As i say once again, please read the posts in full before commenting..... Can i remind Shipppp we are playin on SKY not 888 today? Will anyone ever offer anything that actually relates to the posts, or shall we not bother and just put up 'div', 'idiot', 'moron' and 'i feel sorry for this guy', whilst getting the jist of it completely wrong???
As i say once again, please read the posts in full before commenting..... Can i remind Shipppp we are playin on SKY not 888 today? Will anyone ever offer anything that actually relates to the posts, or shall we not bother and just put up 'div', 'idiot', 'moron' and 'i feel sorry for this guy', whilst getting the jist of it completely wrong???
If by "actually relates to the posts" you do not mean responding to something you have repeatedly said, then my understanding of the English language clearly differs from yours. I read all of your posts. If you want a purely personal opinion,
1. Can you play poker? Yes 2. Are you better at poker than reasoned argument? Yes 3. Can you spell "Gist"? No.
As i say once again, please read the posts in full before commenting..... Can i remind Shipppp we are playin on SKY not 888 today? Will anyone ever offer anything that actually relates to the posts, or shall we not bother and just put up 'div', 'idiot', 'moron' and 'i feel sorry for this guy', whilst getting the jist of it completely wrong???
If by "actually relates to the posts" you do not mean responding to something you have repeatedly said, then my understanding of the English language clearly differs from yours. I read all of your posts. If you want a purely personal opinion,
1. Can you play poker? Yes 2. Are you better at poker than reasoned argument? Yes 3. Can you spell "Gist"? No.
Have a lovely day.
Yes ok, then your understanding of the english language is lacking if you have read it all. When we are talking about 458 hands that the situation is that it is only the first all in preflop after a big pot... and also just doubles them up and not the end of the game... if you would like to explain on how this will show on Sharkscope as 458 losses on the run?
1 Did i mispell Gist as Jist? Yes 2 Did you understand the post? No 3 Are you clever enough to be putting up numbered items in an attempt to belittle someone? No
I will take this opportunity to try and clear up what actually happened here, as there is alot of people jumping to conclusions, including that i attack people, im a terrible player, think this, think that.
This is the score. We play heads up omaha hi lo SNGS.
Shipp has put this post up, told me about it and has complained to customer services about me being 'abusive'. I took exception to this, as i have never said anything to him personally other than comments like 'unlucky with the giveaway attempt', when the deck obliges for the umpteenth time. Anything in the chat box is geared to 10% and below chances dropping in on the river, when all in. When playing Shippp, this is an often occurence due to his aggressive style.
A typical comment would be 'they simply dont allow giving away do they' and 'bink, bink,bink', as i believe there is an element of the deck that is designed to maximise profit.... after all, all businesses operate on how they can maximise profit. I accept this as part of online poker.
I simply dont know why this player has got upset about this, as i never mention him as a person or put up anything worse than the above. I have had players saying 'i hope your kids die' in the chat box, so im not sure where he is coming from to find what i put 'abusive'.
In my original post, i was simply trying to point out that his aggressive style and his total willingness to gamble it up, whilst hitting sub 10% chances at an incredible rate... will always make him a candidate for negativity of some kind in the chat box... at no point did i say his aggression is not the way to go to be a winning player. Read it again, you may see my post in a different light, was just saying his style will be one that attracts negative chat box, so turn it off if it offends.
I can assure all that i have an ROI far in excess of Shippp, despite being called a 'moron', 'stupid' and 'idiot' in these posts, which is rich whilst being a thread on online chat abuse! Im quite happy with my posts. I will maintain that sub 10% chances come in at a fantastic rate, nowhere near 10%, put it that way, that maths dictate.... i still have a fantastic ROI and thats why i accept it, i know the situations to avoid, where the result will be standard, but will always voice my frustration, as we need change and nothing will happen without a voice.
For example on 888 Poker, i noticed on heads up Omaha heads up sngs, that if a player gaveaway cheaply (eg had straight on a flush and FH board) and ended up decimated... the very next all in preflop, would double up. So after noticing it was doing it automatically (most omaha hands heads up preflop are 50/50ish, so you would expect to win half) i recorded 458 losses on the run before leaving. Not one win at a 50/50 in 458 attempts after noticing hundreds before recording it. I have to take notice in what the maths is telling me.
And lastly, Shippp has always. ALWAYS sat with me ... and not me sitting with him, EVER. So hes so upset, but chooses to play me which his entirely own decision. Bit weird, somethings not quite right, im sure most would agree that this does not fit in with his claims, if my comments where really that bad.
If this last point is correct, then @shipppp09 's problem is easily solved. Just don't play him. You don't want to play him and he doesn't want to play you, unless I'm missing something.
I have no choice but to play him, as he sits with me... a SNG heads up cant be cancelled once he sits. I havent got a problem with that, it just doesnt fit in with his claims, when he keeps joining the table im sat at......
I have no choice but to play him, as he sits with me... a SNG heads up cant be cancelled once he sits. I havent got a problem with that, it just doesnt fit in with his claims, when he keeps joining the table im sat at......
Yeh that's what I'm saying, was aimed at @shipppp09 . If he stops sitting with you, then problem solved.
The whole point of this thread was to ask if people thought it was reasonable to be abused and berated on the way I play poker. The player pool at low stakes PLO8 that I have no option than to sit with him if I want to play during the day time. So because I chose to sit does that make his behaviour towards me acceptable?? Just like @Tikay10 I also went ahead and watched your other heads up matches against random players, quell suprize, you did exactly the same to them as you did to me.
If you had anything about yourself you’d say nothing when I’m calling raises I shouldn’t have, or betting out in terrible spots or raising junk hands but you continue to pass judgment and as soon as a hand is over that ive won, you claim it’s because the software helped me out? Just pure nonsense man.
Imagine new players getting into poker, sitting with you and you go on like that, it’s embarrassing & enough to put some people off.
Just win quietly seeing as you are so high and mighty TheMitty.
havent i just been abused and berated? I think ive just been abused and berated ...... No option to play me? Sit at the empty 2nd table that is also there as an option....
Oh the lies!
Why do people keep putting stuff up without thinking it out first!?
havent i just been abused and berated? I think ive just been abused and berated ...... No option to play me? Sit at the empty 2nd table that is also there as an option....
Oh the lies!
Why do people keep putting stuff up without thinking it out first!?
You do realise there is maybe 5/10 players on the site that play the lowest stakes PLO8. I’ve been waiting upwards of an hour at times to play a sit and go. If somebody is sitting at a table ready to go I’m going to play whilst I have the time.
We both know everything I’ve said is true, your a bully & a coward. The fact you’ve name checked Mike Matusow is somewhat ironic considering you speak more nonsense than him. EXTREMELY difficult to do.
This is the last I’ll be saying on the matter, I’ll continue to play, I have you muted, I havnt said a word apart from GG or UL at the end of every game we’ve played. I unchecked the mute box today and scrolled back, there was just walls of text. Just so you know your talking to yourself now so If you want to continue wasting your breath go ahead, nobodies reading.
As i say once again, please read the posts in full before commenting..... Can i remind Shipppp we are playin on SKY not 888 today? Will anyone ever offer anything that actually relates to the posts, or shall we not bother and just put up 'div', 'idiot', 'moron' and 'i feel sorry for this guy', whilst getting the jist of it completely wrong???
If by "actually relates to the posts" you do not mean responding to something you have repeatedly said, then my understanding of the English language clearly differs from yours. I read all of your posts. If you want a purely personal opinion,
1. Can you play poker? Yes 2. Are you better at poker than reasoned argument? Yes 3. Can you spell "Gist"? No.
Have a lovely day.
Yes ok, then your understanding of the english language is lacking if you have read it all. When we are talking about 458 hands that the situation is that it is only the first all in preflop after a big pot... and also just doubles them up and not the end of the game... if you would like to explain on how this will show on Sharkscope as 458 losses on the run?
1 Did i mispell Gist as Jist? Yes 2 Did you understand the post? No 3 Are you clever enough to be putting up numbered items in an attempt to belittle someone? No
Are you still claiming you lost 458 flips in a row on 888? You're actually still claiming this, yes?
If you had anything about yourself you’d say nothing when I’m calling raises I shouldn’t have, or betting out in terrible spots or raising junk hands but you continue to pass judgment and as soon as a hand is over that ive won, you claim it’s because the software helped me out? Just pure nonsense man.
Its nonsense is it 'man'...... havent you just admitted that you have won an enormous amount of hands with a series of major mistakes? And ive only played you about 10 times! So if you win with a 10% chance river, maths dictate you should win in that situation 10 in 100 attempts. Clearly, if ive mentioned beats soooo many times (and i have) you have won farrrrr in excess of these odds.
I would really have no need to mention anything if you won 10 hands out of hundred, would i? So hasnt the software helped u out whether by luck or anything else? I mean u just confirmed it above 'man'
Haha, Absolute had cheating, all what i say is not related to any cheating. All sites that have other games, those games have percentage win rates. We dont see this as cheating do we?
I just take down those who think they are writing clever posts, whereas they just get it all so badly wrong.
Thank you for not being one of them!
Have an opinion guys by all means, just dont make dicks of yourselves by putting things up like the 'the 458 hands will show on a sharkscope chart', 'hes just won a hand and broke the chain', when we playin on sky and not 888 and '458 one result coin flips is just as likely as any other outcome'....and many more.
There does seem to be a link between having a rather low IQ and believing large money making companies dont maximise profit opportunities, when it is within current regulation.
Arrogance, stupidity, and ignorance all in one. A grim concoction, tho common enough.
Your picture is fitting. A dumb ape, smashing his chest and making a lot of noise if he feels threatened. I wonder how you came to choose that pic?
On the topic - of course companies want to maximise profits, but they already make good money via the rake and any algorithmic adjustment would give very very minuscule benefits at the risk of being found out, and also at the risk of being nefarious. Not everyone has nefarious intent and perhaps that speaks volumes about your personal apish mentality.
For more context, and take it with a pinch of salt because I can't find the link to it now, but on another popular poker forum a few years ago they had an interesting attempt at something in the statistics forum. They tried to find out how much they could increase rake and site profit by adjusting the deck algorithms etc and to almost no one with a brains surprise they found that there's almost no way to increase it by a few % without alarmingly huge changes. This problem leads to huge differences in flop turn and river distributions, which is easy as pie to detect with even primitive tracking software. They also found that just by giving one player slightly better cards overall would actually be a far far far far better way to give a certain player an edge. However, once again that is easy to detect via trackers and auditiors, in fact even more so.
Then let's add in the fact that the people who colluded together to create these incredibly complicated algorithms will have had to communicate with their bosses in some way. So, in your ape world, there are a team of people in each company who explicitly discuss rigging the flop distribution to benefit certain players. Interestingly, or maybe not so, not one person in all of online poker history has come forward, out of all these companies that have come and gone, and declared that they inserted some algorithm to adjust the deck in the way that you seem to think is happening. Not a single one.
All in all, to think that a group of CEOs, who are clever people in general, would come together and think that rigging the deck in the way that you suggest would be a good idea is nothing short of ridiculous. Actually they would almost instantly realise how utterly abysmal such an idea is.
"There does seem to be a link between having a rather low IQ and believing large money making companies dont maximise profit opportunities, when it is within current regulation."
You'll be pleased to know it is emphatically NOT within current regulation to manipulate the Poker RNG to achieve results which favour some players over others, or in favour of the house.
You didnt answer the question about the tv poker episode where they mentioned the hand being 'an internet hand' Tikay10, or do you just answer the ones you feel you can!?
The deck IS within current regulation, as regulation is determined solely by the external audit. As we have discussed. it is not in the auditors financial interests to find anything wrong.
Please correct me if wrong, but sites paying an external auditor huge amounts of money to conduct their audits, that if they suspended said site, they would lose that revenue, is a case of financial conflict of interest? Would you be prepared to admit the The Gambling Commisions involvement is non existent, other then the issue of the certificate based on the findings of the auditor?
I have also requested from auditors, what checks are actually carried out, as i suspect thats is all geared towards how often each card comes out and not how it is actually affecting the hand. They answered the first email, saying they had 'award winning technology' and little else. I have then asked several times if they could elaborate on what tests are done and the types of things they are looking for and all emails were ignored.
Im not saying this is proof of anything, but why in an industry were its 50/50 amongst players to the belief in its randomness, is its main decision maker not prepared to talk about it? Does this help in convincing people?
Anyone who refuses to even consider maximising profits and retaining custom, almost always say 'The Gambling Commision' would shut them down if found out. There is an almost non existent knowledge that the Commission has no interest in online poker whatsoever, other than sites running as a financially sound company.
I think you would have to admit players have a sense of security thinking that The Gambling Commission are monitoring decks, play and wins very closely and very few know the actual fact that they have no involement whatsoever.
Good afternoon Asking an organisation what checks are carried out and expecting an in depth answer is quite naive, ( they do ‘x’ checks so I’ll do ‘y’ )
At one point one mentioned making certain claims “ and backing them up”, the only “ backing up” I can see is to repeat the same claim.
You didnt answer the question about the tv poker episode where they mentioned the hand being 'an internet hand' Tikay10, or do you just answer the ones you feel you can!?
I almost answered at the time...
"Is that it. is that the entire body of evidence you have to support your eccentric view that a Live Deck & an Online Deck are different?"
I decided not to, as I don't really wish to bang heads with you more than need be, & in any event, your views appears to be fixed. We have 1 or 2 conspiracy theorists on the Forum, & as a general rule I allow them to just chunter on to themselves, within reason of course. You are already getting more than enough flak on the thread, & I don't enjoy seeing you getting beaten up here.
But as you persist....
The comment was a single comment made 12 or 15 years ago by 3 disgraced players, one of whom was almost certainly off his head on drugs & has served time for being a drug dealer. All three were involved in the theft of huge sums of money from Full Tilt players. Not exactly the character witnesses most of us would have put forward.
And that's your "evidence"?
The term "internet hand" refers to a typical car-crash hand. It is so-called because in internet poker we play so many more hands compared to "Live", & therefore confirmation bias arises.
By way of example, I played some some 1,400 "Live" Poker Tournaments in 5 years, which, allowing for days off & the (very rare) Day Two's I made, is not far short of one a night. When I switched to Online, I typically took 5 or 6 weeks to play the vey same number of MTT's it took 5 years to play Live.
So we see more hands, more games, faster dealing, less stalling, & inevitably more car crash hands.
I have no plans to engage further with you as I'm busy & time is precious at my age, but I am going to ask you to keep it real please, & stop presenting opinions as facts.
Buddy I am so pleased that you replied to the OP. You have without knowing lifted my spirits and injected much needed frivolity and humour into my drab existence.
Laughter my friend is one of lifes great uplifting and healing forces and you have supplied enough to drive this Omicron laden society to full health.
Can I request you do a Ted talk coz that would go viral. Alternatively just say no buddy, either way thanks for the laughs.
Hey TheEdge, absolutely, even you think im nuts or have not intentially meant to have added any humour to this, i have enjoyed reading back and **** myself laughing at some of the replies.
I know the above is really an insult, but fully appreciate you and others have watched with interest and sure have been entertained by it, hence the large numbers
Ive certainly not resorted to 'Div', etc, like alot have, which is quite bizarre given the original post was about me being 'abusive', but apparently although we can clearly see this in the posts, i can never back anything up!
Tikay10... I would imagine at the time of Full Tilt, weeks before that happened, you were still going on about sites being reputable and things being 100% squeaky clean, Or was this opinion just formed AFTER they were long gone?
I will tell you a 100% true story, i was, even then, beginning to question deck performance as i believe things changed on Black Friday when sites had to adjust. The very last email from FullTilt, the DAY BEFORE they suspended the site, their email started off 'we strive to meet the very highest of standards and strenuously deny any claims that question the integrity of the site'. A bit like all the sites start off their prewritten emails now.
The integrity of the site! I'm pretty sure you would have said i was 'eccentric' and a 'div' the day before Full Tilt too and would have backed that company to the hilt on why on earth they would be so stupid to do this and that, when they make so much money from fees and rake, etc etc.
I dont really get why im passing off opinion as fact?
The Gambling Commision (whos logo is everywhere when it comes to poker) really doesnt have any involvement in looking at online poker in any shape or form, but the majority of players thinks they have ...Fact.....
The certificates that 'prove' sites are legit are issued by The Gambling Commision despite not having any personal involvement in looking at sites ...Fact...
the external auditors findings determine the issue of the certificate and nothing else... Fact.....
there is a conflict of financial interest in the external auditing of sites.... Fact ....
All sites have a prewritten statement that say when you question anything 'it would not benefit us in any way financially to have deck that was not random, as we only make profit from rake and fees' when clearly a deck that produces enhanced hands WOULD benefit from increased rake... Fact
Which of these that i have mentioned in posts are only 'eccentric' opinion?
Just these few facts should ring somekind of alarm bells to those who are sitting on the fence and are not sure either way.
It is also a fact that online poker regulation is very much open to abuse, even if it wasnt, due to appalling way its set up, as above . You should at the very least, be able to see that this needs reform, even if you continue to believe no-one as yet took advantage and its all above board. Fact!
Comments
1. Can you play poker? Yes
2. Are you better at poker than reasoned argument? Yes
3. Can you spell "Gist"? No.
Have a lovely day.
1 Did i mispell Gist as Jist? Yes
2 Did you understand the post? No
3 Are you clever enough to be putting up numbered items in an attempt to belittle someone? No
If you had anything about yourself you’d say nothing when I’m calling raises I shouldn’t have, or betting out in terrible spots or raising junk hands but you continue to pass judgment and as soon as a hand is over that ive won, you claim it’s because the software helped me out? Just pure nonsense man.
Imagine new players getting into poker, sitting with you and you go on like that, it’s embarrassing & enough to put some people off.
Just win quietly seeing as you are so high and mighty TheMitty.
Oh the lies!
Why do people keep putting stuff up without thinking it out first!?
You do realise there is maybe 5/10 players on the site that play the lowest stakes PLO8. I’ve been waiting upwards of an hour at times to play a sit and go. If somebody is sitting at a table ready to go I’m going to play whilst I have the time.
We both know everything I’ve said is true, your a bully & a coward. The fact you’ve name checked Mike Matusow is somewhat ironic considering you speak more nonsense than him. EXTREMELY difficult to do.
This is the last I’ll be saying on the matter, I’ll continue to play, I have you muted, I havnt said a word apart from GG or UL at the end of every game we’ve played. I unchecked the mute box today and scrolled back, there was just walls of text. Just so you know your talking to yourself now so If you want to continue wasting your breath go ahead, nobodies reading.
You're actually still claiming this, yes?
Are you the guy that took down Absolute Poker?
I just take down those who think they are writing clever posts, whereas they just get it all so badly wrong.
Thank you for not being one of them!
Have an opinion guys by all means, just dont make dicks of yourselves by putting things up like the 'the 458 hands will show on a sharkscope chart', 'hes just won a hand and broke the chain', when we playin on sky and not 888 and '458 one result coin flips is just as likely as any other outcome'....and many more.
There does seem to be a link between having a rather low IQ and believing large money making companies dont maximise profit opportunities, when it is within current regulation.
Your picture is fitting. A dumb ape, smashing his chest and making a lot of noise if he feels threatened. I wonder how you came to choose that pic?
On the topic - of course companies want to maximise profits, but they already make good money via the rake and any algorithmic adjustment would give very very minuscule benefits at the risk of being found out, and also at the risk of being nefarious. Not everyone has nefarious intent and perhaps that speaks volumes about your personal apish mentality.
For more context, and take it with a pinch of salt because I can't find the link to it now, but on another popular poker forum a few years ago they had an interesting attempt at something in the statistics forum. They tried to find out how much they could increase rake and site profit by adjusting the deck algorithms etc and to almost no one with a brains surprise they found that there's almost no way to increase it by a few % without alarmingly huge changes. This problem leads to huge differences in flop turn and river distributions, which is easy as pie to detect with even primitive tracking software. They also found that just by giving one player slightly better cards overall would actually be a far far far far better way to give a certain player an edge. However, once again that is easy to detect via trackers and auditiors, in fact even more so.
Then let's add in the fact that the people who colluded together to create these incredibly complicated algorithms will have had to communicate with their bosses in some way. So, in your ape world, there are a team of people in each company who explicitly discuss rigging the flop distribution to benefit certain players. Interestingly, or maybe not so, not one person in all of online poker history has come forward, out of all these companies that have come and gone, and declared that they inserted some algorithm to adjust the deck in the way that you seem to think is happening. Not a single one.
All in all, to think that a group of CEOs, who are clever people in general, would come together and think that rigging the deck in the way that you suggest would be a good idea is nothing short of ridiculous. Actually they would almost instantly realise how utterly abysmal such an idea is.
"There does seem to be a link between having a rather low IQ and believing large money making companies dont maximise profit opportunities, when it is within current regulation."
You'll be pleased to know it is emphatically NOT within current regulation to manipulate the Poker RNG to achieve results which favour some players over others, or in favour of the house.
The deck IS within current regulation, as regulation is determined solely by the external audit. As we have discussed. it is not in the auditors financial interests to find anything wrong.
Please correct me if wrong, but sites paying an external auditor huge amounts of money to conduct their audits, that if they suspended said site, they would lose that revenue, is a case of financial conflict of interest? Would you be prepared to admit the The Gambling Commisions involvement is non existent, other then the issue of the certificate based on the findings of the auditor?
I have also requested from auditors, what checks are actually carried out, as i suspect thats is all geared towards how often each card comes out and not how it is actually affecting the hand. They answered the first email, saying they had 'award winning technology' and little else. I have then asked several times if they could elaborate on what tests are done and the types of things they are looking for and all emails were ignored.
Im not saying this is proof of anything, but why in an industry were its 50/50 amongst players to the belief in its randomness, is its main decision maker not prepared to talk about it? Does this help in convincing people?
Anyone who refuses to even consider maximising profits and retaining custom, almost always say 'The Gambling Commision' would shut them down if found out. There is an almost non existent knowledge that the Commission has no interest in online poker whatsoever, other than sites running as a financially sound company.
I think you would have to admit players have a sense of security thinking that The Gambling Commission are monitoring decks, play and wins very closely and very few know the actual fact that they have no involement whatsoever.
Asking an organisation what checks are carried out and expecting an in depth answer is quite naive, ( they do ‘x’ checks so I’ll do ‘y’ )
At one point one mentioned making certain claims “ and backing them up”, the only “ backing up” I can see is to repeat the same claim.
Not sure whether this is a wind up.
I almost answered at the time...
"Is that it. is that the entire body of evidence you have to support your eccentric view that a Live Deck & an Online Deck are different?"
I decided not to, as I don't really wish to bang heads with you more than need be, & in any event, your views appears to be fixed. We have 1 or 2 conspiracy theorists on the Forum, & as a general rule I allow them to just chunter on to themselves, within reason of course. You are already getting more than enough flak on the thread, & I don't enjoy seeing you getting beaten up here.
But as you persist....
The comment was a single comment made 12 or 15 years ago by 3 disgraced players, one of whom was almost certainly off his head on drugs & has served time for being a drug dealer. All three were involved in the theft of huge sums of money from Full Tilt players. Not exactly the character witnesses most of us would have put forward.
And that's your "evidence"?
The term "internet hand" refers to a typical car-crash hand. It is so-called because in internet poker we play so many more hands compared to "Live", & therefore confirmation bias arises.
By way of example, I played some some 1,400 "Live" Poker Tournaments in 5 years, which, allowing for days off & the (very rare) Day Two's I made, is not far short of one a night. When I switched to Online, I typically took 5 or 6 weeks to play the vey same number of MTT's it took 5 years to play Live.
So we see more hands, more games, faster dealing, less stalling, & inevitably more car crash hands.
I have no plans to engage further with you as I'm busy & time is precious at my age, but I am going to ask you to keep it real please, & stop presenting opinions as facts.
Thank you.
Buddy I am so pleased that you replied to the OP. You have without knowing lifted my spirits and injected much needed frivolity and humour into my drab existence.
Laughter my friend is one of lifes great uplifting and healing forces and you have supplied enough to drive this Omicron laden society to full health.
Can I request you do a Ted talk coz that would go viral. Alternatively just say no buddy, either way thanks for the laughs.
I know the above is really an insult, but fully appreciate you and others have watched with interest and sure have been entertained by it, hence the large numbers
Ive certainly not resorted to 'Div', etc, like alot have, which is quite bizarre given the original post was about me being 'abusive', but apparently although we can clearly see this in the posts, i can never back anything up!
Tikay10... I would imagine at the time of Full Tilt, weeks before that happened, you were still going on about sites being reputable and things being 100% squeaky clean, Or was this opinion just formed AFTER they were long gone?
I will tell you a 100% true story, i was, even then, beginning to question deck performance as i believe things changed on Black Friday when sites had to adjust. The very last email from FullTilt, the DAY BEFORE they suspended the site, their email started off 'we strive to meet the very highest of standards and strenuously deny any claims that question the integrity of the site'. A bit like all the sites start off their prewritten emails now.
The integrity of the site! I'm pretty sure you would have said i was 'eccentric' and a 'div' the day before Full Tilt too and would have backed that company to the hilt on why on earth they would be so stupid to do this and that, when they make so much money from fees and rake, etc etc.
I dont really get why im passing off opinion as fact?
The Gambling Commision (whos logo is everywhere when it comes to poker) really doesnt have any involvement in looking at online poker in any shape or form, but the majority of players thinks they have ...Fact.....
The certificates that 'prove' sites are legit are issued by The Gambling Commision despite not having any personal involvement in looking at sites ...Fact...
the external auditors findings determine the issue of the certificate and nothing else... Fact.....
there is a conflict of financial interest in the external auditing of sites.... Fact ....
All sites have a prewritten statement that say when you question anything 'it would not benefit us in any way financially to have deck that was not random, as we only make profit from rake and fees' when clearly a deck that produces enhanced hands WOULD benefit from increased rake... Fact
Which of these that i have mentioned in posts are only 'eccentric' opinion?
Just these few facts should ring somekind of alarm bells to those who are sitting on the fence and are not sure either way.
It is also a fact that online poker regulation is very much open to abuse, even if it wasnt, due to appalling way its set up, as above . You should at the very least, be able to see that this needs reform, even if you continue to believe no-one as yet took advantage and its all above board. Fact!