I cannot win on pokerstars. Reasons ??

[BigPoppa]

You can "provide evidence", but not "provide argumentation". You "make an argument". I know you were trying to sound more authoritative, but it didn't work.

[T Kiriakopoulos]

Although some of you did say that constant profits can be made even with 5% rake, others might argue that "pros" pay less rake because of high limit tables, rakebacks, etc. But the statistically unreasonable losses exactly because of the very strong hands being beated by stronger hands, proove that one would be a loser even with 0% rake. Therefore ... casino is rigged (lol).

[realjaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can read my thread in casinomeister in which I provide argumentation claiming that pokerooms are rigged: http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/poke...oms-rigged.html

I have not read this thread yet, and someone might have mentioned it, but here is the WHY the casinos have profit in cheating the good players:

Suppose that half of the players of a pokeromm are conservative players (which I call good or skilled), and half are fishes. And thus the good players have an edge over the fishes of 10%. That means that for every 100$ wagered in the tables, 5$ will go to the rake, and 5$ will go to the good players. Therefore, in the long run, the rake will accumulate the 25% of the deposited money (since half of the deposited money is from good players and half from fishes). But if the casino cheats the players so that nobody wins more than the others, then 100% of the deposited money will be slowly accumulated by the rake. That is why the casinos have an interest of cheating the good players and help the fish get "lucky" when they have crap cards.

It's rigged everywhere, and this truth will be well known soon.

You will be amazed how some affliates in casinomeister rushed into degrading my arguments and convince us all that there isnt the slightest probability that the outcomes are not random, but modified by the casino. I am sure that some affiliates rushed into defending their business in this thread too. They are also pretending to be "pros", whereas their profits are made by the commision they get from the rake common players pay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Err... learn to play poker maybe? ZOMG i lose with my top pair! ZOMG the rake beats all! ZOMG RIGG3D!

[/ QUOTE ]

Zomg, my preflp raise of 6 x the blind with jj gets called by q6 off.

flp come k910 off , my raise of 1.5 X pot gets called by q6 again.

turn comes j give me a set and the donk the straight.....

Rigged, yes. This happens to me 85% of the time. Statistically not possible. I don't consider these beats anymore as 2-4 outers are common on the turn and river, its standard.

How come I get beat with 2-4 outers consistently? My play is not horrible.

I think the consistent "winners" know how to play the 'rigged' sites, staying away from these hands or keeping the pot low.

I have come to use this strategy in donk and goes and it helps but this screws up the proper way of playing and I don't want to play like a retard in live games.

I can actually call the cards at the end of a donk and go.

If I'm holding a rag with 4 people left 95% of the time one of the four players holds a-j or greater.

So, yes, its rigged yet still possible to win if you play retard poker.

Any my analysis is over 500k hands if not more. So please no retarded variance explanations.

[realjaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
Although some of you did say that constant profits can be made even with 5% rake, others might argue that "pros" pay less rake because of high limit tables, rakebacks, etc. But the statistically unreasonable losses exactly because of the very strong hands being beated by stronger hands, proove that one would be a loser even with 0% rake. Therefore ... casino is rigged (lol).

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Thanks for posting, you bring excellent points.

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
If you read carefully what I wrote, you will see that
1.)I said "suppose" that half of the players have a 10% edge over the others (rake ignored), to make my point easily understandable.

[/ QUOTE ]
If the sharks had only a 10% edge over the fish, it likely would be difficult to profit. If I only had a 10% edge over some of the extreme fish I see, it would be time for radical brain surgery.

[ QUOTE ]
2.) I distinguished into 2 possible cases: The case that one cannot make profits with a 5% on his back, and the case that he can. And IF the first case is true, then there are no winners (and you are affiliates, lol). But IF the second case is true, then cheating is prooved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wait, what???? If there are winners with a 5% rake, then cheating is proved?????? Wow. Just wow. Anyway, if this is still based on your 10% edge, then who cares? I'm very confident that figure is not even close. I know I have many times a 10% edge over some players, and many more have an even larger edge over me.

I see you slipped your ridiculous affiliate remark in there once again. Still awaiting evidence, or even a reply.

[ QUOTE ]
3.) The expected value I am talking about is of the average player. And when it is very high, there is also an expected value even if you are a crap player. Therefore your implied argument that the losses occur because of winning poor whan winning and losing big when losing, (and not because of cheating) is collapsed. And it is just arbitrary to conclude that I am a below average player regarding this particular point.

[/ QUOTE ]
EV of given hands counts on betting them when they're best, and folding them when they're not. Postflop play matters.

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
Any my analysis is over 500k hands if not more. So please no retarded variance explanations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please to be sharing analysis?

[realjaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any my analysis is over 500k hands if not more. So please no retarded variance explanations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please to be sharing analysis?

[/ QUOTE ]


English, do you speak it?

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any my analysis is over 500k hands if not more. So please no retarded variance explanations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please to be sharing analysis?

[/ QUOTE ]


English, do you speak it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ummm...you could pick at the grammar used, or answer the question. BTW, that's actually a bit of a 2+2ism, I can write just fine, thanks...what does speaking have to do with this?

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
But the statistically unreasonable losses exactly because of the very strong hands being beated by stronger hands, proove that one would be a loser even with 0% rake. Therefore ... casino is rigged (lol).

[/ QUOTE ]


Anyone have their tin-foil-hat translator handy?

[T Kiriakopoulos]

Exactly. This [censored] keeps happening 85% of the time, for hundreds of hands. You ask us for recorded stats, whereas you know this is an impossible task unless you are a computer expert. I tried to use pokertracker and its more complicated than photoshop (lol). And the logs of hand histories are almost unreadable and require months to analyse them. And suppose one does all this. What can he do with them? Would these records be easy to post? And post where? Here? And besides, how will I proove that I was not selecting the stats I prefere to prove my point? Dont worry, truth will win at the end. I have not made up my mind. I still give a 5% that it is not rigged, and 5% probs do happen in life.

Oh, and you obviously have no idea about probs etc. A 5% edge is HUGE and more than enough to wipe out the opponent's entrire bankroll. You say that a good player has more than 10% edge(that is 15% before the rake is taken)! Lol!!!