You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

random i think not

1356715

Comments

  • tomgooduntomgoodun Member Posts: 3,391
    TheWaddy said:

    oh and the third one they use is 'you see more bad beats as you see more hands online'.... another corker that has been used for 20yrs by sites!

    I mean this is ridiculous, the odds dont change cos u see more hands... a 2% chance oddwise shud win 2 out of 100 times... if u see more hands faster, it just means you get to that 100 times faster than you would live.... but statistically, long run u shud still only see 2 win... every given day, every given hour online i will see several of these, meaning id have to see that one specific situation 500 times in like an hour!

    Another plain untruth in explaining away their deck performance.

    In game, “a 2% chance” can win 10 times on the trot , the “ should win 2 times out of 100 is misleading you.
    Overall site , the 2% chance will win 2 times out of 100, or more likely 200 times out of 10,000
  • TheWaddyTheWaddy Member Posts: 314


    Well if I thought that a gaming or poker site was dishonest and still wagered or played there would that not make me a moron?

    So the question is this why do you play on a site you claim to know for sure is operating in a fraudulent manner?

    I await your answer with patient indifference.

    Its not being being fraudulent! ,,,,,and i can still eeek out a profit by avoiding certain situations and pay for holidays. U have to understand that sites do not see poker as different to any other form of gambling they offer, they have set it up to make money and do what they have to do to maximise profits.

    The Gambling Commission do not see poker than anything of a game of luck. Sky do not see it as anything but a game of luck. Same as when their fruit machines are written to pay out at a percentage rate, it amounts to the same thing when decks have it written in to recognise to the need to help certain actions to maximise profit.

    There is no entity that sees this as wrong, other than poker players, we see it as 'fraudulent', as we know poker.... its just a money making venture to these people, they have no passion for the actual game, they think its all luck anyway.

    Thanks for the spellchecks and star trek references from the ultimate geeks, get a life!

    Sorry you dont understand the post ENUT, but if a 2% chance comes in at 2%.... if you 'seeing more hands', but if you winning 98% of the time, those lost will be insignificant regardless of how fast you get there. If live it takes me a month to see those 100 situations, but online it takes me 2 days... i shud statistically have lost 2 of those, am i going to be disappointed and blame the deck??

    Of course its the constant barage of losing to these chances up to 16 times in one heads up SNG that it becomes untenable to believe its a random occurence, as the probabilty to number of hands just is not there. And although that CAN happen over a sample live, it will happen any given hour of play online. All day every day.
  • TheWaddyTheWaddy Member Posts: 314
    i still waiting to hear why sites make untrue statements in their backing of the decks... none of the geek club has come up with a single reply yet.
  • stokefcstokefc Member Posts: 6,335
    TheWaddy said:



    Well if I thought that a gaming or poker site was dishonest and still wagered or played there would that not make me a moron?

    So the question is this why do you play on a site you claim to know for sure is operating in a fraudulent manner?

    I await your answer with patient indifference.

    Its not being being fraudulent! ,,,,,and i can still eeek out a profit by avoiding certain situations and pay for holidays. U have to understand that sites do not see poker as different to any other form of gambling they offer, they have set it up to make money and do what they have to do to maximise profits.

    The Gambling Commission do not see poker than anything of a game of luck. Sky do not see it as anything but a game of luck. Same as when their fruit machines are written to pay out at a percentage rate, it amounts to the same thing when decks have it written in to recognise to the need to help certain actions to maximise profit.

    There is no entity that sees this as wrong, other than poker players, we see it as 'fraudulent', as we know poker.... its just a money making venture to these people, they have no passion for the actual game, they think its all luck anyway.

    Thanks for the spellchecks and star trek references from the ultimate geeks, get a life!

    Sorry you dont understand the post ENUT, but if a 2% chance comes in at 2%.... if you 'seeing more hands', but if you winning 98% of the time, those lost will be insignificant regardless of how fast you get there. If live it takes me a month to see those 100 situations, but online it takes me 2 days... i shud statistically have lost 2 of those, am i going to be disappointed and blame the deck??

    Of course its the constant barage of losing to these chances up to 16 times in one heads up SNG that it becomes untenable to believe its a random occurence, as the probabilty to number of hands just is not there. And although that CAN happen over a sample live, it will happen any given hour of play online. All day every day.


    I'm guessing you don't play here anymore so why are you using the Sky platform making disingenuous remarks , if i were you i'd just let us morons crack on
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 121,286
    TheWaddy said:



    Well if I thought that a gaming or poker site was dishonest and still wagered or played there would that not make me a moron?

    So the question is this why do you play on a site you claim to know for sure is operating in a fraudulent manner?

    I await your answer with patient indifference.

    Its not being being fraudulent! ,,,,,and i can still eeek out a profit by avoiding certain situations and pay for holidays. U have to understand that sites do not see poker as different to any other form of gambling they offer, they have set it up to make money and do what they have to do to maximise profits.

    The Gambling Commission do not see poker than anything of a game of luck. Sky do not see it as anything but a game of luck. Same as when their fruit machines are written to pay out at a percentage rate, it amounts to the same thing when decks have it written in to recognise to the need to help certain actions to maximise profit.

    There is no entity that sees this as wrong, other than poker players, we see it as 'fraudulent', as we know poker.... its just a money making venture to these people, they have no passion for the actual game, they think its all luck anyway.

    Thanks for the spellchecks and star trek references from the ultimate geeks, get a life!

    Sorry you dont understand the post ENUT, but if a 2% chance comes in at 2%.... if you 'seeing more hands', but if you winning 98% of the time, those lost will be insignificant regardless of how fast you get there. If live it takes me a month to see those 100 situations, but online it takes me 2 days... i shud statistically have lost 2 of those, am i going to be disappointed and blame the deck??

    Of course its the constant barage of losing to these chances up to 16 times in one heads up SNG that it becomes untenable to believe its a random occurence, as the probabilty to number of hands just is not there. And although that CAN happen over a sample live, it will happen any given hour of play online. All day every day.





    _________________

    @TheWaddy


    Incorrect - it WOULD be fraudulent.

    The UKGC sets out exactly three Licencing Objectives.


    preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, being associated with crime or disorder, or being used to support crime
    ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way
    protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling


    So it MUST be "fair & open".

    Only today, 888 were fined £9.4 million & warned they may have their licence revoked for failing to meet one of those objectives.
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 121,286
    TheWaddy said:

    i still waiting to hear why sites make untrue statements in their backing of the decks... none of the geek club has come up with a single reply yet.


    @TheWaddy



    They do not. And you have no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.

    You may think they do, but that's different.
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 121,286

    @stokefc


    No, he still plays here most days, including today.
  • stokefcstokefc Member Posts: 6,335
    Tikay10 said:


    @stokefc


    No, he still plays here most days, including today.

    What a moron :o
  • hhyftrftdrhhyftrftdr Member Posts: 7,999
    I've never seen anyone have a semi for the Gambling Commission before, but here we are.
  • TheWaddyTheWaddy Member Posts: 314
    I mean i think ive clearly said that i play here and that i play to fund holidays, but im aware that it not going to act anything like a real deck and make adjustments for that fact to be profitable. Ive said this.

    Im posting on this forum, yet your having a conversation that im a phoney cos you have seen me playing here.... what he **** would i be signing in for, to have a converstaion with a tea club!??? Of course im playing here! Tikay likes to stir things by supporting obvious comments like that, but does not correct the ones who say its bollox that im a winning player, which he could choose to confirm but doesn't.

    If he did confirm it, he doesnt like the fact that im a winning player and it wouldnt look good that im still willing to post my thoughts on sites decks. He knows its not good that would i say this, as theres obviously not a losing player sour grapes about it, so there is no reason to post it.

    Tikay.... sites say it would not be of interest of them or benefit them to have a deck that isnt random as they only make money from fees and rake and it does not matter to them who wins. Clearly it WOULD be of benefit to them, even if they claim they dont do so.

    Clearly reaching the max rake on more hands WOULD benefit them, clearly maintaining customer numbers equals more rake and more fees. Its a lie to say it would not benefit them, even if they maintain that they dont do it. I would ask you what is not fact about that?

    Then, as all sites say exactly the same thing when it comes to deck and their integrity... all saying basically 'how dare you even suggest we are not anything but the most squeakiest clean company ever run'.... we had FullTilt, who less than 24hrs before they were exposed were telling me 'we have the upmost integrity'. And now, Tikay you have mentioned 888.... where just a month ago i was telling this forum via Shipppys post ...of 888's standard deck results and all you lot were saying how wrong i was...... have been fined £9 million, for lacking in integrity!

    So basically you asking me to ignore what i see, the destruction of basic maths on a daily basis, to believe who? A bunch of the biggest sites around picking up massive fines, being closed down for a major lack of intergrity! The trust levels you give these companies are insane when they are being picked off one by one for not being trustworthy on a huge number of issues.

    Yet you all sit there typing that im the one thats stupid! Its there in black and white if you take some time to read on what a wide range of their operations are not legal.... but hey not the decks, not the precious decks... they wouldnt do that would they? Everything else obviously, but not that surely?
  • tomgooduntomgoodun Member Posts: 3,391
    @TheWaddy
    Wouldn’t it be better to post proof rather than accusations?
  • hhyftrftdrhhyftrftdr Member Posts: 7,999
    You play here to ''fund holidays?''

    You're average stake is a quid, and you seemingly only single table.

    I guess you must enjoy going on these....


  • GlenelgGlenelg Member Posts: 5,904
    I just cant help it...ShowWaddyWaddy....😂
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 121,286

    @TheWaddy


    I never once said or implied you are stupid, I simply stated some facts.

    I never corrected those who said you who said you were a winning player? That's because I have literally no idea if you are a winning or losing player. All I can see is your last 8 results on Sharkscope, which shows you have won 7 of your last 8 games, all of them £1.05 HU PLO8 games. So you probably are a winning player based on that. That's in the public domain, anyone can see that simply by looking you up on Sharky. And that's all the info I can access. So I cant say with certainty if you are a winner or a loser, but it looks like you are a winning player at those stakes. So no, I have not corrected anyone as I don't really know for sure.

    Not quite sure why you want to dig me out, but I'm sure you have your reasons.
  • TheWaddyTheWaddy Member Posts: 314

    You play here to ''fund holidays?''

    You're average stake is a quid, and you seemingly only single table.

    I guess you must enjoy going on these....


    Keep just guessing, it makes you look intelligent when you speculate.

  • TheWaddyTheWaddy Member Posts: 314
    Tikay10 said:


    @TheWaddy


    I never once said or implied you are stupid, I simply stated some facts.

    I never corrected those who said you who said you were a winning player? That's because I have literally no idea if you are a winning or losing player. All I can see is your last 8 results on Sharkscope, which shows you have won 7 of your last 8 games, all of them £1.05 HU PLO8 games. So you probably are a winning player based on that. That's in the public domain, anyone can see that simply by looking you up on Sharky. And that's all the info I can access. So I cant say with certainty if you are a winner or a loser, but it looks like you are a winning player at those stakes. So no, I have not corrected anyone as I don't really know for sure.

    Not quite sure why you want to dig me out, but I'm sure you have your reasons.

    You could answer why sites use that statement, where you say there is no credible evidence .... which ive just given you...
  • hhyftrftdrhhyftrftdr Member Posts: 7,999
    TheWaddy said:

    You play here to ''fund holidays?''

    You're average stake is a quid, and you seemingly only single table.

    I guess you must enjoy going on these....


    Keep just guessing, it makes you look intelligent when you speculate.

    Where are your £1 SnG's taking you this year?

    Bridlington? Southend? Margate? Maybe even Blackpool?!

    The life of an intrepid traveller.

    Enjoy.
  • TheWaddyTheWaddy Member Posts: 314
    I mean you backing these companies... who have been fined for breaking the rules on subjects The Gambling Commission DO look at ...... but you all refuse they would do that on a subject they absolutely DONT look at..... although they have been proved to have no integrity whatsoever, you dismiss it even as a possibility..... intelligent stuff!
  • stokefcstokefc Member Posts: 6,335
    edited March 1
    888 wern't done for anything poker related certainly not the decks
  • Tikay10Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 121,286
    edited March 1

    TheWaddy said:

    I mean you backing these companies... who have been fined for breaking the rules on subjects The Gambling Commission DO look at ...... but you all refuse they would do that on a subject they absolutely DONT look at..... although they have been proved to have no integrity whatsoever, you dismiss it even as a possibility..... intelligent stuff!







    "Clearly reaching the max rake on more hands WOULD benefit them, clearly maintaining customer numbers equals more rake and more fees. Its a lie to say it would not benefit them, even if they maintain that they dont do it. I would ask you what is not fact about that?"


    There is no "max rake" in MTT's or DYM's, it's a flat reg fee. So no, it would not benefit them. And if they were found to be manipulating the deck or RNG, they would lose their Licence without a shadow of doubt, so that would not benefit them. There have been a few scandals in the Industry down the years, but I don't recall a single one which involved manipulating the RNG or deck.


    I had hoped to engage with you sensibly, but you don't seem interested & seem to have a narrative, so I'll leave you to it.
Sign In or Register to comment.