A couple of things.
1. For better readability, please use paragraphs.
2. In regards to this:
Where did you pull the 80-85% from? Is it a ball park figure or did you actually study your hand history? If so, what program did you use?
--- I use the twodimes poker calculator for any hands that I don't know the estimated probabilities. I always use 75% as my number when I'm Ax and my opponent is Ay where x>y, not adjusting for suitedness. I always use 80% for my xx vs. my opponents yy where x>y. In cases such as this:
my A9 vs. my opponent's TQ
board 29J
and my opponent has gone all in, I count his outs as 14 (no flush draw) for the 3 T's, 3 Q's, 4 8's, and 4 K's, then use the x4 rule for 2 cards to come, which would put my opp. at 56% to win - then round down slightly to 55%, since it's really x4 minus a bit for formula approximation. In the case I just gave, this would be the twodimes prob:
http://twodimes.net/poker/?g=h&b=2c+...+9h%0D%0Ats+qd
which says it's a 50/50 proposition. Similarly, I use the 2x outs rule for one card to come on the river as an estimate; when my opponent has 6 outs, as far as I'm concerned, I call it 88% to win. It's splitting hairs if I'm 87% or 90% - for aggregate probability estimation, 88% is sufficient.
Another one: for my Ax vs my opponents yz where y and z > x (e.g., A7 vs KQ) I always use 55% as my probability. The real range is 52% to 61% depending on suitedness and the values of y and z, but for the purpose of defining an aggregate p value for a binomial distribution, the average of all such hands is 55% roughly.
In cases when there are 3 players in a hand - then I always use twodimes to find the probabilities. I have no estimates, formula, or memorization of any 3-handed (or more) situations, except roughly the AA vs. N opponents who do not have AA type, and even those probabilities I would never use without finding them out exactly.
3. In regards to this:
FTP use a continuous shuffle, so the deck is not "set" like a regular live deck. Instead, the deck is constantly being shuffled and does not pick the next card out until it has to act.
--- I was not aware of that- frankly, I had never thought about it. If anything, I would have assumed the deck is "preset" when the hand is dealt. When I wrote my poker software for practice, I simply used an array with 52 elements and randomly filled the array with the values 1..52. Then, players 1 is dealt card[1] and card[5], player 2 is dealt card[2] and card[6], etc. The burn is card[9], and the flop is card[10] card[11] and card[12]. Etc. That's just the way I did it to simulate dealing, but of course, it doesn't matter, I could have made player 1 have card[33] and card[47] every time, and the flop could be card[4] card[27] and card[19], etc. Point being - interesting that the next card is picked out when it is needed. In fact, I find that incredibly interesting. If there is some sort of timing element of any sort to when the software gets the message "give me another card now" and that the message timestamp in some way triggers or randomizes based on that value - well then, you can imagine the rest. The obvious problem with any theory along controlling the deck along these lines is that a player(s) would have to act to an exact millisecond or something like that, which is virtually impossible, especially with internet lag and delay being completely unknown. Coupled with, someone would have to be privy to the random number algorithm used on the server. Anyhow, those thoughts do come to mind when you say "does not pick the next card out until it has to act" - as if there is some input (not a controlling thing) that a player "gives" to the software, namely, the last player to act.
4. Regarding your house bot theory, I don't think that a billion dollar company would risk their business on a scheme such as this. External auditors would easily be able to pick this scheme out. Also, major shareholders in the company are among the most well known and respected personalities in the game today. They would all have too much personal integrity to be involved with a sham.
I am not one to state opinions strongly, but in this case I must. These are all offshore "companies" regulated by... who? Software is validated by... who? OK, so maybe you have an answer to who is "who" in both these cases. But then, what domain or validity do those regulators or validators have? The bottom line is, anything is possible, and if nothing else, I'd say there is a much larger probability of something being askew offshore versus a U.S. run company for online poker, if such a thing were possible. As for respected personalities - yes, they are, and I like them all, so this is nothing against them - they are paid by these companies. That's the first thing, and the foremost thing. Sure, they may ask questions, but in the end, the answers will all of course be the ones they expect to hear - and they get paid. And next, Bernie Madoff. If it could happen at that level to thousands of influential people with "connections", then for sure we could have poker stars endorsing poker web sites which now, or some day, may be known to have been corrupted. And lastly, haven't other poker sites been busted for scams? I don't follow the poker world that much, but I've heard of something. And I have a friend who just lost $3,000 on some Euro poker site when it just shut down one day. That has nothing to do with poker sites being rigged in terms of cards or bots etc., but it does speak to the fact that anything shaky is possible. My friend lost $3,000 because the site just up and quit. And he said, in the last week, they were still promoting bonus sign ups! They were taking in new money to the bitter end when they even knew they were shutting down!