Original sentence: "  The problem with this criticism is the fact that good poker players are always enduring outdraws because of the nature of poker itself
Edited sentence: "  The problem with this criticism is the fact that "good poker players are always enduring outdraws because of the nature of poker itself".But there is a pattern to be noticed while playing on the network.If one still cannot fathom that this site is guilty of foul play driven by the sheer motivation of profit, then one should ask himself how many times in their poker career playing days have they seen quads(four of kind)  10 times in one week.In general tournaments that have a guaranteed prize pool have amazingly huge number pots in the begining due to all the great hands people are holding.Instead, there are less number of huge pots because there are less monster hands dealt.Many advocates of online poker argue that a player  sees 3 times as many hands online as in live poker, hence he should 3 times as many bad beats.So, the consensus here is that Prima poker can't be fixed.The big quesiton here is not whether bad beats occur but at the rate at which they occur.This argument seems to be more logical.This is not the case with tournaments that do not have guaranteed prize pools.This might in effect be true on any given session of play, but to justify the numerous outdraws and bad beats endured by players is simply not logical