mods?
-
-
Why do you think this, Weeds?Comment -
Comment -
Wonderful thread.Comment -
Compelling evidence, Seaweed.
Hopefully this will lead to his banning.Comment -
I'm convinced. Burn him aliveComment -
He was talking to me at the table just now. And lost about 500 over 2 hours..Comment -
Those were my 500. My Q's full of 2's, lost to his higher boat
Comment -
Delete threadComment -
Anyone capable of building a poker bot wouldn't use it on SBR. Secondly, if you can't exploit a bot then you may as well give up on poker.Comment -
It's not a bot. The software can be programmed by SBR to give high percentage winning cards to certain posters. That's why a guy gets AA, KK, QQ 6 times each in 100 hands and some other guy doesn't get a pair in 100 hands. So if a guy keeps getting excellent hands he could be the worst player ever and still clean up at SBR poker.Comment -
If someone is better than you,
It's pointless to try to improve;
Just call them a bot,
And complain that you're not,
Handed rockets by SBR Lou!
Comment -
The persistence of the "it's rigged!" mentality as an ego defense mechanism (to justify how other players succeed when the complainer does not) is simultaneously impressive and completely expected. It's a bit ironic that when the complainer accuses people of only winning because they're lucky, he displays his own faulty mindset (by stating he's willing to jump to conclusions without any actual meaningful data) whose only hope of success lies with luck.
Not picking on just you pavy, plenty of other people parrot this nonsense too...kinda nuts to preume SBR is going to take the time to dive in and tweak a preconfigured poker software solution for slightly higher rake (instead of, ya know, just raising store prices as needed) when they can't be bothered to even run a decent ryder cup format with the answers given to them year after year
Comment -
Most people not sure what a bot is anyway. They get superuser and Lou's doomswitch confused with "bot".
It'd be pretty trivial to have a bot for SBR. How bad of a programmer are you if you program bots and can't get one to beat SBR. Just run the thing off the data in the chat room. There's probably something out there already that is unknowingly compatible for SBR. Already have huds that can do it.
Comment -
EXACTLY. I just don't know why somebody would waste their time for SBR points.....Most people not sure what a bot is anyway. They get superuser and Lou's doomswitch confused with "bot".
It'd be pretty trivial to have a bot for SBR. How bad of a programmer are you if you program bots and can't get one to beat SBR. Just run the thing off the data in the chat room. There's probably something out there already that is unknowingly compatible for SBR. Already have huds that can do it.Comment -
I don't think its rigged, but compared to the other sites i play at I seem to consistently see big hands being made at a way way higher rate on SBR than any other site.
Small sample size though..Comment -
**********************************
Weeder is clearly no bot,
he can't win a 6 dolla pot.
Dewd needs a vacation,
to find his lost Nation!
'Fore granny boots him out off his cot.
***********************************Comment -
Explain to me why in yesterday's tourney I played 1 hr without getting a pair and today I got KK three times in 30 minutes. Coincidentally yesterday I finished 15th whereas today I'm in top 7 currently.The persistence of the "it's rigged!" mentality as an ego defense mechanism (to justify how other players succeed when the complainer does not) is simultaneously impressive and completely expected. It's a bit ironic that when the complainer accuses people of only winning because they're lucky, he displays his own faulty mindset (by stating he's willing to jump to conclusions without any actual meaningful data) whose only hope of success lies with luck.
Not picking on just you pavy, plenty of other people parrot this nonsense too...kinda nuts to preume SBR is going to take the time to dive in and tweak a preconfigured poker software solution for slightly higher rake (instead of, ya know, just raising store prices as needed) when they can't be bothered to even run a decent ryder cup format with the answers given to them year after year
Your starting hands are 90% of your success rate at the table. If you think you can win long term in poker by getting 92 and T3 off suit in 8 out of 10 hands you are mistaken.Comment -
Yeah Prior really gave it to us in the A$$!
As far as beats go, I've had worse.
I think Seaweed & I had k-q, flopped trip kings.
after we were all in he rivered a 6 for a tight.
It's not the 1st time we've been 2 outed & it won't be the last.
It put me way over my rollover but converted 370 points instead of 550.
Comment -
Comment -
prior22 is a good friend of mine. as honest as they come. seaweed stupid thread manComment -
I made a thread about this and negative bias a while back and it got about 4 views. Oddly enough threads about rigged poker make it to 2 pages by sundown. Guess its easier to blame bots, super users, doom switches, bad rng's and ufo's than math and psychologyComment -
You got a link to your original thread DB?Comment -
actually about variance & loss aversion, been so long ago I don't remember
Comment -
That's really good.
Did Triple D really have 10,000 points after 7 posts?
How did that happen!>?Comment -
So basically you agree with me. Your odds of winning in poker are increased the better starting hands you get.Comment -
Well, yes, I don't think you'll find many people who disagree with that
Where I lose you (and what the linked topics describe) is how you believe statistically probable events to be conclusive evidence of "rigging" (handing people better starting hands on average). It's human nature, our intuition is wired to deceive us in these cases...but that doesn't change reality, and with some practice, it becomes easier not to leap to conclusions.Comment -
how is this garbage still in pt?Comment -
-
I never said once in this thread anything about rigging. All I said is SBR has the ability to dictate which player gets high winning percentage hands at critical times in the game. I have seen it with my own hands. Guy down to 50 chips and wins the tourney. This is not just a statistical anomaly.Well, yes, I don't think you'll find many people who disagree with that
Where I lose you (and what the linked topics describe) is how you believe statistically probable events to be conclusive evidence of "rigging" (handing people better starting hands on average). It's human nature, our intuition is wired to deceive us in these cases...but that doesn't change reality, and with some practice, it becomes easier not to leap to conclusions.Comment
