Lets try to get bak to the rational chat in here.

There are two good and simple and obvious way to rig the game, one is to change the EV of given cards so they win less fequent than expected and by that generates more rake for the poker room, keeping players playing longer.

This theory has some potentials flaws, like spadebidder pointed out, but I havent seen the math supporting those flaws nor have seen the database analisys showing there is no statistical significant deviation from the expected EV at any point of the game wih any cards analysed, so the EV change theory is still alive.


The other very simple and intuitive theory is the "site owns ot theory". This theory is eve more easy to be put i practice and even more difficult to be detected. It says the site has bots playing for them.

Notice that in this theory there is no need to change the EV of any cards. Also, there is no need to change the normal randomness of the shuffle.

I cant see no big flaws in the bots theory, if yu see please share.


By the way, I pay poker online and I´ve been winning for 3 years. So my doubts about tfairness of the business has nothing to do with my profits or unprofits.

"Unprofits"? I think you mean Un-unlosses

Yes, I meant "losses"

These all maybe true, but how is this proof of rigging?

Being unregulated != being rigged.

Are you spadebidder´s wife or something like that?

I think all the rigging conspiracy theories are based on the premise that every single business that exists would rather do something dishonest to squeeze a few extra bucks out of their customers rather than just get paid for what they offer legitimately.

Personally, I can't subscribe to that belief system. It would make it fairly impossible for me to function in society.

+1

Hmm, I think a 3rd commandment can come from this.

Commandment 3: Thy shall hurl random personal attacks as a defense mechanism


If you want to call me a troll , shill, Lizard person, spade's wife or whatever specific name gives you a special thrill you are free to go for it. Thanks for helping create the riggedologist's commandments.


The list for now

Commandment 1: Thy shall ask others to prove it false

Commandment 2: Thy shall state an opinion and declare it a fact

Commandment 3: Thy shall hurl random personal attacks as a defense mechanism

+1

cyn⋅ic
  /ˈsɪnɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sin-ik] Show IPA
–noun
1. a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view.

Rigged?I don't think so,its absurd for me to think that these site are rigged when I have never deposited on any site ever and I have BRs on 6 sites that total over 3 g's and have done this in 18 months and I'm sure there's a lot of people that have done the same.I don't think that they would take money from people that deposit and give it to some one who doesn't if they could have a choice about it but maybe they all think I'm sexy and like to give me money.The reason I'm on six sites is that I run bad call it rigged and try to make dough some were else and sometime I run bad there too.I the long run I come back from the bad runs.Had a 3 month down swing that was insane but I came out of it.It's poker it happens.I play about 10 hrs live a week and see the same crap there also.

Well that didn't last long.

+1

Although conspiracy theorists and whacky liberals (not that there's anything wrong with liberal in general )would have you believe nearly all big companies are greedy and dishonest, there are very very few billion dollar+ companies that deliberately and systemically cheat their customers. Sure, lots of small ones do. Big ones have too much to lose, too many sensible executives running it (who are usually successful due in part to integrity) who have to work as a team, and usually a board of directors to answer to whether they are public or not. The few big splashy frontpage examples of corruption in large companies are exceptions. Rare ones.

A rational person believes most businesses act honestly until they see evidence otherwise. Businesses exist to perpetuate and grow their revenue stream, and they act in their own best interest. That almost always coincides with their customers' best interests.

/soapbox

[ ] Sexy

I dont see why is so taboo to think that MAYBE the online poker companies cheat at some level. If I deposit money in some bank before I do that I think: "is it fair?". If I make business with someone I think: "is He honest?". If I play a soccer championship I think: "are these referee cheating?" Why is it so scary to think: "are poker rooms fair?" Why do you people that believe it IS fair get so scared, why do you think someone needs to be paranoid to think of that?

I think I know the answer, because if it is not fair as you think you are going to stop playing. More, if its not fair you are going tofeel depressed because you were fooled for so long. And I can put a list of things here, but it all comes to your ego. You just cant take the frustration of uncertainty, of not being sure of something, so you have to be sure sites are not rigged, is the only way you can think and survive.


I dont know if the sites are rigged or not, but I have no problem in investigating these two possibilities. Yet, I play poker online, get fun doing that, win money doing that and accept the fact that I DONT KNOW. It may be rigged, but I´m fine with that, still get fun, still gives me money. If its rigged could be better I think. If its not rigged, great, now I KNOW.


So thats what I think. There are people that cant bare the anxiety. The mere thinking, or reading in post about a site being rigged makes them feel so anxious that they start crying and yelding IT IS NOT, IT IS NOT, like a mantra, like child tying to deny the reality. Trying to deny the reality of uncertainty.

If you need a simple world where things simply are or are not and you dont have to think about it, thats ok, but I say: grow up.

It's pretty impressive to tie your online poker is rigged conspiracy, and sprinkle in some implied anti-semitism/anti-communist conspiracy too.
I don't think these questions are taboo at all - I think that people should question this stuff.

Email the site you're concerned about, and ask them to address your issues. I think that'd be a good first step. You pay them rake - get them to explain how their shuffle works, get them to explain their safeguards against other risks, get them to help you understand whatever you want to know.


For example, one of the common theories that is spread around is that somehow the flop, turn and river is manipulated to favour particular players.

I've previously posted in this forum some extensive instructions on how to play at a site where such manipulation is impossible. Those instructions included contact details for regulators, and even some sample emails that could be sent in under 5 minutes.

Of course, as far as I know, not one of the conspiracy theorists ever took those simple steps.

I actually think the majority of people in this thread would admit they don't know, but that the likelyhood of the sites being rigged is pretty low based primarily on the fact that people have been screaming about this stuff after bad beats forever, and statistically nothing has been proven that shows anything out of the ordinary. Most people making definitive claims one way or another are the ones saying that the sites are rigged and directly accusing them of it without evidence. Again those people's best defense when confronted is to ask us to prove a negative, which is just such a flawed argument it's laughable.

There isn't anything wrong with asking the question or looking at evidence. The problem is that most posters in this thread base their claims on anecdotal bad beat stories and a lack of understanding of statistics or of the intrinsic randomness that is an important part of the game of poker.

I think you would find there are a lot of smart people here who are able and willing to evaluate evidence and reach the right conclusion. Usually there isn't anything to evaluate, and you see jaded responses based on having seen hundreds of whacky theories and unsupported claims.

Lets get some data:

I have a partial database (just partypoker) with 467 AA. It has won 92.29 % .

When I go to the hands that reach the showdown I found 131 hands. Of that 131 hands I won 73.3 % of the showdowns. If play AA against random cards I have 85% of equity. Somehow my Aces lost 12,7% of its equity.

Is that normal variation given the size of the database or should be explained by other factor?

It's because hands that reach showdown are not random hands.

If someone gets to showdown - with bets, calls and/or raises along the way - it's because they think they have a strong hand.

couple things i find funny
1) poker sites make enough money on rake...

who make "enough" money .. not me.. money= power= greed

2) it would be too difficult to make a RNG that
would favor the weaker player.

favor the weaker hand and you'll find the weaker player...
man on the moon .. done
mars rover .. done
computer that fits on your desk.. done
computer that fits in your lap .. done
computer that fits in your hand .. done
a device that holds 3k songs and fits in your pocket.. done
an RNG that favors the weaker hand .. pffft .. impossible

when money is involved .. people cheat .. poker is full of cheaters
i don't know why ppl think its some wholesome game/lifestyle.

as one of my older friends likes to say " poker players aint nuttn but crooks
and thieves"

It is a small sample, but you still need to measure against the actual equity of the hands that you were up against, not against the mean for random hands. If your software can't do that, you could look up all 131 (including their suits and yours) in Poker Stove, and see what the actual average equity was, and you may find it to be closer to the 73.3 than to the 85%. You can also create a program to do it automatically from your list if you know how, lots of open source stuff is available. Your sample may not be large enough to converge right on the number, but with 131 hands it should be pretty close, and I guarantee it won't be 12% off.

Once you have the equity number, you can use the binomial distribution to figure out the chance of various number of +/- wins from the mean, and you can also calculate how many SD you are from the mean. Anything within 2 SD should be considered very normal. When you get close to 3 you would either be running very bad or very good, but still not that improbable. More than that and you start questioning what's wrong.

Who has ever made that claim? It would be easy to make, but almost impossible to make it undetectable statistically.

You already lose all credibility after making this post...


How is anybody supposed to take you seriously when you demonstrate an inability to even understand basic odds?

Is that the analisys you are going to make in that 1 billion database?

I have a doubt, I think didnt understand what you said at the final of the post, is it not possible to make an analisys of non all in situations?

sorry i don't need or want your respect..

what odds do i not understand ? the 90% is favored to win?

so what your saying is put your money in with 5 outs?

great plan .. forget the "put your money in when you are
ahead".. that's b.s..

put your money in when you are way behind .. ..i like it