ONLINE POKER IS 100% RIGGED - Page 5

propervillain · #41 05-22-2005, 06:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have proof of ESP. Here it is: this thread will continue much longer than is necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tah dah!

Master5hake · #42 05-24-2005, 11:36 PM

sorry if I'm just missing the article you mentioned in your post, but I was interested in reading your paranoia article, but don't see it listed among your columns on cardplayer.com

http://cardplayer.com/poker_magazine...an_Schoonmaker

I have enjoyed many of the other articles I found there however! and your book The Psychology of Poker was one of the first poker books I read and it remains one of my favorites -

If you could point me to your article it would be much appreciated -

Thanks!

blackaces13 · #43 05-26-2005, 01:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Not to name any names, but I might think twice about a site that 1) clearly seems to think winning players are a business liability and 2) makes it difficult or impossible to assemble a statistically significant number of hand histories, thereby preventing any meaningful analysis from being done. If someone were corrupt that's exactly what I would expect to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I guess that's 2 implications against Pacific in the same thread. Strange. I don't see how the same people who dismiss anyone even suggesting that online poker is rigged can cast aspersions on a site twice in 1 thread.

Don't the same arguments used to defend the integrity of online games from a business standpoint apply to Pacific as well?

Also, I believe that a patch recently came out from PT that allows players to grab their hand histories from Pacific and store them.

Al Schoonmaker · #44 05-26-2005, 02:09 PM

My mistake. That article was published in "Poker Digest," which is now out of business.

I've sent a copy to you in a PM.

Regards,

Al

ihardlyknowher · #45 05-26-2005, 02:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
finding out the practical uses

[/ QUOTE ]

for ESP??? Here's one: playing poker and using your clairvoyance to determine (1) your opponents hole cards and (2) the board cards yet to come.

Wait, it all makes sense now, the only successful online poker players have this power and are using it against the rest of us, but they keep it under wraps because they are making so much $$. I am never playing online again. What was the name of that article again, "Paranoia"?

paulnortonyoung · #46 05-27-2005, 07:38 AM

Al,

I'd be very interested to read the article too, if you don't mind.

Thanks,

Paul

stockman · #47 05-31-2005, 09:07 AM

Well guess Im exposed, Im signing up at other poker forums & posting the same thing. (Thats exactly my point). Im trying to get the word out. I'll also be wearing a pokerconduct.com T-shirt at the wsop main event in Las vegas that says Time to take a stand. These poker sites will eventually be exposed for what they are, Im just trying to speed up the process. If you keep playing online poker, you will eventually lose all your money. Its not just one or two sites, Its all of them. As far as the the companies that test the randomness (well their in on it too). Remember Enron. Audited by arthur anderson (what a joke). These online sites have no other objective than to maximize profits in any way they can. Anything that involves gambling & money you can be assured that its crooked if allowed to be. These sites have no regulation & no reason not to cheat you. Most of the people that defend these sites are affiliates & advertise for them & are payed in some form or fashion. I remember the article written about george bush in a european magazine after the election. How can 50 million people be so dumb. I think the same about internet poker. How can so many people be so dammmm gullable. Its amazing, you can walk into a live card room where many professionals play & 80% or better that have played many hands online will tell you theres no chance the cards are random. Yet you come to these forums & so many people defend them. The real reason is that bad players cant seem to tell the difference. Its only the good players that win consistently that can tell the difference between live play & online play. Its because they cant win. When players are coming into ring games with terrible cards & calling raises cold & calling bets after the flop with no odds & a player that plays solid poker & makes a living playing cant win, somethings bad wrong. I would almost be willing to say that anyone at this forum that says they make a living playing online poker is completely full of it, unless they've made some deal with the sites as an affilitate or something & there account is protected by a fortune switch. The burden of proof is definately on those who claim randomness.

stockman · #48 05-31-2005, 09:48 AM

Just wanted to post this from another forum so that posters here that actually are serious about this thread will no that im not just trying to create a stir. I am actually a legitimate player. This is what another poster at pokerforums said about a reply to my post.

i dont really beleive or deny stockman's views but on a different note,stockman27 is one the best players on Full Tilt along with bleu329 and others..i have observed him playing 10-20 or 25-50 NL and he kicks some ass..there was a battle between him and John Juanda at 25-50,heads up and he practically owned JJ that day..
this is 100% true..even JJ was going --" I am no match for u,u r damn good",but the funny part part even then stockman was going--"now they'll put me on lose mode"" and general nonsense ,so just because he questions the validity of randomness of online poker doesnt mean he can't play.
good luck all.

propervillain · #49 05-31-2005, 09:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Just wanted to post this from another forum so that posters here that actually are serious about this thread will no that im not just trying to create a stir. I am actually a legitimate player. This is what another poster at pokerforums said about a reply to my post.

i dont really beleive or deny stockman's views but on a different note,stockman27 is one the best players on Full Tilt along with bleu329 and others..i have observed him playing 10-20 or 25-50 NL and he kicks some ass..there was a battle between him and John Juanda at 25-50,heads up and he practically owned JJ that day..
this is 100% true..even JJ was going --" I am no match for u,u r damn good",but the funny part part even then stockman was going--"now they'll put me on lose mode"" and general nonsense ,so just because he questions the validity of randomness of online poker doesnt mean he can't play.
good luck all.

[/ QUOTE ]

WOW, now I am convinced.

ianlippert · #50 05-31-2005, 10:36 AM

ok lets think about this for a minute. You are claiming that there are two modes for players: 'fish' mode and 'shark' mode. What exactly would the criteria be to flip ppl over? Lets assume that once a player makes 1BB/hr or more for 50K hands they are flagged as a shark. Then what happens? Every so often, but not often enough to be detected, the shark gets dealt a bad beat vs a fish to give them back some money. So now you have some 1BB/hr winners that become .5BB/hr, some 2BB/hr winners that are now 1BB/hr winners, etc. All this represents is an additional rake on the good players.

THEY WOULD MAKE MORE MONEY RAISING THE RAKE BY .01% THEN THEY WOULD BY PUNISHING A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE PLAYERS.

There, I've said it. Now stop complaining about sites being rigged and learn how to play poker. The conspiracy theories are so ridiculous its not even funny. There is absolutely no need for them to risk a huge sum of money just to gain a miniscule amount extra. If you are a poker player you should understand this concept. "hmm, I'm on the button with 72o lets go all in to steal the blinds", ya thats a great play.