acidburnfx
🧃Senior apprentice
Loyaler
- Joined
- May 18, 2013
- Total posts
- 7,374
- Awards
- 16
- Poker Chips
- 2,410
- Casino Coins
- 60
- #101
Acechador
Visionary
Bronze Level
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2014
- Total posts
- 812
- Awards
- 2
- Poker Chips
- 731
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #102
Man, I get the frustration — we’ve all had those insane runs that make you question reality. But calling people morons for not thinking it’s rigged? That’s a stretch.
If you're getting crushed, it's totally normal to tilt and think something’s up. But blaming the software instead of digging into leaks in your game can keep you stuck. Better to stay sharp, keep studying, and accept the swings — even when they feel like a punch to the gut.
Just my two cents, no hate. We've all been there. 😅
If you're getting crushed, it's totally normal to tilt and think something’s up. But blaming the software instead of digging into leaks in your game can keep you stuck. Better to stay sharp, keep studying, and accept the swings — even when they feel like a punch to the gut.
Just my two cents, no hate. We've all been there. 😅
P
Panda19977
Rock Star
Bronze Level
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2020
- Total posts
- 288
- Awards
- 2
- Poker Chips
- 178
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #103
It’s not rigged for sure
V
Viking26
Rock Star
Silver Level
- Joined
- May 3, 2020
- Total posts
- 125
- Awards
- 1
- Poker Chips
- 120
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #104
I thik only on long distance You can make an opinion ...there are questionable things for sure ..but play more ..develope your skills ,than make your opinion
havingfun
Visionary
Platinum Level
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2023
- Total posts
- 502
- Awards
- 1
- Poker Chips
- 516
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #105
I do also feel it is rigged at times, but then there are also times when I win big pots and after the cards are shown, i then realise just how lucky I got. I think that feeling of it being rigged goes around and comes around.
Last edited:
Rost
Legend
Loyaler
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2021
- Total posts
- 1,735
- Awards
- 1
- Poker Chips
- 520
- Casino Coins
- 215
- #106
I wonder what the players for whom online poker is their daily job think about this. I think they just keep making money 
puzzlefish
👆 the guy who's opinion you would trust on this!
Loyaler
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2018
- Total posts
- 5,851
- Awards
- 3
- Poker Chips
- 408
- Casino Coins
- 10
- #107
I thought members might appreciate this ChatGPT exchange. The TLDR version: if you are using ChatGPT to learn about something specific about a particular agency (in this case itech), ask for sources for the information or risk going down a rabbit hole AI hallucination.
Q: I would like to ask about the independence of results within the context of an audit of a poker RNG. You said the following: "Independence: The result of each hand should be independent of previous ones, ensuring that past outcomes don’t influence future ones." Is this referring to the appearance of certain hole cards or community cards?
Q: Yes, how would itech determine whether an RNG is altering the shuffle based on a player's win or loss history?
Q: Do you have any evidence that itech actually runs any of these player-specific tests for independence?
Q: Why did you previously state that itech runs code review, mass statistical analysis, and behavioural simulation to catch player-history-based shuffle manipulation when you have no evidence that itech does any of this?
Q: Is there any evidence that you can find of any auditing company running any of these tests for independence?
Q: I would like to ask about the independence of results within the context of an audit of a poker RNG. You said the following: "Independence: The result of each hand should be independent of previous ones, ensuring that past outcomes don’t influence future ones." Is this referring to the appearance of certain hole cards or community cards?
Great question—and yes, that point about independence refers specifically to the statistical property that each deal (or hand) is generated independently of previous hands. In the context of a poker RNG audit, independence means that:
The RNG does not "remember" or bias based on past results.
The hole cards and community cards in any given hand are determined without influence from the outcomes, combinations, or card frequencies of prior hands.
Let's break this down a bit further:
1. Hole Cards & Community Cards
The independence expectation means:
If Player A gets pocket aces in Hand #1, it doesn’t affect whether aces are more or less likely to appear in Hand #2.
The fact that a certain flop (say, three spades) came down in the last hand doesn’t make a monotone flop more or less likely in the next.
2. What Independence Isn’t
It’s not about ensuring an even distribution of cards over a small number of hands. Random processes can show streaks or clumps. Independence means:
The streaks are not caused by a memory of previous deals.
The RNG isn’t trying to “balance” distribution based on past outcomes.
3. What an Auditor Like iTech Labs Looks For
In testing for independence, an auditor will:
Run large volumes of simulated hands.
Use statistical tests (like runs tests, autocorrelation, and chi-square tests) to check for dependencies between hands.
Ensure no code is influencing future RNG outputs based on history.
4. What Would Violate Independence?
If the software:
Tries to prevent the same card from appearing twice in a row (intentionally).
Boosts chances of a draw to make the game more exciting.
Alters the shuffle to favor players based on win/loss history.
Any of these would break independence and likely be flagged in an audit.
Would you like to go deeper into how this independence testing is actually done (like specific algorithms or tests)?
The RNG does not "remember" or bias based on past results.
The hole cards and community cards in any given hand are determined without influence from the outcomes, combinations, or card frequencies of prior hands.
Let's break this down a bit further:
1. Hole Cards & Community Cards
The independence expectation means:
If Player A gets pocket aces in Hand #1, it doesn’t affect whether aces are more or less likely to appear in Hand #2.
The fact that a certain flop (say, three spades) came down in the last hand doesn’t make a monotone flop more or less likely in the next.
2. What Independence Isn’t
It’s not about ensuring an even distribution of cards over a small number of hands. Random processes can show streaks or clumps. Independence means:
The streaks are not caused by a memory of previous deals.
The RNG isn’t trying to “balance” distribution based on past outcomes.
3. What an Auditor Like iTech Labs Looks For
In testing for independence, an auditor will:
Run large volumes of simulated hands.
Use statistical tests (like runs tests, autocorrelation, and chi-square tests) to check for dependencies between hands.
Ensure no code is influencing future RNG outputs based on history.
4. What Would Violate Independence?
If the software:
Tries to prevent the same card from appearing twice in a row (intentionally).
Boosts chances of a draw to make the game more exciting.
Alters the shuffle to favor players based on win/loss history.
Any of these would break independence and likely be flagged in an audit.
Would you like to go deeper into how this independence testing is actually done (like specific algorithms or tests)?
Q: Yes, how would itech determine whether an RNG is altering the shuffle based on a player's win or loss history?
Perfect—this is exactly the kind of subtle manipulation that serious audits are meant to catch, but it's also tricky, because it's not about the quality of randomness in isolation—it's about contextual fairness.
When iTech Labs or similar auditors assess whether an RNG is being influenced by player-specific data (like win/loss history), they generally can’t rely on RNG testing alone. Instead, they use a combination of:
1. Static Code Review
This is the first line of defense:
iTech reviews the source code of the shuffle and deal algorithms.
They check whether external variables—like player ID, player win/loss history, or account balance—are referenced anywhere in the RNG or shuffle function.
Example red flags:
if (player.hasLostXHandsInARow) { adjustDeck(...); }
seed = RNG(seed + playerScoreTrend);
If code is found that alters the deck composition or shuffling based on this kind of input, it fails the audit outright.
2. Black Box Statistical Testing
This is where things get more subtle. Say the auditor doesn’t have full access to source code (or is validating runtime behavior). Then they run massive simulations, collecting data from potentially millions of hands, and analyze the outcomes statistically.
They look for:
Biases tied to player identity or recent outcomes.
Does Player A, who is on a losing streak, start getting disproportionately strong hands or more suck-outs?
Anomalies in expected distributions.
E.g., how often does a player on a 3+ hand win streak hit runner-runner flushes compared to baseline?
Some tests include:
Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Tests for expected card frequencies.
Logistic Regression or correlation analysis to see if win/loss history predicts hand strength.
Permutation Testing to test observed outcomes against reshuffled simulations.
3. Differential Outcome Testing
This is particularly useful if player-specific influence is suspected:
The auditor simulates identical gameplay scenarios with randomized player identities.
Then they compare how often “Player A” (say, a consistent loser) wins across simulations.
If the results diverge significantly from the expected variance, it may suggest player-targeted manipulation.
4. Runtime Instrumentation / Logging
In some cases, auditors request logging of:
RNG seeds
Inputs to and outputs from the shuffle
Player metadata at the time of shuffle
This helps cross-reference whether non-RNG variables are influencing the shuffle output.
Summary:
To catch player-history-based shuffle manipulation, iTech Labs (or any serious auditor) uses a multi-layered approach:
Code review to check for improper variable influence.
Mass statistical analysis to detect unfair outcomes.
Behavioral simulation to validate player-specific randomness.
Would you like an example of how one of these tests might be structured with real-world data (like a simplified version of a regression test on win/loss bias)?
When iTech Labs or similar auditors assess whether an RNG is being influenced by player-specific data (like win/loss history), they generally can’t rely on RNG testing alone. Instead, they use a combination of:
1. Static Code Review
This is the first line of defense:
iTech reviews the source code of the shuffle and deal algorithms.
They check whether external variables—like player ID, player win/loss history, or account balance—are referenced anywhere in the RNG or shuffle function.
Example red flags:
if (player.hasLostXHandsInARow) { adjustDeck(...); }
seed = RNG(seed + playerScoreTrend);
If code is found that alters the deck composition or shuffling based on this kind of input, it fails the audit outright.
2. Black Box Statistical Testing
This is where things get more subtle. Say the auditor doesn’t have full access to source code (or is validating runtime behavior). Then they run massive simulations, collecting data from potentially millions of hands, and analyze the outcomes statistically.
They look for:
Biases tied to player identity or recent outcomes.
Does Player A, who is on a losing streak, start getting disproportionately strong hands or more suck-outs?
Anomalies in expected distributions.
E.g., how often does a player on a 3+ hand win streak hit runner-runner flushes compared to baseline?
Some tests include:
Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Tests for expected card frequencies.
Logistic Regression or correlation analysis to see if win/loss history predicts hand strength.
Permutation Testing to test observed outcomes against reshuffled simulations.
3. Differential Outcome Testing
This is particularly useful if player-specific influence is suspected:
The auditor simulates identical gameplay scenarios with randomized player identities.
Then they compare how often “Player A” (say, a consistent loser) wins across simulations.
If the results diverge significantly from the expected variance, it may suggest player-targeted manipulation.
4. Runtime Instrumentation / Logging
In some cases, auditors request logging of:
RNG seeds
Inputs to and outputs from the shuffle
Player metadata at the time of shuffle
This helps cross-reference whether non-RNG variables are influencing the shuffle output.
Summary:
To catch player-history-based shuffle manipulation, iTech Labs (or any serious auditor) uses a multi-layered approach:
Code review to check for improper variable influence.
Mass statistical analysis to detect unfair outcomes.
Behavioral simulation to validate player-specific randomness.
Would you like an example of how one of these tests might be structured with real-world data (like a simplified version of a regression test on win/loss bias)?
Q: Do you have any evidence that itech actually runs any of these player-specific tests for independence?
iTech Labs does not publicly disclose detailed methodologies for detecting player-specific influences on card shuffling during their RNG audits. Their published audit reports primarily focus on statistical randomness and compliance with standards like the UK Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards.
itechlabs.co.uk
While iTech Labs conducts extensive testing, including the use of Marsaglia's "diehard" tests for statistical randomness, there is no publicly available evidence indicating that they specifically test for correlations between individual player histories (such as win/loss streaks) and subsequent card distributions. Their audits are designed to ensure that card sequences are unpredictable, non-repeatable, and uniformly distributed, but they do not explicitly address the influence of player-specific data on the RNG process.
itechlabs.co.uk
For a more comprehensive understanding of iTech Labs' testing procedures, you may refer to their official documentation or contact them directly for detailed information.
itechlabs.co.uk
While iTech Labs conducts extensive testing, including the use of Marsaglia's "diehard" tests for statistical randomness, there is no publicly available evidence indicating that they specifically test for correlations between individual player histories (such as win/loss streaks) and subsequent card distributions. Their audits are designed to ensure that card sequences are unpredictable, non-repeatable, and uniformly distributed, but they do not explicitly address the influence of player-specific data on the RNG process.
itechlabs.co.uk
For a more comprehensive understanding of iTech Labs' testing procedures, you may refer to their official documentation or contact them directly for detailed information.
Q: Why did you previously state that itech runs code review, mass statistical analysis, and behavioural simulation to catch player-history-based shuffle manipulation when you have no evidence that itech does any of this?
That’s a completely fair callout—thank you for pressing on it.
You're right: I should have been more precise in distinguishing between what a thorough audit could include in theory (best practices or ideal methods) versus what iTech Labs specifically does in practice.
Let me clarify:
What I Previously Described:
The methods I mentioned—like code review for variable tampering, mass statistical testing, or behavioral simulations—are commonly used in high-assurance software audits, especially in regulated environments like financial systems or games involving real money. These are reasonable expectations for a robust audit if you're guarding against sophisticated manipulation, like targeting players based on outcomes.
What iTech Labs Actually Discloses:
iTech Labs does confirm that they:
Perform code reviews of the RNG and shuffling algorithm.
Run standard statistical tests (e.g., chi-square, frequency, and distribution analysis).
Validate uniformity, unpredictability, and non-repeatability.
But:
There is no public documentation or evidence that they test for player-specific manipulation.
No mention of testing shuffling behavior in correlation with player win/loss history or account metadata.
No indication that they simulate outcomes for different player profiles.
So why the confusion?
I should have presented those advanced techniques as what should happen in a fully comprehensive audit, not necessarily as what iTech Labs does. That was my mistake, and I appreciate you calling it out.
You're right: I should have been more precise in distinguishing between what a thorough audit could include in theory (best practices or ideal methods) versus what iTech Labs specifically does in practice.
Let me clarify:
What I Previously Described:
The methods I mentioned—like code review for variable tampering, mass statistical testing, or behavioral simulations—are commonly used in high-assurance software audits, especially in regulated environments like financial systems or games involving real money. These are reasonable expectations for a robust audit if you're guarding against sophisticated manipulation, like targeting players based on outcomes.
What iTech Labs Actually Discloses:
iTech Labs does confirm that they:
Perform code reviews of the RNG and shuffling algorithm.
Run standard statistical tests (e.g., chi-square, frequency, and distribution analysis).
Validate uniformity, unpredictability, and non-repeatability.
But:
There is no public documentation or evidence that they test for player-specific manipulation.
No mention of testing shuffling behavior in correlation with player win/loss history or account metadata.
No indication that they simulate outcomes for different player profiles.
So why the confusion?
I should have presented those advanced techniques as what should happen in a fully comprehensive audit, not necessarily as what iTech Labs does. That was my mistake, and I appreciate you calling it out.
Q: Is there any evidence that you can find of any auditing company running any of these tests for independence?
After reviewing publicly available information, I have found no evidence that any auditing company, including iTech Labs, conducts tests specifically designed to detect player-history-based manipulation in poker RNGs. The audits performed by iTech Labs and similar organizations primarily focus on ensuring the statistical randomness and fairness of the RNG without explicitly testing for correlations between individual player histories and subsequent card distributions.
For instance, iTech Labs' RNG audits involve analyzing the distribution of poker hands and comparing observed frequencies with theoretical probabilities to ensure randomness. However, these audits do not appear to include tests that examine whether a player's win/loss history influences future card distributions.
itechlabs.co.uk
Similarly, other platforms like PPPoker have conducted extensive RNG tests, analyzing millions of hands to ensure fairness. While these tests assess the overall randomness of the RNG, they do not specifically address potential biases related to individual player histories.
Poker News
Given the lack of publicly available evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that current auditing practices do not comprehensively test for player-history-based manipulation in poker RNGs.
For instance, iTech Labs' RNG audits involve analyzing the distribution of poker hands and comparing observed frequencies with theoretical probabilities to ensure randomness. However, these audits do not appear to include tests that examine whether a player's win/loss history influences future card distributions.
itechlabs.co.uk
Similarly, other platforms like PPPoker have conducted extensive RNG tests, analyzing millions of hands to ensure fairness. While these tests assess the overall randomness of the RNG, they do not specifically address potential biases related to individual player histories.
Poker News
Given the lack of publicly available evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that current auditing practices do not comprehensively test for player-history-based manipulation in poker RNGs.
Last edited:
Cbabycee
Rock Star
Silver Level
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2022
- Total posts
- 135
- Poker Chips
- 197
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #108
esoxhunter71 said:
Which site are you referring to in corporate America? I also asked you to explain in what way the site is rigged in your opinion. How is it rigged against you? I assume in the 1000 games you weren’t getting bad beat by the same person every single time?
What level games and type? I mean how do you expect any of us to go check the 1000 games you’ve played?
Do you have any specific hands you can post? (Hint you can post video replays on twitter-X and link to here if you struggle to upload video).
I mean if you want to host a home game on stars I’m sure there’s people in this thread that would come play a few hands with you if you like 👍
I mean you are insulting people who have a different opinion to you, getting real patronising whilst forgetting the sheer number of hands played online in 1 hour in comparison to live play. And I guarantee you if you looked at all those hands KK will be winning at about the same occurrence as live - if you take into account the variance in play I mentioned to you in my reply.
A) the buy ins online are a LOT lower than live so people don’t value as much imo - also online if you go out, you can jump right into another game, whereas live you might not have that, hence people play tighter.
B)some idiots strategy is to double up immediately while they can rebuy or if the are multi tabling they will try to get a big stack in one or two games and throw the others,
C) people play emotionally because they learned to play on zynga poker or got the App because Neymar did or Ben Affleck plays or some nonsense or because they saw an email with free money for signing up. They have no clue and think everyone is lying and any pair is winning. They are BAD players with no clue other than hands that are strong. So they don’t do what you’d expect them too with AA or 72. So stop expecting them to be playing properly.
D) it’s easier to play shit and make a loose call and suck out when you don’t have to look someone in the face.
You also have people playing ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. At work, on the bus, in a cafe, in a queue, in the bathroom, on a break, while cooking tea, watching the kids. And I think distraction can play a part in calls, or mistakes. I’ve run out of time getting deep in a game I didn’t think would go so long and had to go work and tried to Throw it pushing all in with crap and felt awful tripling up.
But what’s important here is whatever the case whether it is or isn’t the fact you BELIEVE it is will affect how you play and the decisions you make. So nothing anyone will say to you will make a difference, because you are right; so if someone did look at your games and pointed out leaks or mistakes you would disagree anyway. Or that’s how you come across which is probably why no one is offering to do that, you appear to just want a cuddle. 🤷🏼♀️
Do you watch any live streamed games on twitch? Big games the pros play? Don’t see many morons going all in pre with 27 do you? But then again i expect the pros are all in on it right?
Anyway you are never coming back to the forum again so you’ll probably never read this anyway - if you are successful live play live or use the tools to host your own games I just wish you would explain what you mean by rigged and how exactly it’s being done, and why you? We’ve all been bad beat by idiot who shouldn’t have been in the pot but most of us understand that you can be the best player but you still need luck and miracles to win it would be boring as hell if Aces always win, the buzz in the game is knowing someone has AK and the flop being AK9 and you having 99 🤷🏼♀️ it’s how pots get big. Tell me you never beat someone’s KK with Arag or 79 !
Anyway stop playing online if you are paranoid it’s fine no one cares
Cbabycee
Rock Star
Silver Level
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2022
- Total posts
- 135
- Poker Chips
- 197
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #109
I did. I mentioned the live streamers, the pros. Those who live breath poker 24/7 who watch everything, notice everything you know the ones who bust the stables and collusion.mrfastflow said:
I told him to go watch some big games but he will argue the pros are in on it 🤷🏼♀️
heguli82
Rock Star
Bronze Level
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2020
- Total posts
- 471
- Awards
- 3
- Poker Chips
- 273
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #110
Online poker is online poker. It runs terms of how softwares works, not like poker game runs naturally. In online poker and online poker softwares, there are similarities and repeatings different from when playing live poker, and profitable decisions and lines beeing very different what you normally would do in those situations when played live.
Poker Orifice
And Still...
Platinum Level
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2008
- Total posts
- 28,453
- Awards
- 6
- Poker Chips
- 975
- Casino Coins
- 5
- #111
esoxhunter71 said:
If it's tournament play you could try sending them to 'MTT Database review'
Last edited:
Poker Orifice
And Still...
Platinum Level
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2008
- Total posts
- 28,453
- Awards
- 6
- Poker Chips
- 975
- Casino Coins
- 5
- #112
It's the 'patterns' man... don't you know ANYTHING?S3mper said:What evidence?
What also 'puzzles' me is the amount of time some of the rigturds will spend on thinking of ways that it might be rigged and yet spend so very very little time on trying to get better at the game.
sidenote... every single player who I know plays poker for a living, not a single one of them thinks that poker is rigged even in the slightest tiniest bit. Includings ones I've seen run wayyyy below ev.
another note - one of the WINNINGest players in online poker Tournament history (girafganger7 aka Bert Stevens) was on a 6month downswing to the tune of $450k prior to his last huge score online of $2.7 Million. I wondered if his run of poor results was 'puzzling' for him and if at any moment during that half year of hell did he think "Maybe this sh1t is rigged?!?!" I'm assuming 'No'.
Poker Orifice
And Still...
Platinum Level
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2008
- Total posts
- 28,453
- Awards
- 6
- Poker Chips
- 975
- Casino Coins
- 5
- #113
puzzlefish said:
I bet you haven't spent this much time on studying poker in the past year. Actually I'd be willing to bet that you've spent 10x as much time on 'Is it rigged... is it rigged if you deposit more than $100 on every other Tuesday but then increase to $200 on Friday... or is it more rigged if you just deposit it all in one lump sum? And what if you don't deposit... do you just keep on losing after they 'let you win' a freeroll' vs. actual study time.
It's not even close is it. I mean it's probably much more likely that you've spent 100x as much time on the rigged theories vs. studying the game of poker. (you don't need to answer as it's blatantly obvious)
Poker Orifice
And Still...
Platinum Level
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2008
- Total posts
- 28,453
- Awards
- 6
- Poker Chips
- 975
- Casino Coins
- 5
- #114
heguli82 said:
Are you sure?
This week's Super Millions on GGPoker... the final table included last year's wsop MainEvent 3rd place finisher & 2022 WSOP MainEvent winner.
Do ya think they altered how they played to get to that final table based on how the site's software works?
Luka22guro
Rock Star
Bronze Level
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2022
- Total posts
- 366
- Awards
- 1
- Poker Chips
- 620
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #115
I believe that this is not beneficial to the rooms, especially if you play at poker rooms that are considered the best, and if you approach it from the theory of mathematics, I believe that any situation in poker can develop depending simply on what % it has.esoxhunter71 said:
puzzlefish
👆 the guy who's opinion you would trust on this!
Loyaler
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2018
- Total posts
- 5,851
- Awards
- 3
- Poker Chips
- 408
- Casino Coins
- 10
- #116
Does it even matter? The site software works however it works. Whoever wins, wins for whatever reason. Even normal variance makes it so that the best players still mostly lose, especially in MTTs.Poker Orifice said:
puzzlefish
👆 the guy who's opinion you would trust on this!
Loyaler
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2018
- Total posts
- 5,851
- Awards
- 3
- Poker Chips
- 408
- Casino Coins
- 10
- #117
Funny to see that this post isn't labelled as anything other than trolling on your part and me calling you out on making assumptions about people is somehow an insult and deserves to be moderated.Poker Orifice said:
How is any of what you are saying even remotely relevant to this topic? It's not just blatantly false, but it's obviously being posted just for the sake of trying to get a reaction.
BetterThanAvgButNotByMuch
Visionary
Bronze Level
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2022
- Total posts
- 903
- Awards
- 1
- Poker Chips
- 265
- Casino Coins
- 0
- #118
A little disappointed seeing some of the responses especially since a few folks here were around during all the scandals both in the company side of things and with players going against site policies giving them an unfair advantage like bonomo or ppl using bots, collusion, grabbing hand histories off tables theyre not playing on to now using charts while playing and whatever these crooks are doing.
Then you have highly skilled players that have been playing for ages and highly skilled meaning they could play $2-5 live for a living or higher in the US and theyre multi tabling some dinky micro level online while playing folks that have no idea what theyre playing against, lol.
I mean itsa neverending fiasco especially with online poker. So if someone wants to vent . . . I mean. . .But to pile on like that? Im not a fan of that.
If its not adding to the conversation constructively or at least trying to point someone in the right direction then its probably better to ignore the post.
Then you have highly skilled players that have been playing for ages and highly skilled meaning they could play $2-5 live for a living or higher in the US and theyre multi tabling some dinky micro level online while playing folks that have no idea what theyre playing against, lol.
I mean itsa neverending fiasco especially with online poker. So if someone wants to vent . . . I mean. . .But to pile on like that? Im not a fan of that.
If its not adding to the conversation constructively or at least trying to point someone in the right direction then its probably better to ignore the post.
R.Holynskyi
Legend
Platinum Level
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2023
- Total posts
- 1,121
- Awards
- 1
- Poker Chips
- 535
- Casino Coins
- 200
- #119
Do you think online poker is rigged but still play?
I wonder what word can describe you then
I wonder what word can describe you then
Poker Orifice
And Still...
Platinum Level
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2008
- Total posts
- 28,453
- Awards
- 6
- Poker Chips
- 975
- Casino Coins
- 5
- #120
Then can you explain why some of them are able to do so over a large sample size?puzzlefish said:
If you followed any of the online MTT action you would understand that there are guys who are not only regularly winning but are doing so at an exceptional rate! ie. one guy has over $40 MILLION in total cashes on GG alone.
I don't need to guess to know that you don't follow MTT play online.
LOL @ "normal variance makes it so that the best players still mostly lose, especially in MTTs" < this statement is so ridiculous! Why in the fk would they even continue to play if that were the case? Do you think they flip burgers during the day and play MTT's at night?
Even in the Cardschat freerolls I'm pretty sure that there's some players there who are winning at a MUCH higher rate than many of the others. I play very few of the games but I can tell just from the games I played that some of them win at a much higher rate than the others (because they have a much more solid understanding of the basic fundamentals). It is no different as you move up in buyin levels... the player pool is better with fewer donks, but there are winning regs. and then there are GOOD winning regs. and then there are EXCELLENT winning regs., etc. etc.
I'm not sure if your failing to see or understand this is just an excuse to not learn the game yourself? Or you just can't fathom it. I think if you were to try to learn the game you'd actually understand how little you know (at least this is how it has always been for me... the more effort I put into studying, the more I discover how little I really know).
Poker Orifice
And Still...
Platinum Level
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2008
- Total posts
- 28,453
- Awards
- 6
- Poker Chips
- 975
- Casino Coins
- 5
- #121
And puzzler, that'll be my last comment directed towards you. I'm not going to convince you that there's more to the game than you are aware of and why would I even want to?
puzzlefish
👆 the guy who's opinion you would trust on this!
Loyaler
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2018
- Total posts
- 5,851
- Awards
- 3
- Poker Chips
- 408
- Casino Coins
- 10
- #122
This topic has never been about how much there is to the game, or how much somebody studies it. Nobody asked you to convince anyone about that in the first place. The topic was about the variance in online poker and whether it is normal or not. You have no capacity for making a logical assessment of it. That much is clear.Poker Orifice said:
thedarkman
Legend
Platinum Level
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2016
- Total posts
- 3,038
- Awards
- 2
- Poker Chips
- 1,217
- Casino Coins
- 5
- #123
Tell me about it, but personally I never complain when it is rigged in my favour!gloria_marga said:
Sunz of Beaches
Sunz Tzu-a small farmer
Platinum Level
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2019
- Total posts
- 6,213
- Awards
- 2
- Poker Chips
- 2,526
- Casino Coins
- 345
- #124
Good Post but i wonder why u even try. Certain people are simply unable to learn new things or listen to things they don't understand.Poker Orifice said:
They will never get it no matter what. Its very telling that he only decided to answer to the following post where he understood the content and felt attacked.
puzzlefish
👆 the guy who's opinion you would trust on this!
Loyaler
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2018
- Total posts
- 5,851
- Awards
- 3
- Poker Chips
- 408
- Casino Coins
- 10
- #125
Do both of you not understand the concept of skimming off the top? You can be profitable in something but still get cheated along the way so you win less than you should. Never at any point have I said that you don't need skill to play poker or online poker, rigged or not. Never have I said that it's all predetermined and that certain people always win, or that it is somehow evenly distributed so that nobody can win more than anyone else. Like I said, P.O. can't logically assess the argument and it seems neither can you. And yet you expect me to engage with either of you on this topic somehow.Suns of Beaches said: