RNG is not whats hurting you, it's a combination of bad play, collusion, and poor table selection.

But in all fairness just because something is certified doesn't mean that a company wont do whatever the f!%* they want. Look at Volkswagen, Samsung, Apple, GM, etc... These are all huge companies that in the past 10 years have been caught up in serious screw over the consumer type shenanigans. Ultimately they get caught, and settle a lawsuit or pay a fine. In the case of "Gray" companies... I doubt they have any repercussions when they get caught and no one outside of consumer is policing them either.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

The look at big companies comparison does not quite work, because for it to be a proper comparison a company like Apple would have to be specifically picking you to target for a bad battery for instance, which of course makes little sense.

Big companies when they do things that are "bad" is usually to hide something (that is not individual customer specific), general incompetence, or an unintended result of something, but in contrast, nearly all riggie theories are personalized against them, and often the rigs would not make the sites any money, and nearly always they make no sense to even exist (like the every hand is a coin flip nonsense that got a reboot just now).

Riggies cling to the "Enron, Enron!" chant a bit too much when creating their own whiny belief structure to validate their under-performance at this activity.

All the best.

Not sure why you dont think big company comparison doesn't work. But let me clarify my point. I am assuming that standard riggie argument assumes that there are super user accounts that are sucking up all the funds through rigged dealings... So yes i agree, no company is going to waste time trying to steal from 1 person. But companies will take action to systematically steal from their consumers, get sales by lying to their consumers, or lower their prices by stealing from their suppliers.

To just say that the big companies are taking these actions out of negligence is insane. It has been proven time and time again that legitimate companies have absolutely maliciously screwed people over. 3 perfect examples: Volkswagen falsely reporting fuel economy for various vehicles, Ford stealing the intermittent wiper from its inventor, Caterpillar awarding major contract to supplier then after supplier has fulfilled the contract Caterpillar says they no longer need supplies dont pay, company goes bankrupt and they buy them... these are malicious evil acts.. not whoopsies.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

They are stealing from me via no RB. Go away.

I am not sure you understood my point.

My point is if Global is what CCCP is saying it is, winner already chosen, if they stay in the hand they win, therefore not real poker, my question back to him is then why would Global go through the trouble of getting the RNG certified.

Not debating the merits of that certification, and of course there are ways to work around that certification if they had it. They could go behind the scenes and mess with things for sure.

But if it is all just a lottery (which is what he suggested) why even get that cert in the first place?!?! That just isn't logical. In fact it likely would lead to trouble later when they got an RNG certified but were just picking a winner and not the cards at random.

Hopefully that makes some sense as to my point to him.

They got it certified to gain the consumer trust. Why does anyone get a certification? Now if they are following the guidelines of the certification is something else entirely. Surely you can understand that logic.

We have countless laws in place and yet lawyers, and congress men who should definitely know the laws consistently break them... so your argument has very little merit into the scheme of if Global's RNG is legit or not. (I personally don't care if it is one way or the other, I just cant help but chime in because of the flawed argument being used).

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Getting an independent certification for a fair RNG, and deciding to instead use the rigged/flawed RNG, from the site’s point of view-

Risk: get shut down for falsely classifying that they were using a certified RNG, losing the tons of money that the site brings in from rake every day, owners and management are most likely indicted, going to criminal court...

Reward: ?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please explain how a company operating from Australia gets indicted for operating an illegal operation in the U.S.? This applies to Ignition, ACR, Winamax, Intertops, etc. The only companies that have real legal ramifications are WSOP, Pokerstars, 888 because they are operating completely in the US legal system as registered businesses. Worst case scenario they lose traffic, shutdown, and open up shop under a new name...

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

I actually like Global.. i think they may be most legit of ill legit sites.. I mean they advertise on Facebook

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

I suppose I don’t know the legality of it all.

What do you suppose would be the benefits of the site doing this, just out of curiosity? I typed a question mark because I couldn’t think of anything...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am still not making an RNG argument. I am responding to the flawed idea that winners are chosen before the hand begins and Global is just a lottery and not a card room.

$$, what more motivation do you need

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Global is not operating an illegal operation in the US.

It seems like the best way for the business to make the most money is to use the fair RNG that they got certified, run fair online poker games, and have a good business plan to stay in business for the next 5-10 years.

...Instead of putting the fair RNG to the side, plug in the rigged/unfair RNG, and make more money, while opening up a risk of being caught or shutdown (just out of curiosity, how is them having an unfair RNG making them more money? I’m struggling to figure this out also...and while we are on the topic, how much of a % increase do you think they make by using the unfair RNG than the fair RNG?)

It doesn’t seem too logical to me. But heck, what do I know...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course the winner is chosen before the hand is dealt by the shuffle of the deck. Even if the site itself does choose the winner before the hand is dealt, and that winner is chosen at random, it is still a fair game. Now, if you are saying that the site is specifically favoring certain accounts, then that would be a problem, but I highly doubt you have proof of this other than the fact that your account is definitely not one of them.

You are right, they are operating a legal business in Australia that targets US customers. US government has no regulation jurisdiction over VGW Holdings. Am I incorrect here?

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

Thank you!! Whatever they are doing is balanced.. If you are losing it's not because of the RNG.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk

(Semi trolling here) I have mentioned in this thread before that no where in the cert. for the certified RNG does it state it is for the cards. It could be a RNG that determines the player number seat at the table who will win the sweepstakes!

Nice, very nice. I concur.

I ♥️ when you post. That gif is spectacular. Please keep posting. For the good of the forum


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They are operating a legal business based in Australia that is operating legally within the US, in compliance with US laws.

Don't take my word for it, take the SEC's and paypal's legal team's word.

Seems to me about every internet poker company in the history of the world has taken some such risk. Be it an employee, multiple employees.

To assume that an internet poker company wouldn't take "the risk" to increase their earnings ignores almost all data ever collected regarding these business models. To the contrary, assuming that a company WOULDN'T take the risk of cheating in some way would be the outlier.

This doesn't mean there is any concrete proof of anything. But to assume they "wouldn't because there is a risk" ignores all data.

You're kidding right?

+1 to shawnb's gif being awesome.

What data are you referring to? I've never seen any concrete evidence of a poker site manipulating the actual rng in order to favor certain accounts or to increase rake. Considering all the poker rooms that have operated in the past 2 decades I'd be interested in your data that you've compiled and what % of poker sites have had a biased rng.

Are you being funny? Being registered legally with the SEC has no bearing on them being properly regulated for gambling in the US? It allows them to solicit, sell, and trade shares of themselves. There is a reason why their "casino" doesnt operate on US soil. It serves as a level of protection for their business. What Gaming Control Board do they report to? NAGRA?

Anyway I am not trying to dissuade people from playing there, but as far as their poker site it is operating in the gray.

Sent from my SM-N910P using Tapatalk