No, I'm definitely not.

And that's where some data analysis would come in handy.

No, I'm not.

Yes, there could.

No, and I don't think any such proof is even possible. Basically, you'd need to prove a negative, which is often impractical if not impossible.

Let's say there was a site that was 100% clean, and I knew it to be true with absolute certainty. I could take a sample of millions of hands from the site and show you that the card distribution was perfect. Then you could suggest that there is a rig that chooses players who lose money on a regular basis and makes sure they make their draws 10% more often. I could analyze the data, and show that not to be true. And then you could suggest that the site takes winning players and makes sure they win more than their share of small pots, and less than their share of big pots. Now I analyze that data and prove that untrue. And on and on it goes. How on earth would I ever analyze that data ahead of time and disprove every possible rigging theory you could come up with? I doubt it's even possible.

Great - so we basically agree on what would be my main point.

Actually, I think it would be very difficult to do this in a way that was significant enough to make it worthwhile for the poker site, yet make it undetectable.

See my answer above about proving a negative.

You're right, which is why I don't. It's also why I haven't voted in the poll.

Well, you originally said it should win 75% of the time, so I don't think you did. That's fine; I didn't know either as I'm not a walking odds calculator, so I looked it up. But I think you instinctively believed you were a big favourite to win the hand, which is why you mentioned it, when you certainly weren't. Like I said, not a big deal not knowing every hand's odds. But the point is that it's important information to understand before making assumptions from faulty information. I have no doubt many who believe sites are rigged have those theories boosted by incorrect assumptions about how unlikely an event that occurred was.

I'm not.

Here's what I'm against - people posting that a site is definitely rigged, when they have no evidence that it is. You don't see me posting that any site is definitely not rigged, so I think I'm on pretty solid ground taking issue with people who state the opposite when they have no proof. A lot of people who have concerns about poker sites being rigged see people arguing against others with similar suggestions and jump to the conclusion that such an argument means they are saying the site definitely isn't rigged, when that usually isn't the case.

Poster A: "Site X is rigged"
Poster B: "Do you have any evidence of that?"
Poster A: "Because of A"
Poster B: "A isn't proof of anything, because of B"
Poster A: "Why do you think it's not possible that site X could be rigged?"
Poster B: "Wait, what?"

The best way to play poker in 2017 is to re raise with 104 of,73 of and cards like that.Magic happens almost everytime you do that.Forget about aces,kings..it wont hold
I cant agree more with @whosnext

At the end of the year you can make your database of hands available to show how much money you made re-raising 10 4 and 7 3, while also showing how much money you saved folding KK and AA pre-flop. Be sure to do those plays every time to make as much as possible as long as your rig belief is true, and then enjoy your new wealth. The best part is your opponents will never be folding KK or AA pre-flop so you will make a killing with those 10 3 hands vs them!

All the best.

no and i don't know why you d think i do.

obviously final outcome is less likely to change with 1 card to come. since you are looking at it this way after i hit the 8 on the flop the outcome of the hand result changing at that point was less than 1% since he needed runners.

hmm no . hand x that is supposed to win 90% % of the time vs hand y should be winning 90% of the time on the long run vs that hand.
in A8 vs A4, A4s straight possibilities make up for its 25% win rate and A8 is 55% to win. you seem to be saying A4 can make a straight easier so it will win more than its actual known %win rate which is totally absurd.

Except you will not consistently win at the rate that a hand is ahead if there is action to follow, that would only apply at showdown or at the time of all ins.

And no, what I am saying because A/4 has a more likely chance of a straight over A/8 and that lowers the advantage of the A/8 in that scenario.

it can be assertively proven by somebody who can look at the internals of the sites software. Data analysis on large sample hands can negate a lot of theories and in that case doubters will gradually accept its not rigged.

I don't think there can be a million rig theories + if u negate a few then it would become harder to come up with new ones that are totally unrelated and doubters would accept its not rigged.
since u mention it the big pot theory is something i had noticed when i signed up on ignition . several times i d shove a big amount compared to the pot on the flop and get called by a hand i have dominated and end up losing. so it seemed to me the larger EV advantage i had the more likely it is the outcome could be swayed towards my fishy opponent.
this all can be done while keeping overall distributions accurate by balancing out in different situations. so yes one would have to do data analysis specific to certain situations and see if there are correlations (or trends) between such a situation and irregular distributions.


I don't think there can be doubts about how worthwhile it would be to poker sites. The more players around on the site -> the more money they make. its simple. Its impossible not to notice that spreading money around the players profits them directly.
Yes it would be pretty sophisticated and adaptive software to make it happen but there s even more advanced software and code out there in various industries.


I never mentioned any numbers in my initial post except he had 1% chance to win after the flop which is accurate . I said a dominating Ace 's chances of winning are around 75%. That is true in general but not when kickers are small and close in rank. of course there s more chopportunities in such situations.

and yes i was the favorite to win the hand. As good a favorite one can hope to be in holdem in such situations on the avg. he was definitely an underdog to win outright which is indicated by his 25% win rate. so yes it is a suckout and again my rant was more related to how it happened (runner runner) cause it s always sick to lose that way. its also related to the bad run i have had in similar situations in mtts.


yeah i don't think anybody has shown proof out here and I don't know the kind of data and numbers commercial poker software will show you but maybe it can be helpful in noticing trends that occur in certain situations and help assert some theories.

Data analysis has no impact on riggies.



You want me to post my relatively short list of different rig theories? Several dozen with minimal effort, but I did try to not have much duplication, and riggies often times duplicate each other partially. Just ask and I will do it and it will help you better understand your riggie culture.

Negating theories has no impact on riggie beliefs. They just say things like the rig is hidden in the variance.



Most riggie theories would not make the sites any money, and many would cost the sites money, even before paying all the programmers and others involved with the rig. As well, riggies ignore the inherent business risk of a rig being properly caught via proof (ie: not by what riggies see what their eyes).

They can do this a lot more effectively with new game types that as a bonus appeal to players.

And one of the hundreds of programmers of this would have come out with that information by now, especially since hundreds of rooms no longer are in business at this point.




If it was all-in pre flop then this 1% is a meaningless statistic.


Welcome to poker.



Nearly every riggie theory, aside from the esoteric ones that border on mind control, could be proven within minutes if true with basic database analysis. To date not a single riggie has proven a single rig at a single site, and even more importantly - no stats guy who properly analyzes databases has found a rig as well. For now I put more weight on that then you losing a dominating ace hand in a tournament, but you are welcome to believe whatever you need to believe.


All the best.

yes if there is no showdown its a totally different story of course. hand X's percentage to win at any point during the hand is what it is and from that point in the hand onwards handX should win at that rate in the long run. I am not sure what you are saying. if a hand is 75% on a flop it should win 75% of the time by showdown. If there s less cards to come it doesnt mean a hand will win less than its projected win rate at any point.

yeah and that is already reflected in the known % win rates of the two hands which have already been mentioned. 55% vs 25% tie 20%.

Perhaps, but you were asking me to prove it, and I of course have no access to this.

But even that proof wouldn't be good enough for some. The software could be switched after testing, there's an additional algorithm that runs after the regular software and that's where it's rigged (we've had a few people assert that the RNGs are fine but then the results are tampered with when the cards are dealt), etc.

You'll never satisfy some people. All they look at is their results (by which I mean not the actual long term statistical results, but all those bad beats they remember), and will assume that no matter how much testing you show them, it's rigged.

But in the end, who's going to do this? Certainly not any individual posters (aside from spadebidder who did some good work a few years ago) - I'll question people's rigging claims when they are made with little to no evidence, but I'm not going to spend my time analyzing millions of hands to disprove their theories - especially when many of them would dismiss the results anyway. And I assume that poker sites have determined it's not worth their time to try to do the same, for good reason IMO.

So what you're left with is your own beliefs. No one's going to prove to you it's legit, so you need to determine that for yourself. You can choose to take an analytic approach and test your theories, or you can decide because you observed too many bad beats for your liking that it must be rigged. If you're taking the latter route but continuing to play there, I guess you've decided that you make money even with your assumed rig, so there's no point focusing on silly things like whether the card that beats you comes on the flop or the river, unless you're just blowing off steam after a bad beat, I suppose.

There's a good example of a theory you should be able to test for.

I'm afraid you've missed my points here. I wasn't suggesting a rig in general couldn't be worthwhile, nor that the software sophistication required wouldn't be possible. Here's what I said:

"Actually, I think it would be very difficult to do this in a way that was significant enough to make it worthwhile for the poker site, yet make it undetectable."

So when I mention worthwhile, what I mean is that the rig would have to alter results enough to be worth doing. A site could easily make an extra $10 per day by altering a couple of hands, and would never be caught be hand history analysis - but what would be the point? My suggestion is that if a poker site were to put in place a rig that altered results significantly enough to be worth the time spent and the risk taken, it would be detectable by analyzing the hand histories.

please share a few. I have already mentioned a couple in the last few posts.

well exactly; it can be made as such that if u looked at the number of times a certain player has won with AA vs AJ for example is about the % u d expect him to even though he s lost money in that confrontation because in big +EV situations he loses and he wins the small pots. after i reinstalled ignition two of the first few times i got dealt Aces i lost vs AJ: twice raise/re raise pre flop ; twice J high flop and I go all in because not too deep but still > pot shove. Twice J on the turn!! I mean for the same scenario to happen twice in a row is pretty unrealistic.
anyway u mentioned some data analysis has already been done to try to confirm any theories. hopefully its tried to look at any correlation between big + EV situations for some players and skewed distributions and other similar situations.


well it doesn't seem to me online poker is very regulated. Its not even clear cut how legal these sites are. not sure they d be too worried about some small rigs.



agreed with this.


sigh; yes ; just a few minutes after it happens it doesnt really feel this way

can you point out data from any analysis that has been made? you seem to suggest some has been done so maybe you can point it out showing what kind of analysis has been made and what results were and what rigs they support/ refute.

http://www.spadebidder.com/

Here is a link to the list

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=82127

and you can pick from whichever theories best suit your lifestyle.



Riggies always say things like this (look at some of the riggie quotes after my list), but it only works that easily in riggie minds, usually ones who believe to be a victim of a personalized rig, because trying to manage these types of stats as you suggest for millions of players in constantly changing combinations is impossible. Most riggies seem to play in a virtual world where they are the main character.

See, you are the main character in the online poker world in this story, because trying to duplicate this rig (without being caught) to a ton of different players would be impractical. What if they want to rig it against two people and they are playing each other heads up?

It only works when you tell a story where you are the main character. MNuch smaller world then.


Aside from the spadebidder site mentioned, another one tested several sites with millions of hands with no problem, and of course there are a ton of players who deeply analyze their databases regularly and would spot anything unusual.

You are just tossing a riggie dart based on your memory of things, and riggies tend to vastly underestimate the power of proper data analysis.

Take a look at how soft playing was found years ago.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/19...67/?highlight=


They looked at and analyzed stats that riggies did not even know existed, and in the real world it should offer some perspective to the whole "but they can hide it in variance" silliness riggies say when they do not understand how something works.



That is simply a belief that helps fuel your paranoia. Certainly there are risks in this industry, and bad rooms/networks, but those places steal player money by simply stealing it. They do not spend a ton of time and a fortune creating convoluted rigs that would yield them no extra money, even if you lost with a dominating hand a couple times in a row.




Your beliefs are based on feelings, not data.


In the end it is up to you how much you are going to be paranoid about rigs. Being a riggie is inherently -EV, so be sure to factor that in when deciding where to play and how much to invest.

All the best.

Of course that it wont held up all the time,but when you play like an idiot,you have more chance to win.For example,when i play very tight i lose with big cards(AA,KK,QQ,straight,flush etc).I tried that thing to re raise with the most idiotic cards and managed to board those cards.I can put here some examples but i know that if i will put hands here,it will be deleted

So I presume you now fold KK/AA preflop and have constructed a range that includes mostly offsuit 4-gappers instead right?

edit: actually you could still use AA as 4-bet bluffs because they have 2 blockers to the other guy having aces or AK.

It does not matter if it will hold up every time, they key is you presented a blueprint to make money at online poker in 2017. Stop whining about it and use your special knowledge to actually print money. Posting a couple cherry picked whiny hands here is meaningless, the long term is all that matters.

Keep folding KK and AA pre-flop and play junk hands as per your beliefs and make a fortune. The only risk is if your beliefs are invalid, but that has no downside to me, so I say you should go for it! You can even do a blog in the blog forum showing all the KK and AA hands you folded pre-flop and all the mega pots you won 4-betting 10 4 type hands. You may change poker as it is known!

All the best.

I'm not whining at all..i was just saying.But when those hands got me a first place in a bounty builder..then yes,i will be playing like that.
I never fold AA or KK preflop(maybe on other streets)..but when it's about JJ,QQ and smaller cards i take the fold option into consideration.

All the best Monteroy

The best way for you to prove your case is for a month to do an experiment, and update it in the blogging forum here.

For instance, you will play 100% VPIP and raise 100% of 3 gap off-suit hands, while folding JJ and QQ 100% of the time pre-flop.

After a month you will have a large enough sample (likely hundreds of examples or more) in your database of these hands to show how much you won with the 10 6 type hands, and how much you saved by folding the JJ and QQ type hands. If you make a fortune then you can name your system and charge others to learn it from you.

This is how you would prove your beliefs. Will you do this? Of course not, but that is why your random whine posts and cherry picked bad beat hands will be meaningless. Everyone can find a hand where their AA lost to a badly played trash hand, the key is to do hundreds of iterations and see what the results are in the end.

All the best.

thanks for sharing. pretty long and hilarious!



nothing is impossible with enough code written in software.


ok now this is kind of absurd. why would they be targeting specific people? Theoretically a rig if any would be trying to level playing field by targeting good players / players putting large amounts of money in +EV repetitively / getting it in good repetitively late in mtts. this good play can be detected in software and in some situations when player is involved with another at the other end of the spectrum outcomes can be swayed. by definition it wouldn't involve two good players and even if certain people are targeted personally it doesn't have to be when they are in hands simultaneously.

listen man i am not backing this or any theories at this point . you have mentioned some analysis has been made and bobo pointed a website which seems to detail some of it. of course what i am mentioning above is definitely detectable if data from suspect accounts is thoroughly analyzed so if such analysis has been made i would go by it.

I haven't played too long online and had stopped playing on ignition until a couple of months ago; of course the occurrences i mention are not a big sample size. There s variance in poker i ll leave it at that.


good to know . i will be taking a look at what s out there on spadebidder. thanks again for sharing.

seems interesting too. thanks for sharing this also.



well lets say somebody proved some rig where would they go ? what would happen next?
anyway man if i was paranoid about this i wouldn't be playing ( i agree it would be -EV) and i don't have strong convictions/ beliefs that any rig is there. its just theories i have mentioned and no not based on feelings but on on how i have run in certain situations. it doesn't have to be based on anything anyway; its hypothetical and i hope its not true cause i want to be playing on these sites.

I have been on a long bad run in mtt final stages and it can just be "run bad" / variance. of course anybody s prone to think something could be up especially with the amount of complaining on the site itself. Of course for any concrete belief to be there , rigs have to be shown through thourough analysis of large samples of data.

thanks for sharing what u have again and best of luck to you too.

As you may have seen, that was one of the riggie commandments

Commandment 7: Thou shalt believe anything is possible with software


What riggies fail to do is look at whether it is practical or not. If you spent trillions of dollars on rigging software then I have no doubt you can create some magical items (though the programmers would still talk about it). Riggies seem to believe that it is cheap to do whatever they want with software, without it ever being detected (except when riggies see it), amd the programmers for the thousands of sites never talk about it.



Many years ago on the Cryptologic network there was a player who constantly whined how MTTs were rigged against him because he only ever got it in good. Indeed, he pretty much did because he would fold nearly every hand, then with 2-3 BB get it in with AK or something. If he lost to a hand like JT he would scream it was proof it was rigged. If he won that hand and then had 7 BB he would fold down to 3 BB and try again, and if he lost he would scream rig since he always got it in good.

The only way he could ever do better than a min cash was to either get a ton of monster hands, or in most tournaments he would have to win several all-ins, and even as a 70/30 favorite that was not going to be in his favor. He would obsess about his single loss and fail to see that he was essentially creating a scenario where math was his enemy based on how he played.

You seem to think it would be easy for a program to determine who are good players and not and on the fly on thousands of tables in a near limitless combination of players create hands that will be played out in a certain way. That is impractical, and in the end it gets narrowed down to your proof of you (being a self declared good player) losing a hand as a favorite to what you believe is a donk, hence that is what the rig is.



That is apparent.


Assuming this is for a major site (ie: not some random site someone created for 3 people to play at) and they proved a RnG rig in a verifiable way then it would have its own thread here and would be one of the most active threads. No different than the UB scandal when it was proven.

You saying you think good players get bad beats too much is not proof of anything other than a tendency to tilt or be paranoid.


Might be weak play as well. That is where working on ones game and getting coaching can be of value.

All the best.

Nowhere, the market would handle it. 2+2 helped put a couple sites out of business already. But aside from that, when a site is proven to be crooked, you simply stop playing there yourself regardless of what others do.

rofl . hope i dont end up as one of ur riggies! What would you call me ? "the feed the fish riggie " ?

well i agree with the fact that it would get leaked at some point by employees so this definitely kindof makes it more unlikely.
but i am not sure about the costs u mention. isn't there tons of commercial poker software (that works with these sites) that shows players their stats and gives them insight into how well they are playing? Does such software cost billions really ? if such intelligence is readily available why cant it be also part of the poker sites software and be made use of in various ways?




this guy seems to be an extreme case. Getting it good in mtts and being ahead when getting large mounts of chips or cash is one aspect of good play; there are different measures and stats. no matter how good u are u will find urself in situations in mtts where you need to be shoving (especially online where structures are pretty bad) and making the right decisions with short stacks. The quality of those decisions is another measure (of course not when it gets to 2 and 3 bbs).
and yes even if u had millions of player software would be able to characterize and classify their play if written as such.

again this is all theory and i am not saying i am convinced its out there.


ok and then what comes after the thread ? what is the UB scandal about ?


for sure can be and i am working on getting better. not sure about coaching but i watch vids online with hand analysis as well some discussing various poker theory. I think its helpful overall in improving one s game.

I don't think you fall under any riggie category since you're capable of rational thought. Compare that to users like jungmit or suzyana

hmm not sure how this is related to me questioning why they d target specific people (thats what u quoted) or somebody personally which is what i had inferred from Monteroy s comment.

i think ur comment is about what would happen if a rig is proven on some site. good to know that through 2+2 a couple of crooked ones have been taken down.

(Somehow my previous post had the wrong question quoted. Fixed below.)
Nowhere, the market would handle it. 2+2 helped put a couple sites out of business already. But aside from that, when a site is proven to be crooked, you simply stop playing there yourself regardless of what others do.

Your stuff has been beginner riggie material so far, but if you want to see what a longer term riggie lifestyle represents, you can simply look at this thread. The guy who just recently said that AA and KK lose but hands like 10 6 crush, or the person who screamed about million dollar prop bets that he could predict the future.

You are an early stage riggie, and having a bit of fun with it, but be careful as the condition can advance and people like that represent the later stages of a riggie lifestyle.


The fact that we agree it would have been leaked by now by someone, yet has not yet, makes this a bit of a moot debate, but how about you think through a simple example

You are in a tournament at a Holdem tournament table with 8 other players who have the following classification

1) You - fill in how you classify yourself
2) Hard core tournament pro
3) Casual Razz cash player, though a good one trying some NL tournaments
4) Player who plays 2 days a week casually but has reasonable stats
5) A player who loses a ton in Omaha cash games but does ok in Holdem tournaments. Net he is down tens of thousands of dollars lifetime due to Omaha cash.
6) A player who has played 5,000+ tournaments but is a healthy loser except for a bink that offset most of the losses
7) Another hard core reg, not as good as player 2
8) A total donk. Does not play a lot, often plays drunk. Plays in a totally random manner
9) A reg who crushed until 2014 and has been break even since.

Now, you show me an example of a hand that is created that will have everyone act as they expect and move chips from the bad players to the good ones.


He was an extreme case, one that was mocked often, because he genuinely thought he was a good player. His thinking process is not that dissimilar to riggies often.



You will likely find that if you progress as a player you will look back at your riggie days and chuckle about it. Or else you will eventually become a variety of the guy who says

All the best.