wtf is "luck of skill"?

Sorry, lack of skill, or, not having any skill.

1. If you have preset "decks" how the **** could the preflop hands be completely random? Say that 9c is meant to be on the flop in this preset deck but through randomization I am dealt the 9c...what then? Is there some other rube goldberg-esque plan to take care of that scenario too?

Oh, man, you completely misunderstood. You do not have preset decks, you are simply reordering decks as they are coming out of the random generator.

And I'm sure there are many more ways, perhaps even simpler ones, where you leave your victims preflop hand frequencies completely random, and the frequencies of river hand strengths all random as well. However, your victim will get less flushes and straights, because those hands will go to somebody else.

How would you detect this?

The same way you would detect any other RNG inconsistency...analyzing HH database. It would be ridiculously easy to prove over a big enough sample

If you keep it under one standard deviation for 10.000 tournaments, or 500.000 hands or whatever, and turn it off afterward, this thing would be impossible to prove.

It could be used for a "heat-switch" (like opposite of "doom sw") as well.

And the only thing where this rigging would show is in win rates per individual player. There are already variations in win rates, there would be no way of knowing if those winrates are true ones, or rigged ones.

What are you planning to do with all of the people who know this secret for all the poker rooms? Keep in mind that many of these rooms have closed, and you cannot force an employee with a non disclosure document to keep an illegal activity secret.

You just kill off the potential whistle blowers or something? Others have speculated that they are all kept in a giant cave. What are your thoughts on the matter?


Also, why do they do all of this mystical work to screw guys without tracking software in $1 games. Perhaps it is related to why UFOs always seem to land in corn fields in Iowa or Montana instead of where millions of people can see them. Spooky.



There is no way you would know because you have no idea what you are talking about. You are making stuff up.

People who do know what they are talking about say it would be easy to prove with the hand histories if any of these riggie beliefs existed.


Why exactly should we believe an uninformed person making things up? I know you are just "speculating" and I would similarly ask you to prove to me that Lizard People are not in control. It is possible after all. for now, I will stick with the stats guys over riggies who are afraid of owning Holdem Manager.



Also I would like to add that more drunken mod posts are appreciated, and it is good to see that even with the communist uprising that there will always be some new, naive riggies appearing with their uninformed speculative theories to restart the thread.

I actually enjoy brb's uninformed ramblings and blatant disregard for the real life feasibility for what he is suggesting. Its funny that people still really believe that billions of dollars per year in rake is still worth putting at risk to rip off microstakes fish..

This is so far beyond wrong that its almost right...but its not right. Its definitely wrong lol

Believe it or not, I side with the non-rigged crowd. It would be quite a problem to get something like this going, let alone keep it running for a long time.

The point I was trying to make is that it would be mathematically possible to design a scheme which would be hard to prove just from hand histories. All the evidence would be hidden in the usual poker variance.

As for the motive, owners would be able to pretty much run good for their whole life, and that could mean a lot of money.

I think a secluded island is the way to go.

I can't argue here, because I really am making this stuff up.

Well with this hypothetical scheme, it would be impossible to prove it statistically, even if you have all the hands ever played on that site. How would you know the difference between an account who had all-in luck one standard deviation above expected and an account who actually had some non-random help?

How much money would your hypothetical scheme make? If you only did a little to avoid detection you would not make enough to make it worthwhile. You need to make enough to pay off everyone in the know and to keep enough profit for the site to justify the risk.

You are right, it wouldn't be all that much. At one million hands of 0.5-1, one standard deviation is about 1 bb/100 hands.

Most of the fish would have quit by now if they did not receive their fair share of miracles, and with them goes a good chunk of the rake.

Sites need to limit winners and help out losers or else the player base would dwindle.

The riskier thing would be to deal a fair game where the best players would quickly accumulate all of the money.

Let's see your math on this...

That's the difference in the results for a targeted player under your scheme, NOT the difference in the site's rake, which is essentially zero here. It might even reduce the site's rake, but still not an amount that matters.

Design such a scheme that makes a profitable difference to the site, and it will be easily detectable and couldn't be attributed to variance. There are infinitely many ways we can modify the deal to skew some targeted players results by some small amount and go undetected. But the only reason a site would ever do anything like this is to increase rake, and THAT takes much more substantial skewing. Way way more. It's worse than pointless to theorize about schemes for rigging the deck that have no benefit to the site. Believe it or not, lots of people before you have thought about these issues and even done the work of trying to come up with a hypothetical scheme that works mathematically and makes money. It's damn hard to even come up with one that stands up to scrutiny. And when somebody does, the hypothesis can of course be tested.

A quick google search on "standard deviation of 100 poker hands" gave results of 80, and 150 bb/100 hands, so I took 100 bb/100 st dev for easier calc. I million hands is 10000 sets of 100, so standard deviation of one million would be 100 / sqrt(10.000), which is 1, and units would be bb/100 hands.

This is more of the "making stuff up" and "no idea what you are talking about syndrome" that you infuse in all your posts.

You creativity has been done before in lots of science fiction where the premise is "what if the world is not as we expect but we cannot tell?"

Some like The Matrix make good money. A lot of others fail.

All you are doing is creating an imaginary world that you say cannot be disproved because they magically make the new world just like the old one so nobody will notice.

Real stats guys keep telling you that

- People would notice

- It will not even make the site money

- Show your math


and all you do is show a google search definition of a math term without having any idea how to apply it.

You have a lot of work to do as a creator of fiction, and you have no facts. You don't even have an actual theory.

You need to work on it, you are a sub-riggie for now. Get to it, we need better quality riggies!

You are right, this wouldn't be about the rake.

I wrote all that because of the thread about Ongame's new 'essence' rake attribution scheme, which basically takes rakeback from winning players and gives it to the fish. And Full Tilt did a similar change, winning players getting less, fish getting more.

So, we know that sites are motivated to help the losers play longer, and we know this simply because they are already doing it.

That isn't rocket surgery, of course they want losers to player longer. You seem to think this is some kind of insight or discovery. The site benefits most if all players are equal skill. That's why they provide training resources, a wide variety of stakes and formats, possibly rake benefits like you describe (which I have no firsthand knowledge of), signup and redeposit bonuses, and other honest ways to maximize their returns. Like any business.

Oh, man, please tell me then how much is one standard deviation of roi of one million hands?

You were talking about bb/100 not ROI. If you have a standard deviation of 100bb/100 hands, then for a million hands, one standard deviation is 10,000bb. Now, do you know what a standard deviation means or is used for? (just wondering, I'm not going to teach you in this thread)

I'll wait while you google that.

I understand that you can't close this thread because there'd be no place to put all the garbage threads people create after a losing session at micros

But do we have to call it "The great 'Poker is rigged' debate"?

Calling it a debate kind of implies that there's a debate raging on between two valid arguments, which really isn't the case and gives the tinhats way too much credit (and might actually encourage them to keep coming up with and sharing total nonsense)

Oh, man, why don't you actually read what I wrote. bb/100 is the unit, and the actual variable is roi. So, if you want the results in roi, it would be 1 (in bb/100 hands), and if you want it in actual blinds, you would get 10.000 bb. Those are the same thing said in two different ways.

OK, lets rename it as 'The great Poker is rigged "debate"'

Wow. No. I read everything you wrote.

I'm done on this subject in this thread, I shouldn't have entered the fray. If you want to talk math and statistics, put it in Probability. This is like being in the rabbit hole here.

Bah, I like a good spadebidder vs riggie math debate especially when the riggie literally has no idea of what he is talking about. No fair cutting it short so soon.


Yo riggie! Can you go into much greater detail with examples of how a room would apply this creative math of yours to make more money and not get caught. You seem to have a solid grasp of how to google math terms so your thesis should be quite impressive.

Be very specific in your theories and details, this can be ground breaking stuff.

As spade said, you should post your beliefs in the probability forum where fellow mathematicians can give you some feedback. Granted you will never dare to do that, but it is always fun to toss out that challenge to a riggie!

All the best.