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.