sample, or IÂ’ve cherry picked the ones in my favour. We have established this). Still you ask.
My stance on pokerstars has been documented many times. Pokerstars has always had the maddest decks, thatÂ’s how it grew to be the biggest site.
They realised earlier than anyone, that casual player retention was key. The rest appeared scared to put their sites at risk to the regulator, but just followed after Black Friday, as it was do that or fail.
It became alot clearer over time, that regulation was never going to be good enough to pick up discrepancies. It was a risk in the early days to rig decks, as they didnÂ’t know how strict regulations would get, zero risk as time had gone on. If poker continued to boom, we would have got proper audits, but it shrank to nothing.
You claim not to have a financial interest in backing sites decks. Yet you spend so much time repeating yourself asking for proof of something that canÂ’t be proved. Its very odd behaviour.
If you fell on hard times and played beyond your means, you do know that regulation has had to been put in place to prevent them taking you for every penny you have? And that includes you?
They have broken every rule in their strategyÂ’s to target vulnerable players, money laundering, false advertising etc and the only one left to be proved is the skewed decks.
Yet you spend hours daily, dominating a forum thread to defend those that would gladly take everything you had. But you donÂ’t work for them or have a financial interest in any of them.
You aggressively attack those who suggest itÂ’s up to the sites to prove their decks in their own industry and have no interest in having an auditor who understands poker odds. You prefer to side with sites over your fellow players, who just want transparency.
Given these facts, what is your motive, as clearly there must be one. I will take you have no life as an acceptable answer btw.
Youre not right and you can read it. His formula was all-in adj divided by net result. Nothing else added, you invented that.
Yes, I just guess, he meant that. But he didn’t explain it in details, if I’m right.
Btw, if you just run a tracker while playing like most players it gets auto-imported, very easy
Yes, it’s convenient! But my Hand2Note doesn’t work anymore, looks like I need to buy a license…
It’s important to mention, that I made a video record of all the hands played for the analysis, because they do not work with text data format, and they don’t use special poker soft. So I had to make a video. And they got it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16d2YB55...
And, since a chance of rigging according to my materials is critically high, they could easily request any further information from RSP Entertainment N.V. (Red Star Poker). You know, it’s not my responsibility to provide raw data to them, it their responsibility to provide all the necessary investigations.
It’s an interesting comment of you. Because, in discussion with Amazing you say, you do understand the variance and you do understand that sample size depends on the probability of the anomaly. Since only 100 all-ins could be a pure rigging, in case they all lost.
And don’t appeal to a bad analogy. You say “they didn’t see it valuable and are not going to base something off 900 hands”. You clearly say, that anything is considered on this distance is not enough to make conclusions, while it’s not like that in statistics. Each conclusion got it’s own confidential intervals. In my case it’s 99.999 999 992% for iPoker to be rigged.
About the phrase
Look at your own comment –
Who would you see as a "proper auditor who knows something about poker". I am a 20+ years pro, so would I be qualified?
My answer –
I said, that to you. Not to Curacao Gaming Control Board. If you play on this site, yes, it’s not good, if you judge if it’s fair. You shouldn’t be financially interested in the game results to be an auditor.
And if you lose its unfair right??? sure, what a very theoritical way to analyze fairness. with that logic If i lose at tennis its rigged, but when i win a match its fair??? perfect riggie analogy
No.
If you win, you don’t see a problem to solve. It’s a common real life logic. If your car works well, you don’t visit service to check everything more often, than it needs according to the guarantee agreement.
If you lose, or you win, but below your expectations - you start to analyze your gameplay.
If during the analysis of your gameplay you find out that you win 30% final table all-ins instead of 50% on a huge distance. Then you calculate your potential income according to a normal frequency of winning final table all-ins and get –
This moment you understand:
1. Your ROI in case of a normal luck-factor would be 99.2%.
2. The chances to deviate from 50% to 30% of all-ins won on a distance of 100 all-ins = 0.003% (3 times in 100 000 tests)
But if you are a reasonable person, you do understand this can be random, just a variance.
But since it’s an online card game, and you are not a kid, you start to pay more attention to the gaming process and to look attentively for the dependencies in the game.
And when you see a chance to open your opponent’s hands on a heads-up VS a sit-out player – you do it, and prove rigging with a chance of 99.999 999 992%. And send it for consideration of Curacao gaming control board. And they just ignore you. And you think how to act next… (to be continued)
This is how it works in real life, man.
A flop hit is roughly 33% of the time. You think that hitting 31 or more flops out of 47 is happening 1 in 60 million??? Where are you basing these numbers off??
I’m not kidding. I’m impressed by your performance here. I have also noticed, that you provided cool numbers regarding a winrate variance from Primedope. No kidding, good job here. And yes, finally, you just checked the numbers.
Yes, if you are basing your calculation on a number of 33% (32.4% to be exact), you will get exactly this number –
Yes, I have to calculate it myself, man, I can't use calculator for this, since it's a statistical report. But you are totally right to use calculator. Since you just need to check the calculation to be right.
But, in the column "Expected chances for the sequence" -
You can see that I measure a chance to get combinations.
For example two pairs or better flopped are happen significantly rarer (3.4%) then just a pair.
As a result, average chance to meet such a streak is 28.1% for each combination alone in average. So, if you check a chance to hit 31+ flops of 47 with a chance of 28.1%, it will give you 0.000 007 7%. And this is much more critical.
But even if we consider your number of 0.000 3864%. It is more then enough. Why -
Even besides that, how many flops do you think are dealt each month. Even if your numbers are right, which they arent, you've shown something that happens each month. In their better days pokerstars dealt 48 million hands in 1 day.
You would be probably (!) right, in case I didn't name the dependency before it appeared. But when I played a concrete distance for the test and meet it in 111 hands after the measuring, it can't be considered as random any more. We didn't get it in 260 000 hands. We got it in 111 consequtive hands played of this type. And this is just crazy - once again - since the dependency was already proved to be found -
Yes, man, the hypothesis was already proved with a chance of 99.98% confidence according to a specially made test.
But only after we got 31+ of 47 flops hit. "Unlucky" for iPoker. But they appeared to be not the most clever, there are some smarter people work in the sphere))
Also, when I provide a rng certification people (and you) say, "yeah they just switched it off when the rng certification people walked in"... a ridiculous claim
I wouldn't say that it's about "switching off", the key fact is that they can run any scripts on their own servers. If they got sertified RNG, it's doesn't mean they use it. Any licensed company can brake the laws and run any programs which ruin natural processes.
But you always say you are winner.. you cleaned up $7 sng's. Waddy & amaz always saying they are winners... so why are you not against changes?? suddenly its not normal and obvious like you say.
Because some of winning players are sure, that they outplay their opponents significantly more than by 30% ROI.
Also, like in my case, if you play really well (I don’t know how well other guys play), you just need to play a natural game. I wanna play offline, but I don’t have a place to train my gaming and to keep my gaming shape. It’s impossible to play online normally, impossible to bluff but not to be immediately involved in a sequence of TT vs JJ situations.
Yes, it is not any important nuance for experienced players like you, me and other guys. But it’s more than effective for newcomers or for weak players. Also, it’s a good option to show that the game is not random. An easy example. It is still rigging.
Seems like these pros are doing everything wrong... but they can make a living of poker. Which is why they are pro's.Maybe thinking that pros are doing so much wrong and amateurs so much right is the reason you are amateurs 🙂I personally think sinner, alcaraz & djokovic are doing everything wrong in tennis, they hit the ball back too hard all the time. My grandma however does
Look, the answer to your comment is hidden in it’s wording.
Yes, exactly, you win money. But you can say you are a poker pro basing on a results in a poker game.
While the game is rigged, you can be a good poker player, but you can’t prove this by results in a rigged game. These results don’t tell anything about your poker gaming level.
Yes, you are winning.
Wait, so without the rigged rng you would lose even faster?? LOLOL
You are the one that said the rng favors the weak... not much weaker out there than someone playing 0.20 sngs Johnny. You get a massive boost out of that rng if it works the way you describe. Sadly it doesnt help.
My example is not good. Because I played irrational in terms of the software. I folded huge hands preflop and pushed garbage instead. Stole money with bluffs. My results are a pure example of what happens if you start to play “unstandard”. The software just went crazy on me, because I did unexpected stuff on the table.
And this is one of reasons, why I managed to prove rigging. Software started to provoke me to join the flop TOO often, because I folded AJ, AK, QQ, TT preflop too often.
Lol, I would argue that… Suicide provocation is not literally suggesting to suicide –
Must be tough being a non-walking tennis coach, almost as hard as being a non-winning professional poker player.
Stop living in the post Johnny, maybe update your profile pic as well. You are just a weak and mentally ill old man now.
...
You look 30 years older than your picture btw, but you can clearly see the stare of mental patient who is rambling about a danger only he feels. Its kinda sad but then again, you are such a prick that I dont mind that much.
This is a crazy stuff actually, especially taking into account that I couldn’t work more then 3 hours a week those days. Felt critically bad.
But if you find it insulting to be called idiot, why is it ok to call people a shill or a liar. Or a pro that only wins because he has a favored rng on each site but actually plays terrible. If you cant take insult dont give them, easy as that.
Look, “liar” can be considered as an insult in case you didn’t lie. And even then, it is rather a slander. Not an insulting.
Let me show you examples of insulting and you will send me my quotes of insulting you as an answer –
And this evidence can be correctly done, by actual raw data and analysis by someone with at least half a brain, so not Johnmir.
Will you do another stream of you failing to predict the cards, that was so funny to watch?? why did you delete it, it was comedy gold.
Man, I’m glad you were happy to watch it. But no, I’m not going to stream in a near future, because to make a good stream I need to somehow find a way to play and explain stuff simultaneously. At the moment I’m not able to do both. More than that, to predict outcomes I need to gather more prehistory, to know what will happen next. That 55 push was a huge mistake, because I didn’t manage to assess the right “rigidity level” of the system (read the software description –
Amazing3338 said he proved it. So which one of you is incorrect?
Pokerstars has always had the maddest decks, thatÂ’s how it grew to be the biggest site.
They realised earlier than anyone, that casual player retention was key.
PokerStars catered to the grinders. Do you not remember Supernova and Supernova Elite status at the top of their rakeback system?
Full Tilt also catered to the grinders. I know this because I played on both sites with regularity and both sites had threads on 2+2 with reps that aggregated our requests in those threads and implemented them in every update. Back then I practically made a living off of rakeback alone
Yes, I just guess, he meant that. But he didn’t explain it in details, if I’m right. Yes, it’s convenient! But my Hand2Note doesn’t work anymore, looks like I need to buy a license…It’s important to mention, that I made a video record of all the hands played for the analysis, because they do not work with text data format, and they don’
Please post in the thread I started in the Probability Forum
GG is tho. Anyone who used to play on other sites can sense it. The board cards are absurdly corresponding most of the time
GG is tho. Anyone who used to play on other sites can sense it. The board cards are absurdly corresponding most of the time
You can export hands from GG. If you are so certain you can share data or the hands. I play on GG (and other sites) and it seems fine to me - never had any concerns with the RNG.
