4 year downswing?

[eejit101]

2 cashes?

$64k, $9k, $7k, $4k, $2k, $1.3k, $1.1k, $1k

Not bad?

[ScareCrowAKA]

The Bodog thing... Bodog is not screwing you, they dont make you bet any bet, its your job to look at the lines and compare w your own data to decide if you like the value of it

All computers use Algorithms, the Algorithms use the environmental noise within it, its still a formula and a computer and if someone has enough knowledge of the process, someone could predict outcomes, but really thats less of a point than ->

The sites have no regulation, they have a bottom line, like most companies do... poker blew up making them a healthy profit for several years now, however... is it a fade? maybe? probably? (how many people just deposit some cash and try it out then quit)... Most corporations in this position would make as much money as they can, while they can, and push the lines of regulation to do so... but hey fultilt I guess wouldnt, cuz they are on the Honor system

The multi-tabling, if you read what I said, I do believe people can make a profit at that, but to me its not "poker" its just basically playing the math, using tracing software, being forced to stay disciplined because of the fast pace, and management of funds (lot easier to win a dollar at 16 tables over a hour than average 16$ a hour on 1 table)

but hey... I did say I might be wrong, I play live ya, I mostly like to sit back and use the players retarded aggression against them to make a modest profit then leave, If their is not to much $ in the pot I will let people "bluff" me out, I will fold winning hands, limp w big hands if I know I can get into a favorable situation with a aggressive player, & most the money I make is off calling peoples bull-crap... this works well 4me live, mostly every session, but online it doesnt, every single time they connect with the flop, will try the bluff, I price them in and the draw comes... every single time.

and im thinking it cuz online is not set up to be random, in the sense that each card is random each draw... more in the sense that specific hands are gonna be dealt out to random players... say the computer knows its gonna deal trips, a boat, 2 pair, and a backdoor flush and straight draw out this hand, however its the hands themselves are dealt out randomly... Which would combat cheating and build the rake to the max amount on the majority of pots, (which believe it or not, *gasp* Fulltilt wants)... which isnt really poker

but hey they could be rigging it, no way to know they aren't for sure, you are not there, none is other than people making money from fulltilt.com

Which leads me back to my point about the retarded integrity argument... what? why would fulltilt do this, they make millions/billions of dollars, why would they risk their integrity to make more?... really?... thats like me saying Tim Donaghy makes a salary from ref-ing the game, why would he risk that to make some more $...

your response, the typical way over sensitive and defensive attitude of the "verbal diarrhea" comment, completely reinforces my suspicion about people w gambling problems and embellishing... its not a normal response to people voicing suspicion on a industry w no regulation

[klinkman]

Let's be clear-you weren't casting suspicion on an industry will little regulatory oversight, you were trying to say that it was impossible for the deal of cards to be truly random because computers are deterministic. And indeed, shuffling algorithms do have to be, all modern programing languages are deterministic. But, a proper shuffling algorithm is a "black box" as far as the rest of the program, and the people running the servers is concerned. Because of this, if the input, the "seed" value for the RNG is non-deterministic, then the output of the black box is as well.

You go so far as to say that you feel that hands are set up so that the server knows in advance that one player will be dealt trips, one dealt 2 pair, blah blah blah, all in an attempt to maximize pot size and rake. Of course, this is a way that a poker site could cheat. But external tracking services like Poker Table Ratings track millions of hands from different sites. Sharkscope and OPR track millions of tournaments. If there were a pattern to the number of, or types of, hands that were dealt out, they would have discovered it! Or people observing the data would notice it! Don't think that that's impossible. That's how the superusers on Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet were discovered. That's how Stoxtrader and Kinetica were discovered as colluding. The Chinese DoN Scandal was verified by using Sharkscope.

All major poker sites have a regulatory body that governs them. Pokerstars is governed by the Isle of Man. Full Tilt Poker is regulated by Alderney. These regulators require that the random number generators be audited by independent companies. Since Full Tilt Poker was the site you mentioned, I went and looked at their regulators website, and their website which contains their certification letters for their RNG. Cigital and Technical Systems Testing have both certified Full Tilt's RNG. Alderney has accepted these as certification that their RNG is truly random. Now, Full Tilt could have forged these letters of certification. But if they did that, could they keep 2 companies who are actively involved in testing RNG's quiet? They could have paid them off. But then they would likely have to pay off the Alderney gambling control commission as well. Sure it's possible that they would have taken a bribe, they're a small British Isle, with little revenue outside of gambling regulation. Reminds me of Kahnawake. They were certainly impotent as a regulator weren't they? And they were small and overwhelmed. But even then there still wasn't bribery or conspiracy was there? It's still believed that their RNG was fair, just as it was tested by the regulators and the independent agency, the cheating occurred because of an exploit built into the software at it's inception.

But one thing is clear to me. Bodog is clearly doing something to screw their customers. Full Tilt has been accused of it and has provided ample evidence to the contrary. And for some reason, you've decided to take the side of the operator who is clearly behaving unethically, and not the one that may or may not be? You make a lot of sense!