I am more than 90% certain that all poker rooms are rigged

[ThodorisK]

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.

[pokeraddict]

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?

I'm not an affiliate for any poker room and never have been. In fact I used to own a rakeback watchdog website when rakeback exploded that helped protect players. I'm not really sure where you get your facts from but one thing I do know is that you are obviously not a winning player and since you can't handle losing you probably need to stop gambling.

Not only do I win online but I win at home games, B&M games and have a WSOP cash. Am I somehow a part of some WSOP conspiracy too? Am I a part of a conspiracy in Deadwood too that helps me win? I use the same skills to win live as I do online. The advantage online is that I can win more because I play 6 games at once and the games are 50% faster then B&M. Not only that but the rake is lower and you don't have to worry about tipping anybody. The bonuses, VIP programs and rakeback also help with the bottom line.

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

Right but there is no poker game in the world that I know of that does not have blinds or antes so this is a useless point and probably isn't even true anyway. If the players at your table know you only play AA guess what? You will never get any action. That is why virtually all weak tight players can't win at poker and I assume you are one of those.

You've gone from the cards are rigged conspiracy to management are cheating shills conspiracy theory, what's next?

You say you've played enough hands for variance to not be an issue. That only leaves one reason why you are losing. You can't handle losing obviously and are on a ridiculous rant. Take a deep breath, have a beer and think about taking up a hobby that does not get you so stressed out.

[ThodorisK]

"You've gone from the cards are rigged conspiracy to management are cheating shills conspiracy theory, what's next?"

Right from the beginning, by "rigged" I meant that the management uses cheating software, in fact that they type the cards form their computer.

Aka23 who has the page "beatingbonuses" admited to me that he is an affliliate, and he gets a fee for each player who registers to the casinos through his page. However, he told me that he does not take a commision percentage over the losses made by these players. This makes some sense as I have made a profit from all these bonuses, and (if not being cheated) there is a quite straight forward for a player to make almost sure profits there, unlike poker. So the casinos would be quite unsatisfied with the profits made form players from his website.

Now your page is of the same type with Aka23's. Why don't you admit you are an affiliate? Perhaps you are only taking a fee for each player registering through your page, and not taking share in the profits of the casinos, but many affiliates do, and I think many "pro" players.

But, still, I am 99% certain that some casinos use cheating software at blackjack and other games. Even Aka23 presents some statistical evidence:http://www.beatingbonuses.com/warningwg.htm
The probability that this player was not being cheated in that casino is 1 in a trillion! Read the link. Now how large company and "therefore trustworthy" you consider SB? (I dont want to name the casino here). I played there to test it and lost 40pounds by playing 1-1-1-1-1 pound, in 200 hands! Of course I run away and forgot about the bonus. Although this company is very big, doesnt give a dime if their cheating is shouting obvious and can easily be statistically prooved. They could cheat less obviously, i.e. less often, but as it seems, they want it all and they want it now (lol).
Some crazy statistics happened to me in some other casinos too, when playing blackjack. I think all big casinos have the capability of cheating, but it depens if they decide to do so or not.

You are telling me to stop playing. I have stopped playing poker. I only play casino bonuses, as I am poor (because of poker). I am not a gambler. As I previously explained with the example with the gambler who wants to double his bankroll at roulette, a gambler is bound to lose because of the edge against him. I have been banned from 2 land based casinos in London because of card counting.

[ThodorisK]

hey, why can't i edit my text any more?

[lots0]

But, still, I am 99% certain that some casinos use cheating software at blackjack and other games.

@ ThodorisK

So don't play then.

If you are going to continue to play... stop whining about being a losing player, it is really annoying.

You know you can fix being a losing player, but I don't think there is a fix for being a whining crybaby...

[pokeraddict]

Now your page is of the same type with Aka23's. Why don't you admit you are an affiliate?

I am not or have ever been an affiliate and sold my rakeback watchdog site in May of 2006. I then went to work for a poker bonus website and it was sold in December of 2006. I ran support and marketing among other things, I never directly profited from the affiliate revenue as I had a set salary. My only source of income now outside of investments is poker. Please get your facts straight.

With your inability to think logically why would I expect you to be able to understand something simple like what I do for a living. I've only told you in this thread 4 or 5 times.

FWIW casinos have been caught cheating before. These are house games and nobody has ever disputed that casinos have cheated. You however have accused poker rooms of cheating.

[swampwitch]

There are maybe 2 people in this thread who are actual poker affiliates. I am one of them. You accuse pokeraddict of being an affiliate, then basically call him a liar when he explains he is not.

And what the hell is so godawful about being an affiliate? Some of us are absolutely honest and aboveboard. Some of us, if we have found a pokerroom lacking in integrity, have dropped them immediately, thereby losing any affiliate income for the future. I'm really sick of some people painting all affiliates with the same brush. You know nothing about me or any other affiliate who posted in this thread.

And when we posted, we posted about the subject at hand...we did not promote or endorse any particular pokerroom. We replied as players...

You sir, are a condescending shmuck, and if you ever pull your overly-swelled head out of your ass and learn that any game that includes human error and random deal is not an exact science, you might just become a better player.

[Casinomeister]

Threads merged to keep things tidy.

[ThodorisK]

Besides all else, I also questioned you all that it is a bit strange that an affliate who takes 30% of the profits made by the pokeroom of a casino can also be a poker player to that casino. It is like having the casino also as a player. This fits to my suspicion that the management types the cards sometimes to make skilled players lose. And it also explains the contradiction of how it is possible that the management cheats the skilled players to make them lose AND and the same time some skilled players appear as pros, that is making constantly big profits. I could not figure this out, but I just gave you the explanation. Just yesterday I realised this. I am not saying that all affliliates taking share in profits do this, but I just demolished your argument that casinos dont cheat because some "pros" are making profits.

But the suspicion regarding affliates is indipendend from the theory that management cheats good players. Perhaps the management cheats and no affiliate has anyhting to do with it.

But since some casinos like Propoker and Pokertropolis, as I read recently, did cheat exactly the way I suspected before I read it (the management playing as players), then why dont all casinos have this capability of doing the same? And how can you be 100% certain that they never do? Just because Pokertracker checks them? They could cheat that rarely that statistical evidence cannot be found. A cheat once or twice every 100 hands can be seen as variance and no stats can proove it. 2-3 times every 100 hands perhaps is enough to eliminate the edge (after-including the rake) a very skilled player can have. This also applies to cheating in casino games.
Anyway, I think I have exhausted the matter regarding warning poker players. There is no point in continuing this thread and making it too many pages. You can have the last word.

[ThodorisK]

To make it clearer, the contradiction I just solved yesterday and it was puzzling me before, is that how it is possible that the management cheats skilled players AND at the same some skilled players appearing as pros, make big profits constantly. And the solution to the contradiction is that it might be that these pros are affiliates who take a 30% commision of the losses other players do. And of course the casino will not cheat these players, as these basically ARE the casino. A 30% commision is like holding a percentage of the shares of a company, so they are the owners of the company. Voila.