How many pokerooms cheat? [modnote: read the OP]

[T Kiriakopoulos]

original rant replaced by the following Casinomeister post:

[ QUOTE ]

By calling it conspiracy theory you are implying that the probability that most pokerooms do not cheat, is almost 100%.

Your reply verifies my arguments that you forum owners are anxious to defend the reputation of online casinos and try to cover up dangerous posts and shout the mouth of those who want to expose the truth.

What "it was found" happening at Absolute is what keeps happening in all pokerooms. If it wasnt, I would play poker now instead of writing in the forums. This focusing on absolute alone implies there is no cheating elsewhere.

You will not stop the uncovering of the truth so easily. Ban me from both casinomeister and 2+2. It is a piece of cake for me to appear on greek television and be the No1 famous in Greece. The only thing I have to do is give a photocopy of my book to about 20 journalists, scientists, stc. This book reveals the reason of ageing and how to defeat it. Also, it has solved almost all the questions of physics. And I will not forget to mention the cheating of online casinos and your role in it. I have chosen not to become famous so far, for many reasons, but I think I will decide to do so sooner or later as I feel the duty to reveal my knowledge. You know where I live. I am not scared about my life because I trust God will save me. Why? Because last time my life was in danger, I shouted with all my strength and the 5.9 richter earthquake of 1999 in Athens happened.

The cheating of the casinos has really pissed me of. 5% rake should be enough for them. But no, they had to take every last penny of poor people. Some of them commited suicide. You think I will let you get away with this?
You think you have power hah? So did Hitler had power. Look at how the Law of Justice reversed the situation. God reveled the secret of the atomic bomb to the Americans. Actually, it was again the Law of Justice that gave Hitler and Germany the power they got, in the first place. He was imprisoned and kept taking orders. Germany had suffered a lot of injustice because by the other nations before the war.

The power of a nuclear bomb is a speck compared to the power of a saint. No, I am not a saint yet, but I know the way to become one.

You think I am nuts? Why should I care you think so? I wouldnt be affected even if the whole world says I am nuts. Your wise "principle of majority" crusified Christ.

So far you stubburn people, I have had enough with you. I dont care if I never post again in your forums.

[/ QUOTE ]

[PJo336]

when i say TL; you say?

[rothko]

DR

[ibluffoldladies]

Why don't you attach some crayon pictures to go with this third grade report?

[phishguy]

LOL
I remeber reading this on Casinomiester.
All I can say is.
BAN

[jfish]

[ 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 ]

qft

[BearHustler]

[ 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 ]

Hey fish,

who said anything about the poker rooms cheating anyone?

[T Kiriakopoulos]

Now there is a boost of new threads so this thread goes to the last pages.

And the posters here started right away the unecessary quoting to fill up the thread and make it too many pages.

[JSmith2007]

[ QUOTE ]
when i say TL; you say?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
DR

[/ QUOTE ]

[Big_Jim]

4?