No sir, I want to see the results, not PR speak.

I seen my example thousands of times. Unfortunately most of this was when PT didn't pick up tourney stats.

run really good = cashout

run bad to balance it = run bad right after you cashed out

Hang on.

We have a discussion about online poker is being rigged. You claim that "9/10" times the chip leader sucks out "runner runner" in SNGs.

If this discussion is going to have any meaning, you now need to provide some reasoning/source/evidence/something to support that sentence.



Time constraints permitting, I'm happy to provide a source/reasoning/evidence for any statement that I make. Can you do the same?

Josem makes a good sheep.

Well, I will hold my personal experiences then since I cannot go back in time and copy my tourney hh's.

No. Go get someone with some expertise in dog food analysis to test it.

Just as we're saying that you should get someone with expertise in statistical analysis to test your claims that online poker is rigged.

No, I did know that. However, that confirms my line of thinking - If you have a suspicion that someone is doing something wrong, the rest of Western society demands some proof before believing that.

This is a pretty basic logical process - if you suspect something is dodgy, you should prove it is dodgy. If it is dodgy, it is probably fairly easy to detect.

Of course, it is possible that dog food is tainted. Of course, it is possible that pokerstars is rigged - but before believing either statement, I need some evidence to support those statements.

I just sent cigital an email asking for the results of their test.

We'll see what happens.

Exactly how would results allay your fears?

Do you still have the hand histories?

For requiring evidence to believe something?


Let's look at this from another viewpoint.

Person A comes in, and claims that there is a massive international fraud underway.

Person B says, "show us some proof of this."

Person A fails to provide any proof. Person A has no evidence to support his claim.

Now, Person A claims that Person B is a sheep for doubting his belief that he has no evidence to support.


This is rediculous.

You don't even have PT stats?

I'm curious... I've played Limit, NL, STTs, and MTTs. I've played on several different sites, including PokerStars. I've played approximately 250K hands lifetime online. Why is it that I've never experienced anything unusual? Poker is a game of ups and downs. Some of those ups and downs can be "ridiculous", but that's just the way the game of poker is. I expect to get beaten by a two outer, or a gutshot straight occasionally. And it does happen occasionally, at the rate that it should be. Sometimes it feels like it's happening more than it should, but that's just because we as humans tend to exaggerate bad beat frequencies.

Dude, I don't have my personal lab, how would I personally prove it?

Same goes with Pokerstars, I don't have personal access to their rng.

It's impossible for me to prove anything.

I post hh and it's variance, standard deviation bull [censored].

I'll see if I can get any where with Cigital.

Regarding the HHs and PT, you can probably e-mail Stars requesting HHs from before date mm/dd/yy.

You could get someone else to prove it on your behalf.

You could get an employee to blow the whistle on the operation. You could unearth internal documents proving that stars is rigged.

You could provide some evidence that it is rigged - to date, none has been provided.

You don't need access to their RNG algorithm to prove their riggedness any more than you need access to the dog food factory to prove it is tainted.

No, it is not.

Well, it might well be normal variance. That's certainly a possibility.... isn't it?

What did you email to them?

PT has been able to handle tourney HHs for at least a couple of years now.

You're seriously saying that the best proof you have that pokerstars is rigged is the memory of some suckouts several years ago from a tournament that you have no handhistories from? Is that really the best you can do? Do you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

This is from Cigital itself...I didn't read the whole thing but it's quite interesting.

http://www.cigital.com/papers/downlo...r_gambling.php

Thats funny!

No, it is not - as the subtitle of the link says.

While it is interesting, the original version of that article is linked from the forum FAQ.

Incidentally, the last paragraph of the article, which reads "In concert, a good shuffling algorithm and a 64-bit pseudo-random number generator seeded with a proven hardware device should produce shuffles that are both fair and secure. Implementing a fair system is not overly difficult. Online poker players should demand it" is what PokerStars uses - the details of their shuffle are linked above.

Haha, you do realize this hurts your argument? There was a poker site with a vulnerable RNG, and a group of talented but unethical individuals took advantage of it. Now places like Cigital and BMM analyze sites' RNGs to make sure that they aren't vulnerable.

How does it hurt anything? I'm not saying Cigital is crooked, just pokerstars.

\
Well Cigital is a company that makes sure that online poker sites aren't crooked. And it says that PokerStars isn't crooked.

So if you don't think Cigital is crooked, then their word should be good enough for you. Correct?

[quote]
No, it is not - as the subtitle of the link says.



Ah, yes it is. Follow the link...

Ugh, Cigital isn't a company that is out to validate online poker sites.

They are for hire like anyone else. Riverstars hired them to evaluate their rng....or better yet it sounds like their algorithm.

I have questions, did they test their rng in operation or did pokerstars give them the algorithm they use?

So easy to get by this and make this claim.

This is all they could've gave cigital to "test" their rng...they just give them 'a' algorithm.

procedure TDeck.Shuffle;
var
ctr: Byte;
tmp: Byte;

random_number: Byte;
begin
{ Fill the deck with unique cards }
for ctr := 1 to 52 do
Card[ctr] := ctr;

{ Generate a new seed based on the system clock }
randomize;

{ Randomly rearrange each card }
for ctr := 1 to 52 do begin
random_number := random(51)+1;
tmp := card[random_number];
card[random_number] := card[ctr];
card[ctr] := tmp;
end;

CurrentCard := 1;
JustShuffled := True;
end;The shuffling algorithm shown in

[quote]
you're right... but it was originally published elsewhere.

Yep, I'm convinced.

Not.