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

Slugant leave him alone! lol
https://youtu.be/BXZFbGJxSlk?si=nGFBK1UO...

Slugant said;

Businesses is a plural you know. It means you own more than 1. More than 1 = multiple.
Again, you really need that dictionary.

Yes you missed out the 'successful', and concetrated on 'multiple'. Ive had 2 businesses... How do you think Slugant would answer if i said 'i had multiple bad beats in 4hrs' and then he asked me 'how many was multiple'.... and i replied '2'......How do you think Slugant would predictably react to that??? You are the most annoying nob....

Also, you keep forgetting to explain this gem:
no 360 at all, random = random, you just dont want to get it because you would have to take back your baseless statement, or you are especially stupid. But just to check if by now you understand randomness, do you think roulette is random? And why yes/no?

And what would happen it sites gave players an RTP in poker. So all players get 95% of the profits they should actually have...
But mind you they play each other and make/lose money off each other, so where one player loses 5% the other gains 5%.
Could you please explain of how in your mind this system would actually work without multiple contradictions?[/QUOTE]

Slugant, the tireless repeater of the same questions, asks this again at 12.43 pm on 24/3. When fully answered at 5.04pm on 23/3.

The rest of his essay is just a load of repeated questions and deliberate misinterpretations of what was being said. You basically cant get your head around the fact you can only spot patterns if you are looking for them. You cant spot poker odds patterns if the programmed software is not written to do so. The programme doesnt learn on the job.

Yeah you tell them Waddy!

Slugant you Idiot. Its magic. The deck is magical.

It delivers non random outcomes that screw over people like waddy but is at the same time random.

So its Magic. Whenever i dont fully understand something its magic.

Microwaves? Magic!

Now Slugant would all be like:

Oh no no Microwave ovens work by generating electromagnetic waves called microwaves, which cause the water, fat, and sugar molecules in food to vibrate, creating heat......

Shut up Nerd its ****ing magic.

TheWaddy

You now seem to have accepted that the sites who use and have been passed by a reputable and independent RNG-checking company are dealing each card randomly. Every card dealt is as likely as any other, with no forseeable connection with its predecessors in that deal, and no knowledge of any previous card dealt in that or any previous series of cards, (other than that a card is not available to be dealt for a second time in the series being created for the new hand).

Once you have realised that this is the case, it is reasonably simple to prove the fact that considering "poker odds" is irrelevant.

For ease of calculations, just imagine the game was amended to be for only two cards, and the deck consisted of only four cards: Ac,Ad,7h and 2s. After the random shuffle, the first card of the 4 could be any one of the four, with equal odds or chances. The second card of the 3 left to deal has equal odds or chances of being dealt. Hence, obviously, the hand dealt could be AcAd, Ac7h, Ac2s, AdAc, Ad7h, Ad2s, 7hAc, 7hAd, 7h2s, 2sAc, 2sAd, or 2s7c - all hands having equal odds or chances of being dealt. There are 12 possible hands, the number 12 being calculated by multiplying 4 by 3.

We can see that there are two Pairs of Aces, eight Ace Highs, and two Seven Highs - 12 possible individual hands, each one with exactly the same odds or chances of being dealt, even though there are only three "different" hands, as we call them.

This is where your misunderstanding arises when you talk about "poker odds".

Poker odds state that this deck should be producing 17% Pairs of Aces, 67% of Ace Highs, and 17% of Seven Highs,

The way you have been thinking, you would look at your 7 or 2 first card and wonder why the villain in a HU game receives AA 33% of the time, and so you would think therefore the deal must be rigged. He does not. He receives AA in 17% of all of the deals, but, yes, you are right without knowing why - he does receive AA in 33% of the deals where you get the 7 or 2 in this game as your first card.

This simplified game and calculations prove that tests of a properly certified random deck do not need to consider poker odds when each individual card is dealt randomly, as above. Extrapolation of the method used to include more cards and hand values is something you could do in your own time, if anything is still not clear. The existence of four-flushes and -straights, etc, has been created by individually created random cards happening to fall that way. The next random card is not affected by the four-flush, etc, happening to be in existence.

I apologize for calling your fictive businesses successful. Why are you exactly offended by this?
But also now you've "had 2 businesses"???
Just a couple of days ago it was "especially as i have my own businesses and hold business qualifications"
Did they both go bankrupt yesterday or something?
Or did you quit your multiple businesses to focus solely on exploiting the hidden patterns in the rigged RNG's?🙂

I only repeat what is unanswered.

You've said about testing houses "As they dont understand poker and its odds (not my words, theirs)"

So you've read their words, otherwise you wouldnt have made such a silly statement.
Where can we read those words that RNG-testers say they "dont understand poker odds"
You still havent provided a source

You've also mentioned that you see a difference in chance and odds but failed to explain how.
since 25% chance is just another way of saying 1 to 4 odds. Perhaps you'd like to expand on this.
But then again, you call 35% of voters around half even though its way closer to a third so maybe you are just not good with numbers.

Or patterns for that matter.
Because you can keep on claiming a randomness test does not take into account certain situations like dominated aces but of course it does. Otherwise it would be a pattern. And you've stated that RNG tests do pick up patterns...
Mike already explained it but just to get something through your thick skull:
Lets say dominating aces underperform.
That means A2-A9 perform better than they should versus AT-AK on a regular basis.
This already is a pattern!
Therefore this would get picked up by an RNG test, even by the standards you've said they adhere to.
Without even knowing the terminology of a "dominating ace"... If a randomness test sees lower Ax's outperform their actual odds against better Ax's this is a clear pattern.

Or do you want to surprise us with your own newly created definition of the term pattern that nobody else uses but is definitely correct?😃

Actually I would argue that microwaves are rigged!
And the companies who keep an eye on all the microwaves are incompetent.
Sure, they test on radiation but not only radiation you can see with your eyes (their words, not mine)
So there is still a lot of secret magic radiation harming us thats never been tested for.
But I know its there.
And even though I dont have any fact or number to support this I am convinced these microwaves are rigged.
And thats why I am here.
I am here to tell any beginner to never trust microwaves. They use magical radiation that will hurt you! And all to make a few more extra bucks.
Whatever you do... Stay away from these greedy microwave companies!
Although, and this might sound a bit inconsistent...
For the last 25+ years I have spend a lot of time using the microwave
And even after I discovered their magical radiation I kept on spending hours and hours using the microwave and I also post on a microwave forum...
But never mind that... Stay away from microwaves everybody!!!!🙂

I can’t really be arsed with Slugant and his repetitions, the questions asked are just deliberate misunderstanding and trying to score schoolboy points.

For example my estimate of 50% of players (a very conservative quote) who find online poker uninspiring and unreal. He cant get away from 35% vote on a tin pot forum … Im talking about EVERYONE.

Look up any poker site and look at their Trust pilot reviews …. Overwhelming reviews in the 1 Star rating, all citing poor deck performance as part of that score. The reviews are more like 80/20

Pokerstars;

Party Poker, Sky Poker, .. Now before you say ‘ahh thats cos they are losers No, no it’s not. Myself and a few here are winners but dont accept what we see. None of you accept this!

Even on this forum 45% are not convinced by online poker ..9% undecided, means they are not sure what they are seeing. If they are sure, they answer ‘Yes’ Several of you wont accept this.

So you can spout what you like about your RNG certification.. Because if they PROVED online poker was genuine, we wouldnt have this thread, or reviews from thousands of people noticing unreal amounts of the most horrendous outcomes that do not happen in their home games!

Your argument is im somehow stupid not to believe in the testing… probably because no testing has ever proven online poker to be random…. and no poker company has ever attempted to nip it in the bud by providing conclusive proof. Just instruct their customer service to argue with customers and tell lies along the way.

It is far more stupid to claim the RNG testing will CONCLUSIVELY prove its random, whilst knowing the subject is very much open to debate amongst even the elite people of poker!

Im gonna take Phil Galfond again (Slugant will go off subject and quote other irrelevant points for the 15th time but) …asked whether sites could be rigged, answers ‘they could but it would be hard’ and ‘they would be stupid to’.

So why wasnt the answer ‘its been proved conclusively by testing that its random and it 100% can not be questioned… sites and testing houses have an open book policy on this and now everyone absolutely knows its random and everyone accepts this’?

He didnt did he. And no-one has or can. So Moderator, Slugant, Donjohnnie, all you have is an opinion… same as me… So quit this, you are so dumb and we are the bomb BS Because all you have is an unproven opinion and nothing else.

People dont believe in online poker, therefore dont believe its tested correctly. Or there would be no argument.

Trustpilot lmfao. And there goes ur credibility that never existed anyway.

Maybe if all online poker sites were held to the same standard and had regulation I would agree but there is a reason they are all offshore and don't have to comply with any regulation.

really scraping the bottom of the barrel now eh Waddy?

Does it bother you that the only people that agree with you are people who have issues counting past 10 when they wear socks?

Apart from the generally accepted fact that 80%+ of players are losers, resulting in a much higher volume of losing players available to leave reviews, my source states:

The high volume of negative TrustPilot reviews from losing players on online poker sites is driven primarily by a combination of negativity bias, self-serving bias (external attribution), and the need to manage emotional distress.

Psychologically, losers are far more motivated to share their experience than winners, as losing money triggers stronger, more lasting emotions than winning, leading to a "grumbleclub" effect.

Here are the key psychological reasons:

Self-Serving Bias & External Attribution: When a player loses, it is psychologically difficult to admit that they were outplayed or that they played poorly. To protect their ego and self-esteem, they attribute the loss to an external, uncontrollable factor—such as the site being "rigged" or "unfair".

Negativity Bias: Human beings are predisposed to pay more attention to negative experiences and to share them more frequently than positive ones. A bad beat or a lost deposit feels far more intense and memorable than a routine win.

Need for Validation/Catharsis: Posting a negative review acts as an emotional release (catharsis) for frustrated losers. It provides a sense of justice or validation, as if punishing the site for their loss.

Illusion of Control: Players often hold false beliefs about how they can influence the outcome of the game. When their expectations of winning clash with the reality of losing, they look for reasons to justify the discrepancy, often blaming bots, collusion, or rigged algorithms.

The "Sore Loser" Phenomenon: Players who lose money often feel a sense of entitlement to win and, when that fails, they vent in a public space.

Survivorship Bias (Winners are Silent): Players who are winning money frequently have no incentive to leave a review—they are busy playing, or they fear attracting attention that could bring more skilled opponents.

Lol, when you've running out of crazy ideas, go to trustpilot😃😃

You have said before than chance and odds are very different, I didnt
And you still havent explained how these they differ so much
Especially since a 25% chance can be worded as 1-4 odds and it would be 100% similar.
I only repeat because you still havent explained this distinction

I actually know of a guy who thinks online poker is uninspiring and unreal, even rigged
Needless to say he's been an active player for over 25 years 🙂

Because you havent shown anything
For us to accept or believe what you see, you need to show it.
But you refuse to put a minute of your time in to do so
While you apparently do have the time to forage through trustpilot
You ask us to believe you without any documentation and this is hard since all your ramblings have been contradictory so many times you arent all that believable to begin with.

TheWaddy:

(its 35% btw, you cant add undecided to your prefered vote)
But also TheWaddy:

You just used the exact same poll to make an argument as you ridicule someone else for doing.
You really are the king of being inconsistent to the point of even making completely conflicting statements in the same post. Bravo!😃

Source please
Because I will take the over on 99% of trustpilot reviewers being losers at those rooms in a heartbeat

You are stupid for not understanding them. These are numbers and facts, you dont get to not believe them just because you are too stupid to understand basic words like random, pattern or odds.

Another sourceless TheWaddy statement
But you could redeem yourself here a little since its very unlikely you just wrote this without any information🙂🙂
Which elite poker player thinks RNG checks dont conclusively prove the dealing are random?
I'd like a citation and source please

He didnt answer that because its wasnt the question
- When Phil Galfond was asked what he ate last night why didnt he say that poker is a fair game... it must be because poker is rigged huh

The question was of it was technically possible to alter or tweak an RNG
His answer was that technically it could be done, adding that it doesnt happen and they would be stupid to do so. Anyone with a normal brain would read that as him claiming rng's arent rigged, only you twist and turn so much to read something in it that you want to hear. Then aghain, Phil also said that anyone thinking an RNG was rigged is not ready to be a winner.
And you also missed the complete point of it.
Because if it was not technically possible to tweak/rig an RNG... than why would there even be need for an RNG test?
If it cannot be rigged there is no need to test for riggedness.
But they do test it on the off chance that one is bloody stupid enough to tweak its RNG
And guess what... They didnt.
Its fair and its random. Unfortunately you dont know what random entails.

I mean, its up to you as a player to choose which sites you will play on.
But most sites and basically all major sites are indeed regulated and licensing per country. These are in places like Malta & Isle of Man because of tax and law benefits.
But they very much have to comply with regulation so that stament is just wrong.
It would hold up more for a site like ACR.
For instance in my country I cannot reach pokerstars because of my countries regulation, GG & iPoker are regulated and licensed and I can play without regulation on sites like coin, acr & bros. Its my responsibility what site I choose.
And btw this regulation only entails the legality of the gambling sites, its seperate from RNG testing. Because even though I legally cant play stars or acr, their RNG has been tested and they passed. I would rather play on an unlicensed or unregulated site than on one without proper RNG testing. In fact, I would never play on a pokersite that didnt have an RNG certification.

Or.... alternatively, its exactly what you see and with it being a greedy industry, its very unlikely they wouldnt take advantage of poor levels of regulation! Choose the essay on human physhcology or just go with your eyes and a bit of common sense.....

Finally you understand. Good job.

Since you see that as proof of something let me tell you something that will make you throw your microwave right out the window.

I decided to also use trustpilot to "prove" my suspicions I wrote about earlier:

I struggled to find evidence that these big microwave brand were implementing harmful magical radiation because of bad microwave regulation but I found some other hard hitting stuff.

Two of the bigger selling microwave brand and look at their ratings.... 1.3 and 1.4 !!!
A rigging manipulating site like Pokerstars even scores 3.1 so you can just imagine how samsung must be rigging their microwaves even worse.
These ratings can only mean one thing; everyone agrees with me about their magical radiation.
Everyone knows these big brands just want to make money therefore they must be taking advantage of poor radiation regulation. Sure they claim Microwave radiation is a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic energy with frequencies between 300 MHz and 300 GHz that isnt harmful to humans but just look at the low trustpilot reviews!!!
Over the 2 sites, figures say it; they are lying!!! (oh yeah just ignore those banners that say that they dont fact-check their reviews, that stuff is not important:p)
Everyone on trustpilot clearly agrees with my view so open your eyes sheeples!!!

By showing people being mad at something on trustpilot im sure I have hereby factually proven my baseless and easily rebuttable delusion😃

The above post and particulary this statement;

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWaddy
But apparently, out of everyone on the internet, EVERYONE knows the how an RNG works and trusts it. And its just me that doesnt understand or see the 'obvious'.
Finally you understand. Good job.[/B]

Im not sure ive ever seen this from an adult and certainly not heard anything like this since school.

You got one over on me there, your other intellectual mates here will be on the floor.

PS when i said over 2 sites, this was trust pilot and twoplustwo..... but of course you retorted in a manner to put down, whilst misunderstanding. Over and over and over you do this.

You havent heard the phrases "finally you understand" and "good job" since school?
You know what, thats the first plausible thing I've heard you say on this forum😉

Oh I understood, I am just not a member of a microwave forum to source from because I despise the rigged microwave industry. It would be insane to despise a field and then spend hours on a forum dedicated to that very subject and also remain active in that field for 25+ years... Nobody in their right mind would do such a thing🙂

But since you referenced trustpilot as 1 of your only 2 sources and your main point was built around trustpilot one can deduce that you must find the information there credible. Otherwise you would not have used it for your argument.

Therefore I referenced the exact same website with the exact same train of thought as you did and drew the conclusion that everyone agrees with me about the harmful magical radiation they produce and the regulation sucks. Again, why else would their ratings be lower than half of what a rigging site like pokerstars scores. And since I used your exact "method of investigation and argumentation" you must think this outcome is as credible as your owns. Otherwise there would be zero consistency.

So by new you must be just as fuming as me about big microwave corp and their flawed regulation who know nothing about microwave odds.
Or do you think it might be a bunch of baloney? If so, you might want to rethink your own ways of "research". Because once again, they were eerie similar😉

TheWaddy said;
im not sure ive ever seen this from an adult and certainly not heard anything like this since school.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slugant


You havent heard the phrases "finally you understand" and "good job" since school?
You know what, thats the first plausible thing I've heard you say on this forum

And immediately backs it up with a 2nd one......

Along with something about microwave rigging, im sure your intellectual friends will be on the floor again....

So was going to ask you a few things.
how do you feel this alleged rig works?
Eg do you feel they rig it in favour of the weak players so that they can take more effective rake by reducing the winning players edge?

or do you think there are a load of house bots and these names we see doing silly things and sucking out are house bots with it rigged in their favour to collect money?

I mean because obviously if two players play a lot against each other and one crushes the other, the crushed player may not redoposit and the winning player cashes out. however if its more close then the site takes more total rake.

house bots is more insidious but in theory if just the odd name showed up and then dissapeared to be replaced by another name this would be harder to track.

So firstly after completing a mathematics and statistics degree I realize there are potential rigs I wouldnt know how to analyse without further reading. I am not reffering to the simple ones often mentioned. As of yet no one has proved a rig in the RNG of a major site to the best of my knowledge.

Yes it is definitely possible in theory, but you need evidence which is what people keep asking you for and you have yet to provide good evidence.

in regards to partypoker reviews yeah the site has its pluses and minuses why they have the lag when you try to register new tables i dont know. a few other software issues but then their promotions are often very generous i dont know of another site which is competitive for rakeback and promos for cash games or spin and goes.

heres a bigger question for you though what would you actually do if you were proven right? what would you actually gain?

its sometimes possible to lose even if your right.

You know theres men and women who have had bad experiences with the opposite sex and they spend years complaining about. Better Bachelor on youtube had some bad experience with a women and now spends his entire life complaining about how awful all women allegedly are.

Suppose hypothetically he is right (I really dont think he is btw) but suppose it turns out he is and all women are bad, and 3 or 4 years down the line my girlfriend cheats on me and betrays me bad and breaks my heart?

who actually had the better time or life my ten years of happiness before this happened in the hypothetical or him who complains online all the time.

I know a girl I used to work with who has an ex she had something with over ten years ago to this day she still posts calling him a narcist and a horrible person on facebook. she even posted on facebook about how the this guy had taken a restraining order out against her barring her from posting about him on facebook im not kidding.

I truly dont know if her ex was a bad person who treated her bad and manipulated her or if its just her being crazy, honestly if I had to guess id say both.

However she would have likely being much happier if she had just moved on.

You have spent years and years moaning on sky poker forums about the site being rigged and when sky poker forums got closed down you come here and continue you cant stop yourself.

I want to be clear I am not saying online poker is rigged to do so I would need evidence. I would greatly appreciate if it was rigged if someone could provide that evidence. Currently I make some money from poker but not as much as id like and I am studying to try and get better. Would sure be good to know if that effort is pointless but id need proper evidence.

However even if your right like better bachelor and that girl I used to work with you still lose.

If in X years time it was proven beyond all reasonable doubt that yes online poker was rigged, you would have wasted years maybe even more then a decade feeling all that negative energy all that negative emotion and all that time wasted complaining on here. When there are so much better things to do with your time.

Will you be here in 15 years time still posting on here? or some other forum alleging this rig or that rig? dont be like better bachelor or that girl I used to work with. Move on with life, regardless of whether your right or wrong it would be a lot better for you.

Winni

I think I know which one you were on Sky Poker, due to your comment on if I was proven right. My opinion is, if regulation included 100% random decks, most sites would disappear and we would be left with 1 or 2. Only 1 or 2 could survive, but there would be a market for 1 or 2.

This would be ideal, a fair game where EVERYONE would feel confident and anyone who wanted to play poker in whatever form could do so without this cloud hanging over it.

There is enough poker players in the world and indeed those who enjoy spin and go type poker, for at least 1 company to survive.

There will never be a proven rig at this stage. Poker is no longer booming enough for someone to spend the money to develop something to recognise this. LetÂ’s take Phil Galfond and his failed site Run It Once. He opened this site knowing there is a big problem with players not believing itÂ’s random (itÂ’s all over the internet in various forms that people feel this way, although all here dismiss this).

So being amongst developers of his new venture, why would u not ask them to develop something to CONCLUSIVELY prove online poker was random? Something by poker people, not testing houses that only understand how often a card comes out? Surely this would benefit his new venture to get off the ground.

Answer, too expensive and he ran out of money on the venture even without this. It would take astronomical money to do this and there are very few people in the world that have enough influence for anyone to listen if they developed it anyway. To ask ME for evidence, well this is clearly impossible.

You ask how a rig works. It would be complicated system that is working for the sites advantage, whatever that may be at that given time. Weak players getting help to retain custom in a certain game, high volume players getting favourable cards in other games to keep them sweet, whatever benefits the site in any given game. House bots are a thing, pretty easy to spot, play loose aggressive, hit everything and have a steep upwards graph on stat sites. Not possible playing like that, would be more of a marginal profit.

You mention 2players playing a lot against each other. This is basically a problem for me, as regs can keep sitting and I know it will just come out 50/50. The sites will make sure it comes out 50/50 so neither get taken out the game. Even though you consistently get these players in with the worst of it over multiple games, there is no long term win.

I personally, donÂ’t need any more evidence than coming out 50/50 with a certain player over hundreds and hundreds of games whilst consistently getting my money in with the best of it (mainly 80%+).

I also had a situation at one site where after winning a big pot that decimated my opponents stack in Omaha heads up games, the very next all in preflop ( whether that was, within the next few hands as they had virtually nothing left) they were auto winning, not only that but with 3 of a kind OR better.

Hundreds without a single win for me. No pairs, no 2 pairs, all 3 of a kind or better. I went on to win a lot of those games, but I left as there was a clear premeditated result that I couldnÂ’t tolerate. And guess what? The site is a big UK one with a RNG certification.

I have spent a lot of time talking about it, granted. There is a chance of change if itÂ’s talked about.

But, at least I donÂ’t spend my life arguing about something I feel is right anyway within what I am using and talk about microwaves being random and not believing peopleÂ’s basic way of life for no apparent reason (coughSlugantcough).

TheWaddy

I understand that you can't afford to buy a Tracker from an established company, but you might be glad to know that there's a new one being introduced in Software, at https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/167/p..., and it will cost you nothing at this time.

If you can risk not being microwaved by it, maybe you could post some of your stats to prove the existence of the rig that keeps you playing while you tell others about it?

Looking forward to seeing some evidence, for once.

That's what whiny rigturds in 2010 said. Dear Percy, since you are smarter than all of us, how long do your figure it will take?

What makes you think I wasnt serious about this?
Everything just flies right over your head doesnt it
Because I used the exact same method and thinking you did.
So they should be taken exactly as serious. Do you get it now?

This is just too funny 😃😃😃😃
This isnt even his first complain rodeo.

But weak players are generally low-volume players and the high volume players are generally (professional) regulars.
How would that work when a weak player faces a high volume player?? How intricate is this RNG riggin that it can somehow help out both players at the same time??

Wow, hundreds of games getting it in good with 80%+ and only running 50/50. Thats harsh stuff, you should show this to the world!!!
If you can make accounts on multiple forums surely you will be capable of downloading 1 tracker. You even got some great advice

I am also glad to give you a tip. Most tracker have a free 14day trial period so you test their software, import hands, show all those 80%+ losses you encounter and it wont cost you a cent.

You say there is a of chance if its talked about.
Imagine how much talk there will be if you finally showed those crazy beats and avalanches of 4outers you've encountered so frequently.
If you dont show them its clear you dont want change at all.

Several? Quote one post from me where I said that I didnt believe you worked for yourself.
It was just funny how you "own businesses" but not multiple businesses. Then you "owned" them. Now you own them again. Its how you contradict yourself time and time again that makes your stories incredible.

But very funny that your evidence on your side is a google search that shows 4.4 million people in the UK are self-employed. Thats would be a good piece of evidence if I had claimed that nobody in the UK is self-employed. Of course there are many but how does this prove you are one of them? In fact if 4.4 million are self-employed that mean 65 million people arent. So the odds on you not being self-employed are in my favour:p
In fact, if you were keen on proving self-employment you wouldnt do it this way. And being on benefits is not exactly the same as being self-employed Waddy😉

Its like me claiming im Chinese and my piece of evidence is a google search that shows China has 1,4 billion residents. How can I not be one of them right?🙂

Oh my god you really just missed the entire point did you. How was this not clear to you?
I didnt do some kind of post about rigging microwaves. I did the exact same method of research and logic as you only replacing pokersites with microwave sellers and magical decks with magical radiation. All else was the same, even the incredulous source of trustpilot (which again flew over your head). The only thing is, you find my research ridiculous whilst failing to see that that would mean your ways of research and argumentation is ridiculous as well.
But here you go quoting a better samsung trustpilot score 😃😃😃

How does everything fly so far over your head?

Oh and you should trust me. Because Im a scientist after all. Just look:

Sure the non-scientist group is a lot bigger but lets just forget about that. This number proves I am a scientist!

If you think it’s rigged then how is it rigged? To create more rake?

What is the theory?

Who benefits?

I dont know how it works in Kazakhstan, but here in the UK if you are self employed, you have to register a company name or register as a Sole Trader.

Slugant said;

Quote one post from me where I said that I didnt believe you worked for yourself.

Sure, just on the last page;

Slugant said;

I apologize for calling your fictive businesses successful.

Follows it up with;

But very funny that your evidence on your side is a google search that shows 4.4 million people in the UK are self-employed

And then apparently 4 million is not a big enough figure for me to possibly to have worked for myself. This the type of person we are dealing with.

It would be very difficult to have an adult debate given someone even challenges that you cant possibly be one on 4m people working for themselves, without absolutely any reason whatsoever to challenge it.... and then denies he even did....