PokerStars homepage
  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Two Outers

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Two Outers

    Ok I'll lay it to rest once and for all .......If hitting the set on the river came only once in every 22 hands like the ODDS ...I would never have said BOO ever ....because it would be extremely rare and not that noticable. But the ****ing truth of this site and the RANDOM RIGGED SHUFFLE>>> Moderators and Kool Aid drinking suck up clowns ( Darkman61 , Sandtrap , ssuglia , Roomik, Pip and the rest of you PS suck ups ) is that happens a minimum 1 in 10 ....... so go screw yourselves all of you.

  • #2
    Originally posted by BGBShooter View Post
    Ok I'll lay it to rest once and for all .......If hitting the set on the river came only once in every 22 hands like the ODDS ...I would never have said BOO ever ....because it would be extremely rare and not that noticable. But the ****ing truth of this site and the RANDOM RIGGED SHUFFLE>>> Moderators and Kool Aid drinking suck up clowns ( Darkman61 , Sandtrap , ssuglia , Roomik, Pip and the rest of you PS suck ups ) is that happens a minimum 1 in 10 ....... so go screw yourselves all of you.
    Where's your proof?

    zzzzzzzzz

    Comment


    • #3
      I think he has a blog entry with a bit of a study he did. I disagreed with him that it was conclusive evidence, but the guy's definitely put a lot of thought into the matter.

      Nobody ever mentions me... Why can't I be a Kool Aid drinking suck up clown??

      j/k, lol

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by BGBShooter View Post
        Ok I'll lay it to rest once and for all .......If hitting the set on the river came only once in every 22 hands like the ODDS ...I would never have said BOO ever ....because it would be extremely rare and not that noticable. But the ****ing truth of this site and the RANDOM RIGGED SHUFFLE>>> Moderators and Kool Aid drinking suck up clowns ( Darkman61 , Sandtrap , ssuglia , Roomik, Pip and the rest of you PS suck ups ) is that happens a minimum 1 in 10 ....... all of so go screw yourselves you.



        Why the hostility?
        - UDS Dry

        Comment


        • #5
          why do people argue it he study it do you honestly see the dealer dealing the cards on any of these sites ??? nope John quads wrote it best in his book he is and has been the only pro to not endorse a pokersite like he said cant see whos dealing cards and there is no true enforcer of the sites to regulate them and states that the pros that do endorse sites are doing so cuz they are being paid too .....food for thought ... but it is entertaining the sites that is gl everyone have fun and dont jump down my throat for this post just saying what is and has been said is all

          Comment


          • #6
            BGB,

            Over what sample size did you draw your conclusion?

            There a 8*10^67 (that is 8 followed by 67 zeroes) possible ways to shuffle a deck of 52 cards. Out of that size of a population you need sample sizes in the thousands or more before you can make that statement. A few dozen or even a few hundred is just not enough.

            Comment


            • #7
              just take his word for it Joe...he wont show us proof

              Comment


              • #8
                There's one in every crowd. Shooter, you just didn't read the fine print when you signed up for Poker Stars. You wanted the Premium not the Standard membership for the site. Sure, you have to send in a few extra box tops and write an annoying little 300 word essay about how suckouts are good for the game. But Premium Poker Stars is worth it. First, you get all the Kool Aid you want. (See how happy it's made Panicky.) And on top of that you are guaranteed, by virtue of the Premium random shuffle adjuster, to arrive at the river with at least one set for every ten pairs you take past the turn. Imagine that. You could soon be drinking the Beverage of Champions with all your friends, Darkman, Sandtrap, ssuglia, Roomik, Pip, and yes even Panicky himself. It's not too late. Sign up for Premium Poker Stars now! umbup:
                3 Time Bracelet Winner


                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BGBShooter View Post
                  Ok I'll lay it to rest once and for all .......If hitting the set on the river came only once in every 22 hands like the ODDS ...I would never have said BOO ever ....because it would be extremely rare and not that noticable. But the ****ing truth of this site and the RANDOM RIGGED SHUFFLE>>> Moderators and Kool Aid drinking suck up clowns ( Darkman61 , Sandtrap , ssuglia , Roomik, Pip and the rest of you PS suck ups ) is that happens a minimum 1 in 10 ....... so go screw yourselves all of you.

                  Dude I saw you cry rigged when you lost an all-in as the 70/30 underdog. The moment I saw that I instantly lost any respect for you. When I called you on it you tried saying you didn't read the board right. Shortly after you cried rigged over losing a 52/48 race as the 48 dog.

                  GIVE ME A BREAK. Uninstall pokerstars and leave the rest of us in peace. Cannot stand people like this.
                  You might be a king or a little street sweeper, but sooner or later you'll dance with the reaper.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BGBShooter View Post
                    Ok I'll lay it to rest once and for all .......If hitting the set on the river came only once in every 22 hands like the ODDS ...I would never have said BOO ever ....because it would be extremely rare and not that noticable. But the ****ing truth of this site and the RANDOM RIGGED SHUFFLE>>> Moderators and Kool Aid drinking suck up clowns ( Darkman61 , Sandtrap , ssuglia , Roomik, Pip and the rest of you PS suck ups ) is that happens a minimum 1 in 10 ....... so go screw yourselves all of you.
                    Do the world a favour. Approach loo. Insert head. Flush.

                    And imagine it's kool aid.

                    p.s. Haven't a clue what kool aid is. Does it come with bits?
                    Last edited by Darkman61; Sun May 29, 2011, 04:43 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TrumpinJoe View Post
                      BGB,

                      Over what sample size did you draw your conclusion?

                      There a 8*10^67 (that is 8 followed by 67 zeroes) possible ways to shuffle a deck of 52 cards. Out of that size of a population you need sample sizes in the thousands or more before you can make that statement. A few dozen or even a few hundred is just not enough.
                      I tried making this point to him a while back, when he said he was losing a higher percentage of all ins than he felt he should have. I believe his sample was a few hundred "coin flip" all ins over the course of a couple of months.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        This is the text as it appears on Cardshat. The original author is Beriac and he did this back in July of 2006:

                        Intro

                        So I've seen post after post after post either directly accusing or indirectly insinuating that online poker is rigged. Though the complaints more often than not come from folks who are frustrated from bad beats, the most common theory is that the poker sites so this to encourage action and thus increase the rake at their tables. I think if we polled the regulars here at Cardschat, I bet the vote would slant in favour of "not rigged". Still, despite the fact that accusations of rigging really don't make a ton of sense coming from current players (goodness, why continue to play?), I thought it would be worth investigating.

                        So here goes nothing...

                        Logic and reason

                        This is my own opinion: rigging a poker site would be like a professional athlete stealing sporting goods from his or her team -- the risk of losing something good would dramatically outweight the gains from cheating. I'm trained in game theory, and I can tell you that experts in the field would suggest that this is ludicrous (hip hop afficionados might suggest that it is instead ludacris).

                        Thus, I personally believe that it is unlikely that major sites are in any way rigged. I know if I were running one, and I do have a business background, there is no way I would risk the mint that online poker sites make in rake just to add a few extra bucks.

                        Research

                        For the sake of argument, I decided to use Poker Stars as my research subject, though I would apply my conclusions to Party, Full Tilt, and any of the other large, reputable sites. As for flybynightpoker.com and stealingyourmoneypoker.com, I speak not for those.

                        So, I did something incredibly complex and comprehensive: I went to pokerstars.com and looked around. Clicking on "integrity", I found their policy on shuffling basically immediately.

                        According to Poker Stars, there are many ways to shuffle a deck of cards. How many? Well, picture a 5 followed by 67 zeroes, that's how many. So what Poker Stars has to do is select one of those 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ways to shuffle a deck and start dealing the cards.

                        How do they choose it? Believe it or not, they use us players to generate their random numbers, using "user input, including summary of mouse movements and events timing, collected from client software". In the event that there are problems with this as a RNG (random number generator), they have a backup: "true hardware random number generator developed by Intel, which uses thermal noise as an entropy source". They go on and on describing how they obtain and apply their RNG, but these details are mostly beyond me.

                        So why should we believe Poker Stars? They could say anything on their website right? Well, their RNG is certified by 2 independent organizations: Cigital and BMM International. I decided to look into these organizations.

                        Cigital: An independent software risk management organization working with such companies as Qualcomm, Visa International, Texas Instruments, AOL, MasterCard, General Electric, Motorola, Pfizer Health Solutions, and Ericsson. Why would they put all that business on the line to lie for Poker Stars?

                        BMM International: A global organization that provides independent computer systems assurance and compliance certification testing services, the Australia-based company is a client of the Australian government among other organizations.

                        My question: Why would Poker Stars lie about its 2-tiered RNG when it is immensely profitable without it, and why would 2 independent organizations risk their reputations to vouch for it?

                        Conclusions

                        To me, if this is not enough evidence that Poker Stars (and in all likelihood, the major poker sites) is un-rigged and up-and-up, then nothing is. Personally, I believe it. That's why I bother risking my money there, and at Party Poker, and any of the reputable poker sites. If I thought for a second that they might be rigged, I'd take my cash out in a flash -- and so should you.

                        So the next time you're thinking you've taken 1 too many bad beats, or that you seem to win more in the morning, or after you've made a deposit, or during full moons, or what have you, and you think about posting that online poker is rigged, please ask yourself 3 questions:

                        1 - Isn't it possible that it seems rigged to me, because when something happens in my favour or my best-hand-going-in holds up, I don't notice it as much as when I take a huge bad beat?
                        2 - Anyway, isn't it true that even AA vs. 72o is still just a 8:1 favourite (according to this), and even here you should expect to lose once every 9 times, and no hole cards are 100% to win.
                        3 - Why would a poker site that is "raking it in", so to speak, bother to risk all its profits and cheat just to generate a little more action?

                        If you answer "no" to all of these questions, then I have gathered some additional links that you may find helpful: here, here, and here.

                        Epilogue

                        If anyone wishes to discuss this further, I would be happy to in a constructive way. I have just found that people are all too ready to blame their woes on multi-billion dollar companies rigging their operations to squeeze a few extra cents out of us. Personally, when I lose a bunch of cash on a bad beat, it's more often than not my own damn fault.

                        Please feel free to direct future queries about RNGs here, and I will add to it as needed.

                        Reply
                        Reply With Quote

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          From 2+2:

                          One of the predominant claims put forward by conspiracy theorists is that sites deliberately deal coolers and bad beats to "juice pots" and make them bigger so as to collect more rake. These conspiracy theorists never offer any actual statistical proof. Just their "feeling" that online poker has more "big hands" than it should. This despite the thousands of 2+2 users with large databases of millions of hands, particularly at FTP which is routinely datamined for all hands. Considering how well posters on this site have been able to spot real cheaters, be they bots or super-users, you'd think someone would have some concrete proof by now if there was any substance to any of these speculations.

                          Yet no one does.

                          No, the conspiracy theorists evidence consists entirely of the argument "It would be good for the site".

                          Except that's completely wrong.

                          They say it would be good for a site to juice the deck to ensure coolers. Big hands like quads over full house in order to maximize the rake. That the site would stand to make the most money this way.

                          This is wrong and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the poker economy and how winning players and the house make money. This is exactly what a site would NEVER do. In fact, if sites were rigged we would never see quads over full house.

                          At most sites, the No Limit rake is 5% with a $2 cap. This means the maximum rake is hit when the pot reaches $40.

                          At a 50NL game if two players go all in, the pot is $100. At 100NL if two players go all in, the pot is $200. The site still rakes only $2.

                          In fact, the best situation for the house would be if the pot was always exactly $40. A $100 or $200 pot is actually bad for the site because they aren't getting their full share of the rake and there's a chance that somebody goes broke. Even worse if they go broke and never come back.

                          This is the worst case scenario for both winning players and the house - That losing players go broke too quickly, get frustrated with the game and never come back. You can shear a sheep many times but only kill him once.

                          It would actually be in a site's best interest to always have a $40 pot. That is, if a site were going to set hands to maximize profit from pot size, they would rig for medium sized pots.

                          Which of course is impossible since pot size depends too much on players. There's always some donk who'll overplay and get it all in. There's always some nit who will underplay and the pot will be small.

                          However, from the house's perspective clearly medium sized pots are optimum, small pots are second best since they still collect some rake and nobody goes broke. Large pots, particularly all-ins are the worst case scenario for the house. Both because they miss out on rake and there's a chance somebody goes broke and quits, even for a short time.

                          Since a site can't ensure that medium sized pots actually stay medium sized, if a site were rigged it would rig for small pots. Action hands and coolers would actually occur far below expectation.

                          So why do people keep coming back to the idea that there are more big hands online than live?

                          There are several reasons - Sample size and selection bias are the two most important. You get far, far more hands per hour online than live. At least twice as many hands per hour per table and as many as triple. In addition many online players multi-table. An online multi-tabler can easily see 10-20 times as many hands per hour as a live player. That's sample size. More hands of course means more big hands. Also, if you have the preconceived notion that there are more big hands online, then every time you see one of those big hands it's only going to reinforce that prejudice even if it's not that big of a hand. Whereas live you're not going to be making a note of every big hand. There's your selection bias, we tend to remember things that support what we already believe and discard whatever contradicts it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            That's a very well reasoned response, Roomik. I checked a lot of the same things before I started playing for real money, and came to the same conclusions. It makes no sense for any site to rig the games, they rake in the money without cheating. Great post, keep up the good work!! (though you probably can't convince the tinfoil hat brigade) umbup:umbup:umbup:
                            Bracelet Winner


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hey Sponge Bob how'd you like to shake yer booty over here for the rest of us.

                              PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE
                              Last edited by brkn80; Sun May 29, 2011, 07:27 AM. Reason: grovelling

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              X Cookies Information

                              We have placed cookies on your computer to improve your experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.