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

[ThodorisK]

When I started playing poker in 2005 I lost about 10,000 pounds quickly. Later I found out that I was a fish, as I was betting or following bets with crap preflop cards, wheras I should fold all preflop cards except the 20%-25% of the best preflop cards. That was when I discovered the expected value tables at pokeroom.com, which were stating which preflop hands generated a profit for the player, obviously taking in account the 5% rake. So I started following this rule, but I continued losing. Later I realised (after the advice I read of Nick The Greek, that I should fold unless I have a top pair), that most probably it is impossible to win in limit tables (with 5% rake), because if I bet or follow bets with only the 25% of the preflop and only when I have a top pair, then considering that even in these cases not all games will be won, then I expect to make profit only from, lets say, the 1% of the games! But how much profit can one make from the 1% of the games? Surely less that the post blinds in a limit holdem game! This conclusion is mine, and still none had ever said that it is impossible to win in limit tables! If there was no rake, most probably this system would make a profit even in limit tables. So I finally concluded that there is indeed a way to win, even with the 5% rake, and that is to play only in no limit (and perhaps pot limit) tables, where the post blinds are negligible compared with the average pot, and use the system I discribed above, winning only the 1-2% of the games. Confused? Its quite simple: Suppose a player folds all preflop hands except AA. Then he has a huge edge, minus the 5% rake, and he is bount to make a profit, even with the 5% rake. Then why this "only AA" system does not work? Because of the post blinds of course! You got it now? That is why there is indeed a way to win even with 5% rake, and the way is, that the post blinds should be negligible compared with the average pot, bet or follow bets only with 20-25% of the preflop, and only with top pair (and even then fold quite often when another player bets too much).

So, I would be rich? No! Unfortunatelly, after playing many thousands of hands with this system, I realised that 80% of the time that I have a strong hand (yes, in this 1% of the games) the others have a stronger, and quite often from crap hands. Now, I have advanced knowledge about probablilities and statistics (yes, the gauss bell, hypothesis tests, risk of ruin, etc), and I know the high variance of poker, so I know that either I am the unluckiest person of the world, or the poker rooms are rigged by the owners of the casino.

Now why would the casinos cheat since they have this huge rake of 5%?
Greed? They want it all? There is a strong counter-argument to this argument: Since the rake is a sure 5% of the pot, then they would eliminate people's bankrolls for sure, and the dont need to cheat with cheating software and bots, ie, fake players who are working for the casino. Well, this counter-argument also implies the reason of why they would cheat:
Suppose that a poker room has 199 players who are fishes, and only one player who's play is perfect, that is the system I discribed above (playing only the 20% of the preflop, only with a top pair at the flop, etc) which is close to the "only AA" logic. THEN THE EDGE OF THIS PLAYER AGAINST THE REST OF THE 199 PLAYERS, COULD BE, LETS SAY, 20-40%! THEREFORE, HE WOULD TAKE THE MONEY THAT THE REST OF THE 199 PLAYERS DEPOSITED TO THAT CASINO , WITH A MUCH HIGHER RATE THAN THE 5% RAKE DOES!
AND THEREFORE, MOST OF THE DEPOSITED MONEY OF THE PLAYERS WILL END UP IN HIS POCKET, AND ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE WILL GO TO THE RAKE, I.E. TO THE CASINO!
You might argue that this player will rarely have wins, whereas the rake wins at every game, so the win rate of the casino is higher. But the counterarguments of this, are that:
1.) what if many good players are on the tables, and not just one as in the example above?
2.) why should the casino let the good players win big, money that could end up in the casino, simply by cheating them?
3.) and most importantly, the statistics are strong: you cannot keep losing because of your very strong hands, even if you win small when these hands win and lose big when someone has a stronger hand (in an non-rigged non-fixed game). I dont notice only the profit-loss balance stats of the strong hands, but also HOW MANY of them simply win and HOW MANY of them simply lose.
After all this, you realise how difficult it is to statistically prove cheating on behalf of the casino in the game of poker, as there are many complications, whereas it is crystal clear when a casino cheats e.g. in the game of blackjack (you just bet some hundreds of hands and if you lose much-much more that the edge they have, they cheat with a 99% statistical confidence).

Dont respond to me with agreements. I want your disagreements, but these have to be strong counter-argumetns to make me consider them. It is only a counter-argument that reveals more unknown knowledge. An agreement only repeats the knowledge already known, like a parrot. And don't just say that I might not be a good poker player or the varience of poker is very high. I told you, I dont notice that much the win-loss balance stats of the strong hands, but mostly the NUMBER of the strong hands that they lose, and the NUMBER of the strong hands that they win.

Also, have you got any inspired ideas of how to pressure the casinos to be honest again? For the moment, the only thing I have to say to casino managers, is that if they continue with these practices such as cheating in poker and casino games, not paying or delaying withdrawals and winnings, and calling us "bonus abusers" because we bet small (if we bet big we will lose even if we had an edge in the games, so we are bonus abusers if we dont lose!), then because of bad reputation they will lose the huge profits that the landbased casinos have honestly: The profit from the edge of the casino games and the rake. Why do the landbased casinos have higher profits than the online ones? Because people trust them they dont cheat and pay in time, and never refuse the winnings of a player even a card-counter, (yes, I too am a card counter), they most they do is bann him for entering the casino again. But you clever senior managers of the online casinos, you are decreasing your market share more and more just because you want to drain quickly with the above practices, the extra small deposits players deposit with fear in your casinos. People are willing to gamble much more than the petty deposits they make in your online casinos. But they prefer the land based casinos for this. Why? Dont they want to gamble the same amounts also from their home? Why dont they? What fears them? Think about it.

[tennis_balls]

i'm afraid your poker strategies are far too predictable. a good player will take note of this and eventually alleviate you of your chips.

[ThodorisK]

How can he do this since I am betting only in 1-2% of the games where I have at least a high top pair at the flop with a strong kicker, and fold all other hands?He has to meet me when I have a very strong hand.

[ThodorisK]

And still, you are mising the point. Suppose that indeed I am a bad poker player. This can change, no problem with that. But if the casinos cheat, then there is no hope for anyone. As I said, the proof that casinos give out fixed cards is not that I am losing, nor that I lose because of my strong hands, which happen at the 1% of the games (I fold anything else), as this could happen because I do not generate more profit when these strong hands win
than the loss I have when they lose. Perhaps a very good player could make me fall into this trap.

But the proof that they give fixed cards is that THE NUMBER of the times these very strong hands lose, is much higher than THE NUMBER of the times that they win (of course I have to never fold to observe this, to complete my experiment, and that is why I say its irrelevant if I win or lose).

[ThodorisK]

(sorry, of course the number of losses will be less than the number of wins since there are more than 2 players playing. I meant that the win/loss ratio is much lower than the expected. )

[Keyser]

When I started playing poker in 2005 I lost about 10,000 pounds quickly. Later I found out that I was a fish, as I was betting or following bets with crap preflop cards, wheras I should fold all preflop cards except the 20%-25% of the best preflop cards. That was when I discovered the expected value tables at pokeroom.com, which were stating which preflop hands generated a profit for the player, obviously taking in account the 5% rake. So I started following this rule, but I continued losing. Later I realised (after the advice I read of Nick The Greek, that I should fold unless I have a top pair), that most probably it is impossible to win in limit tables (with 5% rake), because if I bet or follow bets with only the 25% of the preflop and only when I have a top pair, then considering that even in these cases not all games will be won, then I expect to make profit only from, lets say, the 1% of the games! But how much profit can one make from the 1% of the games? Surely less that the post blinds in a limit holdem game! This conclusion is mine, and still none had ever said that it is impossible to win in limit tables! If there was no rake, most probably this system would make a profit even in limit tables. So I finally concluded that there is indeed a way to win, even with the 5% rake, and that is to play only in no limit (and perhaps pot limit) tables, where the post blinds are negligible compared with the average pot, and use the system I discribed above, winning only the 1-2% of the games. Confused? Its quite simple: Suppose a player folds all preflop hands except AA. Then he has a huge edge, minus the 5% rake, and he is bount to make a profit, even with the 5% rake. Then why this "only AA" system does not work? Because of the post blinds of course! You got it now? That is why there is indeed a way to win even with 5% rake, and the way is, that the post blinds should be negligible compared with the average pot, bet or follow bets only with 20-25% of the preflop, and only with top pair (and even then fold quite often when another player bets too much).

So, I would be rich? No! Unfortunatelly, after playing many thousands of hands with this system, I realised that 80% of the time that I have a strong hand (yes, in this 1% of the games) the others have a stronger, and quite often from crap hands. Now, I have advanced knowledge about probablilities and statistics (yes, the gauss bell, hypothesis tests, risk of ruin, etc), and I know the high variance of poker, so I know that either I am the unluckiest person of the world, or the poker rooms are rigged by the owners of the casino.

Now why would the casinos cheat since they have this huge rake of 5%?
Greed? They want it all? There is a strong counter-argument to this argument: Since the rake is a sure 5% of the pot, then they would eliminate people's bankrolls for sure, and the dont need to cheat with cheating software and bots, ie, fake players who are working for the casino. Well, this counter-argument also implies the reason of why they would cheat:
Suppose that a poker room has 199 players who are fishes, and only one player who's play is perfect, that is the system I discribed above (playing only the 20% of the preflop, only with a top pair at the flop, etc) which is close to the "only AA" logic. THEN THE EDGE OF THIS PLAYER AGAINST THE REST OF THE 199 PLAYERS, COULD BE, LETS SAY, 20-40%! THEREFORE, HE WOULD TAKE THE MONEY THAT THE REST OF THE 199 PLAYERS DEPOSITED TO THAT CASINO , WITH A MUCH HIGHER RATE THAN THE 5% RAKE DOES!
AND THEREFORE, MOST OF THE DEPOSITED MONEY OF THE PLAYERS WILL END UP IN HIS POCKET, AND ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE WILL GO TO THE RAKE, I.E. TO THE CASINO!
You might argue that this player will rarely have wins, whereas the rake wins at every game, so the win rate of the casino is higher. But the counterarguments of this, are that:
1.) what if many good players are on the tables, and not just one as in the example above?
2.) why should the casino let the good players win big, money that could end up in the casino, simply by cheating them?
3.) and most importantly, the statistics are strong: you cannot keep losing because of your very strong hands, even if you win small when these hands win and lose big when someone has a stronger hand (in an non-rigged non-fixed game). I dont notice only the profit-loss balance stats of the strong hands, but also HOW MANY of them simply win and HOW MANY of them simply lose.
After all this, you realise how difficult it is to statistically prove cheating on behalf of the casino in the game of poker, as there are many complications, whereas it is crystal clear when a casino cheats e.g. in the game of blackjack (you just bet some hundreds of hands and if you lose much-much more that the edge they have, they cheat with a 99% statistical confidence).

Dont respond to me with agreements. I want your disagreements, but these have to be strong counter-argumetns to make me consider them. It is only a counter-argument that reveals more unknown knowledge. An agreement only repeats the knowledge already known, like a parrot. And don't just say that I might not be a good poker player or the varience of poker is very high. I told you, I dont notice that much the win-loss balance stats of the strong hands, but mostly the NUMBER of the strong hands that they lose, and the NUMBER of the strong hands that they win.

Also, have you got any inspired ideas of how to pressure the casinos to be honest again? For the moment, the only thing I have to say to casino managers, is that if they continue with these practices such as cheating in poker and casino games, not paying or delaying withdrawals and winnings, and calling us "bonus abusers" because we bet small (if we bet big we will lose even if we had an edge in the games, so we are bonus abusers if we dont lose!), then because of bad reputation they will lose the huge profits that the landbased casinos have honestly: The profit from the edge of the casino games and the rake. Why do the landbased casinos have higher profits than the online ones? Because people trust them they dont cheat and pay in time, and never refuse the winnings of a player even a card-counter, (yes, I too am a card counter), they most they do is bann him for entering the casino again. But you clever senior managers of the online casinos, you are decreasing your market share more and more just because you want to drain quickly with the above practices, the extra small deposits players deposit with fear in your casinos. People are willing to gamble much more than the petty deposits they make in your online casinos. But they prefer the land based casinos for this. Why? Dont they want to gamble the same amounts also from their home? Why dont they? What fears them? Think about it.

Poker involves a lot more than just playing strong cards.

For instance, if you are dealt pocket aces in a ten-handed game, and everyone stays until the river, you are only expected to win 31% of the time. http://www.professional-poker.com/st...cket-pairs.htm
If you expand the starting hands that you play, that percentage will drop even more. Therefore, the fact that you have lost more often than you have won, even to the tune of 80% of the time, is not proof of a rigged casino. It is more likely that you are an inexperienced player, as you yourself admitted in the beginning of your post. For instance, if you slowplay all of your "strong hands", this outcome that you describe is extremely likely, as you are giving other weak hands the chance to catch the cards they need.

Furthermore, your first counterargument is flawed. The casino gets their rake no matter how many good players are at the table. Even if the table is only filled with previous WSOP winners, the casino makes the same rake.

Finally, you are basically implying that all the casinos are emplying shills or bots to take advantage. You need a lot more to back that up than just a few stats.

Maybe the best way to convince yourself is to play at a brick and mortar casino, and see that you probably do just as badly there as you are onliine.

[1819]

the problem online is there are way too many morons in the hand. when that happens anything is possible. lets say you raise your pocket bullets. maybe a a k calls, then pocket q's. then flop. if a guy catches his queen then so be it. the problem is when the idiot with the 9 7 calls and then catches. 1 table thats fine. you will eventually take his money if he continues to call with garbabe. when in a big tourney, and you finally bust the 9 7 fool, he is replaced by another idiot who goes all in every hand. tuff to play well when that is happening. there is alot of luck involved in cards also but it is frustrating when people are pullin pots that dont even belong in the hand.

[winbig]

Why do people waste so much time trying to prove that poker sites are rigged, instead of trying to improve their game?

[WAYLANDER]

Not another poker rooms are fixed post !!

The short and sweet of it is.....
1. You have been on the bad side of variance or
2. You are a losing player

Either way it is a mute point because if you think this way you are never going to win.. give up now !

WAYLANDER

[winbig]

Not another poker rooms are fixed post !!

Here's a classic "rigged" thread....funny reading!

http://www.casinomeister.com/forums/...ure-scums.html

That guy reminds me of Mel Gibson!