You should have looked harder, particularly before disagreeing with the guy who knows it directly (Josem):

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/room/features/security/
"true hardware random number generator developed by Intel [3], which uses thermal noise as an entropy source"

[3] http://www.cryptography.com/resource...s/IntelRNG.pdf

Whose foot is in mouth?

Full Tilt also publishes their hardware RNG details. Major sites haven't used pseudo-RNG software generators for years, not since one got cracked about 10 years ago. Even UB and AP use hardware RNGs.

you are probably a troll but anyways....

no worries. no one is making you post here. thanks for sharing your ideas. you should try and ignore whatever perceived BS you see in peoples posts and realise that in order for an informed and objective discussion to occur you may have to accept that people way smarter than you, who are way better at poker than you have not been able to prove pokerstars is rigging their algoritms so you are wasting your energy trying to do so. those energies could be directed at actually getting better at poker instead of making up stories and throwing in percentages that you 'feel' are right. what were those facts again?

oh and btw since playmoney is rigged you should feel pretty safe in the real money games. step on in at the shallow end. you can even buy a program called pokertracker or holdem manager, record your hands and then prove what you cant prove now. there probably is a way to input your play money hands into pokertracker/holdem manager so you can do some real statistical analysis at which point you will come to the conclusion that stars are even sneakier than you thought and that they are hiding the riggedness so that overall doesnt look rigged statistically but when what they are really doing is increasing the number of big pot hands to drive up rake and hence profit. there ya go. i just wasted 5 minutes of my time and saved you a few weeks in developing your theory.

your welcome. carry on. Ill continue being a winning real money poker player and you can continue with trying to figure out pokerstars business model. i usually dont post in these thread because people with your line of reasoning typically simply are not capable of absorbing any commentary that doesnt agree with whatever their online poker is rigged theory is and once again this has proven correct. i do however like cheeseburgers so maybe we can agree on something.

Im sold on the play money being rigged at stars and cashing out all my play moneis on stars im going to deposit my play monies on FT atleast I can get rakeback TY skepticalatbest for proving the riggedness of play money on stars

Bettting against me, or are you just trying to steal my action?


I don't know what assumption you were referring to in my post.

Is there a major site which uses some sort of software RNG?
I don't think PokerStars does turn a blind eye to people who believe the shuffle is not fair. Try emailing them with your concerns and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.


Obviously there is software that is needed to convert the stream of binary numbers into a deck of cards.

However, the source of the RNG is two separate things: the Intel thermal thingy, and user input. Either one of them would be sufficient for true randomness: but the combination of the two gives additional confidence.

I think I'm contributing to an informed and objective discussion. I care deeply about the integrity of online poker, and am participating to the best of my ability. I'm certainly not the smartest guy in this discussion, and I'm certainly not the best educated on statistics and variance, but I do think I make a valuable contribution here.

[ ] OP does this

EDIT: smart-ass me didn't see 531 pages of thread before posting un-lolz reply... fail.

Sharing is caring...

Yes, you and your fellow shills for ReadDeal, but everyone knows who you are and you do have a certain comdey value.

In reality the form of the discussion is this:

Rigtard: "I believe that on-line poker is definitely rigged despite there being no evidence whatsoever to support such a that belief."

Non-rigtard: "I believe that on-line poker is probably not rigged because there is no evidence whatsoever to support a belief that it is."


Can you see why this merely confirms many people's belief that rigtards are idiots?

You "point out the obvious", someone posts proof that your statement is simply wrong and you then criticise the people making fun of you whilst ignoring the proof. Yet you wonder why people just tell yo to GTFO?

Can I have cliff notes for your epic post because I assume from this that there must be some valuable info in there.

Ok. We'll disregard the rest, their only "constructive" opinions are the usual droll "no proof" crap.

I've been doing a lot of reading this afternoon and played a tourney. The focus was on the ability to control the outcome and still pass RNG audits (RNG audits don't audit the software that process the output of the RNG), Action Flops, positions and odds.

Some very interesting reading here. I read the Cigital report on Pokerstars. I played a tourney.

A couple of very interesting things stood out. First, Cigital didn't audit the play money tables, and it's reasonably sound and repeatedly proven that the action on play money tables vs. real money is two distinctly different things. I think it's safe to disgard the Cigital report for the purposes of play money discussion as I don't play real money.

The Action Flop Theory especially interests me. It seems to adhere to my gut instincts, which of course piques my interest even more. I watched it in action today.

EDITED: For the first table, I played tight, watched the wankers bust themselves out. No need for action flops here. The double or nothing prawns take care of that. Second table. A few loose hands, mix it up a bit, double the blinds and follow up bets, all in bids to scare off the fishermen with decent holes, etc. Tighten up to the final table.

I'm chip leader by far. 18,000. Nearest stack, 8,000. I'm playing a great game, making the right calls, playing the positions. Truthfully, I'm surprising myself. Before I know it it's the final table. I knock out the sixth place stack (who happened to be in second place until final table), shifting to an aggressive tack. Up to over 20k. Sweet.

Next hand. I have AJs. I bet the biggest of the three short stacks, late position. The next big calls. The three short stacks fold. J/4/3 rainbow on the table. I flop top pair. I'm in first position. I go all in, dragging the big into an all or nothing showdown. He calls. A/5s. Crap. I know what's going to happen next. 2 on the turn. Some ridiculous river. I believe it was an 8. Of course Pokerstars doesn't record histories in play money tourneys.

Burn. Oh well. Next hand.

I still have 5k left. K/Js. All in. Either double up or bust. The big, that already checked, calls. pair of nines. Definitely a stronger position than I am pre-flop. Busted. Sure enough, no K, no J, no flush. I'm out in fifth place.

Now bear in mind that the guy was shortstacked most of the tourney.

The Action Flop Theory states that pros lose more often than they should to keep the newbs in the game. It supports the theory in my OP, that most seemingly disregarded out of hand, that the action is geared to get them to the money. Coupled with a site's ability to manipulate the draw and still pass the RNG audit... I truly believe there's validity to the concerns.

It's not a big deal, it's play chips, but still worth a good discussion if we can scare off the wankers that go "You suck" and that's the extent of their contribution.

If I played for the money, maybe I might be choked. This is just for fun, but once my curiosity is piqued, it's going to take more than some wingnuts in a forum going "you have no proof" or "you're an idiot" or actually making a feeble attempt at sounding witty to scare me off.

What are your thoughts?

I played Tiger Woods this afternoon and the computer shot a 62 because I was playing so well. So rigged.

Your immense two hand study pales in comparison to current multi-million (soon to be 1 billion) hand study done by spadebidder and IndianaV8. Unfortunately for you, their results have proved the exact opposite of your study. Hope you didn't waste too much time doing you study.

lol CMAR

A+, mod. About time it got changed.

I don't know how to break this to you, but...

This is not a play money website.

The people you are talking to here do not play with play money.

We play with real dollars.

And for many of us, playing poker is our job. And like many professionals, we know an awful lot about or field of work.

Which is why everything you post is laughable to us.

You're hanging out down at Skydome complaining to Blue Jays players that your local Little League is fixed.

We don't care. We barely care enough to laugh at you. We're not going out to watch a bunch of six year olds play t-ball. And the chance that it's actually rigged and you're not some whacked out stage-mom who just got into an argument with a 17-year old volunteer umpire who called your son out on a close play is extremely remote.

If you don't care, why the lengthy diatribe to prove it?

Which reminds me why you should care. An ability to skewer the game at the play money table means the same ability at a real money table. Admittedly it will put a damper on the "pros" that may have to admit their game isn't all just skill. The reason for that being that the "Action Flop Theory" applies to money games as well. Keep the amateurs in the money. Keeps more money in the kitty. If the "pros" always won, which by rights they would, the amateurs that THOUGHT they were poker gods would run clutching their credit cards with their tails between their legs.

If you don't think it's worth discussing, fine. Just don't bore me with your mockery.

This tourney I'm just in has seen 4 action flops at the 12 player mark. Coincidence? Maybe. I just don't buy coincidence.

edit: two more here at the final table.

Here's the last one:

*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Me [Qd Kd]
p1: folds
p2: raises 200 to 400
Me: raises 4800 to 5200
p3: folds
p4: folds
p5.77290: folds
p2: calls 4785 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (15) returned to Me
*** FLOP *** [7d Qh Kh]
*** TURN *** [7d Qh Kh] [Kc]
*** RIVER *** [7d Qh Kh Kc] [Qs]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
p2: shows [Jh Js] (two pair, Kings and Queens)
Me: shows [Qd Kd] (a full house, Kings full of Queens)
Me collected 10820 from pot

You keep using the word pros talking about play money games. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Great thread title.

17 kudo's for the mods.

OK, well once you find proof that play money games are rigged get back to us. I played play money games before I played real money and I haven't found any reason to believe that either of them are have unfair dealings (although the action is WAY different, since everyone either doesn't care or is incredibad in play money games).

It's Sunday.

And if you think that's lengthy, you obviously haven't met MicroBob.... (or read your own posts)

We're still talk'n 'bout lay Money, right?

Where when you bust out you can just go and get more?

It's too bad the mathematics of poker aren't designed to do this anyway without any help from rigging.

Of course, the only downside is that rigtards like yourself take this as proof that it is rigged instead of realizing that 40% dogs will win... 40% of the time.

Get back to us when you can define an "action flop" accurately and you work out just how often "action flops" should occur normally. As well as how many standard deviations from the norm whatever ridiculously small sample size you have to offer is.

Not that this kind of thing is at all important to you, I know. What you "feel" is all that's important. But it's kind of important to us.

we should sit (9 players) at playmoney table and shove evey hand and see how many of us connect to board. who's comming? i'm sitting at "Selinur VII" NL 1/2 play money table.

Wow! You won a coin flip! Call CardPlayer, I'm sure they'll put you on the cover of their magazine.

So, your theory is that sites make "action flops" to ensure there's lots of betting on flops (which makes zero sense in tournaments because there's no rake [Of course there's no rake in play money games at all and that hasn't slowed you down]) and you offer as evidence a hand where all the money went in preflop so there's no action on the flop anyway!

And you wonder why we ridicule you?

I wonder whose gimmick account he is.

by shoving every hand i have run my initial stack of 400 up to 4500, i keep binking lol. will post hands after

edit: almost 8k

meh, i busted everyone.