Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown
Wouldnt it be possible to give your fair share (within ranges) of pairs, straights, flushes, etc during times when it is not as critical and less during very critical times? A big sample may not pick up on this if the programming is keeping this balance. I see room for programming to do some leveling without leaving clues that conclusively prove that you are not getting your share of cards. It could be set up to be situationally specific and balanced out by not allowing it to get away from the statistical norm. I am sure that anyone doing this is going to be a whole lot smarter than the superuser donks raping and pilliging in broad daylight like they did. They were asking to be caught, but someone keeping some balance could make sure that they are taking down just enough to increase their bottom line, but not enough to be detected conclusively.
Thoughts?
Couple of thoughts:
First, if you are rigging the shuffle against someone in critical situations, then you'd have to be rigging it for them in non-critical situations, not just doing a fair deal? Otherwise, the whole sample shows up as skewed. So, if you could define what a critical situation is, you can test this.
Second, Im not sure about your basic premise about keeping money floating around. The site is paying out the same amount of $ back to players regardless of who wins. Most of the money in a tournament goes into the top ten places. Im not sure the skill level of the player is going to make much of a difference in what gets cashed out of that I mean, the good player and the donk playing the $10 buy in tournament...neither are probably leaving the $12K on the site or whatever first prize is, are they? Its way above bankroll requirements for the good player. I guess what you are saying is the good player is more likely to put money back on the site if they lose?
Third, Id have to look at Party's numbers for more detail, but Id imagine the float sites are earning right now is pretty freaking small. Reputable sites have players money in segregated accounts and bank accounts and CD's now are paying almost literally nothing. So the extra money you are talking about the site making through this theory is something like the (increase in probability a net dollar isnt cashed out)*(net dollars)*(1%).
That just doesnt strike me as a huge number for what seems like a reasonably complex way to rig the deal (assess relative skill levels, then adjust the deal, etc)