It's not an argument it is a discussion which is great. The issues with this thread is that yourself and others like you that like to belittle and name call instead of adding anything at all to the discussion. It is almost like y'all have an agenda to de rail the discussion. Also those that resort to naming and belittling do so because they lack facts or the metal ability to discuss.
Myself and others in the thread have valid reasons to be wary of online poker sites because of what has happened and continues to happen in this industry. A forum like twoplustwo that has been around through it all has all of it documented if you are unaware. Myself I believe that they are pulling a fast one. It is my belief that they have taken their Chumba Casino model which is a totally random electronic sweepstakes that uses slots to display sweepstakes results and follows sweepstakes laws and ported it over to display poker hands instead where the hands displayed as use to increase action and rake. I think the statements about their lawyers and PayPal and Facebook investigations that they post about were done in conjunction with Chumba Casino and not global poker. I think this because of lots of reasons including their terms of service and the answers they give to direct questions. Again if this was false they could easily give a clear direct answer and I would be proven wrong and the people currently on the fence and playing other shadier sites would flock to the site. They have not and changed the thread title instead.

+1.

Simple way to find out. A dewb posted the phone #. Call and get your answers from the horse's mouth. Or not.

Goodsaint. He posted the number for Draftkings. Not Global/VGW. Good luck ever speaking to anyone at Global.

I think the 'fast one they are pulling' is the set up to function inside the boundaries of the law, not on the players. Wouldn't it make more sense to run a business in a legit fashion that is around for a long period of time as opposed to a quick hit and hope to avoid the loooong arm of the law? If they did try to put a fast one past PayPal by trying to hide the poker side of their business, I would like to believe that PayPal's security department would have noticed a dramatic increase in business from VGW, hope anyway.

If the assumption of a randomly picked winner, as per a real world definition of a sweepstakes, how does the software know that the winner they picked in seat 4 is even going to be in the hand? I find no logical explanation for that. If a winner is predetermined, then shouldn't you be able to disconnect/time out if you have the nuts on the river, and then the pot slide over to your seat? If not, then the software obviously isn't determining the winner, unless the belief is it knew in advance that you would time out.

I would guess the reps that post here are customer service department only and probably are not allowed or aware of a 100% correct answer. There should be some sort of clarification, but if we are to believe the prospectus, they have had 125K accounts registered on the two sites. With some people sending in daily requests for verification, I could imagine they get a thousand emails or more a day.

Changing the thread title probably had to do with reputation and SEO. If you Google is Global Poker rigged, the first thing that comes up is this thread. Obviously, they would prefer to not have that occur. Just think how much extra time is added to a simple verification email when there are hundreds of 'is it a scam' emails. I think if you edit anyone's post it should only be done with very few reasons. People do have a right to voice negative opinions, real or completely ridiculous, and when things are changed, it only creates further disbelief from the naysayers. Like it was mentioned just after they edited it, if they locked the thread, it would spawn many new ones and create the idea that there could be something to hide. Detailed explanation of RNG and shuffler should put an end to it. You can search Cubeia RNG and it brings you to a page discussing it from 2012

http://www.cubeia.com/how-to-use-cub...e-rng-service/

They utilize a Firebase software platform with the RNG Marsenne Twister algorithm. That is the Cubeia package.

It really should be spelled out on their home page and in the T&C/Rules, obviously.

VGW's phone number is equally as easy to find. They are a public company.

One thing I am positive they have noticed is the dramatic number of claims being escalated by participants in this wonderful sweepstakes that is not proven to be random

That is what everyone thinks they are doing, hiding poker inside of a sweepstakes, but if they were then you would think PayPal would have an issue with it but if it was a sweepstakes then it would be legal and within PayPals acceptable use policy. But I contend that they are running a legal sweepstakes and advertising it like poker. They mostly market the site on Facebook to people outside of the normal demographics and they have a paid forum here. Has anyone seen a TV ad? They have a Monopoly on a billion dollar buisness why would it not be advertised everywhere like party poker back in the day or most recently FanDuel and Draft Kings.

If they were using the poker software RNG wouldn't that already be certified? Lots of questions but lack of clear answers to me is a big red flag

That is actually a sign that a room is growing. Long ago I did a lot of affiliate work for Sun Poker and their casinos, and they showed me some of the emails they got from people claiming it was rigged/fixed etc.

Most were pretty standard stuff (action hands, too many bad beats etc), but some were a riot to read. Accusations of mind control, or that they did hands in a certain way to encourage gambling addiction, lots of conspiracies involving the government. A huge percentage were about play money games.

Riggies talk a lot, and complain a ton, but they tend to not matter all that much, as many continue to play regardless, and most of the rest have minimal funds. No significant room takes them seriously, and the only one that tried to build a room to appeal to riggies was called Real Deal Poker that was going to have a shuffle machine that people could see with their own eyes. Aside from the irony that this machine created far less random deals, it did not matter because within a few days people were saying it was rigged, and they closed down because their target market of riggies lacked the funds to make it viable (even if somehow they did not think it was rigged).


You certainly can "contend" whatever you like, but for your contention to have any real impact you do need to show a bit better insight than being a casual observer. Some people contended that every all-in between two people is a coin flip, despite that being trivially easy to prove if accurate (perhaps you were one of those believers). People contend all sorts of things to fit their agenda, in the end it comes down to their credibility. Not to sound too mean, but how much do you really think you have?

All the best.

...
Well said.

orly?

Well, PayPal is no bastion of morality. They only care about collecting fees and not having to return anything. They allow bitcoins to be purchased using their cards. There is no doubt that there is some amount of business conducted with bitcoin that would not otherwise be legal if out in the open. As long as they can somewhat say they couldn't have known, they'll process transactions to buy body parts. They just don't want to be tied to the position that they 'should have known' something was wrong. They would ask their attorney if they can get in any trouble for processing certain transactions. If they are told its okay, 'transaction complete'.

One reason they would not be advertising in other locations is the fact that FB posts are virtually free for them vs the exposure they get. They reported 125K accounts being opened. That is a pretty high number for a year or so. With growth, they could cross a million in two or three years. Seems to be bringing in the customers, although not sure of their customer/fee ratio. The fact that they get random FB users as players sure goes a long way to explaining the endless action. When I flopped broadway and was called down by a pr of 8s in the hole. The player said, 'lol, wow, nh'. Obviously, they are not close to being a poker player, but it is what it is.

Even if it is hasn't been or is currently in the process of being certified, there should be some mention of it on their site. After you scroll through lines of sweepstakes nonsense on CLUBWPT's site, they discuss the RNG and some specifics. Nitrogen discusses, very briefly, on their rules page. It doesn't seem to be a big effort to have it included and the lack of it only brings about concerns from outsiders. I think that is the real problem. They either haven't thought to discuss it which would be a glaring omission or something is shady. The fact that it is represented as poker, even in the forum here, pretty much means a glaring omission or misleading actions. With the downside of one being an unpleasant potential incarceration, I'll choose an omission. An omission that really never should have occurred.

Not that it is acceptable, but the sudden and dramatic growth could have been the catalyst for letting other housekeeping issues slide. Blythe-Tinker's old company, WilliamHill, has it on their site

http://poker.williamhill.com/help/rng-certification/

so its not like they shouldn't be aware of it. The absence of something doesn't confirm an existence, but it definitely raises unnecessary doubts.

lol, okay, that had me chuckling.

It's okay. It has me and many others chuckling too. VGW doesn't even fight the claims because they can't. Like I said, I will get the last laugh.

@BoboFett How about you quote some recent posts instead of ones that are from April or early May.

Really, is that what I'm doing. lol

Referring to you guys as google lawyers isn't name calling. It's not even belittling imo, as it's what you've been doing through out this thread... making claims about the law under which GP operates that are uneducated at best, and every time a dewd asks why you don't trust the expertise of the legal teams at Paypal and VGW you guys dodge the question.

If you want to see actual name calling and belittling, look no further than this thread at the many replies to Monteroy. Pretty sure what I've contributed here has been relevant. Including a hand example that directly proved your 50/50 at the time of all in theory wrong (so I get why you're sore with me). Your response? We don't know that the 2 pair didn't have outs.

And since you want to talk definitions, a discussion is what a dewd is trying to do... talking about something in order to reach a decision or exchange ideas. You however, are arguing. Discussions include both talking and listening, the latter of which you have failed to do through out this thread. There is only your way or the highway.

I've been around poker just a bit longer than you have I would hazard a guess. Since before online poker. I'm well aware of what's gone wrong in the online poker industry, was a victim of it at Full Tilt and UB. Being wary of online poker, if even just for online poker's sake, is completely valid. Especially after what we've been through. That's ok and understandable. Making wild theories about how the game is being dealt without proof and arguing or dodging rational discussion does nothing to help the situation.

You're entitled to believe whatever you like. If you want to believe the moon is made of cheese, you can do that too. But until you show me a muenster moon rock, don't expect me to share your belief.

Not sure what you mean by this. You think that Paypal's legal team, when vetting Global Poker, simply looked at the Chumba model and said ok looks good to go? I would be admittedly surprised if that was the case.


You haven't taken their word for it yet, why would you float the notion you would now?

Hello all,

I hope you are enjoying your weekend. I would like to confirm the following for you:

The RNG used by Global Poker utilises a Mersenne Twister with background cycling. This was certified by iTechLabs on 15 February 2017 who confirmed that it uses a well known algorithm to generate random numbers. The numbers generated by this RNG have passed Marsaglia's "diehard" tests for statistical randomness. iTech Labs has found that number sequences are unpredictable, non-repeatable and uniformly distributed.

If you would like more information on the Mersenne Twister please click here.

If you would like some more information on iTech Labs then please click here.

We have listened to the feedback you have provided and are currently working on an FAQ page for our website to ensure that information like this is more easily accessible in the future.

We are very proud of our site and the enjoyment that it brings to the thousands of players who play there every single day.

Thank you all for your passionate discussion about Global Poker and we look forward to seeing you at the tables!

So there is a lot I could say about your statement but I think the easiest way to handle this would be to ask the direct question.

So you are using the RNG to select the sweepstakes winner or are you using this to deal poker?

Oooh, your question is so tricky and trappy!

Obviously you will never be satisfied, so why don't you, in the spirit of transparency that you claim to champion, tell us what your next goalpost movement concern will be if everyone agrees the game being dealt is poker. No need to wait any further with whatever "A-HA!!!" based retort you have armed and ready, as we can just assume that thought process and/or concern eluded all the lawyers and genuinely qualified people who handle that topic before you came around...

All the best.

I have claimed from day one that it was a random sweepstakes drawing and not poker. How did I move the goal post?

You genuinely still believe every all-in is a 50/50 regardless of the cards that are dealt (even when a player is drawing dead), even after the semi-leader of that LOLbad belief fled?

How about this, regardless of your beliefs (and again, the above would be trivially easy to prove if true), if the answer to your super sneaky question is "to deal poker" what is your next series of questions or concerns that you are obviously waiting to use. Transparency and all - you believe in transparency, right?

All the best.

They say that it is legal because it is a sweepstakes. They say each hand is its own sweepstakes. This makes it legal. If it is a sweepstakes then it would have to be decided by random draw. So therefore it is not poker but a sweepstakes drawing with a poker theme to keep it legal.

They are tricky and vague for a reason. They were certified on Feb 15th but have not posted it before now? They don't have the the certification company logo on their website? Just lots of strange behavior from a legit poker site wouldn't you agree?

I don't agree with any of your interpretations to be honest, because you are just a random dude with a personal agenda, and no credibility. Welcome to reality.

I am simply trying to help you remove all the transparent sneakiness to your questions so that you can progress through your goalpost movement beliefs in a quicker manner. Granted that will be an exercise that never has an ending, because you will never be "happy," but we may as well quicken the pace of it.

Anyway, you like asking questions, but you avoided answering a simple yes/no one.

Do you still believe every heads up all-in is a 50/50 regardless of what cards the players are holding? Yes or No?

If you are going to ask questions, you should be prepared to answer them as well. Transparency etc.

All the best.

Yes I believe that it is a sweepstakes drawing so at the start of the game with 2 people it is a little less than 50/50 because of splits

OK, you are one of the last holdouts of that silly belief structure, so I will ask a couple follow up questions.

Yes or no - would this belief be trivially easy to test (as many have stated)?

If your answer is yes then why have you or someone else not tested it to confirm your beliefs?

If your answer is no - I would ask why you cannot test them in any of the ways that have been suggested (remember - you can always live stream the hands so the "can't save the hands" point is nullified).

All the best.

There is someone working on a converter to import hands into poker tracker and it should be done soon. In your scenario say I show AA and the other player has 7,2. IF my hand wins its all is good if the 7,2 wins then you say it is varience. In 100 hands you would expect AA to win around 80 times and lose 20. In such a short run through the 7,2 could win 80 and the AA could lose 20 and the math for.poker could still be correct just varience over a really small sample. So then we have to ask how many hands would it take to prove there was something fishy 50,000 or so? How much money would that involve? How rake.would that involve? If the results came back around 25000 wins vs 25000 loses would you be satisfied then or would you say variance still? Then we would need 1000000 or so right? Also that is just AA vs 7,2. I guess what I am saying is your live stream heads up shoving would do nothing but provide lots of rake to the site when they could easily just answer the questions fully and honestly. Like the RNG being certificated since Feb 15th yet they have not posted this before now even when going through he trouble of renaming this thread. How are you so sure if this site?

Probably is already done for others, but even when it is commonplace, and the data shows the hands are random and fair, that will do nothing to change your beliefs. At best you will just alter them a bit.


For a single all-in? Of course, one hand is meaningless. However it would be trivially easy to prove this belief (if true) with a reasonably small sample of all-ins.

If 7 2 won 80 times over AA in a 100 sample that would not be variance. That would definitively prove something is not right. You do not even need 100 of these (at this rate of winning for 7 2 ) to prove that.





This silly every all-in is a coin flip belief would take far fewer hands to prove. I already pointed out how you could do it with a buddy at the nano stakes within a couple hours. It really is that silly a belief.

No. Not even close.

It might take $100-200 in rake or so to do the test properly, but here is the best part. You can do a prop bet about it, and if you win you get back $500, but if you lose all you lose is the rake paid, plus maybe $50 or so (you could easily get action at 10-1 for this silly belief).

How about this - let's assume the hands prove the deal itself is random and even you give up on this LOLbad everything is a 50/50 belief. WHat will be your concerns then? May as well say them now, because you will eventually get there, and this will save time. Transparency and all...

[QUOTE=Monteroy;52329135]

If 7 2 won 80 times over AA in a 100 sample that would not be variance. That would definitively prove something is not right. You do not even need 100 of these (at this rate of winning for 7 2 ) to prove that.


This right hear shows how little you know. If it isn't possible for for 7,2 to beat AA 80 times in 100 hands then there is something off. I'd they prove me.wromg then i go away.