Bad beats, bad cards and lose more hands and money than usual after claiming
sweeps prize? Discuss....

The fact is that every single thing that happens on that site could be algorithms maximizing profits. Without the hand histories there is just no way to know and the only way to get caught would be a whistleblower.

The cash out curse exists but it isn't the site, it's us.

People tend to alter their play after cashing out and it's like right after you buy a car, if you buy a red Honda, every other car you see for the next two weeks is a red Honda.

There really isn't much to discuss. I've read people claiming this on just about every site I've played on, and there never has been a bit of evidence that it might be true. It gets perpetuated because the people who withdraw and keep winning never say anything about it and the people who withdraw and then lose feel like they need to explain their losses some way. The most reasonable (to them) is that since they won before, it is only logical that the site doesn't want them to win because it is punishing them because they withdrew money. There is nothing particularly logical about it, but that is how it seems to them.

I'll provide my evidence, which I don't consider evidence of anything. I have withdrawn cash from Global over 20 times in a year and a half and have never noticed any corresponding "doomswitch" resulting in extended losses. I have had a few days (not consecutively) where everything seems to go wrong, but they don't line up with redemptions. When they happen, I attribute them to just a run of bad luck, or bad play. If I feel it is bad play, I take some time off and then try to play better, and if it was just bad luck I keep playing and know that with decent play I'll recoup my losses.

Global is a joke

This. Very well said. There is zero advantage for a company to have a "doomswitch" and make some players lose.

Of course there is, theres a giant incentive to make some players win at certain times if theyve been "losing too much" recently, so they keep playing on the site and/or dont go busto. Those players have to be playing against someone so if you're having a lot of allin preflop showdowns etc against said players over a period, its gonna feel like you're doomswitched. And the algorithm could also slightly 'punish' anyone who is withdrawing a lot, which is going to slightly funnel money towards non withdrawal players. The good players can withstand this obviously and maybe just makes the downswing slightly worse than it should be. The site isn't "rigged" against anyone but imo as a 5 figure profit player there is 100% some sort of non random algorithm.

100% implies evidence. Where's your evidence?

Maybe he's downloading his hand histories for you to provide the evidence.

The hand history on Global is garbage. Especially considering it's a mess and always says "something went wrong" lol

guess you dont understand what imo means

obviously noones going to have hard evidence

i think we all can agree all online casino games algorithms are non random and rigged. Why would you not think sites wouldn't slightly alter the poker algorithm to keep people playing on the site and to maximize profits? Of course they would. As long as its not so obvious and bad that the masses stop playing, theres nothing to lose, and tons of profit to gain.

Why would you think that we can all agree on that? The only evidence we have of it is 1) people's opinion about why it could or would be rigged; and 2) the anecdotal testimony of people who are notoriously bad at understanding or recognizing randomness (pretty much all humans fit into this, so it isn't a knock on anyone in particular).

I'm not saying any particular site is rigged or not rigged. I certainly don't know. But I have played on many sites, including about a year and a half on Global, and have read so many comments about all of them being rigged. I never played on a site where people didn't make that claim. And yet, somehow, I've seen nothing that would suggest any of them are rigged. Are the slot machines rigged? In one sense, all slot machines are rigged so I assume the same is true for online ones. They are programmed to have a particular payout, so you could call that a rig. I can't imagine that a site would need to do anything in particular above and beyond that to get a decent amount of profit.

For poker, on the other hand, they simply have to let hands play out and collect their rake. It shouldn't matter to them who wins or loses - but riggie theories are that the sites want bad players to win; or the sites want people who withdraw to lose; or people who deposit to win; or people who aren't them to win; or that there will just be big action hands all the time to increase rake (though the math shows that the big action hands result in less rake).

lol if you're not sure online casino games are rigged, you either 1. havent played them at a decent enough volume or 2. have a brain thats ridiculously bad at recognizing extremely obvious non-random patterns a 7 year old could spot. And probably could add 3. Extremely naive

The only online casino game I've played much of has been blackjack on Global. Some time ago, I tracked results and kept it in a file. In my first 877 hands (I stopped keeping track after that), I won 43.1%, lost 46.75% and tied 10.15%. This compares to the expected values of - Win 42.43% - Lose 49.09% - Draw 8.48%.

I have also read the scientific research into the ability of people to recognize patterns, and how what most people think of as random is actually not, and what they think of as patterns is really random. I'm sure that your 7 year old - along with an adult of your limited intelligence - might see things that they think are evidence of patterns. But that doesn't make it so. And that is why I like to back things up with data before I make decisions, and my data was enough to convince me that the blackjack on Global, though negative EV, was at least a fair game. I don't play it much, and I don't play for big stakes, and I don't recommend anyone do that. But that is because in the long run it will beat you, not because there is anything non-random about it.

So when you start going on the internet to spout nonsense and insult people, at least have some facts to back up your statements. Otherwise you just come across as a know-it-all who actually doesn't know anything.

"I've played a relatively small sample size on one site at low stakes and my win % numbers came out pretty clean, therefore im going to angrily dismiss anyone who disagrees with me that online casinos could possibly ever be rigged whatsoever, even if they might have 100s of times the sample size i do at 10s and maybe 100s of times the stakes"

Like, come on. You have to be smart enough to realize that tweaking the overall win % is the absolute dumbest and obviously worst possible way a site could rig the game right? Literally anyone could and would be able to expose that in minutes. The people that bet a static amount every hand are going to lose that steady static amount in the relatively short term, medium term and the long term, theres no point tweaking that especially since its so easily seen and exposed if you did and noone would play. So how does one try to beat the game in the short, medium and relatively long term?(obviously LONG LONG term everyone will lose but the amount of players who are going to play that many hands to be considered an extremely long term sample size is miniscule). Bet different amounts different hands, martingale etc. How could a site tweak the algorithm(WITHOUT EFFECTING THE OVERALL WIN %) to counter martingalers from taking the site for tens of thousands in the short, medium and somewhat long term? Up the % of long winning and losing streaks is one easy way. Or even better is at a certain point just doomswitch a martingalers last bet of a martingale run whenever you deem fit.

And sites obviously have incentive to keep tabs on anyone playing high stakes in the casino and possibly manipulate them however they see fit to take the most $ from them long term. Can even let whales win huge amounts in the beginning to get them hooked, then when the switch is flipped, they'll still keep coming back to try to get that huge win again like the good ole days and eventually end up in a big hole long term, when if they just lost right off the bat they would have stopped playing and lost less $ to the site. Again if anyone thinks literally nothing of this sort is going on and all sites are just operating on the 'up and up' and not trying to maximize their profits i'd say they're incredibly naive.




Not sure if you think you made a point here or something? "you're wrong, because everything you think is a pattern could easily be random, but im wrong too because everything i think is random could be a pattern". Ok? Good talk lol

See, the problem with this line of thinking, in addition to what VBAces said, is all of the other perspectives that it does not consider whether knowingly or not. Most such claims imply some tunnel-visioned approach to mysteriously maximise EV for companies - sort of what a regular poker enthusiast would do. A projection of regular poker enthusiast behaviour to a company that provides a service. One problem with this projection is that a business environment cannot be narrowed down to such simple perspective, there are too many variables in a business environment*. Another problem is that this projection completely misjudges what drives the value of the business, and therefore the value for shareholders which is the same to any business in any industry**.

What you described here and in your previous posts might not even be applicable to a student project operated from the basement where there is no accountability, no employment relationships adhering to applicable labour laws in a specific jurisdiction and all the other regulatory requirements or compliance requirements from business partners, let alone an international, multi-cultural, regulated business organizations. I'll explain expanding on what was mentioned above:

*Unlike regular poker enthusiasts, companies are not operated by a single individual. From companies like Zynga to a start up game studio, there are tens, hundreds or thousands of employees who touch organizational processes that affect customer experience when using a product: from entry level customer service agents, payments and risk specialists, anti-money laundering officers to engineers, data scientists, management teams, etc. See, companies hire and manage employees based on job/tasks descriptions, applicable labour laws in a particular jurisdiction and company's culture. Therefore, companies cannot really hire teams of people advertising that they will be building games but in reality will be asked to 'tweak' certified and authorized by regulatory bodies RNGs and or RTPs of slots. If what you implied were true, think of how many thousands of employees would know about 'rigged' algorithms and what leverage each would have against their peers, their team leads, their managers, their business unit heads, the board of directors. Now think how investors/shareholders would react if they found out about such 'business practices'. Spoiler alert: it would present them with an unacceptable risk and they would take their money to a different company or industry and literally no one would ever trust any company that hires management team who allowed or supported such 'business practices'.

**Also unlike regular poker enthusiasts, the book value or the bottom line of the business sometimes is completely irrelevant to the value of the business. Don't get me wrong, accounting-based performance measures, i.e. data found in financial statements, were used as a single performance measurement philosophy as recent as the 80's. For better or worse, we no longer live in the 80's and the modern performance measures includes intellectual capital measurement which in some cases can boost the value of the business much more than the bottom line would suggest. Amazon is a perfect example for this - 2021 reported earnings were just above 33 billion (~500B revenue), but market capitalization (the total market value of all shares) is over 1,5 trillion. Is that because Amazon knows how to 'tweak' sales prices so they maximize their bottom line or is it because Amazon has the intellectual capital to execute internal processes efficiently and with little waste, can adjust to ever changing regulations internationally, can market one of the most recognized brands on the planet, can reach extremely wide variety of customers which derisks cashflows, etc, etc, etc? This is especially true for smaller companies and start ups as they want to show that they can compete on a market but assets management and cashflows management are far more important than the bottom line at any given time measure.

Speaking of time, it is worth pointing out that the 'short-term' for companies is 1-5 years, depending on company's maturity, while for poker enthusiasts that is very subjective based on understanding of math and patience - could be 5 hands, could be 5000 hands, which further distances the perspectives and may lead to different expectations.

40 posts and decides to write a weird novel replying to this? Thought i might have hit a little too close to home with my post

Give you guys credit though, your casino is way less 'in-your-face' rigged than any other site on the internet. You guys actually sunrun people first to get them hooked, every other site is just laughably doomswitched from the get go. Wonder which model makes more $? Im guessing you guys, since its hard for people to ever stop playing when they win a lot at the start. Other sites people just stop playing once they realize how ridiculous the rig is, so for the most part the site makes the majority of $ from newcomers who havent found out yet.

I appreciate the effort of GlobalPokerAdmin's post, even if the people who actually need to hear it won't appreciate it.

Lots of arguments and theory that applies to publicly traded companies and shareholders. In my research Global is part of a private company so none of that applies. https://www.businessnews.com.au/Company/VGW-Holdings
Also the "too many people would know" theory. Easy to get around with a top down, secretive company culture. Great example was Wells Fargo. They broke numerous laws and they did it by creating a culture where you minded your own business, and you worried about you own paycheck. (also to note they could have made plenty of money not breaking the law "so why would they?" - for those who love saying that as some proof.) Not sure how Amazon is relevant as a publicly traded company but it is now known that Amazon purposely lost money on it's yearly membership fees to become a monopoly. Sellers, who have no where else to go are forced to raise prices so the consumer ends up paying more in the end compared to if there was real competition. A real life example of how data collection was combined with a win at all costs mentality.

In any case, all this could be put to bed by releasing all hand histories. The most basic thing to establish trust.

Withdrew from Global earlier this year and went on my biggest upswing on the site over the next six weeks. I feel dumber for having posted on a rigged(!) thread but ymmv.