I was going to post the exact same thing.

Sooper, you sounded like you had seen a few things that had left you wondering about how legit the sites really were. If I am honest, these same thoughts go through my mind in those dark times when I am on an extended bad run. I "know" these runner runner's are going to hit before they happen. Then in the cold light of day I look at the true odds of these ridiculous events happening and I know those odds are not that ridiculous after all.

If you play this game long enough you are going to see lots of "unreal" events. If you didn't see them it would be rigged. All we want when people shout "rigged" is some evidence but all we get is that you know it's rigged. This is a waste of time and thats why most rigtards get abuse.

I could just say to you not to play live because the casinos appoint good mechanics to fix the cards. I have no proof but I just know it - live is rigged. Why would casinos not employ mechanics? Get the picture?

I'm going to start a thread on a Golden Tee forum and say that I prefer real golf.

So youve done it again calling me dumb. Please Im enjoying the debate but theres just no need for that. I thought you werent holding a grudge. Maybe its because I bothered you earlier.

What do lizards have to do with this. Actually you clearly dont like my opinion for whatever reason and you are attacking me personally.

Wow...use your head. According to your theory the sites rig the RNG so that fish stay in longer...BUT in the long run it all evens out...so tell me, how does the site benefit considering that in order for the stats to even out they will have to rig it against said fish at a later point in time.

You know what is important in debates? Evidence. Since you have already said that evidence doesn't matter, what exactly are you doing?

Sooper,

and (multi-quote)

are great. Then when you quote people, we know who you're quoting, and we can even click on the little and see the original post being quoted.

in

Your right again I could be totally wrong and the sites could be totally legit. Thats a possiblility. Of course cheating goes on in live poker but at least you can see the players your facing and the cards are in front of you. Its not so easy for the casino to rig the game but somewhere there will be cheating players/dealers scamming poker players. There is evidence that pokersites manipulate the RNG in stud games and from what Ive heard from software programmers it would be very simple to manipulate/programme the RNG to their own ends.

I'm assuming you have a link to the proof...cause it would be pretty stupid to say there is evidence and then not elaborate on it right?

LOL I always wondered how to do that.

I think its common knowledge that Pokersatrs admitted that when they use more than the 52 cards they manipulate the RNG to make sure no one gets the same card again.

FMP. That other button () is for quick replies.

If they were poor players but it was rigged in their favor, wouldn't they be rich players?
Expert analysis. Why weren't you interviewed on 60 Minutes?
I went out of a tournament the other night when the other player in the hand made a couple of horrible decisions. But since it wasn't a cash game, the action flop didn't increase the rake, so that couldn't have motivated the site to rig it for the vastly inferior player to win the pot. However, that guy didn't manage to cash in the tournament either. So I just don't know why they rigged that hand that way.
I'm sorry, you don't want to be called dumb? Would "statistically-challenged" suit you better?

I suspect you understand that lizards don't have anything to do with this discussion specifically.

You said that I'm trying to go away from the subject because I mentioned that you had trouble grasping some ideas which I feel that any adult would get without any trouble.

Then I said, no, it's YOU who are ignoring my arguments with accusations of attacks and gave you a random example of what you were doing with lizard people in the starring role.

You chose to do the exact same thing again.

So, tell ya what... here's what I said:
You explain to me how that in any way that implies agreement with you. I think it quite clearly conveys the method by which one could determine a process to prove or disprove this alleged rigging, but maybe I'm wrong. If any other posters ITT would like to tell me what they think that means, I'd love to hear their feedback.

I'm not familiar with their RNG, but I think if the program doesn't allow duplicate cards that isn't rigging that is common sense. For future reference "rigged" means "to manipulate fraudulently".


Also could you reply to the below?

Thanks!

not that you're dumb or anything....

I think it was you saying "rewarded" that threw him off.

Y'all thought I was joking, didn't ya?

1. No they would be breakeven instead of losing and small winners instead of breakeven.

2. No am I not an expert analyist and No 60 minutes didnt contact me.

3. Not every hand(in my opinion) is manipulated. Thats a shame about your tournament, but its poker it happens.

4. No statistically challenged would not suit me at all thankyou very much. I fully understand and have studies poker statistics in particular.

5. I understand that lizards have nothing to do with this thread but why did you include them?

6. For the last point it looks as if your saying they need to be "rewarded" more often than the 5% for them to keep coming back.

"if they didn't get rewarded with their five-percenter (you know that means FIVE TIMES OUT OF 100 it'll get there, right?) occasionally (probably 1/20 times or so) they wouldn't play."

First impression is important to a customer. If the customer has a good first impression they may keep coming back and depositing long after their initial "boomswich" has run out. If the customer has a bad first impression they will go elsewhere.

actually, that was a little joke. if it was rigged for the poor players, they wouldn't be broke, thus you couldn't tell they were poor. 'cause that's how you tell if a poker player is poor - THEY'RE POOR.
you're too modest. perhaps they will next time if I send a link to this to them.
So how many hands? I heard it was all in the timing recently. Do you agree?
it happens in non-rigged poker or rigged poker?
odd you chose to come here empty-handed then
'cause they're sort of dinosaur-like. Fun fact: Brontosaurus means "thunder lizard"
If that's what you got from it, I apologize. What I was saying is they get it exactly as often as they're supposed to and until you can show otherwise you're really wasting your precious time - didn't you say time was at a premium? What are you still doing here!?!?!?

Sooper,

In the Stephen Meares thread, he had a similar theory - that the flop, turn and river cards were fiddled to favour particular players. Let me explain a way to make such 'rigging' impossible.

As you might know, there are two possible ways for a computer to shuffle a deck:

a) Static Shuffle - Just like in a live casino, the cards are shuffled, set, and then dealt out.

b) Continuous Shuffle - While the hand is in play, the cards are continuously being shuffled, and then, when the pre-flop (or the flop or turn) action is finishe, the shuffling is stopped, and then the next card is dealt.

If a deck is set, like in a static shuffle, before the hand starts, then it is literally impossible to create an "action flop" (or any other form of rigged shuffle that is based on community cards) since there is no way that a site can possibly predict what action will take place.

So, if you want to play at a site where such rigging is impossible you need to only play at sites which have a static shuffle.

The easiest way to do this is to just email the various sites, and ask them whether they use a continuous or a static shufffle.

Here are the contact details for the five largest sites/networks according to Poker Scout:

PokerStars - support@pokerstars.com
Full Tilt - support@fulltiltpoker.com
iPoker/Playtech - http://www.playtech.com/html/index.php?page=43
PartyPoker - info@partypoker.com
OnGame/bwin - https://home.bwin.com/page.aspx?view=contact

(If someone has an email address for iPoker or OnGame/bwin to use then feel free to post it - I couldn't find one easily)

Here's a draft email that you can send them:


Now, obviously you don't trust the sites involved (otherwise this thread wouldn't exist) so the next step is to then contact their regulators.

Here are the details on their regulators that I could find from their respective websites:

PokerStars - www.gov.im/gambling
Full Tilt - http://www.kahnawake.com/gamingcommission/
iPoker/Playtech - CDPoker (one of the skins) says they're regulated by Gibraltar, but I couldn't find their listing on http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/gov_dept...net_gaming.htm - still, that's probably the place to start
PartyPoker - http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/gov_dept...net_gaming.htm
OnGame/bwin - http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/gov_dept...net_gaming.htm

I just went to the respective sites home pages and followed the links from there.

Hopefully this will help you get underway to confirming to yourself that online poker is safe and secure.

Feel free to PM me or post here if you have any queries.

I think it's safe to assume you dont have degree in statistics.

So how am I doing thus far? Good, right? You keep coming back...

Well then shouldn't there be some data that takes the first thousand hands or so of a large sample of players and shows some sort of departure from the typical variance?

You know why there isn't any sort of data that shows that? It's because it doesn't exist.