Does anybody actually believe that this is the case?

I very much doubt that the Isle of Man gaming authority oversees their day to day operations in this fashion... are you envisaging some kind of armed police hovering over a computer server preventing PokerStars staff from uploading a new software update until it has been rigorously checked by the Isle of Mans top software experts... ? And that the Isle of Man gaming authorities have people in all of PokerStars offices overseeing what they are doing?

Here is what the Isle of Man gaming commision says they do on their website at http://www.gov.im/gambling/players.xml

On the Isle of Man we make sure that all licensee's have a system in place which fully protects all player funds. This means that any deposits or winnings you have with an island regulated gaming firm are secure and can be enforced by law.

All operators must have the games they offer independently tested by an external testing facility, approved by the Gambling Supervision Commission, to ensure their mechanisms are fully random and therefore fair.

The Commissions' functions in respect of the interests of the player also include reviewing the ongoing marketing and advertising activities of licensees, and continually monitoring all policies in respect of player protection and under-age gambling.

Nothing about 'source code control', software development', 'system maintenance' or anything else, so I think it is safe to assume that these aspects are not overseen by the IOM authorities.

edit:

Given that the commision has eight staff I am sure they are not regulating PS to quite the degree that you envisage

You weren't.

I told him that about three times yesterday.

Another symptom of rigtardism is a grossly overrated sense of self importance.

Stars,

I understand how you think poker is rigged and needs to be tested (part of me agrees with you) but what does this topic have to do with legislation or even the PPA where you are posting too?

This topic should be moved to the Internet Poker Forum.

Sorry mods if I am out of line in saying this but I am a moderator in another forum and old habits are hard to break.

Basically what they are saying is that they have a quick shuffti but rely on the site to run the equipment and software that has been audited.

And no matter how stringent they make the audit requirements that is effectively all that can ever happen (unless they were to move the the armed police scenario you posited above).

That is why I don't make a big fuss about auditing - it can always be circumvented.

Far moe effective that those of us who have the maths and are capable of building the computing tools required run an eye over things from time to time on an informal basis.

That way, should a site ever start to do something dodgy, someone will actually be able to present evidence which, once checked and validated will alert the community to the wrong doing.

Just as happened with AP/UB.

Weird I could have sworn there was a post here by Spadebidder that referred to Full Tilt's overseeing commision taking a bit more of an active role than PokerStars.

Anyway perhaps I should clarify that I am not saying one way or another whether the IOM / Alderney etc gaming authorities are useless, brilliant or somewhere in between.

All I was saying is that it is completely ludicrous to believe that *all* of *any* companies operations are going to be overseen by a governing body. Just a simple thought experiment as to how this could ever be done should convince everyone of that.

edit. now I replied to a post that is below mine. Maybe I'm starting to go crazy from reading this thread

Your point is well taken, but I think the oversight is a little more extensive than what is published there. But actually it appears that Full Tilt (Filco Ltd.) is under more extensive regulation by Alderney than Poker Stars is by IoM.

http://www.gamblingcontrol.org/userfiles/file/81.pdf
http://www.gamblingcontrol.org/userfiles/file/85.pdf

Incidentally, both of those jurisdictions are whitelisted for gambling control by the UK governement and some other EU members.

No, you're not going crazy.

The forum software only stores the posting time to the nearest minute so if two people post very close to one another the posts can get reversed when they are sorted (which they are each time they are displayed as it is possible to show threads from latest to earliest if the administrators enable the feature).

i.e. the sort algorithm is rigged.

Leave op alone guys, he has a valid point here and I am very interested to see how the analanalysis turns out.

stars sn please.

I don't think you're going to find it.

I always had some theory that I ran bad in tournaments, because I felt like I was always getting in with the best hand and getting knocked out. So I tracked some data for 73 low-level tournaments just to see how I ran, in which I was all-in 161 times.

The first thing that surprised me was how wrong my initial impression was that I was always getting it in good. While I did manage to get my money in as a statistical favorite 100 times out of 161 (counting coinflips on their respective side of the favorite/non-favorite side, I figured these would approximately balance out), there were a number of times I just got my money in drawing slim or dead. A lot of times these were low M moments, and you're just going to get your money in hoping to double up. But I also noticed that I tended not to remember these anywhere near as much as the times when some moron (because they're all morons when it happens to you) hit his three-outer.

I also did an expected value analysis (using percentages from CardPlayer) to figure out how many times that I would have been expected to be knocked out of those 73 tournaments, and what I figured out is that I should have been kocked out 70.73 times based on the hands that I was all-in on. Many of the tournaments, I found my expected number of knockouts to be less than 1, and most of the bring back towards the expected value were times where I got my hands in as favorites a number of times and managed to win a bunch of the 80-20/70-30/coin flip type scenarios. ([BBV]There was also one turbo satellite, where I kept getting blinded and anted all-in and won about six hands blind...[/BBV])

What was interesting was that after some major fluctuations during the first fifteen tournaments or so (I had both a second place and three consecutive first-hand knockouts in that stretch), what I later called my Luck Factor (expected number of knockouts / # of tournaments played) was rapidly converging to 1. Not that it was always moving that way, but consistently enough that I became convinced that my mind was playing tricks on me.

You started it...

Good post OP, you know your on to something when heroes like salesbeast are backing you up

Some interesting reading in those files to be honest. Obviously no way of telling if the commision really does look at everything they say they do, but they seem like a professional outfit at least. Having looked around the IOM site a bit more it seems from the guidance notes on http://www.gov.im/gambling/applications.xml that they do look at more than I posted earlier.

more complex math problems for OP to work on

Why ask here? All proposed legislation already requires audits and RNG verification.

Great post TMP!

Well that is shame and indicates a completely unregulated, misleading and dishonest operation.

As you probably know in other segments of our economy regulation is not unknown concept, in fact it is the main criteria of operation and the burden of proof indeed on the operators and not on consumers. For example, in order to fully comply with standards (it called PCI DSS) payment card processor entities must dig around their proprietary software, just like brick and mortar casinos must inspect every corner of their operation in order to prove that they are in full compliance with regulations. Usually this exercise is manifested in system audit and there are audit reports available.

Why exactly PS is unable to provide full system audit reports since started its operation and hiding behind the tiny Isle of Man gaming authority by creating marketing clouds about Cigital RNG audit which cover only a tiny segment of their operation? If you know let us now.

It is hilarious and quite bizarre that you think PokerStars should not dig around their proprietary software as such digging is too much hassle ... the whole purpose of the Isle of Man regulation which PS proudly refers is to dig around their proprietary software in order to ensure system integrity.

I am glad it has been established finally in this thread, that PS is not digging around and full system audit is unknown concept at the multi billion dollar gambling enterprise.

well now i hate my life even more seeing as how i got it in in the Sunday Mill as the big stack twice as 90 and 92 % fave is 40k and 25k pots and lost both, damn i run even worse than i thought

Again your post does not address what the other person wrote. Are you being deliberately dense or something?

Markus wrote that *YOU* do not get to audit their operation, not that the operation is not audited by *SOMEONE*

If you want to apply for a job on the Alderney / Gibraltar / Isle of Man gaming commision boards then you can do so.

Maybe an analogy would help. Suppose I decide that I don't trust my bank, and state that I would like to see a full audit of all of their accounts, front-end internet banking site, and all of their back-end software whether it deals with purcashing rolls of toilet paper for the staff toilets or risk-management stuff. They are going to tell me to **** off. If I post on a banking forum that they should do this, I am going to get told that I am a stark raving nutter.

None of that means that they are not audited. In fact there are links on the Alderney and IOM gaming commision pages indicating that a number of things are audited. If you don't trust the gaming commisions then don't play on those sites, just like I would keep my money under my bed if I didn't trust the FSA.

http://www.gamcare.org.uk/ is listed on the very bottom of this pokerstars page with the word CERTIFICATION under it...

http://www.pokerstars.com/

Here is what gamcare does...

"GamCare, a registered charity, is the leading national authority on the provision of advice, practical help, support and counselling in addressing the social impact of gambling.
GamCare takes a non-judgemental approach to gambling. We do not wish to restrict the choices or opportunities for anyone to operate or engage in gambling opportunities that are available legally and operated responsibly.

We develop strategies that will:

•Improve the understanding of the social impact of gambling
•Promote a responsible approach to gambling
•Address the needs of those adversely affected by a gambling dependency."

http://www.gamcare.org.uk/pages/about_gamcare.html

I don't see the words 'we certify RNG's' in that description and directly next to it at the bottom of www.pokerstars.com is Cigital... we'll see if Cigital is part of one of these companies that tested PS's Rng.

"Test Facilities
The following companies are approved by the Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission for the testing of gaming software on behalf of any island based licensees:-

•TST Global
•iTech Labs
•Gaming Associates
•eCOGRA
•GLI Europe BV
•Software Quality Systems
All companies licensed in the Isle of Man, with software systems that require official testing, must use one of the firms listed above."

http://www.gov.im/gambling/atf.xml

You are completely wrong about that.

One of the main areas of the gaming authority regulations is to control software development, including source code control and it clearly described in the regulatory resources that is in the case of FT available for download from the gaming authority website (I believe you can get that material at the link speadbetter pushed to you). Without controlling the software development and source code control the regulation is meaningless in the domain of online businesses.

So, the regulations clearly requires software development, source code, system maintenance and software deployment controls at all locations of the operators naturally including at foreign based business continuity data centres, but FT and PS are unable to provide such full audit. Why is that?

You're just making most of this up as you go along, aren't you?

lol +1

Gamcare obviously has nothing to do with RNG's, its certification means its satisfied with things like Stars' self-exclusionary policies.

Your posts will get more respect and discussion if you take the time to organize them and provide some evidence rather than just starting a thread with whatever comes to mind.