gabyyyyy....my response to you

[OldLearner]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the reason you would do this is because the MILLIONS and MILLIONS you are already making are worth jeopardizing for a miniscule amount of additional profit gained by STEALING from your customers.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No offense but you are an idiot. Look we have a few people claming that this very thing is occuring, yet the vast majority of people are saying the sites would never juice the flops to create more revenue.

So how exactly would it affect their buisness? Morons like yourself think you are shielded and will protect internet poker till the day you die regardless of evidence produced.

In closing who gives a fuk. Internet poker is fun and the vast majority of us have made money from it. I could care less whether it is rigged or not, as it is still a fun activity.

Your theory just went down the crapper! */*POOF*/*



[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't respond to this in the original thread (Common Sense Internet Poker Rigged) because the Reply button wouldn't work, but because of your personal attack I really felt you were deserving of a response.

Idiot....Moron.... [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Well, I could respond with some name calling myself but I think enough (the majority) of posters have already called you everything I can possibly think of so that ground has already been covered.

With respect to the topic, let's deal with facts and evidence only please (you cow). I don't have PokerTracker, but some of the respected posters here that have hundreds of thousands of hands report (with statistics) that the games seem to operate within expectation (you cow).

If you (cow) or any of the other "corruption" posters could provide "hard" evidence (I think a couple of posters said they conducted conclusive studies) I would be more than willing and compelled to believe the evidence supporting these claims (you cow). Actually, if they were to publish their results here it would probably be greatly appreciated by this community. I'm sure none of us would like to be taken advantage of (even if it is profitable) by a dishonest site.

I've been in the computer industry for 20 years so I am not some naive fuk (your word, cow) that thinks corruption is not possible. Of course it is (you cow). A programmer could write code that could easily create bias, despite the RNG. A corporation could easily instruct their programmers to create bias under certain situations as you have described.

But why would they (Party in particular) jeopardize their MILLIONS in revenue (from just running a straight up game) by skimming a few hundred thousand here or there.

Did you know that casinos actually realize a 16% advantage in blackjack despite the fact that the game has an approximate 1% mathematical advantage when played perfectly. They don't need to mess with the game.

Party poker or any of the other major sites do not need to "mess with the game" and they would be stupid to do so. This is obviously not the same as the blackjack example, but why would poker sites or casinos risk their cash cows (sorry don't mean to confuse with the multiple uses of the word cow...I am not speaking about you now) drying up by being labelled corrupt for a fraction of what they are making legitimately.

If you (cow) or any of the other corruption posters are able to provide some real (not perceived) evidence to support your claims, I would love to know about this.

[ QUOTE ]
and will protect internet poker till the day you die

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, this is funny. I will protect my family till the day I die, internet poker, ummmm.....don't think so.

Have a nice day (moo).

[Stew]

You're wasting your time, trying to talk rationally and logiclaly with Gabbyyyy is akin to banging your head against a concrete wall for an hour and not expecting to have a headache when you are done.

BTW, Gabbyyyy is one who constantly complains that the online game is rigged, the flops are juiced and that it is rigged in some fashion or another. Yet, has no understanding of the mathematical concept of the game and continues to play online despite it being rigged.

Oh yea, one other thing, don't offer free money or she'll be all over you for not tossing some in her direction.

[OldLearner]

That's the funniest part of this. It thinks I would DIE defending Online Poker sites, but I am only casual player (10-15 hrs a week - casual compared to many). Its profitable but I certainly wouldn't suffer financially if internet poker died.

Offer it free money? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] (Is the end of my boot considered free money? If so it can have all it wants)

[FlFishOn]

"I would be more than willing and compelled to believe the evidence supporting these claims (you cow). Actually, if they were to publish their results here it would probably be greatly appreciated by this community. "

Nothig could be further from the truth. No study, published here, regardless of it finding or provinance will be accepted. The true believers have it worse than any religeous zealot.

Your thoughts on human nature and honesty when making millions are also garbage. Humans cheat. Almost always
with little regard for the consequences.

[Wahoo91]

Humans cheat. Almost always with little regard for the consequences.

This is simple truth. Lying, cheating, and stealing is human nature, regardless of the consequences.

Bill Clinton almost tossed the Presidency (the most important occupation in the world) into the toilet for a trivial indiscression. He had everything, why would he need a rendevous with a overweight staff person?

Human nature...

Its the same answer every time.

"Becuase they have millions" is so naive its hard to comprehend.

[OldLearner]

oh ok...there we go

Undisputable proof. OK.

I concede to you. My naivety had me believing that the sites are not corrupt. I never thought about human nature (specifically the Bill Clinton example) as an argument.

I suppose you would obviously cheat given the opportunity, after all you are human and it is your nature.

I wouldn't but I have this apparent naivety problem of which I was not aware.

Without a doubt, they could easily have behind the scenes control of the outcome of the events that occur on their site.

You claim they do and that they exercise this control corruptly. So despite what other posters that have actual (100,000's) tracked hand histories that indicate the contrary, you state this claim as unequivocal fact.

Now I am really confused, who am I to believe?

[Wahoo91]

Let me start by saying that I have no idea if the sites are corrupt or not. I am looking at this simply from a quality of evidence standpoint. I would not be surprised to discover some sites were skimming profits by cheating, but have never heard any convincing evidence on EITHER side of this argument.

The sites are not corrupt "becuase they have millions" is not a valid argument and should be abandoned becuase there are many, many examples (and more come every day) that completely refute this statement in general.

So despite other posters that have actual (100,000's) tracked hand histories that indicate the contrary

How can a hand history prove the contrary? Everyone lost some hands didn't they? How can anyone prove these were lost normally? Everyone has bad beats that seem odd don't they?

Again, I do not know what the answer is but I do believe all the people who vehemently believe the sites are not cheating based on this evidence are deluding themselves to the very real possibilities that this could be happening.

Neither of these are any evidence whatsoever.

I will also say that I have never seen or heard any evidence that the sites are corrupt either. The best current answer is that we all throw our hands up and say "I have no f'kin idea if this is happening or not".

That is the real answer.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
but have never heard any convincing evidence on EITHER side of this argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is evidence ever required that something "did not happen"? A rational person would believe something did not happen unless presented with concrete evidence that it did in fact occur. Otherwise you would leave yourself open to believing in absolutely anything did not have evidence to the contrary. One of many examples would be that Santa Claus does in fact exist.

Think about the logic and please respond.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but have never heard any convincing evidence on EITHER side of this argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is evidence ever required that something "did not happen"? A rational person would believe something did not happen unless presented with concrete evidence that it did in fact occur. Otherwise you would leave yourself open to believing in absolutely anything did not have evidence to the contrary. One of many examples would be that Santa Claus does in fact exist.

Think about the logic and please respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point, but it also seems reasonable to be undecided on some things absent compelling proof either way.

If somebody asserted that Santa Claus did exist (assuming I heard this for the first time) I would be very skeptical. It would seem unreasonable to believe him absent some compelling evidence, yet it may be premature to close the door on the possiblility (even though it may only be open a crack).

Anyway, I would merely ask that person if he ever witnessed Santa Claus first hand, or if he knew anyone else who had. Of course, since the man's description of Santa Claus would necessarily describe him as a world-wide phenomenon, it would be relatively easy to investigate. If nobody is able to affirm a credible, first-hand account of Santa Claus, that would tend to prove he does not exist.

I am glad you brought this point up, anyway ... you have certainly sharpened the issue: It defies logic that given the explosion of internet poker and the exponential growth of those involved in it from both sides, that the industry is not on the level AND there has been no evidence to reveal such a scheme.

The same argument that these companies are based on islands, etc., and therefore, it is more likely they will not be caught if they cheated or they would be more tempted to cheat because of jurisdictional problems, also brings to light the fact these same locales would be low security and certainly word would get out about any wide-spread, operational scheme.

I would say that in this case, when someone says they saw Santa Claus, I would certainly insist upon some good evidence before taking the claim seriously.

[Wake up CALL]

That is a very good logical extension of my basic premise Oski.