what a load of stuff that commonly hits the fan

jonjo75

In Response to Re: what a load of sh it:

In Response to Re: what a load of sh it : And there he is. Where dumb is dumbers not far behind. Or are yous the same person?.. hmmmm. 
Posted by igimc

DOHHH!!

Jac35

In Response to Re: what a load of sh it:

In Response to Re: what a load of sh it : DOHHH!!
Posted by jonjo75

No, no! 

It's not Dohhh, Jonjo

He thinks Hyftdtryr and Jac35 are the same person

Actually. Spose he may think that Dohhh is the same person as well

DOHHHHHHH

Ig doesn't like Doh either

Good stuff JD. Surprised you got the graphs approved.

Im sure you didn't need to ask Dons permission to publish his graph.

But surprised Lambert let you post his, good job he's handy at cash/a sky favourite eh  

somer

The site is perfectly placed to resolve any disagreement/concern over the RNG it simply has to post details of the latest independent audit on the operating systems.

igimc

In Response to Re: what a load of sh it:

Ig doesn't like Doh either Good stuff JD. Surprised you got the graphs approved. Im sure you didn't need to ask Dons permission to publish his graph. But surprised Lambert let you post his, good job he's handy at cash/a sky favourite eh  
Posted by DOHHHHHHH

This isnt true...I do like you,...you're probably wondering where you

went wrong for this to happen though.

igimc

In Response to Re: what a load of sh it:

In Response to Re: what a load of sh it : No, the answer was because it made them more money they didnt do it just for the craic!  Using that logic though, I dont see how sky would make more money from a rigged rng. Someone will always come up with the "to create action and therefore more rake" argument but anyone who has ever played this wonderful game will know you do not need to be holding premium hands to see action. The game creates action all by itself which is why it's such a popular game to begin with. Secondly, that argument only applies to cash games in any case. Tourneys and sng's lift the same rake whether your AA holds or gets out drawn by 7 2 off. I think the biggest argument that shows the rng is not rigged is sharkscope graphs. If the rng was rigged how can you explain the very very smooth graphs (upwards or downwards) when players have big sample sizes?! If the rng was rigged with probabilities all over the place surely this wouldnt be possible?! These smooth graphs only lend weight to the argument that over a big sample size the probabilities are reliable. The players who play the most online poker also tend to play across multiple sites, surely by doing this they would notice a rigged rng and not come back? Why would sky want to scare off their most profitable and reliable income streams?! Maybe you'd say the site fixes the rng for profitable regs to keep they coming back?! but if the new players just lose they wouldnt come back and the regs would have nothing to feed off and also there are plenty of regs with very smooth downward graphs. Two graphs at the bottom to highlight this. Finally, if poker sites were rigged surely someone would have proved it by now. It couldnt be that hard? There's plenty of arguments why they wouldnt choose to have a fixed rng, Ive yet to hear one plausible argument why they would want one. Balanced post over
Posted by jdsallstar

It was a good post.....

Can't really argue with anything youv'e said...And you

know i like an argument...:(