Yeah I agree with all of this, but you could prove every known theory beyond a reasonable doubt and new theories that you could never even think possble would still appear (like the one you responded to in the first paragraph)

In other words, some people want to examine the evidence to figure out whether online poker is rigged, and I obviously dont have to tell you that this is healthy and anomalies should be examined.

Some people are hardwired to believe that online poker is rigged, and it doesnt matter what you present for evidence, if you disprove one rigged theory they will concoct another. The theories follow the conclusions, not vice versa.

I agree entirely.

I don't know what the alternative option is.

No need for an alternative. This thread gives some people the soap box they need for whatever reasons, and provides some entertainment for many as that process takes place.


Only alternative would be to take all of the theories seriously, whether it be superbots, mafia, timing, or whatever new comes along.

Most of us are pretty happy that more resources are being used for detecting collusion, bots (the real ones not imaginary super ones), and fraud compared to things like cash out curses and whether straight draws hit too much on play money tables.

If people want to believe in that stuff, let them. Make fun of them a bit. Ask for proof you know will never come once in a while, but let them live in the world they need.

They are mostly harmless.

You may have opened a vortex

Nah, the source material is from a guy who posted in a thread that refuses to me merged in the Probability forum


I just turned straights into straight draws because historically they are ignored in rigged lore for the more colorful flush draws. Figure they deserved their day.

Exactly, test any testable hypothesis because game integrity is paramount and the industry history isnt pristine, but some people are just going to think online poker is rigged regardless of what the evidence shows. Its not a big deal, the online form of the game just isnt for them right now. Is what it is.

speaking of, where's Stevie-Boy been of late?

He's either:

1) Decided to learn to play poker properly.
2) Got a job with RealDeal as a card shuffler.

wow, I was just looking at the Real Deal Poker website. This all looks very encouraging. I wonder if this is going to be the new industry standard for online poker shuffling and dealing...it might be time to buy some stock.

Oh, and as this connects to this thread, I would think that players who think sites were rigged would have much less reason to think so with this set up.

You should read the two lengthy threads about the realdeal concept, you're late to the party. And LOL thinking this eliminates ways to rig the deal. It's much worse than using a computer shuffle imo.

Yeah, I guess we are still dealing with a computer program and a regulatory body or lack thereof...

Sigh...always late to the party...lol!

The latest example of how the marketplace does the best job of policing the online poker business:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...t-down-596027/

It isn't confirmed yet that they are truly shut down, but it appears that way. And if true, it's a result of the 2+2 community investigating and applying pressure.

One news site has picked it up so far, but the story is just breaking.
http://www.parttimepoker.com/pitbull-poker-closed-down

I hope all the people accusing posters in this thread of being shills read those threads. A lot of the same people have posted in them. When there is evidence of wrongdoing, real evidence, the 2+2 community really gets behind it.

And rigtards should look at some of the things done by those on the forefront of that battle: really taking a lot of time to dig into the problem. This is why the sites cannot just think that "no-one" will figure out that something is wrong. In this case, we were dealing with a very small site, and even then industrious players did their research and brought the site down. I am sure that the other sites have been following the story closely, and it serves as a warning to them of what could happen.

If you think there is a real problem, then show some real evidence of it. It's not enough just to come up with theories.

You are asking people to think in a way in which they are not capable.

This thread is a fun diversion for some, and a chance for the equivalent of the "world is ending" people to scream their bit.

The reality is that the riggedologists by and large do not matter when it comes to the actual real world and market place. Their voice, while concentrated in this fat thread, fades away.

What that does not mean is that the industry is problem free, in fact while market forces help contain it (at least among the major players), a lot of crime can take place in the form of fraud (by players and the sites), collusion, and other forms of exploits.

People like Josem and spade who actually know what they are talking about and dig their teeth into potential problems do so in a way that is patient , complete, and powerful. That is why changes take place and bad things get proven.

The rigged shouters in this thread are all yap and no work, that will never change so change the way you handle/regard them. Be entertained at their adorable theories, ask for proof, point out holes etc as it amuses you, but never let their agendas matter, because they really do not. Any time genuinely spent on them is wasted time that could be spent on more productive methods of catching evil doings.

Yeah they should. They never will. That is not how they roll.


Same answer applies.

First, I'd like to apologize in advance that this response isn't about riggedology or whatever it's called these days. I probably should have started a new thread for this, but I knew you were active in this one, and since you happened to mention rake and that happens to be what I've been thinking about lately, I thought I'd butt in...

I know you've been working on some pretty extensive analysis software for Indy's giant data base, and I was wondering, if you haven't already finalized it, how much trouble it would be to add a section pertaining to rake at the different sites. Specifically, I'd like to see how much rake is taken at each level, and I'm mainly interested in the Big Two -- Pokerstars and FTP -- although it would be interesting to see the rake at other sites as well.

2+2 has endless threads comparing rakeback at FTP to the VIP program at Pokerstars, but the two sites have different policies for raking pots, and this is seldom mentioned. As far as I know, no one has collected any significant rake data, at least not recently.

The commonly accepted wisdom is that FTP with rakeback is better for low volume players, and Stars surpasses FTP at Supernova levels and above. Things aren't as clear cut as most of us assume, though, and I have a feeling that the two sites are a lot closer than everybody thinks, simply because of the way FTP rakes pots. The only way to know for sure would be to actually collect rake data and compare them directly.

I'm pretty sure FTP changed their rake policy fairly recently, so if Indy's data base doesn't have recent hands, this analysis would be useless (at least for that comparison). If you have any interest in this (and if you haven't already finished your analysis), I think the easiest way of doing this would be to add up the total pots and total rake for each level of play, site by site.

I suspect we'll find that FTP rakes more from each pot at all levels below NL50 -- I just don't know how much more. I expect NL50 and above to be pretty much identical, but it would be nice to see it all collected and published. If it's too late to add anything, or if it's just too much of a pain in the ass, I understand. I do think it could put to rest a couple of persistent myths, though.

Again, I apologize for not talking about riggedology. But if it helps, I was 4-tabling tonight and simultaneously got AA and QQ, while my opponent in each hand had the opposite: QQ and AA. On both tables, QQ stacked AA. So, there ya go.

Oh, and I came out 50 cents ahead. Booooo-yaaaaaaa!

Rake is obfuscated in the db (it identifies the site in most cases), only Indy has the original data. It could be backed into in most cases from the winnings, I suppose. Post your idea in Indy's database thread, he could probably put something together quickly.

Edit - actually we do have a method to calculate the rake. If I have time I'll put something together.

Thanks for the link, Fun read!

Boy, I sure heard the patriotic music playing and the big flag blowing at the top of Monteroy Mountain when I read this post. lol!

Exactly what the sites want you to do.
Toss the money back and forth, until the rake eats it all.
How many tough decisions are really made on hands like this.

dumb

Hey Bucket, when you did some statistical analysis of your handhistory database, what did you find? Can you post your results?

In after 2 obvious shills.

In after poster boy for idiots anonymous.

Damn am I undercompensated!

Was my question hard for you to understand?