Think you're imagining bad beats....

[abwil2]

Bmeelneg,

I cant speak for tp3rd but i dont think its 'Rigged" for any one as much as its setup for max action or to promote dumb gambling. But what i call dumb (like durrs style) some call excellent play and also some of the shit you seen played online would NEVER be played live for fear of humiliation or Live odds holding more true. Like doyles odds in back are for Live play with a "real" dealer which IMO is ALOT more random then the way online does it. I dont think a computer knows what random is..

But im a fence jumper as i have arguments for both sides cause i could understand why these sites would have programmers set it up for max action but i also like alot of other players only remember the bad beats cause they are the ones that usually take me out or cripple/damage me.. IF black jack can be tweek for even more of a house advantage then i dont see how poker cant be tweeked for max action. So i really have no clue im just rambling on LOL All i know is before party poker,Jetsomething and pokeroom shut down to US players i had 14 mtt wins and since 0 My style still works live but not online.

[joefine]

sorry guys - i didn't mean for this to go off on the subject of whether online poker sites are rigged or not. actually like i said in my initial post the data for all hands show that there isn't any significant deviation. As for my own hands, I think I may be doing something wrong as the reports only show the the winning player and player who called the all-in. Therefore I believe I'm missing some hands that I was involved with. I will see if I can modify the report and get ALL the hands I was involved with. At any rate, sorry to start another thread about rigged poker - didn't mean to.

[bmeelneg]

abwil

There was a site a few years back that openly acknowledged doing exactly what you are saying. I forget the name off the top of my head ... something like hi hand poker. Anyways what the site did was throw away the low cards.

Basically it worked like this. No 2s 3s 4s or 5s were dealt out. Easy to program software to do that, right? Anyways this did generate higher hands obviously, more hands people wanted to play. Anyways the point I'm getting at is even if Merge was to do something like this (which I do not believe to be true) which player gets an advantage by that? If merge or whoever did do something like this it would make more sense for them to do it in cash games where extra rake could be generated. In a freeroll rigging does not make sense, the site could careless who wins and all the money generated is already done. Ironically enough its in the freerolls and micro tourneys where the "its rigged" nonsense is most prevalent.

[wattery222]

I don't believe Merge rigs any of the poker. They don't need to.

[bmeelneg]

sorry guys - i didn't mean for this to go off on the subject of whether online poker sites are rigged or not. actually like i said in my initial post the data for all hands show that there isn't any significant deviation. As for my own hands, I think I may be doing something wrong as the reports only show the the winning player and player who called the all-in. Therefore I believe I'm missing some hands that I was involved with. I will see if I can modify the report and get ALL the hands I was involved with. At any rate, sorry to start another thread about rigged poker - didn't mean to.

No worries about that. I honestly was looking for clarification of your data more then anything else. It's really ambiguous as is.

Say I said something like "My AA hands loses 30% of the time!!!! MERGE IS RIGGED everyone knows AA is a 85% fav HU, I LOSE TWICE AS MUCH!!!"

First question should be how many hands in your sample size... playing 10 hands with AA and losing 3 of them is 30% but its not enough hands to be reliable data. (I know you already get that)

"My AA hands only wins 70% of the time AND my sample size is 10,000 hands!!! See its rigged!!" Ok the sample size is much better there obviously but the question you should ask is of those 10,000 hands how many of them were HU. If 5000 of those hands were HU and 5000 were against more than 2 people, the 70% is a fair number.

The devil is in the details.

[tp3rd]

can you read? Said the casino was rigged,and if you don't think so your'e incredibly stupid or naive. 2ndly,said poker hands play out outside normal deviation. Just finished playing last PO tourney...AA allin preflop got cracked 5 out of 6 times,and anyone who just played will tell you the same.

[tp3rd]

set up fro max action equals rigging to me.....should be no such thing as "set up for action"

[Drywallman3]

this debate will go on and on till the end of time as long as there is on line poker.

[tp3rd]

this debate will go on and on till the end of time as long as there is on line poker.

true!!!!! just seems Merge is more out of bounds than other sites Ive played at.

[Prawney]

As ive said all the time. The set up for max action would possibly be negative for the online sites.

1) Online just like live has a max rake per hand. So max action meaning getting all ins actually makes the pot bigger than where they get max rake so in essence they lose rake.

2) Most people who play the games where they make the real rake usually stick to guidelines so if they reach their goal in winnings for the day they stop. So by creating max action these people will reach their goal in fewer hands so the online sites rule of creating max action means they would lose out on an increased number of hands where they could make rake from.

3) With or without rigging for max action the online poker sites are still printing money. So really have nothing to gain by rigging it for action but everything to lose.

Im a sucker for conspiracy theories but this one just cant tempt me.