ONLINE POKER IS 100% RIGGED

Didn't read all of the replies so sorry if I'm repeating some old idea.

The basic idea about pokersites beeing rigged seems to be that newcomers get better cards to stay, guys withdrawing getting worse cards and pokersites having bots playing. This is what the guys beliving in rigged sites say.

The ones not beliving says pokersites will not risk their reputation and it doesn't matter for them who wins the pot. I belive this is true.

My idea, and what I would probably do if I was to rig a site (besides bots which are probably good), is to help the guys playing loose, especially making big loose calls since THAT will actually generate more rake for them because there will be much more big pots. To reward their behaivior would be a profitable thing for the site.

NO, I don't belive the most popular sites are rigged, I just find the conspiracy theories amusing and like to contribute. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[shermn27]

Lost $50 two nights ago playing like a loose-aggressive idiot on .50/1.00 6-max on party. RIGGED!

[xileh]

You guys I, as well as the e-book SECRETS PARTY POKER DOESN'T WANT TO YOU KNOW have cracked the internet poker code:

WLWWLLLWLLLLWLLWWWLLLWLLWLWLLLLWLLLLLLWLWLWWWLLWLL LLWLWLWLW

Don't spread this around though, we don't want too many people knowing e-poker secrets!

[naphand]

Never underestimate the power of denial.

The evidence is there, both from the research at PEARL and other sources. However, I fully realise that even if I provide references (which would take hours to put together) people will either (i) not read them, (ii) not understand the research or (iii) refuse to recognise the conclusions. I am not about to try and win an argument against those who will NEVER change their minds no matter what they see or hear. Those who want to form a more balanced opinion than the "deny all" approach of Randi and his utterly false "science" (it is not a coincidence that Randi is a trained magician - he is well used to duping the public), they will find the references and research for themselves. They do not have to look far, but they do have to dig a bit.

If you want to see how low he stoops his website contains refutations of some of the basic principles of quantum mechanics (apparently he is a "classical" physicists, lol). His organisations refusal to supply the sources of their data in the now infamous "mars effect" debate with Gauquelin and resulting humuliating expose should leave no-one in any doubt of his hypocrisy and double-standards. Genius? Don't make me laugh.

I am a trained biochemist (Dundee University) with a postgrad research degree (MSc.). I am well versed in scientific protocol and research etc. I spent a lot of time at University "studying" unified field theory physics and was struck by the strangely "non-scientific" ideas that were thrown up by quantum theory. If anything this has continued to develop over the years, with many physicists now openly questioning the rigid mechanistic philosophies prevalent for so long. The new physics theories (and I do not talk of quack "science" here) place consciousness at the centre of the structure of the universe, or at the very least in a position to affect its behaviour.

Not long ago scientists were dismissing "consciousness" as an epiphenomenon of no significance whatsoever. Some still maintain this view.

If consciousness does have a part to play in the Universe this will overturn centuries of scientific thinking. Of course there will be deniers and resistors. And of course there will always be crackpots and charlatans. This, however, does not justify the near-hysterical response many so-called scientists display when questioned on such matters as ESP. Hardly a "scientific attitude". The standard response "I have seen no evidence" is really quite laughable, as most not only have never looked, but refuse to look or consider the possibility.

There is far more to this than "science" versus "quacks". It is a shame most will never look into it closely enough to appreciate the enormous impact that research like this could have on our understanding of the universe. It is challenging, but total dismissal is not only incorrect it is also highly unscientific.

I posted as one who holds a different view. I know full well there are any number of idiots who know nothing of the research, know nothing about science, modern physics or consciousness studies who prefer to ridicule and be ignorant. They can keep their heads in the toilet bowl, I really care little for their ignorant and outdated attitudes and thinking. They are not the people pushing back the frontiers of scientific thinking.

Of course there is much that science has done and will do. As a method of researching the structure of the Universe on a "classical" level it is a practical and very thorough protocol. It has limitations, those limits may be set by the human mind or they may be extended beyond it. This remains to be seen, the story is not written yet.

If you want testimony, speak to the military.

NB
Seriously Al, what research have you read? How familiar are you with consciousness studies or the "new physics"? I could put some references together but I somehow doubt you would be prepared to consider the possibility of retracting your statement publicly. Why? Because that is how the vast majority of deniers behave. To accept anything remotely "mystical" is to invite the scorn and ridicule of the majority of the scientific community. The fact it is a majority has nothing to do with it, new ideas or theories always start as a minority. Good example, Dmitri Mendeleev inventor of the Periodic Table of Elements who was publicly scorned for his ideas but who was subsequently vindicated by the discovery of new elements which bahaved exactly as predicted (he was also not alone is his attempts to create such a table). What is even more apt is that his ideas (that elements could be grouped by atomic weight and show periodic properties) was incomplete and flawed and contained no scientific rationale for why it should be so. It was only years later with the discovery of atomic structure, that his ideas were fully validated.

Your focus on the discussion of cold-fusion and similar from "Margins of Reality" suggests you are avoiding the premise of the entire book, which was set out to investigate consciousness phenomena and and formulate a possible theoretical framework for further investigation (as well as discussing why current scientific ideoligies/techniques fail to do its study justice). You make no mention of the studies in the book supporting ideas such as "remote viewing" and "psychokinesis". Why not?

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone listens to Art Bell too much. Are there Shadow People too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome.

[seahawktd]

Studies have shown that poker players who don't tip, end up going on bad bad, very bad losing streaks....

I normally tip one buck every time I win a pot unless it's a blind steal or very small pot. But hell, if I win a $300 pot, I have no problem giving them an extra buck, especially if the dealer's hot, lol

[realwtf]

[ QUOTE ]
This poster is wrong, and so are you about Randi. James Randi is an idiot, several people have offered to take him on over the so-called offer for ESP but he has the habit of setting impossible-to-meet conditions (so I have heard). If you want proof of the existence of ESP speak to the Military regarding their "remote viewing" experiments (both in the USA and Soviet Union) or maybe just take a look at the results produced by the internationally respected PEAR Lab. at Princeton University (Princeton Engineering Anonmalies Research Laboratory). They have a website and some of the research and background is published in their book "Margins of Reality".

It is not a question of whether ESP exists or not, it exists and demonstrably so. The problem is (i) providing some kind of mechanism to explain it, which is necessary for any theory to have credence and (ii) finding out the practical uses and limitations.

Those who belong to the "there is no evidence" are basically the same as Randi "we refuse to listen, we refuse to see, so we refute (as we have neither seen or heard)". There is a huge and growing body of credible evidence if you would only bother to look (which you clearly have not). Sure there are any number of crackpots, but there are also a growing number of respected physicists and psychologist, surgeons etc. that now accept its existence both from experimental data and the substantial quantity of anecdotal and experiential evidence. If you refuse to believe it, you are a fool, the evidence is overwhelming. Oh well, I hope your flat-earth membership goes though ok...

[/ QUOTE ]

He sets up conditions because only frauds can do ESP. The scientific conditions eliminate the fraudsters.

Any real person with ESP could easly win one million. Since ESP is not real his one million is safe.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
Any real person with ESP could easly win one million. Since ESP is not real his one million is safe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any real person with ESP could easily win 7.5 million, See LINK: LINK

I was on a roll for two weeks, won a prize in almost every tourney. Then I cashed out $700. And played No-Limit hold em with my remainning $150. I was delt rags from the very beginning. Fold fold fold. And whenever I had a big hand, like a set, the whole table would fold and I would end up winning 3 BB. These small pots were like fuel is for cars as they vanishes blind after blind. But I was patient.

Then I picked up 5 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and got raised preflop. Thought to myself what the heck. The flop is 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and I check. The preflop raiser bets 3BB and I raise him to 9BB representing the 2 and he folds. That was the biggest pot I had won. And just as I racked in a decent pot, I got A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] on the next hand. The "preflop raiser" limped in from UTG, so I raised, and he just calls. Flop is K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. I bet, he makes a big raise and I go all in for about $200 (what I had left). His cards were A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. Tell me that wasn't done deliberately by the site to make me lose [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

For 3 hours I had NO CARDS, NADA. And just as I pick up a monster... RIGGED. He did not raise me preflop, what could he possibly have? Ace-rag? Hearts? KJ? I couldn't slow play with the two hearts on the board and all the possible scare cards (K, Q, 10).

I am taking my $700 and running from these FRAUDS. How can anyone trust a computer-generated card distributor that is located in a lawless offshore island somewhere?

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
And just as I racked in a decent pot, I got A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] on the next hand. The "preflop raiser" limped in from UTG, so I raised, and he just calls. Flop is K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. I bet, he makes a big raise and I go all in for about $200 (what I had left). His cards were A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. Tell me that wasn't done deliberately by the site to make me lose [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning.