ONLINE POKER IS 100% RIGGED

[Zurvan]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

So, just to make sure I understand your post. If someone disagrees with you, they are an idiot, unwilling to look at the evidence that you won't show us, and are probably too stupid to understand the 'science' anyway. Good to know.

I for one, am open minded & not stupid. Show me some evidence. Real, solid, scientific evidence of ESP.

you can laugh all you want. but sooner or later these crooks will get busted.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

You suck at poker.

[MaxPower]

Listen I am skeptical of ESP and I think most people who claim to have these powers are full of it. I have heard of the research from the Princeton group for many years, but never read any of it.

I did read a number of studies in psychology journals which use something which I believe is called the Ganzfield procedure. These studies are very well done and seem to be fairly convincing. However, I still hold out the possibility that their results can be explain by a mechanism other than ESP.

I don't think you should villify people like Dr. Al who are not aware of this research or are still withholding judgment on it. Their attitude of skepticism is a better one to take than those who just accept these phenomena based on anedotal evidence.

thank you

im gonna tell you one way i notice online poker is rigged. and anyone who tells you it isnt is a fool are they are hooked up to where they dont lose. well anyway. from what i can tell it sets you up. the program or software will give 3 or 4 people monster hands that they know the players will have a tough time laying down. for example. one player will have top 2 pair/ one player a flush and one a str8. that way it beefs the pot up resulting in a bigger rake.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
im gonna tell you one way i notice online poker is rigged. and anyone who tells you it isnt is a fool are they are hooked up to where they dont lose. well anyway. from what i can tell it sets you up. the program or software will give 3 or 4 people monster hands that they know the players will have a tough time laying down. for example. one player will have top 2 pair / one player a flush and one a str8. that way it beefs the pot up resulting in a bigger rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats pretty easy to lay down if there is a flush draw and a straight draw on the table and two other people going all in, unless of course, you suck at poker. You don't suck at poker, do you?

[Cancuk]

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]
of course, that hand started with AA...and, after putting the lead bettor on a pair of tens with a flop of 2s-6c-10c following his gutless bet, I moved all in on the flop over the top of him with my overpair -THE CORRECT CALL NO LESS- after two minutes of deliberation...our spineless, not so bright, yet lucky villian called my all in with only 10s-Jc....the man has 2 outs with the tens and quite a few for the runner runner flush draw....well there would be no runner runner flush draw, but you know what did come? How about the 10 of diamonds AND the 10 of hearts for a runner runner QUAD DRAW to slam me into the twilight zone where I nearly puked.
[/quote

he actually had 5 outs plus the runner runner (two tens and 3 jacks)...although hitting quads here are rediculously low odds..him beating you here is around 4:1
cheers.

I knew you were going to say that.