[fluff]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Man you're dense. Yes I know you said you don't believe the sites are rigged. But you said that the "psychological illusion" could be one incentive for the sites to rig their games if they were to rig their games. You then go on to compare this to winning slots in Vegas (note: Vegas also not rigged, yet "psychological illusion" still there)

To which I counter, the "psychological illusion" already
exist because longshots do get hit, as statistics require (you seem to think they don't for some reason?).

So creating this so-called "psychological illusion" is not an incentive for the sites to rig their games. Again, in one sentence: There can be no incentive to rig games to create something that already exist. In other words: Your premise that this could be an incentive is flawed. (Note: the last 2 sentences is the main point of this and my previous post, which you seem to have misunderstood. Probably reading comprehension related).

If you counter with "they have incentive to make it happen more often than they should for a stronger psychological effect", please don't bother. You really think the fish will notice if a 900-1 shot comes in 850-1?

As for pot size of suckouts: duh, the very definition of a suckout makes it almost necesary for the pots to be big.