I have not implied that either live or online games are rigged against any particular player, although in a live game a skilled dealer could easily dish out "seconds" to an individual if he or she were in collusion with a player. It would not take long before they were sussed out.
My point was that the bad beats are dished out to everyone, and they happen more often online than in a live environment, even allowing for the greater number of hands you see online. You need to develop a sixth sense to realise when you are being set up, and get out of the way.
The only online site I have played on so far where I get a feel that the dealing is absolutely random is PKR.com. On that site apart from the superb 
graphics, and the fully customisable personal avatars, when you play the dealing spread is very realistic. In a typical hour you will only pick up a few hands which are worth playing beyond the flop. You still get the odd bad beat happen, but that is generally due to idiot play rather than two players both hitting the flop and getting their chips in with the virtual nuts.
Even the mighty Pokerstars dishes out a lot of bad beats, you just have to learn how to play their software. That site is not known as Riverstars or Jokerstars for no reason. Since I got wise to their little tricks I have cashed for over over 4000 dollars there. So I was disappointed when the APAT moved to Blue Square, but it will not stop me taking part in the online series, I just have to get a feel for the Blue Square software before I raise my expectations of any meaningful results.
Isn"t it the case that you see fewer bad-beats on PKR over the same time period as another site, because the dealing is slower on PKR so you play fewer hands per hour?
There are many reasons for seeing more "bad-beats" online:
1. More hands are played. If I"m 4-tabling online, playing 6-handed cash, I simply get to see a lot more hands than I would in a live environment.
2. There are many more players in an online tournament. If you play a £20 tournament in a casino, you"ll be up against 100 players, maximum. Usually, far fewer than this. Online you might be up against 1,000. You"re going to have a lot of good players in this field (and dare I say better than many live players), but you"re naturally also going to have a lot of bad players. therefore, you"ll see a lot of calls with mediocre hands from these bad players, and they will get lucky. If I shove with AKs against 75o and a "mug" calls me - he"s going to win the hand 35% of the time. There are simply more opportunities to see these beats online.
3. Easy come, easy go. You can fire up a tournament online, register and be playing in seconds. Whilst you"re at it you can fire up a few more for good measure. You bust out of one with a marginal call - it"s no biggy. There are the others and some more just round the corner. You travel, even a few miles, to a live event, you have to invest a lot more effort and time. You don"t want to donk out early, and many people will pay more cautiously early on because of that.
4. No shame. You call someone in a live game with 75o, you need a thick skin and the ability to look the other player in the eye when you outdraw them. Online, you have no shame - you"re anonymous. It"s easier to take the risk in a bid to double-up than it is in a live game.
I"m not saying that the online games aren"t "weighted", but I haven"t seen any "evidence" of this. Aren"t the random number generators monitored and certified by third-party firms?
I see the argument why some believe it might be weighted towards these massive "clashes", but I think that the way people play brings enough of them about anyway.
I played in a tournament on BlueSQ last night, and got to the final table without hitting a hand bigger than a straight. I had one full house on the final table (with 52o, the same hand as my opponent!). Did the software just decide not to involve me in these "cold decks"? Also the number of times the short-stack managed to outdraw the larger stacks when all-in was amazing. Surely, if the room wanted the tournament to be finished as quickly as possible (and was weighted in this way), the short-stacks would have lost these all-in races?
I"m still not convinced.
