good Lee Jones article

[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.

[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.

[Lee Jones]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I'm sure it took less time to code the simulation than to use the binomial distribution function on a TI calculator or EXCEL or a stats package.

[/ QUOTE ]

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Regards, Lee
"I rock at simulation. I suck at math."

[MarkSummers]

nice article lee. Don't listen to the troll.

[MicroBob]

calling everyone idiots when YOU are the one who is losing is somewhat...well...ironic I suppose.

Everyone has bad-beats...I would be willing to bet that a winning player would turn a profit with the exact hands and cards that you had.


You can post your p-tracker stats if you want to try to convince people that you really are unluckier than everyone else.
Or you can post some hands to try to see if you are playing them correctly.


If you are losing then it is unwise to assume that you are playing your hands correctly.



Also...did I somehow get confused on "I'm leaving the forums" means?
Welcome back again I suppose.

[bpb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is they wouldn't do it if it COST them money. Running a crooked game makes absolutely no sense in an operation where the site's only reason for existence is to provide a venue for a fair poker game.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does it cost them money when idiots like you come to their defense anytime someone makes an accusation?

[/ QUOTE ]

People who live in glass houses ....

You're right, Einstein, big corporations that make large sums of money never do anything corrupt in order to eek out that last couple of dollars when they don't really need to.
No online site has any incentive to ensure future business from idiots that shouldn't be there in the first place. That's a ludicrous idea. I mean, it happens every day in the real world, Enron, Toys R Us, etc. There's never an incentive to lie, cheat and steal, yet it happens constantly. So, to say there is no incentive is, well, dense.
You play at certain sites, and not others, why? Because you feel that the games are easier at site A than at site B. In order to maximize profits a site needs more customers, both donkeys and good players, which, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are since you are here. So, they do have an incentive to make sure there are fish there so you will play at their site. The more players, the more they make.

[silvershade]

[ QUOTE ]


My point isn't that businesses never break the law or do unethical things to make more money. My point is they wouldn't do it if it COST them money. Running a crooked game makes absolutely no sense in an operation where the site's only reason for existence is to provide a venue for a fair poker game.

Sites do not need to program in suckouts to keep the fish happy, because suckouts are already a part of poker. The luck element in poker keeps the fish coming back all by itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

The sites exist to make money, end of story. Even things like customer service are simply about getting your cash in the end.

On the subject of fish, they continue to play live year after year for many reasons, not all of them related to winning. A lot of those reasons ( socialising for instance ) simply dont exist online, online poker is a poor way of meeting that desire. Others such as a desire for competition could equally be served by any number of other online games and once people get tired of losing or just bored of the game probably will be. It's a huge assumption to believe that in a couple of years once the poker boom is dead and gone fish will continue to log on in any numbers to play, not everyone who loses is a compulsive gambler. Sites have a huge incentive to try and keep them playing, if rigging offered a way to help with that then human nature being what it is it wouldnt be a shock to find someone out there succumb to temptation, of course its quite possible no one will succumb but the temptation is out there nevertheless.

As for the assertion that rigging would cost them money, that seems slightly absurd, good players dont really pay the rake even though PT might fool you into believing we do, in fact the fish pay for both our winnings and the rake, the industry needs them more than it needs us, not less. Poker is a zero sum game, if there are no losers there is no game, that's the bottom line. The sites can probably lose some sharks quite happily if it comes to a choice between that and losing too many fish.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the assertion that rigging would cost them money, that seems slightly absurd, good players dont really pay the rake even though PT might fool you into believing we do, in fact the fish pay for both our winnings and the rake, the industry needs them more than it needs us, not less. Poker is a zero sum game, if there are no losers there is no game, that's the bottom line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your logic makes no sense. "The industry needs them more than it needs us?" Who's "them"? Are we talking about some other species? I'm pretty sure what the industry needs is poker players, which is what we all are. A player is only a fish in relation to his skill vs. the skill of his competition - there is no group of players called "fish" that the sites are trying to recruit.

You make it sound like the poker site execs are sitting around a conference table saying, "We've got lots of players - but not enough fish! We need to sign up more fish!!!" The whole thing is ludicrous.

Poker sites need players. Players generate rake. Especially frequent players, and high-limit players. The large majority of these players want to play where they trust the game is fair. The idea that more people would intentionally choose to play at a site because the games are crooked, is ridiculous.