Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Ok well then let me list the reasons against rigging that we've discussed so far:
1) Any rigging would show up in a giant distribution analysis.
As I have said before I don't think we can just make this blanket statement and hold it as gospel w/o any math to back it up. It's possible certain kinds of rigging would leave such a small statistical foot print that it wouldn't show up. Or that tracks could be covered by the same system doing the rigging.
2) The Isle of Man gaming commission has certified PS.
I'm sure they are nice people, but I don't think you can say we should intrinsically trust a body like that, when we know they're counterpart in Canada (the KGC) is a bunch of hoodlums. I read this whole thing: http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/gambling/...rification.pdf . It basically just says they have to prove their RNG is random, nothing about code audits or any kind of 3rd party audit.
3) Poker Stars says they have a static deal that is never manipulated.
Again, probably true. But if you are investigating the possibility someone is pulling a shenanigan, their word is not really a valid point of evidence.
4) Nothing could be gained from such a rigging.
I think you could make a pretty good case that something could be gained by favoring certain players over another.
5) A rigging system would be too complicated and too easy to detect by anyone who worked on the system internally.
This along with the next thing are probably the best arguments.
6) It just wouldn't be worth the effort to set up and the risk of getting caught.
Yeah, almost certainly not.
It's just unsettling to me that the biggest argument against rigging going on is that it just wouldn't be worth it. I would sleep so much better at night if PS were constantly monitored by some big Euro equivalent of the Nevada Gaming Commission.
Point 1 is hard for those of us who are not complete stat freaks to truly grasp, though most of the very simplistic riggedologist theories presented would certainly be easy to catch.
To their credit, most have adapted and go for the "software will just do secret stuff no one can detect" approach now which is certainly harder to disprove given it's magical nature.
Point 2 is sort of meh. Even if the Isle of Man is ineffective this massive rigging conspiracy, if it existed, has to go undetected. I agree point 2 is sort of minor in comparison.
Point 3 seems strange. Does this require Stars to be outright lying about the type of deal they use? That seems really out there that they would do something so easy to catch. Maybe I am missing something here.
Point 4 is completely tied into point 6. One of the biggest flaws of many riggedology beliefs is that they look at potential gain (often times incorrectly determined) while completely ignoring risk. That is not the way it works except for criminals on the tv show COPS.
Point 5 and 6 are the meat of it. Other then by magic (create the software to magically do it with no one knowing or telling) I just do not see how a large, successful company would go about pulling this off in this area, and so far no riggedologist has offered any insight other then shouting Enron and saying that in this world some people commit crime.
Yes, we all know bad people exist, but in this specific industry how do these companies leap past points 5 and 6 even if you ignore or play along with points 1-4 being flexible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
Just to clarify, I don't think it's 100% certain that all kinds of rigging would show up in a simple giant card distribution.
But I do think with the right database you could detect just about anything. My dream database would be like a billion showdowns where all the money goes in with at least one card left to come (so PF, flop, turn). Each row would be a showdown, and the columns would be something like the following:
Buyin
Player 1 cards
Player 2 cards
Player 1 equity
Player 2 equity
Who won the hand
Player 1 location
Player 2 location
Time of day
Day of week
Player 1 # of tables currently playing
Player 2 # of tables currently playing
Player 1 normal average buyin
Player 2 normal average buyin
Player 1 join date
Player 2 join date
Player 1 volume (# of buyins spent) last week, month, 6 months, year
Player 2 volume (# of buyins spent) last week, month, 6 months, year
and certainly some other stuff I haven't thought of yet
I would run a regression analysis of all those fields vs. how close the final equity (who won hand) came to the equity when all the money went in. If any of those fields is weighted to win/lose more than it should, that would show up in the regression analysis.
Anyone have such a DB they can send me? Also maybe a license to SAS and a Xeon server I could borrow?
If you did all of that and demonstrated that everything seemed normal, you know what would happen next?
Someone would come here, post a single hand, declare it is rigged, and the whole cycle would continue.
Welcome to the thread...