I think, but I'm not entirely sure since I've only used HEM for the trial, that this is how HEM's EV calculations work. Every time you win an 80/20, you ran 20% above expectation, and every time you lose one you ran 80% below expectation.

If that's the case, this could already be tested fairly easily, but you'd need to have played a lot of tournaments to have accurate results.

You'd also probably have to compare the outcomes of the hand with the winning players Sharkscope/OPR results to verify that the "worse" player won more often, which would be pretty laborious.

Wouldnt it be possible to give your fair share (within ranges) of pairs, straights, flushes, etc during times when it is not as critical and less during very critical times? A big sample may not pick up on this if the programming is keeping this balance. I see room for programming to do some leveling without leaving clues that conclusively prove that you are not getting your share of cards. It could be set up to be situationally specific and balanced out by not allowing it to get away from the statistical norm. I am sure that anyone doing this is going to be a whole lot smarter than the superuser donks raping and pilliging in broad daylight like they did. They were asking to be caught, but someone keeping some balance could make sure that they are taking down just enough to increase their bottom line, but not enough to be detected conclusively.

Thoughts?

You are right, the problem with one player running stats this specific is that there isnt going to be enough of a sample size to get to the long haul for years and years even if you are playing every day. I dont think I have that kind of time to wait to find out if I am getting cheated or not. So this would have to be run against a very large database of thousands of players results.

I was also thinking that the poll above would be more interesting if there was yes, no or unsure choices instead of just yes or no because you are forcing people who are not sure one way or another to make a decision that might not be truly representative of what they actually think.

Of course you are right, however, with a little help from the stats guys, you should be able to figure out what the degree of error is. If you are within the range (standard deviation????) it will at least give you an idea of how you are running.

I don't believe the goal of analyzing your own data is to prove anything conclusively, its to start really looking at your numbers, considering the true implications of variance, and seeing if you are roughly on track.

Spadebidder's billion hand project will of course be much more accurate.

When I ask someone if they would play online poker at a major poker site (like the ones who advertise on TV for example), they almost always reply with something along the lines of "Are you crazy? I don't trust 'em. They're overseas and who knows what really goes on over there?!" Something needs to change that.

Hopefully the future will be better for online poker, and more importantly, poker itself. It's bad enough that most people consider poker to be a game of chance (like playing the lottery or Keno). Couple that with the fear of electronic gaming, through overseas channels, and you end up making chance look more like slim chance.

Couple of thoughts:

First, if you are rigging the shuffle against someone in critical situations, then you'd have to be rigging it for them in non-critical situations, not just doing a fair deal? Otherwise, the whole sample shows up as skewed. So, if you could define what a critical situation is, you can test this.

Second, Im not sure about your basic premise about keeping money floating around. The site is paying out the same amount of $ back to players regardless of who wins. Most of the money in a tournament goes into the top ten places. Im not sure the skill level of the player is going to make much of a difference in what gets cashed out of that I mean, the good player and the donk playing the $10 buy in tournament...neither are probably leaving the $12K on the site or whatever first prize is, are they? Its way above bankroll requirements for the good player. I guess what you are saying is the good player is more likely to put money back on the site if they lose?

Third, Id have to look at Party's numbers for more detail, but Id imagine the float sites are earning right now is pretty freaking small. Reputable sites have players money in segregated accounts and bank accounts and CD's now are paying almost literally nothing. So the extra money you are talking about the site making through this theory is something like the (increase in probability a net dollar isnt cashed out)*(net dollars)*(1%).

That just doesnt strike me as a huge number for what seems like a reasonably complex way to rig the deal (assess relative skill levels, then adjust the deal, etc)

Guess those folks havent followed current events too closely. The US regulatory track record is, um, not good of late.

Yeah, coming up with scripts for cash games would be good since it's not too hard to get a 100,000 hand sample, but for tournaments the only way to get any kind of conclusive results would be getting a sample similar to what Cigital got for testing cash games, and for datamining prevention that's probably not going to happen.

Good counter argument, but then here is my response to your argument, I am still left me with the question of how would we know what sites are doing with the deposits? They may be investing the money much more aggressively to bring more returns. I was reading the Pitbull Poker thread and it seems that a lot of money just disappeared. Maybe they invested their deposits into subprime mortgages for all we know. LOL!! and then decided to superuser the money back...LOL...I am partially serious about a possibility similar to this.

Greed is such a powerful sickness that it can compromise even the best of intentions. It is sort of like alcoholism and drugs, in the veins of some seemingly normal and nice people, it can turn them into demons.

No, they probably haven't. Regardless of what's going on with US regulations, whether it's illegal or not, it doesn't change the opinions of the people I was referring to. Most of the people just don't trust gambling on their computers. Whether it be poker, blackjack, Keno or slots. They don't trust what they can't see. Sure, you can't see the inside of a slot machine you're playing, but if there's a problem, an attendant will be there to help you. If you have a legitimate complaint, the casino can contact the Gaming Control Board (or you can do it yourself).

Then you could easily see who were the idiots; anyone who chose "Yes" or "No".

LOL!!!

Well, I mean, you trust the auditors or you dont on that front. Thats a different question than "is online poker rigged"

Well, if they dont trust gambling on the computer then legalization, regulation, whatever isnt going to help. Internet poker isnt for everyone.

I guess you don't get it. They don't trust it because it's not regulated and monitored by people they feel they can trust. It's not trustworthy (to them).. yet.

** I think it would be different if casinos got in the market somehow. They might gamble on CaesarsPalacePoker.net or BellagioPokerRoom.net, etc.

There seems to be a tiny minority of people who think that US Government regulation would (despite their abysmal record in regulating companies and financial institutions) be a good thing that would ensure any regulated entity would be a model of probity and propriety. (Of course, it would do no such thing.)

In reality I suspect that it's far more likely that people who don't trust internet gambling sites will never trust internet gambling sites, even if they were to be sanctioned and regulated by the Vatican.

ive heard pokerstars keeps "there" money and "our" money seperate
from what i hear they are the only pokersite that doesnt use there customers money to keep running there business.

also pokerstars make so much money, it be dumb for them to rig it for any reason whatsoever. ive played online poker for about 2 years now, and i have to say in the beginning i cried cheat alot. Now i know its just variance, we dont remember that bad beats we give we just remember the bad beats we recieve.

Then I sure as hell wouldn't trust them! But I think you're a little off if you don't think that a reputable casino corporation having its own site wouldn't bring some skeptics to it. I think it would. As long as it wasn't Foxwoods or some other big Indian reservation casino.

Casinos seem to have done pretty well back when they were run by the mob.

That may be part of the problem. You can search and find information about the auditors, but that doesnt tell us anything about whether or not we can trust that they are either not corrupt or enept as an auditing group. There may be a way to strengthen peoples faith in groups like these, but I am not exactly sure at this point in time what that would be.

Could there be some sort of international regulating alliance? I would think that the United States government would have to first come to some sort of acceptance of online poker as a game of skill and a viable tax resource. There would also have to be some sort of way a player could register a complaint to the regulating body so that possible foul play could be followed up on if it looked legitimate. This is how they do it in Vegas right?

I can see that the IGC or Interactive Gaming Counsil is trying to accomplish this. I am on their site right now trying to figure out who they are and what they are really doing to make us feel better about regulation and safety of online poker.

This is looking like the industry policing itself. Kind of like the fox guarding the hen house...this doesnt instill any confidence in me at this point. I do appreciate where they are going with all of this though...

The Isle of Man Gambling Supervision Commission looks encouraging, but again, who are these people and can I trust that they are doing the kind of job that is needed to protect a player. Maybe...

This Leaves me wondering about who else is involved and how the Isle of Man Government has any idea what a test really means:

"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:-

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