Reminds me of a hand I played on here a long time ago. Don't really remember the details but I ended up AIPF 4-ways with 72o and flopped a full house. Felt like a genius.
They were quite upset with me in the chat box though.
its funny how the guys who do well like to ridicule those who either struggle or feel that this site is rigged for what ever reason. secondly if some old sort says winning 52 out of 100 on dyms is quite reasonable, are very deluded, eg 100 x 3.30 £330, 52 wins = £156. then the loss of £174. total loss £18. now this is where all the replies come back and tell me all sorts of ****, and said old sort , who I watched on the old sky tv channel, often rude and offensive, how time fails your memory, like fingerprints on an abandoned railing. it would be nice if some of you could offer help or advice to those who appear to be struggling., but you wont, shame on you. there are faults with the rcg , its so clear. but the guys and ladies who choose to ignore this are those the ones who are benefitting from this and blinded by the problem. ive started to slowly get on to the pokerstars site and doing very well there and not once have I noticed anything untowards on it. for those who think im complaining about success on this site im not, I do ok on here ., I talk about not just hands im in but high majority of hands im not in. its time I think that someone just at least took time to have someone look into this seriously. no **** comebacks about variance or probabilities blah blah blah, ive a degree in math , psychology so I know what im talking about. please just someone look into this, ive plenty of proof which ive collated over the past 3 months to take to the right authority, so I ask for someone to look into this first. please please please look into it. and to finish off !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, yes one is enough but seems to fall on deaf ears
its funny how the guys who do well like to ridicule those who either struggle or feel that this site is rigged for what ever reason. secondly if some old sort says winning 52 out of 100 on dyms is quite reasonable, are very deluded, eg 100 x 3.30 £330, 52 wins = £156. then the loss of £174. total loss £18. now this is where all the replies come back and tell me all sorts of ****, and said old sort , who I watched on the old sky tv channel, often rude and offensive, how time fails your memory, like fingerprints on an abandoned railing. it would be nice if some of you could offer help or advice to those who appear to be struggling., but you wont, shame on you. there are faults with the rcg , its so clear. but the guys and ladies who choose to ignore this are those the ones who are benefitting from this and blinded by the problem. ive started to slowly get on to the pokerstars site and doing very well there and not once have I noticed anything untowards on it. for those who think im complaining about success on this site im not, I do ok on here ., I talk about not just hands im in but high majority of hands im not in. its time I think that someone just at least took time to have someone look into this seriously. no **** comebacks about variance or probabilities blah blah blah, ive a degree in math , psychology so I know what im talking about. please just someone look into this, ive plenty of proof which ive collated over the past 3 months to take to the right authority, so I ask for someone to look into this first. please please please look into it. and to finish off !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, yes one is enough but seems to fall on deaf ears
People who struggle are helped all day long on here. There is a wealth of sound advice. I did try and go on sharkscope to see how I could help, but (for whatever reason) it does not record you playing a single game on here.
People who feel the site is rigged? Less so. Mainly because the only sound advice one can give to such people is not to play on a site you feel is rigged. So-if you think pokerstars provides a better experience for you, then you should play there. I'm sure Sky won't mind too much-they are owned by Stars, after all. But-having read your various posts all saying the same thing-I'm not sure that Poker is the right game for you.
Unless you have an American degree, it's Maths. And try using paragraphs-it will hopefully make whatever point you are trying to make more readable.
But-most importantly-i repeat. If you don't trust a poker site-any poker site-don't play there.
its funny how the guys who do well like to ridicule those who either struggle or feel that this site is rigged for what ever reason. secondly if some old sort says winning 52 out of 100 on dyms is quite reasonable, are very deluded, eg 100 x 3.30 £330, 52 wins = £156. then the loss of £174. total loss £18. now this is where all the replies come back and tell me all sorts of ****, and said old sort , who I watched on the old sky tv channel, often rude and offensive, how time fails your memory, like fingerprints on an abandoned railing. it would be nice if some of you could offer help or advice to those who appear to be struggling., but you wont, shame on you. there are faults with the rcg , its so clear. but the guys and ladies who choose to ignore this are those the ones who are benefitting from this and blinded by the problem. ive started to slowly get on to the pokerstars site and doing very well there and not once have I noticed anything untowards on it. for those who think im complaining about success on this site im not, I do ok on here ., I talk about not just hands im in but high majority of hands im not in. its time I think that someone just at least took time to have someone look into this seriously. no **** comebacks about variance or probabilities blah blah blah, ive a degree in math , psychology so I know what im talking about. please just someone look into this, ive plenty of proof which ive collated over the past 3 months to take to the right authority, so I ask for someone to look into this first. please please please look into it. and to finish off !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, yes one is enough but seems to fall on deaf ears
Sorry, but I really think you are a tad strange. You have proof but want people to look into your accusations first. To what end?.
Proof is proof and, if definitive, by its very existence requires no further investigation
Also a word of caution and I say this as somebody who has played 12 years plus on Stars as a losing player, if you think the RNG on Sky is dodgy, you really don't want to play on Stars. Huge fields, masses of speculative plays and more bad beats than a Victorian Workhouse.
So really if you have proof, take it to the "Right Authority". You will be hailed as a Saviour by the poker playing public who are shamelessly duped out of their bankrolls by the manipulation of the RNG.
Sky rakes likely thousands of pounds per day from MTT and SNG players. Who wins or loses these makes absolutely no difference to Sky when they take their cut at the beginning of proceedings. They also just finished a promotion that gave away thousands of pounds in freerolls. Their overall yearly revenue is measured in hundreds of thousands.
The idea that they have any interest in who wins a DYM they raked a whole 10p from is unbelievably facile.
That is why you're being ridiculed.
dont agree they could gain out of quick games.I.E the times ace3s and kings come out together is worrying one raises the other goes all in. I agree they dont care who wins however a player knocked out could enter other games
Least, not, without assurance, on, an, FULL, Frank, open debate.
Mathematical, impossibity, that, I am the only active player, with the FULL, raw, unedited, twenty three (23) minute, seventeen second (17) saved, raw, origenal.
Which, must mean, others, here, have it too?
This.
It, would, make,.. A v interesting,.. 'debate'
No way, I am posting it, those, who feel, they can, blow it, out of the water, be, my guest.
Least, not, without assurance, on, an, FULL, Frank, open debate.
Mathematical, impossibity, that, I am the only active player, with the FULL, raw, unedited, twenty three (23) minute, seventeen second (17) saved, raw, origenal.
Which, must mean, others, here, have it too?
This.
It, would, make,.. A v interesting,.. 'debate'
No way, I am posting it, those, who feel, they can, blow it, out of the water, be, my guest.
Comments
please please please look into it. and to finish off !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, yes one is enough but seems to fall on deaf ears
People who feel the site is rigged? Less so. Mainly because the only sound advice one can give to such people is not to play on a site you feel is rigged. So-if you think pokerstars provides a better experience for you, then you should play there. I'm sure Sky won't mind too much-they are owned by Stars, after all. But-having read your various posts all saying the same thing-I'm not sure that Poker is the right game for you.
Unless you have an American degree, it's Maths. And try using paragraphs-it will hopefully make whatever point you are trying to make more readable.
But-most importantly-i repeat. If you don't trust a poker site-any poker site-don't play there.
Proof is proof and, if definitive, by its very existence requires no further investigation
Also a word of caution and I say this as somebody who has played 12 years plus on Stars as a losing player, if you think the RNG on Sky is dodgy, you really don't want to play on Stars. Huge fields, masses of speculative plays and more bad beats than a Victorian Workhouse.
So really if you have proof, take it to the "Right Authority". You will be hailed as a Saviour by the poker playing public who are shamelessly duped out of their bankrolls by the manipulation of the RNG.
Yours in anticipation
Winning 52 out of 100 DYMs is very reasonable, and proving that would be simple even for an A-level Maths student tbh.
Oh dear .... that was probably a BAD call ....
I'm a broken man.
Hmm, porch lights on but no ones home.
No, I will not,
No, I wouldn't.
Not, blowing, " my, own personal" chance, at, £€$£ 6.5k back..
After, 3 years,.. Downswing.
Least, not, without assurance, on, an, FULL, Frank, open debate.
Mathematical, impossibity, that, I am the only active player, with the FULL, raw, unedited, twenty three (23) minute, seventeen second (17) saved, raw, origenal.
Which, must mean, others, here, have it too?
This.
It, would, make,.. A v interesting,.. 'debate'
No way, I am posting it, those, who feel, they can, blow it, out of the water, be, my guest.
You, post it, not me.