Stars is now number one.
 

How do I know this? Active players? meaningless. The clearest indicator of the leading poker room is the one most named by the "online poker is rigged" donktards. When I first started playing online and reading and posting 2+2, the number one online poker site, both in active players and "rigged" posts was, as incredcible as this will seem to the newbies, Paradise. The tinfoil hat brigade were all posting about how Paradise was rigged. After a few months, they started posting about Party being rigged. Pretty soon, Party took the lead in players, and Paradise faded to it's current status. In the last few months, I've seen the "rigged" posts switch from Pary to Pokerstars. Sell your Party stock, short it, buy put options on it. Pokerstars is clearly the market leader now.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

tl;dr

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

hard to argue with scientific proof like that.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

lol

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

But they are rigged.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
But they are rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do posters on this site insult other posters for TELLING THE TRUTH!!!!!

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
hard to argue with scientific proof like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The clearest indicator of the leading poker room is the one most named by the "online poker is rigged" donktards.

[/ QUOTE ]
I could not agree more to an online post....as it seems the more "donktards" are screaming about the site being fixed, thats when you are in the right place, just sit back and become the rake.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

What changes do I have to make to the log(16) function in my Party Pattern Mapper to get it to work on Stars?

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The clearest indicator of the leading poker room is the one most named by the "online poker is rigged" donktards.

[/ QUOTE ]
I could not agree more to an online post....as it seems the more "donktards" are screaming about the site being fixed, thats when you are in the right place, just sit back and become the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was one of those "donktards" calling out online poker so just check my SharkScope stats on PokerStars (same username) and realize you are wrong again.

BTW you should have seen my stats a before it started not allowing me to win ANY 80-20 (80% for me) all ins. I'm 0 for my last 7 with an 80% chance going into the all in. NOT RIGGED HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA.

Do you know what the statistical odds are for that? Just to show you an example....try flipping a coin (50%) and have it land on one side seven times in a row. Nevermind the fact that I had 80% chance, not 50%.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

So your saying the probability is 0?

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
BTW you should have seen my stats a before it started not allowing me to win ANY 80-20 (80% for me) all ins. I'm 0 for my last 7 with an 80% chance going into the all in. NOT RIGGED HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many sets of seven 80/20 hands do you have?

.00128 <> 0

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
BTW you should have seen my stats a before it started not allowing me to win ANY 80-20 (80% for me) all ins. I'm 0 for my last 7 with an 80% chance going into the all in. NOT RIGGED HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

[/ QUOTE ]
What's your User ID?
Which specific hands are you looking at that're 80%?
What do you dictate as a hand that counts?
Over what period is this?

I can then look at your account, locate all hands that count, and list them here for all of 2 + 2 to see. We can then determine if this is what really happened in your case, or if you are looking at a cognitive bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW you should have seen my stats a before it started not allowing me to win ANY 80-20 (80% for me) all ins. I'm 0 for my last 7 with an 80% chance going into the all in. NOT RIGGED HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

[/ QUOTE ]
What's your User ID?
Which specific hands are you looking at that're 80%?
What do you dictate as a hand that counts?
Over what period is this?

I can then look at your account, locate all hands that count, and list them here for all of 2 + 2 to see. We can then determine if this is what really happened in your case, or if you are looking at a cognitive bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
hard to argue with scientific proof like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am using the same rigorous standards of scientific proof that the "site x is rigged" posters use.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm 0 for my last 7 with an 80% chance going into the all in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Insufficient sample size, donktard.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW you should have seen my stats a before it started not allowing me to win ANY 80-20 (80% for me) all ins. I'm 0 for my last 7 with an 80% chance going into the all in. NOT RIGGED HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

[/ QUOTE ]
What's your User ID?
Which specific hands are you looking at that're 80%?
What do you dictate as a hand that counts?
Over what period is this?

I can then look at your account, locate all hands that count, and list them here for all of 2 + 2 to see. We can then determine if this is what really happened in your case, or if you are looking at a cognitive bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

[/ QUOTE ]

Man, I loved running the All-In report and shutting up idiots who emailed us with bad beats.

I really miss that part of the job. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know what the statistical odds are for that? Just to show you an example....try flipping a coin (50%) and have it land on one side seven times in a row. Nevermind the fact that I had 80% chance, not 50%.

[/ QUOTE ]

The probablility of winning the Powerball lottery are much lower than hitting heads 7 times in a row, or losing 7 80/20 allins in a row. Yet, people win the powerball all the time. OMG! Powerball is rigged.

Donktard.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
.00128 <> 0

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be a difficult concept for lots of people to grasp. They get a cluster of bad beats and holler "rigged". Yet, somehow, their royal flush that had a lower probability than their string of bad beats doesn't make them think the site is rigged in their favor. Of course, lots of them will tell you that that stuff never happens in a live game. Which usually means that it didn't happen in the 20 hours of live poker that they've actually played.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW you should have seen my stats a before it started not allowing me to win ANY 80-20 (80% for me) all ins. I'm 0 for my last 7 with an 80% chance going into the all in. NOT RIGGED HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

[/ QUOTE ]
What's your User ID?
Which specific hands are you looking at that're 80%?
What do you dictate as a hand that counts?
Over what period is this?

I can then look at your account, locate all hands that count, and list them here for all of 2 + 2 to see. We can then determine if this is what really happened in your case, or if you are looking at a cognitive bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

[/ QUOTE ]


[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW you should have seen my stats a before it started not allowing me to win ANY 80-20 (80% for me) all ins. I'm 0 for my last 7 with an 80% chance going into the all in. NOT RIGGED HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

[/ QUOTE ]
What's your User ID?
Which specific hands are you looking at that're 80%?
What do you dictate as a hand that counts?
Over what period is this?

I can then look at your account, locate all hands that count, and list them here for all of 2 + 2 to see. We can then determine if this is what really happened in your case, or if you are looking at a cognitive bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you like wikipedia so much here's one for ya......really its the only one that counts. Scroll down to the seven card part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability

I hit a 4 of a kind(aces) today by the way(played 2 tourneys). I was the first out in the first tourney i played. Had pocket aces against 9T. The other guy drew out to a full house. Calling huge bets the whole way(starting pre-flop).

Also, to the guy that wants to look up my accounts......how could you look up my account information for every site I play at? I don't see how thats possible, but in the online world of poker I guess anythings possible.

BTW...you know the 80-20 kind I'm talkin bout......higher pocket pair vs. lower pocket pair. Good enough?

Edit...actually i'm sorry it wasnt always 80-20. A couple of them I actually had better odds. For the sake of argument I was just trying to keep it simple though.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

Scientific proof or not...there is probably a lot of validity behind his post. You just mock it because the idea is absurd. Don't blame the OP for that...It still is probably true.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Had pocket aces against 9T. The other guy drew out to a full house. Calling huge bets the whole way(starting pre-flop).


[/ QUOTE ]

WOW!! 9T cracked pocket Aces??? WOW!!! ZOMG!!! SOMTING LIK THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!!!1!11!!! POKER IZ RIGGED!11!!one!!!

SO you went all in with pocket aces on a 99Txx board? And thought they would be good??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Donktard.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Had pocket aces against 9T. The other guy drew out to a full house. Calling huge bets the whole way(starting pre-flop).


[/ QUOTE ]

WOW!! 9T cracked pocket Aces??? WOW!!! ZOMG!!! SOMTING LIK THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!!!1!11!!! POKER IZ RIGGED!11!!one!!!

SO you went all in with pocket aces on a 99Txx board? And thought they would be good??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Donktard.

[/ QUOTE ]

thats not what the board was, and i would not be shocked if it didnt happen daily, all day.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Scientific proof or not...there is probably a lot of validity behind his post. You just mock it because the idea is absurd. Don't blame the OP for that...It still is probably true.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he doesn't have proof then he's just a whiney little somethingorother who got bad beated.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

Listen, I'm not putting you guys down for playing online poker. Especially if you're making money, more power to ya. And I'm definately not putting down the sites. They are making big money, more power to them. I'm just saying that MY OPINION is that its not random. Could I be wrong....yes, but I don't think I am.

BTW while I'm writing this....some guy all in 88 vs. 66. Guy with lower pair flops the full house. How often are full houses supposed to be FLOPPED? I see that at least a couple times a week.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

The amazing thing to me is that your opponents all got dealt lower pocket pairs in seven consecutive all-in confrontations. Seriously, what are the odds that your opponent will have a lower pocket pair seven straight times when you are dealt a high pocket pair in a potential/likely all-in scenario (i.e. not the first hand of the tourney)? It sounds like the sites are all rigged against your opponents. Either that, or you are just running extremely lucky pre-flop.

Good to see that the luck/rigging is evening out over the next 5 cards in each hand.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Listen, I'm not putting you guys down for playing online poker. Especially if you're making money, more power to ya. And I'm definately not putting down the sites. They are making big money, more power to them. I'm just saying that MY OPINION is that its not random. Could I be wrong....yes, but I don't think I am.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're proud of the fact that your opinion is based on nothing, is that what you're saying? If you have evidence, post it. If you don't, then you're wasting your time and making yourself look foolish.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW while I'm writing this....some guy all in 88 vs. 66. Guy with lower pair flops the full house. How often are full houses supposed to be FLOPPED?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's greater than zero.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
The amazing thing to me is that your opponents all got dealt lower pocket pairs in seven consecutive all-in confrontations. Seriously, what are the odds that your opponent will have a lower pocket pair seven straight times when you are dealt a high pocket pair in a potential/likely all-in scenario (i.e. not the first hand of the tourney)? It sounds like the sites are all rigged against your opponents. Either that, or you are just running extremely lucky pre-flop.

Good to see that the luck/rigging is evening out over the next 5 cards in each hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you would have read further, I admitted that a couple werent actually lower pairs they were 2 different lower cards. Which means the odds are even smaller than 2 higher vs. 2 lower pairs. I just used the 2 higher vs. 2 lower for sake of simplicity.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just saying that MY OPINION is that its not random.

[/ QUOTE ]

And YOUR OPINION of what is random is worth what exactly???

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm just saying that MY OPINION is that its not random.

[/ QUOTE ]

And YOUR OPINION of what is random is worth what exactly???

[/ QUOTE ]

NOTHING MORE THAN YOURS IS.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I admitted that a couple werent actually lower pairs they were 2 different lower cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

So not only do you have any evidence, but the example you did give is actually selective-memory wrong.

And if it were shown that probability-wise your now modified example is actually very possible, I suppose the story will change again.

ZOMG!!1!! DONKTARD!!!!11!!!eleven!!!!

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I admitted that a couple werent actually lower pairs they were 2 different lower cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

So not only do you have any evidence, but the example you did give is actually selective-memory wrong.

And if it were shown that probability-wise your now modified example is actually very possible, I suppose the story will change again.

ZOMG!!1!! DONKTARD!!!!11!!!eleven!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

My story hasnt changed yet.

BTW do you need some riddalin? ZOMG!!!!!ZIIINNNNNGGGGGG!!!!!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHHA HA!

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
NOTHING MORE THAN YOURS IS.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Which is why I use mathematical analysis to determine randomness, and not my opinion.

ZOMG!!! TEH FLOP CAME WITH TWO SIXES AND THE OTHER GUY HAD A SIX!!!!! WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF THAT!!1!!! RIGGED!!!!1!!!one!

DONKTARD.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The amazing thing to me is that your opponents all got dealt lower pocket pairs in seven consecutive all-in confrontations. Seriously, what are the odds that your opponent will have a lower pocket pair seven straight times when you are dealt a high pocket pair in a potential/likely all-in scenario (i.e. not the first hand of the tourney)? It sounds like the sites are all rigged against your opponents. Either that, or you are just running extremely lucky pre-flop.

Good to see that the luck/rigging is evening out over the next 5 cards in each hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you would have read further, I admitted that a couple werent actually lower pairs they were 2 different lower cards. Which means the odds are even smaller than 2 higher vs. 2 lower pairs. I just used the 2 higher vs. 2 lower for sake of simplicity.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you always had a high pair (higher than both of villian's cards), correct? Also, are you only counting consecutive hands where you were all-in, or are you counting hands where the villian was all-in and you had him covered?

Judging by the fact that you always had a good pocket pair whenever you went all-in, I would say that you are either getting extremely lucky pre-flop, or you are playing too tightly (in which case you will lose long-term regardless of the rigging factor). Can you post the hands involved? Someone with full Sharkscope access can at least verify that these are consecutive tournaments that you played.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NOTHING MORE THAN YOURS IS.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Which is why I use mathematical analysis to determine randomness, and not my opinion.

ZOMG!!! TEH FLOP CAME WITH TWO SIXES AND THE OTHER GUY HAD A SIX!!!!! WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF THAT!!1!!! RIGGED!!!!1!!!one!

DONKTARD.

[/ QUOTE ]

So that means you have proof its not rigged.......GREAT, LETS SEE IT!!!!!!!!!

ZING!!!!!!!!!!OMFG!!!!!BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!! !!

RIDALIN.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW you should have seen my stats a before it started not allowing me to win ANY 80-20 (80% for me) all ins. I'm 0 for my last 7 with an 80% chance going into the all in. NOT RIGGED HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

[/ QUOTE ]
What's your User ID?
Which specific hands are you looking at that're 80%?
What do you dictate as a hand that counts?
Over what period is this?

I can then look at your account, locate all hands that count, and list them here for all of 2 + 2 to see. We can then determine if this is what really happened in your case, or if you are looking at a cognitive bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

[/ QUOTE ]



Also, to the guy that wants to look up my accounts......how could you look up my account information for every site I play at? I don't see how thats possible, but in the online world of poker I guess anythings possible.



[/ QUOTE ]

Sciolist works for PokerStars.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW you should have seen my stats a before it started not allowing me to win ANY 80-20 (80% for me) all ins. I'm 0 for my last 7 with an 80% chance going into the all in. NOT RIGGED HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

[/ QUOTE ]
What's your User ID?
Which specific hands are you looking at that're 80%?
What do you dictate as a hand that counts?
Over what period is this?

I can then look at your account, locate all hands that count, and list them here for all of 2 + 2 to see. We can then determine if this is what really happened in your case, or if you are looking at a cognitive bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

[/ QUOTE ]



Also, to the guy that wants to look up my accounts......how could you look up my account information for every site I play at? I don't see how thats possible, but in the online world of poker I guess anythings possible.



[/ QUOTE ]

Sciolist works for PokerStars.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO, REALLY?

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
and i would not be shocked if it didnt happen daily, all day

[/ QUOTE ] wtf dude you're an idiot do you know how many hands poker stars deals out in a day?

There's luck involved in poker. It's possible to lose with an 80% advantage 7 times in a row. Do you doubt that? Just because it's improbable doesn't make it impossible, now go take your tinfoil hat and your pathetic math skills elsewhere you [censored] moron.

Re: Stars is now number one.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
NOTHING MORE THAN YOURS IS.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Which is why I use mathematical analysis to determine randomness, and not my opinion.

ZOMG!!! TEH FLOP CAME WITH TWO SIXES AND THE OTHER GUY HAD A SIX!!!!! WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF THAT!!1!!! RIGGED!!!!1!!!one!

DONKTARD.

[/ QUOTE ]

So that means you have proof its not rigged.......GREAT, LETS SEE IT!!!!!!!!!

ZING!!!!!!!!!!OMFG!!!!!BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!! !!

RIDALIN.

[/ QUOTE ]
Burden of proofs on you champ, you're the one that wants to change our minds and we all think it's random