I hate to repeat myself, but I have to: Your (real or pretending?) narrow-mindedness can easily be proven. I only say that the more probable case is that the management cheats (by playing as normal players), and that the less probable is that they don't cheat. Whereas you say you are 100% certain they don't cheat. Would you bet your life regarding any casino that it does never cheat that way? You might THINK you are certain, but of course you cannot be 100% certain, you are just lying to yourselves. Someone told me once he was certain Greece will lose the Euro Cup Final in 2004. I told him, "Well, since you are 100% certain, then why dont you bet all your money on it?" He shuted up.
The topic is clearly scientific. It requires a scientific analysis of both theories:
1)they cheat
2)they do not cheat.
You great scientists answered, 100% they dont cheat because they dont want to ruin their reputation.
Well, sorry, but this and your other arguments do not give such a 100% proof.
You are asked me for the proof that they cheat. I gave you all the indications, which cannot of course proove anything 100%. Evenmore, if they cheat, they can cheat rarely enough that no statistical analysis can proove it (although some casinos do not care if it can be proven or not. They want all deposits wiped out and they want them NOW, like the song says)
Now you cannot be of such low intelligence: Did I understand well? WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY YOU GIVE THAT THE BIGGEST, REPUTABLE CASINOS CHEAT?
ZERO PERCENT?
OR perhaps, you are not lying to yourselves, but only to this board, as you might have common interests-profits with the casinos. Many casino managers write here, and it is obvious for me that the owners of this site as well as many members here are affiliates with a
percentage commision of the profits made by the casinos (and not just a small fee for each person registering to the casinos through the affliliate's page). I saw the affliates web sites some members advertised in their replies, even in this thread! (e.g. Mr. pokeraddict who pretends to be naive and unintelligent, and misunderstanding my arguments, but his page shows his analysis skills) And this is not "conspiracy theory", it's damn common sense.
As for the "only AA" you liked befooling, it is pretty obvious that if there were no post blinds, the player who would fold all preflop hands except AA would have a huge edge over the others including-after the 5% rake, even if he was the worst player of the world and lose big when losing and win small when winning. So why are you trying to befool my strategy which it is to play no limit with as small as possible post blind compared to the average pot , play only with the 20-25% of preflop, and then fold unless I have top pair? You said this system is bound to lose. I say it is extremelly complicated to evaluate if this system has an edge (after-including the rake) or not, because AS THERE IS SOME AMOUNT GONE TO THE POST BLINDS, then we have to consider many other factors, e.g. a bad player will lose big when losing and win small when winning, e.g. the other players are playing concervative too, etc. There is also the point whether one should fold at the flop when not having top pair, or chase it at the turn and the river when "pot odds" are there. I used to chase it, but then I read that Nick the Greek said no because other people do already have something at the flop, and even if you do get top pair at the turn or the river, the odds are against you, so there are almost never "pot odds" when not having top pair at the flop. (I am not talking about flush chasing or chasing also for a straight besides a pair). However, I lost with both of the two different schools: The Nick the Greek never chasing, and the "pot odds" chasing. I experimented with both. (Nick the Greek went from rags to riches many times playing poker as well as other games. So he was a real pro, and not a sponsored or promoted one of the today's online casinos, where any lie could be used.)
But there are also other indications, besides the "only AA" logic, that indicate that this system should win, ie. that it does have an edge including-after the rake: e.g. some pokerooms have raised their rake to 10%. This implies that some people, obviously skilled players, were winning, and that the fish power is large and still there.
Also, if this system is bound to fail and does not have an edge, then how on earth do pros win? Simply because they win big when they win and lose small when they lose? This alone and a few bloafs can defeat the rake? And if yes, by that much? Perhaps the pros who play big only have 1-2% rake because rake is lower in high tables, plus bonuses, rakeback deals, etc, or they are percentage commition affiliates! Now what is the difference between someone from the management of the casino who pretends to be a player, and an affiliate who gets the 30% of the profits the casino makes, who is a "pro" player? A very fine line difference I guess! I wander, the management cannot see my cards? Hahahaha, suddently the line between the overview and control of the game by the management, and get cheated by them, is very fine indeed! Nobody from the management can see all player's cards while in play? Or nobody can type the flop cards as they like? Terrible questions. Terrible conspiracy theories against people who are above suspicion: The online casino people from Costa Rica, Malta etc, definatelly honest people dealing with millions and whom you can never take court action against. However, I am expecting an answer from you all, for these simple questions.
Can the pros beat the 5% rake with no bonuses, rakeback etc? And if they can, my play is so much worse than theirs that my edge is below the rake and theirs is quite above? I have seen pros in finals. I am not impressed by them. They bloaf a lot where they would had been better with no bloafing. They did not convince me they are better than me, although I wish they were, because then I could improve and be rich. But I dont think I can improve besides reading people's minds and become luckier. I think you are getting impressed by the luck of people. Chan could had never made it to win so many tournaments if besides a very good player, he wasnt ALSO very, very lucky. I have won tournaments myself , cheap freerolls, and once I defeated 1027 people. I cannot see that pros are more advanced than me, regarding standard strategy. I do bloaf, very rarely, and by bloafs are usually successful. (And good luck has its reasons, and there is always a reason a person is lucky or unlucky, but it requires a whole book to explain further this, so ignore I said this).
Therefore, because of that and because of all the above, I conlude that the most probable is that my system does have an edge, including-after the 5%rake. So I should win in the long run. The fact that I kept losing and losing cannot be variance. I played pennies for hundreds of hands, and losing many hundreds of $. Then, as you guess, I had to think why on earth should casinos cheat, and I suddently realised that the casinos DO have profit in cheating the ones who win persistently. Now what probability do I have to give as a scientist that they do cheat? 0% as you say?
I have to repeat myself again: Yes, it could be that I lose big when I lose and win small when I win, to some higher degree than the pros, but I tried to correct this but after playing hundreds of hands, with the same results. It cannot be just that.
And hey, the only one of you who said is a constant winner (as far as I remember) is Pokeraddict
who is an affliliate and said crap all of arguments, pretending (or not pretending) that he misundestood them. Are you just trying to wear out the bad impressions I created for the poker rooms? Your interests as an affiliate are affected, aren't they? Ohhhhh. sorry, I am conspiracy theorizing again.