|
|
#171
10-29-2007, 09:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I'm extrapolating from Party's profit. Since they Party is a publicly traded company they have to publish annual reports. [/ QUOTE ] http://www.partygaming.com/investor/...l_summary.html Party's net profit last year was $128M as it says on their site. And last year Party was bigger than Pokerstars so Pokerstars would've made nowhere near $400M. Party is obviously going to be making alot less this year without the US players, and I would imagine Pokerstars would too although I don't play there so I don't really know how much their traffic was affected. [ QUOTE ] Not really. If you had spent any amount of time in poker rooms you'd know fish never quit. They may run out of money but as soon as they get paid they are right back at the tables. [/ QUOTE ] I've been a pro for the last 3 years, I've seen the fish who keep coming back and losing. I've also had my brother who works for a poker site run checks on certain players to see how much they are down and there are some guys who are losing a fortune month in month out. But these guys are the exceptions and eventually they go broke too and are not seen again. The vast majority of fish are gone in a few days, weeks, maybe months. No matter how long it takes for them though, the fact is that if they lost at half the rate they should lose at they would play for longer. It's a pity the fish didn't just keep coming back and dumping their wages as that is the main reason, along with legislation in the US, that the games have gotten significatnly harder in the last 9 months. If you had spent any amount of time in poker rooms you would notice the different names appearing every few weeks and other ones disappearing never to be seen again. [ QUOTE ] Nope. It is very very simple to test. It does not require anyone to share their hands. The whole process would take less then 2 days. [/ QUOTE ] It is a simple test when you get everything together. It's getting all the data together and getting the long time respected posters to lend it credibility that is the problem. I don't see anybody coming forward with the data to do the test. If you have the data, the program to test it would be fairly basic and could be quickly coded. And of course you would need people to share and co-operate on this operation, otherwise it's all coming from one person and has zero credibility. It was hard enough to convince some people in the Absolute thread even with all the big pros agreeing with the evidence. [/ QUOTE ] This thread cracks me up. The goal of this thread is to start a project to determine if sites are legit or not and in it contains (bolded statement above if true) a possible huge security flaw which I would view very troubling, but no one in this thread makes a comment about it. Very strange..... What this poster possibly unknowingly admitted to was obtaining "insider information" which gave him an edge. Who needs a fish finder when poker site's employees are tipping players off? And if the sites are willing to share this information with some players, what else will they share? I started another thread about this, but it just died with no interest. Sometimes the cheating is in a very simple form right under our noses but we are trying to create some complicated project to determine something far more nefarious and complex is occurring. 
|
|
#172
10-29-2007, 10:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I have been called by pokerstars security numerous times over the last year, mainly with them voicing their displeasure with my posts on P5's [/ QUOTE ] I have never heard of security calling someone over a post about bad beats. Security don't even deal with bad beat complaints. You may have been called about other issues, but not bad beats. [/ QUOTE ] Since when is winning over 300k a bad beat?. Also, 10 + months is not a bad beat, I play live, I understand running salty, this is not anywhere close to runing a litle salty. Im in no way complaining, nor am I claiming online poker is rigged. Read my posts slower please. I'm only sharing my 'variance' story, And the variance seems to be different from one account to the next, especially a fresh one in MY experience. And as far as you never hearing of stars security calling someone, to voice their displeasure over a post on the internet, well now you have. Maybe some of the calls where about more than just the posts, but the posts were the reason the calls were made, I can assure you that was their MAIN concern. The other was asking questions about the other accounts in question. which were also prompted by the same posts. They were not the only subject, no, but they were always one of the subjects. Josem, let me apoligize for my dry humor joke about aussies. I thought it would be easy to see that I was only busting balls, but I guess I was wrong. I still do not get why you are all over this thread trying to de-bunk what someone else might believe thru their experience though?. Trust me, I am more than happy that you are a winning player on your own account, congrats, but we are not all having the same experience as you obv. None the less, I'm sorry for my comments sir. Believeing that the poker sites would never do anything shady like let a new player win more hands than what would be normal, or have it out for someone who has publicly tried to make them look bad such as I have done in the past, or 'rigged' in anyway shape or form, for any reason, still requires a huge leap of faith, Like God and church, you really have nothing solid to base your faith on, except maybe the old 'They have too much to lose' defense. Me, I go by results, results are solid, requires no faith. Right now, especially with the Wcoop and the Absolute scandel, coupled with what I have first hand experienced, lets say, my 'Faith' is lacking right now. But I keep going to poker church and praying that will change.
|
|
#173
10-29-2007, 11:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged
[ QUOTE ]
Josem I guess the one thing I'm not understanding is why you even bother trying to go back and forth with clowns like this. There are a handful of people out there who do not understand variance and never will. This thread is a great example. They'll never prove their wild conspiracy theories because there is no evidence out there that can back up their claims, other than single hand histories or a flurry of hands within one day that appear "suspicious". I find it laughable and I'll get into it with them every once in a while, but you seem to be on a mission to battle to the death every single time one of these threads comes along. To each their own, but I'm pretty sure you're talking to a wall. [/ QUOTE ] I agree, with one slight difference: I think a wall might actually listen. These donks don't come here to debate their beliefs; they just come here to whine. As far as I can see, they NEVER EVER listen to anything anybody has to say other than those with 3 posts who agree with what they are saying... Show me a converted donk and I'll eat my words (other than the guy who had a bugged version of PT which made his hand stats appear biased). IMHO: once a donk, always a donk and no amount of "convincing" will change them... The whole title of this thread was "Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged", yet we still have to suffer from donks and their unsubstantiated "beliefs" with no actual hard evidence presented... We need a separate sub-forum for conspiracy theories. That way the donks can all debate with like-minded souls about their riggedness theories, while leaving all us non-believers in peace. Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#174
10-29-2007, 12:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged
Henry17 wrote:
[ QUOTE ] It is also very easy to test if they are. If I suspected that they were rigged I would have tested. As such I'd assume the people who believe they are rigged would also have some form of statistical analysis that they would be willing to submit to peer review. Yet none do. [/ QUOTE ] jukofyork wrote: [ QUOTE ] The whole title of this thread was "Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged", yet we still have to suffer from donks and their unsubstantiated "beliefs" with no actual hard evidence presented... [/ QUOTE ] this thread tilts me so hard. i agree with the complaints about the donks who whine but provide no evidence. but now we have an intelligent poster who claims that his statistical tests do in fact indicate a problem. and yet no one wants to acknowledge this. out of all the smart people who've read this thread, really is there no one who has read about the statistical analysis done by MyTurn2Raise and felt inclined to try to reproduce it? why do the knowledgeable posters keep complaining about a lack of evidence, while just completely glossing over the evidence that's been pointed out to them? obv MT2R is not going to be posting all kinds of details here. but for chrissakes, can't someone PM him and get the details and either verify the tests he did, or clearly identify the mistakes he made? i was hoping that would be the end result of this "project"...
|
|
#175
10-29-2007, 12:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Josem I guess the one thing I'm not understanding is why you even bother trying to go back and forth with clowns like this. There are a handful of people out there who do not understand variance and never will. This thread is a great example. They'll never prove their wild conspiracy theories because there is no evidence out there that can back up their claims, other than single hand histories or a flurry of hands within one day that appear "suspicious". I find it laughable and I'll get into it with them every once in a while, but you seem to be on a mission to battle to the death every single time one of these threads comes along. To each their own, but I'm pretty sure you're talking to a wall. [/ QUOTE ] I agree, with one slight difference: I think a wall might actually listen. These donks don't come here to debate their beliefs; they just come here to whine. As far as I can see, they NEVER EVER listen to anything anybody has to say other than those with 3 posts who agree with what they are saying... Show me a converted donk and I'll eat my words (other than the guy who had a bugged version of PT which made his hand stats appear biased). IMHO: once a donk, always a donk and no amount of "convincing" will change them... The whole title of this thread was "Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged", yet we still have to suffer from donks and their unsubstantiated "beliefs" with no actual hard evidence presented... We need a separate sub-forum for conspiracy theories. That way the donks can all debate with like-minded souls about their riggedness theories, while leaving all us non-believers in peace. Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] LOL @ only a Wall might actually listen, Not only did you listen, you also took the time to form an opinion about the poster and then respond, that would be quite a feat, a wall that can read and type. How tall of a wall are you btw?. lmao. Its just easier to attack the messenger rather than the message for guys like you.
|
|
#176
10-29-2007, 12:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged
AP is rigged.
|
|
#177
10-29-2007, 12:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Josem I guess the one thing I'm not understanding is why you even bother trying to go back and forth with clowns like this. There are a handful of people out there who do not understand variance and never will. This thread is a great example. They'll never prove their wild conspiracy theories because there is no evidence out there that can back up their claims, other than single hand histories or a flurry of hands within one day that appear "suspicious". I find it laughable and I'll get into it with them every once in a while, but you seem to be on a mission to battle to the death every single time one of these threads comes along. To each their own, but I'm pretty sure you're talking to a wall. [/ QUOTE ] I agree, with one slight difference: I think a wall might actually listen. These donks don't come here to debate their beliefs; they just come here to whine. As far as I can see, they NEVER EVER listen to anything anybody has to say other than those with 3 posts who agree with what they are saying... Show me a converted donk and I'll eat my words (other than the guy who had a bugged version of PT which made his hand stats appear biased). IMHO: once a donk, always a donk and no amount of "convincing" will change them... The whole title of this thread was "Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged", yet we still have to suffer from donks and their unsubstantiated "beliefs" with no actual hard evidence presented... We need a separate sub-forum for conspiracy theories. That way the donks can all debate with like-minded souls about their riggedness theories, while leaving all us non-believers in peace. Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] LOL @ only a Wall might actually listen, Not only did you listen, you also took the time to form an opinion about the poster and then respond, that would be quite a feat, a wall that can read and type. How tall of a wall are you btw?. lmao. Its just easier to attack the messenger rather than the message for guys like you. [/ QUOTE ] The "message" was just a load of unsubstantiated rubbish though. Show me some kind of carefully reasoned scientific analysis and I might think otherwise. The "I think I saw X because I believe Y" just doesn't cut it in the scientific community. Your welcome to your own personal beliefs, but if you want to actually <font color="red"><u>PROVE</u></font> something to people who believe in the scientific method, then you need much more than beliefs. The only people likely to be swayed by such unscientific nonsense as are poor dumbos who don't know any better... Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#178
10-29-2007, 09:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged
jukofyork, I really didnt come here to get into a pissing match with anybody, I mostly only read, never post, I have over a couple hundred K in my bank account from new accounts I played on in the past, and nothing but loses on the account I play 95% of the time on. So for me, its more like X-Y =?. I'm still making no judgment here at 2+2 as to who is or is not rigging their sites, if anyone is at all. Only adding my 2 cents. I'm not asking anyone to believe me or not.
I would however, not have a problem with talking with a ranked player on the phone, as he/she watches me play on my regular account, only the times I do get to level 10 in the blinds, and I'll do everything they say to do, and let that person see for themselves how many hands are winners at showdown from that point on. For over 10 months now, its right around 1 of every 100 hands played to showdown. period. I'll also split any profit or whatever is fair to that ranked player for their time, with me supplying all the buy in's. So there ya go, you want proof, theres your chance, and no risk to you. It really is the unluckiest account in the history of online poker, but only after level 10 in the blinds of a MTT, I chip up no problem till that point. PM me if any takers.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
