Is this the five minute or the twenty minute argument...

BS, it's there it's just shills like you keep trying to feed more sheep the Koolaide into believing that a site that operates outside any sort of regulation and laws and can not be tracked or made to pay anything they steal back would not steal. Give it a rest.

obv post link to evidence.

wrong

your brain = your evidence = zer0!

Go to sleep.


** Oh, now he's going to claim the shills jumped him! Show proof dick head. That way we can jump on that instead (and hopefully you'll be proven right ).

At least someone speaks the truth in here. Keep posting, at best to possibly save someone from wasting his/her money believing the b.s. posts from all the schills in here.

gotta luv this muppet/schill brilliant comebacks.

I would agree with your statements about FTP, it does not deal randomly.

blatantlyrigged aka TheTruth5, too hard to put 2 quote in a single post lol

Jeez we can figure easily why you are a loser!

His posts are littered with truth. Actually, they're just litter. My bad. Carry on loser..

Simpletons with simple arguments get simple responses.

I'm wondering if you even read the post you quoted. Because it's one thing when you carry on about sites not being regulated, they might be rigged, wait until it gets legislated, blah blah blah. But in this case, you're refuting a very clear statement - that "There is still no evidence provided of a rigged/hacked/etc. shuffle at any leading or credible online poker site", which means you believe there is. So, where is it?

Excellent, two of you know of evidence...link, please?

no need for the schills or mods to read this, but it might help the small % of real players on here to decide if they want to waste their time and money playing on these online poker scams, see post #9 especially.

From post #9:

"It would be nice if a big site opened the books so everyone can see actual results.. How much people deposited, how much people earned, how much went to rake, how many are consistent winners etc..But obviously this would probably kill their business when people see the site ends up keeping almost all of the money.."

If only someone would produce software to monitor these games and create a website with the underlined information shown.

Oh, wait ...

I see a link, but it doesn't seem to be a link to that evidence. BTW, what is a schill?

And I thought you were done with this thread...

This old spadebidder post gave me a flash of inspiration as well.
There are 5 ways I would maximize rake if I were a "honest" poker room operator:

1. Rush poker (Monteroy's valid point)
2. Multi buy in tournaments (Monteroy's valid point)
3. Bad Beat jackpots (Everyone knows these are good for the house)
4. Maximize churn by only offering limit or limit the buyin's on games (Josem's valid point)
5. Offer a fair game because, let's face it, the bulk of the player's are playing the most action game with the most action hands, i.e, no limit holdem. The omaha, stud and draw games don't have nearly the players.
(Spadebidder with a little of my own thoughts thrown in)


Let's assume that I am not honest and I want to maximize the overall profits on my site, using any method possible. How would the shills use the programming, rigging or cheating to achieve this goal?


And for the prestige, perhaps Wiki will one day explain how he would be able to detect rigging.

I've already explained this in some detail a few weeks ago.

Check the thread.

I, and several others, have already explained this more than once.

No one is interested in repeating the same material over and over for the benefit of someone who has the attention span of an gerbil that suffers from ADD.

I did a post a while ago about what my approach to rigging would be but I have no idea how to find it, however the basic premises would be the following:

- Easy to implement
- Difficult to detect
- minimal people "in on it"
- makes the site money

The problem with most riggie theories is that they would set off alarms within a day if implemented and frankly many of them would not even make the site money.

Here are the rough concepts behind my suggested rig:

1) Do NOT target a specific player

I know every riggie thinks the reason they busted in a freeroll was a personal attack by the site, but the reality is that the best system is one that would not be detected and by targeting players (whether for good or bad results) one makes it much easier to detect.

Riggies have no idea the scope and magnitude the hard core grinders pour over the hand history data and literally every silly theory given would be noticed immediately, so you need to do a rig that avoids these guys detection.


2) Do NOT have the "rig" happen too often

The reality is any change you make to the deal will have a statistical impact and the stats guys have many times explained how even a tiny change can be noticed after enough iterations, so all the claims of freeroll bad beats being a sign of a rig are silly because why would a site risk increasing the chance of getting caught.

3) Avoid "ACTION" hands

People who suggest the site is rigging action hands do not get it. Action hands get noticed and remembered , so we want the rig to take place on hands that are not noticed or remembered. As well, action hands move the money in huge clumps between players and that makes the site less rake than if the money is moved around in a slow consistent manner.

Action hands also take a lot longer and slow the game and at many levels they generate no more rake anyway.




Here is how I would rig cash games

Once every 20 hands or so I would have the "rig hand" happen and it would be a very easy hand where all but two of the players got unplayable trash (10 4 o , 73s etc) and a mid or late position player got a hand like AK/AQ/99 that would open the pot. Give the button or sb or BB a playable hand like 78 suited or 33 that might want to see a flop when deep.

On the flop have it hit the initial hand and completely miss the second hand, so if AK raised and 98 suited call have the flop be

K 5 2 rainbow (none of the 98 suited hands suit).

What likely happens then is AK does a continuation bet, 98s folds and the hand ends quickly with rake generated (from seeing a flop).

This is one of the fastest rake generating hands that can be played and if you replace 3 or 4 normal hands with these each hour on every table you can generate a tiny sliver of extra rake. Multiply that by the number of tables and games and it can add up.

They key with this is who gets the AK type hands and who gets the 89 suited type hands is totally random each time, and since nearly all of these hands will never go to showdown they will not be as much useful information in players databases.

This is simple in that one just programs these hands (a ton of different ones that fit this criteria) and set them to be dealt at a certain reasonable rate and the rig takes care of itself. without having to program different things for each combination of hundreds of thousands of players playing against each other.

This would generate more rake per table hour without causing any real disruption in the games (like action hands and evil bad beats do) which is exactly how a crime like this should operate.

Obviously the issues of whether this is worth a site to do it and how one contains the people who know about it still exist, but at least as a crime this does make sense because:

- It is simple
- Hard to detect
- Does not disrupt the games
- Does not target any specific player


My nickname for this has been the "non-action hand" theory, but it probably can be better named. The problem as well as this approach depersonalizes the rig so when a person complains they lose too much this theory would have nothing to do with that because it makes extra money regardless of who wins and loses.

Hope this answered your request, and I do not expect any riggie to ever believe in this proper business approach to a rig because how much fun is it when you can't blame your losses on the rig?

Except that it would be trivially easy to detect.

Stick to the cod psychology, Monty.

It's obvious from the above that you have about as much idea of the tools available for detection of anomalies as the average riggie.

I don't really know how easy or hard it would be to detect a scheme like the one that Monteroy outlined, but I strongly suspect it wouldn't be "trivially easy"

(Pet peeve of mine is people inappropriately using "trivial". Just because you think its not rocket science, it doesn't make it trivial)

-Does affect hand distributions
-Does affect flop card distribution
-Does affect flop connection rates
-Does target specific players (premium raisers over rewarded at expense of speculative callers)
.
.
.

Just like all theories it only works on the premise of 'if you only do it x% of the time..." and nobody has crunched any numbers to suggest that x could be profitable.

Well, I obviously (or, at least, I thought it was obvious) meant: 'trivially easy for a competent programmer who is au fait with analysing hand histories'.

The implication being that it is a very naive scheme that wouldn't be any more useful to a site in terms of stealth than any other - once you actually do an analysis.

Well, he talked about 'once every 20 hands or so'.

Does anyone really believe that you can tamper with 5% of hands and no one will notice?

You would need to live in la-la land to believe anything so preposterous.

Come on Monteroy, use some imagination. Let's say you have six months before the U.S. market actually makes online poker illegal. 60% of your revenue comes from the U.S. Give me a rig or a cheating scenerio that increases the profits beyond 1/20th.

The problem with your example is:
1. That scenerio occurs enough naturally in the game (i.e, no reason to even rig then).
2. I don't know, but I doubt it creates a maximum rake per hand. Seems to me that hand would create a pot of maybe 6bb, where max rake is probably at 30bb.
3. Again, I don't know, but I doubt these hands are significantly faster than a "normal" hand where you would gain extra hands per hour.

Think big.

You must be happy that the surgery was successful and you don't have to carry your partially aborted brother in a basket anymore. Unfortunately, he just won't go away. I guess its tough going through life without either side wanting you on their team. 37 posts and counting....


Though I do love the ignore button option.

Don't get me wrong, any rigged theory pretty much fails the common sense test (whether a site would do it or not), the "cave" test (where those inside keep the secret to their death), and all will create a footprint of sorts.

My theory is an attempt to reduce the footprint which is what a business would do if they were silly enough to want to rig their games. Having too many AA vs KK in freerolls is hardly the way to reduce a footprint.

Everything you said is correct in that there is a non zero effect, however by doing it totally at random with regard to the players it reduces the magnitude of the effect of any one specific player which would lower the ability to detect it somewhat.

I'm not saying my theory is anything a site should do, and certainly none do it or any other silly riggie theory, but it moves in the correct direction of what a rig should do.


If a site wanted to outright steal from it's customers then it would do just that (as some have) and simply not allow cash outs any more and then vanish. That certainly is an "end game" approach and many smaller sites have utilized it.

Creating an intricate rig to accomplish the same thing seems silly.