Unibet Poker is rigged

[RiggedGame]

Having this amount of bad beats is about as likely as winning the lottery 9 times in a row. I guess rigging the game is one way of making losing players come back.

[kevanbt]

bye bye      

[Stubbe-Unibet]

8 hours ago, RiggedGame said:

Having this amount of bad beats is about as likely as winning the lottery 9 times in a row. I guess rigging the game is one way of making losing players come back.

I'd love to see the numbers behind this statement 🙂

The game is certified to be random by third party and approved by local regulators in UK, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Estonia and more. But sure, a few bad beats and a lack of personal profit means there's only one possible explanation: it's rigged against you personally.

[TheNotor1ous]

these things never get old lmfao

[marlini2]

in august it was rigged against me, just sayin 😉

[GR1ZZL3R]

    Can't quite get my head round this statement

On 10/9/2023 at 9:36 PM, RiggedGame said:

I guess rigging the game is one way of making losing players come back.

  Does that mean rigging the game makes winning players stay away. So all the players coming back are losers and then become winners so stay away. And what's left of the losing players come back... and win... or lose. Help! 

[SShcherbyna]

The only thing that really seems like a rigged on Unibet is this:

[Estzen]

Seeing this post made me wanna re-login and actually write. 

Some thoughts that may be helpful. 

How much have you looked into poker varience? Having played for a long time now, I see from time to time, that many bad regs do not understand what varience really is. They do understand what the word means, but they usually dont know much more from there. 

I understand runouts can be super-overwhelming, and its not really helpful to know that everythings being audited anyway. Its usually easier for people to seek an explaination that is easier. And its very easy to say "Its all rigged, it cant be that bad.... its all like a lottery." 

Frustration is even bigger, when we are in a situation that we dont understand. Thats not just poker, its also in mental health. Stress decreases when we understand the hardship in a clearer way. The less unknown there is, the easier it is to overcome that hardship. 

Now .... what can we clear up here? 

1. How many tables are you playng, How many hands are you playng in a month?

2. How long downswings last? <- in this you are probably underestimating A LOT. 

3. Are you a winning player with consistency? Its important, because the more break-even you are - the bigger the downer curves will be. 

This illustrates how things can really be:

If you play cash, its totally possible to run even 50 000 longs hands and be totally breaking even after that due to a downer... or not be breaking even at all when you just dont have it to beat the game. .... Things can be very very hurty. .... If you play 2 hours you one session with one table. You maybe play 200 hands. In this graph, its like 20 000 hand swing, you play such one back for like ... 100 days, if you play with one table, let alone, if you meet some 50k long swing you play half a year with 1 table and your 2 hours game time ... till you meet it . .... THATS REALISM. And theres nothing rigged there. 

Now but what about tournaments? 

Here is someone playng over 15k games, there are many downers where swings get past 1500 games. Good luck playng 1 table with 2000 players tournaments 😉 Its all rigged. 

This one breaking even period lasts even longer than that....  like after that over 30k...

You play 2500 tournaments, you are a crusher and .... you are freaking in the same spot after 2 point 5 kay games!!!!!!!!! So what would happen, if you are a breaking even player ..... and you get these really bad runs... because these guys ... they also get these runs but somehow their up 70k ... ... What would happen, if maybe its not even a breaking even, its just a loser who runs hot for his 100 games and thinks he can now 1shot WCOOP High Rollers and play 1ks ? <- Thats exactly how some people just flush all their winnings to the toilet btw.. ... Is varience a word or do you really know what game you are playng ? Unibet has many much smaller field games, you are in a very good place to have much of the headaches saved when building your roll. But man... you have no clue what a downswing is. And yes, it can feel like its all against you. For the record, thats not my graph. But my longest downswing has been 3 months long. And I do multitable. If you dont, I suggest you to learn and start tryng to play with 2tables, I played for a long time with only 2 tables when I started this journey to get comfortable - but yes its a need. Most people never study, most people have not looked any calculator simulations in their life... they have no clue what it is, but they think their the expert - they go rant over their 10 consecutive losses with AA because AA wins 80% of time but suddenly it looses 95% in a period for them and it must be not possible... well with so many hands... it sure is possible.. its very unlikely... but its possible to run under EV for some time ... Varience means that your AA that is supposed to win 80% is suddenly winning only 10% for a limited period. And it doesnt matter if its AA that you get 5 minutes later or next hand... and you lose AGAIN. .... It is well in the margins, and audits can clear up any suspicious things with much larger sample sizes if things would be rigged. The problem isnt Unibet or any provider, the problem is uneducated guesses that think in their own projection what varience SHOULD BE in their mind, rather than what it really is. The only escape from all of it ... is accepting the truth - let it sink in. 

Edited October 12, 2023 by Estzen

[FreedoM]

I think beyond the knowledge about a certain subject for acceptance to occur (not only in poker but at everything in life) one must have a higher level of rationality (cool off and then assess the situation) than irrationality (too many emotions man).

Edited October 12, 2023 by FreedoM

[Zzzzz]

Years ago Unibet used to be decent with the software and bad  beats .it seems IT was different .what i fiind în last years is that is such a scam its even worse than stars or other.its not about variance and  how u play when i did farm as i used to all the dailys 5 ,all the bounty .all the ticket qualifiers and the 10 and u Simply have no chance against certain players and the end where If u flip against them from 20 u win 1 flip and they are favorized badly.even If u make 2 k lets Say a month some other player of Thiers makes 7k 10k making a big difference and the end ,getting sucked out by the sameplaying even worse than u.its fustrating as hell, its no variance involved its just scam and its annoying.i feel abused ,betrayed and they just stealing my money for all the h i put in. As much as i was telling pol about uni and șo on atm i feel like i hope u the worse.fucking scammers ! 

[Estzen]

@ZzzzzIt certainly feels rigged when stuff like this happens! But these feelings arent really objective. 

Stars is certainly much stronger player pool, so this sentence does not make much sense to me. 

So some objectiveness: 

How many games are we talking about in sample size?

Have you ever had a positive graph within 2000 MTTs played sample size? 

Because this scam talk is rather most just some word salad that really lack any REAL PROOF... so again, have you ever had 2k+ games positive graph.. thats something to ask first of yourself...

My guess is’ no, and if you sincerly think that its just so bad, its probably because you just dont beat any of the stakes you really play at, and when even worse times come  then you run even more down on EV by that ... 

 

Edited October 23, 2023 by Estzen

[fish8one]

The whole life is "rigged", depends how you see it.. lol 😉

I am sure,if i want i could get so many "proof" of that.😎

 

Edited October 23, 2023 by fish8one

[Estzen]

@fish8one exactly, if someone wants to see it rigged, its always rigged 😉

People see what they want to see and people believe that which is easier! 

[千ㄩ几卩ㄥ卂ㄚ尺]

https://www.academia.edu/34059393/Online_Poker_-_Rigged_or_Not_A_statistical_case_study_Pokerstars 

[Estzen]

LOL 55K HANDS? This is a bs pseduo study, you can easily find winning players graphs going down -50k hands, just like I mentioned before in that longer post.. such thing just makes me laugh 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 . Of course the "study" finds its biased view when he trys to "prove" that stars is rigged with 50k hands..... its pretty known to those of us who play a lot.. Lol 55k hands is proof ... im still lauging🤣. 

[GR1ZZL3R]

   The first time I heard the number of hands played as a reference point was some years ago, Blackrain79 saying he'd had a losing stretch over 100,000 hands. Matt Berkey uses a 100,000 hand sample size fairly regularly as a possibly fair sample size to get any sort of meaningful statistics, even then variance could produce some anomalies, so as stated 55K hands is probably meaningless. Recently I somewhat flippantly asked "how many hands" in (yet) another conspiracy thread, (no answer yet 🤔) so I suggest each of these and new threads are first and foremost greeted with similar questions before going any further. "A sample size of how many hands were used as proof of something dodgy going on." I suspect there will be a very small number of answers, admittedly from a small sample size. 😂

[fish8one]

https://jvns.ca/blog/2014/07/11/fun-with-stats-how-big-of-a-sample-size-do-i-need/

 

 

[Estzen]

@GR1ZZL3R In terms of audits 50k is meaningless. But from a player stand point , I wouldnt say 50k is meaningless, its pretty unlikely to go 50k hands down with good winrate’... but its possible’ and it certainly can happen sometimes. 

Thats also why 100k seems pretty reasonable, its double from these sick happenings, thats why I mostly said about MTTs also that 2000 games starts to be a good size. 

Usually... its pretty standard that 2 months in a year are aboslute pain, at least and should be expected... and if someone plays less times... it can be 6months, 8 months whatever... but the difference in mindset is that these naysayers are dumdum, not realizing ... ITS SHOULD BE EXPECTED LOL. 🤴😄

WELL, hate to brake those illusions - POKER IS HARD. ... AND FUN.

[GR1ZZL3R]

I've read the first two chapters of the Pokerstars case study, and have always been interested in maths based stuff if never actually any good at it, so would be interested to hear opinions of anyone that knows the subject better. Anyway , here goes some layman's points of view. 

    Firstly it almost reads as if someone has come to certain conclusions before doing any statistical work and is merely doing the actual study to prove his point. Isn't that the wrong way round? I seem to recall reading that good research is coming up with a hypothesis then trying to do everything you can to prove it wrong before making any conclusions.

  Anyway there seems to be an obvious (to poker players) issue with the sample size which crops up a couple of times because it's only 50K hands. If something should statistically happen 23% of the time but actually occurs 46% then this is noted as a huge difference, but... the 46% refers to 7/15. A sample size of 15. Is that really significant? 

   The case of two players getting quads is worked out at 81 million to 1, but the guy bangs on about the player no way having played 81M hands. He doesn't seem to realise that you don't actually have to play 81 million hands for an 81 million to one chance to occur, it could happen the first hand someone ever played, couldn't it? I've seen two players get quads in the same hand, I'm sure some of you will have, and I've not played 81 million hands, not yet anyway. I've seen the same number come up 5 times in a row on a roulette table, about a 60 million to one shot, so am  I just lucky or a statistical freak. Some of the statistics are astonishing, incredible or astounding, I'm more inclined to rate them as maybe slightly odd in the Poker Microverse, or maybe Unibet's RNG is slightly more random than Pokerstar's. 

   Any thoughts anyone?

 

[Estzen]

@GR1ZZL3R Thanks for the introduction, I didnt even bother to read it when I saw 55k hands. Its a joke... honestly its pretty crazy to see that someone actually thinks something like this has any credibility. Its a good example of "bad research", if we can even call it research... any real reasearch board wouldnt let such paper even published  lol. 

On the other hand, when poker gets more popular, the dumdum posts will only increase, because there will be more new recs who think they have learned statistics after learning that AK wins vs QQ 43% of the time... 😉 

In some sense its good, there are always a bunch of dumdums who just dont listen other people and with a lot of Dunning-Kruger, there will be a lot of these recs who keep thinking that they are better than 50% of the players despite that they are always losing and depositing, losing and depositing, losing and depositing, losing and taking a loan and depositing.... and they certainly know better what downer is realistic, how probabilities work .... in real they might only know better how to skech out a loan when its already hard to get one due to previous ones, thats probably the part where they are more experienced -truly. 

[GR1ZZL3R]

   Just as a corollary to the above I've spent a couple of hours collating the missing Aces from my own data base (Unibet Hand History Replayer.) The researcher found that big pairs, especially AA, were not dealt as often as would be expected. My stats absolutely confirm this shocking revelation, a sad indictment of the rogue poker sites we have to put our money on. 

   Of the previous 5,893 (I think a fair sample for an old wreck rec like me) hands I have been dealt, expecting AA at a rate of about once every 220 hands therefore 26 times, I have only been dealt them a paltry 21 times, a huge under representation. I've always considered myself unlucky at cards but now the truth will out, I don't get a fair chance to slam all my money in with Pocket Rockets and make far more money than I have been doing. But to be absolutely fair I'm in a bit of quandary what to do really, as an oft quoted statistic states that AA will beat a random hand 85% of the time. In an effort for full and frank disclosure I have to say that my Aces won 20 of the 21 times, an incredulous 95% success rate. Could the RNG be dealing me less than the "correct" number of paired AA but letting me win more than my fair share of times with them as an inbuilt compensation factor? If you get dealt more than your fair share of AA do you lose more often as an effort to "balance." These and more questions can only be answered in the fullness of time by more minutes of researching more hundreds of hands and jumping to a fair percentage of conclusions before anyone else. Maths is hard 

 

 

"If there is a 50-50 chance of something going wrong then 9 times out of 10 it will."

 

[DrewBlue20]

Most rigged site out there. The amount of times when all in I’m 90+% chance of winning then it magically turns around and I lose. Corrupt as fuck 

[SShcherbyna]

[kevanbt]

gr1rrl3r  I am so glad you published this, I thought it was only me missing Aces but I have even more complaints, three of them exactly.  Online poker is just so unfair.   Maybe someone could look into them for me.   

First, I got my pair of Aces but instead of getting them on time at my 212nd hand I got them at 211 and I was the big blind, then the whole table folded round to me and all I won was 2 cents!   So my question is since I got them at the wrong time will that guy with the four names not give them to me again for 212 hands or will I have to wait until 213 to get back in the proper rythem?

2nd.  I"m not stupid so I didn't get vaxed or anything and the other day I played a tournamnet and won a 1 euro ticket, but here is the thing, it was a 9 seat tournament and I think I got the covid and was too sick to play the ticket.   So now will that guy with the 5 names give me an extension on the ticket?

3rd.  I read on line that one third of european players believe in Aliens and I know for a fact that Unibet is a european site and I've got two friends, one from Milan and another from London and niether of them believes so do I have to believe in UFOs?   now hear me out cause I know an american and he says you cant make me believe anything.   I know that London went and packed up and left Europe, just moved the other day I think, so if I can get another friend in Europe that does believe then I"m ok , right?

So should I just stay on line and wait for the guy with the 6 names to reply cause I really have to do to the bathroom now and I think I have to, oh well, oh dear, never mind.

 

[graftak1]

100% rigged the poker site, i loose in the same tournament on duifferent days exactly with the same hands.

last month 3 times haha random yeah right.

not against same player ofcourse because that is too easy too see it through.

but ecavtly at the same place and players shoved both 3 8 off and hit both the river 3.

jajaja everybody shoved 3 8 off for 20 big blinds ofcourse unibet it,s just bul shit.

and so i have 3 tournaments with exactly the same hands and loosing with thew same river card the bad beat.

IS NOT POSSIBLE IF IT,S RANDOM