GR1ZZL3R

Sad news indeed Purps

Scandalous after all those 💰💰💰 you've won in the last Community League and UOS series. Where does it all go?

It looks like a busy month ahead with a new Community League, another tournament series and the daily missions. I haven't played the missions since the last World Cup so as it's the season of goodwill it may be time to put some of my BP's into action and donate some Cash to the Community (sounds like a project.) I'm not saying I will do them all, some of the monthly ones these days look terrifying to me, but I'll give them a go. Hopefully daily updates so anyone intending to do the same is welcome to join in.

I think you're straying too far from the point but I'll tag along for a while. I never go to bank these days if I want a loan, I go to the Loan Arranger. "Here comes Livertool for a loan, charge him 15% but don't tell him about 'mates rates' and for God's sake don't call him 'white man' ."

On behalf of all those that think UB is rigged, after this last session I'm beginning to agree. All in pre flop where I had 32% and won. All in on the turn where I had 18% and won. And all in pre flop where I had 18% and won again. Normally I would expect to lose all three of these hands, all occurring within half an hour.

If anyone sees evidence of racism should they look the other way and not report it in case they get accused of virtue signalling. That's always the accusation isn't it, but you guys don't seem to realise that these things can be reported, not because we want to be seen as virtuous, but simply because we don't like them and they are wrong.

WuDu and Liverpool chase around a dead end, getting nowhere but full marks for obstinacy and persistence.

For those that skip the reading and go straight to the fancy arguments, can you point out where Stubbe asked Nate to apologise to himself, Stubbe. Obviously WuDu and his mate Liverpool don't like to let facts get in the way of a good story, they may yet make good journalists.

And yet again someone has read a thread and put their own interpretation on it, rather than actually asking if it's not clear enough. Could you please show where Stubbe asked for an apology to him. You do know that South Park is a cartoon and not real life don't you?

Anyone could be offended by any name, and they have a right to say so. Someone else may not be offended by the same name and they too have a right to say so. Ultimately it's always going to be down to the site owner or controller or operative as to what is or isn't offensive, and maybe the sanctions imposed are not actually written in the t&c's but more a case of common sense. Just for the record I think it was offensive and agree with the sanctions, but anyone disagreeing is perfectly entitled to, it's very unlikely to change the outcome. Going off on a tangent about a completely unconnected subject is somewhat pointless, a poor but these days common tactic to muddy the waters.

Some of us are longing for the day!

35/36. The crash looms ever larger. 🤨

@kevanbt I presume that's supposed to read GR1ZZL3R, anyway an update on the AA situation. I'm undecided whether it's rigged or not as I'm still not being dealt AA often enough, clearly a possibility of things being rigged. However out of the last 35 times I've been dealt AA I've won pre flop 11 times, post flop 23 times and only lost once, winning 34 out of 35 times. This is clearly better than the "true" rate I should win at so can it be rigged both ways, maybe Aces acting as both particles and waves and the lack of one cancelling out the surplus of another, or Aces being alive "winning " and "dead" not being dealt enough both at the same time. It's damned hard enough playing poker as it is without having to study Quantum Theory or conducting thought experiments at the same time as trying to decide whether to call or fold the 35th time you have Aces, you know they're going to catch up in the losing column sooner or later so why not fold pre flop and only lose 4c? I'm not sure London actually moved but it could be hiding in a box with Dick Whittington's cat, both "in" Europe physically (not the mainland) but "out" of Europe mentally.If you advertised for European friends to join your group it would have to be on the basis they brought two believers with them to try to keep the stats balanced. Maybe they could be European non-believers living in America where they all believe, fulfilling both states at once. Maybe more random samples need to be randomly sampled, it's hard to know where to draw the line. IT IS.

I think you're missing the point by quite a bit. The evidence: Later it seems confirmed. I have nothing against players venting about bad beats or dodgy play by opponents, but let's face it, who cares. Once you've heard your 16,000th bad beat story the novelty begins to wear a bit thin, and when no-one wants to hear your bad beat story why should you listen to theirs? Prizes on offer for the bad beats promo in the current UOS series have been stopped, apparently due to a lack of enthusiasm. What I do have an issue with is someone venting then claiming it's rigged on laughably thin evidence. The last "rigged" thread contained a link to a study on Pokerstars being rigged, the evidence being 55,000 hands, which in the opinion of most experienced poker players is simply not enough. It's generally the way of the world these days that when something goes wrong people have to find someone or something to blame, it couldn't possibly be their own fault, could it? Poker players are no different, threads are written to show "It wasn't my fault, there's something dodgy going on!" To be fair in a lot of instances it wasn't their fault, they simply got unlucky as most of us do at times, but then most of us shrug it off to various degrees and carry on. I think there are much rarer instances of posting how lucky someone got because in a lot of cases it would show how badly they played and got lucky, and no-one wants to be seen as a bad player. They can all rant away if they choose, we all can choose whether to listen or read yet another, but when making accusations of wrong doing they should not expect to be believed without good evidence. "Get the impression," "wouldn't surprise me" and losing when "win % was 96" is not really acceptable as such.

Poker Professor GR1ZZL3R's Hand Analysis Class: #1 Includes detailed discussion on the probabilities.* What were the stakes? N/A What was your stack size? N/A What was villain's stack size? N/A What was your position? N/A What was villain's position? N/A What were your hole cards? N/A What was the pre flop action? N/A What was dealt on the flop? N/A but hero hit three of a kind. A set? Trips? What of? N/A What was the flop action? All in. What was the turn card? N/A What was the river card? N/A but villain hits runner runner to make a straight. What was Hero's reaction? I've just lost when 96% favourite, the site is corrupt! My expert analysis? From the little information available Hero played the hand well enough. Conclusion. *Hero was unlucky.

He quoted one example of losing a hand when he was 96% favourite to win but lost, then immediately claimed Unibet is Now you're really showing your ignorance and willingness to argue just for the sake of it. Sscherbyna is correct as the hand was never up for analysis, just the odds. It doesn't need a poker professor to explain a fairly simple mathematical concept that 96% favourites will lose approximately once every 25 times. Whining about it (and yes we all do, whether publicly or privately) does not change the odds.

There is, never has been, and never will be such a thing as a good frozen pizza.

They don't need to whine but in many cases it's a natural reaction. Sadly these days finding someone or something to blame is the default reaction to anything going wrong in anything someone does, (I don't want to bring politics in through the backdoor like some others but think Trump, a perfect example.) Whining can be counter productive and does not necessarily address the underlying issues. Maybe we can't but that's no reason not to try. Moaning about one 96% winning chance losing just highlights the lack of basic knowledge, and there are some willing to try and help a player by pointing out the flawed thinking. I may do it a bit sarcastically which doesn't always come across well in the written word, Estzen and Sscherbyna are making factual points. If the help is rejected or refused does that mean we shouldn't try to help the next one? Well I would say yes as the opening post is basically a rambling mess of half formulated theories and unsubstantiated statements with absolutely no evidence or statistics to back them up. If people want these things to be taken seriously they should be prepared to put some serious work into their presentation.

Probably going to happen, just guessing here, maybe one in twenty five times. Just unlucky eh? And yet you're still playing here!

From what I can see this site is called Unibet.😉

So not for very long then? What, everybody? Every time? How often, what percentage, how many times? Everybody? The same players? Every time? Have you any stats or just a "feeling." How often? So report it! Would surprise me. AI might be becoming a problem at high stakes but there are ways of checking, and since Potripper has there been any evidence of users being able to see hole cards? Are you a losing player? I've used this one before but I think it still applies!

Hi @geoffowen and welcome to the community. I'll try and answer but sometimes it can get a bit fussy. 1. Prices are offered all the time, a lot of races are priced up the day before, I'm not sure of the time frame because I rarely look too far ahead. A "Board Price" is usually the price once the on course bookmakers chalk up their prices for the next race on the "Board." If you take 6/4 and the horse wins at 5/2 you should be paid at the higher price BUT there are exceptions, races where extra places are paid amongst others. I've fallen foul of this rule in the past, assuming it's automatic when it isn't, something to be aware of. 2. If a race has a horse price boosted then you cannot maintain the BOG, you take the horse at the price it's boosted to and if it wins at a bigger price then you lose out. Hope this helps and "May Your Odds Go With You."🍻

Well well well. At least one part correct. A much more realistic appraisal.

Personally I don't think the "extremely unlikely" should even come into it. It could happen, as the oft quoted odds of 14,000,000 to 1 odds for winning the UK lottery do happen regularly. The t&cs state that winnings will be limited to 250,000 E per 24 hours, but bets capable of winning more are taken, it appears, routinely. The original question was what happens if a bet wins more than the stated limit, which payout applies, (I'm guessing the lower limit 😄) and further why can we make bets that would pay more if we can't collect more? Talking racing or sports bet is just muddying the waters, I made a racing bet purely for convenience to see whether the limits could be surpassed, which are actually £100,000. A quick Google search throws up numerous examples of "extremely unlikely" winning bets that were very relevant for some lucky punters. 🤨

@Stubbe-Unibet That may well be the case as you see it but how many punters come to these threads querying pay outs, admittedly the majority not having read the t&cs. Purely in the interests of research I have made a small bet with an extremely unlikely chance of winning, but it does illustrate one of the anomalies I think we're all trying to get to the bottom of. The bet was accepted immediately without any referral or conditions attached, even though the payout would far exceed the stated terms. Any unwary punter would obviously be extremely disappointed to think they've won over a million quid, however unlikely that seems, only to be told they haven't. I know we should all read t&cs but how many do?😪 Realising I've won a million quid. Being told its only a quarter of a million euros