online poker legitimacy

[chauncey134]

A lot of the skeptic bashing by site proponents involves the desire to see proof of cheating by a site. How about proof they don't.
I'm not talking about reference to rng's, gaming commissions, or what the sites have at stake. I'm talking about the same proof expected from a person skeptical of putting their hard earned money into something they don't have faith in.

[SavageMiser]

What exactly would you consider proof? How would you go about proving this negative?

[ipp147]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about the same proof expected from a person skeptical of putting their hard earned money into something they don't have faith in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand what this comment means

[doncalvi]

***** Hand History for Game 2133022400 *****
$1000 NL Hold'em - Tuesday, May 31, 04:08:40 EDT 2005
Table Table 37316 (Real Money)
Seat 7 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 2: PeglegMcgee8 ( $1007.6 )
Seat 3: CYHAPMAN ( $2906.69 )
Seat 4: Viglev ( $2000.02 )
Seat 7: yesnaya ( $550.26 )
Seat 8: pmuir12 ( $1170.15 )
Seat 10: glowe_ ( $1100.56 )
Seat 6: SSR1210 ( $3570.55 )
Seat 5: uRdRznIPlay ( $590.1 )
Seat 1: snappo1 ( $1810.5 )
pmuir12 posts small blind [$5].
glowe_ posts big blind [$10].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to SSR1210 [ Ah Ac ]
PeglegMcgee8 folds.
CYHAPMAN calls [$10].
Viglev calls [$10].
uRdRznIPlay folds.
SSR1210 raises [$120].
yesnaya folds.
pmuir12 folds.
glowe_ folds.
CYHAPMAN calls [$120]
Viglev folds
** Dealing Flop ** [ As, Ad, 2c ]
CYHAPMAN checks.
SSR1210 bets [$100].
CYHAPMAN raises [$500]
SSR1210 raises [$3450.55]
CYHAPMAN calls [$2786.69]
** Dealing Turn ** [ Ks ]
** Dealing River ** [ Qs ]
CYHAPMAN shows [ Ts, Js ] a Royal Flush.
SSR1210 shows [ Ah, Ac ] four of a kind aces.
CYHAPMAN wins $5833.8 from the main pot with a royal flush.
SSR1210 wins $663.86 from the side pot with four of a kind aces


NOW HOW CAN I TAKE ONLINE POKER LEGITIMATELY AFTER THAT? RERAISE 2000 more with J high and no draw and hit runner runner royal on my quads. Somethign is real wrong there. I wanted to kill myself after that hand

[propervillain]

Bad beat jackpot?

[stockman]

I'm sure only for the house player (presumeably) that won that hand

[propervillain]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure only for the house player (presumeably) that won that hand

[/ QUOTE ]

please go away.

[stockman]

Please quit defending these sites, obviously you have nothing better to do. Do you stay here all the time. I come back to make one post a few weeks later & your sitting right here waiting for me. JEEEZ

[propervillain]

I haven't defended anything.

[propervillain]

[ QUOTE ]
Please quit defending these sites, obviously you have nothing better to do. Do you stay here all the time. I come back to make one post a few weeks later & your sitting right here waiting for me. JEEEZ

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and we are watching you.

[stockman]

I hope your watching ESPN when i make the final table at wsop wearing my pokerconduct.com Tshirt then

[propervillain]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope your watching ESPN when i make the final table at wsop wearing my pokerconduct.com Tshirt then

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'll be wearing my onlinepokerconspiracydummy tshirt.

[SamuraiPlatypus]

well, someone in the other thread about poker being rigged did a little digging and came across the REAL hand history for this hand, and since nobody had done that with it posted in this thread, i figured i'd get the real results e-mailed to me as well, and post 'em. here's what really happened...

***** Hand History for Game 2133022400 *****
AssetStrippa has left the table.
0/0 TexasHTGameTable (NL) - Tue May 31 04:08:39 EDT 2005
Table Table 37316 (Real Money) -- Seat 7 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 1: snappo1 ( $181.5)
Seat 2: PeglegMcgee8 ( $107.6)
Seat 3: CYHAPMAN ( $196.69)
Seat 4: Viglev ( $200.02)
Seat 5: uRdRznIPlay ( $59.1)
Seat 6: SSR1210 ( $57.55)
Seat 7: yesnaya ( $55.26)
Seat 8: pmuir12 ( $117.15)
Seat 10: glowe_ ( $110.56)
pmuir12 posts small blind (0.5)
glowe_ posts big blind (1)
** Dealing down cards **
PeglegMcgee8 folds.
yesnaya: 5?
CYHAPMAN calls (1)
Viglev calls (1)
uRdRznIPlay folds.
SSR1210 folds.
yesnaya folds.
glowe_: ya
pmuir12 folds.
yesnaya: made sense
glowe_ checks.
** Dealing Flop ** : [ 2c, 4h, Qh ]
glowe_ checks.
CYHAPMAN checks.
Viglev checks.
** Dealing Turn ** : [ 4s ]
glowe_: hit a str on a flush draw
glowe_ bets (3)
yesnaya: woulda owned you
CYHAPMAN raises (6) to 6
Viglev folds.
yesnaya: had the ace hugh flush draw
glowe_ calls (3)
** Dealing River ** : [ Tc ]
glowe_ checks.
CYHAPMAN bets (25)
glowe_ calls (25)
** Summary **
Main Pot: $62.5 | Rake: $3
Board: [ 2c 4h Qh 4s Tc ]
snappo1 balance $181.5, sits out
PeglegMcgee8 balance $107.6, didn't bet (folded)
CYHAPMAN balance $227.19, bet $32, collected $62.5, net +$30.5 [ Jh Qd ] [ two pairs, queens and fours -- Qd,Qh,Jh,4h,4s ]
Viglev balance $199.02, lost $1 (folded)
uRdRznIPlay balance $59.1, didn't bet (folded)
SSR1210 balance $57.55, didn't bet (folded)
yesnaya balance $55.26, didn't bet (folded)
pmuir12 balance $116.65, lost $0.5 (folded)
Cobra_Royal balance $50, sits out
glowe_ balance $78.56, lost $32 [ 2s Td ] [ two pairs, tens and fours -- Qh,Td,Tc,4h,4s ]

[hockey1]

Come on, kids. Get real. You want proof? How the fact that about Party made a 1Q profit in the range of 220 million and is about to go public for 7 billion. You think they'd mess with this cash cow by rigging cards?

If that's not enough, purely as a matter of logic it'd be virtually impossible for them to "cheat" in any way that favors them. Another poster suggested that sites cheat in favor of new and poor players. What happens if there's a table full of new and poor players? How does the site determine who's poor? Exactly what algorithm do you think they build into the software that will systematicall and accurately implement any system that could conveivably benefit the site (assuming there is any such system).

[bocablkr]

Thanks for posting the 'real' hand history. The way it was originally posted actually gave me cause for concern. It would have been hard to believe.

[2easy]

doncalvi must be one really twisted dude.

i was in that game, played it that hand, (folded 2/3 offsuit preflop,) and ssr1210 folded preflop as well. (and he was sitting on a stack of $57.55, only about $3,693.00 less than what he stated.)

the game was nl100, not nl1000, and the hand history you posted as a refutation to this highly credible poster, is indeed the correct one.

where do these people come from, and, for the life of me, what is their motivation? if he did this to add credibility to the "it's all rigged" cabal, he certainly helped that cause! lol.

p.s. i posted this because i just now came upon this thread, and seeing myself in a nl1000 game on may 31, when the last time i played nl1000 was may 1, peaked my curiousity enough for me to go to pokertracker and look it up.

[snappo]

Hey I'm in that hand.

[kslghost]

The patheticness of this post is amazing. :-D

Hilarious stuff!

And of course, everyone knew that hand was fake right away, right?

[Al Schoonmaker]

I suggest that you ask any professor of logic to comment on your statement: "How about proof they don't."

Any professor, in fact any reasonably competent student will tell you: You can't prove a negative.

Regards,

Al

[Suntzu00000]

Online poker sites, at least the big ones, are not cheating us. This can be verified with statisitcs. All you need to do is get a couple million hands from various individuals and then write a program to analyze them for the various frequencies in the game that would naturally occur. And, what would surprise me more is if nobody who uses this site hasn't already done this.

For example, after AA has been dealt enough times, against any specific hand it should win a certain percentage of the time. If AA after 5000 hands against all other pocket pairs isnt winning a little over 80% of the time then maybe there is cause for concern. Analysis like this would end these discusions once and for all.

[senjitsu]

I'll be wearing the tinfoil hat I use to keep the mind reading internet poker shills from reading my thoughts.



[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope your watching ESPN when i make the final table at wsop wearing my pokerconduct.com Tshirt then

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'll be wearing my onlinepokerconspiracydummy tshirt.

[/ QUOTE ]

[senjitsu]

Because its impossible to prove a negative. If you say "Senjitsu cheats at live poker. He breaks people's arm like The Matador and colludes with tropical henry", it wouldn't be reasonable to ask me to refute your accusations by any means except to say "he hasn't presented any evidence".

If you present evidence that something is happening, that evidence can be refuted. I might say "that videotape you have of me colluding with tropical henry is a fake... thats just some guy in a red wig with a sock stuffed down his pants", but this proccess can't begin until you present something more than a hypothetical.





[ QUOTE ]
A lot of the skeptic bashing by site proponents involves the desire to see proof of cheating by a site. How about proof they don't.
I'm not talking about reference to rng's, gaming commissions, or what the sites have at stake. I'm talking about the same proof expected from a person skeptical of putting their hard earned money into something they don't have faith in.

[/ QUOTE ]

[RoyalLance]

[ QUOTE ]
Any professor, in fact any reasonably competent student will tell you: You can't prove a negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence the phrase innocent until proven guilty.

[primetime32]

we are just dealing with people who can't win online for whatever reason. and instead of working on their games they would rather complain that online poker is rigged. it makes them feel better. we arent going to convince them that they lost becuase they simply arent that good.