still cannot win at stars - Page 11

ment52 · #**101** 08-28-2007, 06:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]

5. Someone made refrence to my IQ being 37 so it got me curious and I actually took an iq test online. Where I Scored 146

[/ QUOTE ]
I did an iq test online and scored 154. When I was 14 years old. You can totally trust online IQ-tests.

Sciolist · #**102** 08-28-2007, 06:58 AM

I'm not going to contribute to this thread like I did the last (which you started ignoring because of how the thread was going against you), but:

You think you can tell that a site is rigged using the power of your gut feeling. You think that your gut feeling is a MORE ACCURATE measurement of whether a site is rigged than a 400,000 hand analysis. I contend that this is wrong.

That is one side of the argument. The other side of the argument is that you are losing because you are not good enough to beat the games. The evidence backing that position is that several regulars in those games have posted saying so. Further evidence is that you are losing after 400,000 hands.

Seeing as I cannot appeal to your reason on statistical grounds - you don't believe in them - I appeal to you on the grounds of Occam's Rrazor.

Sciolist · #**103** 08-28-2007, 07:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
anyone else noticed that or am I loosing because mentally i am more "relaxed"(whatever) and happy for getting the money i should from ps or cashing my checks?...

[/ QUOTE ]
I had this the first time I cashed out from an online poker site (Paradise). I lost because I "knew" I could beat the game and so tried to force the issue in hands I shouldn't have, rather than play my natural game. That's one of several reasons people might think that there is a cashout curse, here's a (Lee Jones) article with some others:

http://www.cardplayer.com/magazine/article/13994

Sciolist · #**104** 08-28-2007, 07:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I hear you, OP. If there is only one pokersite in the world that is rigged. I wiil be pretty sure it must be pokerstars. Just heard too many complaints on them. Just stop playing there until their RNG is thorouly examined by American Statistical Association.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/rng/

Already analysed by Cigital, Inc & BMM International

BK1248 · #**105** 08-28-2007, 07:41 AM

i thought online pro played decent but im playing multiple tables and didnt really pay 2 close attention, i play 7-9 games of 5-10 6 max and dont average much bb/100 but make a good amount in rake so i dont really care. But in my database i do have him as the person i won the most from. better luck Onlinepro

6471849653 · #**106** 08-28-2007, 09:48 AM

Stars probably went rigged somewhere in the middle of December in 2006. I saw it happen to many other players too. It all started some month before that; I saw there was now some 70% players, that was a high number that wasn't so regularly there before, and many of them did well, but it took one month more before they started to beat me constantly. That's the story. Not sure how it's currently. I did try it a month ago playing micro and won nicely - I didn't use PokerTracker that time and I tried it the next session too but with the PokerTracker and had the beats though I still won as I was playing micro limits but I saw the joke again.

It wasn't that I did not have winning sessions at Stars during the beats; it was like in Paradise in 2000, the amount of winning sessions had become the amount of losing sessions. And at Paradise it wasn't only me to who it happened, it happened to a lot of players there.

During the beats at Stars, I observed what happened to some others too, including other limits and forms, and it was the same thing. I also played at other sites during the same time and was winning and the cards were running normally; but like magic the beats were there at Stars.

I am not saying it's 100% sure, but for me it's 80% sure and that's enough to stay away from there, just putting a small part of the action there to up/down that %. I was again winning at Paradise (now Boss) in 2003 (though I had a new computer too), the cards were running normally; it's generally clear when they are not running normally (and I am not saying to run away from somewhere when one is getting beats, it's not like that). It's not like some longer bad beat (that in this case stays so at only some place, constantly).

I should also note that Stars became more tight pretty much at the same time as these things started to happen. The ban for US players had been there already but it must be a part of it what comes to game quality (tighter), but as far as the beats go, and especially to suckers, that's a different story.

I liked a lot playing at Stars.

dlk9s · #**107** 08-28-2007, 09:55 AM

^^^^I need an aspirin just to comprehend this.^^^^

But this:

[ QUOTE ]
Stars probably went rigged somewhere in the middle of December in 2006. I saw it happen to many other players too. It all started some month before that; I saw there was now some 70% players, that was a high number that wasn't so regularly there before, and many of them did well, but it took one month more before they started to beat me constantly. That's the story.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wha?

jukofyork · #**108** 08-28-2007, 10:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to contribute to this thread like I did the last (which you started ignoring because of how the thread was going against you), but:

You think you can tell that a site is rigged using the power of your gut feeling. You think that your gut feeling is a MORE ACCURATE measurement of whether a site is rigged than a 400,000 hand analysis. I contend that this is wrong.

That is one side of the argument. The other side of the argument is that you are losing because you are not good enough to beat the games. The evidence backing that position is that several regulars in those games have posted saying so. Further evidence is that you are losing after 400,000 hands.

Seeing as I cannot appeal to your reason on statistical grounds - you don't believe in them - I appeal to you on the grounds of Occam's Rrazor.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fish loses.

Fish believes they are good.

Fish concludes the only explanation is that the site must be rigged.

Fish incapable of accepting any other line of reasoning.

Fish continues to play anyway.

We all laugh.

Thank God for fish! - Juk [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Sciolist · #**109** 08-28-2007, 11:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Stars probably went rigged somewhere in the middle of December in 2006. I saw it happen to many other players too. It all started some month before that

[/ QUOTE ]
October 13th, UIGEA is passed. Games get harder. You start losing shortly afterwards... I apply the same logic to this as I do to OnlinePro - yes, an explanation for this (with plenty of evidence against it) is that the sites "went rigged". The alternative is that you stopped being good enough to beat the games when they got harder, and latched onto an incorrect assumption as to why.

DMoogle · #**110** 08-28-2007, 11:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stars probably went rigged somewhere in the middle of December in 2006. I saw it happen to many other players too. It all started some month before that

[/ QUOTE ]
October 13th, UIGEA is passed. Games get harder. You start losing shortly afterwards... I apply the same logic to this as I do to OnlinePro - yes, an explanation for this (with plenty of evidence against it) is that the sites "went rigged". The alternative is that you stopped being good enough to beat the games when they got harder, and latched onto an incorrect assumption as to why.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with this 100%.

After the UIGEA, I became a pretty much breakeven player. After 3 frustrating months, I took a break from online poker, then moved down a couple of limits and joined CardRunners.com. After re-evaluating my game, I can happily say that I've been beating the games again since February.