@Tikay10 have you ever done a podcast or long form written interview or anything i imagine you have some stories judging by this thread, would be interested to hear more about it and i imagine others would be as well maybe @Duesenberg can dust off the mic and do one..
@Tikay10 have you ever done a podcast or long form written interview or anything i imagine you have some stories judging by this thread, would be interested to hear more about it and i imagine others would be as well maybe @Duesenberg can dust off the mic and do one..
No, I don't think I have. I did a series of interviews for the Racing Post many years ago, but that's about it as I recall.
When I reflect upon my life, it's quite a story one way & another. I don't mean "success story", (that depends how we view "success") just the humps & bumps of life.
Many people have suggested I write a book, but I never quite got round to it, & anyway, outside my circle of poker friends & acquaintances, nobody would buy it. Still, maybe one day, if I find myself out of work with time on my hands...
PS - I've taken up "Live" poker again (I know, ridic at my age) & I see all sorts of fascinating stuff, so I might just start a little "tikay at the Tables" Diary on here. I look at how & why we play poker a little differently to most folks. Not necessarily "better", just different. There are some amazing characters in poker.
i assumed you'd always been playing live generally anyway interesting to hear you've taken it up again now, I've always thought live poker is an ideal activity to do in older age mainly for keeping the brain challenged and social aspects more than anything, good luck on the tables i'm sure a forum diary would be very popular on here. A book would be a good idea, i've always imagined that would be a fun way to look back through life as well,more of a process of reflection than being worried about who was interested or selling copies, but i imagine with what you've said about a tough childhood and the obstacles overcome your life experiences would be very relateable to people outside poker/friends/acquaintances as well. I hope i'm still playing poker in some way at your age! hard to fathom how different the world might be then though, glitches in the matrix might be even more of an issue when we have robot dealers...
SPT's apart, where I am really there to look after our Customers, I've not really played Live Poker in the UK since around 2007, when I started with Sky. I'm now at an age where I have to get my Bucket List sorted, which includes gong to Vegas for the entire period of the WSOP. Would only play 3 or 4 WSOP Events (Omaha Mix etc) but mostly play the $400/$600/$800 Sideys all over Town, as all the Rooms have Festivals during the WSOP. So I needed to test myself, knock the ring rust off, see if my mental abilities are still up to it. Joking aside, I'm at an age where cognitive decline happens & I'm acutely aware of that. So far, it's gone way better than I expected, the highlight being a UKIPT Final Table a week or two ago.
"A book would be a good idea, I've always imagined that would be a fun way to look back through life as well, more of a process of reflection than being worried about who was interested or selling copies,"
Yes, that's very fair comment.
At the moment, I'm playing a lot of golf & a lot of Live poker. Bit ridic at my age really, but it is what it is & I'm having a ball.
To quote you "In the near 18 years Sky Poker has operated, it has dealt ~1.8 billion hands. That's 1.8 billion pieces of evidence. And nobody has ever produced one credible scrap of evidence of any malpractice by the Business. "Aces lost to Jacks" is not, I must tell you, evidence of anything except normality."
-
Pocket aces lost to pocket jacks 2 times in a row. it was literally the next hand.
i have new evidence. i just played a hand and i had pocket 6's and i don't normally play pocket 6's because it's a weak pocket pair but i did this time and i'm glad i did so that i can share this with you. The other player had pocket A's. They raised 400. i went all in. SB and BB folded there 100 and 200 chips. The player who raised 400 chips called my all-in. Flop came 2C AC 6H so we both got a card that helps us although i'm losing. Turn was AS so i've definitely lost this hand. The river card was 6C. So we both got four of a kind but their four of a kind beat my four of a kind. This is evidence and proves that SkyPoker is rigged. SkyPoker rigged the flop so be connected to our hands because they knew that we would play our hands.
i don't know how to do the thing where you can show in a picture in the forum how the hand played out but it was hand number 1,891,211,847
This is what i was talking about when i said that each hand is planned together. The cards are not dealt by a random card generator.
Can you please ask SkyPoker to fix this and use a random card generator so that the game is fair for the players?
"Pocket aces lost to pocket jacks 2 times in a row."
And then, in another hand...
"So we both got four of a kind but their four of a kind beat my four of a kind. This is evidence and proves that SkyPoker is rigged."
How exactly is that evidence of anything except the wonders of poker & a deck of 52 playing cards?
For every crime there is a motive. What motive do Sky Poker have for "rigging" the play?
And where are the Sky Poker whistleblowers? In 18 years they have had 5 different Poker Managers, 4 Marketing Managers, & dozens of different support staff. One still works at Sky Poker, 6 or 7 work elsewhere in SB & G, & a dozen or more have moved on to different companies, some leaving happily, some disgruntled as they never got the pay rise or Promotion they feel they deserved.
But not a single whistleblower in 18 years amongst all those Staff.
Emma, nobody will convince you that Sky Poker is not rigged, because people with your mindset won't be told. I guess my question is therefore: why are you still here? I wouldn't play here if I thought like you.
What I do know for sure, from what you have said, is that you have not played much live poker, because if you had, you would know that this kind of thing happens in person too... just seven times less often, because live hands are slower.
A remarkable hand, I agree, very rare indeed. But where's the credible evidence of malpractice?
Last night I was out playing "Live" poker, where we see FAR fewer hands per hour. We were playing DC ("Dealers Choice") where we are lucky to see more than 12 hands per hour. I saw Quads over Quads twice plus a Royal Flush, although to be fair it was PLO where, mathematically, these things are far more likely.
Concentrate on learning to play better poker is my advice. I'm not being mean, that's genuine & well-intentioned advice. I watched you play yesterday & you were repeatedly making basic, fundamental errors. They are easy to solve, so invest some time in solving them & in short order you could become a winning player. And then you'll not point the fingers at this Business, which happens to be scrupulously honest.
Emma, nobody will convince you that Sky Poker is not rigged, because people with your mindset won't be told. I guess my question is therefore: why are you still here? I wouldn't play here if I thought like you.
What I do know for sure, from what you have said, is that you have not played much live poker, because if you had, you would know that this kind of thing happens in person too... just seven times less often, because live hands are slower.
I guess you are right Slippy, nothing is going to convince Emma.
It genuinely upsets me when I see losing players point the finger at the Business, when all they have to do is invest a little time to learn to play poker better.
If we suggested the player was guilty of malpractice, there'd be murders, lawsuits & all sorts. But they think they can make such accusations against a genuinely legit business & it's OK.
Because it's done by a computer program so it is not random. i know that it happens in real life live poker but it's not rigged in real life because it's a not a computer.
i know i could have folded pocket 6's which is what i normally do. i guess that the Universe made me play my 6's so that i could tell you this.
i play poker on SkyPoker because i like the DYMs and i can't find another website that does DYMs like SkyPoker does. i don't like the rigged computer program hand generator that they use. i will still play poker on SkyPoker but i hope that they change the way the hands are generated.
it's like FOBTs in real life which i don't use by the way because i'm smart, rigs roulette because computer technology is so advanced that the program it uses is rigged for people who use them. if people want to try to win money by playing roulette then they should go to a casino with a real human dealer.
"it's like FOBTs in real life which i don't use by the way because i'm smart, rigs roulette because computer technology is so advanced that the program it uses is rigged for people who use them. if people want to try to win money by playing roulette then they should go to a casino with a real human dealer."
Whether we play Roulette "Live" or Online, long-term NOBODY CAN BEAT THE GAME. It's in the maths, it does not need any further proof. The maths of Roulette PROVE that it's impossible for ANYONE to beat the game long-term. We can have winning spins, winning nights, even winning weeks, but mathematically, we will ALWAYS lose long-term at Roulette as the maths are against us.
So why would any business "rig" it when they know that the players are all going to lose anyway.....?
Sites or B&M Casinos have no need to rig a game where the players CANNOT WIN (long-term).
Trust me @EmmaEP, NOBODY can beat this game. Nobody.
Welcome to Triple Zero Roulette.
And the mystery is why ANYONE, EVER, ANYWHERE would play Triple Zero Roulette, the odds are horrendous. And yet, in Vegas, the Triple Zero Roulette tables are packed.
Trust me @EmmaEP, NOBODY can beat this game. Nobody.
You are correct in that no-one can beat roulette in the longer term.
However, if you want to have any chance of beating the game in the short-term, or losing slower in the longer term, you need to count the 0's.
Traditional roulette had just the one "0" to provide the profit for the casino. Then, increasingly, there was added a "00", nearly doubling the edge for the casino (2/38 rather than 1/37). And I see that there is now a "000"-so 3/39.
Profit margin has gone up from 1/37 to 1/13. High price to pay.
Hi @EmmaEP Ive seen quads over quads at the tables a few times over the years, its unusual, but we dont need to jump to the conclusion its rigged, its just something that happens occasionally.
There are a few ways to look at this.
The chances of Quads being beaten by Quads before the deal are 1 in 1.2 billion ( I didnt calculate this myself, I just googled it)
But the chances of Quads being beaten by higher Quads on the river are 1 in 46, its not 1 in 1.2 billion now its 1 in 46.
Its the devastation that we feel when we get sucked out on that blows our mind, we had high hopes.
Its easy to think rigged and point fingers.
But its better to be realistic and think a 1 in 46 shot just came in.
Ive just google quads over quads on youtube there are enough.
Trust me @EmmaEP, NOBODY can beat this game. Nobody.
You are correct in that no-one can beat roulette in the longer term.
However, if you want to have any chance of beating the game in the short-term, or losing slower in the longer term, you need to count the 0's.
Traditional roulette had just the one "0" to provide the profit for the casino. Then, increasingly, there was added a "00", nearly doubling the edge for the casino (2/38 rather than 1/37). And I see that there is now a "000"-so 3/39.
Profit margin has gone up from 1/37 to 1/13. High price to pay.
Correct. We will lose our money more slowly at Single Zero Roulette. We'll still lose it in the long-term though, & the Sites/Casinos have no need to getting up to any malarky - the maths does the job for them.
I remember randomly seeing this post a few months ago when looking through archives. Took me ages to re find it. Full house vs Quads vs Royal flush, Full house was dead on the turn, Gutshot for the royal flush (1 outer) was 2.38% and Quads were 97.62% favourite when all the chips went in. River K of diamonds giving the gut shot the 1 outer for the Royal Flush. And the 97.62% favourite lost. Poker is amazing embrace it
This is what chat gpt thought of it when asked what is rarer... quads over quads or Royal flush over quads over full house....
Both scenarios are extremely rare, but let's break down the probabilities:
Quads over Quads: This situation occurs when two players each have four of a kind. The odds of being dealt quads are about 0.024%, and for two players to have quads simultaneously, the odds are even lower.
Royal Flush over Quads over Full House: A royal flush is the highest possible hand in poker, with odds of about 0.000154%. For one player to have a royal flush, another to have quads, and a third to have a full house in the same hand, the odds are astronomically low.
In summary, while both scenarios are exceedingly rare, a royal flush over quads over a full house is rarer due to the extremely low probability of being dealt a royal flush in the first place.
what are the odds tho Let's break down the odds for each scenario:
Quads over Quads: The probability of being dealt four of a kind (quads) in a five-card hand is about 0.024% (1 in 4,165). For two players to have quads simultaneously, the odds are much lower, roughly 1 in 39 million.
Royal Flush over Quads over Full House: The probability of being dealt a royal flush is about 0.000154% (1 in 649,740). For one player to have a royal flush, another to have quads, and a third to have a full house in the same hand, the odds are astronomically low, likely in the range of 1 in several billion.
Comments
Ni idea mate. I'll send an e-Mail across to the Billionth Hand Dept & see what they say.
@benc
No, I don't think I have. I did a series of interviews for the Racing Post many years ago, but that's about it as I recall.
When I reflect upon my life, it's quite a story one way & another. I don't mean "success story", (that depends how we view "success") just the humps & bumps of life.
Many people have suggested I write a book, but I never quite got round to it, & anyway, outside my circle of poker friends & acquaintances, nobody would buy it. Still, maybe one day, if I find myself out of work with time on my hands...
PS - I've taken up "Live" poker again (I know, ridic at my age) & I see all sorts of fascinating stuff, so I might just start a little "tikay at the Tables" Diary on here. I look at how & why we play poker a little differently to most folks. Not necessarily "better", just different. There are some amazing characters in poker.
@benc
Much to agree with there.
SPT's apart, where I am really there to look after our Customers, I've not really played Live Poker in the UK since around 2007, when I started with Sky. I'm now at an age where I have to get my Bucket List sorted, which includes gong to Vegas for the entire period of the WSOP. Would only play 3 or 4 WSOP Events (Omaha Mix etc) but mostly play the $400/$600/$800 Sideys all over Town, as all the Rooms have Festivals during the WSOP. So I needed to test myself, knock the ring rust off, see if my mental abilities are still up to it. Joking aside, I'm at an age where cognitive decline happens & I'm acutely aware of that. So far, it's gone way better than I expected, the highlight being a UKIPT Final Table a week or two ago.
"A book would be a good idea, I've always imagined that would be a fun way to look back through life as well, more of a process of reflection than being worried about who was interested or selling copies,"
Yes, that's very fair comment.
At the moment, I'm playing a lot of golf & a lot of Live poker. Bit ridic at my age really, but it is what it is & I'm having a ball.
To quote you "In the near 18 years Sky Poker has operated, it has dealt ~1.8 billion hands. That's 1.8 billion pieces of evidence. And nobody has ever produced one credible scrap of evidence of any malpractice by the Business. "Aces lost to Jacks" is not, I must tell you, evidence of anything except normality."
-
Pocket aces lost to pocket jacks 2 times in a row. it was literally the next hand.
i have new evidence. i just played a hand and i had pocket 6's and i don't normally play pocket 6's because it's a weak pocket pair but i did this time and i'm glad i did so that i can share this with you. The other player had pocket A's. They raised 400. i went all in. SB and BB folded there 100 and 200 chips. The player who raised 400 chips called my all-in. Flop came 2C AC 6H so we both got a card that helps us although i'm losing. Turn was AS so i've definitely lost this hand. The river card was 6C. So we both got four of a kind but their four of a kind beat my four of a kind. This is evidence and proves that SkyPoker is rigged. SkyPoker rigged the flop so be connected to our hands because they knew that we would play our hands.
i don't know how to do the thing where you can show in a picture in the forum how the hand played out but it was hand number 1,891,211,847
This is what i was talking about when i said that each hand is planned together. The cards are not dealt by a random card generator.
Can you please ask SkyPoker to fix this and use a random card generator so that the game is fair for the players?
Thanks.
@EmmaEP
"Pocket aces lost to pocket jacks 2 times in a row."
And then, in another hand...
"So we both got four of a kind but their four of a kind beat my four of a kind. This is evidence and proves that SkyPoker is rigged."
How exactly is that evidence of anything except the wonders of poker & a deck of 52 playing cards?
For every crime there is a motive. What motive do Sky Poker have for "rigging" the play?
And where are the Sky Poker whistleblowers? In 18 years they have had 5 different Poker Managers, 4 Marketing Managers, & dozens of different support staff. One still works at Sky Poker, 6 or 7 work elsewhere in SB & G, & a dozen or more have moved on to different companies, some leaving happily, some disgruntled as they never got the pay rise or Promotion they feel they deserved.
But not a single whistleblower in 18 years amongst all those Staff.
What I do know for sure, from what you have said, is that you have not played much live poker, because if you had, you would know that this kind of thing happens in person too... just seven times less often, because live hands are slower.
@EmmaEP
A remarkable hand, I agree, very rare indeed. But where's the credible evidence of malpractice?
Last night I was out playing "Live" poker, where we see FAR fewer hands per hour. We were playing DC ("Dealers Choice") where we are lucky to see more than 12 hands per hour. I saw Quads over Quads twice plus a Royal Flush, although to be fair it was PLO where, mathematically, these things are far more likely.
Concentrate on learning to play better poker is my advice. I'm not being mean, that's genuine & well-intentioned advice. I watched you play yesterday & you were repeatedly making basic, fundamental errors. They are easy to solve, so invest some time in solving them & in short order you could become a winning player. And then you'll not point the fingers at this Business, which happens to be scrupulously honest.
I guess you are right Slippy, nothing is going to convince Emma.
It genuinely upsets me when I see losing players point the finger at the Business, when all they have to do is invest a little time to learn to play poker better.
If we suggested the player was guilty of malpractice, there'd be murders, lawsuits & all sorts. But they think they can make such accusations against a genuinely legit business & it's OK.
As Jimmy used to say, funny old game 'innit.
i know i could have folded pocket 6's which is what i normally do. i guess that the Universe made me play my 6's so that i could tell you this.
i play poker on SkyPoker because i like the DYMs and i can't find another website that does DYMs like SkyPoker does. i don't like the rigged computer program hand generator that they use. i will still play poker on SkyPoker but i hope that they change the way the hands are generated.
it's like FOBTs in real life which i don't use by the way because i'm smart, rigs roulette because computer technology is so advanced that the program it uses is rigged for people who use them. if people want to try to win money by playing roulette then they should go to a casino with a real human dealer.
@EmmaEP
"it's like FOBTs in real life which i don't use by the way because i'm smart, rigs roulette because computer technology is so advanced that the program it uses is rigged for people who use them. if people want to try to win money by playing roulette then they should go to a casino with a real human dealer."
Whether we play Roulette "Live" or Online, long-term NOBODY CAN BEAT THE GAME. It's in the maths, it does not need any further proof. The maths of Roulette PROVE that it's impossible for ANYONE to beat the game long-term. We can have winning spins, winning nights, even winning weeks, but mathematically, we will ALWAYS lose long-term at Roulette as the maths are against us.
So why would any business "rig" it when they know that the players are all going to lose anyway.....?
Sites or B&M Casinos have no need to rig a game where the players CANNOT WIN (long-term).
Trust me @EmmaEP, NOBODY can beat this game. Nobody.
Welcome to Triple Zero Roulette.
And the mystery is why ANYONE, EVER, ANYWHERE would play Triple Zero Roulette, the odds are horrendous. And yet, in Vegas, the Triple Zero Roulette tables are packed.
However, if you want to have any chance of beating the game in the short-term, or losing slower in the longer term, you need to count the 0's.
Traditional roulette had just the one "0" to provide the profit for the casino. Then, increasingly, there was added a "00", nearly doubling the edge for the casino (2/38 rather than 1/37). And I see that there is now a "000"-so 3/39.
Profit margin has gone up from 1/37 to 1/13. High price to pay.
There are a few ways to look at this.
The chances of Quads being beaten by Quads before the deal are 1 in 1.2 billion ( I didnt calculate this myself, I just googled it)
But the chances of Quads being beaten by higher Quads on the river are 1 in 46, its not 1 in 1.2 billion now its 1 in 46.
Its the devastation that we feel when we get sucked out on that blows our mind, we had high hopes.
Its easy to think rigged and point fingers.
But its better to be realistic and think a 1 in 46 shot just came in.
Ive just google quads over quads on youtube there are enough.
@Essexphil
Correct. We will lose our money more slowly at Single Zero Roulette. We'll still lose it in the long-term though, & the Sites/Casinos have no need to getting up to any malarky - the maths does the job for them.
Daz2802 Small blind 20.00 20.00 3880.00
Bubbles33 Big blind 40.00 60.00 6585.00
Your hole cards
KJ
Shrimpy28 Fold
jaywmac1 Raise 140.00 200.00 8794.38
midnightma Call 140.00 340.00 2700.00
Newbslad Fold
Daz2802 Fold
Bubbles33 Call 100.00 440.00 6485.00
Flop
JJA
Bubbles33 Check
jaywmac1 Bet 440.00 880.00 8354.38
midnightma Call 440.00 1320.00 2260.00
Bubbles33 Call 440.00 1760.00 6045.00
Turn
J
Bubbles33 Check
jaywmac1 All-in 8354.38 10114.38 0.00
midnightma All-in 2260.00 12374.38 0.00
Bubbles33 All-in 6045.00 18419.38 0.00
jaywmac1 Unmatched bet 2309.38 16110.00 2309.38
Bubbles33 Show
Q10
jaywmac1 Show
KA
midnightma Show
KJ
River
K
Bubbles33 Win Royal Flush 16110.00 16110.00
Full house was dead on the turn, Gutshot for the royal flush (1 outer) was 2.38% and Quads were 97.62% favourite when all the chips went in. River K of diamonds giving the gut shot the 1 outer for the Royal Flush. And the 97.62% favourite lost.
Poker is amazing embrace it
Both scenarios are extremely rare, but let's break down the probabilities:
Quads over Quads: This situation occurs when two players each have four of a kind. The odds of being dealt quads are about 0.024%, and for two players to have quads simultaneously, the odds are even lower.
Royal Flush over Quads over Full House: A royal flush is the highest possible hand in poker, with odds of about 0.000154%. For one player to have a royal flush, another to have quads, and a third to have a full house in the same hand, the odds are astronomically low.
In summary, while both scenarios are exceedingly rare, a royal flush over quads over a full house is rarer due to the extremely low probability of being dealt a royal flush in the first place.
what are the odds tho
Let's break down the odds for each scenario:
Quads over Quads: The probability of being dealt four of a kind (quads) in a five-card hand is about 0.024% (1 in 4,165). For two players to have quads simultaneously, the odds are much lower, roughly 1 in 39 million.
Royal Flush over Quads over Full House: The probability of being dealt a royal flush is about 0.000154% (1 in 649,740). For one player to have a royal flush, another to have quads, and a third to have a full house in the same hand, the odds are astronomically low, likely in the range of 1 in several billion.