You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
Insinuating someone is a bad player is not on
I saw a recent thread in which it was claimed that online poker was rigged.
This was followed by a number of replies taking the michael out of the OP.
All very well and good. But then someone came along and said:
"Show me a player who thinks online poker is rigged and I will show you a bad player."
I'm sure, however, that many of us know our local flat-earther who may actually be a good poker player. Indeed I seem to remember another "poker is rigged" thread where the OP then went on to win a big mttt just hours later.
This is clearly a slur too far. Clearly Sky took the same view as the thread disappeared shortly therafter. Let's help educate these unfortunate souls if we have the patience*, and/or amuse ourselves at their expense, but let's not villify their poker capabilities without further evidence.
*might be an uphill struggle with the conspiracy theorists though, I know I've given up on it. Seems to be a bridge too far when, according to Lewandawsy and others:
(1) people who believe in one conspiracy are likely to espouse others (even when contradictory);
(2) in some cases, conspiracy ideation has been associated with paranoia and schizotypy;
(3) conspiracist worldviews tend to breed mistrust of well-established scientific principles, such as the association between smoking and cancer, global warming and CO2 emissions or poker bad beats and mathematical randomness; and
(4) conspiracy ideation often leads people to see patterns where none exist.
What do you think?
Comments
The case rests.
I am a bit conflicted on this. I never join in the mocking on these threads, it would be a bit unseemly if I did, though that's not to say I don't come to certain conclusions.
For the record, I do know some conspiracy theorists who are winning players, but they are in a huge minority I'd guess. And it is only a guess, although when I see those threads, I generally head to Sharkscope first, to see what I can learn about the player. (In almost all cases, they are MTT players who don't "get" variance),
Up to a point, I get what you are saying - we - the players - have no right to suggest they are bad players. But they have no right - unless they have proof, & I've yet to see an iota of credible evidence - to suggest the things they do. Well they do have the right, I suppose, but if they stick that sort of stuff up, part of me thinks they are fair game.
What an aggro world we inhabit, with everyone freely lobbing insults around. Strange times. The old adage "if you have got nothing nice to say, don't say anything" has long departed Platform 7.
is this just a five minute arguement or the full half hour?
whoever said the statement you complain about is entitled to think so. what's more, they are probably correct.
you could draw a graph, a scatter diagram, the vertical axis is belief (certainty 0% to 100%) that online poker is fixed and the horizontal axis being player ability (poor to perfect). it would likely correlate to show a bell shaped curve to indicate that they are probably correct.
where are you on this graph?
It just so happened that the same day as I read his rant, he turned up on the same cash tables that I was playing on and I thought that it would be interesting to see how he played. First hand I played against him, he limped then called my 4x raise (I had AA). Flop was JT2. I Cbet and he shoved for about 80bb, I called. He showed J3. Turn was a 2 & river a 3. He then kicked off in the chat box about getting unlucky.
He proceeded to go all in every hand for 100bb after that until he was called after about ten hands. He had T6s and was called by QQ. He lost again.
Thankfully for me, he reloaded. In fact he reloaded at least ten times on one table. He played every hand and barely won a hand and when he did, it was by hitting two pair against an over pair. After an hour or so, the table had a full waiting list but no-one was leaving. When one reload was for an odd amount including pence, I think we all realised that this was the end of his bankroll and a few minutes later he was gone. A few minutes later, so was everyone else.
The other day, I heard some random speaking to my friend about his recent live poker adventure. So I begin the usual poker conversation about how great the game is, and I soon ask him if he plays online. He responds "No. The deck is so rigged", looking a little puzzled, I respond "what do you mean?" - "the algorithm, man, the algorithm is so ******" - I spend the next 15 minutes falsifying his view, and to be fair he did seem to acklowdge it as legit. 30 mins later, he comes up to me and says "so, if I play on PokerStars, will I win money?" to which I respond "ok, perhaps if you didn't ask me that question it would have been possible, but since you've actually just asked me that question, I'm going to have to say no, sorry."
On one hand it may look harsh, but I just couldn't get passed what he was asking me after I just spoke to him at length about the issue. He thought poker sites were rigging the deck in THEIR favour. I'm just like, looking at him in complete astonishment at this point. "So, if that's the case, how do players win money online - do they select the players they want to win?" he looks confused for about 30 seconds before replying "hmmmm I don't know"
That feels as good as when I raise into Grumpy Jac & he actually folds.
I'm made up with that.
(i see your using the larger angry geldy font now)
it will geldy. there are two elements.
a) best players have an appreciation of probability and variance that dispels grassy knoll
b) new players have little awareness and happy not to mistrust.
therefore, it will be.
.... and therefore the person that posted the comment you object to is correct. to help, the comment is not saying that the person is the worst player. just that it is almost certain that the player is not one of the top players.
There is no use what so ever for a poker site to play itself rigged.
Rigged sites would cost sky money and provide nothing in return other than a risk of crimal offence.
The only people who would want to make a site rigged are crimanal gangs causing cyber crime and this would soon become obvious.