Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged

[Josem]

1) Not everyone has the same inability to improve their game that you apparently have. Being a losing player now does not preclude someone from getting better in the future.

2) Seeking to improve is not a bad thing.

3) People play for different reasons; not everyone intends on winning millions.

4) There are other advantages to playing online rather than live - accessibility, comfort, convenience, etc.

[bystander]

[ QUOTE ]
ot everyone has the same inability to improve their game that you apparently have. Being a losing player now does not preclude someone from getting better in the future.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently these 'legit' sites are trying very hard to convince me that I am a great player given the great cards I keep getting dealt every time I start playing (as a newbie).
Buddy, I play live and I have to sit for 20 hands for cards I get right off the bat when I play. Flopping fullhouses is fun but a tad suspcicious when it happens a lot..

[ QUOTE ]
There are other advantages to playing online rather than live - accessibility, comfort, convenience, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]
Which one of those sites do you work for?

I'm not interested right now - I'm doing quite well playing live poker. Maybe I'll give it a chance when I come down with a flu next time.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently these 'legit' sites are trying very hard to convince me that I am a great player given the great cards I keep getting dealt every time I start playing (as a newbie).

[/ QUOTE ]

how many hands are we talking here?

[ QUOTE ]
Which one of those sites do you work for?

[/ QUOTE ]

None.

[NFuego20]

Josem I guess the one thing I'm not understanding is why you even bother trying to go back and forth with clowns like this. There are a handful of people out there who do not understand variance and never will. This thread is a great example. They'll never prove their wild conspiracy theories because there is no evidence out there that can back up their claims, other than single hand histories or a flurry of hands within one day that appear "suspicious". I find it laughable and I'll get into it with them every once in a while, but you seem to be on a mission to battle to the death every single time one of these threads comes along. To each their own, but I'm pretty sure you're talking to a wall.

I'm a winning player who has probably gone through a dozen 10 buy in downswings over the course of the past year. During every single one of them I ran really badly. Despite the frustration, not once did I try to blame the site for my bad fortune. You play long enough, you see it all. You know that, I know that. Unfortunately some of these people never will. They'd rather quit after the first downswing and allow that downswing to keep them out of the game altogether, or make them play worse just because they've given up on even trying to be a winning player on a site that's "rigged" against them. I've heard about it and seen it too many times, even with some close friends.

[Henry17]

I've been playing live poker for almost 20 years. I've been playing online since Paradise was the dominant site (so about 6 years). At no point have I seen anything online that would make me suspect that the dominant sites are rigged.

It is also very easy to test if they are. If I suspected that they were rigged I would have tested. As such I'd assume the people who believe they are rigged would also have some form of statistical analysis that they would be willing to submit to peer review. Yet none do.

I did find something interesting about Bystander's post in that he encouraged people to play the Freerolls. Why? Freerolls are for insignificant money. Why would any competent player waste their time on them? If someone believes online poker is rigged and they only play live they won't waste their time playing Freerolls for chump change.

[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
Josem I guess the one thing I'm not understanding is why you even bother trying to go back and forth with clowns like this. There are a handful of people out there who do not understand variance and never will. This thread is a great example. They'll never prove their wild conspiracy theories because there is no evidence out there that can back up their claims, other than single hand histories or a flurry of hands within one day that appear "suspicious". I find it laughable and I'll get into it with them every once in a while, but you seem to be on a mission to battle to the death every single time one of these threads comes along. To each their own, but I'm pretty sure you're talking to a wall.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, with one slight difference: I think a wall might actually listen. These donks don't come here to debate their beliefs; they just come here to whine.

As far as I can see, they NEVER EVER listen to anything anybody has to say other than those with 3 posts who agree with what they are saying... Show me a converted donk and I'll eat my words (other than the guy who had a bugged version of PT which made his hand stats appear biased). IMHO: once a donk, always a donk and no amount of "convincing" will change them...

The whole title of this thread was "Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged", yet we still have to suffer from donks and their unsubstantiated "beliefs" with no actual hard evidence presented...

We need a separate sub-forum for conspiracy theories. That way the donks can all debate with like-minded souls about their riggedness theories, while leaving all us non-believers in peace.

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ryanj247]

Henry17 wrote:
[ QUOTE ]

It is also very easy to test if they are. If I suspected that they were rigged I would have tested. As such I'd assume the people who believe they are rigged would also have some form of statistical analysis that they would be willing to submit to peer review. Yet none do.


[/ QUOTE ]

jukofyork wrote:
[ QUOTE ]

The whole title of this thread was "Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged", yet we still have to suffer from donks and their unsubstantiated "beliefs" with no actual hard evidence presented...


[/ QUOTE ]

this thread tilts me so hard.

i agree with the complaints about the donks who whine but provide no evidence. but now we have an intelligent poster who claims that his statistical tests do in fact indicate a problem. and yet no one wants to acknowledge this.

out of all the smart people who've read this thread, really is there no one who has read about the statistical analysis done by MyTurn2Raise and felt inclined to try to reproduce it? why do the knowledgeable posters keep complaining about a lack of evidence, while just completely glossing over the evidence that's been pointed out to them?

obv MT2R is not going to be posting all kinds of details here. but for chrissakes, can't someone PM him and get the details and either verify the tests he did, or clearly identify the mistakes he made? i was hoping that would be the end result of this "project"...

[CigarMike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Josem I guess the one thing I'm not understanding is why you even bother trying to go back and forth with clowns like this. There are a handful of people out there who do not understand variance and never will. This thread is a great example. They'll never prove their wild conspiracy theories because there is no evidence out there that can back up their claims, other than single hand histories or a flurry of hands within one day that appear "suspicious". I find it laughable and I'll get into it with them every once in a while, but you seem to be on a mission to battle to the death every single time one of these threads comes along. To each their own, but I'm pretty sure you're talking to a wall.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, with one slight difference: I think a wall might actually listen. These donks don't come here to debate their beliefs; they just come here to whine.

As far as I can see, they NEVER EVER listen to anything anybody has to say other than those with 3 posts who agree with what they are saying... Show me a converted donk and I'll eat my words (other than the guy who had a bugged version of PT which made his hand stats appear biased). IMHO: once a donk, always a donk and no amount of "convincing" will change them...

The whole title of this thread was "Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged", yet we still have to suffer from donks and their unsubstantiated "beliefs" with no actual hard evidence presented...

We need a separate sub-forum for conspiracy theories. That way the donks can all debate with like-minded souls about their riggedness theories, while leaving all us non-believers in peace.

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL @ only a Wall might actually listen, Not only did you listen, you also took the time to form an opinion about the poster and then respond, that would be quite a feat, a wall that can read and type. How tall of a wall are you btw?. lmao.

Its just easier to attack the messenger rather than the message for guys like you.

[ALLEN BOND]

AP is rigged.

[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Josem I guess the one thing I'm not understanding is why you even bother trying to go back and forth with clowns like this. There are a handful of people out there who do not understand variance and never will. This thread is a great example. They'll never prove their wild conspiracy theories because there is no evidence out there that can back up their claims, other than single hand histories or a flurry of hands within one day that appear "suspicious". I find it laughable and I'll get into it with them every once in a while, but you seem to be on a mission to battle to the death every single time one of these threads comes along. To each their own, but I'm pretty sure you're talking to a wall.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, with one slight difference: I think a wall might actually listen. These donks don't come here to debate their beliefs; they just come here to whine.

As far as I can see, they NEVER EVER listen to anything anybody has to say other than those with 3 posts who agree with what they are saying... Show me a converted donk and I'll eat my words (other than the guy who had a bugged version of PT which made his hand stats appear biased). IMHO: once a donk, always a donk and no amount of "convincing" will change them...

The whole title of this thread was "Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged", yet we still have to suffer from donks and their unsubstantiated "beliefs" with no actual hard evidence presented...

We need a separate sub-forum for conspiracy theories. That way the donks can all debate with like-minded souls about their riggedness theories, while leaving all us non-believers in peace.

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL @ only a Wall might actually listen, Not only did you listen, you also took the time to form an opinion about the poster and then respond, that would be quite a feat, a wall that can read and type. How tall of a wall are you btw?. lmao.

Its just easier to attack the messenger rather than the message for guys like you.

[/ QUOTE ]
The "message" was just a load of unsubstantiated rubbish though. Show me some kind of carefully reasoned scientific analysis and I might think otherwise. The "I think I saw X because I believe Y" just doesn't cut it in the scientific community.

Your welcome to your own personal beliefs, but if you want to actually <font color="red"><u>PROVE</u></font> something to people who believe in the scientific method, then you need much more than beliefs. The only people likely to be swayed by such unscientific nonsense as are poor dumbos who don't know any better...

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]