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
Nobody wants or needs you as a customer, Juicetard. The sites will survive even without your monthly $30 buyin. You and your concerns are utterly unimportant. Oh, by the way you also are a *******, ************ ***********.
Nobody wants or needs you as a customer, Juicetard. The sites will survive even without your monthly $30 buyin. You and your concerns are utterly unimportant. Oh, by the way you also are a *******, ************ ***********.
Mike the mod can we have a ruling on this?
As for you Slob, go **** yourself.
The sites won't see 30c of mine until they prove their game is fair. Until then it's live poker all the way!
Mike the mod can we have a ruling on this?
As for you Slob, go **** yourself.
The sites won't see 30c of mine until they prove their game is fair. Until then it's live poker all the way!
By Vectron, of course he is correct!
No site needs any particular customer. Do you think you are indispensable or something? If you say yes, please prove it.
(And don't tell people to go **** themselves. Do you not think we know what you are meaning?)
You still havent proven live poker isnt rigged though 🙂
I'll wait...
I was playing ACR awhile ago in a tournament and the tournament was coded wrong... what was supposed to be a mystery bounty ended up being a regular bounty.
The lobby and main area tagged it as a mystery bounty. Simple coding mistake. It took me forever to reach someone in ACR and report it, but it was like "oh well."
That small mistake had me thinking about what other small mistakes probably get missed. I mean, how often is the RNG checked? How many users "get lucky" for six months then just disappear (bot farm?). All this software is so archaic on these sites, with a good programmer, hacker, or even Claude.ai, could someone alter the RNG just a little bit to benefit themselves? Could a script be written to say players that lose X$ get a bonus and reload get a bonus "luck factor" so they can keep playing?
Take ClubWPT hypothetically... could it be possible that their RNG is multiplied by some unknown "lucky" factor for each player to determine who should get the river beat?
I have no evidence, and I play on a few sites, but I just was thinking how easy it has to be to manipulate these sites in some way? If dozens of groups are running bot farms, you think they are just stopping there?
Again,. no evidence, and I still play on these sites.
What I'm getting at is... surely someone good with computer can tell me it's highly possible to manipulate these websites/programs right?
By Vectron, of course he is correct!
No site needs any particular customer. Do you think you are indispensable or something? If you say yes, please prove it.
(And don't tell people to go **** themselves. Do you not think we know what you are meaning?)
I gave you more credit than you deserve Mike. Turns out you're a bit slow. I bolded the bit in his post to review. Juicetard Mike the mod, that's what I asked you to review.
Go back and look and see if he deserves an infraction. You are good at handing them out to me.
I know you would never ask me to prove a negative. That's been the shillie mantra for decades, right?
Plus. you have a few things to do first, like this:
Nice attempt to dodge the question but deflection won't work with me. I don't need an explanation of what PVI is. Let's assume we all know that.
You seem to have trouble remembering the actual claim you made. It was this:
"the PVI doesnt influence your runouts like you implied."
Proof please.
I gave you more credit than you deserve Mike. Turns out you're a bit slow. I bolded the bit in his post to review. Juicetard Mike the mod, that's what I asked you to review.
Go back and look and see if he deserves an infraction. You are good at handing them out to me.
I assumed "Juicetard" is a friendly nickname for you. If it's not, then what is it supposed to mean? 
You asked me to review his post by quoting his ... post; which is what I did.
Any infraction I have given you has been well deserved. Go back and look and see if they're not. You're good at asking for others to receive infractions.
I know you would never ask me to prove a negative. That's been the shillie mantra for decades, right?
Plus. you have a few things to do first, like this:
You really need to dial it down a little bit. Its simply not believable that anybody would be this slow.
I assumed "Juicetard" is a friendly nickname for you. If it's not, then what is it supposed to mean?
You asked me to review his post by quoting his ... post; which is what I did.
Any infraction I have given you has been well deserved. Go back and look and see if they're not. You're good at asking for others to receive infractions.
Mike, my friend, you assumed Juicetard is a friendly nickname? Ok. So why did you give me an infraction for using Slobtard, instead of assuming it was a friendly nickname?
Let me remind you of your reasoning: "Slobtard" is unwarranted abuse. It's right here in the image below.
And it's nice to see how Mike is moderating the forum. I get called all sorts by the village idiot. Mike himself makes a sideways derogatory comment. And this is his response:
So I'm telling you now, Juicetard is also unwarranted abuse. It is not a friendly nickname. Never has been and I suspect you know that. So do your job and give him an infraction.
I know you would never ask me to prove a negative. That's been the shillie mantra for decades, right?
Plus. you have a few things to do first, like this:
""the PVI doesnt influence your runouts like you implied."
But you do ask for negatives! Does that make you a shill? Because you are behaving according your proclaimed shillie mantra.
Actually, there was a vital piece of information you somehow accidentally missed and didnt respond to. I thought it was weird.
Such a shame because otherwise you would have known I've already proven the culprit behind all runbad.
But you do ask for negatives! Does that make you a shill? Because you are behaving according your proclaimed shillie mantra.
Actually, there was a vital piece of information you somehow accidentally missed and didnt respond to. I thought it was weird.
Such a shame because otherwise you would have known I've already proven the culprit behind all runbad.
I don't need an explanation of PVI. I've explained that to you at least 5 times now. Probably more. You too seem a bit slow.
I want you to prove the assertion YOU made about PVI. That's all.
When you're ready.
Mike, my friend, you assumed Juicetard is a friendly nickname? Ok. So why did you give me an infraction for using Slobtard, instead of assuming it was a friendly nickname?Let me remind you of your reasoning: "Slobtard" is unwarranted abuse. It's right here in the image below.So I'm telling you now, Juicetard is also unwarranted abuse. It is not a friendly nickname. Never has be
[First, I wish to apologise to the serious topic-interested readers of this important debate thread for TJ's, (and, for TheoryJuicer's benefit: TJ is my friendly nickname for you; before you twist my words again), off-topic posts forcing me to respond to him with my own o/t posts. Obviously, he should have brought his misunderstandings to me by PM.]
I don't think that calling someone "Slobtard" could be misinterpreted by anyone as your using a friendly nickname; especially as your usual tone is aggressive, argumentative and derailing to people who try to give you explanations and advice with regard to the numerous problems you appear to have with the raison d'etre of this entire community and forums.
As another user has advised you on at least a couple of occasions, you really need to tone it down, and read and try to understand the points and information that have often been given to you by others who know the intricacies of our game well, from their long and personal experience of being winners.
Don't make me regret that I said I think you are better than you come across in this thread. Let's call fainites, and start again.
I don't need an explanation of PVI. I've explained that to you at least 5 times now. Probably more. You too seem a bit slow.
I want you to prove the assertion YOU made about PVI. That's all.
First of all, you definitely do need an explanation of what PVI is.
Secondly, it perfectly proves my assertion about the PVI, namely that its determines the height of rakeback and nothing else. Please quote the part in the articles that makes your mind foggy about his.
I offerded you 5 links to read anything you ask to know, somehow nothing came through. Shocking.
Also, how is the proof of live poker being fair coming?
And have you saved up for the bet yet or will you continue to pussy out like a little girl?😃
omfg, what a whiny *******, ****** ***** you are.
As I explained to you several times: They don't want or need a whiny, uneducated rigturd...
I'm wondering: Are the other players cheering a bit too much when you sit down at the table?
First of all, you definitely do need an explanation of what PVI is.
Secondly, it perfectly proves my assertion about the PVI, namely that its determines the height of rakeback and nothing else. Please quote the part in the articles that makes your mind foggy about his.
I offerded you 5 links to read anything you ask to know, somehow nothing came through. Shocking.
I appreciate the links explaining what PVI is and how it functions as a metric; I understand the definition of the term. However, you haven't actually addressed your specific claim.
Your argument is about whether PVI has an influence on runouts (the RNG/outcome of hands).
the PVI doesnt influence your runouts like you implied.
Explaining what PVI is does not constitute proof that it doesn't affect the cards. You are providing a definition, but you aren't providing evidence of independence between the index and the RNG. I am still waiting for any data or technical proof that shows the runouts are mathematically decoupled from PVI variables.
I appreciate the links explaining what PVI is and how it functions as a metric; I understand the definition of the term. However, you haven't actually addressed your specific claim.Your argument is about whether PVI has an influence on runouts (the RNG/outcome of hands). Explaining what PVI is does not constitute proof that it doesn't affect the cards. You are providing a defin
Poor Juicetard, you surely thought that sounded smart but you ended up with the same, repetitive 'prove a negative' bs. You sure are a ******* ****** with a ****** ******* and a ***********. Also your **** and your ********* are ***********************.
Explaining what PVI is does not constitute proof that it doesn't affect the cards. You are providing a definition, but you aren't providing evidence of independence between the index and the RNG. I am still waiting for any data or technical proof that shows the runouts are mathematically decoupled from PVI variables.
Its like asking to prove how the Celsius scale doesnt influence the RNG
The link isnt even there, so you show exactly what Celsius is thereby also showing what it isnt. And that exactly what every article detailing the PVI does. By stating its SOLELY the rakeback denominator it shows its not influecing your microwave, not influencing your neighbours pet hamster and not influencing any runouts because it has absolutely nothing to do with it.
How are you going to prove that you dont control the RNG? If you cant, you clearly do. I'll wait.
But how the saving up going for the bet? Already have 1k to spend? Or too busy looking for proof that live poker isnt rigged?
Its like asking to prove how the Celsius scale doesnt influence the RNGThe link isnt even there, so you show exactly what Celsius is thereby also showing what it isnt. And that exactly what every article detailing the PVI does. By stating its SOLELY the rakeback denominator it shows its not influecing your microwave, not influencing your neighbours pet hamster and not influenci
The Celsius analogy is a false equivalence. The Celsius scale is an arbitrary, external measurement system that exists independently of the poker software's code. PVI, however, is a metric derived directly from the data within the ecosystem. It is a variable generated by player activity and rake distribution within the same system as the RNG.
Furthermore, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof. You made the specific claim that 'PVI doesn't influence runouts.' In any debate, the person making the claim holds the burden of proof. I am not required to prove a negative (that PVI doesn't affect cards); you are required to provide evidence for your assertion that it doesn't.
Let’s stick to the math and leave the comments about my bankroll out of it.
And the PVI is a metric indepently of RNG, its been shown and said everywhere but you decide to read over it every time. Just because its poker-related its suddenly within the same bounds, well then the font size of the poker lobby must also be affecting the RNG because its within the same "poker code" right???
No wonder 99% of your posts are in this thread, information just wont pass your skull.
You've said live poker is (more) fair.... thats a claim... where's the proof?? According to you you are required to uphold this burden of proof now. GL
Also variance is math, but everyone time a badrun was well inside variance bounds you disregarded it, so why are you urging to "stick to the math"?
And why would I have to leave your bankroll out of it. You claimed I wouldnt pass the test, I said I would and wanted to bet on it. So once again you are making a claim but show nothing to support it 😉
If your balls still havent grownyet to take on the bet or your bankroll is too low to actually stand behind your claims, might I suggest you increase the font size of your poker lobby... it will do wonders for your RNG because its within the same software 🙂
So you think gambling sites never show any feelings for others and do what they have to do to wrinse people out of hard earned money. They show no sympathy or remorse and to be them requires the same skill as to be a phone scammer.(you will say misquote obv but its exactly what you said...)What does it say about you then that you stick around on gambling sites and be a loyal me
Ive had businesses and i have businesses, either statement i use on any given day is true.... thats why i know an online poker business will not be set up just to then just sit back and let it play out. As that is not a business plan, it has no foreseeable longevity, you have no control over revenue etc etc etc. You will only understand what is happening in online poker if you are business minded/qualified.
So thats your main point, challenging the words 'had' and 'have', which are relevant used either way ..... and we can see that you conveniently missed out all the other times you accused people of lying and just picked this one in the long list. You are very credible. And even here again, you use 'you suck at poker' and yet some time ago you went on sharkscope and witnessed my spinning silver star on FullTilt.... but continue to put this out there knowing its a lie and has been conclusively proved as just a made up lie.
And of course we have the multi repeated answer again, that i shouldnt continue to make money out of a rigged deck and that its somehow bizarre to you that i would gamble with bookmakers/gambling sites unless i truly respected them.
Like gamblers usually absolutely love the bookie with whom they place their bets and lose their months rent... like they shake their hand and tell them how much they respect them as a human being when they lose a fair bet ... what planet are you on????
Every gambler knows its us versus them, but here you are telling people that im wrong for placing bets within establishments with zero empathy and if i think that, im some kind of fraud? You can only place a bet or wager with people in zero empathy establishments or individuals, im afraid that is a fact! And their number one priority is to take ALL your money, whatever that entails. Anyone who gambles is conscious of that fact. But here you are telling me that, if i know this and feel this, then i should not be betting/gambling... So basically you are saying only some kind of simpleton who is not aware of these facts, should ever gamble on anything.
No-one as a gambler, would go to this extreme to say sites are the opposite of what i am saying, especially as there is conclusive proof that they have been fined massive amounts for constant various targeting of vulnerable people.... and of course not forgetting those being suspended/shut down altogether for other activities.
I think you are site chimp my friend, working from a script. And that is why we get multi repeated answers... you are just sticking to the guidelines. i think you are here to disperse rumour and to dismiss any negativity towards sites by aggressive belittling, the well know tactic within these types of industries. Your main objective that you have been given by your employer is to repeatedly say 'prove it' when it comes to the deck written to maximise profits. They know that it can not be proved and your job is to hammer the 'prove it' rhetoric.
Its really clear to me, though again, im business trained to spot these things.
Slugant asked to play you HU online
You basically said you won't and certainly not at the stakes Slugant offered
So I asked if you'd play him HU for play money or at .01/.02 at the game you play, PLO8
You seem to not want to simply answer the question, but instead go on weird, long diatribes...the same ones you were making a few months ago and now
Juicetard is kinda obsessed with these infractions lmao. How's that testable evidence for a rigged deal coming along?
