You claim to have provided ONE piece of evidence of a 1:3e9 event.

You would expect around one a month on PS.

You seem to be using a sleight of hand (provide one piece of evidence and talk about such things happening on a daily basis as if it were a fact).

You do realise that is very dishonest of you?


It's not a mystery at all.

It's just a cost/benefit thing.

The number of people who will stop playing at the site as a result of their psychotic paranoia based on no evidence is so small that it's simply not worth them wasting their time.

There are enough normal, sane, no-paranoid players to keep them going.

Well, that’s why it is good to visit this thread, meet such exceptional capable individual such as you are qupewe. You are good at math probability, all forms of logic including quantum logic, commercial law, classical latin just name a few from your expertises. Now you demonstrated your competence in IT as well. Well done. I have been in the software industry 20+ years, writing programmes that operates on the TCP/IP protocol that you have mentioned, but I learned a lot about IT from you. Thanks for that.

Could you cure my grandpa prostate cancer and solve global warming please between two rants, those must be doable tasks for you as well?

A system like that would be indistinguishable from an unrigged system, would not affect any player's outcome, and thus it would be a fair game. If the game is rigged for the distribution to match expectation, it isn't rigged at all. You are totally, ignorantly wrong on this. Shifting equity from one group to another or one player to another, will not appear random at all. Someone just has to compare the right data sets to see it. Even just making the overall undivided population come out matching expectation (which I think is what you are saying) would be nearly impossible with any system that benefits the site.

Yes, I went to school.

I have also studied logic but then again I have know people who have superb logical reasoning capabilities but only very basic education. (Sadly none of the rigtards on this thread. )

There are books about these things, you know.

It's not rocket science.

ROFLMAO.

That is just about the funniest thing I've yet seen a rigtard write on this thread. classical latin - priceless!

Wrong.

I simply made a comment that you don't seem to have much of a clue about TCP/IP if you think that PS acting as its own ISP is in some way helpful in hiding from scrutiny.

Maybe you could use all the IT experience you claim to have by explaining exactly how PS acting as its own ISP is of assistance in hiding from scrutiny?

Well, that makes a lot of sense knowing that 50% of players generally do not trust online gaming.

If the full audit exists it would be a day work for a system analyst to organise that information and a day work for a web developer to put that on the net, so it really make a lot of sense that a multibillion dollar organisation wants to save a few hundred dollars and do nothing about the obvious issue of consumer trust, which increase could increase PS revenue by millions of dollars.

Are you employed too by PS so you know this cost saving thing or just came up with this genius argument by using your naturally endless talent?

PS:
Here is the reference of the 50% figure
http://www.pokernewsheadlines.com/20...er-rooms/#more

This thread has a bazillion posts. I am not going to dig through to find the hands you misinterpreted. I assume you have them saved somewhere, just repost them when bringing up a long forgotten issue. Seems odd that you will not. Actually, not that odd

Basically, your stats numbers are made up.

No offense, but people who create random mafia, entropy effect, and imaginary statistics are not overly likely to have an open mind that is willing to change when presented logic.

Email Stars about the audits, and if they have what you want all that will happen is you adjust your paranoid beliefs a bit more (which is an entertaining process and a lot of what this thread is about!)

See, you are already beginning to form the reconditioned thought process in advance. If his billion hand study shows it is fair, it will not be in your mind until something else happens. If that happens, no worries, we also need Krusty the Clown to validate the data or something

Why not email them and ask what you want. Would be a lot easier and quicker then posting all of your imaginary beliefs. That plus not posting and discussing you special hands sure seems like you want to avoid any direct discussion on these topics.

You afraid of the truth?

It is a dumb analogy. Poker sites make millions of dollars with poker and they claim that their games are fair. The burden of evidence is ON THEM. They don't bother to tell us about this evidence, just that there is some. Really? Where? I paid a lot of rake to the sites, now I want something back. I want a proof of their trusthwortness. Do I have it? Heck not!

I don't really know, why are you talking about children molestors. What I know - is that you are trying to put burden on proof on players, not sites. Let me just say that players have exactly NOTHING with RNG, while sites have absolutely everything. I have little doubt that my horryfing card run could perhaps be explained with variance (oh well it was 1: 100 million shot, it happens every day). That's why I want the commission to analyze that site and come to conclusions. Meanwhile you are satisfied with the idea that games are fair, and you have exactly no evidence for it. Oh well...

I said:

"The number of people who will stop playing at the site as a result of their psychotic paranoia based on no evidence is so small that it's simply not worth them wasting their time.

There may well be more who have some vague feeling of mistrust but so long as they continue to play they don't enter into the cost benefit equation.

What you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around is that the moment you have a scrap OF EVIDENCE that a site is rigged, then the burden of proof will switch to the site in question.

Until that time the burden of proof is on you.

This one time i lost a coinflip, so rigged IMO.

Yeah, just don't ask Sideshow Bob to investigate the rake!

What kind of paranoid believes are you talking about?

All I am asking is the full IT system audit. PS should demonstrate that all software components are audited including systems at the business continuity data centres, demonstrate that the full source code is under the authority control and only digitally signed and authority verified software components are deployed, demonstrate that the authority ensures that PS owned proprietary ISP does not assist on data manipulation while routing it.

I think it is reasonable to ask such details from a site operators that claims honest operation in the first place.

Let’s hope Josem the PS employed security expert, who seemingly very active answering on K13 users’s PS and AA comments will publish this details.

How about this:

Technically, that is just gibberish!

Why would you need an ISP to manipulate data over which you have 100% control?

You are just stringing together jargon and making absurd juxtapositions (classical Latin ).

So email them and ask them.

Or is that too complex a concept for you to understand?

Firstly, you went away for a break after my last post, came back, and *still* have not defined what you mean by 'similar' in this respect.

Secondly, once you have defined 'similar', please show your working that makes this sequence of two hands a 1 in 3 billion event. It has certainly not been 'established'.

Thirdly, please provide a concrete example of how this would work. It seems clearly *impossible* to me, unless you rig a proportion of hands that tends to zero as the number of hands dealt goes to infinity.

Finally, the burden of proof is not on the sites to prove that they are not rigged. This should be the null hypothesis. If there was even a shred of evidence that they were rigged, I suspect the sites would be eager to provide audits and so on. Without a shred of evidence, I suspect that they figure the cost of doing so outweighs the benefits significantly, particularly as I suspect rigtards tend to be low intelligence/low wage people who do not have much disposable income to spend on Poker.

You should stop qpw speculating who would stop and who would play, it does not make sense at all.

The fact is the 50% of users do not trust online gambling, and therefore as the sites are profit orientated organisations it is the sites’ primary interest to increase consumers’ confidence. Saving a the few hundred/thousand dollars which is the cost of disclosing the audit information which could increase the revenue with millions of dollars is irrational.

So if they don’t manipulate the game why don’t publish evidence about the integrity of the system. Please do not bother with the answer, I know your answer: they want to save few hundred/thousand dollar.

It obviously makes sense to the sites.

Email them and tell them.

I'm sure they will be delighted that you have taken time out from your busy schedule to let them know of a way they can significantly increase their profits.

Email and ask them.

I know you rigtards are not the sharpest knives in the drawer but I would have thought that it would not be beyond your meagre intellectual capabilities to realise that if you want answers about the way a poker site behaves you should be asking the poker site, not a bunch of people who can only speculate.

The mafia stuff is pretty hard core paranoia. Making up hands in your mind that do match the ones in reality is another example. Believing that the default business model is an intricate massive conspiracy to commit a crime that makes no sense is another example. Asking for data you do not fully understand while not being willing to simply email the sites about it is another example.

You are kind of a textbook definition of paranoia.

Again, why not email the sites and ask. Is that really that hard to do? They may even help you understand what you are trying to ask about.


He definitely should ignore that K guy as everyone should, however it would be an even bigger waste of time if he tried to satisfy every vague request from paranoid posters who will never be happy with any answer that does not meet their expectations.

This isn't a fact. I'm no longer sure you know the meaning of the word.

You linked to a purported survey of 2500 players (for the sake of argument lets agree the survey was really carried out and they really asked over 2500 players).

How do you know this sample of players is representative of all online poker players (or prospective players)? How can you estimate how large a percentage of poker sites *revenue* comes from the people who had doubts about the site? How can you come to any conclusion about the cause for their mistrust? How can you estimate what proportion of players who don't trust the poker sites at all continue to play anyway. What makes you think providing a full IT audit would increase customer's confidence (if the customer's think sites will run off with their money, for example, what good would an IT audit do?)

That's my answer too... though I think the cost of this vague 'full IT audit' is probably more than a few thousand dollars.

Presumably it would have to be a constant ongoing thing to stop the poker site switching the 'rigged' program back on as soon as the auditors have left the building. Presumably there would be someone to audit the auditors to prevent the poker sites bribing the first set of auditors... presumably someone needs to audit those auditor-auditors as well...

Happened to me once.

Obviously rigged so I did the intelligent thing and stopped flipping coins.

Well, I disagree with that. I believe it is possible to design a software system that is rigged and in the meantime its output fits into the statistically expected values. I think such system is possible by deploying system driven bot player accounts and redirecting winning hands to those accounts or using another tricks that have been discussed in here earlier that increase the revenue for the site.

I understand you write software for statistical purpose, which is great, but if it is possible to design some kind of rigged software that produces statistically fit data then your software and its output will be kind of useless and would prove nothing. I think software engineers like myself, yourself or others who contribute to this thread should try to come up with a proof of concept for rigged poker software. It will be clear and measurable whether the rigged data fits into the statistically expected data set. If it turns out that it is not possible to come up with such a system than you are obviously right about the traceability of rigged data within a large data set.

What do you think?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

for PokE as he seems to like 'classical' Latin.

Prefer the modern stuff myself

If you want to 'redirect' winning hands then you need to redirect them from someone else.

This is where your hypothesis falls down because if you do that you will leave artifacts in the HH stats than can be discovered by appropriate analysis.

Absolutely.

I always go to Latin American countries for my holidays so I can practice my modern Latin.

One way that would work is to rig a 'zero proportion' of all hands. i.e. a poker site decides to rig Hand 1, Hand 10, Hand 100, Hand 1000, and all other hands which are Hand number 10^n for some n. No matter how large a sample you look at you could never detect this type of rigging.

You can't just rig the site in favor of house bots and say that it's undetectable. If house bots receive a disproportionate amount of winning hands, then their opponents, legitimate players, must receive a disproportionate amount of losing hands. This should be detectable statistically by an individual player looking at their own results.