Your English is fine. It is your logic that is warped. I find it inconceivable that a site would meddle with their RNG - this would eventually throw up anomolies that could be tested and proved as Henry is saying.

If cheating is still going on at any sites then I believe it will be another superuser who has hole card information. This kind of cheating would be undetectable if used correctly and not blatently ripping off customers as in the AP fiasco. Such superusers would merely be winning players with a decent win rate but not so far outside expectations that raise suspicions.

This is simply false. I don't understand why people keep claiming this, but this has never been the case.

-Planet Poker had nothing to do with datamining

-Finding 'potripper' had nothing to do with datamining

-Finding 'nionio' had nothing to do with datamining.

As was already mentioned, it's not inconceivable by any means. Stars has already openly (and nonchalantly) admitted to 'rigging' one of their games for action. They changed the rules in 27 triple draw to make it more likely that multiple players will make strong hands by making the 'RNG' generate a new card after reshuffles if you'd be dealt a card you'd already discarded. So, in effect you'll never pair again on the same card during a single hand. The fact they did this with no relevant announcement or other information and still called the game 27 triple draw is very telling of their business ethics. So yeah, inconceivable is not a word I'd use.

Come on Dire, this is not even close to the same thing. I don't agree with Stars decision in changing their rules in that game but it is not rigged in the way we are talking about here. I can't believe you even think it is.

A super user would be very difficult to detect if used properly. The problem is to use a super user that way would make it insignificant for any reasonably sized site.

If the super user played low stakes it would have the benefit of a large user-base to use as camouflage but because the winnings are insignificant would need to put in a lot of volume. If the super user moved up in stakes he could play less volume but given the smaller user-base he'd have to decrease volume. Either way the user would be undetectable to a certain point but by the time he made any real money he'd have to cause enough of an abnormality that he'd be easy to detect.

This would make it worth doing for a rouge employee but certainly not worth doing from a company perspective.

It would be very simple to program preferred users by, say, giving them 5-10% more situations where they have dominating hands over the opponent (having AK vs. AQ, KQ vs. KJ, Axs vs. 98s, etc). It would be very hard to detect and it would be a big time bonus to your winrate.

I am not suggesting that it is happening, only that it is possible to do without detection even from datamining over a large sample size. There are so many ways to "rig" a site that people are not thinking of. The same can be said for collusion.

These are the risks you come across when you play online poker, though.

On another note, people should be forbidden from making posts that say stuff like "Villain gets there often" or other unsubstantiated bull**** unless they post their statistics and hard data on the issues.

I feel that any major site rigging their games for any reason to any degree is extremely relevant to this discussion. If you don't find it relevant then I believe you'd find yourself in a very small minority. The "job" of a poker site is to offer a fair deal and reliable service. We now have proof that Poker Stars can not be counted on to do even that. To me, that is very relevant.

But they are dealing a fair game, with a minor rule change (which I am also opposed to in concept). They are not hiding this fact, and frankly I think they did not think this change through before putting it in place, however this does not suddenly prove that Stars rigs other games in a secret manner.

This is like if we sat down to play blackjack and I made up a rule that any hand of 333333 wins no matter what. This rule is posted. Even though this is not a commonly accepted rule, if it is posted and known in advance then the game is not really different other then just being a slightly different game, and a player can decide whether they want to play under these rules or not.

This is common in casinos, all sorts of goofy side bets and rules variations. As long as they are posted the consumer can make an educated decision (in theory at least) whether to play or not.

If stars ran a separate holdem game where they also had wild cards to increase action would that be any different in concept? Would that mean that they are rigging other games? Not really.

I think Stars took a misstep with their decision here, but I do not believe it opens up the point of "see this means they can and do rig other games."

I have no doubt they have the ability to rig their games, but I just do not see how the risk/reward is ideal for them to do so. Most of the people who claim the "why wouldn't they just make more money" line should start robbing random people on the street at gunpoint. It will make them money. Wear a mask to avoid being identified...

Monterory,

Stars rigging was not even remotely comparable to a house rules game.

-The rigging was never announced anywhere and is not publicly available information. Here is a link to the rules for 27 triple on Stars' site: http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/games/draw/2-7/ No where does it describe or even mention the rigging.

-This rigging was explicitly designed to subtly increase the chances of making good hands, while being invisible to the naked eye. To determine the games were rigged would require statistical analysis of the deals. It's not something that would be obvious to anybody - as compared to wildcards or whatever.

-There was no good faith effort present to engage the poker community with this idea, or to inform the players of the rigging. This was an intentionally secretive act.

Actually what makes me most concerned about the Stars' rigging is how the heck this idea was never shot down. Somebody had to come up with the idea for the form of rigging. He then had to manage to get this passed up the ladder to a guy who has the ability to order the software guys to implement it. That guy had to agree it was a good idea and finally send out the final order to get it implemented by the software guys.

That along that whole chain of people nobody found the idea of blatantly rigging the game for action a bad idea is really what bothers me most about the whole thing.

Call me naive, but I really do not envision that anyone was cackling while twirling their mustache and making fancy scheming finger motions when they came up with this idea.

I am not saying that it was the correct choice on their part, but this really feels like a situation where a fairly minor change was made in a fairly obscure game that would be of nearly an insignificant manner, so it probably was just not thought through properly.

Their intent was probably to make the game more "fun" for the players. Yeah, in hindsight this is sort of clueless on their part, but I just do not see this being the outer layer of an immense rigged onion that once peeled away will reveal all sorts of dark secrets.

I think players upset about this should make their opinions known, and I think they have a point. If I thought the intent behind this was primarily a secret cash grab then I would be the first in line to cash out. I just do not sense that is the case here, do you?

If they said their intent was to make the game more fun for the players, would you believe that (ignoring for the moment that that is not the proper motivation at times in this industry).

Seriously, what do you really think is at work here? Just feels like a poorly thought out decision that never got noticed, probably because it is such a tiny, tiny part of what they do. Find me a company or government where that never happens.

I think their is an issue here but you are building it up way more then it really is.

A tiny decision that never got noticed? With all due respect what in the world are you on? Integrity of the utmost importance in online poker. If something small like rigging a game for action can just kind of seep through the cracks at a site, that site is dead.

The Stars' reps getting paid out to hang out on these message boards have apparently done a great job of handing out rose colored glasses as well.

Dire

How does Stars even benefit from this rule change that you can justify believing it was this nefarious plot to rig a game that a handful of people play?

Well, maybe one day we will all join you in a world where people make perfect decisions all the time. Until then I will continue to live in a world where I look at intent when a mistake is made.

Seriously, how would you re-construct their decision making process in this area? What were their motivations? I already explained my beliefs in this, I am curious as to yours if you can take a second away from the alarm bells.

Get real making the change they made in the draw games is way beyond a "less than perfect decision" screwing with the deck in any manner is totaly unacceptble. Stop sucking pokerstars dick long enough to relize this.

Just created a thread about this: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...y-hide-309392/

This was no mistake. Poker Stars has admitted in these forums that it was premeditated and intentional. They also admit it is designed to generate more action. Even more importantly is outside of these forums where we're all completely capable of proving said rigging, they're still trying to hide it - including support blatantly lying. Details/evidence/links/etc all provided.

Not going to be drawn into this cause of yours because you keep ignoring the question I am asking, so I will try one last time

By "action" I think they meant it to make the game more fun for players, not that it was meant for them to get a ton of extra money (which I am not sure this would really do anyway).

I agree it was not the best choice on their part

I think people who are upset the rules were changed, even a tiny bit, are justified to be upset.

I think people who think Stars screwed up here are more then entitled to that opinion.


Now the last question remains for you to maybe answer for once

Yes or no, do you think this change was primarily done for a hidden cash grab? Personally, I do not.

Monteroy,

I'm in no position to speculate on their motives. I'm just discussing what I have clear evidence and proof of. I have no idea what the 'big picture' is - I just know that they rigged their games, admitted to it and are now trying to hide it again. And have been caught in a number of lies during the process already.

Their motives ARE what really matters here. This really feels like you are saying a variation of "I am not saying it is rigged, but"

You just started a thread with the title "Poker Stars admits to rigging game but continues to try to hide it" so come on, your agenda is fairly obvious.

There is a huge difference whether they did this without thinking of the frustration the change would bring vs if they did this as a way to rig it to make more money. Even if you will refuse to commit to a choice of these, would you at least acknowledge that the difference does matter?

I don't really care what their motives are. When I play poker online I just want a normal and fair deal. If a site can't offer me that then they won't have my business.

Hey, at least you are honest about this.

Unfortunately ignoring this represents a major flaw in analyzing the situation, and will cause you to lose sight of your objectives as you become more and more obsessed with your cause.


I glanced at the other thread and already you are getting the tag alongs with beliefs like " if they do this they will do anything that's why my 2 outer lost after I cashed out/ UB UB!!! etc etc"

Stars motivation is a key part of this whole discussion. Without it you are left with an incomplete discussion and a following of the standard rigtards you are trying to distance yourself from.

Whatever though, have fun with your cause.

Sorry I have not read all > 400 posts, someone else might have said it already, but I came up with a possible rational explanation assuming RNG is completely fair.

discovery: we analyze a large sample of nl200 regulars each with 200k hands. We find the regulars on average are running way below EV.

explanation: take x good players who start playing nl200. They are running both above and below EV, following normal distribution. What happens? The 10% who runs most above EV move up after 50k hands, the next best 10% after 100k hands, and the next group moves up after 150k hands. Hence the group that has regulars with 200k hands to analyze, has run below EV on average.

There will be some regulars who move down, but since regulars on average have positive bb/100, and since people may be more eager to move up than down(?), the effect of regulars moving up skews any sample with large number of hands per player.

jimpo,

Good idea but fortunately the analysis is made much more simple due to fact that poker's a zero sum game. If you have a datamine with somebody running ten buyins below expectation, then you have a datamine that also shows somebody else (or some other group of players) running ten buyins above expectation - so it will always be clear exactly who any equity bias favors.

Just because two sides are actively seeking to sway the situation to their favor doesn't predicate either of them winning in any short term. Just look at the pro-life/pro-choice debate. Both sides are quite active and yet when was the last significant change in legislation?

UIGEA could be the last word for decades ... or until February. You just don't know.

Download all these HH's and analyze it, good luck !
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/45...ervice-311064/