Confirmed Rigged: Pokernews Presenter Vote

[#TeamSarah]

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2013/1...ners-16793.htm

Here is a look at the top 10 videos with the most votes:

1 Gabriela Hill
2 Erica Scott
3 Marguerite Spanuolo
4 Jennifer Robin Robles
5 Sarah Albright
6 Samantha Rea
7 Fiona Fox
8 Eddie Martinez
9 Isabella Enzenhofer
10 LoriAnn Persinger

We would also like to thank all of our readers who took the time to vote for their favorite presenters. Next, we will be spending a few weeks reviewing all of the submissions. From there, we'll be following up with potential presenters individually to go through the next step in the process to possibly joining the PokerNews team. If we think you fit in to the PokerNews mold, then you will be contacted for some additional audition work. Viewers can expect to see Jr. Presenters on live events in early 2014.

*Note: Number of votes is not the sole deciding factor for the hiring process. Votes are merely an additive to the application. Thus, most votes do not guarantee a position.

As expected, PokerNews is frantically backpedaling to prevent fan-favorite Sarah Albright from winning. The last few weeks on radio, Dan Druff has talked about how they curiously made a last-minute decision to extend the voting period for 2 weeks, after a few strong competitors submitted videos right before the deadline.

Clearly their attempt to get preferred candidates more votes failed, when their editor announced last week that the votes will not be the "end-all factor" to the selection process.

Today the polls finally closed, and they claim that Sarah is #5 in their top 10.



There is absolutely zero chance that this is correct, given how few people even watched the other auditions compared to Sarah's. In fact, she most likely has more votes than every other candidate combined. This is either cleverly worded deception on the part of PokerNews, or outright vote rigging.

It doesn't even make sense do this, since they've been forced to concede that the votes don't even matter. This was all a charade to drive traffic to their website. The only reason for rigging the vote is to save face and make this appear to be a legitimate contest. But if you wasted your time voting in this thing, congratulations! You've been rolled.

Though it's clear that PokerNews will never give poor Sarah a chance, her popular video succeeded in exposing this audition process for the farce that it is.

[sonatine]

paging seriously serious for forensic evaluation.

[#TeamSarah]

Here's a breakdown of the alleged top ten, and how many people even watched their audition.

1 Gabriela Hill - 400
2 Erica Scott - 468
3 Marguerite Spanuolo - 2,364 (video posted over 3 years ago)
4 Jennifer Robin Robles - 1,327
5 Sarah Albright - 7,367
6 Samantha Rea - 621
7 Fiona Fox - 301
8 Eddie Martinez - 168
9 Isabella Enzenhofer - 301
10 LoriAnn Persinger - 224

Maybe they can claim that this top 10 is listed in no particular order.

[Belly Buster]

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2013/1...ners-16793.htm

We would also like to thank all of our readers who took the time to vote for their favorite presenters. Next, we will be spending a few weeks reviewing all of the submissions. From there, we'll be following up with potential presenters individually to go through the next step in the process to possibly joining the PokerNews team. If we think you fit in to the PokerNews mold, then you will be contacted for some additional audition work. Viewers can expect to see Jr. Presenters on live events in early 2014.

*Note: Number of votes is not the sole deciding factor for the hiring process. Votes are merely an additive to the application. Thus, most votes do not guarantee a position.

As expected, PokerNews is frantically backpedaling to prevent fan-favorite Sarah Albright from winning. The last few weeks on radio, Dan Druff has talked about how they curiously made a last-minute decision to extend the voting period for 2 weeks, after a few strong competitors submitted videos right before the deadline.

Clearly their attempt to get preferred candidates more votes failed, when their editor announced last week that the votes will not be the "end-all factor" to the selection process.

Today the polls finally closed, and they claim that Sarah is #5 in their top 10.



There is absolutely zero chance that this is correct, given how few people even watched the other auditions compared to Sarah's. In fact, she most likely has more votes than every other candidate combined. This is either cleverly worded deception on the part of PokerNews, or outright vote rigging.

It doesn't even make sense do this, since they've been forced to concede that the votes don't even matter. This was all a charade to drive traffic to their website. The only reason for rigging the vote is to save face and make this appear to be a legitimate contest. But if you wasted your time voting in this thing, congratulations! You've been rolled.

Though it's clear that PokerNews will never give poor Sarah a chance, her popular video succeeded in exposing this audition process for the farce that it is.

When I read this i can only hear Druff's voice reading the words.

[lewfather]

Wait so the ugly chick that's second placing this currently is using a video shot in 2010?

Who is running this Mickey Mouse operation anyways?



BTW The grandma that's first placing this thing is hideous

[#TeamSarah]

When I read this i can only hear Druff's voice reading the words.

I'll take that as a compliment! #TeamDruff

[DRK Star]

Is there any chance that although voting only once, 7000 of the views came from Skalansky?

[ShawnFanningsLimpDick]

Does Tony G know about this rigging? I imagine he's a pretty hands-off owner of pokernews but he seems like one of the good guys. Matthew Parvis could be getting out of line here. I completely agree that if you announce a competition for new presenter and someone wins by a landslide then they should get a shot.

[MatthewParvis]

Since I have a lot of respect for this forum and all of the folks who took lots of time to put together videos Ill comment.

We didn't rig anything -- as there would be absolutely no point to do so. The voting mechanism of the presenter audition was simply to add a fun, engaging component for our readers to be involved in the process. We will be now reaching out to those who we are interested in learning more about to see if they might be good fits to join our team. I apologize on behalf of PokerNews if there was any confusion when the submissions closed, but the intention was to always leave the voting open past the submission process. What sense would it be to close the voting on the same day as closing the submissions? That system would clearly favor those who submitted well in advance. So any miscommunication in regards to that factor, was just that, miscommunication.

We loved all the videos that came in. The creativity was really amazing. I look forward to speaking with candidates in person in the coming weeks. Below is a screenshot from our back-end showing exactly how many votes the top 10 received.

Matthew Parvis
PokerNews

[ShawnFanningsLimpDick]

Since I have a lot of respect for this forum and all of the folks who took lots of time to put together videos Ill comment.

Out of respect for you replying I've cleaned up my prior post - but I still find these numbers very hard to believe.

[#TeamSarah]

Story checks out, 250% of the people that watched Gabriella's audition gave her the nod.

[anonamoose]

I think people are really failing to realize that this wasn't "finish number 1 and win". It seems what Matt is saying is the top people are going to be contacted and interviewed. For all we know none of them will get it.

[MatthewParvis]

Thanks. Honestly, i can't say why some people got more votes than others. There were many people who promoted themselves very heavily on social media to get their friends to vote... Online voting is certainly not the most secure method for anything. That's why it was always intended to be a fun component, but not the final factor in anything like this.

Since I have a lot of respect for this forum and all of the folks who took lots of time to put together videos Ill comment.

Out of respect for you replying I've cleaned up my prior post - but I still find these numbers very hard to believe.

[Pooh]

Since I have a lot of respect for this forum and all of the folks who took lots of time to put together videos Ill comment.

We didn't rig anything -- as there would be absolutely no point to do so. The voting mechanism of the presenter audition was simply to add a fun, engaging component for our readers to be involved in the process. We will be now reaching out to those who we are interested in learning more about to see if they might be good fits to join our team. I apologize on behalf of PokerNews if there was any confusion when the submissions closed, but the intention was to always leave the voting open past the submission process. What sense would it be to close the voting on the same day as closing the submissions? That system would clearly favor those who submitted well in advance. So any miscommunication in regards to that factor, was just that, miscommunication.

We loved all the videos that came in. The creativity was really amazing. I look forward to speaking with candidates in person in the coming weeks. Below is a screenshot from our back-end showing exactly how many votes the top 10 received.

Matthew Parvis
PokerNews

Get the fuck out of here you lying sack of shit.

[MatthewParvis]

Will do!

Since I have a lot of respect for this forum and all of the folks who took lots of time to put together videos Ill comment.

We didn't rig anything -- as there would be absolutely no point to do so. The voting mechanism of the presenter audition was simply to add a fun, engaging component for our readers to be involved in the process. We will be now reaching out to those who we are interested in learning more about to see if they might be good fits to join our team. I apologize on behalf of PokerNews if there was any confusion when the submissions closed, but the intention was to always leave the voting open past the submission process. What sense would it be to close the voting on the same day as closing the submissions? That system would clearly favor those who submitted well in advance. So any miscommunication in regards to that factor, was just that, miscommunication.

We loved all the videos that came in. The creativity was really amazing. I look forward to speaking with candidates in person in the coming weeks. Below is a screenshot from our back-end showing exactly how many votes the top 10 received.

Matthew Parvis
PokerNews

Get the fuck out of here you lying sack of shit.

[Pooh]

So tell us why you don't want Sarah, bitch. Girls got a great personality and a nice rack. What more can you ask for?

[fluffer]

.

Though it's clear that PokerNews will never give poor Sarah a chance, her popular video succeeded in exposing this audition process for the farce that it is.

lets get real here, the real reason pokernews doesnt want sarah to win is the fact that she would make viewers uncomfortable knowing that she is probably

 

sucking on SS's cock, licking his balls, and then fuckin him with a big black strap on

maybe even some ass to mouth action

or

 

maybe i am just a sick, sick fuck

[MatthewParvis]

Who said we aren't interested in Sarah? We will be getting in touch with her as well as a
number of other presenters who all did a great job.

So tell us why you don't want Sarah, bitch. Girls got a great personality and a nice rack. What more can you ask for?

[4Dragons]

Paging Alvin Finkelstein to the thread.

[fluffer]

MatthewParvis , great work on the daily show...im a big fan