Nynus VS Rigtard

[Nynus]

Anyway for your interest I found a blog by an independent pro who seems to be able to win in live games but not online, a person you would describe as a "rigtard"

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-blog...few-f-bombs%29

Interesting read and comments.

Here's the only part of his blog where he present's any "evidence" to back up his claim.

I’m looking at the hand histories…because sometimes, I definitely play bad, and deserve to lose…but there is a theme here that cannot be questioned…getting it in with AK or AQ vs Ax and they hit x…every time…getting it in with top 2 against bottom 2, and they hit there bottom pair again?!?! it happened 9 times in the past 2 days…i just checked…Pair over pair forget it…now I have chalked up losing sessions and all that to variance in the past, but someone needs to explain to me how this is even possible. I really believe there are “hot” IP addresses and maybe you will call me crazy, but if you do, I will look u dead in the face, and tell you to FCK OFF….I know a lot of live pro’s that run like dogsh*t online…HOW in the world can a guy who wins well into 6 figures playing live sit n go’s, have it be the complete opposite online. That is for Tommy…guy wins seats into every major tourny imaginable and cant win a cent online to save his life…the same can be said for so many other guys I know.

Let's see: Small sample size, check! Invalid comparison to another invalid sample, check! Anecdotal evidence, check! No hand history, check! Using "always" or "every time" as a statistical figure, check! Infantile rage at the unfairness of it all, check!

Yup! He's a rigtard.

[motherfunky]

^^^ it is well documented that great live players do not necessarily make great online players, while great online players tend to be very good live players as well. Daniel Negreanu has discussed this at length, it has to do with fundamentals

What fundamentals? mathematically its the same game. Daniel Negreanu... Debunked

[motherfunky]

if amongst the millions of hands tracked by the the tens of thousands of players using software to do so were to recognize discernable patterns they would have long ago exposed them

the game is far too complicated and has far too many variables for that statement to make any sense. Its not just about how many times you were dealt AA over the course of 10,000 hands.

[motherfunky]

and I do tend to poke fun at "conspiracy theorists" because the one thread that they all have in common is the belief that they know something the minions of the world do not. And MF you are being more than a little hypocritical as you have ridiculed the whole of everybody else for not being on the same enlightened level as yourself. But that's just my observation mate!

I think to be fair to everyone else Im not so sure you are in such a big Majority, people are starting to question things a lot more over the last decade. There's so much information at peoples disposal now, its called the internet if you hadn't noticed, and people are taking note.

Now if Absolute Poker hadnt fucked up and emailed out the details of the suspect player you would never have heard a thing about it. Before Absolute Poker busted themselves it was a conspiracy theory that your cards could be seen by a shill player.

Does it always have to be handed to you on a plate before you concede shit happens?

[curtinsea]

What fundamentals? mathematically its the same game. Daniel Negreanu... Debunked

quite correct, but many live players aren't not experts on the math, that is precisely the point.

[curtinsea]

the game is far too complicated and has far too many variables for that statement to make any sense. Its not just about how many times you were dealt AA over the course of 10,000 hands.

If you can (believe you do) see something with your own eyes, patterns and anomalies, and believe it to be there, you should be able to document it and prove it. That is a fact. Otherwise, your are merely interpreting what you choose to see. your statement above is the typical rigtard cop out.

"I can see the patterns with my own eyes, but they are far to complex to document with hand histories . . . "

ha!

[curtinsea]

Now if Absolute Poker hadnt fucked up and emailed out the details of the suspect player you would never have heard a thing about it. Before Absolute Poker busted themselves it was a conspiracy theory that your cards could be seen by a shill player.

Does it always have to be handed to you on a plate before you concede shit happens?

Shit happens, players cheat, cheaters get caught . . . . but that has nothing to do with the deal. If the deal was queer, it could be shown. Something that isn't random demonstrates a pattern, patterns can be demonstrated through graph plotting.

[Nynus]

This topic came up during tonight's broadcast game. So I'm bumping it by request.

Enjoy

[Kellieintx]

Thank you

[billynomates]

My take - I have bet 4 horses @33/1 and 50/1 for Cheltenham next week-IMO they should all be 10/1- the odds are slightly against me having a winner. np I've got the value. Someone playing cards -they are getting 2/1 their money and see the% is 80% in their favour- they expect to win because they are playing a fish- when they win they forget about it-it was a given , when they lose they scratch their heads and can't believe it, can't be the fact that 80% lose 1 hand in 5 must be the game is rigged.