[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

no it isn't.
you just think it is.
Is the concept of selective memory really that hard to understand?
When your draw comes in on the turn you are winning a smaller pot if everyone folds at that point and it is less exciting (or it is less heart-breaking and less noticeable if your opponent caught his draw on the turn).
When you catch it on the river it is a bigger pot and thus more memorable (either as an exciting win or a heart-breaking loss).

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course this is a huge factor as to why many people insist that online poker is rigged, however it does not in the least bit negate from fact that it is still possible.

[ QUOTE ]
What truly amazes me is that all these 'online deals are not right' conspiracy dudes all THINK they are agreeing with each other even though they aren't.

There are those who say that they need to set it up to keep the fish winning and therefore donating.
there are those who think that a high-volume player is the type they want to have win...because he'll come back to start more games and generate more rake.
there are those who think that the draws ALWAYS hit on the river (supposedly to build bigger pots).
there are those who say they just create general 'action' flops toinduce more bets and create more rake

It is my theory that if they wanted to generate more rake at 15/30 and higher then they would do the OPPOSITE of 'action-flops'.
They are almost guaranteed to have a $3 max-rake as long as they get to ANY flop.
So if there is ANY post-flop action then it is just taking them longer to get to the next hand.
They would want totally dead flops to end the hand faster if they REALLY wanted to generate more rake (which is a theory that nobody seems to be expressing). Action-flops would actually HURT the site's intake of rake.



[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to see a complete mathematical analysis supporting your theory as to which scenerio would be more profitable before excepting it as fact.

Also, I think you are only thinking in terms of cash games, whereas in tournies it would be to the their advantage that people got eliminated quickly moving all-in.


[ QUOTE ]

And then there are those who say that such-and-such site feels 'right' while the other sites don't feel as right.
There are conversations where 1 guy thinks Paradise is rigged but Party is 'mostly ok' while the other guy thinks that it's party that is the one that is rigged while paradise is okay.
They KNOW they are on the same side here. Because they both KNOW that the online-sites are rigged to varying degrees.
but which sites are MORE rigged than the others is just friendly banter and a matter of opinion similar to whether a hamburger tastes better with ketchup or mustard. They both like hamburgers and that's all that matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is probably very true, but still does not rule out the possibility of sites being "rigged".

[ QUOTE ]
The inconsistencies of everybody in the conspiracy group as to WHY it would be rigged in the first place and HOW the hands are rigged (action flops, rivers completing more draws, fish's all-in's ALWAYS coming through with dominated hands, etc etc) is really interesting to me.
Because many of these people making these arguments aren't completely stupid (believe it or not).
tHey live normal lives and have normal jobs and they do NOT think aliens took Kennedy's brain or anything like that.
But they have ALL gotten frustrated from their losses and beats in poker and ALL refuse to believe that the beats that are happening to them could be just 'normal'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this for the most part. But I think it's a pretty broad generalization to say that ALL refuse to believe that ALL beats and losses are normal.

[ QUOTE ]
(also - the Paul Phillips post that was copied in this thread was very interesting. I hadn't read that before. I love Paul Phillips).

[/ QUOTE ]

That post, although very interesting, did not dispel a single theory.

Just because he pointed out some anecdotal instances of selective memory, does not mean that another site would not take advantage of that tendency and use it in their defense.

The point of my post was not to defend the tinfoil-hat crowd, or accuse any site of being unfair.

It was simply to play Devil's advocate, and point out to people who insist, with great certainty, that online poker is not rigged, that they are about as lacking in the proof department as anyone else.

Just because there is documented evidence of people beating the games long-term, does not mean that a site has not devised clever little ways of pulling that little bit extra out of the game. And if that “little bit extra” ads up and translates into millions of dollars at the end of the year, than I can think of no good reason why they would not at least consider it.

On the other side of the coin, the people who claim that the games are rigged, should realize that although this may possibly be the case, there are many people making a substantial earn regardless, and that any wrong doing should be considered as an added cost amounting to nothing more than a small fraction of the rake.

To me that seems like a reasonable price to pay, all things considered.

Also, to those who believe that the underdogs are winning a little bit more than their fare share in order to keep the fish from wandering too far - wouldn't this also be advantageous to the winning players in the long run?