You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Site Rigging.
HAYSIE
Member Posts: 36,777
in Poker Chat
There seems to be a pretty regular flow of threads questioning the honesty of Sky Poker.
There also seems to be a large group of loyal players prepared to defend the site each time these claims are made.
These claims are generally made by losing players looking for something to blame rather than their own play.
Why would you say anything at all, if you were a winning player, and the site was rigged in your favour?
None of these claims are ever backed up by any facts.
As Skys turnover is purely based on a rake from each player, irrespective of the winner, what possible motive could they have in any bias towards one player or another?
How would you organise it?
Would you select a group of players, and then bias the results in their favour?
Which players would you choose, and how would you select them?
How many people would you need employed to accomplish this?
What would the cost be?
The cost of implementing this would obviously put a dent in Skys profits, and what benefit would they receive, as a result?
Therefore, when faced with a choice of larger profits by running the site fairly, or less profits by being biased, why would they make the less profits choice?
The fact that poker is a game of odds, doesn't mean that unlikely outcomes never happen.
It means that unlikely outcomes do occur, but they occur rarely.
A one outer does hit, but not very often?
Why do losing players squeal like stuck pigs when an unlikely outcome goes against them, and gloat when it goes in their favour.
Why don't they just take the rough with the smooth like most players?
A silly play that you see regularly in the early stages of a tournament is a player in early position limping, because they think they are being sneaky, rather than stupid, or min raising with AK, the player in the BB being prepared to call for nothing or as little as 20 chips. The AK then shoves post flop after hitting nothing, as they feel entitled to win. The BB calls as they were playing 52 off and have flopped 2 pair. The AK player disappears whilst filling the chatbox with abuse for the BB and rigged claims against Sky, rather than blaming their own stupid play.
There are many occasions when Sky are blamed when an ace appears on the flop, when a mid pair is all in against AQ. How could either player blame Sky when either player will lose roughly 50% of the time? Yet they do. If both players think they are entitled to win every time, they will both be disappointed almost 50% of the time. It seems that many players prefer to blame Sky than take a realistic view of the odds of them winning a particular pot on a regular basis. Why don't they just take the positive view after losing, that they will probably win the next one?
If you always backed the favourite in every horse race you would win roughly 30% of the time. Therefore you would lose roughly 70% of the time. So that means if you chose the best horse in every race, with the best form, that was considered to have the best chance of winning, you would on average lose 7 bets out of ten. Does that mean all horse racing is rigged?
So in summary, do the regular winning players make money because they are good players or because the site is rigged in their favour?
I think you would find that these players make money wherever they play. So is every site rigged in their favour?
Do losing players lose money on every site they play on, because every site is rigged against them, or is it because they don't play very well?
Why cant these players ever produce any real evidence?
Would any poker site in reality choose to make less profits and risk losing credibility by rigging the site, rather than running the site honestly, credibly, and maximising profits.
If these whinging players spent their time trying to improve their play rather than making these silly claims, they would have a better chance of making a profit.
The number of loyal players prepared to defend the site against these claims almost gives them credulity, but are clearly wasting their time, as these losing players will never accept that it is their fault.
You never get winning players complaining about results.
There also seems to be a large group of loyal players prepared to defend the site each time these claims are made.
These claims are generally made by losing players looking for something to blame rather than their own play.
Why would you say anything at all, if you were a winning player, and the site was rigged in your favour?
None of these claims are ever backed up by any facts.
As Skys turnover is purely based on a rake from each player, irrespective of the winner, what possible motive could they have in any bias towards one player or another?
How would you organise it?
Would you select a group of players, and then bias the results in their favour?
Which players would you choose, and how would you select them?
How many people would you need employed to accomplish this?
What would the cost be?
The cost of implementing this would obviously put a dent in Skys profits, and what benefit would they receive, as a result?
Therefore, when faced with a choice of larger profits by running the site fairly, or less profits by being biased, why would they make the less profits choice?
The fact that poker is a game of odds, doesn't mean that unlikely outcomes never happen.
It means that unlikely outcomes do occur, but they occur rarely.
A one outer does hit, but not very often?
Why do losing players squeal like stuck pigs when an unlikely outcome goes against them, and gloat when it goes in their favour.
Why don't they just take the rough with the smooth like most players?
A silly play that you see regularly in the early stages of a tournament is a player in early position limping, because they think they are being sneaky, rather than stupid, or min raising with AK, the player in the BB being prepared to call for nothing or as little as 20 chips. The AK then shoves post flop after hitting nothing, as they feel entitled to win. The BB calls as they were playing 52 off and have flopped 2 pair. The AK player disappears whilst filling the chatbox with abuse for the BB and rigged claims against Sky, rather than blaming their own stupid play.
There are many occasions when Sky are blamed when an ace appears on the flop, when a mid pair is all in against AQ. How could either player blame Sky when either player will lose roughly 50% of the time? Yet they do. If both players think they are entitled to win every time, they will both be disappointed almost 50% of the time. It seems that many players prefer to blame Sky than take a realistic view of the odds of them winning a particular pot on a regular basis. Why don't they just take the positive view after losing, that they will probably win the next one?
If you always backed the favourite in every horse race you would win roughly 30% of the time. Therefore you would lose roughly 70% of the time. So that means if you chose the best horse in every race, with the best form, that was considered to have the best chance of winning, you would on average lose 7 bets out of ten. Does that mean all horse racing is rigged?
So in summary, do the regular winning players make money because they are good players or because the site is rigged in their favour?
I think you would find that these players make money wherever they play. So is every site rigged in their favour?
Do losing players lose money on every site they play on, because every site is rigged against them, or is it because they don't play very well?
Why cant these players ever produce any real evidence?
Would any poker site in reality choose to make less profits and risk losing credibility by rigging the site, rather than running the site honestly, credibly, and maximising profits.
If these whinging players spent their time trying to improve their play rather than making these silly claims, they would have a better chance of making a profit.
The number of loyal players prepared to defend the site against these claims almost gives them credulity, but are clearly wasting their time, as these losing players will never accept that it is their fault.
You never get winning players complaining about results.
Comments
It is literally this - if you don't put in the work you dont get the results.
If it is rigged then that's fantastic as it is also rigged in my favour on every other poker site also... I dare to suggest most winning players will also win on the other sites and most losing players will also lose on the other sites
i suggest you wipe your eyes and get on with it.
godbless
bonzodan
look at your own game and stop looking for excuses.
godbless
bonzodan
These claims are generally made by losing players looking for something to blame rather than their own play.
How would you organise it - this could be done by seating. if you have player one seat one holding aa and player 2 seat 2 holding kk with player 2 the pick and make the flop come a k then both players are in and the pick wins.
Would you select a group of players, and then bias the results in their favour - this could be done to show that you can win the same as this group is winning. this would make it more appealing to people joining giving the illusion that you could be a winning player just like the picks.
Which players would you choose, and how would you select them - this could be done by selecting friends of employees, employees or just random people as it would still incenses traffic.
How many people would you need employed to accomplish this - would think a small number of people would be needed as it would just be the information for who would win to be input into the system.
What would the cost be - not sure what the cost would be but would think it would be just one or 2 people imputing information as well as paying them a good salary.
The cost of implementing this would obviously put a dent in Skys profits, and what benefit would they receive, as a result - higher traffic which would increase the profits.
Therefore, when faced with a choice of larger profits by running the site fairly, or less profits by being biased, why would they make the less profits choice - i do not think it would make less profit by being biased, all the big sites have the big guns, phil ivy ect ect , they show that you to can become just like them win lots of money. if you had different people winning every time with no top people would you play.
again i am not saying it is rigged. but there are arguments for both side. i for one do not think it is rigged. at the end of the day though we are all human with emotions, and when you throw money in the mix people can get a little crazy.
good luck at the tables everyone .
I wonder if these people consider AA-55 the bet 10 hands in the game as they are PP preflop and should remain like that unless a site has become rigged to enable high card combos to become a stronger pair+
“ Selecting Friends of employees” 😊 I would respectfully suggest that these friends would find it hard to keep quiet when their “ Friend” moves onto another job.
“Employees” 😀 Which employee gets selected, and by whom? Also, when they move on, perhaps to a rival site it wouldn’t be beyond the realms of possibility to bring their previous employers down, thus eliminating the rivals by whistleblowing.
“ Random people” 😳 Yup, those random people who will never tell anyone.