[Closed] Cashout => Doomswitched Theory

I have this theory that every time I start a session, I immediately start losing up to 2 stacks, so that I'm forced to play to make up for those losses for the whole session. It's been like this for like 15 sessions, I log on, I start playing, first 5 minutes I lose. Does that mean that the site doomswitches me for a short time whenever I log on? No, of course not, it's a complete product of my imagination.

From the site's point of view, why would they ever want to make you lose after you cash out? What sense does this make? They earn rake regardless of who wins. Besides, if you sit at the table thinking "I just cashed out and lost 6 SnG's in a row", it sure as hell won't make you play any better.

The cashout curse doesn't have any basis in logic as far as I'm concerned. It just wouldn't be worth it for the poker room to manipulate the software in that particular way.

I am convinced however, that the probabilities are rigged to make sure that bad players don't lose all their money so quickly. And also cooler hands are dealt way more often online. ie. AA vs KK vs QQ vs AK etc..

People will constantly say things like:

"It just SEEMS like more bad beats because of the volume of hands online"

"Why would the sites take such a big risk?"

"If it was rigged, it would have been discovered by now"

Apparently these people were born yesterday. Any industry that has room for corruption, will HAVE corruption, and lots of it. There is an endless number of cases throughout business history that have shown companies will do anything to make that extra dollar.

With the ridiculous lack of regulation in online poker, and the sheer money that is involved, it is just naive to think they wouldn't rig the cards just slightly to increase their bottom line. I mean what's the worst that could happen, a bit of bad publicity a la Ultimate Bet? Yeah I'm sure that really scares them considing UB didn't even see a dent in their annual income after that scandal went mainstream.

I have over 100,000 hands on Titan, where I've been dealt KK 436 times. Statistically, I should have run into AA ~20 times by now. I've run into it 38 times.

I've been dealt AA 456 times (more than any other PP interestingly enough). Statistically someone else at the table should have had KK ~20 times. It has happened only 7 times.

Bit strange I'd say. And this doesn't even factor in the number of times per day that I see OTHER people being dealt AA vs KK. I play about 2,000 hands per day, and I'd wager that I see this cooler setup around 10-12 times every single day.

In contrast, I've been playing live regularly for over 12 years now, and I've seen this happen exactly 3 times.

So anyway, online poker is most definitely rigged, but I can't see any reason why the sites would care who cashes out and who doesn't.

Originally posted by inf4my
I am convinced however, that the probabilities are rigged to make sure that bad players don't lose all their money so quickly. And also cooler hands are dealt way more often online. ie. AA vs KK vs QQ vs AK etc..

Originally posted by inf4my
I've been dealt AA 456 times (more than any other PP interestingly enough). Statistically someone else at the table should have had KK ~20 times. It has happened only 7 times.

Wow, your complete lack of logic and tiny sample size is PROOF that online poker is rigged...

Right, let's refute this point by point.

Originally posted by inf4my
I am convinced however, that the probabilities are rigged to make sure that bad players don't lose all their money so quickly.

First, I don't see how this makes sense profit wise. Second, you have no evidence. Whatsoever.

Originally posted by inf4my
And also cooler hands are dealt way more often online. ie. AA vs KK vs QQ vs AK etc..

No, they're not. You just notice them more often because of the volume of hands online, as you yourself mentioned.

Originally posted by inf4my
Apparently these people were born yesterday. Any industry that has room for corruption, will HAVE corruption, and lots of it. There is an endless number of cases throughout business history that have shown companies will do anything to make that extra dollar.

Every single company? Wow, that's a lot of faith in criminal mindset of today's poker sites. Agreed, smaller and less known ones might try, but for instance PartyPoker wouldn't risk its reputation for that extra dollar atop of tens of thousands they rake daily without rigging anything.

Originally posted by inf4my
With the ridiculous lack of regulation in online poker, and the sheer money that is involved, it is just naive to think they wouldn't rig the cards just slightly to increase their bottom line. I mean what's the worst that could happen, a bit of bad publicity a la Ultimate Bet? Yeah I'm sure that really scares them considing UB didn't even see a dent in their annual income after that scandal went mainstream.

I'm sure Absolute Poker is enjoying the same reputation right now. And let's not mention the platforms that got shut down entirely due to fraud. Also, it amazes me how people tend to relate "riggedness" as being favorable to anyone but themselves. Apparently, sites rig the cards only to benefit either exclusively themselves or weaker players. And they do it just because they can. Wow, convincing.

Originally posted by inf4my
I have over 100,000 hands on Titan, where I've been dealt KK 436 times. Statistically, I should have run into AA ~20 times by now. I've run into it 38 times.

I've been dealt AA 456 times (more than any other PP interestingly enough). Statistically someone else at the table should have had KK ~20 times. It has happened only 7 times.

And I should have $2834 more if all my hands ran according to their equity. It's called variance. You might have ran into aces with your KK 38 times over 100k hands, somebody else only has run into them 2 or 3 times over the same volume. Some guy might have experienced it 70 times, someone else 12 times, etc. Your result isn't an evidence of online sites being rigged, it's just variance.

Originally posted by inf4my
Bit strange I'd say. And this doesn't even factor in the number of times per day that I see OTHER people being dealt AA vs KK. I play about 2,000 hands per day, and I'd wager that I see this cooler setup around 10-12 times every single day.

Which is utterly normal as you're watching 5-9 other players for each of the tables you play on, not just yourself.

Originally posted by inf4my
In contrast, I've been playing live regularly for over 12 years now, and I've seen this happen exactly 3 times.

Volume?

Originally posted by inf4my
So anyway, online poker is most definitely rigged, ...

Which you failed to prove in any way.

Here we go again

Well, i had an absolutely horrible week playing turbo SnG's. Yesterday i guess i played about 10-15. In 2 of them i went all in and won. Some "notable" experiences:
AA vs Q7s lost, AK vs 23o (wtf?) lost, 99 vs JJ board x9x x J, floped trips someone had a better kicker, K7 vs Q8 he made straight on the river, AJ vs J5s flop xJx makes a runner flush, top pair on the flop cracked on the river. (all from that 10 sng's yesterday)
It was so sick i started to laugh when i saw me ahead and then BANG! Anyway, even worse than this is that i'm not the only one. If you watch your opponents (which i guess the players who feel that the platform has something with them don't do) you'll se that they get this kind of totally crappy beats also.
So you can't say it has anything to do with you, with you wanting to cash out or whatever. IF it would be rigged, it would be for everyone.

Human mind is amazing, it can try to explain various things with complete nonsense and yet it fails to understand how wrong it is. That makes us differ from machines ♦

I use Occams razor.

The most simple explanation is right one. Maybe this is sometimes wrong, but in longterm its +EV decision making for sure

Yeah, this cashout/doomswitched idea never makes any sense. In my case, if it were true then what are they trying to do, punish me? But for it to be that then I'd have to be paranoid to think that and if that was the case then obviously I'd cashout it all before they take the rest, in which case they would lose a lot in rake. Ahhhh just goofy. ♠_o: Hopefully I'm rid of that idea now.

I find keeping track of the times I put bad beats/bad setups on my opponents helps balance out the times I'm taking them. I still get hit by them more often than make them but that should be expected since I'm usually ahead when building a pot. ♦

Originally posted by inf4my
I am convinced however, that the probabilities are rigged to make sure that bad players don't lose all their money so quickly. And also cooler hands are dealt way more often online. ie. AA vs KK vs QQ vs AK etc..

Someone has to get dealt the bad side of variance and I wouldn't be surprised if the players who complain about riggedness really are dealt the bad side of variance more often than what is expected, 50% of players are on the bad side of the variance curve no matter how you measure it. Sometimes it still get to me -- I'm not totally used to it yet but I think I'm getting there, at least.

I've been a player for 3 yrs now and a consistently winning one, so it is my sincerest wish that online poker really is rigged. ♠_biggrin:

Originally posted by SalamiandCheese
Yeah, this cashout/doomswitched idea never makes any sense. ♦

But it does actually..............

Poker rooms make huge amounts of interest on the money you have lodged with them. Imagine the amount of money these sites are holding!

I don't think it is rigged (except on the days I loose :f_biggrin:) however.

So - as i wander off topic now - what you should be doing is only leaving as much $$ lodged with a site as you need to operate there, investing the rest of your BR where it can do some good for you.

Originally posted by SalamiandCheese
Thoughts?

Move to Pacific Poker, they seem to be very cashout friendly.

On Friday I cashed out 540$ and left 7$ to play around while waiting for the cashout to complete. Well, at the moment I'm sitting on 24$, so I more than tripled my starting BR just by playing NL2 with no real strategy, just quite loose ABC poker.

Maybe they figured I'm a loose fish and switched my win switch on? ♠_confused:

I'm not even going to read those replies, because it's the same nonsense that gets spewed repeatedly by people who just refuse to believe that there is corruption in this world.

Before UB and AB got caught, THOUSANDS of poker non-believers were posting that same garbage saying that it's just variance, just coincidence, blah blah blah.

What are you guys gonna say when I come back here with 5,000,000 hands and my KK vs AA is still at 9% instead of 4% where it should be. Do I need 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 hands before you will finally get it through your head?

The "variance" factor is EXACTLY what Titan relies on to make sure that they don't get caught. I dare anyone to show me a sample size of over 100k where their KK is LESS than 4% going up against AA.

When the horrible players lose all their money in two days and quit poker for life, that is very bad for the poker site.

When there is no action pre-flop, that is very bad for the poker site.

By manipulating the cards JUST slightly enough to appear within the bounds of variance, these sites can generate MILLIONS per year without raising an eyebrow.

Originally posted by inf4my
I'm not even going to read those replies, because it's the same nonsense that gets spewed repeatedly by people who just refuse to believe that there is corruption in this world.

Well, I tried argumentation, but you seem to demonstrate a remarkable resemblance to this feline:

Originally posted by inf4my
What are you guys gonna say when I come back here with 5,000,000 hands and my KK vs AA is still at 9% instead of 4% where it should be. Do I need 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 hands before you will finally get it through your head?

Preferably, yes. We would like some actual evidence instead of crazy conspiracy theories. Which reminds me, are you one of those guys who believes that the moon landing was shot in Hollywood, and that the FBI is tapping your telephone?

Are you one of those guys who insisted that people were just "being paranoid" when it was blatantly obvious that people could see their cards on UB and AP?

If it wasn't for the very few people who were actually smart enough to understand that cheating is possible, those super-users would still be stealing millions of dollars as we speak.

Keep your head in the sand, I don't really care. When the next site gets caught, I'll be sitting here laughing while people like you say things like "well, just because 8 sites have done it, doesn't mean the rest are!"

LOL

Well, it's a little more obvious when someone calls your all-in with ten high when you're HU at the final table of a big tournament. Thousands of winning players on iPoker with much larger number of hands played don't seem to complain. You're just making assumptions based on your small sample size and theories that don't particularly sound credible while acting like the only enlightened person between a bunch of ignorant fools. That's pretty much why people don't believe you.

I love how you assume that I must be a losing player just because I'm not naive enough to think that these websites are 100% legitimate.

I started playing in July 2009 with the $50 from this website. My BR is $980 right now.

I'm one of those winning players, and I'm not complaining either. I have adjusted to the weird probabilities by folding hands online that I would never fold live.

We live in a world where BILLIONS of people believe in imaginary gods in the sky, so it doesn't at all surprise me that the majority of people are too naive to understand that human beings are corrupt as hell, and when there is an opportunity to scam money off people, they ARE going to take advantage of it.

If I was running my own poker-room. I would be hard pressed to find any real reason NOT to rig the cards. I can simply blame any weird anomalies on variance, and to make things even juicer, I'm not even obligated to release my statistical data to the public. Worst case scenario, I get caught, and NOTHING happens to me because I operate outside the law. The only thing that would stop me from doing it is my own morals. And unlike you, I don't have too much faith in the morals of capitalist human beings.

So let me get this clear inf4my. You are actually saying that poker sites CARE from what type of player they get money from via rake? Can u give me one good answer to what would be their motive to even think about something like that?

I do understand why someone would want to see other people hole cards but to say that they rig the cards u gotta be ... [insert custom disrespectful word].

And when i read stg like "I have adjusted to the weird probabilities by folding hands online that I would never fold live" i just have to laugh and shake my head at the same time.

Man am i tired of people saying stupid things

Have a nice day

Originally posted by inf4my
I love how you assume that I must be a losing player just because I'm not naive enough to think that these websites are 100% legitimate.

Sorry, but we saw the hands you posted in your last downswing thread. Also, your KK vs AA logic is easily overcome by the fact that you play FR. FR tables are as a general tight, and most people only go all in preflop with the very strongest range. So when you get action preflop with KK on a FR table, villain is mostly going to be holding a strong hand (assuming he's not a fish of course). It only makes sense right.. you don't go all in preflop with a very wide range either do you?

Lastly, look at your samplesize. If you lost 4 stacks in 500 hands, would you call yourself a losing player? Well, I know you wouldn't, but I hope you see how silly it would be. So how can you start juding your AA vs KK or KK vs AA frequency on the same samplesize as you would completely ignore a losing streak due to variance?

You just don't realise how great variance can be.