because after millions and millions of hands there has been only one proven instance of such a thing.

if you don't think it's operated fairly just don't play and leave us dummies to keep getting ripped off, ok?

How could I have forgotten so quickly? Of course I remember - she had a twin sister, sweaty Betty. I seem to remember they used to do a turn behind the sheds. You could get a sister sandwich for tuppence h'penny back in the day.

+2

WTF would it matter if he is. He brought up some good points unlike you in your above statement.

a) making new gimmick accounts to bolster the numbers of the Rigtard Army is dishonest. One could even say "rigging."

b) no, he didn't make good points, but nice work complimenting yourself.

It really hurts your guys argument when the same 4-5 guys have been defending this thread since it's inception. And whenever somebody brings up a valid point or a couple extremely unprobable, you either divert the attention away from it, change the subject, or call them rigtards. I thought this was the place to have intelligent discussion, but apparently being rude and close minded is more to your liking. I suppose it would get pretty boring defending against the same claims day after day, so WTF are you same 5 still on here every day spewing the same garbage. You say they haven't been caught yet so obviously they run a fair operation. Thats like saying Bonds hasn't failed a drug test, he can't possibly be on steroids.

Good to see you are bringing a ton to the table.

lol. we could have 40-50 if we did the gimmick thing. I think that hurts your credibility much more than anything "we've" done.

btw, what's your argument? you have a feeling? something isn't quite right but you can't put your finger on it? no potential crime isn't committed?
That's incorrect. When someone mentions a theory (never mind they often offer several contradictory ideas at once...) we ask for some sort of evidence which has never been provided.
Intelligent discussion doesn't include making accusations about things without proof. I'm open to the idea that it could happen or even is. I would look over any evidence you or your other accounts provide. If it was legit, I'd change my mind.

Also, intelligent people don't play a game they are convinced is rigged.

I'd also like to add that many a Rigtard has complimented me on my polite manner.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. I'm not making any claims though - you guys are. I do ask y'all to defend them, but for some reason nothing ever comes up except childish insults and "new" accounts.
No, that's not the same thing. Barry Bonds' steroid use didn't affect me at all. But a dishonest poker site would affect me greatly. However, in all the hundreds of thousands of hands I've put in over the last three or so years, I've not seen anything to lead me to believe I haven't been getting a fair shake anywhere I played.

Now, I saw Barry Bonds start as a skinny rookie with a regular head in Pittsburgh around '86 and become a thick, jumbo-headed behemoth in San Francisco over the years. Did I suspect him of using steroids? Yeah, I did. But I didn't post about it on baseball forums, nor did I buy his jersey or trading cards. However, people in the business of baseball kept checking and found EVIDENCE he had been using banned substances. Funny how that works, huh?

Here's a better example of your conspiracy theories - in Salem, MA during the early 1690's there were a few folks going around blaming witches for basically anything that went wrong.
Looking back, we see that there were outlandish accusations made, sham trials with shoddy evidence and innocent people suffered.

It's a lot like how you're blaming poker sites for your failure as players - it must be witchcraft! Luckily, we don't make those same mistakes anymore and convict on the fervor of zealots. The system in place requires evidence to be presented before anyone even can GO to trial. Also, there are laws in place which make false accusations punishable offenses, but I never see the rigtards calling for regulation of them.

You are welcome to find some data which supports your views about online poker. Personally, I don't feel it's as obvious the Bonds/Steroids Debacle, but if you have something to change my mind I'd love to look it over.

I might start a new account to say how brilliant a reply that was.

“Common sense” does not substitute a regulation driven audit procedure, “knowledge of logical argument” is not the synonym of software integrity check procedures and “probability math” are not going to verify whether an IEEE standard cryptography implementation in the online gaming software system exist. If probability math would be an adequate tool to verify and enforce software security than criminals who commit crime using software would be sent to math school instead of prison. This obviously not the case, and in the context of software security and integrity check only a transparent audit processes can enforce policies – not probability math. All area of our life where software operates (so virtually everywhere) regulated and must comply with certain standards, except online gaming. It’s just not right.

As for the personal rants ... I am obviously very new to this forum and very new to poker as well, having very little understanding about the game though I am enjoying it, but I am not new to software security, happened to be in the industry for 20+ years. I have been seeing ugly things all over the place including at banks, government, even in law enforcement systems. The general attitude in software security is that we must assume that the integrity of the software system is compromised. Why? Because for many reasons humans do compromise the integrity of the software system all the time. That’s why banks, governments, military and virtually every software system are audited. It is just shockingly unbelievable that this is not the case with the multibillion dollar online gambling which is happened to be 100% rely on software systems. We do not regulate, do not audit, do not check the integrity of the gambling systems and you are saying that using probability math should convince us that the Russian mafia owned Costa Rica based gambling operation is manifested in a fair gambling software. You must be joking or perhaps just naive, and I would certainly argue that your conclusion about uncompromised gambling system is logical.

The problem is that the gambling software business process and implementation wise are relatively simple systems. A graduate software engineer would be able to come up with an intermediate software component in a relatively short time that sits between the RNG server component and the user interface component to deliver a modified flop, turn and river based on the analysis of users’ history, spending, gaming skill in order to increase the operator’s revenue.

Until the gambling software systems are not subject a regulation driven audit procedure that verifies the fairness and integrity of the system, I have no reason to assume that the gambling software systems are miraculous exceptions in the World of compromised systems and by default delivers a fair game to users.

(Let me ignore the comments of animated moron here. Whether I am playing online or not is completely irrelevant in the context of this topic and lets just talk about the subject of the thread.)

Good point. Bill, is that you ?

i guess everyone here thinks paradise poker is just as great as P.S and FTP. i guess if your on the inside of their compnay it is, but otherwise just mail hem your money right from your job.

You must be too busy to defend the online gambling operators here and having no time to check what happens outside of this thread. Well, I have a bad news for you: crime is committed using software, utilizing software systems or compromising the integrity of software systems virtually in every minute in this World. Therefore your argument, that crime is not committed is invalid.

What? I don't really get what you are trying to accomplish here. Are you trying to ease your mind, get proof to go after paradise 7 years later, or something else entirely?

You misunderstood him.

He was asking if your argument was that since crime is possible, it must be committed at all times, since you didn't say why you distrust poker sites.

Also, hi GrinderR.

LOL if it was rigged it was rigged for me.

Firstly, I apologize for misunderstanding the argument, as you can see English is not my first language and I have been continuously misinterpreting things :-)

Secondly, it is irrelevant whether crime has been committed or not in online gambling. The system is there, it can be compromised, and therefore adequate security measures must be taken in order to prevent crime. Just like we put speed limit signs around primary schools instead of waiting until a truck hit the entire first grade class, in software operation we perform audits and certain procedures in order to prevent the compromise of software integrity.

Until the software is not audited and operates in an irregulated manner, it does make more sense to believe that the software is rigged by some ******* compromising the system in order to generate revenue maliciously than assume that the operation is honest.

Also, hi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiQ31kr92bw

Except that in dealing poker cards, probability math is the only thing that matters at all. If over time you and your opponents get the expected random card distributions on the deal and on the community cards, then you have been given a fair game. End of story. That's the only part controlled by the operator, everything else is player decisions. So far all the evidence shows the deal to be random at every poker site.

Also there are pretty stringent reviews of the shuffling and dealing code and the RNG for the better poker sites, by independent agencies approved by multiple major governments. Even though the U.S. isn't involved, most countries in Europe are, and they regulate who can certify the software and how it must be done. Contrary to popular belief, the better agencies review the end-to-end dealing code, not just the RNG itself. They also require review of changes to the software. I have no confidence that involving the United States government in the regulation and review process will improve anything. Others are doing a pretty good job of it already. I think you are repeating things you may have heard without any research. Ask Poker Stars management about their review processes and requirements, or read the documentation of the regulatory agencies they are subject to. I'm not talking about rogue sites with only token regulation, those do exist. But they haven't been shown to be anything but fair either.

You are quite right as long as you deal the card in a math lab or a controlled, audited, verified environments such as casino, but soon as you deliver the game in the context of a software system then my arguments about the necessity of software audit and regulation becomes relevant. End of story.

Contrary to popular belief there is no transparent auditing processes in place, there is no regulation driven software integrity check, there is virtually nothing that would verify system integrity.


Read what kind of document? There is no transparent audit process and there is no document that proves your point. A few sites like PokerStar claims that the system has been audited, but no surprise non of them provide any details about the subject and methods of audit, the involved system components. There is no transparency in the audit process, therefore the value and credibility of the audit is very close to the zero. If you know otherwise, please provide us with the details of the audit which proves their system delivers a fair game to users.

A transparent, audited software operation, that’s all I am asking ad it’s a mystery why this simple request activates the defending mechanisms in those who believes in the integrity of Wilde West Online Gambling.

Despite what you may think probability theory exists not just in a math lab or casino. It is not a physical object. Its concepts do exist and can be applied in cyberspace as well.

Who thinks we dont play against the site when playing poker because they win with the rake is wrong. We do play against the site. If 2 players are playing in a table and are getting even in a infinite timeframe, with no rebuys, at the end of the session all their money will have gone to the site, in the form of rake.

Conclusion: the longer the better hands takes (or the better players, if you prefer) to win the worst hands, more rake goes to the site. So if there is any rigged implementation in the softwares the sites are using I guess it would be a simple modification in the RNG that makes the better hands win in a slower rate than it would be expected. That would be very difficult to be discovered by players, because the good ones would still make money, just at a slower rate, and everyone is happy!

Some of regulatory bodies do. Here is some interesting reading for you that applies to Full Tilt (Filco Ltd), iPoker/Playtech, Microgaming, and and a bunch of other poker sites that are licensed in this jurisdiction.

http://www.gamblingcontrol.org/legislation.php

You'll find all the details you are seeking here. Look particularly at the regulations pertaining to "Control Systems".

Note that this jurisdiction is whitelisted by the UK and other countries.

Please use an ellipsis when you delete parts of someone's comments so as to not take them out of context to make them mean something other than was intended.

Yes, no one would ever look at their database of 1,000,000 hands and say "Gee, I'm losing a little more often than I should."

If the sites were rigged like this, we would have known from leatherass.

This is from PokerStars web site:

“PokerStars provided BMM with the source code for its RNG and shuffle, and software that PokerStars uses to protect the security of random numbers. BMM then subjected the source code and the output of the RNG to rigorous testing, including the Marsaglia Die Hard tests.
BMM found that:
• the PokerStars RNG and shuffle generate results that are truly random and unpredictable
• the software used by PokerStars complies with all industry-standard requirements (including entropy sources, security, unpredictability, uniformity and fairness)
• the software passed the Marsaglia Die Hard tests
BMM concluded that the PokerStars RNG and shuffle comply with the requirements of the standard "I0101 - Internet Gaming Random Number Generator Requirements."

So how it does exactly prove that the system integrity as a whole has not been compromised, the access control is adequate, where are the details about the audit process, etc?

Last time my 92 years old grandmother audited my 94 years old grandfather basketball size prostate our family were able data mining more useful information from that than is available from this so called audit on a high profile online gambling operator.

You're looking in the wrong place. Go to the regulatory bodies, as I've pointed you to above.

This post may be helpful.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...1&postcount=48