|
|
#41
11-22-2006, 10:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: So it has been rigged along...
But you still haven't PROVEN ANYTHING. You're saying that you think it's rigged, and therefore anyone who doesn't is stupid. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're trying to change others' without anything resembling evidence. Other than you saying it's "funny". Why do you think guys who have played for years don't agree with you? Are they just dumb, do they just not understand poker? Funny enough, they seem to be winning. Are they all just cheaters but keeping it secret? No. So what is it then? Why should these people agree with you when everything seems fine to them?
|
|
#42
11-23-2006, 03:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So it has been rigged along...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Understand the pressure here to 'prove' the honesty of the games. People have invested their entire self into online poker. To admit they've been duped is next to impossible, in fact it's a personal attack. No, it makes perfect sense. There is no level of evidence that will allow some to admit they've getting cheated, they're just too wrapped up in it. WIki this: cognitive dissonance . [/ QUOTE ] Understand the pressure here to 'prove' the dishonesty of the games. People have invested their entire self into online poker. To admit they are a losing player is next to impossible, in fact it's a personal attack. No, it makes perfect sense. There is no level of evidence that will allow some to admit they're not good enough to beat an honest game, they're just too wrapped up in it. FYP. Seriously, it works both ways (although I'd bet the losing player who can't admit it and turns to "must be rigged" outnumbers the winning player who doesn't believe it's rigged). I have yet to see any kind of credible research done to indicate a site is rigged. It always comes down to the person (usually with a small number of posts) making the claim posting some small number of hands (at best). If someone could show that over a statistically significant sample, that some aspect of the game was out of whack, I'd listen. I just haven't seen anything close to it yet. [/ QUOTE ] Your logical errors and assumptive flaws are manifold. Your personal attack more or less proves my point. Grow up. [/ QUOTE ] *laugh* Thanks for proving *my* point. Bonus points for fabricating the idea of a "personal attack" (please point out where I attacked you personally) so you could claim your point was proven. What point? All I said was "prove a game is rigged, with supporting evidence". You haven't, and you won't. Grow up? Really? You don't think cognitive dissonance works both ways? You don't think there are losing players who insist the game must be rigged because they can't admit they're losing players?
|
|
#43
11-23-2006, 03:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So it has been rigged along...
what about us winning players who know it is to a certain extent? --- please refer to most recent posts on bots/collusion/deckswap uncertifiable to support loosing players/ and much more. Happy thanks giving...
and please dont bring up cognative dissoncance again, you sound like a poly sci professor i had back in my college days.
|
|
#45
11-24-2006, 01:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So it has been rigged along...
[ QUOTE ]
Your logical errors and assumptive flaws are manifold. Your personal attack more or less proves my point. Grow up. [/ QUOTE ] Wow, who talks like that? Seriously, these aren't big words to the 2+2 crowd... don't know if you realize that. And no, that doesn't prove your point at all (maybe you forgot to support your claim). This smoke-and-mirrors style of argument isn't going to do it. Maybe you ought to hang out and try to learn something here.
|
|
#46
11-24-2006, 03:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So it has been rigged along...
[ QUOTE ]
what about us winning players who know it is to a certain extent? --- please refer to most recent posts on bots/collusion/deckswap uncertifiable to support loosing players/ and much more. Happy thanks giving... and please dont bring up cognative dissoncance again, you sound like a poly sci professor i had back in my college days. [/ QUOTE ] If you "know" it is, please provide some kind of verifiable evidence. Second, I'm not talking about bots or collusion. I know bots exist, and collusion is a problem that existed long before online poker popular. The original post was a claim that online poker has been rigged all along. A claim that's been made many times before and will be again. I've yet to see a claim backed up with any kind of meaningful proof. Saying "They can rig it so that there's no way to detect it" isn't proof. Lastly, I didn't bring up cognative dissonance. I replied to the poster who did (and only then to point out that if it applies in his claim it applies equally to the losing player who can't admit it, and insists the game is rigged). Pay attention.
|
|
#47
11-24-2006, 04:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: So it has been rigged along...
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] what about us winning players who know it is to a certain extent? --- please refer to most recent posts on bots/collusion/deckswap uncertifiable to support loosing players/ and much more. Happy thanks giving... and please dont bring up cognative dissoncance again, you sound like a poly sci professor i had back in my college days. [/ QUOTE ] If you "know" it is, please provide some kind of verifiable evidence. Second, I'm not talking about bots or collusion. I know bots exist, and collusion is a problem that existed long before online poker popular. The original post was a claim that online poker has been rigged all along. A claim that's been made many times before and will be again. I've yet to see a claim backed up with any kind of meaningful proof. Saying "They can rig it so that there's no way to detect it" isn't proof. Lastly, I didn't bring up cognative dissonance. I replied to the poster who did (and only then to point out that if it applies in his claim it applies equally to the losing player who can't admit it, and insists the game is rigged). Pay attention. [/ QUOTE ] the scientific facts are that if the channel is secure between a game server and a player then that game server can collude with a player (i.e. the rigged scenario) in total secrecy. the site operator can know that he himself is honest but he cannot prove it to anybody but himself because there's no way for anybody to listen to that secure channel and verify that he didn't collude with a player. by this same measurement, an individual player can know that they themselves do not track, bot or team but they cannot prove it to anybody but themselves. so all of online poker right now is built upon the idea that everyone (operators and players) are voluntarily cooperating with the rules of the live game. these are called "good faith" security requirements and as long as they exist there will always be accusations of every kind. and this is why major gaming jurisdictions wont touch it - their job depends on being able to address accusations in a satisfactory manner. if you want to get rid of accusations: "the site is rigged" "he's using a bot" "i got teamed" "they have 19gb tracking db" etc. then you have to eliminate the good faith security issues such that accusations become a thing of the past. over time, people get weary of constant accusations because something deep inside rebels against that type of jungle. ray bornert.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
