Are we supposed to believe sites are legit because they passed a planned audit 5 years ago?

That's like saying Barry Bonds passed a drug test 5 years ago. He must be clean.
He has never failed a drug test, yet is considered one of the biggest cheaters ever.
Sites passing a single drug test doesn't prove anything other than for those couple hours
they were dealing hands that passed some type of test.
It does nothing to show how the sites are operating hundreds of updates later.
Did they even release what type of tests were performed?

Until sites are given random audits at least a few times a year, many will remain skeptical.

I think the issue here is trust. Some people are having trouble trusting something or someone that they dont have access to in their own country. Americans by nature are untrusting. I am not sure why that is, but it seems to be the case here. I am not sure how things are in your country, maybe more trusting? Or maybe this just has to do with the fact that this is all being done over the internet. You are not able to watch the shuffle and the hands in person.

I think this is a problem for the online industry because I believe more people would be playing online poker if the trust issue could be dealt with effectively. As I have stated before, I have sat at final tables in $300-$1000 buy in tournaments (live) with really good players and at least some of them have had experiences with online poker that were not good. Some will just not play online because they dont trust it, some do have good experiences and have made money. I think finding a better way to deal with the trust issue would bring more of those players to online poker. It would also make players who are having trust issues while trying to play online feel better also. This would lead to them feeling comfortable enough playing at higher stakes. I know that I play for a lot less money online than I do live. I will admit that I am a little bit more careful with what I put my energy into than most people because I want to make sure that I dont end up with regret somewhere down the line. That is just me. There are alot of people like me in my circle of friends.

I bring up the dollar amount on the buy in because I wanted you to know about the caliber of players, they are not beginners, they are not stupid people, some of them play for a living, some if not most of them are fundamentally sound with their approach to the game. I have heard the snobish remarks about how it is easier to win live. I dont buy that after experiencing both. In fact, the play online is terrible in the low to mid stakes range. There are great players in both areas though, and some players can play online and live well.

No, you are (if you have the slightest sense) supposed to believe that sites are legit because there are hundreds of thousands of players watching them (a few of whom actually have a clue about probability maths) who would scream blue murder (and provide evidence) if they were rigging the deal.

And that will remain the problem of the many rather than the problem of the sites or the non-paranoid players who use them in the aforementioned hundreds of thousands.

Trust onlinepoker and rigged RNG is not the same.

You have online
1. closed accounts
2. hacked accounts
3. problems to transfer money
4. superusers
5. screenloggers
6. neural net based bots
7. primitive bots
8. tons of software
9. and a RNG that is random or not random

10. Audits are a joke, a made a few douzend in the industry and have my doubt they are more serious in the gaming industry

When I say TRUST, I mean:

1. Trust that what the online site is not rigging their RNG
2. Trust that they are not manipulating the programming
3. Trust that their security team is good enough to catch hackers
4. Trust that your money is safe
5. Trust that there isnt a team of superusers working tournaments for the online site to limit players results so that the site can win some or most of the money near the top of the prize pool.
6. Trust that there are no bots with access to the rng in realtime working for the online site.
7. Trust that the site knows how to stop botting

I am sure we can put more on the list. This all comes down to TRUST.

I disagree that manipulation of the outcomes in cash games or tournaments can be absolutely 100% found in the hand histories. Variance can be used in a pretty wide range of situations. Anotherwords, you can just tell someone they are running bad, especially if they havent played 5 million hands on the site.

I voted yes

Discuss

You specifically will never believe they are legit no matter how, when and how often they are audited.

However, you are not representative of the overall market, more the fringe paranoid losing player section.

If the majority of players had real concerns in this regard the sites would not exist since they would never be comfortable.



There is a load of common sense and fairly significant circumstantial data that shows what reality is in his case. The dude grew a hat size and gained significant power at the age of 40.

If you want to compare this then you need to bring evidence even powerful circumstantial evidence to show the RnG is rigged. All it consists of so far are selective memories, bad beat whines and conspiracy theories that usually would make the sites less money.

Show me the equivalent of a 40 yeal old guy growing a hat size and I will get interested. Saying you lost AA to QQ does not count since that should happen at times.


This paranoid ramble explains why guys like you will NEVER be satisfied no matter how much testing is done. That is why the site's should essentially politely ignore you guys, as you do not matter much.

They do need to ensure the comfort of their more relatively sane player base and they do that by putting in measures to prevent fraud, collusion, bots etc while also making it easier to do withdrawals and deposits.

You know - the common sense business stuff that actually matters in this industry.



That would not change your perception a single bit. You would just say they knew when they were coming, they were prepared for when they were coming etc etc.

They probably already are subject to these but I'm sure if that is the case you won't believe or care.

You are a riggedologist, nothing more.

All the best.

40% of people on here think online sites are rigged??

Wtf??

I'd imagine there are quite a few "rigtard" gimmicks that voted though. But yeah, you'd be surprised how many people believe some other crazy conspiracies.

You do realize that was a bit of an ironic comment.

lol, yeah, but I don't think it is that "crazy" since we have outed gimmicks posting ITT (Meares). But I can appreciate the irony nonetheless. Certainly it is possible though that there are gimmicks on the other side too.

I agree that a key challenge of online poker is to be trusted by players. I have read various research that basically finds that to be the number one reason for people to not play.

Ok, suppose I observe this. Once the "chick" comes out, I'm gonna wanna know who put the egg there...So, who put the egg there?

The hen.

But going back even further, chickens are descendants of the Red Jungle Fowl and therefore the egg came first as the first ever chicken would have hatched.

I would rank number one in the US as the difficulty's in getting money on and off the sites. Not that there's anything the poker rooms can do as long as the US citizenry doesn't like freedom.

Well then you must an awful player that is out of touch with reality. More often then not, you believe in Lizard people and Sasquatch...

Most of the people that voted yes, are believed to be that of a low income and violent upbringing.

All the best.

Who was Stephen Smears gimmic? I always suspected TK. Ya whats up TK? You still in here arguing with the regs?You deserve a BIG FAT ESPN , C'MON MAN!!! Anyway at least ur still not self banning

This is one of your best posts ever. You should stick to very low content troll posts where you use sarcasm and never speak your genuine opinions. You sound a whole lot smarter this way. Seriously.

All the best.

I believe it is Rounding4Rent, but I could be wrong. I think I remember that coming out a few months ago.

EDIT: Just checked the history, couldn't find the reference to Meare's, but R4R was outed as a gimmick at the very least.

R4R said he was Meares, whether true or not, after his posts were questioned as sounding very similar. IIRC markusgc then said it was confirmed but could have been joking.

Thanks, I knew I remembered something like that.

Excellent; nothing wrong with healthy scepticism...I can respect that. Much better than simply concluding that sites are rigged, with no proof, like you do.

Bobo, please tell us that Buckethead's current ban is a permaban!

when i run like pee pee in your bunhole, i like to choose to believe rigging instead of unlucky or variance.
it just make me feel alot better.

Next time leave the crude juvenile preface off when you make such an excellent point. This is a refreshingly honest post (even if you don't know how to locate the shift key).