Oh yeah? Listen to you.

The last guy who wanted to make a bet in this thread was a slight winner at 5NL with a $100 bankroll, so bets aren't taken all too seriously.

But you've gotten 2 offers if you escrow, so please go for it.
Got it, cap with AJs pre.

?

What theory says this wouldn't show up? If you change the randomness of the deal by picking the deals you want, you change the card distribution from expectation. It absolutely would show up. If you are talking about equity redistribution where we just move equity from non-targeted players to targeted players, that would also be detectable if you look for it, but as has been discussed a number of times, it would be massively difficult to implement such a musical-chairs scheme in practice.

Can I get in on this action? I want the side opposite Jspirit. How much do you want to put up?

IMO, you (and anyone else who is concerned about this issue) should email the site they play at and ask how the shuffle works in great technical detail.

It seems to me that the first step in figuring out how the sites randomly shuffle cards would be to ask them.

When I click on multi quote nothing happens. go ahead and explain then

You click the icon next to all the posts you want to quote, then click the reply button and they'll all be there for you to reply to.

The concept of favouring one particular player on the community cards is impossible in the 'static shuffle' method used by PokerStars. The server can't possibly know what players will do after the cards are dealt, so there can't be a deck "favourable" to what they want.

The deck is shuffled, set, then dealt.
Yes, that would be a concern if it happened. But it doesn't happen.
I explained in post #421 of this thread how you could prove that this isn't happening to you: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=421


Here it is again:

No, it isn't.

[\QUOTE]
This is a conspiracy theory popular with a different flavour of rigtard - in this case one who is unaware of the scrutiny that the sites are under from mirrions of poker players who would catch the anomalies generated by such shenanigans in a heartbeat.[/QUOTE]

seems to me you have little if any experience programming, if so you would realize just about anything can be done, certainly rigging a poker game, with software. Your intelligent insults certainly preclude much of a brain for programming.

thank you, it works

So many riggedologists seem to think literally anything is magically possible with software (without ever being caught or anyone involve leaking the info) that I am annoyed I did not think to add this sooner. Only 3 left to go.


Commandment 1: Thou shalt ask others to prove it false

Commandment 2: Thou shalt state an opinion and declare it a fact

Commandment 3: Thou shalt hurl personal attacks

Commandment 4: Thou shalt assume

Commandment 5: Thou shalt have no time to test thy theories

Commandment 6: Thou shalt support they brethren unconditionally

Commandment 7: Thou shalt believe anything is possible with software

Seems to me any number of conditions could be programmed. A static deck could be programmed to turn back on and reshuffle till it met a certain players trips or flush ,or a good start hand, etc.. a dynamic deck need not even be turned on. would be a fairly small amount of code comparatively. This type of program could be activated by chip stack, preferred player,etc., and could be used in a way to boost a player just enough to make him a winner but under the statistical radar. This would not be rocket science. Maybe sites have great security, but some percentage of gambling halls have always been dirty and one should not expect any better from on-line gambling.

Players do very predictable things with favorable cards. Thats a no brainer.

No such thing.

Dude, joke about the guy you were replying to.

static shuffle is like how poker is deal in real life..
but can static shuffle be shuffling repeatly until the person get a good starting hand?

Right, I agree that as long as we have a static shuffle the kind of riggage I described is impossible. I guess my only fear here would be that the *shuffled deck* object is something of a black box to most of the programmers, and only handled by a few senior/trusted programmers that have been around forever. It would make sense to do this to prevent a rogue programmer from hijacking the code for their own gain.

But the concern would be that the black box shuffled deck is actually hooked up to something that is aware of the table action, and spitting out choice re-shuffles based on the flop action. All of the programmers not working on the actual shuffled deck object could treat it like a statically shuffled deck. When their code asked the shuffled deck object for the turn card, they would never know it was spitting out more dynamic values.

Obviously this is far-fetched. But in the real world for something this monetarily important, like banking software, several third parties would be hired to audit all of the actual code - not just run various tests on the output. Or at least that should be how it's done.

No offense but I have no way of knowing of the Isle of Man gaming supervisory commission is on the up and up and more than the KGC, which we know is full of crap. Given PS standing on the Isle of Man, I would tend to doubt they are that zealous in their regulatory audits. Can Stars point to a full audit of their source code performed by an established, trusted third party entity that has a reputation to uphold and does not receive a significant percentage of their revenue directly from PS?

Anyway the fact that PS claims a statically shuffled deck is a good thing and significantly reduces the chances (which were very low to begin with) of my thought experiment being true imo. I'm just describing the kind of due diligence that a big corporate client would do before they trusted their money or corporate security to some 3rd party web application. As we know from AP/UB, and even stuff like Bernie Madoff, there's a damn good reason for due diligence, even if you think the chance of shenanigans is extremely remote.

Whether static or continuous, the shuffle is still random. It doesn't make a lick of difference in the results which one is used.

LOLOLOL at those who think online poker isn't rigged.

You've presented the same amount of evidence for both.

On the basis that I say that many millions of poker players keenly checking statistics would notice any anomolies in the deals they were given you conclude I have little if any programming experience?

What has the one to do with the other?

You demonstrate your idiocy at new levels daily.

Of course a poker game could be rigged by software.

Just not by rigging the RNG and not over a large sample of hands without leaving detectable artifacts in the HH databases.

Your unintelligent insults (and the other piffle you spout) certainly preclude the possibility of your having much of a functioning brain at all.

Please provide any evidence you have that this happens.

Traditionally, before people make wild accusations of massive international frauds and scams, and before people accuse others of fraud, theft and other criminal behaviour, it is customary to have evidence to support your accusations.

If you think this is happening, why have you not reported it to the relevant authorities?