So to put your theory in my words:

At the beginning of the hand global decides seat 1 will be the winner. It then deals cards to each player. It then chooses flop, turn, and river cards that make seat 1 have the best hand. (It is also questioned whether the cards dealt are chosen to favor betting and high rake). If seat 1 folds then the remaining players again have an equal chance to win and a new winner is chosen before the next card is dealt out.

Vs the ideal of:

At the beginning of the hand the deck is randomized and the order set. The cards are dealt out in said order. (Which I believe isn't the case in online poker anywhere. Don't all sites randomize the remaining cards each time for the flop, turn, and river? I think I've seen that said elsewhere. )

If I have this correct then the next course of action would to directly ask kimbr to provide clarification. There's no point in arguing things we have no way of proving or disproving.

Although I did ask about the RNG cert in Febuary in this forum and never got an answer.

This is really what is important here. I'd certainly welcome and appreciate a response from Global but they haven't given one.

Kimbr did respond about the RNG cert, and Bobo Fett even quoted it in one of these threads in response to someone else saying they won't answer about the RNG.

What your suggesting, by definition would no longer be an RNG. And, like Jay S said, should be easy enough to test.

Kimberly's response was simply they are working on certification. That's a sufficient answer for you? Who is certifying them? What is even being certified?

So if I get it in with AA again 72o everytime preflop you're saying I'm 50% to win that hand?

That's exactly what he's saying. If you're heads up. If someone else also calls with A5o then all three of you will be 33.3% to win according to his theory. Easily testable.

Check out page 38 and 39 here

https://www.vgw.co/wp-content/upload...t-Restated.pdf

That is a certified audit letter and it designates responsibilities. If the Directors sign off on something knowingly false, it is fraud.

I am trying to dig up the business plan. It would explain the poker aspect and RNG use or other methodology. I know I have seen it, just have to find it in my history. At one time, I posted a link to it in one of the threads here.

**Found it

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/2016010...wkvqbww4kk.pdf

When I find where they detail it, I'll give page number

The RNG is being certified as random. It's sufficient for me FOR NOW. Certification takes time and volume, which as a site that's been running for less than 6 months is understandable they are still grinding through data. If we still don't have an answer about this process 6 months from now then that will no longer be sufficient for me, unless someone with more knowledge on the subject explains it's normal to take that long for a new site.

Maybe Illusive know something we don't. The other day he was open shoving 100-200bb stacks with probably the entire top half of his range at 10/20nl and he quickly ran a stack up to 16k. It was insane how lucky he was. It seemed beyond being a degenerate. Even degen's don't take those stakes lightly.

Look at page 94 on this link

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/2016010...wkvqbww4kk.pdf

It explains that the use of the term 'sweepstakes' pertains to the fact that there is no direct purchase of chips into the games. The games are also defined as games of skill vs games of chance, so that would suggest that it isn't a sweepstakes type determination of who wins a hand as long as you stay in it to the end. The theory is unless you have enough digital currency, there is no entry. It is semantics, but it covers the UIGEA issues.

There is a discussion regarding PayPal in the 60s pages of the business plan, I believe. VGW, aka Global Poker, provided a due diligence package to PayPal and after PayPal's legal counsel reviewed it, it approved transactions in and out of Global. VGW also provided a $250,000USD bond to PayPal.

I also emailed Cubeia and asked questions re their software and specifically the RNG aspect of it. I'll copy and paste their reply when I get it back.

Thanks for the effort.

This is not something that people should have to research. It should be very transparent and posted on the main page of their website.

I mean, isn't "Look at me, I'm completely legit" an important marketing strategy?! Why wouldn't a company that can say that with proof not do so?

Well, mainly because most people don't ask for it. If they didn't use the word 'sweepstakes' is it likely to have come up here? Truthfully, I've never asked a site for anything and when things seemed off, I checked them out. I've never asked for proof of segregated accounts of WPN or Merge and have no clue if that info is listed on their site. Even if it is, how do they prove it. Due to my prior business career, I have a fairly extensive ability to look into companies/mgmt outside of simple internet searches when it comes to companies that raise money from the public.

If you really have a lot of free time to read all 100+ pages, they have over 125K people that have registered for an account. That seems like a ridiculously high number to service with what appears to be a small staff. There was also $4million+ in their bank at the end of the year, so it supports the argument that they are not trying to scam some poker players. There is an independent feasibility report on the growth and industry in the US and Canada. They do not have to be very successful in capturing a large percentage of the market place to make mountains of money. Further, they have filed to trade on the Australian stock exchange which makes a scam far less likely. Yes, there are scams in the public markets, but Bythe-Tinker has been around a long time and has a law degree. There is just too much available information to strongly argue against it being shady or a setup. The sweepstakes argument is much different. Although it is not spoken outright, it can be easily construed that the game is played as poker would/should be. Specifically stating that it is a game of skill and the sweepstakes is almost like saying 'free entry' providing you have enough 'widgets' aka gold coin or sweepscash, then it is classified as a sweepstakes game, but not a game of chance. That it clearly states.

Even better hear is the PayPal terms of service on gambling

https://www.paypal.com/us/selfhelp/a...rohibit-FAQ915

So the answer would be that your assertions that Global must be randomizing results, rather than cards, are based not any law that you can link to, but your own "research" of Internet definitions?

What is your point? Not trying to be snarky or sarcastic; genuinely asking what you want us to take out of this link, because I'm not seeing what in it is relevant to your point, and obviously you see something that you think is.

The point is, there was an answer. You said before no one had answered, I quoted you two posts showing they had, and then you said it again. I get that the answer wasn't sufficient for you, and I can understand that, but an insufficient answer is completely different than no answer at all, which implies they are avoiding the question.

That is fine, but their attorneys signed off on it as being legal and not gambling according to the UIGEA. So their TOS is not contradictory to this.

I've played over 20000 hands in the last month, and I think this is the least "sketchy" site I have ever played on. I think you're overthinking things and it's turning your assumptions into a reality.

im starting to believe guys like OP make these posts while wearing tin foil hats.

Based upon the Omaha data I have analyzed from Global Poker for someone who asked me to analyze a sample hand history of their play, I have to concur with those individuals who doubt the validity of Global Poker as a poker site. The statistical data I analyzed does not support they are indeed a real poker site. If they have a true RNG, then it is not programmed correctly. I would advised individuals to do their own due diligence in exploring what Global Poker is exactly. I will present my findings for the Omaha on Global Poker.

As you read this, keep in mind all of these hands had to be analyzed manually as you can not take hand history off the site. Additionally, all cards are not shown; therefore, only cards shown at show down via all-in play prior to the river actually made it into the data. We reviewed close to 500 hands, but we could find just 30 in the sample with the cards available to analyze. All 30 of these hand had 3-bets pre and were either all-in pre or on the flop. Statistical win percentages represent the percent chance the player had to win when the critical all-in play was complete. These hands do not reflect normal pot limit Omaha poker play, they only reflect the hands with significant action pre-flop resulting in all-in play pre or post flop.

No hands were omitted from this sample size. All available hands were analyzed. Of the 30 hands, the win breakdown was as follows:

Hands with a 50+% win percent only won 3 times in this sample size or 10% of the time. The highest win percent actually winning was 55%. No player with a winning hand percent above 55% actually won a hand in the 30 hands I examined.

Hands with a 30-40% win percent won 10 times which is roughly 33% of the time. This number is consistent with the actual number of winning hands expected for this range.

Hands with a 25% or less win percent won 17 times which is 56.67% of the time. This number is significantly higher that what should be expected. Included in these 17 instance are 7 instances of a player winning the hand despite having less than a 10% chance of doing so. The 7 wins from the less than 10% win percent represents a number that is 277% higher than what is expected for this win percent range. The winning hands from the 20-25% win percent was 166% higher than what you would expect to see from hands with this win percent.

I would not normally present statistical data on such a small sample size, but I have seen enough to see there is a pattern developing with this data. It is very labor intensive to analyze the data manually, and without all of the cards being shown, we will never know truly whether there is a RNG. As a side note, I did find an extremely high number of the so called action flops as well as a significant number of unusually uncommon hands.

I am not posting this to start a debate not do I want a debate. I only want this to be one of the pieces of information individuals review when they are thinking about Global Poker.

All of the hands analyzed were at $1/$2 or $.05/$1

i stopped at "30 hands analyzed"

PayPal prohibits the following activities, even where the specific activity is lawful and/or is not legally defined as gambling, unless the transactions are associated with an approved merchant.

Games of chance and games of skill –Includes any activity with an entry fee and a prize, regardless of whether the outcome is determined by chance or skill.

That is Paypal terms above. So if this was real poker it would involve skill and chance. Both aspects are present in poker. So how does that make any sense that Paypal allows this.

:

And... how many of the 30 hands were heads-up?

It doesn't matter. Their attorneys signed off on it. They have more access to information than any of us have. It is public record that they signed off on it and a third party feasibility study said the poker aspect is a game of skill. The issue is whether or not someone is paying directly to participate in online gambling or not and PayPal's attorney signed off on it. The 'sweepstakes model' allows for all kinds of gaming. You could change the sweeps cash button and rename it as monkeys. One does not conflate to the other.

i think it is pretty obvious that they are exploiting a loophole and if the feds closed it, buh-bye Global in the States. The parent company is subject to regulatory agencies all over the place with grave consequences for fraud. If the exchanges and SEC (in the States here) signed off on it, that pretty much negates most of the arguments.

In my eyes, and having been in the investment business for 20+ years, things that are reported to public shareholders are almost always the truth. The 4 or 5 that were not, get tons of media, but the other 20K companies far outweigh the odds that any one particular company is shady. The personal downside risk is just too great and very very rarely ever considered by anyone with a legit background.

Do you think we have to worry about a possible black fridayish event to happen on global?