Rigged - Normal Discussion Unavailable

[Tero]

When someone opens a discussion about any site being rigged usually this happens:

OP)
I've got coolered so many times on site *. It's not normal 🤬 This is not happening on other sites I play!

Commentor A)
It's just poker man Variance with a Big V. You are going through a downswing , that's all.

Commentor B)
You say you have been coolered but have you actually counted the times you have won? Have you forgot about those? Show us some stats!

Commentor C)
I have won $xxxxx on that site If it is rigged it is rigged in my favour.

Commentor D)
I think you'll just need to improve your game. When you become better you will win again.

Commentor E)
Why would it be rigged? It makes no sense! Sites make money from rake they don't have to cheat.

And so on...


After just a glimpse it seems okay but when you really think of it, it has the characteristics of any volatile topic (racism, minorities) where OP has even slightly different opinion from the rest.
And even when it is not being said with so many words the OP is labeled as Bad Player or as Conspiracy Theorist.

I find this a bit disgusting.

If I would be running a shady poker site I would be thrilled of this kind of discussion culture.

But here we are.

 

[MK_]

....and if you were running a legit poker site how would you feel ?

 

[fundiver199]

After just a glimpse it seems okay but when you really think of it, it has the characteristics of any volatile topic (racism, minorities) where OP has even slightly different opinion from the rest.

"Slightly different opinion from the rest"? The rigged Megathread has 14.000 replies and in the pool almost half the respondents say, they believe online poker is rigged. Does not seem like an oppressed minority or an underdiscussed topic to me.

https://www.cardschat.com/forum/bad-beats-and-vents-71/rigged-megathread-all-rigged-roads-lead-297777/

And even when it is not being said with so many words the OP is labeled as Bad Player or as Conspiracy Theorist.

Yes because that is, what most people posting such threads are. Either one or the other, but most commonly probably both.

I find this a bit disgusting.

I find it disgusting, that so many people accuse poker sites of cheating them without ever presenting any sort of evidence. Especially if the same people regularly show up to play freerolls including the CC freerolls. Its like showing up at your local burger restaurant for a weekly free promotional burger but at the same time posting online and warning others about eating there, because you are convinced, they use cat and dog meat for their burgers. And then when asked about, what evidence you have for this, your answer is, that you just "feel" it.

But here we are.

Yes here we are. Yet again

 

[bablovod]

With your permission, I'll come in from the other side. I think this place (whiners' paradise) has too much negative feedback from participants who have recently signed up. Basically, their message is “GIVE UP HOPE, EVERYONE WHO COMES IN HERE”. But for some reason this only applies to online poker.
Why aren't there any complaints about live games, I'd love to hear how cheaters cleverly falsify cards, collude and much more. I think we've seen quite a few movies about this.
Why??? After all, it is and will always be (but this is not accurate).
And online poker is so specific that if you lose money 💰, it is rigged, and if you win, the site is normal and has no crooks: Roflmao:.
You can throw slippers 👞🥾

 

[fundiver199]

With your permission, I'll come in from the other side. I think this place (whiners' paradise) has too much negative feedback from participants who have recently signed up. Basically, their message is “GIVE UP HOPE, EVERYONE WHO COMES IN HERE”.

I agree. Apart from the endless speculations about rigged poker sites, which is bad enough in itself, the dominant message from a large section of this community is to only play freerolls and never deposit, because its impossible to win in online poker. But while its true, that online poker is not a "get rich quick" scheeme, this is such a pessimistic message.

If everyone followed the advice to never deposit or play regular games, all poker sites would go bankrupt, and there would be nowhere for anyone to play even freerolls. Some even go as far as to suggest, that 2NL online cash games are super tough, and that new players will get eaten alive, should they ignore the advice and venture into them.

 

[Tero]

"Slightly different opinion from the rest"? The rigged Megathread has 14.000 replies and in the pool almost half the respondents say, they believe online poker is rigged. Does not seem like an oppressed minority or an underdiscussed topic to me.

I said that the discussion of this subject has the same characteristics as any volatile topic. That it true.

Yes because that is, what most people posting such threads are. Either one or the other, but most commonly probably both.

I find it disgusting, that so many people accuse poker sites of cheating them without ever presenting any sort of evidence. Especially if the same people regularly show up to play freerolls including the CC freerolls. Its like showing up at your local burger restaurant for a weekly free promotional burger but at the same time posting online and warning others about eating there, because you are convinced, they use cat and dog meat for their burgers. And then when asked about, what evidence you have for this, your answer is, that you just "feel" it.

And this kind of proves my point. Each side is so deep in their trenches that there is no room for truly open discussion. Everyone is hell-bent to shoot down the opposition's arguments.
If the discussion in scientific communities would be like this science would evolve in a slower pace.

 

[Tero]

....and if you were running a legit poker site how would you feel ?

Probably the opposite. But since I'm running neither, I wouldn't know.

Why aren't there any complaints about live games, I'd love to hear how cheaters cleverly falsify cards, collude and much more. I think we've seen quite a few movies about this.
Why??? After all, it is and will always be (but this is not accurate).

I would assume that most of our members have easier access to online games, and probably more willingness towards them too. Live players on our site might be the true minority

You can throw slippers 👞🥾

No need. We are friendlies

 

[bablovod]

If everyone followed the advice to never deposit or play regular games, all poker sites would go bankrupt, and there would be nowhere for anyone to play even freerolls. Some even go as far as to suggest, that 2NL online cash games are super tough, and that new players will get eaten alive, should they ignore the advice and venture into them.

That's right, and if everyone had followed these tips, you and I wouldn't have had the opportunity to read or even participate in the discussions the author mentioned.

 

[fundiver199]

Each side is so deep in their trenches that there is no room for truly open discussion.

There is no point in "discussing" accusations made without any kind of evidence to back them up. If you claim, someone is most likely a pedophile, then its very much on you to substantiate those accusations. Its not on him or people "defending" him to prove, he is innocent.

If the discussion in scientific communities would be like this science would evolve in a slower pace.

This has nothing to do with science. Its accusations, that private companies in a specific sector are engaging in a specific kind of criminal activity to cheat their customers.

 

[bablovod]

I would assume that most of our members have easier access to online games, and probably more willingness towards them too.

I would like to draw your attention to one more thing: after such publications, the authors do not return to further discussions. I wonder what is the reason?

 

[Tero]

There is no point in "discussing" accusations made without any kind of evidence to back them up.

And this is where we differ from science communities.
What we might call an accusation in science is called a theory.

This has nothing to do with science. Its accusations, that private companies in a specific sector are engaging in a specific kind of criminal activity to cheat their customers.

Dig deeper...

What is a theory after all? To put it simply it's a claim that even though something (let's call it X) has strong grounds to be perceived in way A it should be perceived in way B.

Calling something a theory sounds benign but the repercussions could be just as bad. If the theory becomes proven it might render obsolete views that have been backed up by the most renowned names in science, or maybe even make people loose trust in someone's life's work.

However, the discussion about the new theory will continue, and better theories might arise because of it. Just because some theory can't be proven today does not mean the discussion should be suffocated.

I would like to draw your attention to one more thing: after such publications, the authors do not return to further discussions. I wonder what is the reason?

I can't speak for anyone else, but if hellfire starts to rain on your comment wouldn't you go silent too?

 

[perrywh]

Back early 2000s I posted on 4+4 about how robots were getting bad in online poker! You wouldn’t believe how everyone jumped on me saying I was a loser! It was so bad that I never posted again! Later I went back to see if anyone agreed and my post was deleted! But everyone knows bots are everywhere in poker now! Will that be the same with your subject in the future? Who knows what is coming with AI.

 

[Tero]

Back early 2000s I posted on 4+4 about how robots were getting bad in online poker! You wouldn’t believe how everyone jumped on me saying I was a loser!

Oh, I would.

Will that be the same with your subject in the future?

Well, I'm not taking any sides here whether or not something is rigged. I'm merely trying to make room for more open discussion culture.

 

[bablovod]

I can't speak for anyone else, but if hellfire starts to rain on your comment wouldn't you go silent too?

To find out, need to wait for the eruption.

 

[puzzlefish]

And this is where we differ from science communities.
What we might call an accusation in science is called a theory.

Dig deeper...

What is a theory after all? To put it simply it's a claim that even though something (let's call it X) has strong grounds to be perceived in way A it should be perceived in way B.

Calling something a theory sounds benign but the repercussions could be just as bad. If the theory becomes proven it might render obsolete views that have been backed up by the most renowned names in science, or maybe even make people loose trust in someone's life's work.

However, the discussion about the new theory will continue, and better theories might arise because of it. Just because some theory can't be proven today does not mean the discussion should be suffocated.

Just going to chime in here about theories. In science, theories have evidence to back them up. I think what you are referring to would be a hypothesis. The hypothesis may be something general like "online poker is rigged at this site" or more specific like "online poker is rigged at this site and it is done by .... (Insert proposed mechanism of rigging here that is testable through data collection and analysis using the scientific method)". The theory is the outcome of the scientific method where a hypothesis gets the supporting data that makes the thesis convincing.

The theory is in some sense a hypothesis that has been proven or at least has some very convincing data to support what is proposed.

 

[Tero]

I think what you are referring to would be a hypothesis.

You're right. That is a better word for it.
That word came also to my mind later after the time window for editing was closed. But among public those two might seem interchangeable.