I cannot win on pokerstars. Reasons ??

[GrindingIt]

[ QUOTE ]

4. If anyone needs proof of my success, I can provide proof of all my homes registered under my name along with my newest home.

[/ QUOTE ]

You play 1/2 at stars and 100/200 where? I call your bluff , LETS SEE THE HAND HISTORIES OF YOU PLAYING 100/200 AND WINNNING ON OTHER SITES. And I want a few hundred thousand hands.

[MicroBob]

everyone - OP has mentioned that he plays live in the Los Angeles area card-rooms.
I believe he even had a post a few months ago after perhaps having 'quit' playing online where he asked, "why would anyone play online?" or something like that.
He apparently had just come from a live-session where he had done well because the cards ran the way they were supposed to.

I'm sure you could find that post and perhaps others similar to it if you really wanted to.
The one I'm thinking of was probably Feb or Mar or so.

Anyway, my hunch is that his 100/200 experience might have come in live cardrooms.

[GrindingIt]

[ QUOTE ]

Bbut I do consistanlty beat 50-100 and 100-200 games on other sites and live which is how I maintain my lifestyle and bills

[/ QUOTE ]

No this liar said he supports himself on other sites. Let's see the proof.

[luckychancer]

Well this thread is now only 3 pages long. So I guess someone definitely did learn something from this marathon.

That Paul Phillips Backgammon post was really the highpoint I must agree.

[Minn_pokerplyr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who thinks the deal at pokerstars is normal is mentally retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

FINALLY, why did someone not say this before, it's all clear now, a nobody with a full 7 posts says PokerStars is rigged.
Keep your statistical analysis, I'm taking my money out RIGHT NOW!!

[censored] DONKTARDTASTIC!!!

[/ QUOTE ]
If so many continue to play at sites truly believing they are somehow rigged against them, then perhaps there is a market for "riggedpoker.com" - just think about it: you could play at a site and be <u>100% sure that it was rigged</u>!!!

There would be no need to fill the zoo with endless posts about how you think online poker is rigged and no need for us "non-believers" to waste our time reading this [censored]...

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Hmmmm, but would the very same posters then want to fill the forum with pointless posts accusing "riggedpoker.com" of NOT rigging the cards properly??? You just can't win...

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok so show me your proof the deal at pokerstars is random, and don't link to the page on their website. Just because some of you are winners on pstars means nothing.

There are tons of people who win playing slot machines. Does not change the fact that the machines are rigged against them, and in the long term they will lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like no one could provide that proof I asked for.. Tsk Tsk.

[Bobo Fett]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like no one could provide that proof I asked for.. Tsk Tsk.

[/ QUOTE ]
Looks like you must have missed Jack Case's excellent reply to you:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Ok so show me your proof the deal at pokerstars is random, and don't link to the page on their website. Just because some of you are winners on pstars means nothing.



[/ QUOTE ]

It is logically impossible to prove that a site is not rigged. No matter how much data is presented that shows a normal distribution of randomness, that does not prove that non-randomness never happens. It is difficult if not impossible to prove a negative proposition. You cannot prove that something does not happen or does not exist unless and until you examine every occurrence in that universe.

On the other hand, it only takes one statistically significant example of non-randomness to show that a site is rigged. No one in this thread has provided such an example. To the best of my knowledge, no one in these forums has ever provided such an example.

[ QUOTE ]
There are tons of people who win playing slot machines. Does not change the fact that the machines are rigged against them, and in the long term they will lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would hardly say that a slot is "rigged" if the odds are in favor of the house and anyone with an IQ &gt; room temperature knows that. If that is your definition of "rigged", then I would agree that Stars is rigged. The rake ensures only a minority win and that most people lose in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

[dlk9s]

Minn_pokerplyr is quickly making quite a name for himself here.

[Piece of Cake]

The sites make more when the pot is bigger, obviously. So it's stupid for them not to make the cards fall that create bigger pots and more action. People say this is "rigging" but really it's common sense. A juiced flop or river is blind and doesn't favor one person over another, it just blindly creates a bigger pot so they can in turn, take a bigger rake.

The incredible thing is that it's very exploitable. It's like playing blackjack but getting to be the house. You the player know for certain that draws are going to get there most of the time in big pots because it's more profitable that way for the house. Big river action means more money for the poker site and higher profits.

So of course I bet on the house - and I do so by always drawing to my gutshots for big bets, because I know they are very likely to hit (more than unrigged odds would dictate) on the river. I also don't build pots with made hands because I know the converse is true - if I make the pot big with a made hand then the hands drawing against me are likely to get there more often on average. So why build a pot with a made hand if doing so increases the liklihood that I'm going to lose. It seems all very counter-intuitive especially for live game players. That's why many of the great live pros struggle online (this is well documented by the way - just take peak in NVG).

Again , some will argue that a sites is rigged - but a rigged site is doing nothing illegal or unfair because its favors no one - all players experience the same fate on the river with their drawing hands. The OP here is just failing to adjust. The sites don't care who wins the pot, they just care that the pot is BIG. Everyone experiences the same river juicing - we've all heard all the stories and studies like the OP mentioned. The problem is that often players just sit there and complain, don't adjust, and consequently go broke while the smart card player adapts his game to be more profitable. That's what makes a good player good - the ability to adjust to changing conditions. The house never loses and neither should you.

Btw, I copy &amp; pasted this before in similar thread. Apologies if this is not allowed - but I feel it's highly relevant if threads like this are to remain unlocked - lol.

[MicroBob]

pieceocake - on the mid and higher stakes tables the rake is already going to be maxed out just by going to a flop.

So in order to maximze the profits the site would want to 'deaden' the flops to create as little action as possible so that they go faster.

So if the site truly has the incentive to max-out the pots with the 'action' flops you speak of then they have just as much incentive to minimize the action on the higher stakes because once the pot is maxed-out they really don't want the players to be wasting everyone's time by betting and raising each other...etc etc.


I also find it weird that some people complain about the supposedly 'action-oriented' nature of the games while others are complaining about the rock-ishness of the games.

On limit tables it's pretty difficult to find tables where the average pot if 6+BB's. Most are lower than that.

Avg-pot size has been going down on NL tables too.

If the sites were so devious then wouldn't they be able to maniuplate the cards to keep those fish in action longer all the while keeping the pot-sizes higher?


Anyway, thanks to you guys for bumping this thread. Very entertaining.
LOL at MnPokerPlayer.

IT'S RIGGED IT'S RIGGED IT'S RIGGED!!!!!!!!!!

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
The incredible thing is that it's very exploitable. It's like playing blackjack but getting to be the house. You the player know for certain that draws are going to get there most of the time in big pots because it's more profitable that way for the house. Big river action means more money for the poker site and higher profits.

So of course I bet on the house - and I do so by always drawing to my gutshots for big bets, because I know they are very likely to hit (more than unrigged odds would dictate) on the river. I also don't build pots with made hands because I know the converse is true - if I make the pot big with a made hand then the hands drawing against me are likely to get there more often on average. So why build a pot with a made hand if doing so increases the liklihood that I'm going to lose. It seems all very counter-intuitive especially for live game players. That's why many of the great live pros struggle online (this is well documented by the way - just take peak in NVG).

[/ QUOTE ]

So, basically, you try to keep pots small with the nuts unless you see a completely blank turn and river, while simultaneously chasing 4-6 outers for big bets on the flop and possibly the turn, thinking they'll hit at a higher rate than they should (would you perhaps like to speculate how high? Is a "6 out" draw &gt; a real 12 out draw? Maybe just 8?)

Please post the stakes you play at and a graph with a decent sample size so that we can all see how that's working out for you.