Cut to the chase Cliffy - do you think your theories has any impact whatsoever on the games in any way?

maybe card shufflers are not 100% random but its the same system for everyone playing...

Isn't this just "new accounts win more"?
How does knowing that, say, if the last digits that come from the hardware RNG are 44, the A gets dealt let us cheat in the future? We still have no way of knowing when the hardware RNG will spit out a number ending in 44.

Let's take this to live poker: We know that the A gets dealt when it's at the top of the deck. How can we use this o our advantage, and how does this prove that live poker isn't random?

wtf, the comments by Vindictus are all based on wrong assumptions that have already been addressed in this thread.

The shuffling of cards at PokerStars (and presumably, other major online poker sites) is truly and genuinely random, and everything flows from that.

Random (in this context, poker) means "without pattern". If you could identify a pattern, you could exploit it. You can't do that.

AI just means "artificial intelligence". It has nothing to do with poker and being random. Anyone with a clue will tell you that artificial intelligence will not compare to human intelligence for a very very long time. The brain is way too complex. A computer would have to have the ability to analyze, reanalyze, write and rewrite itself just to come close! It can't do that.

I find the poll hilaroius

You have a point here. We know from independent certification that the poker sites do own RNGs that are considered fair and unbiased. On the other hand, the software could simply bypass the regular RNG in certain situation.

For example, it might crack aces 1 in 3 times when a multitabling nit faces a fishy player who just made a big deposit. If the good player looked up his stats, that incident would just be chalked up as bad luck.

I'm not saying that this happens. It could happen, certainly, and I would not be shocked to find out it does happen.

1. The people who were cheating were insiders.
2. There's no meaningful difference between ripped off by insiders at the table and being ripped off by a rigged game.

There's an enormous difference, with the affected population being orders of magnitude greater. There's also an enormous difference between a systemic company-sanctioned scheme to defraud all customers, and some individual insider cheaters who were bound to be caught and in fact were.

I wonder to what extent are sites allowing inspectors into their operation. To be able to truly look for scenario's like described above, the inspector would need to have unlimited access to the programming. I just dont think sites are going to allow this.

Even if they did, what is to stop a crooked site showing the inspectors different code to that which runs on the servers?

Obsessing about inspections is completely pointless.

In much the same way that you have to trust your electricity company or other metered supplier, you have to come to a decision about that trust based on observations, not someone else's inspection.

I wonder if rigtards take any action to ensure that they have used the exact amount of electricity the company says they have.

[QUOTE=otatop;15402026]Isn't this just "new accounts win more"?

No, this could be anyone who is good for the sites image, cute girl with some skills, hip guy, a pro, someone in the right age demographic, someone who is connected to the site, someone who did a favor and is getting paid a favor back. You know, the standard stuff that happens in our society.

Also, someone who is winning and beating up on the little fishies extra bad could affect traffic. One shark can eat thousands of little fishies. Thousands of little fishies could tell their friends that this site or that site sucks. So why not just deal with this pig creatively? lol

What I am talking about is selective manipulation for the greater good of the site.

"I wonder if rigtards take any action to ensure that they have used the exact amount of electricity the company says they have."

Everyone does if the electricity bill looks abnormal.

Nothing ...

... except a good inspector would ask the site to prove that the code they are being shown is what is running on the servers. And a non-crooked site should be able to do so. If they can't a good inspector would not be able certify that the site is non-crooked.

ROFLMAO!

Yeah, right.

But, of course, if the electricity company wanted to cheat people they are not going to start adding 50% to their bills.

They'd add 1% so no one noticed a discrepancy.

This is one of the reasons that rigtards thinking is so easily categorised as lame; they think that the sites rig the deal so that fish notice a difference in their loss rate whilst expert players (other than the rigtards, of course) do not notice anything.

If I deal cards for you I can arrange the cards so that they are always unpredictable to you.

And exactly how do you propose the site could prove that?

And even if such a thing were possible what is to stop the site running good code on the day the inspector arrives and bad code once they've been certified OK?

I presume that you are not a computer scientist. If you were you'd realise that what you propose is impossible to achieve in any realistic manner.

It's the same problem with company accounting. Auditors can find problems where companies are doing things incorrectly through incompetence but if the company is rotten to the core and its officers are blatantly conspiring to falsify documents it is possible for malfeasance to go undetected until such time as the company collapses.

Ok, this might be pretty dumb but I can't figure this out so I need a little help with this:

We all know AA holds up about 85 % of the time vs 1 random hand.
So let's say we fold our AA on the river because we are sure we are beat (like our 2nd barrel got c/mr on the turn and the fish shoves the river).

Well, how do we know we actually were beat? We cud have easily been bluffed off the best hand because we don't have the proof that we were beat. It is not gonna effect the 85 % even if you are "100 %" sure you were beat. And when you fold 5 times you might think "Why am I losing all my AA"?. How do you know that you lost?

Let's say you had called and he shows you that you are beat, now this is statistically adding up to that 85 % but when you fold you don't have the proof.

Could the sites use that to their advantage?

Please show me there is something wrong with my thought process.

I'm not a "computer scientist", but I have programmed computer systems in international banks that dealt with billions of dollars a day. We could easily prove that the source code was what was running by rebuilding the executables. Obviously I have no idea what kind of hardware/software any sites are running, but it *should* be possible to have audited change control procedures that can be verified by a surprise inspection by someone from the gaming commission that licenses the site. (This does of course rely on the Gaming commission being more competent than KGC)

Some key concepts needed here are:

-Willingness on the sites part to allow this kind of access.

-Compentency on the part of the inspection group.

I am doubtful that any site would allow this. If they did, it would have already happened by now in my opinion.

The great thing about RNG's is that they are testable by the results they generate. Conveniently, we have these results in the form of hand histories. So far every single analysis ever done using hand histories has shown nothing that indicates a rigged deal. Spadebidder is currently analyzing half a billion hands and his study should provide more insight.

[QUOTE=DonkoTheClown;15417259]

Quote:

Originally Posted by otatop

Isn't this just "new accounts win more"?

I haven't done this in a while, and it's purely speculation, but I'd would think, if your theory were to be true, a "qualified" winner would be determined by their deposit and cashout tendencies....

What if there's not a show down? How do you see everybody's hole cards? It's not like we can view HH's like the actual Security team could.
Correct?

You don't need to see everyones hole cards.

There are great swathes of statistics that you can generate that demonstrate the cardfall lies withing expected limits.

Of course, a typical rigtard will spend time that s/he could usefully use improving their game to try and come up with some way that the sites could rig the cards so that no one could tell.

I dunno, timing, maybe?

^