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.
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.
Comments
I fully agree with what you say in regard to people posting numerous BB hands in support of online poker being rigged. It is mostly pointless. BB's are a fundamental aspect of the game. We are not seeing a balanced representation of a persons experience, merely the definitive bad ends of it.
I also agree that if these people really truly feel that online is rigged, then they ought to stop complaining and stop playing. People used to say this to me when i indirectly sought out other people who shared my instincts (finding irish and elsa
My doubts and instincts about online poker come from extensive live and online play, rather than hands in isolation. I have likely played millions of hands and lost a little over 9k in the process over the last 7 years. My true game is live, where I make a modest living.
How the action plays online (in general) isnt mirrored by my extensive live experience. Believe me, I know the arguments in relation to hph/skill mix all too well, but its fruitless to get into it.
However I am also massively aware that I dont play anywhere near aswell online as I do live. Due to being handicapped (less information) and my key strength is reading opponents, which I cant do aswell online due to time restraints and the virtual aspect.
So because I dont fully trust online poker and being aware that I dont play as well as I ought caused me to stop playing online. Because whether or not its flawed, I dont adapt well enough. So there is no edge to continue.
Believe me, I get just as frustrated at the people who rant about poker being rigged in a silly way. Because it really lowers the tone of those who would like to see the subject explored. As consumers we should inquire and demand clear transparent ajudicators, which we clearly arent getting at the moment.
My frustrations come from the fact that this being online poker site, all individuals who put forward that everything is spot on are given credibility, wheras people who quite rightly seek reassurance are ridiculed and demonised as standard. People havent forgotten how the one truly credible RNG thread was censored.
In many ways its like walking into a fast food joint and saying "I want to eat here, but it looks a bit fatty..". Manager of fast food (who earns his lively hood from brand) says "No no sir, we use state of the art ingredients Isnt that right deputy manager? "yes sir, all is well" "all is well, eat enjoy!". Customer says "Oh ok then, triple beef cheese and bacon then". You get the jist lol.
Just saying that there is a certain level of expected bias, which is understandable
I have had to delete a post on this thread that contained a misspelt swear word in an attempt to get round the forum filter.
Steve
you say you dont play as well online and dont adapt well and i think that goes for most players.....and sometimes the really bad ones will crack our aces:).
p.s. i did'nt start this thread as a pee take of your thread as i thought it was a great thread where you aired sensible doubts that you had in your mind,not the silly "i've been beat so its fixed" rubbish.
I just wondered how many of them would admit they will still play on here..
gl,dave
Do you really think I havent heard the online is harder than live argument before? In some ways this can be true but in others its not. It isnt essentialy true. Plus its impossible to be uniformly true. You are simply regujitating industry lines.
But yes, your right. I just really suck, but I dont realise it. Thankyou for enlightening me..........
Got to admit my patience with this kind of post is running at an all time low. I really dont think my post could be more diplomatic and balanced, yet I have to listen to a pudding like this offering up over simplified justifications as to how I'm wrong. If you read my post properly you'd see it has nothing to do with bad beats, quite the opposite in fact......
Fricking Yawn
If you dont agree then fair enough. Thats your opinion. My opinion is online isnt rigged. Its no differnt to live poker. Same sort of things happen just as much. I could go into more detail, but I wouldnt want to bore you, Yawn ;-)
The point that has been made in this forum many times over many months is the FREQUENCY with which IT APPEARS that action hands are dealt. The reason why this is done, if it is done, has been discussed ad nauseum.
When has an online poker site, including Sky, EVER published statistics to show that the deal is, effectively, "random"? Never. The only time statistics are ever produced is in cases such as the Ultimate Bet case when there was a group of insiders cheating by looking at all the other players' hole cards. Of course, in that case the statistics proved that something was wrong and not that all was OK.
All we get is a certificate from an obscure regulator based in a tax haven. Also, operating procedures do not confirm anywhere that the card generated by the rng is the same card that is delivered to the virtual table.
Pure selective vision. Same thoughtless junk responses.
do a little test(and im being serious,not my usual windup self)
jot down how many bad beats,boring,and held up hands you see in the next two nights and you will see that as mant non hands appear as action/bad beats hands do.....
If you actually read my post properly you'll see I never say that online poker is rigged, you'll see that through a combination of factors I no longer play, from my subjective view.
Yes card live card rooms can be equally rigged. But a person asking about it, discussing similar experiences with peers is perfectly acceptable. Many live dodgy practises have been brought to light in this way. But if a person asks questions in a similar way regarding online they are shunted to 51, treated with derision and endlessly mocked. That is the point I raised. How did UB scandal come to light?.....
Yet as always people selectively see it as an attack on online, which it so clearly wasnt. It was a reflection on how people are treated for voicing concerns about things that dont seem right.
And yes, I am purely tired of the same circular discussions, people repeating easyly quoted industry propaganda that they dont understand! HPH, harder easier, without really understanding what they are saying, simply repeating easy justifications.
Thing is despite serious corruption and fraud from ground up in the worlds leading poker site, people are still as unwilling as ever to think for themselves, or be un nerved.
My post had nothing to do with bad beats and outdraws, yet a flow of justifications have flowed as a defence following it. People unsheathe their weapons in an argument they dont understand.
like i said keep your own tally.....i used to be convinced my aa/kk
"always lost" but i kept a chart(very sad) for a month of only premium hands and yes aa lost a few times but the big hands do actually hold up the right percentage of time,....in my experiance
gl.dave
First of all I think that anyone that thinks it's 100% either way is not thinking correctly. You used to think the world was flat and were insistent. You used to consider the very idea of germs as being the thoughts of mad men. However convinced you are you have to at least consider the possibilty you're wrong. This is what made Socrates the mighty mind he was. And H!tler something different.
So, could it be rigged? I'm no computing expert. I'm no Math expert. So, a logarithim that could please the top boys, keep the newbies depositing and keep the regs coming back? I think it would be tough. But could probably just about be done. My mate's high up in computing in a blue chip company (not poker) and I'm awaiting his reply to this (he's on holiday) but don't think he'll argue much.
So, would they rig it? I think it's minimal the extra profit they could even make. But multi conglomerate businesses have been built on small percentages. It's possible.
But would they? In face of the amount of people that would have to be complicit, compared to the small percentage extra they'd make, I have to say it seems improbable to me.
And the top players have built themselves up to be the top players. So where does the logarithm kick in there?
And I've played live often and have seen crazy things happen time and again. AA vs 7-2 loses about 1 in 10. That's the extreme and even that's not that many really. And people have a tendency to remember the big ones. I've seen hundreds of thousands of fold, fold, raise fold, fold hands.
So, to surmise : Yes, it could be. But hugely unlikely in my humble opinion.
Not yes or no AmyBr mate, but threads go of on tangents. That be the internet ;-)
The only thing I would add, highlighted from bandii's post, is the small extra margin of profit. This is a huge oversimplification IMO.
FTR we are simply talking speculation here.
When we talk of online (in general) having the potential to be rigged/corrupt the small profit margin is very far down my list of motives. Much higher are customer retention and providing a system that keeps people teetering over an invisible line. So saying that small profit for high risk becomes meaningless. We are talking of a product potentially designed at source to fulfill larger criteria, in terms of how action plays as a whole.
I try not to get bogged down in the online vs live BB discussion. Because to say BB's happen live is obvious and just provides discardable rationale.
Also ftr My thoughts and opinion are simply that, mine. I didnt post with the intention of un nerving or convincing anyone of my opinion. What I did want was for people to realise that asking questions is FINE, and shouldnt result in the abuse that is thrown at people.
I've left this subject alone for a long time, but I simply got fed up of people attacking question askers and repeating industry lines that hold LESS TRUTH THAN EVER.