I cant help but to pull this thread up a few times a day, i know i posted my beliefs but did not go threw all the serious research many have. I have learned alot more about what i thought i knew about the site. There are a few concerns that do point to this being a sweepstakes driven site so i did some reasearch my self.

If a sweepstakes promotion allows nationwide participation, the promotion must comply not only with federal regulations, but also the regulations of each state. For example, in California, the Business and Professions Code governs the promotion of the sweepstakes while the Penal Code (criminal law) sets forth the definition of a lottery. In New York, if the value of the prize offered is more than $5,000.00 the law requires that consumer sweepstakes be registered and bonded 30 days before the commencement of the sweepstakes. The state of Florida also has bonding requirements for sweepstakes

This could be the reason we dont see tournaments higher then a 5k first prize and disbursed among many entrants. Under there Terms in conditions they state they are goverrned by new york law. Anything higher could unintentional make this sweepstakes motto a lottery.

What i have a hard time racking my head around is cash games. how can you be awarded a 30k pot when it goes against the sweepstakes rules and considered to be a lottery at that point. Also with laws varying state to state, how do they conform a buissness model to work universaly in all states?

You stated how stats would show irregularities, but you cannot provide a way to obtain the data. The data you are suggesting is not considerable verifiable accurate data to sample. Any statistician knows this. You are not proposing a test analysis that could lead to any conclusion based upon stats. You must provide a legitimate verifiable way to obtain or produce data.

I obviously understand you do not have expertise in this field, but please do not speak of things you are not qualified to speak on. You are just changing your position in this matter to benefit your argument, because you cannot provide any proof to your position.

This discussion is suspended until the point in time where you can provide factual information.

a dewd. nice to see you back. Answer the question you were asked

I cannot understand why you guys can not answered questions when they are asked. But you are real good at posting a lot of irrelevant information about other situations.

Oh wait is this your answer?

PTS you don't even believe what you are spewing. Go shove every hand and get rich...it is really that simple. This discussion is suspended until the point in time where you can provide factual information supporting your claim.

I explained a simple way for you to obtain the data in a verifiable manner. Do a live stream of you shoving every hand pre-flop at a cash table. Best part about your rig is that it does not matter what hand you have, so you can even have people watching you do it live where they can see your hand it it will not matter as every all-in is a 50/50 in your belief structure. You do not need thousands of all-ins to prove this theory of yours, in fact you will likely have all the data you need within a couple hours.

Now, if your beliefs are true you will actually make good money (from stealing blinds). Of course if your beliefs are not true you will lose a ton, because you will generally have 30-40% equity on average at best.

Accumulate a few hundred all-ins and if you won half of them in this scenario (given you will generally be a healthy underdog) then you have proven your theory, and all of it will be recorded as it happens for everyone to see and verify.


Your theory is that every hand is 50 50 when all-in preflop. This is not something that needs a million hands to test. You will get all the data you need with a live stream in a few hours on a couple tables.


My position has not changed a bit. I have always believed your theory is LOLbad (literally the dumbest rig ever), all I am doing now is showing you how easily you can test it and get the data you need to bring down this entire room (if only your beliefs are accurate).

All you are doing now is everything you can to avoid doing that test, because you know every hand is not 50/50 as you want to believe.

You dodging this was expected, though you did it in a much weaker manner than I hoped. This is your silly theory. I showed you how to test it, get the data, and show it in a verifiable manner quickly. You have all you need to actually prove your beliefs, but you never will.

Dumbest rig ever...

All the best.

/Thread

While virtual currency for sweepstakes on the US national level has not been ruled on in the courts, many states have recently outlawed sweepstakes games based upon virtual currency. ClubWpt.com is prohibited in many states; therefore, while a sweepstakes model of poker is used in some states, Global Poker is promoting a nationwide sweepstakes model. And if this is based upon virtual currency, many states have already passed or ruled on legislation banning these types of sweepstakes.

Coinbase and ewallets process bitcoin payments anonymously. They are legitimate business, but individuals are using them to process payments for illegal gaming websites. This is not virtual currency in use at legal gambling/poker sites. The ewallets can process payments for legitimate business as well. To my knowledge, the US has not currently pursued any gambling sites using bitcoin, but this does not constitute it as legal.

Let's get one thing straight. Fantasy sports falls under a completely different realm of law than poker - and this is not the place for that debate. Leave them out of the equation.

And OMG! Silk Road was a black market site selling drugs, Do you really think the Feds wanted to shut it down for virtual currency. The currency was irrelevant for sure with Silk Road. They were shutting down a black market site.

Other sweepstakes poke sites are using a completely different model than Global Poker; therefore, transference is not applicable here. So take those out of your argument.

What you are left with is your claim virtual currency in a contained environment constitutes a sweepstakes. (I have positioned arguments against this in previous posts.)

Well let's see if this indeed holds up, and if it does it will open up the door for poker in america.

So to conclude this debate, it is either:

A) the use of virtual currency in a contained environment is the single determinant for the game being a legal sweepstakes game

OR

B) the game itself is a sweepstakes with a winner chosen at random before the flop, (and after participants are determined) with the sweepstakes game showing a computer simulation of a poker hand to reveal the winner.

Understanding the UIGEA is most interested in stopping money laundry activities, this really boils down to how Paypal views Global Poker. Whether we are doing business on an illegal off-shore site or a legal US sweepstakes poke site, it boils down to if we win; will we get our money. And will we be able to keep getting our money. So far, Global Poker has not shown any inability to not make payments. That is a good thing at this point.

You not following through with the shove every hand and profit theory either makes you incredibly dumb or a non-believer in your rigtard theory.

Monteroy; you are not qualified to make analysis. I already showed the limited data you are speaking of. Picking up blinds to take an accumulated stack all-in over the course of a viable statistical session is not a viable option when you are risking money on 50/50 situations.

100BB coin flips is not a viable way to make money. So assuming you do not know statistics, I would advise you against wagers where you are risking 100BB to get 1.5BB. While you could profit small amounts by the participants refusing to play, you are risking 100BB to win 100bb if they do decide to play, and you are never better than a coin flip to win. Long term the averages will work out where you win 50% of the hands in play, but the variances within the hands short term would be such that huge variances could be shown by a particular individual.

So your assertions that your experiment is a guarantee way of winning is in fact not that at all. You are only 50% to win. You are coin flipping every hand. That may be difficult for you to understand since you do not have the knowledge to know how statistics work.

Do you guys actually believe 100BB bets to win 1.5BB is a long term profitable strategy?

Now 3 bet/4 bet 100BB shoves can be profitable due to folds and never being less than 50% to win. But in general, coin flipping every hand is not a viable way to be profitable in poker when developing a true poker skill and using it is far more advantageous.

The amount of folds you get will 100% make it profitable. Or open and then shove any flop. Even the KK hand was 50/50 per you on the turn. I offered to pay for rake and return 10% if I ran hot in the "flips" that you denied as well. Who cares about poker skill when you found a site with this big of a flaw in their rng. You could literally make thousands of dollars a day if this held true, go make it.

After exploring many forums on this mater i found this comment that seems to make sense.

I have always been the person to be like "dude you're stupid for thinking that online poker is rigged" but I just continued to listen to what this guy was saying. He mentioned this 2+2 forum from a while ago which made me feel very un-easy about the site I was playing on.

Apparently they found a loophole where they say players are entering a sweepstakes around poker hands instead of actually playing poker? So then the questions come up like if they are saying it really isn't poker, then they don't need to provide proof that the "shuffler" or RNG is actually legit and not rigged. It is very weird that they don't let you download hand history which could be a way to hide their true dealing system. The hands dealt are crazy and the boards have crazy run outs often. Obviously this is a one day sample size, but I have ran up my $400 to $900 in literally like 6 hours of playing 1 table. I do find these notifications very motivating though, haven't seen them on other sites

__

maybe I'm just looking into it too much, but I'm definitely on board this conspiracy.





I guess the only way to put everyones mind to rest is to show a certified rng from a outside source and HH. I was very surprised by how many people have close to the same theory. Must be drinking from the same sea of cool-aid.

Lol, it isn't a direct model that is the comparison, it is using a 'sweepstakes' aspect with virtual currency that enables the sites to function while offering perceived illegal activity.

The mere fact that there is human intervention/decision making after the flop completely negates your idea of a randomly determined winner preflop. That is just common sense.

To suggest that the odds of winning are evenly divided by the participants is nonsense. One player has K/K and two other players have 3/3 each. The flop is a rainbow board of 5/9/J. Any substantial bet by the KK player should have the other two players folding. What if the KK misclicks somehow and folds? Did the random winner picking software take that into account? Sorry, it is laughable to think that the system has determined a winner when there are three steps of human interaction creating variables left. The software, RNG algorithm or other, determines the cards that will fall in order. There is zero chance it has some super AI knowing which players will fold or hold in the hand. As outlandish as their call could be, some players can be huge gamblers, stupid, or both.

It is mathematically impossible to determine a winner in advance of the hand played when there are endless variables that could effect the players decisions during the hand.

My final comment on this hokey pokey is that you are quoting the Chumba Casino sweepstakes discussed in the prospectus while discussing a different entity. Like I said, call their US attorneys on the matter and the secrets are revealed. An entire argument/debate based on weak data, incorrect understanding of the discussion in the prospectus, and a 'since it doesn't specifically say it then it isn't' theory is not very strong.

This is not the place to debate your theories as it relates to shoving every hand on a coin flip, and I am not going to do it. It is obviously, you guys do not understand how your theory would not work in this example. Educate yourself in statistics before you start to speak of statistics.

Lets stick to the topic at hand.

Better is that according to his theory if KK bets and 33 calls an all-in and the other 33 hand folds, the remaining 33 is still somehow a 50/50 to win!

For what its worth, other sites have had people believe 0% hands can win, so it is not just the sweepstakes riggies...

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=67913




Of course it is, and it is amusing that you cannot see why.

The 50/50 flip is by definition a 0 EV event (less the rake which is more than offset with the blinds picked up when not called). The goal is not to have a single all-in flip, but hundreds or thousands so that the expected results will be very close to expected.

http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

You can use this to calculate the odds of x or more "heads" happening in y flips.

For this purpose lets pick a sample size of 500. The odds of 275 or more "heads" is about 1.4% so that would represent a loss of about 2500BBs (before adding in all the blinds won when not called).

Simply use a bankroll that can afford that risk. A $500 bankroll would be plenty to test this at 10Nl for instance.




Apparently you do not know statistics, because the 100BB wager is not to "win 1.5BB." The wager itself has no cost because you are literally 50/50 to win while betting 50% of the pot (ignoring the small dead money blinds / rake).

The all-ins do not matter, other than having a proper bankroll, because there is literally no cost to the flips long term if every hand is 50/50 in your world.

Let me try an even simpler experiment for you. Let's say I offer you this proposal:

1) We bet $5 on a fair coin toss a thousand times

2) As a side bonus you make 2 cents every other time we flip a coin

Would you accept that offer ( I know I would) or do you still look at that as "betting $5 to win 2 cents?"




But in your world this is a coin flip regardless of the hands so there is no equity cost at all to the wager! Long term you will win really close to 50% of the flips in 50/50 land.

That is the problem with your LOLbad theory. You keep thinking the 100BB shove is a "gamble" when by the very definition of your theory - it is not long term.


In your theory you are never better or never worse, you are always 50%, which is what makes the shove every hand approach so easy and profitable (if your LOLbad theory was valid).



and I re-introduce you to bankroll management!

Remember, I ran a team of casino bonus whores. This is what we did day in and day out to weak systems. Did a person wager $500 a hand with a $5000 bankroll when doing a blackjack bonus? Of course not!

It is a guarantee only if your really, REALLY stupid riggie theory was accurate. In the real world it is of course going to cost a player a ton of money, which is why you will never do it. You know your theory is LOLbad.

Long term buddy. Its all about the long term. The coin flips cost $0 long term. You make 1.5BB every time nobody calls. It is a printing press for money as long as your dumb theory is correct and nobody else figures out how to exploit this dumb theory.

Only when called, and it does not matter when you are called as the 50/50s even out long term. Meanwhile you slowly collect the blinds when not called.

We can agree that 50% of the people in this back and forth chat have no idea what they are talking about .


This is the topic. Your theory is so simple to test and exploit for profit that it is amusing you continue to stand behind it. Sort of sad actually. Sad!


Dumbest rig ever...


All the best.

Monteroy, it is obvious you are not an Actuary, or you would not be making such erroneous statistical analysis. Therefore, stick to the things you know and leave the rest to the real professionals. I not going to response to your erroneous statements, because I am not going to take this thread off it's purpose. Just understand you are wrong. and You are not offering anything to support the purpose of this thread. Failure to answer the question presented to you is proof you are unqualified to discuss this topic further. End of Discsussion!

How about this then. You post your every hand is a 50/50 theory in the stats forum here

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25/probability/

I will post my suggestion to exploit it for a ton of money, and we can let the people in the forum ( a ton of actuaries) comment and then we see how that plays out with regard to who is right and wrong. Safe to say, you will do that as quickly as you will test your LOLbad theory just after half past never.

In the meantime, you can explain how the 33 hand in the KK vs 33 and 33 hand example above would still be 50/50 if it calls an all-in by the KK and the other 33 hand folds on the J95 rainbow flop.

Dumbest rig ever...

All the best.

a dewd, I see the point that you are trying to make; however, I think you are missing the point I am making. The card simulation is exactly that. While the potential winner could voluntarily exit the contest, the card simulation is shown based upon the holdings of the random winner and reflects the individual winning the hand. The card simulation is design to always show the random winner winning the hand.

As it relates to people folding and possibly the random winner folding their hand; it is way too big of a leap to assert or to correlate the disqualification rule in the Sweeps Rules as their selection of another random winner; however, this is one of the parts of the model my team is working on to uncover.

I appreciate your point of view, and we have both expressed our viewpoints for all to consider.

Taking huge numbers of slightly +EV gambles is literally EXACTLY how insurance companies make money.

It is how casinos pay the bills as well.

He does not get it because he literally lives his beliefs. It is pretty rare for someone like him to have such a silly, gaping hole, but credit for him as he troops on regardless, as he chooses to selectively ignore some pretty simple examples (like the KK vs 33 100% hand somehow being 50/50). Perhaps those are "fake news" hands.

On that note...


While your "team" is working on all that extensive research, toss them this concept, and all of your actuaries can correct the math on it as you see fit.

Shove 10,000 hands pre-flop for 100BB each

Assume 70% of the time nobody calls so you earn 1.5BB x 7,000 = 10,500 BB

3,000 times you are called - you win 1,500 and lose 1,500. Each of those hands you pay net 5 BB of rake (depends on the stakes, at 100NL or above its as low as 1BB or less) so the cost is 7,500 BB in rake on hands you are called.


Net expected profit is 10,500-7,500 = 3,000 BBs.

If you do this at higher limits the profit goes up quite a bit, but of course a proper bankroll is required to handle any short term variance on the "coin flips." As well, you increase your returns considerable by buying in for a shorter than 100BB stack if at that limit an all-in will reduce the amount of rake paid (not an issue at 200NL where the full buy in will get blind steals far more often and rake is capped regardless).

At some of the nano or micro levels the cost of rake of capped pots might offset the gains of blind steals if you are called too often. Easy math to do based on the game limits and the rake structure. One can do a simple chart for each level showing the break even point (in terms of percentage an all-in is called) for each buy in level.

Ah, memories of bonus whoring...

Anyway, let me know what your "team" thinks is wrong with this math, given you are all actuaries. You can use your incorrect "bet 100BB to win 1.5BB" statement as the title for it as well.

Dumbest rig ever...

All the best.

Again, I will refer to Occam's Razor here. There simply is no pre-determined winner. The reason it is logical in the slots on Chumba Casino is because once you click the spin button there is zero interaction. The software can predetermine that a downward line from the top left to the bottom right will all be XXX. Nothing else happens, that is it. In the Global Poker site, the winner is determined by the individual's play in conjunction with the board. The software determines the order of the cards as they fall, but it is a mathematical and programming impossibility to pre-determine what the decision is going to be of any one player. If the flop sees 5 players and then 4 into the turn, three to the river and then the final play is between two random players of rotating position to the button/start of sequence, there is zero chance to program it soa pre-determined winner is set at the start of the hand. That doesn't even take into account disconnects or timing out. If your theory was accurate, then my full house on the turn that I timed myself out on would have been credited the pot and not A/K. After all, if it is predetermined, it cannot interact and change it after the inevitable unexpected action.

The sweepstakes argument applied to Global has been very stochastic in approach while avoiding outside supporting logic. It is what the actuary tables consider, the highest probability of an event happening. Occam's Razor, the most logical/obvious explanation is likely to be fact in lieu of indisputable evidence to the contrary.

Global's advertising says you play poker for '$weeps Cash'. The $weeps Cash has zero value outside of Global and I believe it said it was worth $.01. The players can take their balance of $weeps Cash and convert it to real money values at the rate of 1-1. You are not playing with any recognized currency/legal tender.

They define 'Social Sweepstakes Poker': - means a contest or game that can be played on both a virtual currency basis and using Sweepstakes Credits for cash prize winnings.
No place does it say or even suggest that the poker is a sweepstakes offering. None.
They also define sweepstakes in regards to Chumba Casino, no place is it attached to the poker offered on Global Poker. It is all in the Glossary at the end of the prospectus.

The EV discussion is applicable. It is static concept, not a probability. Actuary science is based on the probability of data: some 70 year old have cancer and others do not, therefore the probability that any any one person having cancer when they are 70 is X% and even that is constantly fluctuating over time.

The amount of times that K/K will win heads up vs 3/3 is only further cemented the larger the study gets. There are no future variables, there is zero occurrences that can alter the final percentage. The deck has 52 cards and a finite amount of combinations, 52!. That is it. Heads up, KK will beat 3/3 80% of the time if they share no suits and almost 82% if they share suits, add in .5% for ties. If the other two 3s are folded...97.6% chance the kings win. Those numbers do not change and they only lock in closer the more times the scenario happens. The system cannot reason that one of the 3/3 players will fold thereby sending two more cards with a suit that gives the 3/3 holder a flush.

There just is no scenario where logic can justify the idea of a pre-determined winner if human interaction occurs afterwards. In poker, there is an unknown amount of players, up to 9, any point after the cards are dealt.....if X^n occurs, deal....what? This doesn't even take into account Omaha which is even more inane to suggest the possibility of a predetermined conclusion.

Says the man who based his initial assumptions on an analysis sample size of 30 hands.

First off, it baffles me that this many poker players, who pride themselves on their ability to break down situations and make the best possible decisions based on their conclusions, can defend, in any way, against the fact that this site is undoubtedly set up to induce as much action as possible to collect their astronomical online rake.

Second, the statement you make regarding normal statistical data (KK > 33 ~80% played out from flop to river over a large sample) may be true in live poker and pretty much every other online poker site, but I absolutely do not trust those statistics on this site. The hands are so blatantly set up to get players to shove $$$ in the pot that it's laughable. I've found myself literally able to predict, within a small range, cards OTT and OTR (i.e. turn will be J, T, or heart) within probably ~30% accuracy based on the patterns I've seen (yes, that's approximately 1 out of every 3 hands). I've folded the nuts OTF twice now vs a ton of action in what was only a ~250bb pot, knowing I was being set up to lose, only to be proven correct OTT or OTR. There's still money to be made on this site, and I will stick around because I've crushed a lot of the games as the player pool is LOL bad..... But seriously..... How can you not see this for what it is??? The only explanation I can rationalize is that anyone defending this is either really bad at observing patterns, or has a stake in this site's ability to stay active. As time goes on and I read some of these responses, I'm really starting to believe it's the latter.

Your action hands rig beliefs completely contradict the the other guys rig that every all-in hand is a 50/50, with the site not doing anything to rig the deal itself other than that 50/50 thing for sweepstakes definition purposes. Are his rig beliefs wrong while yours are correct? They both can't be correct at the same time, and keep in mind that he claims to have looked at 30 hands, and he supposedly has a team working for him.

All the best.