cash out curse on Stars

[realjaydub]

The stats from one of the recent versions of these threads are all pretty standard; we also have the claims from PokerStars themselves and their auditors that it is ok.


And we should just take their word for it? lolz

Lets see the proof from a third party.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever douche tard. Show us proof it's not rigged or shut ur piehole.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absurd. I'm not starting threads claiming that pokerstars is legit. Muppets like you are starting threads claiming that pokerstars is rigged - so, just once, the readers on this forum deserve some (!) evidence to support such an offensive allegation.

Traditionally, when people accuse others of international criminal frauds, they provide some evidence of this - it is not incumbent on anyone to continually prove that they are not fraudsters, but rather, is incumbent on the accusers.

That's a pretty basic tenet of logic and western culture.

[ QUOTE ]
I want test results on the rng, since ur so righteous in your claim, show it up big guy.

[/ QUOTE ]
What exactly does this mean? I obviously don't have access to the pokerstars RNG, since I don't work, have never worked, and don't intend to work, for pokerstars.

My claim is pretty simple: if people are going to start threads on here claiming that online poker is rigged, they should provide some evidence to support this idea.

[DMoogle]

FYI realjaydub, there's an Edit button if you want to add additional content to your posts.

Also, I seem to have my cashout curse reversed, I suppose. In my smallish sample size (but LOL sample sizes don't mean anything, right? It's "0 evidence") I generally do better after withdrawing, but when I have just deposited I don't do that well.

I haven't deposited anywhere since the UIGEA though, only withdrawn.

[realjaydub]

My claim is pretty simple, if retards are going to claim it's not rigged beyond a shadow of a doubt I would expect them to show us proof.

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
The stats from one of the recent versions of these threads are all pretty standard; we also have the claims from PokerStars themselves and their auditors that it is ok.


And we should just take their word for it? lolz

Lets see the proof from a third party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, unless there is some reason to doubt PokerStars, yes, we should just take their word for it. Why is that unreasonable?

If someone told me something that was:
a) plausible; and
b) the person was reputable; and
c) the person had no history of lying; and
d) there was no reason to doubt it;

then I would go about my life and assume it is true. Of course, there's a risk that they were telling me a lie, but that's one that any reasonable person is willing to take.

[Lyrrad]

The problem with all these rigging "theories" is that it would be trivial to prove that it is happening. Simply compare the X # of hands of a player after they cash out with all other hands. If there is a curse, there should be an anomaly in the data. Any rigging apparent to a player would stick out like a sore thumb to decent statistical analysis.

If the anomaly is too small to detect due to rigging only running some of the time, then it would the pointless to have a "doom switch" with statistically insignificant results on the cards.

For example, any algorithm that increases the chances of an event occurring by even 1% will be detectable with enough data. And even if there is one that is undetectable, the result on a poker site's bottom line is so small to take the risk.

So, in conclusion:

A) If rigging exists, then it's too small to detect.
B) If it's too small to detect, then it's insignificant to a poker site's bottom line.
C) If there's no significant benefit to rigging, then there's no point in doing so, since any proof of such will cause a lot more damage to the company than any potential profits.

Regarding losing after cashing out:

I also tend to lose money after cashing out. I figure it's because I cash out after I run good for a while. When I start running good, I start picking up bad habits, which cause me to lose money after I cash out.

[realjaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
FYI realjaydub, there's an Edit button if you want to add additional content to your posts.

[/qoute]

Right on. I hate to use it because people tend to believe you changed ur post all together. *meh*

[Josem]

[ QUOTE ]
My claim is pretty simple, if retards are going to claim it's not rigged beyond a shadow of a doubt I would expect them to show us proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is claiming that it is not rigged beyond a shadow of a doubt.

No one has claimed that it is impossible for stars to be rigged.

In fact, in my first post in this thread, I said that "of course, it is theoretically possible" that Stars is rigged. However, there is no evidence to support believing that stars is rigged; therefore, I do not believe stars is rigged.

[DMoogle]

Actually now that I really think about it, I don't think I've ever experienced an immediate downswing after withdrawing. BTW I've played (and deposited/withdrawn) on all of these sites/networks: PokerStars, FTP, Prima, Cryptologic, iPoker, and Mansion.

[realjaydub]

****
Well, unless there is some reason to doubt PokerStars, yes, we should just take their word for it. Why is that unreasonable? josem*****


When China sells the US dog food and claims it's dog food, whould we just believe them or should we have it tested especially if there is doubt it IS dog food? Let's not be a total douche tard, show us proof, it shouldn't be that hard.