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.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

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!

https://www.casinomeister.com/forums/threads/ipoker-titan-noble-fair-pure-scums.13980/

That guy reminds me of Mel Gibson!

 

[ThodorisK]

Thanks for your thoughtfull reply.I tried to correct the initial text by my next message posted before your reply:
"(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. )"

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

So, what I meant by saying that I lose "80%" of the time, is that when the probability of winning with e.g KK is about 50% with 4 players, (see Outdated URL (Invalid)),
I observed statistically a probability of winning 20%, and losing 80%.
And this keep happening for all the best 20% of the best preflop hands.

As for the matter that the casinos have no interest to cheat the best players in favour of the fishes, you are wrong, and I explained it unmistakenly in my initial text. Read it again. If the good players have an edge of e.g. 30% against the fishes, then, in simple words, they will take the deposited money of the fishes BEFORE the rake does. That means that most of the deposited money of the fishes will end up to the good players and a smaller share will end up in rake. But if the good players are cheated in favour of the fishes, then ALL of the deposited money will end up in the rake! Meditate on it.

But I am pleased with your remarks. You attempted a deep analysis in the matter, but i want deeper counter-arguments from you and the others. Something I havent thought of. All things you mentioned I know them.
I am not trying to proove that they are cheating. I am trying to get more logical proofs that they are cheating OR THAT THEY ARE NOT CHEATING.
But my so far analysis indicates that the first indication is much more probable.

Two more questions:
1) Are you winning?
2) what are these "brick and mortar" casinos?

 

[Keyser]

Thanks for your thoughtfull reply.I tried to correct the initial text by my next message posted before your reply:
"(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. )"

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

So, what I meant by saying that I lose "80%" of the time, is that when the probability of winning with e.g KK is about 50% with 4 players, (see Outdated URL (Invalid)),
I observed statistically a probability of winning 20%, and losing 80%.
And this keep happening for all the best 20% of the best preflop hands.

As for the matter that the casinos have no interest to cheat the best players in favour of the fishes, you are wrong, and I explained it unmistakenly in my initial text. Read it again. If the good players have an edge of e.g. 30% against the fishes, then, in simple words, they will take the deposited money of the fishes BEFORE the rake does. That means that most of the deposited money of the fishes will end up to the good players and a smaller share will end up in rake. But if the good players are cheated in favour of the fishes, then ALL of the deposited money will end up in the rake! Meditate on it.

But I am pleased with your remarks. You attempted a deep analysis in the matter, but i want deeper counter-arguments from you and the others. Something I havent thought of. All things you mentioned I know them.
I am not trying to proove that they are cheating. I am trying to get more logical proofs that they are cheating OR THAT THEY ARE NOT CHEATING.
But my so far analysis indicates that the first indication is much more probable.

Two more questions:
1) Are you winning?
2) what are these "brick and mortar" casinos?

I dont understand. How does rigging a poker game so that bad players win affect the rake of the casino? The rake is the same no matter who ultimately wins each hand.

"Brick and mortar" = real, NON-internet casino (i.e. all those fancy buildings in Las Vegas)

 

[ThodorisK]

I will formulate it again in a new thread as I made many misformulations in my initial text. I will not make it any more clear for you to understand. Actually, it might be even more difficult. Perhaps you do not know the mathematics which explain why an edge, i.e. an advantage, produces certain profit in the long run.

 

[ThodorisK]

Why it is for the interest of the casino to cheat skilled poker players

I have to formulate again what I said in the initial text of the thread "I am more than 90% certain that poker rooms are rigged", as I made a few mistakes-misformulations (e.g. I said that I know I have been cheaten because the number of times my strong hands lose is higher than the number of times that they win, something which is bound to happen if more than 2 players are playing).

The proof that casinos give out fixed cards is not that I am losing, nor that I lose because of my strong hands, (strong hands which happen at the 1% of the games, and 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.

I dont notice that much the profit-loss balance stats of the strong hands, but mostly the NUMBER of the strong hands that they simply lose, and the NUMBER of the strong hands that they simply win. The proof that the casinos give fixed cards is that THE NUMBER OF TIMES these strong hands lose, is much higher than the expected NUMBER OF TIMES that they should lose (of course I have to rarely fold to observe this, to complete my experiment, and that is why I say its irrelevant if I win or lose). E.g. when the probability of winning with KK is about 50% with 4 players, (see Outdated URL (Invalid)),
I observed statistically a probability of winning 20%, and losing 80%.
And this keeps happening for all the 1/4th of the best preflop hands.

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 theyre gonna have it all anyway, as they would slowly crop and accumulate all the bankroll of the depositors for sure, so they 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: No, they are not gonna have it all for sure, they are in danger of not taking even the half of peoples deposits IF there are a lot of very good (high-skilled) players AND a lot of very bad (low skilled) players i.e. fishes. They would take every last penny of everyone for sure, IF the skill level of all players was about the same, and this is not the case. Why all this?

if the good players have an edge of e.g. 30% against the fishes, then, in simple words, they will take the deposited money of the fishes before the rake does. More accurately, the good players will accumulate the money deposited by the fishes with a much higher rate (e.g. 30%) than the rate of the 5% of the rake. So most of the deposited money of the fishes will end up to the good players and a smaller share will end up in rake. Or more accurently, the bankroll of the casino will grow more slowly than the bankroll of the skilled players. But if the good players are cheated in favour of the fishes, then all of the deposited money will end up in the rake!

You might argue that the good players rarely have wins compared to the total number of the games played, so this 30% applies only for a small percentage of the games played, whereas the rake wins at every game (except the games with no flop dealt), so the rate of accumulation of the deposited money that rake has, in comparison to the rate of accumulation of the deposited money of the skilled players, is much higher than the ratio 30% against 5% explained above. I answer that yes, indeed, and because of that, the more probable case is that this rate of the rake is higher than this rate of the skilled players.

But the counterarguments of this, are that:
1.) why should the casino let the good players bankrolls keep growing and growing with a huge rate, money that could end up in the casino, simply by cheating them? We have seen cases that reputable casinos found excuses of not paying small profits players made, e.g. the bonus abusers. This is because small profits multiplied by many players, becomes much money for the casinos.
2.) and most importantly, the statistics of how many times do the strong hands (not just regarding preflop hands) win, and how many times they lose, indicate cheating.

As I said in my previous thread, I am not trying to convince you that casinos cheat at poker. I cannot be 100% certain, anyway. But my so far clues indicate that the most probable case is that they do. Dont some casinos cheat at blackjack? I know some that they do, with 99% statistical confidence, but am I allowed to say which they are in here? One of them was revealed in a post in this site a year ago.

Perhaps the most of you will find it impossible to understand all this if you are not familiar with the mathematics which explain how much certain it is that the one who has an edge, an advantage over the other, is bound to take all his money. This is an oppurtunity to give a simple fact which will wake up the common gambler:

The probability that a roulette player will lose a bet e.g. at the red or black, is 19/37=51.35% and the probability that he will win it, is 18/37=48.65%. So if he makes 100 bets, on average he will lose 51.35 bets and he will win 48.65 bets. Therefore he will lose 51.35-48.65=2.7 bets on average, for every 100 bets he wagers. That is what the "2.7% edge" means.

Simple so far. But the astonishing fact is this: Suppose a player has a 10,000$ bankroll and goes to the casino, and he is desperate to double his bankroll, and make it 20,000$. If he bets the whole 10,000$ at once, in one bet, on red or black, then he has a 48.65% probability of achieving his goal of doubling his bankroll to 20,000$. BUT IF HE TRIES TO MAKE HIS 10,000$ BANKROLL INTO 20,000$ SLOWLY, BY BETTING E.G. 50$ PER BET OR 100$ PER BET, THEN THE PROBABILITY OF REACHING THE 20,000$ IS NOT EVEN 1%!!!!!!!!!!! The common gambler ignores this fact, and thinks that the probability is again about 48%! If players knew this simple fact, then they would stay away from roulette, dont you think? Start web-searchin with the title "gamler's ruin" or "risk of ruin" etc to find the corresponding formulas if you unfamiliar with the subject.

 

[ThodorisK]

Sorry again, I mis-expressed what I meant by the phrase "certain profit". Not only profit is certain, but the elimination of the whole bankroll of the opponent is certain, if one has even a slight edge over that opponent

 

[ThodorisK]

So if this low edge of 2.7% of roulette is so much certain that will eliminate the whole bankroll of players, you can imagine how certain it is that the skilled player will eliminate the bankrolls of the fishes, if he has an edge of more than 10% against them. So, do you understand now, how the skilled players can compete the 5% rake?

You must also understand that my arguments are irrelevant to whether I myself am a good poker player or not.

 

[steinhaug]

I am pretty much sure you are right on this one. A friend of mine has played alot of Texas Holdem on the net (mind you, Im a slots player and not a card player). He told me of all the intence plays on the net, with all those great hands (And still didn't win - as you say) - but all others seemed to get those darn greater hands the same time.

I asked him - do you get all theese great hands in real life? The ansewr is ofcourse no. My gut feeling for asking this question, just as you expect aswell, is that the software presents faulty cards to the players giving them extra strong hands (while infact not having it).

I havn't looked into the stats on this myself, but as noted above - I know from my poker playing friends that they love online playing since you almost get those crazy hands...

 

[winbig]

Come on, keep it in one thread. If you want to change wording, your view on it, bring up another point, or whatever, just reply to the thread already going about this exact same issue.

 

[Keyser]

I have to formulate again what I said in the initial text of the thread "I am more than 90% certain that poker rooms are rigged", as I made a few mistakes-misformulations (e.g. I said that I know I have been cheaten because the number of times my strong hands lose is higher than the number of times that they win, something which is bound to happen if more than 2 players are playing).

The proof that casinos give out fixed cards is not that I am losing, nor that I lose because of my strong hands, (strong hands which happen at the 1% of the games, and 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.

I dont notice that much the profit-loss balance stats of the strong hands, but mostly the NUMBER of the strong hands that they simply lose, and the NUMBER of the strong hands that they simply win. The proof that the casinos give fixed cards is that THE NUMBER OF TIMES these strong hands lose, is much higher than the expected NUMBER OF TIMES that they should lose (of course I have to rarely fold to observe this, to complete my experiment, and that is why I say its irrelevant if I win or lose). E.g. when the probability of winning with KK is about 50% with 4 players, (see Outdated URL (Invalid)),
I observed statistically a probability of winning 20%, and losing 80%.
And this keeps happening for all the 1/4th of the best preflop hands.

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 theyre gonna have it all anyway, as they would slowly crop and accumulate all the bankroll of the depositors for sure, so they 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: No, they are not gonna have it all for sure, they are in danger of not taking even the half of peoples deposits IF there are a lot of very good (high-skilled) players AND a lot of very bad (low skilled) players i.e. fishes. They would take every last penny of everyone for sure, IF the skill level of all players was about the same, and this is not the case. Why all this?

if the good players have an edge of e.g. 30% against the fishes, then, in simple words, they will take the deposited money of the fishes before the rake does. More accurately, the good players will accumulate the money deposited by the fishes with a much higher rate (e.g. 30%) than the rate of the 5% of the rake. So most of the deposited money of the fishes will end up to the good players and a smaller share will end up in rake. Or more accurently, the bankroll of the casino will grow more slowly than the bankroll of the skilled players. But if the good players are cheated in favour of the fishes, then all of the deposited money will end up in the rake!

You might argue that the good players rarely have wins compared to the total number of the games played, so this 30% applies only for a small percentage of the games played, whereas the rake wins at every game (except the games with no flop dealt), so the rate of accumulation of the deposited money that rake has, in comparison to the rate of accumulation of the deposited money of the skilled players, is much higher than the ratio 30% against 5% explained above. I answer that yes, indeed, and because of that, the more probable case is that this rate of the rake is higher than this rate of the skilled players.

But the counterarguments of this, are that:
1.) why should the casino let the good players bankrolls keep growing and growing with a huge rate, money that could end up in the casino, simply by cheating them? We have seen cases that reputable casinos found excuses of not paying small profits players made, e.g. the bonus abusers. This is because small profits multiplied by many players, becomes much money for the casinos.
2.) and most importantly, the statistics of how many times do the strong hands (not just regarding preflop hands) win, and how many times they lose, indicate cheating.

As I said in my previous thread, I am not trying to convince you that casinos cheat at poker. I cannot be 100% certain, anyway. But my so far clues indicate that the most probable case is that they do. Dont some casinos cheat at blackjack? I know some that they do, with 99% statistical confidence, but am I allowed to say which they are in here? One of them was revealed in a post in this site a year ago.

Perhaps the most of you will find it impossible to understand all this if you are not familiar with the mathematics which explain how much certain it is that the one who has an edge, an advantage over the other, is bound to take all his money. This is an oppurtunity to give a simple fact which will wake up the common gambler:

The probability that a roulette player will lose a bet e.g. at the red or black, is 19/37=51.35% and the probability that he will win it, is 18/37=48.65%. So if he makes 100 bets, on average he will lose 51.35 bets and he will win 48.65 bets. Therefore he will lose 51.35-48.65=2.7 bets on average, for every 100 bets he wagers. That is what the "2.7% edge" means.

Simple so far. But the astonishing fact is this: Suppose a player has a 10,000$ bankroll and goes to the casino, and he is desperate to double his bankroll, and make it 20,000$. If he bets the whole 10,000$ at once, in one bet, on red or black, then he has a 48.65% probability of achieving his goal of doubling his bankroll to 20,000$. BUT IF HE TRIES TO MAKE HIS 10,000$ BANKROLL INTO 20,000$ SLOWLY, BY BETTING E.G. 50$ PER BET OR 100$ PER BET, THEN THE PROBABILITY OF REACHING THE 20,000$ IS NOT EVEN 1%!!!!!!!!!!! The common gambler ignores this fact, and thinks that the probability is again about 48%! If players knew this simple fact, then they would stay away from roulette, dont you think? Start web-searchin with the title "gamler's ruin" or "risk of ruin" etc to find the corresponding formulas if you unfamiliar with the subject.

Preface: I have a computer science degree with a minor in mathematics, so please dont attempt to use the line "you don't understand mathematics" at me.

It sounds like your argument is that if good players win at the normal expected rate, then they will clean out the bad players and the casino will only get a pecentage of that money. Therefore, the casinos want to cheat in order to get all of the money brought to the table.

The implication is, without using bots or shills, that the casinos would have to set up a system so that the bad plyers win at an equal level as the good players. Otherwise, if the bad players win, then you have the same problem, in that the good players would be cleaned out by the bad players and the casino would only get a percentage.

Essentially, the casino would have to set up a system so the cards are fixed just enough to even the palying field. I think this would be practically impossible.

Even if it was possible, your basis is flawed anyway. You are implying that players come to the tables with a set amount of money, strict goals for making money and limits to how much they lose, and they stick by them. The fact is that most people, when their stack is gone, will reload. So, any money eaten by the good players will be reloaded by the bad players.

The fact is that the casino rate of income for poker is determined by how much money is being wagered at all of their tables per unit of time. There is no reason to believe that this can be positively affected by slanting the outcome in favor of poorer players.

As for your 80% loss rate with pocket kings, have you tracked and recorded every hand you played with this hand? Have you played these hands out to the river every time? Have you tracked enough hands to be able to distinguish between accepted variation versus a true anomaly? I am guessing the answer to these questions is no.

As for me, I have only played at Bodog for real money. I have seen a lot of bad beats and weird hands. However, I have seen the exact same bad beats and wierd hands at real live games, both at casinos and at home games. People tend to remember the bad beats and not the normal hands. Furthermore, since the number of hands that are played online is much greater than live, people have more bad beats to remember.

 

[Kenny Lingus]

The cards are juiced!

On this topic, I agree with both ThodorisK and Keyser to some degree. While I do believe that some card rooms do not fairly deal the cards, I don't think that it has anything to do with helping certain players over others.

As Keyser has stated, the total amount of money bet is the key to how much the house will win, not who wins the pot. Even if a couple of sharks dominate over a bunch of fishes, the cardroom knows that the key is to have enough players around to keep that money in play. A winning shark is probably not going to leave the site, and, as poker can be streaky, they will likely put some of their winnings back into play.

On the other hand, I have played way too much online poker not to have witnessed some very peculiar tendencies. By far the biggest is how often the river will hit and give some fish three sixes to beat my aces up, or something to that variety. There just seems to be way, way, too many good hands, and "lucky" river hits.

All considered, my theory of how cardrooms cheat players is simple: the hands that are dealt are "juiced". In other words, the better hands come up much more often than they should, to encourage more betting, bigger pots, and to keep the fishies hanging around until the end.

This tactic would greatly increase the room's "take", especially on the lower limit tables (where most of the players are); by inducing more betting & less folding, the bigger pots would ultimately mean more rake.

This type of an arrangement would probably be neutral; i.e., it wouldn't favor any particular player(s) in terms of getting good cards, but the number of good hands would increase, and it would also follow that the number of times a hand would improve would also increase.

This would explain why it would seem to some that the poorer players are getting the benefit. Good players might wisely (assuming a legitimate deal) fold 2 pairs to a made flush if the bet is too much (like a $50 bet into a $5 pot); a fish would chase the full house, and if the draw is skewd to favor better outcomes, they will probably hit the river more often than one would think possible.

If anyone out there thinks that this type of thing is BS, and that all poker rooms fairly deal the cards, just look throughout this web site; if casino operators by the hundreds continually try and cheat the average Joe out of his bankroll, what makes you think that a cardroom would never try it? All it would take to make my theory happen is a slight alteration of the deal when the site is put into use - just a simple algorithm to slightly affect the deal - and who would know? Poof, the cardroom could raise their profits by 50% or more, in a way much more difficult to detect (and almost impossible to prove)than most of the ways that casinos cheat us players.

 

[ThodorisK]

The stupidity of the people is that they think they know everything, and are 100% certain that poker rooms are non-rigged and fair. Whereas I say that there is a high probability that they do, considering all these indications.

Now, dont some casinos cheat at blackjack? Are you sure they dont? I have tried incredible losses, with the minimoum bet of course.
I dont want to name the casino at least yet. Check this out:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

One in a trillion!!!!!!
I checked the same casino myself and lost 40 pounds by betting 1 pound, in 200 hands! I had read the warning, but I wanted to test it, I was hoping they dont always cheat. Similar statistics happened to me at a Ch....ell casino (which is also accredited by casinomeister!).
The chating of these two can be proven by statistics, but others might cheat a little. If they cheat 1-2 bets per 100 hands, how can it be prooven? Impossible.

 

[ThodorisK]

(sorry, I ment cheating, and not chating at the last paragraph)

 

[steinhaug]

All considered, my theory of how cardrooms cheat players is simple: the hands that are dealt are "juiced". In other words, the better hands come up much more often than they should, to encourage more betting, bigger pots, and to keep the fishies hanging around until the end.

That would be my point aswell. I have a few Texas Holdem friends which heavily confirms all the crazy hands they get in online rooms, which rarely comes that often in real games, and more strangely the other players also get great hands all the time.

This type of an arrangement would probably be neutral; i.e., it wouldn't favor any particular player(s) in terms of getting good cards, but the number of good hands would increase, and it would also follow that the number of times a hand would improve would also increase.

That is also correct, the deal is still random and fair - except that one is betting from what the cards are showing, and if the cards are "juiced" (I like that way of putting it) the house will win in the long run, since you get more aggressive betting.

 

[pokeraddict]

OP, these threads are ridiculous. You offer no proof of cards that come out more then others, what hands are beating these "big hands" and how loose the games you are tracking are. The looser the games the more bad beats. I've played online since almost the start and several have tried to prove or disprove whether the rooms deal proper cards. Every room supported by Pokertracker is legit. That's not saying rooms not supported are cheating but often they are way too small for PT to waste their time supporting it.

Offer proof of a specific poker room with millions of logged hands being rigged or accept the fact you are a losing player or whatever the reason is you have brought this up.

The motivation a poker room has to deal a legit game is that if they ever got caught cheating it would be the end of them. The Propoker and Pokertropolis bot issues come to mind there. Keeping fish in games is a ridiculous reason to cheat, especially because losers will keep depositing in most cases and winners will almost certainly keep playing.

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.

Simply said a poker room isn't going to cheat if they want to stay in business. They would quickly be figured out. I would be more concerned about a poker room stealing everybody's money like Dutch Boyd/Pokerspot did or more recently Jetset Poker or with a small poker room using bots as props/shills like Propoker and Pokertropolis did.

 

[pokeraddict]

The proof that casinos give out fixed cards is not that I am losing, nor that I lose because of my strong hands, (strong hands which happen at the 1% of the games, and I fold anything else),

Just noticed this quote. So you only flop AA KK and QQ? That is why you lose. You sit back and wait for monsters. No way you can win playing like that. Also why did you start another thread? Isn't one stupid "online poker is rigged" thread enough?

Also you say "KK should win 50% of the time with 4 players". Do you mean at a 4 handed game or do you mean a table with more players and 3 callers? Either way your logic is flawed.

 

[ThodorisK]

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)

 

[pokeraddict]

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?

 

[steinhaug]

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).

 

[pokeraddict]

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.

 

[swampwitch]

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.

 

[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

 

[pokeraddict]

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

It really sounds silly when it's put into perspective.

 

[GaryWatson]

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.

 

[quber]

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.

 

[GaryWatson]

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

 

[pokeraddict]

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.

 

[ace4suited]

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

 

[dealer wins]

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

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

 

[ThodorisK]

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.

 

[pokeraddict]

so I think its the management playing as players

So if it isn't cards that are rigged you lost because of cheating shills. I think you have the right idea to quit poker. Good luck in your next journey.

 

[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:

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.

 

[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.

 

[The Dude]

Admin Note: merged threads

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.