Stars is now number one.

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
tl;dr

[/ QUOTE ]

9 lines on my screen. If that was "too long; didn't read" for you, you have the attention span of a small forest creature.

-Mike

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
Reading most of the large number of replies to this post, and not having a strong opinion on the topic one way or the other, two questions (at least) come up for me:
1) Why all the aciditic passion from people defending on-line poker sites, attacking anyone who might question the integrity of what in some cases are clearly boiler-room operations hq'd in third-world countries? You guys/gals own a lot of stock or something? I mean, why is anyone who does not have a perosnal stack in the business getting so bent out of shape about idle speculation like this?

[/ QUOTE ]

A. Because if such "idle speculation" is unopposed, it becomes conventional wisdom, and fish have a disincentive to play. -EV

B. Because we hear it so $&%! often and people won't listen to reason, so some of us go a little nuts.

C. The people who have actually taken the time to look into this find that there is nothing statistically out of the ordinary over thousands upon thousands of hands. Yet they are dismissed as being shills for the poker sites, or too stupid to see that obviously AA can never lose in real life more than about 5% of the time. The anecdotal evidence almost always seems to trump the statistical evidence.


[ QUOTE ]
2) At the risk of bringing a s---storm of nasty comments down on me, why would a rational self-serving person think that some of these sites are NOT biased (rigged, tilted, whatever term you prefer) at least in some subtle ways to make themselves more money?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible. Personally, I've never denied that. But sites make so much money from the rake that it seems like it would be a terrible risk for them to try to milk a few more percentage points by rigging the hands. If they get caught, and statistical (not just anecdotal) proof can be presented, they're out of business.

The thing is, I've seen outrageous beats in B&M poker that match anything seen here. At Excalibur in LV, I drew AA, and raised and bet at every opportunity. I end up with one drunk guy stubbornly calling me down to the river with 65o. Turn was a 5, river was a 6. At Foxwoods, I drew JJ and flopped a set. Guy holding JT caught a runner-runner Broadway. They are both improbable events, but they happened. The thing is, people will cite events just like this as "proof" that whatever site they're mad at is rigged.

I read a comment somewhere that the better player you are, the more often you will be on the wrong end of a bad beat. This is because you will have folded the cards that would have laid the bad beat on someone else. If you get 6-7 players routinely in every pot, the odds that one of them will catch something will go way up. You never see the cards of someone who folded that 73o before the flop, and would have caught the runner-runner two pair/straight/full house. You only see those who stubbornly played them, and were rewarded for their terrible play. They stand out precisely because they are so spectacular when they do happen; if you win with AA, you accept it as your due, but if you lose with it to a crap hand like that, it sticks in your mind. That's what selection bias is all about.

-Mike

[HSB]

There's another reason to argue with these people. I have spent a lot of time, effort, and money to get to the point where I don't suck at poker.

Rightly or wrongly, I think most of the people who are making the rigged claims are folks who aren't remotely as good as they think they are. They're losing and they feel they should be winning so they claim it is rigged against them.

There was a time when I was losing and thought I should be winning. Once I was sure it wasn't just bad luck I worked more to get better.

By saying it is rigged they are saying that my time, effort, and money were all for nothing.

[Synergistic Explosions]

[ QUOTE ]
By saying it is rigged they are saying that my time, effort, and money were all for nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

And chicks for free.

[Quanah Parker]

I think the following email I recieved should clear up this debate:

This is actually really freaky!! (mainly the end part, but read it all
first)

1) New York City has 11 letters

2) Afghanistan has 11 letters.

3) Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened to destroy the Twin Towers

in 1993) has 11 letters.

4) George W Bush has 11 letters.

This could be a mere coincidence, but this gets more interesting:

1) New York is the 11th state.

2) The first plane crashing against the Twin Towers was flight number 11.

3) Flight 11 was carrying 92 passengers. 9 + 2 = 11

4) Flight 77 which also hit Twin Towers, was carrying 65 passengers. 6+5= 11

5) The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11 as it is now known. 9 + 1+ 1= 11

6) The date is equal to the USemergency services telephone number 911. 9+1 + 1 = 11


Sheer coincidence..?! Read on and make up your own mind:

1) The total number of victims inside all the hi-jacked planes was 254.
2 + 5 + 4 = 11.
2) September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year. Again 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.

3) The Madrid bombing took place on 3/11/2004. 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 11.

4) The tragedy of Madrid happened 911 days after the Twin Towers
incident.


Now this is where things get totally eerie:


The most recognized symbol for the US, after the Stars & Stripes, is the
Eagle. The following verse is taken from the Quran, the Islamic holy book:

"For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle.
The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah while
some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced: for the
wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah and there was peace."
That verse is number 9.11 of the Quran.


Unconvinced about all of this Still ..?! Try this and see how you feel
afterwards, it made my hair stand on end: Open Microsoft Word (or Word
Perfect) and do the following:

1. Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the
flight number of the first plane to hit one of the Twin Towers.
2. Highlight the Q33 NY.
3. Change the font size to 48.
4. Change the actual font to the WINGDINGS

What do you think now?!! send this to as
many people as you know and in 11 minutes you will get a nice surprise,
if you don't you will get the shock of Your life in 11 mins

[KurtSF]

Suppose you're thinking about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly someone will say, "plate," or "shrimp," or "plate of shrimp," out of the blue, no explanation. No point in looking for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the following email I recieved should clear up this debate:

This is actually really freaky!! (mainly the end part, but read it all
first)

1) New York City has 11 letters

... Spooky numeralogical BS

[/ QUOTE ]

Debunked

[PokerSlave]

[ QUOTE ]

C. The people who have actually taken the time to look into this find that there is nothing statistically out of the ordinary over thousands upon thousands of hands. Yet they are dismissed as being shills for the poker sites, or too stupid to see that obviously AA can never lose in real life more than about 5% of the time. The anecdotal evidence almost always seems to trump the statistical evidence.

...sites make so much money from the rake that it seems like it would be a terrible risk for them to try to milk a few more percentage points by rigging the hands. If they get caught, and statistical (not just anecdotal) proof can be presented, they're out of business.


[/ QUOTE ]
I appreciate your thoughful response.
But in re-response, I posit a few what if's:
1) What if a greedy site, looking to hook and keep brand-new customers had a policy of giving them more than their fair share of premium hands for, let's say, their first week of play. So at a typical 10-seat table, let's say they'll receive 12.5% of the premo hands instead of their fair 10%, and everyone else who happens to play against them during that week will receive 9.72% of the premo hands.
I question how any long-term stat analysis based on one player's observations could ever prove or disprove something like this happens.
2) What if by using their own stat analyses, sites know what kinds of hands will generate more betting and rake for specific players. So how to disprove that sites present slightly more hands to some tables that will generate them significantly nore /betting rake and offset it at other tables where their stat analysis shows it will make little difference to those other particular players? I don't believe this stuff is beyond their ability to pull off, and over the long run can generate a s---load of money across ten of thousands of players playing millions/billions of hands.
3) Finally, why should I not suspect that any stat analysis posted here supposedly supporting idea that all sites are fair and honest is not just bs from some site shill?

Of course, saying all of this, why do I continue to play? Because as long as I'm making $$$, I'm prepared to deal with these doubts about how level the cyber-playing field really is.

[Misja]

Party Poker has only 10 letters.