good Lee Jones article
 

Thought this was a great article by Lee Jones in this month's Card Player. It's basically a very polite (and persuasive) smackdown to all the "online poker is rigged" people out there (probably written after Lee got his billionth "your site is rigged" e-mail).

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_maga...amp;m_id=65578

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

Nice read. Thanks for sharing.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

Lee Jones is obviously just trying to cover up the fact that his site is rigged. Nice try Lee! Where are FLFishy guy and Gabyyyyyy when you need them? [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

I've been a beneficiary of one of those 989-1 shots on Stars, so Lee can rest easy that those are happening too.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

In his 989-1 shot example he forgot to mention that running deuces splits the pot. Sure you didn't win, but you didn't lose either.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

[ QUOTE ]
In his 989-1 shot example he forgot to mention that running deuces splits the pot. Sure you didn't win, but you didn't lose either.

[/ QUOTE ]

He specifically says it is 989-1 for the QQ to defeat KK. That is correct. Yes, 22 would cause a push but that is not the point of the article and still doesn't make anything he said incorrect.

You guys really need to start cutting Lee some slack.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

Online poker is definitely rigged. I flopped 4 of a kind and got beat on the river by a straight flush. You know how unlikely that is?

edit: Thanks for the link. Good article.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

Lee would rather write a simulation to estimate the probability of being dealt a deuce than do the math? Ugh.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

[ QUOTE ]
Online poker is definitely rigged. I flopped 4 of a kind and got beat on the river by a straight flush. You know how unlikely that is?

edit: Thanks for the link. Good article.

[/ QUOTE ]

Live games are definitely rigged. The first money hand in my life, I was dealt a pocket pair and flopped quads. Oh it was quad 4's no less. You know how unlikely that is?

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lee would rather write a simulation to estimate the probability of being dealt a deuce than do the math? Ugh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm sure it took less time to code the simulation than to use the binomial distribution function on a TI calculator or EXCEL or a stats package. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

It is no wonder online poker is rigged, when real life is rigged. Today, when I was going to cross the street I had to stop for a black car, followed by 2 red cars, followed by 2 black cars and then a white car. If there is 10 different car colors the chance that exactly that would happen is 1/10*10*10*10*10*10=1/1 000 000! No way that could be just a coincidence.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

Great article, Lee.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

If you have the best hand preflop at pokerstars you will lose almost everytime unless you cause everyone else to fold.

QQ will beat KK a hell of a lot more than 1 out of 989 times there.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

didn't you quit this forum?

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

[ QUOTE ]
didn't you quit this forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

Ok a serious question for Lee, doubt he will read this but here goes.

Say everything is fair, deal is 100 percent random im just a paranoid player... Ok that said.. Say I constantly get sucked out on. I mean AA losing to AK, KK losing to QQ like in his article.. I MEAN CONSTANTLY.. Am i just the unluckiest player in the world?

By his article I must be. FYI when I played online I didnt play many hands.. Say maybe 500 a day which would equate to about 12 hours of live play.

So should I just deal with the fact that I am the unluckiest player in the world? I mean that in it of itself seems far less likely than the deal not being totally random. The preceding logic is where I come to the conclusion that their deal is fishy. I think the odds of me being the most unlucky player in the wolrd are far higher than their shuffle being flawed.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the odds of me being the most unlucky player in the wolrd are far higher than their shuffle being flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of people think they can't possibly be the unluckiest player in the world.

One of them is wrong.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

[ QUOTE ]
So should I just deal with the fact that I am the unluckiest player in the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that is not right at all. The premise of "online poker is rigged" is that the sites are redistributing money from the good players to the bad in order to maximize rake, right? So if they're giving you the most bad beats, it must be because YOU ARE THE BEST POKER PLAYER IN THE WORLD! You should feel very, very flattered everytime you get sucked out on - the sites know you are the king!

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you have the best hand preflop at pokerstars you will lose almost everytime unless you cause everyone else to fold.

QQ will beat KK a hell of a lot more than 1 out of 989 times there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly the hell hope so, otherwise the site would be rigged. In fact QQ will beat KK about a fifth of the time. Can you see that that is a LOT more than one out of 990?

--Zetack

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

good article... and first time i played B&M, the same person had pocket aces twice in row and had a straight flush beat an ace high flush. sort of shot down my concerns about "internet poker being rigged".

but why is everyone so sure that a major site wouldn't juice the card flow a little bit? and i underline "a little bit", just to spice things up.

i mean, would anyone be shocked to pick up the wall street journal or new york times next week and see that there's an investigation of a major poker site for a rigged card flow? would you really be shocked? especially in this environment of major fortune 500 corporation like enron and adelphia running huge scams. for gosh sakes, these companies were pillors of their local communities

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

I have no reason to believe online poker is rigged, that said it's big business and i wouldnt be at all shocked to wake up one morning to find the headlines exposing an online poker site for having a distorted shiffle.

The arguements that they wouldnt do it because the rake is profitable enough anyway are incredibly naive given the types of things that go on in big business day in day out.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

The only time I'd really worry is if something like KKK fell on the board and I tied an opponent with quad kings.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

[ QUOTE ]
The only time I'd really worry is if something like KKK fell on the board and I tied an opponent with quad kings.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the turn was the fourth king?

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thought this was a great article by Lee Jones in this month's Card Player. It's basically a very polite (and persuasive) smackdown to all the "online poker is rigged" people out there (probably written after Lee got his billionth "your site is rigged" e-mail).

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_maga...amp;m_id=65578

[/ QUOTE ]

Good article. I was playing live two weeks ago and got at least one deuce 7 out of 10 hands. That really must be rigged.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

[ QUOTE ]
but why is everyone so sure that a major site wouldn't juice the card flow a little bit? and i underline "a little bit", just to spice things up.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does the site gain by messing with things?

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

My poker dev team loves these "juice the cards" theories and how they like to shield themselves with the always popular "and if you don't believe this, you're naive."

This very topic is almost like the debate between science and religion. The believers in theories are the "faithful" and as such, they will not be convinced of otherwise, even when shown facts. However, the non-believers (you damn heathens) demand facts and will only be converted by them.

So, who's for starting a Church of Poker is Riggedology? More importantly, how can I make money off of it?

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

[ QUOTE ]
but why is everyone so sure that a major site wouldn't juice the card flow a little bit? and i underline "a little bit", just to spice things up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the sites are making millions of dollars running honest games. Why would they jeopardize that just to "spice things up"?

Anyway, I think the theory that dealing more bad beats somehow increases the site's earnings is false. The sites don't know or care who's a fish, who's a shark, or who wins a hand. They make their rake either way. Good players are the customers who generate the most rake for them - so why would they intentionally alienate their best customers, to try and entice the fish with a few extra suckouts here and there? It makes no sense at all from a business perspective.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

[ QUOTE ]
Say everything is fair, deal is 100 percent random im just a paranoid player... Ok that said.. Say I constantly get sucked out on. I mean AA losing to AK, KK losing to QQ like in his article.. I MEAN CONSTANTLY.. Am i just the unluckiest player in the world?


[/ QUOTE ]

Simply post your pokertracker stats so we can analyze them and be convinced. If you don't have pokertracker then please answer these simple questions - What percent of your AA lose to AK? How often does your KK lose to QQ? "CONSTANTLY" does not answer the question. We need hands played and hands lost please.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

As Bill Rini wrote a week or so ago in his blog, this is really about the psychology of why people would speculate that online poker is rigged without any evidence to support the claim.

http://www.billrini.com/index.php/20...-online-poker/

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

"so why would they intentionally alienate their best customers, to try and entice the fish with a few extra suckouts here and there? It makes no sense at all from a business perspective."
It makes a hell of a lot of sense. I'm not saying that the sites are rigged, all I'm saying is, yes, it would make sense to entice the fish. Why? To keep them coming back for more. Think about it, if they never hit their longshots, they'd become disenchanted and stop playing altogether. However, if you notice, when players like that suck out, the suckout tends to award them a nice-sized pot. That's what they remember. It's like those lemmings that keep popping quarter after quarter into the slot machines. At the end of the trip to Vegas, they're in the red. In fact, they probably lost more money than they brought because they went to the ATM five times to reload. Why do they keep doing it? Why do they keep returning to Vegas to go through that again. Because every now and then they win $1,200 bucks and believe the illusion that they can become wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. Clank, clank, clank....more quarters into the slot. Fish are the same way. They remember that big pot they won (actually, sucked-out) and believe they know what they're doing and that they can do it again. They don't realize that, in reality, they've lost more money playing poker than they've won.
I'm not saying that online poker is rigged, I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to jeopardized a good thing by juicing the card flow (although greed makes people do stupid things) but to say there would be "no" incentive to do it is wrong IMHO. I belive they don't do it because they believe there will always be fish to replace those that lose heart in donating to intelligent 2+2ers.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

[ QUOTE ]
Think about it, if they never hit their longshots, they'd become disenchanted and stop playing altogether

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh, they hit their longshots as often as probability says they should. They're longshots, not impossible shots.

[ QUOTE ]
It's like those lemmings that keep popping quarter after quarter into the slot machines. At the end of the trip to Vegas, they're in the red. In fact, they probably lost more money than they brought because they went to the ATM five times to reload. Why do they keep doing it? Why do they keep returning to Vegas to go through that again. Because every now and then they win $1,200 bucks and believe the illusion that they can become wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. Clank, clank, clank....more quarters into the slot.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that Vegas slots are rigged to go off more than they should? Whaaa??? Of course Vegas doesn't rig their slots to pay out more than they should, and yet the fish are still coming. So why again does a pokersite need to rig their longshot?

There might be other reasons to "rig" the game, but yours isn't it.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Think about it, if they never hit their longshots, they'd become disenchanted and stop playing altogether

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh, they hit their longshots as often as probability says they should. They're longshots, not impossible shots.

[ QUOTE ]
It's like those lemmings that keep popping quarter after quarter into the slot machines. At the end of the trip to Vegas, they're in the red. In fact, they probably lost more money than they brought because they went to the ATM five times to reload. Why do they keep doing it? Why do they keep returning to Vegas to go through that again. Because every now and then they win $1,200 bucks and believe the illusion that they can become wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. Clank, clank, clank....more quarters into the slot.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that Vegas slots are rigged to go off more than they should? Whaaa??? Of course Vegas doesn't rig their slots to pay out more than they should, and yet the fish are still coming. So why again does a pokersite need to rig their longshot?

There might be other reasons to "rig" the game, but yours isn't it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you not read? Oh ya this is the zoo what am I thinking.

He did not say they rig them to win more often. He said it's the WAY they rig them. Big win here and there to keep you hooked.

Learn2Read

You lose at life.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

lol

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

Gabyyyy,

I'm truly torn as to whether you are actually a regular High Stakes poster who created this gimmick account for kicks, or if you really are this lonely, bored and dillusional.

If you are the former... it's kind of cute but time to let it go bro.

If you are the latter... time for that mental health assessment.

For the record, if it wasn't for denial of r***b**k, I'd be all over Stars like white on rice. I'm looking forward to more details on the VIP program Lee has been touting.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

[ QUOTE ]
The arguements that they wouldnt do it because the rake is profitable enough anyway are incredibly naive given the types of things that go on in big business day in day out.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point isn't that businesses never break the law or do unethical things to make more money. My point is they wouldn't do it if it COST them money. Running a crooked game makes absolutely no sense in an operation where the site's only reason for existence is to provide a venue for a fair poker game.

Sites do not need to program in suckouts to keep the fish happy, because suckouts are already a part of poker. The luck element in poker keeps the fish coming back all by itself.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point is they wouldn't do it if it COST them money. Running a crooked game makes absolutely no sense in an operation where the site's only reason for existence is to provide a venue for a fair poker game.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does it cost them money when idiots like you come to their defense anytime someone makes an accusation?

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

The operative words:

"Here in the world of online poker, we’ve sped up time, so even relatively unlikely events happen all the time."

All these suckouts and oddities people use as absolute proof that online poker is rigged are nothing more than the result of being dealt lots and lots more hands. I play more hands of poker in an hour online than I used to play all day at the Bike.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

My opponent hit one of those 989-1 shots just yesterday on prima after I had flopped a set of Queens.

I chekced my set to slwoplay which is something I NEVER do in low limit games since you typically get action regardless.

Anyways, a four comes on the turn and I decide to bet. The guy calls and then the river is another four. I bet, he raies, I re-raise, he caps.....sure enough the guy flips over pocket fours for runner runner quads.

I was shocked....but not because the odds of him hitting runner runner quads is so remote.....but because the one time I decide its safe to slowplay a hand (and this is a heads up pot mind you) the guy goes runner runner for quads. I never slowplay....ever.....its usually unecessary....but the one time I decide to do it this happens. LOL.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying that Vegas slots are rigged to go off more than they should? Whaaa??? Of course Vegas doesn't rig their slots to pay out more than they should, and yet the fish are still coming. So why again does a pokersite need to rig their longshot?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, did you even read what I wrote? If you actually read what I wrote and think that I believe that online poker is rigged, or that slots are rigged, you need to improve your reading comprehension skills.
All casino games favor the casino (roulette, blackjack, craps, slots). There's no question about that. However, if the players of those games didn't win occasionally, they would lose hope and stop playing altogether, however, they have tasted "victory" and keep coming back.
I did not say that online sites are rigged to provide the same psychological illusion for fish, I merely said that if they were to do that, then that would be the reasoning for them to do it.
The OP said they have no incentive to cheat since they make millions legitimately. That's nonsence. Ken Lay had no reason to be dishonest since he was making tons of money legally as was Martha Stewart. They had millions, and they had the capacity to continue to make enormous amounts of money in an honest manner, so, by that logic, it would be unreasonable to think that they are capable of dishonestly earning more money. However, greed affects even the wealthiest of people. They had no incentive, but they did it anyway. That's corporate America. $100 million is not enough.

Re: good Lee Jones article
 

I am amused at the rigging accusation Lee was defending against, which really was nonsensical. I hope we can all agree that none of the poker sites are going to rig the game to make you fold more often preflop.