Like many a PLO8 player, my 1st experience was a mis-click, thinking it was a regular DYM.
I was lucky enough to find some lovely players, who delighted in showing me how to play during that 1st DYM. Which introduced me to a fun diversion. They could have just taken my money. But they did not.
One of my favourite moments in Poker ever, was sitting down in Vegas in a $300-ish PLO8 MTT, and having @Tikay10 sitting down on my left. That and @pompeynic running deep. I have had some decent cashes down the years. But I will always remember that MTT.
Whereas, if I had entered a £1 HU PLO8, I think my experience would have been rather different...
Yes a bit like my first post on a Sky forum... if only i was lucky enough to find some lovely players, who introduced me to a fun diversion. They could have just had a poker conversation. But they did not.
We can all do this u see....... Very interesting that you played in Vegas with your friends on the forum.... i can see how fair this would ever work out.
Its cool guys, an accusation that someone may work for Sky is indeed equal to 'do you work for Remploy' suggesting he has mental problems and 'are you employed at all'. What if he is unemployed? What if he does have mental issues resulting from this?
If he is suffering from either(and this really isnt uncommon at present) is this really what you call banter!? I think Matt will get over being called a Sky employee, not sure in this scenario our Welsh friend will.
It amuses me the accusation that i 'hijack' peoples posts. Shipppy wrote a post that was about me. i responded with my take on it. Alyssammy had a problem with the RNG. I responded with a poker post to support that theory.
The only reason it ever gets to alot of messages, is the same group decide to attack me with non poker comments.
With this 3rd one, i saw someone suffering from your usual 'banter'.... and as he is going to get no-one but this small bank of Professional Sky Forum Posters attacking him personally, i just thought id offer him some support in that he is not the only one.
Id expect it from these forum nutters, @MattBates, but quite surprised you would get involved in this manner.
You are a poker guy and must have come across many players who dont play internet poker, because they have similar views. You may deny this, (you may not be an employee, but you would never say it here, as with every aspiring pro) but in all my days as a 'backed' player and just through converstation in the real world, im yet to meet someone who believes its a totally random thing.
TheEdge said
Be happy Mr Waddy, you seem consumed with anger.
Again coming from a guy who says 'STFU', my sons a c***, you dont want to see whats in my head.... hmmmmmm!
Just keep cherry picking and misquoting and using snippets out of context. You're extremely gifted at that. Meanwhile I'm off to play with the grown ups.
Like many a PLO8 player, my 1st experience was a mis-click, thinking it was a regular DYM.
I was lucky enough to find some lovely players, who delighted in showing me how to play during that 1st DYM. Which introduced me to a fun diversion. They could have just taken my money. But they did not.
One of my favourite moments in Poker ever, was sitting down in Vegas in a $300-ish PLO8 MTT, and having @Tikay10 sitting down on my left. That and @pompeynic running deep. I have had some decent cashes down the years. But I will always remember that MTT.
Whereas, if I had entered a £1 HU PLO8, I think my experience would have been rather different...
Yes a bit like my first post on a Sky forum... if only i was lucky enough to find some lovely players, who introduced me to a fun diversion. They could have just had a poker conversation. But they did not.
We can all do this u see....... Very interesting that you played in Vegas with your friends on the forum.... i can see how fair this would ever work out.
It was a thousand runner MTT.
We were all in Vegas as part of a Sky package. I have been to Vegas 10 or 11 times. 4 times with Sky. Yes, we are friends. Off the table. I will take anyone's chips, friend or foe. Just as I expect my friends to do to me.
It's not a team game. Which is why having a team spirit alongside it is so important. Like at SPT Brighton this weekend. Where we will play hard. And then prop up the bar until Stupid o'clock. And enjoy ourselves. Win. Or lose.
You clearly enjoy picking on people at poker who have vastly less experience than you. Not just minnows. Minnows who have mistakenly wandered into the wrong pool. For 95 pence. That's your right. Takes all sorts. As I said, it's not a team game.
Like many a PLO8 player, my 1st experience was a mis-click, thinking it was a regular DYM.
I was lucky enough to find some lovely players, who delighted in showing me how to play during that 1st DYM. Which introduced me to a fun diversion. They could have just taken my money. But they did not.
One of my favourite moments in Poker ever, was sitting down in Vegas in a $300-ish PLO8 MTT, and having @Tikay10 sitting down on my left. That and @pompeynic running deep. I have had some decent cashes down the years. But I will always remember that MTT.
Whereas, if I had entered a £1 HU PLO8, I think my experience would have been rather different...
Yes a bit like my first post on a Sky forum... if only i was lucky enough to find some lovely players, who introduced me to a fun diversion. They could have just had a poker conversation. But they did not.
We can all do this u see....... Very interesting that you played in Vegas with your friends on the forum.... i can see how fair this would ever work out.
It was a thousand runner MTT.
We were all in Vegas as part of a Sky package. I have been to Vegas 10 or 11 times. 4 times with Sky. Yes, we are friends. Off the table. I will take anyone's chips, friend or foe. Just as I expect my friends to do to me.
It's not a team game. Which is why having a team spirit alongside it is so important. Like at SPT Brighton this weekend. Where we will play hard. And then prop up the bar until Stupid o'clock. And enjoy ourselves. Win. Or lose.
You clearly enjoy picking on people at poker who have vastly less experience than you. Not just minnows. Minnows who have mistakenly wandered into the wrong pool. For 95 pence. That's your right. Takes all sorts. As I said, it's not a team game.
You can have a go for playing for £1, but clearly the only reason for this is i dont trust what is going on and as pointed out by many, why would i play something for alot of money that i dont believe in.
But u can make out its to target those who dont know how to play, if u like, this just happens, its not me targeting it.
Your a Sky man, you have just confirmed this. You have done well out of them. The conversation is always going to be defending them. I get it.
They have just been fined 1.17M for bonus targeting those who have unsubscribed from emails and are self excluded... this how much they care about people.... this is the level they stoop to to try and extract extra money out of the vulnerable... but they would never even consider maximising profit out of a card deck, would they, when every other poker site is doing so!
I guess the replies will back them yet again, instead of accepting that sites greed lets them down over and over again. This is fact guys. To not even accept what is going on is not even a possibility, is naive at best. But if you getting packages, easy option is back them and keep taking. I get it.
I am surprised that someone who has played poker for as long as you have does not know how poker operates.
1. I am not "having a go" at you playing for £1. It is your money, and your choice. Doesn't affect me in the slightest. I don't play HU PLO8. If I did, then I would be carefully noting that you would then be cutting off my income stream, via stamping on newbies. And I would crush you like a bug.
2. You only pay for £1 because you don't trust the software? Nonsense. It is because you feel that is the safest way for you to make a profit. You are more confident of winning 67% at £1 than 55.4% at £5 (when you would make the same profit, before rakeback). For you, you are playing at near zero risk, for a small profit. No doubt this provides you with non-monetary benefits in relation to being a winning player, and/or to make a small profit for your hobby. What's wrong with that? Your excuses are no more than a bad bluff.
3. I am not a "Sky man". I am a poker player. Who plays at higher stakes. For higher reward. I have won all those Vegas packages, as well as ones from Party (3), Mansion and Will Hill. Not been "given" them-I wish
4. I trust all UK-facing Poker sites in relation to their Poker. That doesn't mean I think all gambling sites (including Sky B&G) run their operations in line with the ever-increasing Compliance demands. That is a different subject. There are worse offenders than Sky Vegas. But that does not mean that Sky Vegas did not deserve that fine.
You persist in believing that there is a direct causal link between sites' behaviours towards problem gamblers, and whether the deck is bent.
I think your line 'you target minnows, not just minnows, those who have walked mistakenly into the wrong pool. For 95 pence'.... is having a bit of a go, dont u?
My whole point in trying to get change, IS BECAUSE i dont want to be playing for £1, it has nothing to do with 'being the safest way i can make a profit'. If i trusted it, id play high. Again, i would be crazy to play high stakes with what i perceive to be a warped deck. To say its nonsense its because i dont trust the software, i mean really??? It is the only reason, end of.
I continue to play for £1, as i believe the day will come when the GC finally get to grips with it and i can pick up where i left off, without years passing and me having to learn all over again.
I love poker, but online poker is just annoying in its present state, it is just plain silly results over and over. It does not mirror the real game, not even close. I am simply not prepared to play for higher stakes, as i can handle the sillyness at £1, but would fear for my sanity and all round well being at £25.
And on the last point, I would say that there is a link in a site;
1 Getting fined millions for not looking after players financial needs for their own greed
2 Sites not providing a see through compliant deck for their own greed.
I think your line 'you target minnows, not just minnows, those who have walked mistakenly into the wrong pool. For 95 pence'.... is having a bit of a go, dont u?
My whole point in trying to get change, IS BECAUSE i dont want to be playing for £1, it has nothing to do with 'being the safest way i can make a profit'. If i trusted it, id play high. Again, i would be crazy to play high stakes with what i perceive to be a warped deck. To say its nonsense its because i dont trust the software, i mean really??? It is the only reason, end of.
I continue to play for £1, as i believe the day will come when the GC finally get to grips with it and i can pick up where i left off, without years passing and me having to learn all over again.
I love poker, but online poker is just annoying in its present state, it is just plain silly results over and over. It does not mirror the real game, not even close. I am simply not prepared to play for higher stakes, as i can handle the sillyness at £1, but would fear for my sanity and all round well being at £25.
And on the last point, I would say that there is a link in a site;
1 Getting fined millions for not looking after players financial needs for their own greed
2 Sites not providing a see through compliant deck for their own greed.
I would identify the link as greed.
Let's take that 1 paragraph at a time. Simply because you are making various points, some of which i agree with, some not.
The "target minnows" bit. Yes, I'm having a bit of a go there. But I am also trying to make a much more serious point. Poker has been mainstream online for 20+ years. It's strength is that, like all good games. the lesser-skilled triumphs over the more skilled enough to make it interesting. You are playing at stakes/v people with the odds as much in your favour as you can get. And you still win only about 67% of the time. Not because of a rigged deck. Not because of your skill level. But because, naturally, that is about as good as it gets. Which is why poker still exists.
You don't want to be playing for £1 bit. I am sure you genuinely mean that. But you don't have to be playing for £25 a time, when HU things get fairly scary. My example was £5. The other thing I always recommend is to have a separate poker bank account. Because that is proper Bankroll Management. Is what you are saying a factor for someone in your position? Of course. But not the only factor.
The day will come when the GC get to grips? The thing about banging your head against a brick wall is that it is really nice when you stop. And, with the greatest of respect, you will need to learn all over again. Simply because poker is constantly evolving, and you have largely not been playing against competent players. In your position, I would be far more concerned that the GC will seek to restrict sites' ability to allow people who believe it is rigged to play there.
We are never going to agree on whether there is "sillyness" in online poker. PLO8, even more than NLH, has the capacity for 1 card to change everything. Regularly. Live or online. I recall that, about 2 years ago, in (I think) a $3k PLO8 MTT at the WSOP, someone got it all in pre- in the first hour. With something like JJJ8. And won.
Are poker sites greedy? Yes. Probably not as greedy as the other gambling offerings, simply because poker is player v player, rather than player v house. But still greedy. Although most businesses are.
Do I trust poker sites? Not 100%, no. Do I trust them not to risk £Billions so that Player A wins quicker or loses slower? 100%.
Is it worth mentioning that nobody who plays on this poker site has the capabilities ( as far as I’m aware) to produce credible evidence that the RNG is flawed, and the % of your hand v the opponent isn’t working correct overall.
Nobody views every single hand played on every table. Therefore you could lose every 90 / 10 on any given day, or week , and the RNG would still be correct, as on other tables more 90/10s are winning . The RNG isn’t about single players…Make sense?
Is it worth mentioning that nobody who plays on this poker site has the capabilities ( as far as I’m aware) to produce credible evidence that the RNG is flawed, and the % of your hand v the opponent isn’t working correct overall.
Nobody views every single hand played on every table. Therefore you could lose every 90 / 10 on any given day, or week , and the RNG would still be correct, as on other tables more 90/10s are winning . The RNG isn’t about single players…Make sense?
Tommy, players keep on saying show us the proof, but there is also no-one who can provide credible evidence that the RNG isnt flawed, so this works both ways.
I think your statement 'nobody views every single had played on every table', is my problem with any audit. Its why i tried to get the bottom of what they are actually checking from the auditors themselves, although they declined to comment. If we take any poker hand, there is odds preflop, there is odds of each hand winning on the flop and then it changes again on the turn. The odds can change favour for a player dramatically on each street. Are they auditing this? Do they really know how often huge odds are coming in? I dont believe they do.
Its the key element, but all an audit i believe is doing, is looking at how often each card comes out ....and not how it is affecting the hand. This is beacuse the GC and the auditors dont look at poker odds. If they can prove the ace of spades comes out just as often as the queen hearts within reason, thats their proof that its random.
Even if they do look at starting hands, there is so few hands crushing another, im sure this will look within reason too. Im talking about hands where calls are inexplicable on the flop, no draw no pair, then there are incredible runners. I dont see that there is any audit on that element.
This is the part where players are constantly saying WTF?? This is where the odds dont stack up. I honestly have never seen a hand online, where i thought wow, he just gave me his chips for free with no pair, no draw, when its gone all in on the flop. Because i see this scenario several times a day and and they somehow survive over and over with runners. Should i have won one by now when they have so little chance?
I have no time for players saying they went all in preflop with AA v 89 and lost. This is not my point. The real discrepancy in odds being overturned are later in the hand (this is where the money is wagered and this where fantastic odds occur) and i just dont believe this is audited in the manner it should be.
Tommy, players keep on saying show us the proof, but there is also no-one who can provide credible evidence that the RNG isnt flawed, so this works both ways.
It is claimed by every RNG out there, be it poker or not, that it is random enough to be called random. That is the base of the argument. You refute this.
Hitchens said "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
The burden of proof is on you and all you have is anecdotal assumptions and a strong confirmation bias. You are too detached from the reality of the situation to even start to make assertions.
Is it worth mentioning that nobody who plays on this poker site has the capabilities ( as far as I’m aware) to produce credible evidence that the RNG is flawed, and the % of your hand v the opponent isn’t working correct overall.
Nobody views every single hand played on every table. Therefore you could lose every 90 / 10 on any given day, or week , and the RNG would still be correct, as on other tables more 90/10s are winning . The RNG isn’t about single players…Make sense?
Tommy, players keep on saying show us the proof, but there is also no-one who can provide credible evidence that the RNG isnt flawed, so this works both ways.
I think your statement 'nobody views every single had played on every table', is my problem with any audit. Its why i tried to get the bottom of what they are actually checking from the auditors themselves, although they declined to comment. If we take any poker hand, there is odds preflop, there is odds of each hand winning on the flop and then it changes again on the turn. The odds can change favour for a player dramatically on each street. Are they auditing this? Do they really know how often huge odds are coming in? I dont believe they do.
Its the key element, but all an audit i believe is doing, is looking at how often each card comes out ....and not how it is affecting the hand. This is beacuse the GC and the auditors dont look at poker odds. If they can prove the ace of spades comes out just as often as the queen hearts within reason, thats their proof that its random.
Even if they do look at starting hands, there is so few hands crushing another, im sure this will look within reason too. Im talking about hands where calls are inexplicable on the flop, no draw no pair, then there are incredible runners. I dont see that there is any audit on that element.
This is the part where players are constantly saying WTF?? This is where the odds dont stack up. I honestly have never seen a hand online, where i thought wow, he just gave me his chips for free with no pair, no draw, when its gone all in on the flop. Because i see this scenario several times a day and and they somehow survive over and over with runners. Should i have won one by now when they have so little chance?
I have no time for players saying they went all in preflop with AA v 89 and lost. This is not my point. The real discrepancy in odds being overturned are later in the hand (this is where the money is wagered and this where fantastic odds occur) and i just dont believe this is audited in the manner it should be.
Thanks for the reply.
Are you ‘talking’ about the games you play now ( 08) or hold - em? As you are aware , in 08 the outcome is more likely to change on each turn of a card than in hold-em.
That’s the beauty of Maths, if it’s not 100% to win, it will lose sometimes, my statement still applies., just because in your cognitive experience you feel some hands you should have won because of the maths doesn’t mean it’s dodgy.
Is it worth mentioning that nobody who plays on this poker site has the capabilities ( as far as I’m aware) to produce credible evidence that the RNG is flawed, and the % of your hand v the opponent isn’t working correct overall.
Nobody views every single hand played on every table. Therefore you could lose every 90 / 10 on any given day, or week , and the RNG would still be correct, as on other tables more 90/10s are winning . The RNG isn’t about single players…Make sense?
Tommy, players keep on saying show us the proof, but there is also no-one who can provide credible evidence that the RNG isnt flawed, so this works both ways.
I think your statement 'nobody views every single had played on every table', is my problem with any audit. Its why i tried to get the bottom of what they are actually checking from the auditors themselves, although they declined to comment. If we take any poker hand, there is odds preflop, there is odds of each hand winning on the flop and then it changes again on the turn. The odds can change favour for a player dramatically on each street. Are they auditing this? Do they really know how often huge odds are coming in? I dont believe they do.
Its the key element, but all an audit i believe is doing, is looking at how often each card comes out ....and not how it is affecting the hand. This is beacuse the GC and the auditors dont look at poker odds. If they can prove the ace of spades comes out just as often as the queen hearts within reason, thats their proof that its random.
Even if they do look at starting hands, there is so few hands crushing another, im sure this will look within reason too. Im talking about hands where calls are inexplicable on the flop, no draw no pair, then there are incredible runners. I dont see that there is any audit on that element.
This is the part where players are constantly saying WTF?? This is where the odds dont stack up. I honestly have never seen a hand online, where i thought wow, he just gave me his chips for free with no pair, no draw, when its gone all in on the flop. Because i see this scenario several times a day and and they somehow survive over and over with runners. Should i have won one by now when they have so little chance?
I have no time for players saying they went all in preflop with AA v 89 and lost. This is not my point. The real discrepancy in odds being overturned are later in the hand (this is where the money is wagered and this where fantastic odds occur) and i just dont believe this is audited in the manner it should be.
Thanks for the reply.
Are you ‘talking’ about the games you play now ( 08) or hold - em? As you are aware , in 08 the outcome is more likely to change on each turn of a card than in hold-em.
That’s the beauty of Maths, if it’s not 100% to win, it will lose sometimes, my statement still applies., just because in your cognitive experience you feel some hands you should have won because of the maths doesn’t mean it’s dodgy.
I think when some of the higher stakes players cant see it, its because in their level of games they are not going to see the constant runners, as they will get folds in those situations almost all the time.
I think when you play low level and hey you all must have played the 'all in fest' £1000 nightly freeroll right? Do you not just laugh at the outcomes there??? All variations of poker Tommy, but in hi lo obv it is more of a high variance game, but the spots they will get themselves in are far poorer than hold em.
Eg 234 flop with me a256.... them JJ92..... im never scooping that on an all in flop... theres fh coming 100%! I just accept this now.....
Tommy, players keep on saying show us the proof, but there is also no-one who can provide credible evidence that the RNG isnt flawed, so this works both ways.
It is claimed by every RNG out there, be it poker or not, that it is random enough to be called random. That is the base of the argument. You refute this.
Hitchens said "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
The burden of proof is on you and all you have is anecdotal assumptions and a strong confirmation bias. You are too detached from the reality of the situation to even start to make assertions.
You should ditch the dogma.
There is equally no bonifide eveidence you can show me for it being random either so.....
Tommy, players keep on saying show us the proof, but there is also no-one who can provide credible evidence that the RNG isnt flawed, so this works both ways.
It is claimed by every RNG out there, be it poker or not, that it is random enough to be called random. That is the base of the argument. You refute this.
Hitchens said "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
The burden of proof is on you and all you have is anecdotal assumptions and a strong confirmation bias. You are too detached from the reality of the situation to even start to make assertions.
You should ditch the dogma.
There is equally no bonifide eveidence you can show me for it being random either so.....
It is never possible to prove conclusively that anything is random. Not RNGs-anything.
Whereas it is entirely possible to prove when something is not random.
HUDs have been around for 15-20 years. It is possible to refine statistics on them that would prove conclusively if the RNG did not work. Because poker has a lot of people with HUDs, lots of fine mathematical minds, and lots of people who are convinced that RNGs are not random.
So-why has no-one presented clear mathematical evidence? Could it be because it is not true?
Or perhaps a regulatory organisation could just be a helluver lot better at their job and not leave us in limbo about the situation..... maybe?
Why are they bad at their job? I don’t think that many people are in limbo Just you and the countless number of people who have messaged you privately and want to stay anonymous
Or perhaps a regulatory organisation could just be a helluver lot better at their job and not leave us in limbo about the situation..... maybe?
Why are they bad at their job? I don’t think that many people are in limbo Just you and the countless number of people who have messaged you privately and want to stay anonymous
I think someone said the biggest ever online poker thread was on this subject. Its a big thread on here everytime randomness is mentioned. Think its a credible comment that online poker is left asking this question over and over, with differing opinions. Otherwise there is no thread.
The people who pm'd me was on the subject of the tea club and the belittling comments, not the RNG.
I think an issue you get is that the rigged side of the argument don't come up with evidence and don't provide a coherent reasoning most of the time.
People don't understand odds properly in lots of situations. They think that their good hands should always win and don't realise that if aces hold against kings when looking at a sample of 1 they have run above expectations because they won the hand 100% of the time when they should win it around 81% of the time.
Often those saying online is rigged are live players who do ok at live poker but aren't going to be winning players at comparable stakes online because online poker is a lot harder.
I don't know how good you are at HU SNG but your win rate seems pretty high for that format and thinking it isn't higher and its down to the software does make me think you don't have a real understanding of appropriate win rates.
Maybe widen the people you speak to if you haven't spoken to anyone who thinks it is random.
I think an issue you get is that the rigged side of the argument don't come up with evidence and don't provide a coherent reasoning most of the time.
People don't understand odds properly in lots of situations. They think that their good hands should always win and don't realise that if aces hold against kings when looking at a sample of 1 they have run above expectations because they won the hand 100% of the time when they should win it around 81% of the time.
Often those saying online is rigged are live players who do ok at live poker but aren't going to be winning players at comparable stakes online because online poker is a lot harder.
I don't know how good you are at HU SNG but your win rate seems pretty high for that format and thinking it isn't higher and its down to the software does make me think you don't have a real understanding of appropriate win rates.
Maybe widen the people you speak to if you haven't spoken to anyone who thinks it is random.
Ahhh man, i do understand!
I play micro and i play a game that at that level is totally misunderstood.
In that scenario, yes i would expect my win rate to be higher but..... just cos im losing/splitting a huge amount of hands during any given game, doesnt mean i dont go on to lose said game.
If i split 16 3% chances like the above example, but eventually win that game.... i am still going to be shaking my head at the constant sillyness, arent i?
Its not about my win rate, its about what im seeing with the deck and the associated combined odds regardless of eventually winning or not.
Comments
We can all do this u see....... Very interesting that you played in Vegas with your friends on the forum.... i can see how fair this would ever work out.
Just keep cherry picking and misquoting and using snippets out of context. You're extremely gifted at that. Meanwhile I'm off to play with the grown ups.
Have a brilliant life
We were all in Vegas as part of a Sky package. I have been to Vegas 10 or 11 times. 4 times with Sky. Yes, we are friends. Off the table. I will take anyone's chips, friend or foe. Just as I expect my friends to do to me.
It's not a team game. Which is why having a team spirit alongside it is so important. Like at SPT Brighton this weekend. Where we will play hard. And then prop up the bar until Stupid o'clock. And enjoy ourselves. Win. Or lose.
You clearly enjoy picking on people at poker who have vastly less experience than you. Not just minnows. Minnows who have mistakenly wandered into the wrong pool. For 95 pence. That's your right. Takes all sorts. As I said, it's not a team game.
But u can make out its to target those who dont know how to play, if u like, this just happens, its not me targeting it.
Your a Sky man, you have just confirmed this. You have done well out of them. The conversation is always going to be defending them. I get it.
They have just been fined 1.17M for bonus targeting those who have unsubscribed from emails and are self excluded... this how much they care about people.... this is the level they stoop to to try and extract extra money out of the vulnerable... but they would never even consider maximising profit out of a card deck, would they, when every other poker site is doing so!
I guess the replies will back them yet again, instead of accepting that sites greed lets them down over and over again. This is fact guys. To not even accept what is going on is not even a possibility, is naive at best. But if you getting packages, easy option is back them and keep taking. I get it.
1. I am not "having a go" at you playing for £1. It is your money, and your choice. Doesn't affect me in the slightest. I don't play HU PLO8. If I did, then I would be carefully noting that you would then be cutting off my income stream, via stamping on newbies. And I would crush you like a bug.
2. You only pay for £1 because you don't trust the software? Nonsense. It is because you feel that is the safest way for you to make a profit. You are more confident of winning 67% at £1 than 55.4% at £5 (when you would make the same profit, before rakeback). For you, you are playing at near zero risk, for a small profit. No doubt this provides you with non-monetary benefits in relation to being a winning player, and/or to make a small profit for your hobby. What's wrong with that? Your excuses are no more than a bad bluff.
3. I am not a "Sky man". I am a poker player. Who plays at higher stakes. For higher reward. I have won all those Vegas packages, as well as ones from Party (3), Mansion and Will Hill. Not been "given" them-I wish
4. I trust all UK-facing Poker sites in relation to their Poker. That doesn't mean I think all gambling sites (including Sky B&G) run their operations in line with the ever-increasing Compliance demands. That is a different subject. There are worse offenders than Sky Vegas. But that does not mean that Sky Vegas did not deserve that fine.
You persist in believing that there is a direct causal link between sites' behaviours towards problem gamblers, and whether the deck is bent.
When no such link exists.
@EssezPhil
I think your line 'you target minnows, not just minnows, those who have walked mistakenly into the wrong pool. For 95 pence'.... is having a bit of a go, dont u?
My whole point in trying to get change, IS BECAUSE i dont want to be playing for £1, it has nothing to do with 'being the safest way i can make a profit'. If i trusted it, id play high. Again, i would be crazy to play high stakes with what i perceive to be a warped deck. To say its nonsense its because i dont trust the software, i mean really??? It is the only reason, end of.
I continue to play for £1, as i believe the day will come when the GC finally get to grips with it and i can pick up where i left off, without years passing and me having to learn all over again.
I love poker, but online poker is just annoying in its present state, it is just plain silly results over and over. It does not mirror the real game, not even close. I am simply not prepared to play for higher stakes, as i can handle the sillyness at £1, but would fear for my sanity and all round well being at £25.
And on the last point, I would say that there is a link in a site;
1 Getting fined millions for not looking after players financial needs for their own greed
2 Sites not providing a see through compliant deck for their own greed.
I would identify the link as greed.
The "target minnows" bit. Yes, I'm having a bit of a go there. But I am also trying to make a much more serious point. Poker has been mainstream online for 20+ years. It's strength is that, like all good games. the lesser-skilled triumphs over the more skilled enough to make it interesting. You are playing at stakes/v people with the odds as much in your favour as you can get. And you still win only about 67% of the time. Not because of a rigged deck. Not because of your skill level. But because, naturally, that is about as good as it gets. Which is why poker still exists.
You don't want to be playing for £1 bit. I am sure you genuinely mean that. But you don't have to be playing for £25 a time, when HU things get fairly scary. My example was £5. The other thing I always recommend is to have a separate poker bank account. Because that is proper Bankroll Management. Is what you are saying a factor for someone in your position? Of course. But not the only factor.
The day will come when the GC get to grips? The thing about banging your head against a brick wall is that it is really nice when you stop. And, with the greatest of respect, you will need to learn all over again. Simply because poker is constantly evolving, and you have largely not been playing against competent players. In your position, I would be far more concerned that the GC will seek to restrict sites' ability to allow people who believe it is rigged to play there.
We are never going to agree on whether there is "sillyness" in online poker. PLO8, even more than NLH, has the capacity for 1 card to change everything. Regularly. Live or online. I recall that, about 2 years ago, in (I think) a $3k PLO8 MTT at the WSOP, someone got it all in pre- in the first hour. With something like JJJ8. And won.
Are poker sites greedy? Yes. Probably not as greedy as the other gambling offerings, simply because poker is player v player, rather than player v house. But still greedy. Although most businesses are.
Do I trust poker sites? Not 100%, no.
Do I trust them not to risk £Billions so that Player A wins quicker or loses slower? 100%.
Is it worth mentioning that nobody who plays on this poker site has the capabilities ( as far as I’m aware) to produce credible evidence that the RNG is flawed, and the % of your hand v the opponent isn’t working correct overall.
Nobody views every single hand played on every table.
Therefore you could lose every 90 / 10 on any given day, or week , and the RNG would still be correct, as on other tables more 90/10s are winning . The RNG isn’t about single players…Make sense?
I think your statement 'nobody views every single had played on every table', is my problem with any audit. Its why i tried to get the bottom of what they are actually checking from the auditors themselves, although they declined to comment. If we take any poker hand, there is odds preflop, there is odds of each hand winning on the flop and then it changes again on the turn. The odds can change favour for a player dramatically on each street. Are they auditing this? Do they really know how often huge odds are coming in? I dont believe they do.
Its the key element, but all an audit i believe is doing, is looking at how often each card comes out ....and not how it is affecting the hand. This is beacuse the GC and the auditors dont look at poker odds. If they can prove the ace of spades comes out just as often as the queen hearts within reason, thats their proof that its random.
Even if they do look at starting hands, there is so few hands crushing another, im sure this will look within reason too. Im talking about hands where calls are inexplicable on the flop, no draw no pair, then there are incredible runners. I dont see that there is any audit on that element.
This is the part where players are constantly saying WTF?? This is where the odds dont stack up. I honestly have never seen a hand online, where i thought wow, he just gave me his chips for free with no pair, no draw, when its gone all in on the flop. Because i see this scenario several times a day and and they somehow survive over and over with runners. Should i have won one by now when they have so little chance?
I have no time for players saying they went all in preflop with AA v 89 and lost. This is not my point. The real discrepancy in odds being overturned are later in the hand (this is where the money is wagered and this where fantastic odds occur) and i just dont believe this is audited in the manner it should be.
Hitchens said "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
The burden of proof is on you and all you have is anecdotal assumptions and a strong confirmation bias. You are too detached from the reality of the situation to even start to make assertions.
You should ditch the dogma.
Are you ‘talking’ about the games you play now ( 08) or hold - em?
As you are aware , in 08 the outcome is more likely to change on each turn of a card than in hold-em.
That’s the beauty of Maths, if it’s not 100% to win, it will lose sometimes, my statement still applies., just because in your cognitive experience you feel some hands you should have won because of the maths doesn’t mean it’s dodgy.
I think when you play low level and hey you all must have played the 'all in fest' £1000 nightly freeroll right? Do you not just laugh at the outcomes there??? All variations of poker Tommy, but in hi lo obv it is more of a high variance game, but the spots they will get themselves in are far poorer than hold em.
Eg 234 flop with me a256.... them JJ92..... im never scooping that on an all in flop... theres fh coming 100%! I just accept this now.....
Whereas it is entirely possible to prove when something is not random.
HUDs have been around for 15-20 years. It is possible to refine statistics on them that would prove conclusively if the RNG did not work. Because poker has a lot of people with HUDs, lots of fine mathematical minds, and lots of people who are convinced that RNGs are not random.
So-why has no-one presented clear mathematical evidence? Could it be because it is not true?
I don’t think that many people are in limbo
Just you and the countless number of people who have messaged you privately and want to stay anonymous
The people who pm'd me was on the subject of the tea club and the belittling comments, not the RNG.
Like you have here.
People don't understand odds properly in lots of situations. They think that their good hands should always win and don't realise that if aces hold against kings when looking at a sample of 1 they have run above expectations because they won the hand 100% of the time when they should win it around 81% of the time.
Often those saying online is rigged are live players who do ok at live poker but aren't going to be winning players at comparable stakes online because online poker is a lot harder.
I don't know how good you are at HU SNG but your win rate seems pretty high for that format and thinking it isn't higher and its down to the software does make me think you don't have a real understanding of appropriate win rates.
Maybe widen the people you speak to if you haven't spoken to anyone who thinks it is random.
I play micro and i play a game that at that level is totally misunderstood.
In that scenario, yes i would expect my win rate to be higher but..... just cos im losing/splitting a huge amount of hands during any given game, doesnt mean i dont go on to lose said game.
If i split 16 3% chances like the above example, but eventually win that game.... i am still going to be shaking my head at the constant sillyness, arent i?
Its not about my win rate, its about what im seeing with the deck and the associated combined odds regardless of eventually winning or not.