Thanks for sharing the thread link. Interesting read. Looks quite fishy for sure.

Attention Riggies: Note well that since the claim of the biased seating algo was based on solid evidence, it sustained its own thread and was taken seriously by the 2+2 community. (Although apparently not too seriously by Party, unfortunately.)

I gave GGPoker's Blackjack Turbo a try one day and have found an issue with it not being random. I won't use the other R word. What I found after 100 hands of doubling down that there is an obvious "glitch". The odds of getting a face card with 10 points after doubling down in blackjack is 35%. Out of those 100 hands, then I should have received a face card roughly 35 times. Does anyone want to guess how many I actually got? Anyone? Anyone? FOUR! A whopping grand total of 4! You can't tell me that it's variance or too small of a sample size and you can't tell me that it's normal. It has to be rigged to be that far off. On top of that, guess how many times I got a card over a 6? I mean that's how rigged it is, every time except for for the 4 face cards, 2 nines, and the rest were all an ace through a six for a whopping 92.

Blackjack Turbo
Double Down Attempts = 100

Face Cards Received = 4 (real odds are 35%)

9 = 2

7-8 = 0

A-6 = 92

Obviously this is not random and proof that their blackjack is rigged. They also don't give you any HH. What a surprise. There is no record of it other than the videos I have recorded on my computer. I filed a complaint with the Isle of Man Gaming Commission who gave GG their license.

What has me concerned is that the blackjack RNG is the same for poker and I wonder how that works. If the blackjack RNG has this "glitch" then the poker does too. You can even look at it just by human behavior and use psychology. If a company was going to manipulate and deceive and cheat their customers in one game, then they are going to do that in all of their games.

Also it should be noted that GGPoker has 100% access to your computer and can see your screen. I think this is how they super use people but when I filed my complaint, GGPoker immediatley LOCKED my FUNDS. I now can log in but I can't play any of the games, I can't withdraw and I just get an error that says my funds are locked. I got an email from them saying they are doing it for "my protection" which is complete nonsense. They saw that I filed a complaint and did this out of anger and to keep me off of their site. They have a history of this and I knew they would do this. They sent me an email asking me if I have a gambling problem which is completely ridiculous. I answered their email right away and it has been over 8 hours and I haven't had my funds unlocked and I haven't received a response.

I also think now more than ever that their RNG is not random because I started winning this week. What's unusual about that is I started playing a new game. I started playing Omaha just to try something different and I couldn't believe how well I was doing. I also got the money in behind most of the time and I am now running above EV. I completely expected to lose and didn't have any thoughts that I would actually win while I learned a new game. This might be a world's first. I have played 12,000 hands and although that's not a big sample size when it comes to what to expect as far as a win rate goes but it is a big enough of a sample size to know if the RNG is random or not.

Bro I feel for you but at this point imo anyone playing poker or any table game online sadly should pretty much expect to get cheated. Whether through other players in poker or the site itself cheating you like you claim.

You couldn't pay me to play ANYTHING online for real money ever again.

Your sample size is far too small for a definitive conclusion such as you are trying to make.

False, 30 is sufficient.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c...it_theorem.asp

But the evidence was pretty obvious. All it took was a bunch of guys checking their HH for discrepancies in late position seating. It didn't require sifting through hundreds of thousands of hands for a variety of specific situations using complex filtering. And even then there were still a handful of skeptics going back n' forth with people even after a comparison of a million+ hands or whatever it was. What about the rigging, aka "bugs" that aren't as simple to see? And why does it take the community to police something so obvious? Whatever happened to all those "3rd party auditors," state regulations and gaming boards we hear so much about when "debunking" riggies? And then on top of it all, practically nothing is done about it. Maybe they fix the bugs, maybe not - but after that, nothing.

I guess it's just gets a bit unsettling hearing all this stuff about how poker sites are so hellbent on making it softer for recreational players - and that's fine if they're all aboveboard with it, ie. limited hand histories, restricted huds, no seating scripts etc. I get all that, but then you hear about sht like this. How else could they be doing this in the name of "fairness"? I mean, how could you possibly determine if a "bug" is sporadically stealing EV bit by bit, one hand at a time in key situations here and there?

I suppose at that point you'd just have to say that this is just the state of online poker for regs today, you just have to put in more work to make it up and all is well?

+1

Playing "serious" online poker is almost impossible these days. But probably not because of a site "rigging" its games.

Bots, collusion, GTO, solvers and overall proliferation of poker knowledge are almost certainly at least 95% of why it's harder and harder to win at online poker. That's why I just play nanostakes for fun.

I agree these bugs for the most part are not the issue, it just speaks to their credibility and creates doubt among the players - and as someone stated earlier, it's very difficult to play your best game with such a negative mindset. You just have to let it go and trust that these bugs will be worked out one way or another, sooner or later - then you just put in the work, plug the leaks on your end and put in the volume.

I'm a firm believer that hard work and volume are the only way to overcome variance, rake and all the other woes of the online poker world that you described above (plus the "bug rake" if you will, lol)

But then again, that's always been the secret short of becoming a cheater yourself, so not much of a revelation there.

All very well said.

It is heartbreaking in a way that online poker is not what it used to be. Even if the RNG is fair, the bots, wide spread collusion(and card sharing), solvers, ect... make the game near impossible to beat and certainly not at the win rates we saw pre black friday.

That said, how many bad beats does it take before one should be suspicious about something?

Lets say a player is losing about 80% of their all-ins with cards to be dealt, when the EV is about 70% to win those hands.

How big of a sample size is needed to be suspicious? How big of a sample size to is needed to be certain something is not right.?

an enormous enormous sample
i still believe stars is fair but had a year of running 150bi under ev at holdem 6max
at the times i had my doubts about the fairness tbh
but toying around with variance calculator helped me make sense of it and my conclusion is that variance is still underestimated and poker is only for sickos

+1

I'd start being suspicious after about 20 hands. If my W-L should be 14-6 but in reality it is 4-16, I'd be wondering what's goin' on here.

Ya, there was one guy giving sht for a beat he took - wasn't even that bad. I just said nice hand tho, if we played that one millions and millions of times over, you'd end up on top.

So a win loss of 30-70 when it should be 70-30 is getting worth looking into further?

lololol 20 hands, 200 is not even close to enough

and 30-70 when it 'should' be 70-30 is nothing out of the ordinary, unfortunately

variance is a huge huge b*tch

20 hands I fine if you're dealt 17 pairs to start to wonder. 20 hands for bad beat?!?! Lol. No. Not even close. I've swung 6 buyins PLOing in 90 minutes suffering beatdown after beatdown.

and tbf 6 buyins in 90 minutes is super super normal

for those who want to find out for themselves what variance can do, google pokerdope variance calculator and fill in the numbers

you can see that even with a 100k sample an observed winrate can deviate from a 'true winrate' with tremendous numbers

btw, you need to fill in your st.dev which is difficult to estimate for some. i know holdem manager (and other trackers likely too) track this stat for you. For example: for plo the st.dev is double than for full ring holdem.

This is simply not true - even as a coinflip, the chance of losing 70 or more out of 100 coinflips is about 3 in a million. Winning 30/100 as a 70% favourite is astronomically unlikely.

Even lagtights example of losing 16/20 as a 70% fave is around 200,000:1.

There is a simple formula for estimating the required sample size to determine that an observed difference in a proportion is "statistically significantly" different from a hypothesized true proportion value.

Let P be the observed proportion and let T be the hypothesized true proportion. Then standard statistical methods show that, when observing proportion P, the required sample size to reject the hypothesis that the true proportion value is T at the 95% confidence level is approximately given by:

Required sample size = 4*T*(1-T)/[(P-T)^2]

For me, it would be. Maybe not for others.

There you go then, the required sample size for the 30:70 instead of 70:30 case is 6. (not actually, but 10 is enough)
Of course, the 95% confidence interval means it happens randomly 5% of the time, so probably want a higher bar.

The formula above doesn't actually work very well for samples with a large difference between P and T though.

Note that with many thousands of people playing online each week, low probability streaks are inevitably going to happen to someone, and if one player analyses 100 statistics about 5 of them will be non random at the 95% confidence level. Weird one-off stuff happens to everyone pretty regularly precisely because the rng is random, not because it isn't.

When I put in Pokertracker a filter for AA or better, it tells me that this makes up 2.5% of available starting hands which obviously means that there is only a 2.5% chance of being dealt pocket aces in PLO. On GGPoker, there are players who get dealt these hands every time. I am not even exaggerating when I say every time either. I have the proof and here it is. Pay close attention to the times that are on these screenshots of the hands that took place. They are highlighted in blue. THERE IS NO WAY THAT THIS IS MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These hands all happened back to back to back to back. The odds of something having a 2.5% and it happening 3x in a row is 0.00001%!!!!!!! Rigged!!!!!! GGPoker is not a poker site that has a random number generator or random hands. It is a giant scam!!!!

These are all to the same player btw. GG tries to scramble the ID's of the players in their HH because they are clearly rigging their games and so the IDs are different but they are all to the same player.













This one btw, I 3bet preflop and potted the flop and turn. They know what cards are coming this happens constantly.







I ran a report on all the other players and found this player who got AA 3 times that we know of in 34 hands. RIGGED AS ****!!!!!!!

So you're saying it is mathematically possible.

Oh, good to know.

Well **** your life. I bet he folded pre or had at least one other sd and he didn't have AA. So about "not even exaggerating"...

Anyways, thanks for bringing this to my (and the community's) attention!

You sound like a very intelligent person because I just proved that GGPoker is cheating people and you focus on me exaggerating. That is a very smart and normal thing to do. NOBODY and I do mean NOBODY who is a real person and makes deposits with their own money and plays on GG would dismiss it and try to mock me for warning others. You are probably a shill or an affiliate. You defiantly are not someone who plays online poker. That’s obvious. So stop trying to scam and cheat everyone and go troll someone else.

Actually I'm in America and can't play on GG. Your post is just hilarious. I do play online, though.

Who wouldn't laugh and think you're a joke after you said, "I'm not even exaggerating".

You didn't prove anything. You even showed that it was indeed mathematically possible (after claiming it wasn't) which killed your argument.