I cannot win on pokerstars. Reasons ??

[T Kiriakopoulos]

It is just reasonable to doubt that there are any winners who have a 5% rake on their backs, because for that you need an edge against other players of more than 5%, and that happens only against very loose players (e.g. when they play with A3 and Q8 preflop).

And here it gets complicated, as you could blame the rake and the lack of fishes for one's losses, and not cheating.
But in this case of lack of fishes, the 25% of preflop hands should show no expected value as pokeroom.com tables show, and there should be no poker winners! And don’t tell me that you have more than 5% edge against the other players just because of your amazing OTHER poker skills (telepaphy perhaps?) whereas all players fold the same percentage of preflop hands, fold when they have no pot odds, and they are all tight players like Scroodge!

On the other hand, if the fishes are there, then the expected value tables of preflop hands of pokeroom.com are true, and then you do not need 500,000 hands to proove cheating. Just play a few hundred hands of the top preflop hands, subtract the post blinds, take in consideration variance, but the greater the expected value and the losses/hands or $ losses/$ wagered, the less the hands needed for stat proof, and the less the role of variance.
And THERE ARE rooms that are full of fishes (or programs, or players who work for the casino who pretend to be fishes): Sportingbet, 888, bet365, etc.
And definatelly there are some hands with expected value. Even better, when you get two pairs and threes of a kind and higher, then the expected value of these strong hands is even higher that AA preflop, so if you make big losses in e.g. 300 such hands, then this is a proof of cheating my dear affiliates! And this has definatelly happened to me, and many others.

Actually I asked some pokerooms to send me the log files with the hand history, as they are not all saved to this computer, but for various reasons I cannot get them, e.g. I opened the log file of Intercasino with excell, and the results are like chinese, and besides that, devided into too many sections. I am not a computer expert, and pokertracker is as complicated as hell. I am not wealthy to have the time to deticate 2 years of my life to proove cheatery. Obviously other people who can and as experts in stats and probs as me, are already affiliates. I am too surprised that there isnt such a complete recoreded proof yet. And if one has such a proof , why not sell it to the casinos? lol.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
It is just reasonable to doubt that there are any winners who have a 5% rake on their backs, because for that you need an edge against other players of more than 5%, and that happens only against very loose players (e.g. when they play with A3 and Q8 preflop).

[/ QUOTE ]

no, 'cause the rake is substantially less than 5%. as a result of the capped rake, far less than 5% of the total pots is raked.

[ QUOTE ]
And here it gets complicated, as you could blame the rake and the lack of fishes for one's losses, and not cheating.
But in this case of lack of fishes, the 25% of preflop hands should show no expected value as pokeroom.com tables show, and there should be no poker winners! And don’t tell me that you have more than 5% edge against the other players just because of your amazing OTHER poker skills (telepaphy perhaps?) whereas all players fold the same percentage of preflop hands, fold when they have no pot odds, and they are all tight players like Scroodge!

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont know exactly what you're trying to say here, but it bears no semblance to me to sophisticated poker analysis.

[ QUOTE ]

Actually I asked some pokerooms to send me the log files with the hand history, as they are not all saved to this computer, but for various reasons I cannot get them, e.g. I opened the log file of Intercasino with excell, and the results are like chinese, and besides that, devided into too many sections. I am not a computer expert, and pokertracker is as complicated as hell. I am not wealthy to have the time to deticate 2 years of my life to proove cheatery. Obviously other people who can and as experts in stats and probs as me, are already affiliates. I am too surprised that there isnt such a complete recoreded proof yet. And if one has such a proof , why not sell it to the casinos? lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

this all looks like fairly confused mumbo jumbo that tries to excuse your lack of evidence.

[Bobo Fett]

Unless it is to provide proof that we are affiliates (an accusation you just made AGAIN without any evidence) or to show all the posts where people have said they are 100% certain that the sites are not rigged, please stop posting. Your posts are getting more and more absurd by the moment.

Stop posting, and go read a GOOD poker book. A better poker player than I would have no problem at all driving a truck through all of the holes in your logic, I'm afraid I might fumble it a bit. Suffice to say that I know of MANY MANY players that make money in spite of that HUGE 5% rake lol.

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
It is just reasonable to doubt that there are any winners who have a 5% rake on their backs, because for that you need an edge against other players of more than 5%, and that happens only against very loose players (e.g. when they play with A3 and Q8 preflop)

[/ QUOTE ]
This is really, really wrong. Firstly, the rake is 5% up to a certain proportion of the pot. Secondly, the rake doesn't always reach 5%. Thirdly, you do not just stick all the money in preflop and see what happens. Fourthly, the way a good player vs. a mediocre player plays a hand post flop results in considerably more than 5% differences in equity. The fact that you're making this argument is such a huge demonstration that your understanding of the game is lacking that it badly colours your other arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
And don’t tell me that you have more than 5% edge against the other players just because of your amazing OTHER poker skills (telepaphy perhaps?) whereas all players fold the same percentage of preflop hands, fold when they have no pot odds, and they are all tight players like Scroodge!

[/ QUOTE ]
So you are saying that every single player who wins is cheating/working for the sites? How come NONE of them have ever come forward?


[ QUOTE ]
Just play a few hundred hands of the top preflop hands, subtract the post blinds, take in consideration variance, but the greater the expected value and the losses/hands or $ losses/$ wagered, the less the hands needed for stat proof, and the less the role of variance

[/ QUOTE ]
Variance outweighs any other considerations when you are looking at a ten thousand hand sample (45x AA, 45x KK etc - I think that meets your criterea?) that this statement again demonstrates your confusion over this game.




[ QUOTE ]
And definatelly there are some hands with expected value. Even better, when you get two pairs and threes of a kind and higher, then the expected value of these strong hands is even higher that AA preflop, so if you make big losses in e.g. 300 such hands, then this is a proof of cheating my dear affiliates! And this has definatelly happened to me, and many others.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was typing a response to this and realised that I am repeating myself. You are arguing from a position of weakness as you have some fatal misunderstandings about the game of poker.

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
You are arguing from a position of weakness as you have some fatal misunderstandings about the game of poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

[T Kiriakopoulos]

Generalities. You avoid answering the very subtle points I make by degrading them.

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
Generalities. You avoid answering the very subtle points I make by degrading them.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you want some replies to your points, you should remake them without couching them in terms of your deeply mistaken views of poker. All of the points you made were fatally flawed so far as I could see, as they referred directly to that mistaken view.

[MicroBob]

T Kirkiapolous - Thanks so much for appearing in and reviving this thread.
Your appearance here has been truly awesome and hilarious.

I haven't read every bit of your material but I have read enough to get the general idea.
First, let me say that I'm not an affiliate of Stars however I do happen to be a big fan. Is this why I think you're an idiot? Or does it have anything to do with how truly awful your arguments are.

Also, B&M players beat an even higher rake percentage all the time.
Here's a hint to help get you on the right track to finding some of the flaws in your logic: Not all hands go to showdown. And some people bet more than others on their way to getting to showdown. Some people check-raise. Other people get too cautious and check it through. etc etc.

Assuming that a 60% vs 40% favorite is always going to end up going to showdown with the two hands each winning that exact percentage of the time is incorrect.
For example, you are usually only going to take your 22 to showdown in a multi-way pot if you happen to hit a 2 on the flop.
Stuff like that.

Saying stuff like "5% rake...but very few hands have better than a 5% advantage" is just really really weird.
But your participation is appreciated and I wish you good luck in your quest to 'expose' all these sites.
Keep fighting the good fight.

[MicroBob]

"It is just reasonable to doubt that there are any winners who have a 5% rake on their backs"


Okay, wait. I'm confused and don't really feel like reading everything he has written.
But I thought he said before that there were supposed to be 50% winners but the site sets it up differently so they can get more of the money.

But in the above quote he is implying that there can be no winners because 5% rake is too much to overcome.
So does that mean the game isn't rigged at all?

A quick explanation of where I've got astray in my understanding of all this would be appreciated.

[Losing all]

[ QUOTE ]
Generalities. You avoid answering the very subtle points I make by degrading them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure thinking is your thing, and I know poker isn't. Also, be sure to look both ways before crossing the street!

Kudos to onlinepro. You've drawn out all the other tards, yet again.