How Online Poker Sites Are Rigged to Maximize Profits
Shimmy Shammy
This article explains why I think that so many solid tight agressive
players take bad beats too often after getting all their chips in with
the best hand. A similiar line of thought can apply to limit games as
well.
It seems to me that online poker businesses are as greedy as any other
form of business and they want to keep as many customers signed on as
possible. Since most people really don't have much of a clue about
tight aggressive play or even the most basic poker strategy, they may
need a little help holding on to their money to continue paying the
tournament fees or rake. People always argue that the poker sites
don't care who they get their money from but most players are only
going to play at one table at a time and so the companies would
logically like more players paying more rakes and entry fees. On the
flip side of the coin we have skilled players who, knowing that bad
beats do occur, are willing to write off the beats as bad luck -- even
after time after time. Good players are also more likely to rebuy
since they are already skilled in the game and know that they should
actually be turning a profit. So what we get on the poker sites is a
situation where poor players are given a slightly larger unnatural
chance to get their card on the river while good players are penalized
for their long-term winning play (since they are going to continue
playing anyway). When these two characters meet in a hand the
unnatural flop of the cards is even more noticable. Similiarly... when
a player drops to a certain percentage of their initial buy-in the
software gives them a slight advantage (to keep them around paying the
rake and entry fees) -- and a drawn out collapse might make them more
likely to rebuy when they do bust out. Obviously this is not always
the case, and occasionally the best hand will hold up -- this could
very well be the result of giving a fair draw to avoid making the scam
even more blatant. For you skeptics who had made up your mind even
before reading this... perhaps it's because your poor play is being
rewarded. I am very hopeful that someone IS keeping detailed track of
the anomalous runs of cards in the many forms they coome in (for
example KK in a good players hand vs. AA in a poor players hand at an
unlikely rate of occurence & incredible suckout after suckout).
Eventually this will be a big story in the poker world and heads will
roll.
Join Titan Poker
online and are running Poker Tracker would disagree with you. But don't
let that stop you.
arlo payne
Well hell I don't really want to get in the middle of this.
However:
From what I have seen Poker Tracker is miles away from the end all answer to
many questions. It appears more as a way for people to see what they want to
see as support for just a few key areas and at times overlooking the truth.
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
arlo payne
Boy you start with some good points then you tear apart your own case with some
insane crap. try to stay focused and nearer the facts next time.
Start looking at tight passive players as a starting point that might help your
cause.
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
Shimmy Shammy
standards as a starter. Could you be more specific about where the
"insane crap" begins and the good points end?
Shimmy Shammy
RazzO
Tell me something new.
> > It seems to me that online poker businesses are as greedy as any other
> > form of business and they want to keep as many customers signed on as
> > possible. Since most people really don't have much of a clue about
> > tight aggressive play or even the most basic poker strategy, they may
> > need a little help holding on to their money to continue paying the
> > tournament fees or rake. People always argue that the poker sites
> > don't care who they get their money from but most players are only
> > going to play at one table at a time and so the companies would
> > logically like more players paying more rakes and entry fees. On the
> > flip side of the coin we have skilled players who, knowing that bad
RazzO
http://www.razzo.com
email:tico...@yahoo.com
"Others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate
them, and then you destroy yourself."
- President Richard Nixon (August 8, 1974)
------------------------------
POKER DOMAINS FOR SALE!!
http://www.razzo.com/poker_domains.html
2006 World Series of Poker Schedule
http://www.razzo.com/2006wsop-sched.html
______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Shimmy Shammy
interested in where you've seen these specific ideas before. In any
case... my point was to make the argument clearly and to present it to
people who might be interested (including alt.journalism). If your
*yawn*ing because these ideas seem obviously true -- I suppose that
might be a legitimite criticism.
Shimmy Shammy
John Harkness
wrote:
It's a yawn because this is an argument that has been made, with
varying degrees of hysteria, on this very newsgroup, oh, maybe four
times a month for the past four or five years.
John Harkness
Max Coin
On May 6 2006 2:39 AM, Shimmy Shammy wrote:
Dude, they are too busy counting the rake and entry fee money to try to seperate
the good from bad players. And how do they know if you are a good player or a
fish? Yuo never explained that part.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Anoni mouse
wrote:
>Certainly this isn't a wholly orginal line of thought but I'd be
If you want to make things clear, you should realize that the paragraph is
your friend.
Anoni mouse
>Dude, they are too busy counting the rake and entry fee money to try to seperate
>the good from bad players. And how do they know if you are a good player or a
>fish? Yuo never explained that part.
That's not hard at all. They don't have to name names. The good player is
the one who usually gets all his money in with the best (usually dominant)
hand. The bad player is the one who calls anyway with 2 or 3 outs. The
draw on the board will then deal him out something like the 4 card straight
or flush that online poker is so full of.
Max Coin
OK, I'll try again. If what you are saying is true,that poor play is rewarded to
keep the better players rebuying( because good players know bad beats and losing
streaks happen and poor players will get frustrated and leave the site) then all
you have to do is play like the fishies and start cashing out. Am I right? So
how much are you up since trying this brilliant strategy?
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Lynx
At least you managed to get one thing right. Now, if you can just follow
that up with one more correct statement, you'll be about as accurate as my
broken clock.
My broken clock gets the time right twice a day, so that should give you
something to aspire to.
On the other hand, back in the days of vinyl, I had a record that kept
skipping, repeating the same line. At least you've already achieved that
much.
Anoni mouse
>
>
>On May 6 2006 9:00 AM, Anoni mouse wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 May 06 14:31:04 GMT, Max Coin <4308...@recpoker.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Dude, they are too busy counting the rake and entry fee money to try to
>> >seperate
>> >the good from bad players. And how do they know if you are a good player or a
>> >fish? Yuo never explained that part.
>>
>> That's not hard at all. They don't have to name names. The good player is
>> the one who usually gets all his money in with the best (usually dominant)
>> hand. The bad player is the one who calls anyway with 2 or 3 outs. The
>> draw on the board will then deal him out something like the 4 card straight
>> or flush that online poker is so full of.
>
>OK, I'll try again. If what you are saying is true,that poor play is rewarded to
>keep the better players rebuying( because good players know bad beats and losing
>streaks happen and poor players will get frustrated and leave the site) then all
>you have to do is play like the fishies and start cashing out. Am I right? So
>how much are you up since trying this brilliant strategy?
No one is saying this is rigged to happen all the time which is what your
strawman argument is trying to allude. The theory is the odds are tweaked
so those 2 and 3 outers happen more than the real odds say they should.
Someone recently suggested that maybe it's the live deals that have been
wrong all along and the online RNG's are showing what the real deals should
be like.
All I know is I believe I see way, way too many 4 card straights and flushes
(among other things) dealt online. I wouldn't play for high stakes there
even if I could afford to.
Like other people it was just a feeling I had for a long time. The one hand
that convinced me some sort of programming is going on rather than a true
RNG was in a play money game so it's not like I lost anything and am whining
about a bad beat.
I saw the same exact hand dealt on consecuative deals. It just moved
clockwise around the table. All the same hole cards ending with the same
winning straight. The only reason I saw it was because it was play money
where hardly anyone ever folds. I don't trust it. and if you don't believe
it's legit, you shouldn't play. That's the advice I give to anyone. If
you think it is legit, that's fine with me. I don't see any sense in
getting in to the usual name-calling argument about it.
Merlioni
This is close to something I've been worried about. I'm concerned that the sites
may be helping new players. I think it's obvious that any site wants a new
player to do well initially. If they send their money and quickly get torn up by
pros, they go away with bad stories about their experience. But if they start
out reasonably well, they come back, play more tables, tell their friends how
great the site is, etc.
This help can be easily provided, and not by directing river cards. In hold-em,
the site knows in advance which seat is going to win the hand. If the site wants
seat 3 to do well because he's new, all they need to do is throw away a few
extra deals per hour which seat 3 wouldn't win. The remaining deals they let
play out normally.
Even in the other games new players can be helped, by throwing away a few extra
deals per hour in which the favored player doesn't get good starting cards.
I don't know if any of this is actually taking place, and if so, which sites
might be doing it. But I do know that it would be very advantageous for a site
to do this and very easy to make happen. My concern is that I don't really see a
reason for a site *not* to do this, and there are no controls to prevent it from
happening or catch it if/when it does.
Maybe I'm just being paranoid. I hope that is the case.
On May 6 2006 2:39 AM, Shimmy Shammy wrote:
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Corinthian McVitie Keogh
>
> This help can be easily provided, and not by directing river cards. In hold-em,
> the site knows in advance which seat is going to win the hand. If the site wants
> seat 3 to do well because he's new, all they need to do is throw away a few
> extra deals per hour which seat 3 wouldn't win. The remaining deals they let
> play out normally.
Well, your problem there is that few people stick around a table much
more than an hour. I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I've
reached 90 minutes at a beginners-stakes table and still been with more
than 3 of the people who were there when I sat down. And from the styles
of play and their stacks, I can state categorically that those guys who
do stick around aren't beginners and are winners.
--
It's five o'clock somewhere
Join Titan Poker
much easier. You see that you do, indeed, suck out as much as you get
sucked out. And you see that good hands tend to win much more than the
random garbage, even if short term trends don't support that in your
mind at the time.
Poker Tracker is like instant perspective. And it's numbers, I like
numbers.
Corinthian McVitie Keogh
every flop had at least one 6 in it.
But this was a home game with people I trust, and not the same guy
dealing all the time.
Shimmy Shammy
sites to analyze and determine good play -- this makes me realize that
at least some of the dismissive arguments are just blowing smoke.
Beyond the way you suggested... the sites could determine who the good
and bad players were by how they played their startes in general and
how the played the river (they certainly could have the database for
such analysis). As for the unfriendly paragraphs... I can only point
to substance over form.
Shimmy Shammy
it will only keep them around longer and consequently make them think
they are better than they actually are so that they will rebuy. On the
flip side... a good player could easily encounter one new fish every
tournament. If the fix were in only a third of the time, that would
still be enough to strip the good player of their profits (keeping them
at about the level they bought in with) while subsidizing the bad
players so that they stick around longer, become more likely to rebuy,
or are simply replaced by the inevitable new players. The point isn't
that all the fish win and all the good players lose -- the ideal is to
keep as many players playing on the sites at once so that there are
Shimmy Shammy
to do this and very easy to make happen. My concern is that I don't
really see a
reason for a site *not* to do this, and there are no controls to
prevent it from
happening or catch it if/when it does."
Exactly! It would be nice if someone was tracking this sort of thing
though so that the sites would stop thinking they could get away with
it. I'm just glad that someone sees the obvious incentive the sites
have and the ease with which they probably implement this rigging.
Shimmy Shammy
problem is that losers are given an advantage so they'll stick around a
little longer and pay the rake (while also having more fun and thus
being more likely to rebuy) and good players are being scammed out of
some of their winnings. And even a little rigging scam should be a big
deal to serious players.
Merlioni
I think you are getting way too complicated. Good players are easily determined,
not by the way they play, but by the fact that they win over time. Bad players
lose over time.
If I was an ethically challenged poker site, I would certainly help all new
players. Good for the site, good for the new players, and as for
the veteran/good players who are playing at a disadvantage, well, think of
it like higher taxes for the rich. After a certain number of hands, such a site
might review the stats for a player and remove or continue his "new player"
status based on how he's been doing.
If this is true, then the *last* place you want to be is at a table filled with
new players. Your combined disadvantage might be enormous.
Again, I hope all of this is paranoid nonsense...
_______________________________________________________________
Eric Lindholm
> to substance over form.
Could you point out to me again where the "substance" is? All I read was a
paranoid conjecture unsubstantiated by a single shred of evidence.
The form wasn't bad, though.
Reftek
then you are playing many hands you shouldn't and must be an extremely poor
player. A good player will always get sucked out on far more than they suck
out. Like a 500 to 1 ratio or higher.
"Join Titan Poker" <jointit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146941948.7...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Max Coin
It is one thing to say you don't like the RNGs and another to say a site is
rigged like Shimmy did. That is what I was responding to
_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Max Coin
On May 6 2006 2:02 PM, Shimmy Shammy wrote:
So start playing poorly and rake in the money if you are so sure of this. Good
Luck!
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Join Titan Poker
you'll not only suck out, but will virtually NEED to suck out at least
a couple of times in order to win. That 500 to 1 ratio is, well, simply
a mythical number.
Super Steamer
On May 6 2006 7:20 PM, Reftek wrote:
> If you are, as you claim, sucking out as often as you get sucked out on,
> then you are playing many hands you shouldn't and must be an extremely poor
> player. A good player will always get sucked out on far more than they suck
> out. Like a 500 to 1 ratio or higher.
>
A good player will get sucked out on more than a bad player, but 500 to 1? Give
me a break, do you only play when you have the absolute nuts? Good lord.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Join Titan Poker
whole hell of a lot. Any general, unqualified statement with odds
thrown in there needs to be backed up with real facts, or it'll just
get laughed at.
Shimmy Shammy
garycarson
>This may not be true for all players, at all sites, at all times
but...
Unusual things happen with predicible frequency. That's part of what
random means. No explanation is required to explain unusual events
that happen sometimes.
>This article explains why I think that so many solid tight agressive
>players take bad beats too often after getting all their chips in with
>the best hand.
Muddled language usually reflects muddled thought. The above sentence
tells us that you'll explain why you beleive in unicorns. I think what
you mean is that you'll explain your thoughts about why unicorns exist
-- about the purpose they serve in intellignet design.
But to even answer the question as to whether it's true that many
solid, tight aggresive players take bad beats too often after getting
all their chips in with the best hand you'll need to develop some
operational definitions. For most meaningful definitions the
statement's not true. So, there's nothing to explain and the rest of
your post falls into the unicorms mating with monkeys category.
What does "many" mean? Is 3 many? It probably happens to 3 well
chosen subjects. It probably seldom happens to 3 randomly chosen
subjects. Is 3 million many? It doesn't happen to 3 million subjects?
What does "solid, tight aggresive player" mean? How do you pick the
subjects?
What does "bad beat" mean?
etc, etc.
Until you clear all that up with some actual real thought then none of
your explanation has any meaning.
I do have a few links to resources to this kind of research on my
website, although not as many as I should. And, it takes some hard
work to develop the skills to do this kind of research. You don't have
those skills and I doubt you have the willingness to do the work to
develop the skills.
.
A similiar line of thought can apply to limit games as
well.
_________________________________________________________
Posted via the -Web to Usenet- forums at http://www.pokermagazine.com
Visit www.pokermagazine.com
Joe Long
<garyc...@pokermagazine.com> wrote:
...
>Until you clear all that up with some actual real thought then none of
>your explanation has any meaning.
>
>I do have a few links to resources to this kind of research on my
>website, although not as many as I should. And, it takes some hard
>work to develop the skills to do this kind of research. You don't have
>those skills and I doubt you have the willingness to do the work to
>develop the skills.
The basic problem is that his argument, as all of these arguments are,
is based on "feelings" rather than statistics. But our "feelings" in
matters such as this are thoroughly unreliable. What we believe we
see is colored so much by the filters of our expectations and our
paradigms that, no matter how "solid" it appears, it's just smoke.
It's one of the reasons that eyewitness testimony is inferior in court
trials to physical evidence. Five honest people witnessing the same
event will see five different versions.
So I have no doubt that the OP sincerely believes he has observed this
behavior. I also have little doubt that he is mistaken.
I saw a fascinating example once of the effect of the music soundtrack
in movies. They showed the same scene twice, of a man walking down
the street with a long box under his arm, going into an apartment
building, climbing the stairs, going to a door and knocking. The
first time it was with light, romantic music, and you had the feeling
that he was going to see a girlfriend. The second time it was with
dark, foreboding music and you had the feeling he was a gangster going
to murder someone.
The bottom line for me, as I have stated before, is that as long as
online poker is enjoyable and profitable for me, I will continue to
play, and not lose any sleep over "action flops" and "rigged sites."
--
Joe Long (aka ChipRider)
Somewhere on the Range
Lynx
> work to develop the skills to do this kind of research. You don't have
> those skills and I doubt you have the willingness to do the work to
> develop the skills.
It's certainly true that he lacks the skills and the willingness to
develop the necessary skills. However, I don't think the fact that he is
too lazy to develop the skills is his primary block.
He lives in a headspace that allows him to prattle off inane pseudo-logic
and think that he's stated something profound. Take his closing sentence,
"Eventually this will be a big story in the poker world and heads will
roll." Now, isn't that just a tad grandiose?
His primary block isn't an aversion to the work required to develop the
necessary skills. His primary block is that acknowledging the
significance of those skills is an insult to the glory of his ignorance.
-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Shimmy Shammy
admittedly ill-advided move heads-up from the sb against the BB. I
check-raised all-in with mid pair because I thought the guy was
bluffing (again), but I can accept that loss (even as I very likely
would repeat the play). In the other two I got all my chips in with
the best hand and would have been put into the lead if both opponents
hadn't sucked out. In the last tourney the chip leader limped in UTG
and I checked my option with JTs in the BB after the other 2 plaerys
folded. I flopped the flush -- no other flush cards came out and I
lost a bad beat to KQs. I realise this is only anecdotal but I had
similiar reasons to write the article in the first place. This kind of
incredibly consistent bad "luck" seems statistically improbable (even
more improbable than the unicorns you were talking about. Although I
don't have enough data yet to present it as conclusive, one knows when
they are losing consistently after getting their money in with the best
hand. Perhaps it is just an incredibly long series of bad luck but I
have given reasons why the poker sites would have incentive to do such
things and how they could do it. If you can't understand what a
tight-aggressive player who gets their chips all-in with the best hand
is... perhaps you are on the receiving end of some digitized good luck.
Merlioni
> It's one of the reasons that eyewitness testimony is inferior in court
> trials to physical evidence. Five honest people witnessing the same
> event will see five different versions.
This is another variation on the "not a shred of evidence" remark I read
earlier. Basically you are saying that there is no solid evidence to support
the contention that a site might be cheating in some manner. This is true, but
notice that that in no way means that the contention is not true. Obviously,
such direct evidence would be very difficult if not impossible to obtain and
therefore the lack of such evidence means nothing either way.
This reminds me of a time about 10 years ago at the Commerce Casino in Southern
California. All casinos in the area including Commerce had a progressive
jackpot. The jackpot amount would accumulate twice daily, and the increases
were directly related to the number of jackpot tables in play. The jackpot at
Commerce Casino seemed to increase much more slowly compared to the jackpot at
other casinos, some of which had many fewer tables in play. There was much
discussion about this, which settled into two camps. The first group was
fervently convinced the casino was skimming from the fund. The second group felt
that skimming was very unlikely since the casino had too much at stake to risk
such goings on. But in fact it was found that casino personnel were skimming the
fund. Several indictments were made and at least one casino manager fled the
country.
Online poker sites are not U.S. citizens, innocent until proven guilty. A
reasonable question has been raised relating to basic integrity and I think the
onus is on the poker sites to address it. In the meantime, any online player
should be aware that a site could easily manipulate the games (as discussed
previously) to increase their profit and that there are absolutely no controls
to prevent such a thing from happening.
Peg Smith
>A
>reasonable question has been raised relating to basic integrity and I think the
>onus is on the poker sites to address it.
How should they do that? They already say they have independent audits
done by third-parties, they already say it's not rigged, what else are
you wanting? It seems to me that we either believe them or we don't.
Some players have hundreds of thousands of hand histories and haven't
found any anomalies. What would make you feel better? That's a serious
question, I'm not being snotty. What would it take?
Peg
garycarson
theif might or might not steal.
Theives steal because that's what theives do. It has nothing to do
with a rational decision.
Enron wasn't for the money. It was just to be able to demonstrate that
they could do it.
I'm pretty sure propoker.com cheats. They use bots that know what's
coming. I suspect this not because of "bad beats" but because they
offered good deposit bonues that were easy to work off and I never won
and when I asked on rgp no one else ever won either. So I quit playing
there.
Getting a jack high flush beat by a bigger flush is not a bad beat.
Shimmy Shammy
good faith attempt to prove their integrity. Arguably, they may not
want to bring any more attention to this line of thought but I suspect
if they did provide some sort of statistical proof that players
concerned about integrity would flock to those sites since it would be
more unlikely that sites making claims of totally fair and level play
would cheat (since the consequences would potentially then be worse for
them if they were ever found out). You'd think a room would come out
advertising that they were in fact the fairest squarest room of them
all (employing a large staff to look for bots & collusion while
offering up their software for independant review to prove integrity).
I guess that's just crazy talk like the guy on here earlier trying to
dismiss me with talk about unicorns. I actually wonder if some of the
people responding on here aren't in the employ of corrupt sites. Of
course that too is a crazy impossibilty that would never be the case.
Shimmy Shammy
to a higher flopped flush qualifies as a bad beat in my mind.
garycarson
Do you know what median is?
You certainly don't know what bad beat is. In the example you gave you
were never ahead at any time, and were drawing dead after the flop. If
you call that a bad beat then I guess you do get more bad beats than is
normal.
Join Titan Poker
instead of being raised to the Kahnawake Gaming Commission, which just
about every major site uses for oversight?
If anyone honestly thinks that this is more than paranoia, here's the
contact information:
http://www.kahnawake.com/gamingcommission/
Click on the Complaint link to file a complaint.
Or contact them at:
Mailing Address: Kahnawake Gaming Commission
P.O. Box 1799
Old Malone Highway
Kahnawake Mohawk Territory, QC J0L 1B0
CANADA
Fax Number: (450)635-1139
Email: k...@mck.ca
Since none of their audits have found anything, they clearly need your
expert analysis, because they're in the tall weeds without you.
dh
| If it's reasonable, why the fuck is the point being raised on RGP,
| instead of being raised to the Kahnawake Gaming Commission, which just
| about every major site uses for oversight?
|
|
| If anyone honestly thinks that this is more than paranoia, here's the
| contact information:
|
|
| http://www.kahnawake.com/gamingcommission/
|
| Click on the Complaint link to file a complaint.
|
|
| Or contact them at:
|
| Mailing Address: Kahnawake Gaming Commission
| P.O. Box 1799
| Old Malone Highway
| Kahnawake Mohawk Territory, QC J0L 1B0
| CANADA
|
| Fax Number: (450)635-1139
|
| Email: k...@mck.ca
Are you stupid or ignorant?
jmm...@gmail.com
tight-aggressive player who gets their chips all-in with the best hand
is... perhaps you are on the receiving end of some digitized good luck.
"
In my opinion KQs is a better starting hand than JTs, so the player who
had the best hand and got all their chips in did win the hand. But it
wasn't you. You must have had a poker career of at least 10 minutes, if
you are not yet aware that any time you catch a flush and don't have
the Ace of that suit, that someone else may have a better flush.
Where do you play? I would love to find opponents like you.
Merlioni
> How should they do that? They already say they have independent audits
> done by third-parties, they already say it's not rigged, what else are
> you wanting?
Independent audits by third parties? How can you ask that in this the age of the
Enron/Arthur Andersen fiasco? And they *say* it's not rigged?
I don't know if it is or isn't possible to statistically prove that the games
are not rigged. Also, the term "rigged" may not apply. I suspect that a site may
just occasionally throw away deals which a favored player wouldn't win (hold-em
only) or doesn't get good starting cards from (all other forms of poker). This
gives that player an edge over the others, but the otherwise play of the hands
is not tampered with. Of course, I'm guessing about all of this. If they do
cheat, I don't know if this is how. I am certain, however, that the procedure
I've mentioned would be very simple to implement and would be very difficult to
detect.
I would like to hear at least a denial from a poker site. I recently emailed two
big sites (I won't mention the names) asking them to comment on my concerns as
discussed. From one I received a form letter talking about how random is their
shuffle and their independent auditor. From the other I received a personal
response vehemently denying any such activities. I'm now playing on the second
site.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
Join Titan Poker
it. If not, shut the fuck up.
Join Titan Poker
age of the
Enron/Arthur Andersen fiasco? And they *say* it's not rigged?"
OK.
"I would like to hear at least a denial from a poker site."
You want to hear a denial... from the poker site.
Rather than taking the word of the gaming commission, you want to hear
the denial... from the sites who you think are cheating players out of
millions of dollars? And you trust their answer because someone
personally denied it?
But don't trust the gaming commission audits, heavens no.
Joe Long
>This is another variation on the "not a shred of evidence" remark I read
>earlier. Basically you are saying that there is no solid evidence to support
>the contention that a site might be cheating in some manner. This is true, but
>notice that that in no way means that the contention is not true. Obviously,
>such direct evidence would be very difficult if not impossible to obtain and
>therefore the lack of such evidence means nothing either way.
It isn't that difficult, a number of people have collected 50,000 or
more hand histories which can be statistically analyzed. The fact
that no one who's done this has come up with any statistical evidence
is meaningful.
>This reminds me of a time about 10 years ago at the Commerce Casino in Southern
>California. All casinos in the area including Commerce had a progressive
>jackpot. The jackpot amount would accumulate twice daily, and the increases
>were directly related to the number of jackpot tables in play. The jackpot at
>Commerce Casino seemed to increase much more slowly compared to the jackpot at
>other casinos, some of which had many fewer tables in play. There was much
>discussion about this, which settled into two camps. The first group was
>fervently convinced the casino was skimming from the fund. The second group felt
>that skimming was very unlikely since the casino had too much at stake to risk
>such goings on. But in fact it was found that casino personnel were skimming the
>fund. Several indictments were made and at least one casino manager fled the
>country.
I don't know of anyone who has made the claim that no online poker
site cheats. What I do is point out that no one who has claimed
cheating has provided any verifiable evidence to support their claim.
>Online poker sites are not U.S. citizens, innocent until proven guilty. A
>reasonable question has been raised relating to basic integrity
Anyone can "raise the question" but unless they provide some evidence
their question lacks credibility. "I've seen an abnormal amount of
beats" (or flushes or action flops or whatever) is NOT evidence, it is
nothing more than that individual's perception. Show it in actual
hand histories and you'll have a "reasonable question."
>and I think the
>onus is on the poker sites to address it. In the meantime, any online player
>should be aware that a site could easily manipulate the games (as discussed
>previously) to increase their profit and that there are absolutely no controls
>to prevent such a thing from happening.
Many sites have addressed it, but it is impossible for any site to
prove that they are honest. They certainly will never convince some
of the crowd that posts the "it's rigged" posts here. You are also
incorrect when you say there are "absolutely no controls." The world
outside the U.S. is not some lawless anarchy.
One more time, I do not vouch for the honesty of any online poker
site. However, I have not only seen no one present any meaningful
evidence of cheating by a site, I have not personally seen anything in
my online play that looks out-of-line, and I make a profit online. So
I'm not going to just going to accept the "feelings" of those who
claim it's rigged.
dh
Oh yeah they are the gaming commission! And, you are the Retard Commission.
Shimmy Shammy
think a Jack high flush is a good hand four handed then I'd really like
to play you. Do you have a handle at any of the sites I could find you
at?
Joe Long
wrote:
>... In the other two I got all my chips in with
>the best hand and would have been put into the lead if both opponents
>hadn't sucked out. In the last tourney the chip leader limped in UTG
>and I checked my option with JTs in the BB after the other 2 plaerys
>folded. I flopped the flush -- no other flush cards came out and I
>lost a bad beat to KQs.
????? You "got all your chips in with the best hand?" Last time I
looked, KQs was a better hand than JTs preflop -- as it was on the
flop, turn, and river of that hand. And you call that a bad beat?
Hint: in poker, a non-nut flush sometimes loses to a higher flush,
even heads-up.
>I realise this is only anecdotal but I had
>similiar reasons to write the article in the first place. This kind of
>incredibly consistent bad "luck" seems statistically improbable (even
>more improbable than the unicorns you were talking about. Although I
>don't have enough data yet to present it as conclusive,
No kidding.
>one knows when
>they are losing consistently after getting their money in with the best
>hand.
You clearly have no idea how long the "long run" is, or how much
variance there is in poker. You don't even seem to know what the
"best hand" is.
Did you see the recent WPT broadcast where the player who won had an
incredible number of suckouts? Time and again he got all-in with the
worst hand, and sucked out to win. Not online, a live game.
>Perhaps it is just an incredibly long series of bad luck but I
>have given reasons why the poker sites would have incentive to do such
>things and how they could do it.
Without considering the disincentives to do such things and the
difficulties in doing them successfully.
>If you can't understand what a
>tight-aggressive player who gets their chips all-in with the best hand
>is... perhaps you are on the receiving end of some digitized good luck.
All you have demonstrated here is a lack of understanding of poker,
bad beats, probability, variance, statistics, and human perception.
But hey, you need something besides your play to blame your losing on.
Eric Lindholm
> If you don't
> think a Jack high flush is a good hand four handed then I'd really like
> to play you.
You need to slow down and try to figure out exactly what your complaint is.
It's not a "bad beat" to flop a good hand and lose to a better one. That's
poker.
You know, KK is an excellent starting hand, but sometimes it will lose to
AA. Even four-handed.
Join Titan Poker
tiny fraction:
Full Tilt
Paradise
Ultimate Bet
BoDog
Golden Palace
Poker Stars
Not to mention a couple hundred smaller sites. Their rules of conduct
are here:
http://www.kahnawake.com/gamingcommission/kgcregs.pdf
If you have something to say other than being random and stupid, say
it. You think they're toothless? Cite the facts. You think they're
ineffective? Show me the numbers. Until then, you're just part of the
problem.
dh
They are the gambling commission, not me. Show me what they have done. Show
me the data they have from monitoring the RNGs, seized account funds,
operations, etc.. They have no real authority and they aren't going to do
jack that would piss off their customers. The only thing their name means on
a site is that there is a good chance it won't just collect deposits and
vanish in a few weeks.
You stupid sheep.
Merlioni
> It isn't that difficult, a number of people have collected 50,000 or
> more hand histories which can be statistically analyzed. The fact
> that no one who's done this has come up with any statistical evidence
> is meaningful.
No, I'm sure that is not true. I don't claim to be a mathematician, although I
have a B.A. in Math from about 25 years ago. However, I'm quite sure that 50,000
hands would not provide anywhere near enough analytical history. I know that
blackjack gurus run billions of simulations to demonstrate the validity of their
counting systems, and those systems are nowhere near as complex as any form of
poker.
> I don't know of anyone who has made the claim that no online poker
> site cheats. What I do is point out that no one who has claimed
> cheating has provided any verifiable evidence to support their claim.
You missed the point of my earlier post. Online sites are not innocent until
proven guilty. They should have the responsibility to demonstrate their
trustworthiness up front. I understand that it may be impossible to provide such
evidence directly, however, any talk of "independent auditors" smacks of bs to
me. Pay enough money to some Arthur Anderson company to run an "independent"
audit and they will rubber stamp any result you like.
> Anyone can "raise the question" but unless they provide some evidence
> their question lacks credibility. "I've seen an abnormal amount of
> beats" (or flushes or action flops or whatever) is NOT evidence, it is
> nothing more than that individual's perception. Show it in actual
> hand histories and you'll have a "reasonable question."
No one has to demonstrate credibility to raise such a question. Do I have to
prove myself an honest man before I can question a politician?
> Many sites have addressed it, but it is impossible for any site to
> prove that they are honest. They certainly will never convince some
> of the crowd that posts the "it's rigged" posts here. You are also
> incorrect when you say there are "absolutely no controls." The world
> outside the U.S. is not some lawless anarchy.
You make a claim "incorrect when you say there are absolutely no controls" but
you don't back it up. What controls exist?
> One more time, I do not vouch for the honesty of any online poker
> site. However, I have not only seen no one present any meaningful
> evidence of cheating by a site, I have not personally seen anything in
> my online play that looks out-of-line, and I make a profit online. So
> I'm not going to just going to accept the "feelings" of those who
> claim it's rigged.
No one is asking you to accept anything. It's your money, do what you want with
it and good luck to you.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
da pickle
Shimmy Shammy versus Gary Carson
This is a bout that many would go for on pay-for-view!
garycarson
>develop the necessary skills. However, I don't think the fact that he
is
>too lazy to develop the skills is his primary block.
You're right. He's probably not to lazy. He probably just skipped his
medication yesterday.
Excuse me while I take my morning lithium.
Studley
Yea like this gambling commission couldn't
be bribed - LOL
Studley
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Peg Smith
>> How should they do that? They already say they have independent audits
>> done by third-parties, they already say it's not rigged, what else are
>> you wanting?
>...I would like to hear at least a denial from a poker site. I recently emailed two
>big sites (I won't mention the names) asking them to comment on my concerns as
>discussed. From one I received a form letter talking about how random is their
>shuffle and their independent auditor. From the other I received a personal
>response vehemently denying any such activities. I'm now playing on the second
>site.
That's all it takes to give you confidence in a site's integrity?
After all of your assertions, suppositions, speculations, worries,
etc., a denial is good enough?
LOL. You kids really do crack me up.
Peg
Good Lord
[ Peg Smith | PegSm...@aol.comnojunk ]
[ <lusu52p6nfbl32ohn...@4ax.com> ]
:LOL. You kids really do crack me up.
What cracks me up is the dismissive attitude from some crusty shrew who
considers herself a witty sophisticate based on having her ass parked in
front of a computer for several hours, tossing barbs at her betters.
Join Titan Poker
jack that would piss off their customers. The only thing their name
means on
a site is that there is a good chance it won't just collect deposits
and
vanish in a few weeks."
They do monthly audits and random, much more intensive audits. If your
site have never been subject to one of those random audits, you have no
idea what you're talking about.
They subject casino operators to fraud checks via the NFC and periodic
reviews. That applies to all applicants, including the casino's key
staff. If you've never been the subject of one of those reviews, I
suggest you try to start a casino online. It's SO much FUN to have
every aspect of your life delved into!
Random number generators are tested and certified by Gaming Associates,
TST, or one of the other RNG review companies on behalf of the
Kahnawake Gaming Commission as a part of the licensing process.
And guess what? The commission gets 15K each time you apply. Not each
time you PASS, each time you APPLY. Non-refundable. And if their
testing and auditing costs exceed 15K, it gets charged back to you.
"You stupid sheep."
Yeah, OK kid. Tell you what. If it's so easy and they have no real
authority, go ahead and start up a gambling site. Then try to get it
past the commission. Should be easy right? Go for it. Tell us all how
far you got. Please include how many times you blew the 15K for your
review process.
Merlioni
> They do monthly audits and random, much more intensive audits.
Arthur Anderson did the same at Enron. I'm not joking. They did perform these
audits, with signed documentation of each audit. It's just that the audit
results were rubber stamped in advance.
> They subject casino operators to fraud checks via the NFC and periodic
> reviews. That applies to all applicants, including the casino's key
> staff. If you've never been the subject of one of those reviews, I
> suggest you try to start a casino online. It's SO much FUN to have
> every aspect of your life delved into!
It sounds like you are talking about review of an applicant's criminal history
rather than review of the site's gaming procedures.
> Random number generators are tested and certified by Gaming Associates,
> TST, or one of the other RNG review companies on behalf of the
> Kahnawake Gaming Commission as a part of the licensing process.
Random number generators? Ok, random numbers need to be generated, and there was
one famous incident (Planet Poker) where the random numbers actually weren't
random. However, as I understand it this was more in the way of a stupid
oversight rather than something that needs close supervision and continual
monitoring. After all, any commercially distributed software application
(Access, SQL, Oracle, etc.) includes a built-in random number generator.
> And guess what? The commission gets 15K each time you apply. Not each
> time you PASS, each time you APPLY. Non-refundable. And if their
> testing and auditing costs exceed 15K, it gets charged back to you.
This does not impress me. There's a fee for everything, and although 15K is a
lot to me personally, I think it's not much when weighed against the enormous
profits from online poker sites.
> If it's so easy and they have no real
> authority, go ahead and start up a gambling site. Then try to get it
> past the commission. Should be easy right? Go for it. Tell us all how
> far you got. Please include how many times you blew the 15K for your
> review process.
Well, again it sounds like you pay your 15K and get an online poker site. Maybe
there's more to it than that, however, how difficult it is (or isn't) to start
up a such a site is not really the concern of this thread.
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
Join Titan Poker
Here's this fact you said. Here's my opinion, or here's a fact that has
nothing to do with the poker world (Enron, there's a fee for
everything, etc).
I'm telling you that the reviews on the people and the process,
witnessed and participated in first hand, are killer. You're telling me
that "it sounds like you pay your 15K and get an online poker site".
What. The. Fuck.
You know, it's fine if poker players are a paranoid bunch. That's cool.
Don't mind that at all. But can we please not use Enron as some sort of
conspiracy theory evidence that Kahnawake rubber stamps applications
for 15K?
Jesus Christ.
Joe Long
wrote:
>I think you are confusing a suckout with a bad beat. If you don't
A jack-high flush is a good hand even ten-handed, but a jack-high
flush will sometimes lose to a higher flush even heads-up (it will
also sometimes lose to a full house, quads, or straight flush). Where
do you guys get the idea that your big hands are supposed to win every
time, and if they don't someone's cheating?
--
Joe Long
>> It isn't that difficult, a number of people have collected 50,000 or
>> more hand histories which can be statistically analyzed. The fact
>> that no one who's done this has come up with any statistical evidence
>> is meaningful.
>No, I'm sure that is not true. I don't claim to be a mathematician, although I
>have a B.A. in Math from about 25 years ago. However, I'm quite sure that 50,000
>hands would not provide anywhere near enough analytical history. I know that
>blackjack gurus run billions of simulations to demonstrate the validity of their
>counting systems, and those systems are nowhere near as complex as any form of
>poker.
50,000 hands isn't enough to prove anything to a decent standard, but
can show some evidence of anomalies if they are present -- also note
the "or more." The point is that no one who's claimed an online site
rigs their deal has provided ANY verifiable evidence to support their
claim.
>> I don't know of anyone who has made the claim that no online poker
>> site cheats. What I do is point out that no one who has claimed
>> cheating has provided any verifiable evidence to support their claim.
>You missed the point of my earlier post. Online sites are not innocent until
>proven guilty. They should have the responsibility to demonstrate their
>trustworthiness up front.
I didn't miss the point, I disagree with it. They do not have any
responsibility to do what it is impossible for them to do. The burden
isn't on online sites to prove (or demonstrate) that they are honest,
it is on those who accuse them of being dishonest to provide some
verifiable evidence.
>I understand that it may be impossible to provide such
>evidence directly, however, any talk of "independent auditors" smacks of bs to
>me. Pay enough money to some Arthur Anderson company to run an "independent"
>audit and they will rubber stamp any result you like.
>
> > Anyone can "raise the question" but unless they provide some evidence
>> their question lacks credibility. "I've seen an abnormal amount of
>> beats" (or flushes or action flops or whatever) is NOT evidence, it is
>> nothing more than that individual's perception. Show it in actual
>> hand histories and you'll have a "reasonable question."
>
>No one has to demonstrate credibility to raise such a question. Do I have to
>prove myself an honest man before I can question a politician?
I've often said and will say again here that nearly all politicians
are dishonest. That is my opinion, nothing more. If I want to post a
claim in public that "Senator Foghorn" is corrupt, the burden is on me
to provide some evidence for that assertion.
I know that it is the opinion of some of these posters that all online
poker is rigged; they have every right to state their opinion, but
without evidence it is worthless. And we have every right to call
them on it.
>> Many sites have addressed it, but it is impossible for any site to
>> prove that they are honest. They certainly will never convince some
>> of the crowd that posts the "it's rigged" posts here. You are also
>> incorrect when you say there are "absolutely no controls." The world
>> outside the U.S. is not some lawless anarchy.
>
>You make a claim "incorrect when you say there are absolutely no controls" but
>you don't back it up. What controls exist?
That depends on the site, some are licensed by gaming commissions, ALL
of them operate under the laws of their host country.
>> One more time, I do not vouch for the honesty of any online poker
>> site. However, I have not only seen no one present any meaningful
>> evidence of cheating by a site, I have not personally seen anything in
>> my online play that looks out-of-line, and I make a profit online. So
>> I'm not going to just going to accept the "feelings" of those who
>> claim it's rigged.
>
>No one is asking you to accept anything. It's your money, do what you want with
>it and good luck to you.
People post their "it's rigged" posts here in the hope of getting
"stroked" by people agreeing with them, and in the hope of pursuading
others to avoid online poker (or some site). And of course, some of
them are just trolls.
Roger Nullset
>that convinced me some sort of programming is going on rather than a true
>RNG was in a play money game so it's not like I lost anything and am whining
>about a bad beat.
If you conclude that on-line poker is rigged based on one hand,
I think that your sample space is way too small.
Golf is rigged 'cuz I once saw someone with a 30 handicap hit a hole in
one.
Anoni mouse
wrote:
Try reading what I wrote. I said it convinced me that some sort of
programming was going on. You snipped the hand where I said all hole cards,
the cards on the table and the same winning straight just moved clockwise
around the table. How else could the exact same hand come up twice in a row
as if the cards were never shuffled? That sure aint random.
Roger Nullset
>programming was going on. You snipped the hand where I said all hole cards,
>the cards on the table and the same winning straight just moved clockwise
>around the table. How else could the exact same hand come up twice in a row
>as if the cards were never shuffled? That sure aint random.
And I say that happening once, that could be random. If you shuffle
things, there
is a probability (very low, but still probable) that the same hands can
come up twice
in a row.
Anoni mouse
wrote:
>>Try reading what I wrote. I said it convinced me that some sort of
LOL yeah, ok. It could be.
dh
Even though you didn't answer my question -you never quote either- I'm just
going to say you are 100 percent right. It is impossible to for a poker site
to manipulate software to increase profits because a gaming commission does
physical audits and background checks. I thought all the poker sites were
running software? Apparently I'm wrong, it's all done with a bunch of
Eskimos using telepathy.
dh
You just validated using Enron, the employees at Enron weren't paranoid.
That aside, I guess you have to justify paying that 15k.
AcesFull
Studley
As usual the spammers don't want to answer
a legit question. It's real simple, stop clicking
on their spam websites then they'll go away and we
can discuss some real poker played in private
games and how we can improve our games to
make money. I'm looking to make money for me,
not to make a spammer rich from his affiliate
program or make some turban wearer in India
rich winning all my money with their unbeatable
rake.
Studley
Dean
> Try reading what I wrote. I said it convinced me that some sort of
> programming was going on. You snipped the hand where I said all hole
cards,
> the cards on the table and the same winning straight just moved clockwise
> around the table. How else could the exact same hand come up twice in a
row
> as if the cards were never shuffled? That sure aint random.
I didn't see your original post, but it sounds very suspect.
I've played on 7 or 8 different sites, and I play quite a bit of live
poker also. In my "opinion" 2 of the online sites have the decks rigged,
in 2 quite different ways.
All the rest of the sites I have played on seem totally on the level,
ie. any weird stuff is as weird as live play.
Which site did u experience this on Anoni?
Dean
> | "They have no real authority and they aren't going to do
> | jack that would piss off their customers. The only thing their name
> | means on
> | a site is that there is a good chance it won't just collect deposits
> | and
> | vanish in a few weeks."
> |
> |
> | They do monthly audits and random, much more intensive audits. If your
> | site have never been subject to one of those random audits, you have no
> | idea what you're talking about.
All this auditing is to limit the possibility of any insider info being
used to help someone.
ie employee talks to brother on phone, "hey you are about to get a flush on
the river,
and he has trips, put him allin."
- I honestly dont think this is a great threat.
What this auditing doesnt do is an in-depth analysis of the cards.
Im saying it would be very easy to make for example something that helps
newbies
survive in the game thus make more players stay at the site, thus make more
profit for the
house. To try to prove this is happening, you would have to look at the data
from an
exacting way to find the anomalies. In other words checking how many AA are
dealt and
how many straight-flushes are made, will look totally normal.
I mean seriously, do you think a group of programmers are morons?
I have done programming in 5 different languages, and just off the top of my
head I can
think of DOZENS of different ways that I can help the house make more
profit, but
be "virtually" undetectable, unless you knew what you were looking for.
Considering what I just wrote above, I cant see how some of you
"I swear none of them are rigged" people can make such a bold,
and unreasonable statement.
In case u didnt see my earlier post, my standing is I think the majority
are NOT rigged,
but 2 sites out of 8 I have played at seem to be "rigged" to my opinion.
dh
news:1260cpj...@corp.supernews.com...
Hard to believe you can program in 5 languages, but can't attribute or quote
a post correctly.
Anoni mouse
UB
Dean
havent played on that site myself.
"Anoni mouse" <M...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:itd062prhf3u3mmv3...@4ax.com...
Dean
> Hard to believe you can program in 5 languages, but can't attribute or
quote
> a post correctly.
>
Is that all you can say to try to question my posts validity?
So because I choose to quote part of someones post to keep it brief
I mustnt know what Im talking about.
Get a life, read the content even if the formatting isnt perfect,
then make a comment that is relevant to the actual topic loser.
Paweł Wójciak
> I mean seriously, do you think a group of programmers are morons?
> I have done programming in 5 different languages, and just off the
top of my
> head I can
> think of DOZENS of different ways that I can help the house make more
> profit, but
> be "virtually" undetectable, unless you knew what you were looking for.
>
Ok, so I will join this silly discussion too :)
Here is a fairly simple way to check randomness of dealt cards.
First, you get a protocol used by a site to communicate with clients
(players).
Second, you generate the probabilities of cards being dealt.
Third, you install your program on server-side to monitor outgoing traffic.
Finaly, you gather your results into an associative array and after some
time you get large enough sample to compare with the theoretical
probabilities. The longer you sniff, the more accurate the results. period.
Dean, you say you're a programmer. How can you not see the computing
overhead that "helping fishes" would have. Where would you store the
data to create player profiles? There are thousands on players on-line
and you want to analyze all the tables? Even if the operation of
"checking and helping if necessary" would take 10ms. You must be joking.
Pablo
Befunge Sudoku
M...@privacy.net says...
> Try reading what I wrote. I said it convinced me that some sort of
> programming was going on. You snipped the hand where I said all hole cards,
> the cards on the table and the same winning straight just moved clockwise
> around the table. How else could the exact same hand come up twice in a row
> as if the cards were never shuffled? That sure aint random.
>
52! deals. It's a big number, but there's a lot of poker out
there, and it's an average, not an absolute.
You'll be telling me next that any die that comes up 6 twice in
a row is rigged.
--
If you don't want the whelks don't muck 'em about
If you don't want them someone else may
Dean
> Here is a fairly simple way to check randomness of dealt cards.
> First, you get a protocol used by a site to communicate with clients
> (players).
> Second, you generate the probabilities of cards being dealt.
> Third, you install your program on server-side to monitor outgoing
traffic.
> Finaly, you gather your results into an associative array and after some
> time you get large enough sample to compare with the theoretical
> probabilities. The longer you sniff, the more accurate the results.
period.
OK, so you know that the gaming comission does this exactly?
> Dean, you say you're a programmer. How can you not see the computing
> overhead that "helping fishes" would have. Where would you store the
> data to create player profiles? There are thousands on players on-line
> and you want to analyze all the tables? Even if the operation of
> "checking and helping if necessary" would take 10ms. You must be joking.
>
> Pablo
The type of rigged Im theorising on doesnt store profiles, and does give
everyone the same probability of having a "good run", that is why it would
be "virtually"undetectable because its unbiased.
But how would this help a newbie which in turn helps the house you might
ask?
The one example I can think of is where you give a player an unnatural
run
of big final hands on rags or less than premium pocket cards.
ie. u get dealt: [7J]s opponent has [KK], flop is [257] turn and river
is[7Q]
You win with a set of 7s, If you and the opponent were both pros, you
probably wouldnt have seen the flop with your [7J]s, but a newbie might,
and if these setup hands were distributed relatively close together, A
newbie
would be "more likely" than a pro to think all his cards have turned to gold
and play almost anything, and therefore would have been given a slight
advantage while a pro would know that a good hand doesnt mean the next
hand will be anything other than random.
In the long run a newbie may be kept on the site for longer, while
a pro will forfeit some of his profit to a newbie.
You sound smart enough to be able to see that this is possible.
And the thing is it wont seem abnormal in a hand analysis because
everyone got their fair share of hands right?
You could only find this type of rigging if you are looking for
the DISTRIBUTION of winning hands being clumped together to a
given player over a short period, and even then you would need so
much more data than you would think before you could actually prove
something like this.
Paweł Wójciak
>
> OK, so you know that the gaming comission does this exactly?
>
>
No I don't. Do you? ;)
>
>>Dean, you say you're a programmer. How can you not see the computing
>>overhead that "helping fishes" would have. Where would you store the
>>data to create player profiles? There are thousands on players on-line
>>and you want to analyze all the tables? Even if the operation of
>>"checking and helping if necessary" would take 10ms. You must be joking.
>>
>>Pablo
>
>
> The type of rigged Im theorising on doesnt store profiles, and does give
> everyone the same probability of having a "good run", that is why it would
> be "virtually"undetectable because its unbiased.
It is biased towards worse starting hands.
That's one of the things that *would* be detected by the mechanism I
talked about. You can think of a simple test that counts "how many times
KK got cracked by 7J" or "what percent of the time a rag gets
paired/tripled". Or even make it more general (max stretch connectors,
ace-rag or whatever). The point I'm trying to make is you can check for
randomness of dealt cards on large enough sample and known theoretical
pobabilities.
It's that simple: if the random number generator isn't random enough it
should be fixed/replaced (wheter it was a bug or purposeful act).
And please don't forget about the point that someone stated before: many
players (at least those taking their game seriously) use tools like
protracker or poker office - If they saw something unusual they'd say
something.
All the best,
Pablo
Roger Nullset
52 factorial. Assuming a 10 person table, at most
25 cards will matter at holdem (10 people with
2 cards each and 5 cards on the flop).
In the example given, the poster stated that the
same hole cards showed up shifted clockwise
around the table. I am assuming that he did
not ask someone who folded what they held, and
then asked the person sitting to the right what
they held in the previous hand. If the only hands
that were exposed were the winning straight and
the loser, then there were only 9 cards that
matter.
Since order of the cards dealt to each person does
not matter (I assume getting the 8s first and the
9s second is the same hand as getting the 9s
first and the 9s second), there are even more
deals that would qualify as the "same". Also,
if you consider a flop of Ac7d2h to be the same
as 7dAc2h, then there are even more possible
ways to get this same situation.
It's also unclear if 8c9s is consider the same hand
as 8s9c.
Roger Nullset
It could also be possible that the site is trying
to cheat you out of play money too.
Merlioni
> Dean, you say you're a programmer. How can you not see the computing
> overhead that "helping fishes" would have. Where would you store the
> data to create player profiles? There are thousands on players on-line
> and you want to analyze all the tables? Even if the operation of
> "checking and helping if necessary" would take 10ms. You must be joking.
I also have programming background, and I don't see any overhead at all involved
in "helping the fishes". Dean's method seems too complicated. I've said this
before, but I'll mention it again. Before a hand is dealt, the site knows in
advance what starting cards each seat will get. If seat 3 is a new player, all
the site has to do is throw away a couple of deals per hour in which seat 3 does
*not* get good starting cards. This leaves the new player with a slightly higher
percentage of good starting cards per hour versus the other players - a
significant advantage.
There's really not much processing involved this way, and of course the dealing
need not be performed in sequence. What I mean is, the site could simply perform
(in advance) 10 seat deals, 9 seat deals, etc., analyze the quality of starting
cards, and associate a quality number with each seat for each deal. In a
distributed system, all of this could be done offline and stored for later
retrieval, so that when the actual cards are dealt to the players, the deal is
pulled from storage, and there is absolutely no lag involved.
If I'm making the above sound complicated - it definitely is not. Moreover, if
not overdone, this kind of help would be extremely difficult to detect. I
suspect that analyzing trillions of hands might not be sufficient to reveal a
pattern.
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
Joe Long
>Joe Long <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>Joe Long (aka ChipRider)
>>Somewhere on the Range
>As usual the spammers don't want to answer
>a legit question. It's real simple, stop clicking
>on their spam websites then they'll go away and we
>can discuss some real poker played in private
>games and how we can improve our games to
>make money. I'm looking to make money for me,
>not to make a spammer rich from his affiliate
>program or make some turban wearer in India
>rich winning all my money with their unbeatable
>rake.
>
>Studley
Well, Mr. "Studley," I challenge you to find ONE post that I have ever
made on r.g.p where I have ever spammed anything, or shilled for any
site. What a pathetic attempt (although typical of the "its rigged"
crowd) to attack the messenger when you can't refute the message.
And, anyone who wants to make money at poker (and is any good) who
doesn't take advantage of online poker is being rather shortsighted at
best. Like I sometimes tell folks in Black Hawk, "I play poker in
Colorado for fun. I play poker online for profit." (The reason
being, the low five-dollar legal betting limit in Colorado combined
with the high rake and jackpot drops makes it impossible to make
enough money to justify the time spent, if you aren't having fun at
the same time.)
--
Perry Friedman
OK, the "it's rigged" threads come up all the time, but I will tell
you, I know for a fact at least one site is NOT rigged. I can also
tell you that it just doesn't make any sense for sites to be rigged.
I helped develop the server software that is used on Full Tilt Poker
and I know for a fact that it is not rigged. I have posted before
about how the shuffling algorithm works, and I can also assure you
that it would be quite difficult (although not impossible) to rig the
shuffle on the fly to help out "bad players". Determining who is
"bad" is not trivial, especially on the fly. Then you would have to
apply some heuristic to determine who should win, which card would
give them the win, and how often you should allow them to suckout.
Programmers would be much better off making sure that sites stay up
and stable, or adding new features, etc. than spending time figuring
out how best to "rig" the shuffle and implementing something to do so.
It's just not a cost-effecting use of their time.
But the biggest thing is, there is so little edge in doing so compared
to the cost and risk. I've given this analogy before:
Suppose you had a machine could print perfectly legal $100 bills at a
very deeply discounted cost. Now someone comes to you and tells you
for $1 more, you can tweak the machine to print $103 bills.
It's just crazy. The sites are making tons of money legitimately.
There is no need to squeak out a few extra bucks at the risk of losing
the entire business. Trust me, I work for a software company that
develops poker software, and I know how many people are involved with
the code. They'd have to pay us all so much money to keep quite that
it would be absurd compared to the extra marginal value they can get
out of the kind of rigging people are suggesting. And that assumes
that even if they pay people off, that they can keep their mouth shut.
Again, like most conspiracy theories, the number of people who would
have to keep quiet and never slip up just doesn't make any sense.
Even without any ulterior motives, people let secrets out all of the
time, and this is a heck of a secret to have to keep quiet.
It is just so much more valuable to any of the major sites to be clean
than to rig the shuffle in any way.
Perry
Dean
>The problem isn't that winners never win and losers never lose -- the
>problem is that losers are given an advantage so they'll stick around a
>little longer and pay the rake (while also having more fun and thus
>being more likely to rebuy) and good players are being scammed out of
>some of their winnings. And even a little rigging scam should be a big
>deal to serious players.
Yeah Shimmy, the problem is they arnt even reading your post fully before
replying with their predetermined and unobjective answers.
What else is there to say to people that arent even considering what is being
said at the other end, all you people that think "I cant believe any of them
are rigged" go play on Noble poker for a while, and come back.
Studley
Well, Mr. "Studley," I challenge you to find ONE post that I have ever
made on r.g.p where I have ever spammed anything, or shilled for any
site. What a pathetic attempt (although typical of the "its rigged"
crowd) to attack the messenger when you can't refute the message.
And, anyone who wants to make money at poker (and is any good) who
doesn't take advantage of online poker is being rather shortsighted at
best. Like I sometimes tell folks in Black Hawk, "I play poker in
Colorado for fun. I play poker online for profit." (The reason
being, the low five-dollar legal betting limit in Colorado combined
with the high rake and jackpot drops makes it impossible to make
enough money to justify the time spent, if you aren't having fun at
the same time.)
--
Joe Long (aka ChipRider)
I was speaking of spammers in general not you
in particular. I have no idea who you are so why
would I even comment about you. You were
probably just the last post when I commented
and you thought I was commenting about you.
Note also that i did not start this thread. I agree
that not all online poker is rigged but it would be
quite dumb to think that none of it is rigged. If some
of it is rigged, then it is rigged, just a question of
how much.
Merlioni
> OK, the "it's rigged" threads come up all the time, but I will tell
> you, I know for a fact at least one site is NOT rigged. I can also
> tell you that it just doesn't make any sense for sites to be rigged.
First of all, your vouching is meaningless, since I don't know you. Second, it
makes perfect business sense for an online poker site to be helping new players,
as discussed previously by myself and several others. I don't see how you can
disagree.
I'm not personally saying that all sites are "rigged" as you put it. I point out
that any site is highly motivated to make sure that new players have a good
initial experience at that site and it would be very easy to provide software
help to make this outcome more likely.
> I helped develop the server software that is used on Full Tilt Poker
> and I know for a fact that it is not rigged. I have posted before
> about how the shuffling algorithm works, and I can also assure you
> that it would be quite difficult (although not impossible) to rig the
> shuffle on the fly to help out "bad players". Determining who is
> "bad" is not trivial, especially on the fly. Then you would have to
> apply some heuristic to determine who should win, which card would
> give them the win, and how often you should allow them to suckout.
> Programmers would be much better off making sure that sites stay up
> and stable, or adding new features, etc. than spending time figuring
> out how best to "rig" the shuffle and implementing something to do so.
> It's just not a cost-effecting use of their time.
Again, I don't understand how you can say these things. I have never suggested
any site is trying to "rig the shuffle on the fly to help out bad players". I
have some programming background, and obviously this would be very difficult to
implement. Read my earlier posts, where I described a very simple system to help
out new players that had nothing at all to do with shuffling algorithms,
directing cards, or determining who is or isn't a bad player.
> It's just crazy. The sites are making tons of money legitimately.
> There is no need to squeak out a few extra bucks at the risk of losing
> the entire business.
Not a few extra bucks. There is tremendous competition between the sites to
bring in new players. The problem is how to make sure they keep coming back,
because there's really not that much difference between play on one site versus
play on another. If one site can bring in more new players and keep them
relatively happier than another site, it may result in an eventual difference of
100,000+ players each night for that site versus <10,000 at another site. Huge
profit difference. Also, the smaller site risks eventually folding.
>Trust me, I work for a software company that
> develops poker software, and I know how many people are involved with
> the code. They'd have to pay us all so much money to keep quite that
> it would be absurd compared to the extra marginal value they can get
> out of the kind of rigging people are suggesting.
I know about modularized development. A programmer working on one module will
often (usually) have no idea what the programmers working on another module are
doing.
Your claim that you worked on the software used at FT is unverifiable, so why
bring it up at all? I believe it is to support an argument that can't be
supported otherwise.
Harkness
Friedman real world and known him a lot longer than we've known
"Merlioni", if that is your name.
He did indeed work on the Full Tilt software -- it's what he does.
Check Tales from the Tiltboys for some other Perry stories.
John Harkness
Jon Boone
> I helped develop the server software that is used on Full Tilt Poker
> and I know for a fact that it is not rigged.
I think Full Tilt is an awesome site. I've never seen any
indication that it's "rigged" in any fashion, despite the fact that
people often grouse about losing to dominated hands, typically
claiming that it always happens. I think they're crazy, however,
because they keep going all-in with hands like AA or KK. Clearly,
if it is *always* the case that those hands lose to some maniac who
calls the all-in bet with 72o, they're insane to keep making those
all-in plays.
--jon
da pickle
> Your claim that you worked on the software used at FT is unverifiable, so
> why
> bring it up at all? I believe it is to support an argument that can't be
> supported otherwise.
Just because "you" can't verify that Perry worked on the software at FT does
not mean that anyone with a brain cannot verify it.
Peg Smith
>Your claim that you worked on the software used at FT is unverifiable, so why
>bring it up at all? I believe it is to support an argument that can't be
>supported otherwise.
You sound like Shiver. You're brand new to the group, know nothing
about the people here or their histories, and spout off something
stupid like that above.
Peg
Merlioni
know about anyone's personal history? Do you think this is a chat room? And
"spout off"? "Stupid"? I thought I presented well thought out arguments in a
courteous manner. You, on the other hand, have brought nothing new to this
discussion other than insults. Let's not have any further interaction.
And as for the others who vouch for Perry, well, who vouches for you? IMO
Perry's arguments don't hold water and therefore do not lend credibility to the
personal claims that he's made. Moreover, I don't like hearing arguments that
basically come down to "I have inside knowledge" and neither should anyone
else.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
da pickle
> What does my being new to the group have to do with this issue? Why do I
> need to
> know about anyone's personal history? Do you think this is a chat room?
> And
> "spout off"? "Stupid"? I thought I presented well thought out arguments in
> a
> courteous manner. You, on the other hand, have brought nothing new to this
> discussion other than insults. Let's not have any further interaction.
You are new to this group, but this group is not new. This subject is not a
new subject. What you have said is not new. The "thoughts" that you have
presented are not new. You have not been particularly courteous. If you do
not understand this, there is a reason and it is not that everyone else is
wrong.
> And as for the others who vouch for Perry, well, who vouches for you? IMO
> Perry's arguments don't hold water and therefore do not lend credibility
> to the
> personal claims that he's made. Moreover, I don't like hearing arguments
> that
> basically come down to "I have inside knowledge" and neither should anyone
> else.
No one needs to vouch for Perry or Peg. You might ask what your
qualifications are to be so presumptive. You have made old accusations
without evidence to back them up. You certainly have a right to your
opinion, but your presentation has not been novel nor has it been
convincing.
This is much like you walking into a convention of star trek fans and
spouting off about a particular episode that you have not seen, but that you
heard something about and have some ill founded conclusions about. As the
trekkies try and explain why your ideas are not particularly interesting,
you become more and more insistent that you are right and all others are
wrong.
It is no wonder that they haul you our and throw you in a trash can. (I
pick this silly example because it might be close to your normal
experience.)