I do not know the technical details.

And I do not know enough math to really be able to understand the technical way an RNG works.

It is always possible unless they kill ever person in on it and then they have to kill the people who killed the people and then eventually they have to kill everyone including themselves in order to to cover it all up. Then they have to kill the janitors who clean up all the blood even after they killed themselves, so turning into zombies would need to be involved as well to make it all work.

Point is simple. If a rig exists it would not be in the area that every single person could analyze within 1 minute with minimal effort, even a guy who has an opposition to math like yourself, and the guy that posted those hands does not even genuinely believe it is rigged anyway, he was just doing bad beat/variance whining. Genuine paranoid people, dummies and gimmicks stand out a bit more.

Your schtick is not too bad, so keep at it though it will be hard among all the gimmicks that sprout up, including obvious shill based ones that keep getting responses, and appreciate that my replies are quite a bit more fun than most shills as at least I introduce zombies in my theories, and they totally kick the ass of leprechauns.

All the best

What are you going on about? I have my HH and it shows clearly the site changing the outcome on all my 80-20 and 70-30 hands. Which is classic as it is the easy way to protect the poor players. The ones that call a 4 bet all in with K3, A7 etc and consistently hit their 30% miracle 80 to 90% of the time you can say variance all you want, or you have to so many hands but it's BS. It's a third party interfering with an outcome to take a player who shouuld be deposit everyday to one who withdraws once a month. Nothing else.

I will ship you $2,500 if you can mathematically prove (and have it verified by someone like spadebidder) what you are claiming (that Full Tilt is rigged in a specific way), and I will play some extra on Party Poker for you as well.

You have this data and your claims are so extreme that if they are indeed true then you would destroy Full Tilt by next week, which is certainly something you want to happen. I have never played on Tilt, so I am pretty indifferent about whether they survive your data, and if you can prove they cheat they deserve to be destroyed.

All you need to do is make your data available for statistical study, and you earn $2,500 if what you say is true and you take down a billion dollar company you despise.

Simply specify what you can prove (feel free to go with this your 70% hands win only 30% of the time theory), and what your entire hand database is in terms of size and the math guys will be able to tell you how strong an analysis they will be able to do. We obviously need to agree on the scope of the analysis beforehand so that is matters - so simply sending a couple dozen cherry picked bad beats will not count, and it has to definitively prove the deal is rigged (though you can define how it is rigged in your theory, and we can agree on terms based on that beforehand).

Oh, one small bit of fine print, if your data does not prove your specific claim that Full Tilt is rigged then you donate $250 to charity of your choice but it has to be escrowed with a mod here or a trusted poster before the analysis is done.

Well?

All the best.

My hope is that TPTB who are involved with things like the PPA understand how how crucial full, regular auditing is, especially of the actual code. HHs can be manipulated in the aggregate to show cumulative results that fall within random variance. Moreover, it wouldn't surprise me that the auditing of HHs aren't tied to associated pot sizes. It's when there's that huge pot in the middle that it most makes sense to reach into the deck and generate action and entertainment, and to allow the deck to be played out as shuffled when there's not.

I've done a couple different analysis of my own experiences. In the first case, I simply kept track of each time a dog won an all-in SD, where there were cards to come but no more player actions, for a couple weeks. The dogs were almost exactly at 50%. In the other, I created a spreadsheet that calculated the expected, weighted outcomes of those same situations vs. what happened. After a couple thousand hands, I quit, because the dogs actual value over expected was so great it would have taken an inordinate amount of times for the favorite to always win that I knew I was just wasting my time.

Now, I'm sure there are those whose reaction would be that the samples are too small. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But I do know that neither of my analysis disproved my theory. And while I don't know this for sure and maybe someone who does can chime in, my guess is that the average dog is in the low-to-mid 60s% against, which balances that most all-ins are the 56%-44% with lesser amount of dominated ones at 80%-20%. So when the dogs are running even, is it accurate to even call them dogs?

There is a simple solution to this issue, and a more expensive, complicated one. The simple solution is for a site to post on its website the unequivocal statement that once the deck is set, it never changes, and under no circumstance are any of the cards that hit the board a function of anything other than the original, random shuffle. Can anyone point me to such a statement? No? Well, why is that?

The more expensive, complicated one is, of course, quarterly auditing by a well-respected, independent firm that isn't going to risk its reputation over the auditing fees and has the staff to analysis both statistical probability and software code. In a perfect world, there would be several that rotated. And just for grins, let's have a $2MM pot that goes to the auditor who discovers cheating. Not the firm, but the 25 y.o. working 60 hour weeks in a windowless room.

What I know is this: The poker I play online at PS isn't remotely as dull as the poker I play live. And back when I could play at Paradise, before they stole my bankroll, the poker there, too, was pretty much what I've experienced my entire life in card rooms and home games. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's them. Whatever it is, neither of the two things that could be done to address it are happening.

Do you have a poker hand database program? You do realize there are ways of doing all you have claimed you did by hand in a much more powerful and verifiable manner, and you can even download free trials and store all the saved HHs into them for analysis by real stats experts.

Online is probably a bit more exciting because you get dealt hands at a much quicker pace and you can play multiple tables. They even call one variation "Rush" which is not too subtle...


Josem has said this about Stars many times, but that doesn't change any riggie who needs to believe it is rigged. Even after telling you this will that change whether you believe Stars is rigged?

The description of how PS shuffles a deck is fine, as far as it goes. However, it only addresses the shuffle itself. It says nothing about what happens with the deck after it's shuffled.

Here's an example from a few days ago. Let me be clear that I'm not presenting this as proof of anything; this is merely an illustration of what could be happening, and what has not been denied by any posted statements to the contrary.

After the turn with four still in the pot, I get priced in to draw to my possible flush. It comes. But it turns out that a pair of sixes has been along for the ride with a paired board. There's only one card in the entire deck that could produce a heavily bet, contested river, the six of diamonds. That it would be in that particular position in the deck is a 1-in-52 chance. Then we have to multiply that by the chance a 66 is sticking around in a 4-way pot while someone else gets priced in to draw to the flush. Those two events coming together, while certainly possible, is quite rare.

The thing of it is, however, such a hand happens several times a tournament. I'm not even surprised anymore when I see stuff like this. And this isn't even a part of the all-in subset I've looked at, where the dogs run nicely above expectation.

So - how hard really would it be for PS to post, in addition to its description of how a deck is shuffled, the statement that once the deck is shuffled, it's locked, and under no circumstance will any card come down other than the one sitting in the position about to be turned over?

But - you won't find such a statement anywhere on the PS website. And when I suggested such a statement be posted, I received no reply, not even the "we'll pass it along" email I've received for every other suggestion I've sent in. In probably ~100 emails to PS Support over the past four years, it's the only one I didn't get a reply to.

The PS shuffle is fine - in fact, it's superb, because it understands the necessity of dealing with a machine that thinks in base 2. That's not the problem. The problem is what happens during the play, when certain starters are up against each other and there are still cards buried in the deck that can produce some pretty interesting and entertaining outcomes.

And isn't this what online poker sites are selling for most people, entertainment? Isn't that why people watch ESPN (and NASCAR) - for the wrecks? Isn't that why ESPN edits the way they do? No one wants to watch real poker - it's as boring as watching cement dry. But as Maximus asked, "Is this not why you are here? Are you not entertained?"

Real, unmanipulated poker would drain the accounts of most of the fishes almost overnight and would put the ones who keep throwing good money after bad to sleep. But there's an app for that. And it's running right now at your favorite online site.

Confirmed

I take beats like this every single day. It's ****ing ridiculous. Not only was villain one of those "apparently should be playing high stakes, wsf>vpip>50%, up 3 buyins even though he's just mashing buttons" types, but there's no way I'm folding here ever. Silly me, concerning myself with the quality of the hands I play. And oh yeah, I just noticed, gotta love that 2 of my heart outs were dead. Q9o ftw.

Yes, I use PT3. So if you have a script that will pull the subset of two-way all-ins with cards to come but no more player actions and analyze expected outcomes to actual, please pass it along, because manually walking thru HHs, while somewhat educational, and then entering the info into Excel, is a PITA.

I don't know who Josem is; I'm just a recreational fish. If this statement is posted on the PS website, please direct me to the page, because I haven't seen it. If it's not, well, why not?

And such a statement isn't a substitute for quarterly complete audits, but it would be better than the nothing that currently exists.

GEE WILIKERS!!! The old HH's analysis will prove its not rigged, and you see more hands online then with live poker b.s. WOWEE, you sure have me convinced its not manipulated!
Come on affiliate, you can do better than that.

Take Collin's money and shove it pal. As for PP their shuffle is rigged and it's just like how the sites deal blackjack there is no decks and once you draw another card the deck is reshuffled.

BTW FTP rig in full swing tonight. Near the bubble in a hand that I dominate and would give me the chip lead I lose with KQ against K6 and KJ by runner runner st8 and the K6 takes it. It's calculated and by design. My HH shows it clearly but will always be explained away by variance and comparing to other players who run way above EV simply so they don't go broke and keep the player base growing and rake and entries high.

Big Slick Racing, Josem is a Poker Stars employee.
Please keep posting, but keep in mind, most people on here have a financial interest in the scam that is online poker.

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

990 games 0.032 secs 30,937 games/sec

Board: Th Jh 8h
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 27.778% 27.47% 00.30% 272 3.00 { AhJd }
Hand 1: 72.222% 71.92% 00.30% 712 3.00 { Qs9h }


---

Your whole argument is that he made a loose call pre??

Your choice, and it did represent about 1000 buy ins for you and the opportunity for you to destroy a company you hate if you could back your claims, but I guess all you can do now is appeal to riggies for people to believe you at this point when you whine, though you just seem to like to whine for the sake of whining, so perhaps you do not even care if even riggies believe you at this point. Maybe if they are American riggies.

Interesting that you now say Party Poker, the company you said you respected in other threads, is rigged as well. Kind of a random flip flop, but at least you believing with anger that the entire world is rigged against you does makes more sense in terms of being consistent. Thanks for clearing that up.

By the way, you actually were a bit more interesting to read before you turned into such a cliched and repetitive bad beat whiner.

Did you miss those two posts by me?:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=30494

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=30547


If you had seen them you would know what I am going on about?


And you just did it again. Here you about claiming that your hand histories show that the site changes your odds on 80-20 and 70-30 situations. And yet you will not perform a statistical analysis of your database of hands and post everything. You claim to have the evidence and yet you refuse to show it to everybody and out the pokersites for the cheats they are. It is your fault they are getting away with it and if they are in fact manipulating the deal then I hold you personally responsible due to your having but not showing the world the proof that the sites manipulate the deal. Shame on you for burying the evidence.

Never said I respected them. Please post link to post where I did. I said they will have the leg up once the US legalizes online poker. I also liked their software a bit better than that **** site you play who have software from the dark ages.

So your point is that the site couldn't possibly have picked out that card on purpose and they must just be dealing off the top of the deck because the six of diamonds is the worst possible card that could come out for the site?

We've discussed multiple times in this thread why big pots and action hands are BAD for the sites and causes them to make LESS money. I won't go through it all again but here's three hints:

1.) Poker sites make money through raking every hand that is played.
2.) Rake on each individual hand is capped.
3.) When a player runs out of money he could stop playing.




It has been stated multiple times that PokerStars doesn't have a continuous shuffle and once the cards are set they stay that way. I suppose they didn't then say that they deal from the top to bottom rather than picking any card out of the deck that they want. But I think just nobody ever thought of putting something on the website that said after the deck is shuffled we start dealing from the top. I think no one would have thought of that because it is obvious and everyone who plays poker knows that is how you deal. They only explain the shuffle because it is different from a traditional casino brick and mortar poker room.

But fine, I wouldn't have a problem with them putting that statement somewhere.

Are you ****ing kidding? What beat did you take?



$2 went in when you were 63 to 36:

1,712,304 games 0.031 secs 55,235,612 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 63.106% 62.89% 00.22% 1076880 3682.50 { AhJd }
Hand 1: 36.894% 36.68% 00.22% 628059 3682.50 { Qs9h }




Then $48 went in when you were 27 to 72:



990 games 0.032 secs 30,937 games/sec

Board: Th 8h Jh
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 27.778% 27.47% 00.30% 272 3.00 { AhJd }
Hand 1: 72.222% 71.92% 00.30% 712 3.00 { Qs9h }





And to talk strategy: I think your flop shove is pretty awful. Very easy call of his minraise on the flop. Is he calling your shove with a naked Kh? With KJ? Are you just completely hoping that he always has KhJx and played it awfully. He can have 88,TT,JJ,JTs, suited connectors in hearts and apparently some straights. If he has Q9 off there it seems pretty clear he's not a good player but his shove calling range there is still pretty narrow. Even if he does raise like QJ on the flop or something like that (which is pretty awful) it is unlikely he'll call your shove unless possibly if he has the Qh.

Facing his flop min-raise is an easy call.

Do you complain that the U.S. Mint makes quarters wrong when you flip one and it comes up heads:


2,105,478,144 games 5.328 secs 395,172,324 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 53.666% 52.18% 01.49% 1098565416 31361824.00 { KQs, KQo }
Hand 1: 21.352% 19.86% 01.49% 418209912 31361824.00 { K6s, K6o }
Hand 2: 24.981% 23.49% 01.49% 494617344 31361824.00 { KJs, KJo }

I'm sure it's been said before, but Lego must be a masochist for trying to reason with the unreasonable.

After many years of argueing w rigtards both in forum and at the cardroom I've realized that not only were all my arguements doomed to failure, but that it isn't in my interest to dissuade people that online poker is rigged.

Rigtarditude is a defense mechanism that allows people to avoid the real reason that they are long term losers. This is why they don't have any desire to accumulate data and make it public. On some level, they realize that there is nothing to find, and that would burst their delusions.

So, I say "rage on rigtards", and end my annual prerusal of this dismal thread.

and again

and again




I'm beginning to think that whether it's rigged or not doesn't matter, because it's rigged against me.

I am an overall winning player online but I still think it's rigged. I don't win enough and I continually lose in situations where I have huge equity advantages. Never, never do I have a single day where I say "wow, my advantages played out better than they should". I never have good luck, sometimes average, often inexplicably bad. Why is it I never run hot with equity advantages? Sometimes I run hot in suckouts when I am tilt shoving every hand but I never ever ever ever just have good hands hold up for any reasonable span of time. Never. Never.

I have taken a reasonable approach but the more I play online (been sidelined from live for a sec) the more I almost think the "shills" in here are just leveling, just trying to give rational explanations then just meeting up at a bar somewhere and laughing their asses off. I mean no one who has any sense can possibly think these sites always uses an RNG to deal the boards. Maybe they deal a fair game to the higher stakes, because they are afraid of being discovered. But at the lower stakes I play online there is just no way it's random, no way.

This is obviously not any type of rational argument because after seeing what I have seen on pokerstars these last few weeks nobody, not Steven Hawking or my professor in math stats can ever tell me I am seeing a true RNG. I am no longer even open to any type of rational discussion about whether it is rigged. It is. Along the same lines I won't be engaging in any debate about whether the earth orbits the sun, whether or not we evolved from lower primates, or whether or not water is wet.

and again, and again

boy, I sure do run into a lot of coolers.