Pokerstars Is Fixed

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
sorry, while I do believe these "no-name" sites are not legit, PS and some of the other big name sites are makeing WAY too much money to have even a hint of 'fix' attached to them. That is why I stay with the big names so I know I will not get the shaft.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's fine if you think they aren't fixed, but MAN, that argument is bad. "they're already making X, so why jeopradize that?", because the risk isn't as high as you think it is and why settle making X when you can make 2X.

And OP, one thing you need to understand about 2+2. Putting aside rigged or not rigged for a moment.

Many who cry rigged often do so becuase they are looking for an easy excuse to explain away their losses. It is easier to say the site is rigged than to go back and critically evaluate your play and identify what you can do differently. Therefore, any cry of rigged is quickly and aggressively flamed around here. Just the way it is.

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
After reading this 5 page post seems like alot of posters on twoplustwo seem like kids or idiotic 30 year olds.

[/ QUOTE ]

You talking about my post or the OP?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even know who said it but seriously... who gives a crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Word

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Heh... you stole my answer. I would also like to say that I have no idea if any online site is "rigging" things, but it never ceases to amaze me how many people act like it's an impossibility. As you noted, companies like Enron and Worldcom kind of shoot down the "their making so much money, why would they risk getting caught" theory, in my opinion. I think people tend to think that the bigger and more successful a company is, the more legit they must be. I'm not sure I believe that. Considering most of these companies are offshore and the regulation process leaves a lot to be desired, I don't think you can assume they are all on the up and up. Like I said, I'm not implying that they are in fact rigged. I just wouldn't be so quick to assume it's an impossibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. I once wrote a post about how I couldn't understand how anyone could not even at least acknowledge the possibility of rigging and I got flamed like a mofo.

enjoy

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with both of you and everyone else who has made this statement. While I am still up in the air about the legitimacy of online poker, and I obviously wrote a long post explaining why I think it's fixed, I am not at all opposed to listening to the other side, or even changing my opinion if someone gives me something interseting to think about. I think the fact that such a majority of the people on here belittle anyone who questions anything is unfortunate. Regardless of who is right or wrong, it is not as if online poker being rigged is so unbelievable that its worth mocking and berating someone who just so happens to put the idea out there. I definitely believe it is something worth discussing seriously and those that question should not be dismissed as idiotic whiners. While many of those do exist (myself included sometimes, and it even pisses me off) I don't think the answer is so cut and dry. Obviously if such a scandal was being pulled off by poker rooms, absolutely none of the stuff anyone ever said in this forum would be of any consequence for online play. So why not take it more seriously? Get someone with the know-how to do a real analysis

[/ QUOTE ]

See, if you want to be agnostic on whether the sites are rigged or not that's one thing. But that's not what you're saying, you're saying that you believe at least one site is fixed. But your belief is irrational (debate if you will whether the belief that the sites are not rigged is rational, but that's for a different thread).

Look, if the sites rigged the results they would have to do it in a way that made sense. That would mean minor tweaks to the probablilities of things happening, most likely. Even if a site did that, you simply could not detect it just from sitting at the table playing, even over a huge number of hands. That makes your belief irrational and a little silly.

One of the things that is going on when we play online poker is that because we see so many more hands in a shorter period of time, we see a lot of the improbable things more often. And that seems wrong, because of our live play experience. But very few things are that unlikely in poker. You're rarely worse than a twenty percent dog pre-flop. You rarely have a draw that's worse than about 23-1 and most draws are much more likely than that. Over thousands of hands those "rare" occurences happen dozens upon dozens of times. And statistically, you expect them to happen in bunches sometimes.

Heck, some of these sites deal so many hands a day that over any given 24 hour period if you saw all the hands you'd see dozens of royal flushes. Stars probably deals out about 25,000 (I'm not going to look it up precisely, but you get the idea) royal flushes a year.

The reason you get slammed is not because all the folks on here can prove online poker is legit, but because the reasons you give for your belief that it is not, are simply downright silly. For what you're saying to make sense, the sites would have to rig the play in a way that doesn't make very much rational sense, and then you would have to be able to detect it without any sort of statistical analysis, but just from playing in the game, and somehow be able to determine that what you are seeing is different from the ordinary improbabilities that we would expect to see anyway. It just don't hold water.

--Zetack

[tame_deuces]

1 - 'I have a statement, but little fact to support it'

2 - 'Okay, you are probably wrong, because I have an opposite statement and fact to support it'

1 - 'But I may be right and your facts doesn't prove it 100%!'

2 - 'You don't even have facts.'

1 - 'Why can't anybody admit that I could be right!'

[ZKoeske]

[ QUOTE ]


The reason you get slammed is not because all the folks on here can prove online poker is legit, but because the reasons you give for your belief that it is not, are simply downright silly. For what you're saying to make sense, the sites would have to rig the play in a way that doesn't make very much rational sense, and then you would have to be able to detect it without any sort of statistical analysis, but just from playing in the game, and somehow be able to determine that what you are seeing is different from the ordinary improbabilities that we would expect to see anyway. It just don't hold water.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that sites are rigged exclusively the way I have postulated. I was just saying that that is what I have experienced(albeit without any tracking device) most often. They may be rigged differently, or they may not be rigged at all. I don't think speculation about one way it might be rigged is any more silly than another way.

You stated that if it were fixed, it would be done so subtly that one could not notice without a detailed statistcal analysis. And about this I agree. You would think that if anyone were going to try to cheat millions of people they wouldn't make it so blatant, but thats my whole point. To me, and to some other people, it seems extremely blatant at times. That is why people have noticed it and complained about it. If it was so hard to detect and only these minor tweaks that you speak of were occurring then no one would have a problem with online poker or complain that it was fixed. It's only these blatant occurrences that make people wary and speculative.

And yes, I understand that such "blatant" bad beats are to be expected, and my perception of them is likely much different than reality, but that's just my current stance at the moment, as stupid and ignorant as you might think I am.

[Zetack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The reason you get slammed is not because all the folks on here can prove online poker is legit, but because the reasons you give for your belief that it is not, are simply downright silly. For what you're saying to make sense, the sites would have to rig the play in a way that doesn't make very much rational sense, and then you would have to be able to detect it without any sort of statistical analysis, but just from playing in the game, and somehow be able to determine that what you are seeing is different from the ordinary improbabilities that we would expect to see anyway. It just don't hold water.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that sites are rigged exclusively the way I have postulated. I was just saying that that is what I have experienced(albeit without any tracking device) most often. They may be rigged differently, or they may not be rigged at all. I don't think speculation about one way it might be rigged is any more silly than another way.

You stated that if it were fixed, it would be done so subtly that one could not notice without a detailed statistcal analysis. And about this I agree. You would think that if anyone were going to try to cheat millions of people they wouldn't make it so blatant, but thats my whole point. To me, and to some other people, it seems extremely blatant at times. That is why people have noticed it and complained about it. If it was so hard to detect and only these minor tweaks that you speak of were occurring then no one would have a problem with online poker or complain that it was fixed. It's only these blatant occurrences that make people wary and speculative.

And yes, I understand that such "blatant" bad beats are to be expected, and my perception of them is likely much different than reality, but that's just my current stance at the moment, as stupid and ignorant as you might think I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey I did say that your beliefs are both silly and irrational, that may not be nice, I know, but I certainly did not mean to call you either stupid or ignorant. Plenty of highly intelligent and well educated people believer online poker is not entirely legit.

But hearing you refer to what you see as "blantant" makes me think you haven't thought very much about what sort of distribution of events you would expect to see in a non-rigged game, or the nature of probabilities in poker. Which is fine, you don't have to, doesn't make you a bad person. But go in the probability section of this forum and see if the folks who have done a lot of thinking about this agree that what you're describing is "blantant."

*Hint* I know the answer as to what they will say, and you should be able to glean something from the fact I'm not agreeing with you.

I played live on Tuesday. I got all my money in with A-Q against KK (hey the math was with me). Flop came J,9,x. Turn 8, river, 10. Runner runner straight for me. Live play is effin rigged, OMG!!!!. but the thing is, I'm actually going to win that hand somehow (including runer runer straights) almost 30 percent of the time when my money goes in PF. Its not that astounding, even though the odds of going runner runner gutshot like that is pretty damn bad. This kind of improbability happens all the time in poker. But over 6 hours of play, I'm lucky to see 150 hands live. When I play online, over 3 hours (half the time) I'll see about 800 hands. So I see this kinda shyte five times more often in half the time. Of course that seems "Blatant." Its not. its a perception problem.

--Zetack

[Shandrax]

While everyone likes to talk himself into believing that postings like this one are a sign of paranoia, all of us have to wonder why Hold'em seems to have such insane swings.

I mean aces should win 82% of the time and not 28%. You should make your flush about 37% of the time and not 3.7%. Still it seems that on certain pokersites those probabilities won't work. It's almost seems like the "dealer" hasn't studied mathematics....

The last two days on Party I was shown the absolute nuts by my opponents EVERY single hand resulting to an overall loss of over $300. Sure, that's not much, but it makes me feel kinda helpless. When I have aces I am scared that 3-5o might beat me. When I have a king high flush I am scared to valuebet the river. When my opponents checkraise me I always fear a set. Those goddamn bad beats have completely destroyed my confidence in my abilities.

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
Those goddamn bad beats have completely destroyed my confidence in my abilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

My entire last month has been like this. 40% W$SD. Lose big pots, win small ones.

TPTK loses to two pair or a set.

sets get cracked by flushes or straights

QQ/KK - always an A on the flop

AK/AQ never hits, you get it HU with the BB on a ragged flop and villain shows aggession. LOVE those spots.

Oh, and I had AKs 3 times in the last 1000 hands against AA with a K on the flop, no SHT!!!

Whenever you do have a winning hand, a scare card comes like a 4flush or straight or double paired board that scares you from making any more value bets even though you're good.

set over set, flush over flush, you name it, it happens.

I swear villains have started calling me down on my obvious monsters cause they knew they would hit their runner runners or sets or boats or whatever.

Lose every coinflip.

Kind of venting now. everyone gets bad beats, sure. But having a string of them back to back to back to back starts to make you wonder. Guess this post belongs in BBV.

Oh well, ya variance.

[Shandrax]

The weird thing is that these things should be extremely unlikely. As a 90% favorite you should win 90 out of 100 times. Why do I lose such situations so often?

Yesterday they dealt me five NL hands on Stars from which I played two: Lost with trips in the first one and lost with top pair + nut flush draw in the second one (all-in on the flop). Outcome: - $96!

I really don't understand why the unlikely events happen 3-4 times as often as the "likely" events. In one day I lose like $500 on Party, PS and WPEX combined and all of that with huge hands. Not the usual bad beat stuff, it was more like an endless streak of cold decks which is much more expensive.

[Dave I]

[ QUOTE ]
The weird thing is that these things should be extremely unlikely. As a 90% favorite you should win 90 out of 100 times. Why do I lose such situations so often?

Yesterday they dealt me five NL hands on Stars from which I played two: Lost with trips in the first one and lost with top pair + nut flush draw in the second one (all-in on the flop). Outcome: - $96!

In one day I lose like $500 on Party, PS and WPEX combined and all of that with huge hands. Not the usual bad beat stuff, it was more like an endless streak of cold decks which is much more expensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

This whole thread is insane. Is it "3-4 times as often"? Please show us real numbers. You should be able to tell for sure. If you can't there is your answer.

Guys, is it possible as site is rigged? Sure. But, nothing stated on the "for" side in this thread gives even a hint of evidence.

I keep hearing words like "my confidence", "I think", "should", "It seems like". These are all vague, give one bit of concrete evidence and maybe your case would hold more water.

90% and above favorites DO LOSE as they should. Nobody has shown they lose more than they are statistically supposed to.

We all have seen weird things, gone on long winning and losing streaks. How come nobody ever says "OMG it's rigged! My 10% favorites are winning 75% of the time!!", "I never lose!!"

All these it's rigged post always come after a bad downswing which can ALWAYS be explained by variance and bad play.