everyone knows merge is not legitimate.

i am willing to provide HUGE databases from half a dozen regs(who are winners despite this), and I promise, it would be proven quite easily.

there are so many obvious anomalies. you cannot sit here and tell me you dont notice how often you lose when dominating....its just not possible how many times per day i flop a set against TPTK or something and im like OK hell ya the only way he can win is if it comes runner ten and jack before the thought even finishes, turn T, river J.

i am NOT a psychic.....and im tired of playing on a site that makes me feel like it.

playing live this weekend(even though i took three bad beats to end up down 1.5buy ins on the trip) reminded me just how strange poker on merge is.

i keep reminding people, but its a very valid point, if merge is oh-so-legitimate, why did good regs refuse to grind on there prior to BF?? why did people prefer grinding on sites like stars and FTP with MASSIVE fields, filled with winning regs, when they could have come played on merge against so called "fish" and with fields in the low hundreds to boot.

why?

ive asked for months now, for someone to take up to 1k bet from me on merge games being compromised....i already know there is collusion and chip feeders galore, so i'd exclude that.....but what I'm talking about is something different. I'm so confident that something is REALLY wrong on here that i'm willing to bet good money on it. strangely nobody will take my 1k.

im telling you, everyone knows it, and they just refuse to admit the last place left to grind is compromised.

Does anyone know if the RNG is the same for both sites, locke and cake? It says they run seperately but under same network so I wasnt sure. Seems like best hand holds up way too often on cake and cant seem to get lucky at all. Anyone else notice this or is it just me playing bad lol.

I have a pretty small sample, maybe 1000 hands so I know its was premature, I was kinda just tilting cuz I havnt made a nice score yet. I mainly wanted to know about the RNG. I assume its all the same but figured I would still ask.

 

Originally Posted by ktx49

yeah you def dont suckout as often on Cake....because its not compromised.

I sucked out like 3 times at a ftbl on Cake yesterday was awesome I won the tourney, I never run that good on Merge.

cant explain the overnight change in calling ranges, but nice try

funny i see the same four people defending Merge time and time again while the rest of the community moves on to greener pastures....bye bye merge and gotta love their muscle:

NOT saying its rigged, BUTTT something fishy seems to be going on. In last 24 hrs I have had it come running aces 7 times after flopping trips. Yes, 7 times I can confirm it with hhs. I mean I suppose it could be variance, however, its only happening with aces. So I have j9dd button min raise I defend bb and flop comes 994 and then it comes A turn A river. 7 times, <24hrs. I dunno, games are still soft enough and I'm still winning so I'll keep playin but seems weird. Just really UL and super random coincidence I suppose...Let you know if the trend continues.

edit: Oh this is on Revolution network btw, Intertops skin.

edit2: Also, it concerns me a little bit this is in bad beat forums(I'm assuming some mod moved it from PD). At this point, without regulation, anything in poker seems like it could be possible. To just completely dismiss any kind of flaw in an off shore site's RNG seems reckless and arrogant.

And for those of you saying why would the site rig it? There's actually a pretty good reason for rigging against winning players in some scenarios considering there isn't a huge influx of new players joining these types of sites.

Once again, not saying its rigged but theres definitely a non-zero chance of it.

There are RNG is rigged on EVERY site in the Bad Beats forum. If someone was to provide evidence or had a test done or was a legit dataminer, we would gladly allow this in the PC or PS forum. However, 99% of the people reading the PD/PC/PS forums wants evidence as most players see the same amount of bad beats live. As it stands now, its just people complaining without proof of anything really wrong.

These people that flat out deny that there is EVEN THE POSSIBILITY of something dishonest or at least programmed wrong at Lock (or any poker site for that matter) should just be flat out ignored. It's like the debate if there is life anywhere else in the universe. Some people, particularly religious people, will say that there is only life on earth and no where else, period. Other's say that since the universe is so vast, there must be life elsewhere. And a third group says, maybe there is, maybe there isn't, we don't have the evidence either way to speak decisively.

With online poker it's SIMILAR. If you don't KNOW that there isn't something fishy going on at Lock, for instance, you are wasting your time and ours by posting here as if you are some kind of authority and ridiculing the other two groups - the ones that say there probably is, and those that say they just can't be sure without adequate evidence one way or the other.

There IS EVIDENCE of criminal activity with online poker. The top, most trusted sites, Ultimate Bet, pokerstars, FullTilt, and Absolute have ALL been PROVEN to be run by corrupt operator who where STEALING money from their clients. The top names involved, Lederer, Ferguson, etc., have been proven to have been STEALING millions of dollars from their online customers. This is beyond question. So are we to believe that CHEATS only cheat in one single way? They wouldn't dare do anything with their RNG to make the system favor them somehow? I would suggest that if these guys and sites are dumb enough to do commit such obvious crimes as they have, they would be VERY WILLING to fudge their RNG's in a way that favors their own bottom line, and is all but impossible for anyone but a select few computer random number generator experts to detect, IF they are even allowed to inspect it.

On top of that, we have the PROOF from CIGITAL that there were flaws in the RNG at Pokerstars. Read Martin Harris's OP-ED in Poker News "Cigital Inc. Study Argues Player Choices Dominant Texas Hold'em Factor" for their investigation. http://www.pokernews.com/news/2009/0...tcome-1302.htm

So we KNOW that poker site owners are corrupt and thieves that stole hundreds of millions, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS!, of dollars from their clients. We KNOW that poker sites' random number generators have been proven to be flawed and very manipulatable.

This should be enough for all the defenders here who call anyone who dares question the trustworthiness of online poker sites, like Lock, and calls those who question it 'Riggtards", a good reason to preface their defense with "in my OPINION." Because that is all they on their side. While on the "Riggtard" side they have the dual EVIDENCE of the proven corrupt ownership and proven corrupt RNG's. Seems like the "Riggtards" maybe aren't such yards after all maybe to me....

 

Originally Posted by Chomper

On top of that, we have the PROOF from CIGITAL that there were flaws in the RNG at pokerstars. Read Martin Harris's OP-ED in Poker News "Cigital Inc. Study Argues Player Choices Dominant Texas Hold'em Factor" for their investigation. http://www.pokernews.com/news/2009/0...tcome-1302.htm

Wow, did you even read that link or do you just not have any reading comprehension skills? It has nothing to do with anything you're babbling about. Of course its "possible" online poker is rigged, anything is possible. But its far from probable as noone has any evidence of it.

it MUST be rigged! random my a$$!!

 

Originally Posted by ShyGuy03533

people will never learn i guess

What do you mean exactly?

lol whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

86s is only 20/80% dog vs AA

I have been playing on Lock for a whole week or so, open, microstakes, 6 seat. I would have to say that so far I have not been "lucky" on this site, but then again i know enough about statistics to know that it could easily fall within normal variance. However I did d/l PT4 and run it on my 3K of hand histories. and the graph below struck e as "interesting".

But my real question is, does anybody know what kind of RNG Lock actually uses? More specifically is it algorythmic (e.g., the type that the RAND() function in most program languages uses), or is it a more state-of-the-art device such as the ones in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardwar...mber_generator. The reason such devices exist is because all algorythms are flawed in one way or another.

Also if anyoune else has a lot of Lock hand histories and and would like to post their luck curve that would be cool. ou can download a free eval copy of PT4 from the Poker Tracker site.