[ QUOTE ]
I have already posted my arguments in the threads:
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/poke...oms-rigged.html
http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...nos-cheat.html
Anyway, I will briefly repeat them here:
Why would the pokerooms have an interest in cheating poker players since they earn a large and steady rake? Because if all the players had about the same poker skill, then in the long run all of the deposited money would end up to the rake. But if some players because of their skill have an edge over the rest of the players which is greater than the x% rake, e.g. (x+1)%, (in many cases the rake is lower than 5% because of bonuses, rakebacks etc), then these players would keep taking a considerable percentage of the deposited money, and only the rest would be going to the rake. But if the casino cheats these players, then the casino will keep the 100% of the deposited money. You might say the casino can simply cheat the winners. Yes, this can be the case too. But what really matters is who is or will be a winner in the long run.
Yeah, right, “they wouldn’t cheat because this would be exposed”. No, it cannot be exposed. A cheating of 1-3 out of 100 hands is perhaps enough to eliminate any edge a poker player can have after the rake (well, if not eliminate it, of course it decreases it) , and it is almost impossible to be statistically proven with a satisfactory degree of statistical certainty, even in the game of blackjack, imagine how impossible it is in the complicated game of poker.
SO SINCE IT IS THAT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROOVE SUCH A LITTLE CHEATING, THEN WHY WOULDN’T THE POKER ROOMS CHEAT A LITTLE?
But most pokerooms do not even bother to cheat little enough in order to hide it. Obviously because so far, no matter how much they increased the rate of cheating, this was not getting exposed by player communication in the forums, and because this poor way of communication is so far the only way this could be exposed. And the casinos also took care to fill up the forums with shills and affiliates who would quickly fill up the threads with many and long posts so any accusing arguments would be difficult to find or to read and think on them. The owners of the forums themselves are affiliates. The casino adverts in them prove this. Now you are accusing Absolute for cheating, like you discovered America. And even then, you tried to present it is as the work of hackers who were common players and had no association with the casino. And not a word that the other casinos might cheat as well. Implying that if any other casinos cheated, this would be immediately exposed like the case of Absolute.
Why did almost all of you attacked me as being out of my mind, that I lost because of my bad poker play, that “they have no reason to cheat”, etc etc, when I accused pokerooms of cheating? It is damn obvious that such arguments come from posters who have common interests with the casinos. The most amusing argument I read, is that it is we who have to prove that casinos cheat and not the casinos who have to prove to us they don’t cheat. Implying that without very strong statistical indications, the probability that they don’t cheat is almost 100% so we are out of our minds just because we give a considerable probability that they do cheat. Of course, the blinding obvious truth is that since they have an interest to cheat, and since it is not possible to statistically prove a little cheating, then the more probable case is that they do cheat a little, even if there were no statistical indications.
I have played thousands of hands at William Hill and Sportingbet.
But I have also played at 888.com, Ladbrokes, Grosvernor, and some others.
Some preflop hands (e.g. AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ, AJ, KQ, etc ) as well as some flop hands (e.g. flopping a top pair when having such a strong preflop hand) are bound to produce profit in the long run even after a 5% rake, if you are not the most stupid player of the world. Therefore when after many hundreds of hands, exactly because of these strong hands, you end up with great losses (compared with the money you wagered) instead of great profits, then the probability of such an extremely bad luck happening is less than 5%, perhaps much less than 1%. This is statistical evidence for cheating.
No, my losses were not because of the post blinds, as I chose to play no limit where the posts were 1/50 or 1/100 of the average pot.
No, my losses were not because of the fact that I lost much when I lost and won little when I won because of my bad play. I am not the most stupid poker player of the world. Of course this thing happened, but not because of exceptional stupid play of mine, but because of cheating or very rare bad luck. But a very rare bad luck is itself the definition of statistical evidence for cheating.
[/ QUOTE ]
holy fkn [censored] that is the dumbest post in the history of the interweb