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

[winbig]

How did I fair?

Just be glad you won the low

 

[tennis_balls]

Just be glad you won the low

he didn't win the lo either

 

[winbig]

he didn't win the lo either

Oops, didn't notice that. I just saw:

I have the hi & low nuts & im expecting to get called.

 

[tennis_balls]

1) me - A 6 hearts 2 q
2) player 2 - 88 34
3) Player 3 - 55 10 j
4) player 4 - 34 67

player 4 = ThodorisK?

 

[GaryWatson]

The moral of the story is that I was unlucky. Ive hit as bad at holdem but ive also done the same to others so it tends to even out in the long run. Dam right I was pissed off. End of the night, about to collect a 2.5k pot, only to end my night on a losing session.

Th, save $500 into a 50c-$1 session. Play as tight as hell, try to collect big on one or two hands an hour. Do that for a month, then come back and tell me its rigged. The above hand shows a bad beat & how easy it is to get wiped out. These hands do happen all the times, there are a lot of hands in between that help ease the blow.

I gave you a situation where I felt the best option was to push all in. Your q-8 flush, although good is not guaranteed to be the best hand on the board. Mine was at the time. These things just happen.

If you want to flip a coin, its a 50% chance of heads or tails but I would bet against 5 heads/ 5 tails out of 10 spins. That is a pure luck game but the stats might never balance off .

Spin a roulette wheell, the last 10 numbers have been red, its no more likely to be black that red on the next spin.

Poker has an element of skill. Although the game has a lot of luck involved, the better player is more likely to win during a session. I'll be happy to play you for an hour at heads up for play money & we can go over the stats here if you want. Im not the strongest player but I wont make too many mistakes. We can just flash our hole cards after the hand & that will end this stats theory once and for all.

 

[Zoozie]

I have been winning for 3 years at online poker now. Of course there are still some bad weeks with a negative, but I have never had a whole month in the negative. (I also only play low stakes. NL50$ as the highest). Also I have some friends doing the same, some in tournaments.

So why are some winning and others not?

I have also had some really bad beats. I have lost twice with 4oK etc (using two hole cards) to straight flush. (Shame I did not play on a bad beat jackpot table).

There also is a program:
Link Removed ( Old/Invalid) .

Basically it, calculate equity during the streets and can then
tell if you generally say if you have been lucky or not. (Using hands seen at showdown)

Try this and see if you actually are as unlucky as you believe, you will see how many $ you will have more or less than expected.

It requires PokerTracker, and do get it if you really ever want to learn poker.

Zoozie

 

[pokeraddict]

Oops, didn't notice that. I just saw:

Yeah he never had the nut low. The set rivered a boat.

 

[ThodorisK]

I will repeat my suspicion that these "pros" are affiliates who take commision of the money given to the rake by other players (the affliate helped into bringing these players to the casino).
Basically that means that such affiliates are something like casino share holders.

I just noticed that in your profile Pokeraddict, you are stating you are a "pro". And you say you are not an affliate, whereas you have the bonuswhores page! That type of page can only belong to an affiliate.
Perhaps not earning a percetage of the rake other players are gining to the rake, but a standard fee for every player registed to each casino through your page. You denied this. But I repeat the indications.

And I will repeat, what a strange coincedence I got bad reputation points from only 2-3 people out of 1,200, and you were one of them.

But let's suppose that all my suspicions are wrong. Lets start from another basis: Suppose that I am a crap poker player, and that was the reason of my losses, and not that I was cheated. As I said, I wish I could believe that I am a crap player, cause then I could hope I was not cheated. Variance, it could not be. I played thousands of hands with pennies.

So, supposing I was not cheated, but I am a crap player. I have a serious question for you: What is your edge as a player if there was zero rake? Higher than 5%? So your edge exceeds the 5% rake and you can make profits with a 5% rake? Yes, I know you play bonuses and rakebacks, but lets forget about them. I am asking your edge if there was zero rake, and no other promotions. Don't tell me that it depens on your opponents. I am talking about your average edge overall.

(for those who dont understand, edge is the $ of average profit for every 100$ wagered)

Someone claimed that there are no fishes anymore as they are used to be, so he breakes even having the 5% rake, against him, but he gets the bonus at the end and the bonus equals his profits.
So that player claims his edge as a player if there was no rake, is exactly 5%.

So, what about you pokeraddict? And what about all of you constant winners at poker? What is your edge supposing the rake was zero?

 

[winbig]

I had one session where I lost $100 in 2 hands, 5 hands apart.

One was a nut flush vs straight flush. The other was a boat vs bigger boat.

Rigged? Nah. Bad luck.

I've won over $1200 in one hand as well. Was that rigged against the other player? Nah. He just sucked

Hand:
https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/winner-screenshots.4193/?highlight=yosi1

 

[ThodorisK]

Oh, I forgot to mention, today I came 4th at a freeroll of 500-600 people and won 26$. Of course you can say that people dont play seriously in cheap freerolls. Indeed. But you can imagine how much I trust pokerooms that they dont cheat, that I prefer to play cheap freerolls. I repeat that I won the first prize of 500$ in a freeroll last christmas, beating 1027 people. That wasnt so cheap freeroll. That crap player I am. And I dont play freerolls that often. Hey, do you know any such good freerolls? (not with 2000 and 5000 players)

 

[Keyser]

I will repeat my suspicion that these "pros" are affiliates who take commision of the money given to the rake by other players (the affliate helped into bringing these players to the casino).
Basically that means that such affiliates are something like casino share holders.

I just noticed that in your profile Pokeraddict, you are stating you are a "pro". And you say you are not an affliate, whereas you have the bonuswhores page! That type of page can only belong to an affiliate.
Perhaps not earning a percetage of the rake other players are gining to the rake, but a standard fee for every player registed to each casino through your page. You denied this. But I repeat the indications.

And I will repeat, what a strange coincedence I got bad reputation points from only 2-3 people out of 1,200, and you were one of them.

But let's suppose that all my suspicions are wrong. Lets start from another basis: Suppose that I am a crap poker player, and that was the reason of my losses, and not that I was cheated. As I said, I wish I could believe that I am a crap player, cause then I could hope I was not cheated. Variance, it could not be. I played thousands of hands with pennies.

So, supposing I was not cheated, but I am a crap player. I have a serious question for you: What is your edge as a player if there was zero rake? Higher than 5%? So your edge exceeds the 5% rake and you can make profits with a 5% rake? Yes, I know you play bonuses and rakebacks, but lets forget about them. I am asking your edge if there was zero rake, and no other promotions. Don't tell me that it depens on your opponents. I am talking about your average edge overall.

(for those who dont understand, edge is the $ of average profit for every 100$ wagered)

Someone claimed that there are no fishes anymore as they are used to be, so he breakes even having the 5% rake, against him, but he gets the bonus at the end and the bonus equals his profits.
So that player claims his edge as a player if there was no rake, is exactly 5%.

So, what about you pokeraddict? And what about all of you constant winners at poker? What is your edge supposing the rake was zero?

Just so everyone knows, Im the other one who gave you negative reputation (the one with zero rep power). I gave it to you because your posts are rambling, ill informed, and libelous to other posters and businesses. All of this is compounded by your astounding innumeracy, which annoys me to no end.

 

[winbig]

So, what about you pokeraddict? And what about all of you constant winners at poker? What is your edge supposing the rake was zero?

Why don't we all get together for a cash game or tournament and find out?

I'll be in Vegas again next year....anyone else?

 

[tennis_balls]

how long until you are sitting at a poker table in Vegas wondering how many of the other players are bots?

 

[winbig]

how long until you are sitting at a poker table in Vegas wondering how many of the other players are bots?

lmao

you forgot....

How can the dealer stack the deck THAT fast?

 

[pokeraddict]

I just noticed that in your profile Pokeraddict, you are stating you are a "pro". And you say you are not an affliate, whereas you have the bonuswhores page!

*Sigh* If I was an affiliate don't you think somebody here would know it and out me? I've been a member here for 4+ years and likely in the top 20 in terms of number of posts. I don't own BW and have never owned any % of BW. I worked for them as support and marketing as a flat salary. That ended last year after about 6 months. I'm almost positive I've already mentioned this. If I owned it don't you think CM or somebody else would have outed me or is every poster here a part of the conspiracy? Also wouldn't I be a fool not to use the signature feature to help promote my site?

There is a huge difference in being a winning player and taking a meaningless amount of money out of a freeroll. BTW were the cards rigged in your favor because it was a freeroll? What about the other players? They must have been all bots right?

Your neg rep was given because you started an identical thread about some ridiculous childish rant. If you go to your user CP you will see that.

Why haven't you stopped gambling yet?

 

[ThodorisK]

You commented on everything besides my question. Whats your edge against other players if the rake was zero? More than 5%? (anyway, I know you play with zero rake, or even less (!), but that is irrelevant to my question).

 

[pokeraddict]

You commented on everything besides my question. Whats your edge against other players if the rake was zero? More than 5%? (anyway, I know you play with zero rake, or even less (!), but that is irrelevant to my question).

The rake at the limits I play is usually 2% or so. Combine this with 30-35% rakeback and an occasional bonus or comp and the rake is about 1%. Since I don't play often play tourneys I'm not sure how to figure out my ROI.

A big problem low limit players have is that the rake is usually 4-5% and the low limits don't clear bonuses fast. Also many don't know about rakeback or don't know how much it will help them. This is why a vast majority of low limit players lose.

A good example of the difference in rake is a 6 big bet pot in 10/20 has a 2.5% rake. A 6 big bet pot in $1/$2 will have a 4.1% rake. It does not sound like much but over time this really adds up. Also keep in mind the difference rakeback would have. B&M rake is even worse and on top of that there is often a jackpot $1 drop and also the dealer toke. Low limit B&M is even harder to beat then online for these reasons.

I also play mostly O8 and stud8 so the rake is even more of a factor in those games but the pots are almost always bigger then holdem for those games.

Although I strongly advise you stop gambling if you insist on doing it then you need to get Pokertracker to find the holes in your game and stop blaming poker rooms, affiliates and other players for your losses.

 

[ThodorisK]

First of all I did not accuse affiliates for cheating in co-operation with the casinos, (only as an also possible case, lol). What I did was accusing the pros as affiliates, i.e. that they get their profits not from their poker play, but from commission of the rake taken from the other players. But enough of this theme, and this must be regarded irrelevate to the below:

Pokeraddicts last answer that he and the other pros make their profits while having only 1% rake to pay, is the best and only serious counter-argument against all my previous arguments: As since I made all these losses with a 5% rake on my back, (something which I made clear many times, from the right beginning of the thread) you could attribute my losses to this high rake of 5%. But it is I who brought this counter-argument to the surface, because I take both opposite sides of arguments, as anyone seeking objectively for the truth.

So, that is why I asked you if a pro player can win even with this 5% rake. Because:

1.) If it is almost impossible for a player to have a higher gross edge than 5%,
which could be e.g. 9% (because of his higher skill than other players) and thus have a net edge of 4% after this 5% rake, THEN why are you all blaming my poker skills for my losses, instead of saying that there was no cheating, but I simply lost because this 5% is unbeatable? Only one of you said this, the one who said that fishes are becoming fewer and less fishy, and he breaks even when he has a 5% rake against him, but he takes the bonus at the and as a profit.

2.) If, on the contrary, a good player can easily have a higher gross edge than 5% ,
which could be e.g. 9% (because of his higher skill than other players) and thus have a net edge of 4% after this 5% rake, THEN since you cannot know the level of my poker skill, how can you conclude that my skill differs THAT MUCH from this good player, and therefore that I lost because of my poor skill and not because of cheating? And if it doesnt differ that much, then I lost because of cheating! (as I explained before, it could not be variance).

Pokeraddict admitted that he cannot calculate his gross or net edge, and he only knows that he has an unknown to him net edge, which means that he has a gross edge that can be anything above the 1% which is the rake he pays. So, if you constant poker winners cannot calculate your gross edge, how can you answer the above complications? However, I thank Pokeraddict who finally answered something on the point of the matter and clarified this matter I had doubts about. I add him I thanks (if I do it correctly).

Therefore, whichever of the above two cases is the truth, your argument that I lost because of my poor skill is unreasonable.

I am expecting accurate answers.

My opinion is that (providing that there is no cheating) the gross edge of a simply conservative player can reach even above 15% (a net edge of 10%) in some poker rooms, especially at limit tables, where everyone (and always) bets not simply like a fish, but like nuts! And that is exactly the reason I suspect the management for cheating: Since the players there are soooo fishes, and they get constantly so lucky against my strong hands, then it is very probable that either:
A.) these super-fishes are the management or programs who take whatever cards they choose, and thus getting quickly the money of normal players, and at the same time they attract the existing and new players, exactly because of their super-fishness.
B.) or they are real fishes, but exactly because of this, the good players have a huge e.g. 10% net edge against them, and they are bound to end up with twice the profit of the rake makes. So the management has a tremendous motive to fix the cards in their favor against good players, in order to balance the wins and losses of all players, so that rake takes it all at the end (as I analysed in my previous posts).

I think these super-fishes do not exist in other sites, (at least that much). You can also check this at the players/flop stat of each pokeroom. That doesnt mean of course that these other sites do not cheat.

 

[ThodorisK]

(sorry, irrelative, not irrelevate)

 

[ThodorisK]

(mistake again, the thanks or reputation I added to Pokeraddict was for his last post, not any of the previous ones)

 

[tennis_balls]

THEN why are you all blaming my poker skills for my losses?

the few examples you have provided indicate that you are not an advanced poker player.

(i could go on but the ball on my IBM Selectric just froze-up and I need to change the ribbon.)

 

[pokeraddict]

The rake in $20-$100 NL is right around 5% and there are many players beating those games. The rake at $.50/$1 and $1/2 limit is 4.5% or so on average and people beat those. At Party Poker I show a 5.63% $1/$2 6 max rake % and yet I still have a win rate of 7.9 BB/100. Granted I have not played there in over a year so I'm sure the game quality is worse but one could almost certainly make a living even playing $1/$2 6 max at Party Poker even today if they played 4 tables at a time.

IMO if you play NL and can't beat at $50-$100 NL game then you are not a winning player.

 

[Swede]

It's only a matter of time before I post Konrad here. You don't want that.

 

[GaryWatson]

the few examples you have provided indicate that you are not an advanced poker player.

I really have to go along with that conclusion. Im not a pro player but I am fairly experienced. Long term I have been a winning player. Im on a bit of a losing streak at the moment. 5 Card draw has been good to me lately - holdem I have piss poor results as of late. I win the ocassional big tourney which gives me a boost.

I am an affiliate and dont give a dam who knows it or not. I collect a % of a players rake. I only encourage players to play at sites I myself am comfortable playing at.

Yes, there are many pro's parading as affiliates. They use their name to attract players & they also get a share of the rake. I fail to see where your problem lies.

An affiliate is just a marketer. The rake they collect from players they introduce are their fees. Websites offer information, it takes a lot of effort to gather the information. Players get free access to the site. If they want to skip the affiliate links, they can just go directly to the site & give the finger to the guy who has built the website. You wont get any additional benefits by going directly through the poker site. You are more likely to benefit by collecting an extra bonus by going through the affiliate site. The more people who sign up through the affiliate site, the more likely the affiliate is going to take care of his site. He will collect more commission, and you the end user will receive a better browsing experience. Its a win win situation.

I will assume casinomeister is affiliated to many sites here, but as you can see there has been a lot of work done to the site. It is regularly updated. You have access to a lot of information in the one place you may otherwise have to dig for. If I see a review here and I am interested in the site, I will have no hesitation signing up through an affiliate link here. As I said, its against the terms to sign up through your own links. There are many ways around it but I have no intention of risking my own player base to collect a little extra rake .

If pokeraddict is an affiliate, so what? if he wants to keep that fact hidden, thats his perogative. he says he isnt so I have no reason to disbelieve him. I have my problems with certain sites. I will post them here.

I am assuming you are attacking pokeraddict for being a pro poker player and an affiliate. Maybe you think he is giving misinformation because you think he is in cahoots with the site, fair enough. What I and others have stated with example is that your theory is totally flawed.....from your ideas on pro players.......affiliates.......rigged sites and without sounding rude, your knowledge of the game.

If you want to have an anti argument against an affiliate, try me. I will be happy to discect your argument with facts

 

[GaryWatson]

1.) If it is almost impossible for a player to have a higher gross edge than 5%,
which could be e.g. 9% (because of his higher skill than other players) and thus have a net edge of 4% after this 5% rake, THEN why are you all blaming my poker skills for my losses, instead of saying that there was no cheating, but I simply lost because this 5% is unbeatable? Only one of you said this, the one who said that fishes are becoming fewer and less fishy, and he breaks even when he has a 5% rake against him, but he takes the bonus at the and as a profit.

I would say your skills are lacking because you dont appear to use the betting as a guage as to whether or not your decent hand has been rumbled. You may look at your own hand but do not seem to put that in relation to others arounds you. That is a novice mistake. Your hand examples omitted basic information that an experienced player would never leave out

2.) If, on the contrary, a good player can easily have a higher gross edge than 5% ,
which could be e.g. 9% (because of his higher skill than other players) and thus have a net edge of 4% after this 5% rake, THEN since you cannot know the level of my poker skill, how can you conclude that my skill differs THAT MUCH from this good player, and therefore that I lost because of my poor skill and not because of cheating? And if it doesnt differ that much, then I lost because of cheating! (as I explained before, it could not be variance).

see above reply

Pokeraddict admitted that he cannot calculate his gross or net edge, and he only knows that he has an unknown to him net edge, which means that he has a gross edge that can be anything above the 1% which is the rake he pays. So, if you constant poker winners cannot calculate your gross edge, how can you answer the above complications? However, I thank Pokeraddict who finally answered something on the point of the matter and clarified this matter I had doubts about. I add him I thanks (if I do it correctly).

pokeraddict might never be the best at any given table. Maybe he just avoids the strong players and makes his profit from the fish. That in itself is a skill, one of which you do not seem to have grasped

Therefore, whichever of the above two cases is the truth, your argument that I lost because of my poor skill is unreasonable.

refer to my answers above and come to your own conclusions.

I am expecting accurate answers.

Your limited information answers it

My opinion is that (providing that there is no cheating) the gross edge of a simply conservative player can reach even above 15% (a net edge of 10%) in some poker rooms, especially at limit tables, where everyone (and always) bets not simply like a fish, but like nuts! And that is exactly the reason I suspect the management for cheating:

If they just bet the nuts, keep raising them off a hand. You will collect all the small pots and beat the rake. When they raise, just fold. poker101

Since the players there are soooo fishes, and they get constantly so lucky against my strong hands, then it is very probable that either:

A.) these super-fishes are the management or programs who take whatever cards they choose, and thus getting quickly the money of normal players, and at the same time they attract the existing and new players, exactly because of their super-fishness.

review your own betting strategy. Bad beats happen but if you do not know how to take the value out of the fish, you are the fish.

B.) or they are real fishes, but exactly because of this, the good players have a huge e.g. 10% net edge against them, and they are bound to end up with twice the profit of the rake makes. So the management has a tremendous motive to fix the cards in their favor against good players, in order to balance the wins and losses of all players, so that rake takes it all at the end (as I analysed in my previous posts).

Again I am suggesting that you are the fish so you should benefit by this type of fixing

I think these super-fishes do not exist in other sites, (at least that much). You can also check this at the players/flop stat of each pokeroom. That doesnt mean of course that these other sites do not cheat.

Ive had fish who sucked out on me big style. I like finding these players because they are just ATM's if they hang around long enough. Just reload and keep taking the value out of their optimistic calls