good Lee Jones article

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
but why is everyone so sure that a major site wouldn't juice the card flow a little bit? and i underline "a little bit", just to spice things up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the sites are making millions of dollars running honest games. Why would they jeopardize that just to "spice things up"?

Anyway, I think the theory that dealing more bad beats somehow increases the site's earnings is false. The sites don't know or care who's a fish, who's a shark, or who wins a hand. They make their rake either way. Good players are the customers who generate the most rake for them - so why would they intentionally alienate their best customers, to try and entice the fish with a few extra suckouts here and there? It makes no sense at all from a business perspective.

"so why would they intentionally alienate their best customers, to try and entice the fish with a few extra suckouts here and there? It makes no sense at all from a business perspective."
It makes a hell of a lot of sense. I'm not saying that the sites are rigged, all I'm saying is, yes, it would make sense to entice the fish. Why? To keep them coming back for more. Think about it, if they never hit their longshots, they'd become disenchanted and stop playing altogether. However, if you notice, when players like that suck out, the suckout tends to award them a nice-sized pot. That's what they remember. It's like those lemmings that keep popping quarter after quarter into the slot machines. At the end of the trip to Vegas, they're in the red. In fact, they probably lost more money than they brought because they went to the ATM five times to reload. Why do they keep doing it? Why do they keep returning to Vegas to go through that again. Because every now and then they win $1,200 bucks and believe the illusion that they can become wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. Clank, clank, clank....more quarters into the slot. Fish are the same way. They remember that big pot they won (actually, sucked-out) and believe they know what they're doing and that they can do it again. They don't realize that, in reality, they've lost more money playing poker than they've won.
I'm not saying that online poker is rigged, I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to jeopardized a good thing by juicing the card flow (although greed makes people do stupid things) but to say there would be "no" incentive to do it is wrong IMHO. I belive they don't do it because they believe there will always be fish to replace those that lose heart in donating to intelligent 2+2ers.

[fluff]

[ QUOTE ]
Think about it, if they never hit their longshots, they'd become disenchanted and stop playing altogether

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh, they hit their longshots as often as probability says they should. They're longshots, not impossible shots.

[ QUOTE ]
It's like those lemmings that keep popping quarter after quarter into the slot machines. At the end of the trip to Vegas, they're in the red. In fact, they probably lost more money than they brought because they went to the ATM five times to reload. Why do they keep doing it? Why do they keep returning to Vegas to go through that again. Because every now and then they win $1,200 bucks and believe the illusion that they can become wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. Clank, clank, clank....more quarters into the slot.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that Vegas slots are rigged to go off more than they should? Whaaa??? Of course Vegas doesn't rig their slots to pay out more than they should, and yet the fish are still coming. So why again does a pokersite need to rig their longshot?

There might be other reasons to "rig" the game, but yours isn't it.

[gabyyyyy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Think about it, if they never hit their longshots, they'd become disenchanted and stop playing altogether

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh, they hit their longshots as often as probability says they should. They're longshots, not impossible shots.

[ QUOTE ]
It's like those lemmings that keep popping quarter after quarter into the slot machines. At the end of the trip to Vegas, they're in the red. In fact, they probably lost more money than they brought because they went to the ATM five times to reload. Why do they keep doing it? Why do they keep returning to Vegas to go through that again. Because every now and then they win $1,200 bucks and believe the illusion that they can become wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. Clank, clank, clank....more quarters into the slot.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that Vegas slots are rigged to go off more than they should? Whaaa??? Of course Vegas doesn't rig their slots to pay out more than they should, and yet the fish are still coming. So why again does a pokersite need to rig their longshot?

There might be other reasons to "rig" the game, but yours isn't it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you not read? Oh ya this is the zoo what am I thinking.

He did not say they rig them to win more often. He said it's the WAY they rig them. Big win here and there to keep you hooked.

Learn2Read

You lose at life.

[fluff]

lol

[Wyers]

Gabyyyy,

I'm truly torn as to whether you are actually a regular High Stakes poster who created this gimmick account for kicks, or if you really are this lonely, bored and dillusional.

If you are the former... it's kind of cute but time to let it go bro.

If you are the latter... time for that mental health assessment.

For the record, if it wasn't for denial of r***b**k, I'd be all over Stars like white on rice. I'm looking forward to more details on the VIP program Lee has been touting.

[college_boy]

People like you are why the games are so good.

[adanthar]

I'll say the same thing I said in the last gabyyyyy thread: if Internet poker's rigged, so, apparently, are my cashouts.

Amazingly, though I got called a wannabe microlimit player or something, she mysteriously disappeared after I posted screenshots.

[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying that Vegas slots are rigged to go off more than they should? Whaaa??? Of course Vegas doesn't rig their slots to pay out more than they should, and yet the fish are still coming. So why again does a pokersite need to rig their longshot?

[/ 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.
The OP said they have no incentive to cheat since they make millions legitimately. That's nonsence. Ken Lay had no reason to be dishonest since he was making tons of money legally as was Martha Stewart. They had millions, and they had the capacity to continue to make enormous amounts of money in an honest manner, so, by that logic, it would be unreasonable to think that they are capable of dishonestly earning more money. However, greed affects even the wealthiest of people. They had no incentive, but they did it anyway. That's corporate America. $100 million is not enough.

[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.