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

Status
Not open for further replies.
1) Give me the link on the article which says what exactly did Propoker and Pokertropolis. What exactly is bots as props/shills? How was the cheating proven in Propoker and Pokertropolis?

2) Who polices the reputable poker rooms? How can chating be discovered? How can it be proven? By many thousands of hands of extremely complicated statistical analysis? Whos gonna do this? And even if it is proven that they cheat, will you hear it in the news? I hear it from the first time about Propoker and Pokertropolis.

3) your argument that:

Winnings players as a rule generate far more rake then fish ever will. Usually fish are casual part time players where winning players spend many more hours a week playing generating many times the rake.

Is a shallow thought penetration, and mistaken:
Suppose that for every 100$ the fishes lose, 50$ ends up to the rake and 50$ ends up to the skilled players. If there was no rake, the skilled players would get all of the 100$.
When the skilled players will start giving to the rake this 50$ that they previously won, at the same time they will earn more than they give to the rake, from the NEW cash deposited by the fishes.

That is, the time the rake is taking the half of the money lost by the fish which was won by the skilled players , at the same time it will be failing to take the half of the new deposited money of the fish, AND SO ON, AND SO ON, AND SO ON. Therefore, after lets say, 200 years, the result will be again be the same. Half of the fishes money will have ended up to the rake, and half to the skilled players.
If this was not the case, the skilled players would be losers and not winners.

Now, if the skill of all players was equal and thus no player would had an edge over the other, then and ALL of the money of all players, would end up the rake.
Both constantly, and in the long run.
And this can be achieved if the casino cheats the ones whos bankroll is obsereved that is growing systematically. This way the bankroll of everybody will be cropped by the rake, and they will all have to re-deposit.

5.) 50% the KK wins when 4 players, all included are seated and are in play: Outdated URL (Invalid)
 
1. I'm not sure someone so paranoid should be reading what a few scumbags did but if you go to 2+2 and search "Propoker" "+pro+poker" or "Pokertropolis" you should find substantial writings on what happened. Make sure to change the search to the max (4 years) and for better results search only the internet gambling forum.

2. Pokertracker software will easily catch cheating poker rooms. If you are really worried about this stick to sites supported by PT. Read poker forums to catch up on news. I've posted about Pokertropolis here warning players years ago and there are a few threads about Propoker here.

3. The skilled players will play many more hours then the fishies because that is their job. Fishies work, skilled players play longer because they earn money while they play. Your example about the players of equal skill will break even and lose equal amounts to the rake is very flawed. Blackjack typically has a .5% house advantage or so. Does that mean every time I bet $100 I lose $.50 each hand? Of course not. Players are still going to win. Also how is a room going to rig the cards to make nobody win? How do they know players will play hands a certain way. Everybody has folded QJ preflop and gotten a AKT flop for the nuts. If I was suppose to win the hand because it was rigged for my turn and I fold then what happens?

4. I don't see any #4

5. You say you only put money is the pot with the top 1% of hands and are playing 4 handed then I know why you are losing so much. I bet you are losing insane amounts of money. You shouldn't be playing short handed. I hardly believe your claim anyway. You certainly have not provided and hand histories or Pokertracker screenshots. Are you basing this because you keep losing online because you play short handed poorly?

If you can't handle losing without blaming it on the big bad poker rooms that don't care if you win or not then don't gamble. There are endless players like myself making a decent living playing poker online. These are the same players that have WSOP cashes and in some cases bracelets. If these online poker games are rigged then why do successful internet pros double as successful live pros? Are we just lucky enough to have internet poker rigged in our favor for years?
 
OP, these threads are ridiculous.

They might be, however I was sitting tonight talking to a few poker friends of mine regarding this. The general belief is that you often get alot of strong hands online compared to real play. This doesn't mean the house is cheating, only that the cards are "juiced", making all players play more aggressive. If you have been playing alot online, do you agree or disagree on this? (It's not a cheat since it's done to all).
 
They might be, however I was sitting tonight talking to a few poker friends of mine regarding this. The general belief is that you often get alot of strong hands online compared to real play. This doesn't mean the house is cheating, only that the cards are "juiced", making all players play more aggressive. If you have been playing alot online, do you agree or disagree on this? (It's not a cheat since it's done to all).

I disagree. When you play online you play between 60-150 hands an hour as opposed to live being 25-35 hands an hour. You're seeing so many more hands so you are going to see more bad beats. You will also see many hands where there is no flop or hands where it is folded around to the blinds. The difference is that you don't remember the time you were big blind and everyone folded, you remember the time you had AA and KK called you down and hit a runner runner straight.

I don't know why I bother to participate in threads like this. If you think it's rigged prove it and/or don't play. Poker Tracker will easily prove/disprove these theories. No site has ever been challenged with any credible evidence but it's amazing how many people have all of these conspiracy theories.
 
3) your argument that:

Winnings players as a rule generate far more rake then fish ever will. Usually fish are casual part time players where winning players spend many more hours a week playing generating many times the rake.

Is a shallow thought penetration, and mistaken:
No, it's not shallow, it is what it is.
You have not proven in your essays that it makes sense for any pokerroom to favor the lousy/beginning players. The rake is the same, whether it's coming from a table of sharks or it's coming from the regular player. The amount the pokerroom makes is directly proportianate to the number of hands played. Period. The software doesn't give a rat's ass who has a better chance of playing at a table with Hellmuth.

2) Who polices the reputable poker rooms? How can chating be discovered? How can it be proven? By many thousands of hands of extremely complicated statistical analysis? Whos gonna do this? And even if it is proven that they cheat, will you hear it in the news? I hear it from the first time about Propoker and Pokertropolis.
And this is really your whole point. It's a pain in the ass to get proof, ergo the pokerroom is cheating?
In the bad old days, when a woman was accused of witchcraft, she was lowered into a river. If she floated, it was proof of witchcraft, and she was put to death. If she sank, she was not a witch and innocent of the charge....but she drowned.
It looks to me as if you're arguing that the lack of proof is the proof itself that pokerrooms cheat.

Your arguments are interesting, and well thought out...I'm just not buying them. If you are really looking for constructive and intelligent discourse on the subject, you might try to tone down the egotistical put-downs a bit.
 
I can't believe it !!

Just had AA beaten by KK for the 2nd time this week !!

F##%ing Cheating B#%$rd Cardrooms !!

Complete B%##^hit !!

F#@%ing Swindler's the lot of em !!

WAYLANDER
 
I can't believe it !!

Just had AA beaten by KK for the 2nd time this week !!

F##%ing Cheating B#%$rd Cardrooms !!

Complete B%##^hit !!

F#@%ing Swindler's the lot of em !!

WAYLANDER

Don't you know AA only wins 3% of the time when KK is out? This way the poker room generates more rake because the weaker player with KK is more likely to play longer on his deposit then the good player that lost AA. More rake for the house and this way nobody wins. This is how online poker is :lolup:

It really sounds silly when it's put into perspective.
 
Most of my winning sessions are because my 9-3 or 2-6 offsuit beat AA KK. These hands are only a single pair. unlucky if you lose with them preflop but after the flop, not so unlucky. As pokeraddict stated. We play far more hands online & thats where i think you are getting confused. ive had 3 royal flushes but ive probably played over 2 million hands so that stat is not that surprising. I wouldnt worry about that sort of scamming online, the poker sites collect their rake reguardless of who wins. Games like roulette or blackjack you may have a point but my game of choice is poker. I prefer to play against my peers, not the house.
 
Also, if the pokerrooms don't like the Sharks winning all the time why do they offer better bonuses and comps to the Sharks? Because they are the players they want. They end up playing higher stake tables, reach the rake cap more often and play hands faster thus generating more hands per hour.

Fishes slow it down by deliberating over their cards and more of them staying in a hand that they shouldn't which means less hands per hour.

Sharks generate more rake.
 
Also, if the pokerrooms don't like the Sharks winning all the time why do they offer better bonuses and comps to the Sharks? Because they are the players they want. They end up playing higher stake tables, reach the rake cap more often and play hands faster thus generating more hands per hour.

Fishes slow it down by deliberating over their cards and more of them staying in a hand that they shouldn't which means less hands per hour.

Sharks generate more rake.

Yep without a doubt. Check out some of the high stakes pokerstars ring games. Some of these players are playing 10+ tables, all hitting max rake every hand. Their daily rake is in the 1000's. AA is constantly cracked due to bad play - how to you make a statistical variable for bad play? AA is cracked more in limit games than no-limit games because its more difficult to push a player off a hand. Small stake games it is difficult to push a player off a hand because many are just playing for a gamble.

I dont know the statistical win ratio for AA after the flop but if 10 players all call to see the flop, I dont think AA would have more than a 20% chance. I get worried holding AA with 2 callers, With 9 callers you are favorite but its odds on that your premium hand will be cracked
 
Also keep in mind sharks (or let's call them semi-pros or pros :) ) will play 4,6,8 or even 12 tables at a time while the fishy (or let's call them casual players) will just play 1 table or maybe 2.

The comp programs are another great point. How many total donkeys are Supernova Elite at Stars? I'm guessing none.
 
strategy for winning poker is far more complex than anything that could be put in a single thread. Ultimately 20% of flops is too loose for a tight style that you are suggesting post flop. also there is a lot of $$ to be made in a) winning without a showdown with hand that isnt the best b) minimising losses when have 2nd best hand and c) maximising profits when have the best and doing appropriate bets to protect hand when appropriate that makes much of the focus of what you are saying not too big a factor overall as skill in these areas can easily make a profit outwaying the 5%.

In terms of the poker sites being rigged theory its kind of very hard to prove in absolute terms but the strongest arguement to me for it not being rigged without it getting complex is that only poor loosing players think that "it is rigged" where as strong experienced players never make these assertions.

Many randomising softwares are independantly audited and all pass. With 5% rake (actually not 5% as many sites have caps on rake per hand and some do not rake hands that do not see a flop/show down) it is hard for players to make a profit on average and many do not. It is a testiment to the level of skill and lack of riggedness that plenty players are able to make a profit
 
These days I find that online games $1-$2 and above tend to have mainly skilled players with only a few fishies.

The quality has IMO improved a hell of lot just in the 3 years ive been playing online.

And if you are playing with 8 or 9 half decent opponents and a 5% rake you are going to be lucky to break even let alone win.

I used to play for bonuses and win on top but now im happy to break even and collect a bonus.

I am fairly happy that most online rooms deal a fair game, and apart from the 1 network in my next paragraph I havnt seen anything to make me think rigged, and my pokertracker stats seem "normal" at a whopping 0.12BB/100 over 86998 hands:oops::oops:

Out of all the online rooms I have played in only 1 has me suspicious and that's the crypto network. I have seen WAY to many unbelievable things on this network on an almost daily basis :eek::eek:
 
Yes, indeed, the fishes are getting fewer, but it is from fishes I got ripped off, so I think its the management playing as players. Anyway, I have stopped playing poker. I give a small probability that it was just a very high variance and not cheated by the management of the casinos, but I cannot afford to experiment any more.

Please do not continue this thread any more, reply to the other thread I started: "why it is for the interest of the casino to cheat skilled poker players". I will not reply to this thread again. I cannot follow them both. My mistake, I should had kept it to one thread.
 
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?
:lolup:

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
"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:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top