If Dyna is spot on, then you agree that the rig would never be used to cause someone to lose for 15+ years in a row, as it would be there to help those losing players, right? You are into anti-poker, so it seems logical you would be into anti-profiling as well.


Since you barely play there any more, why not break down in detail how the rig worked, and what you did to adapt to it to beat the games. I assume there were no downloadable hands there, but since you and others saw it with your own eyes - just give a step by step process with how it worked, because at least then the current crop of riggies will have a better idea of how to present their data.

Otherwise, your posts gets lost in the shuffle of all of the variety of riggie stuff here, and as you can see - many times the riggies have exactly opposite ideas as to how a rig works, but in the end they will agree it is rigged. Thanks for your help in advance for helping the riggie culture.


That seems like an odd statement to make, because it would depend on the rig. If the rig was you literally won every hand while playing on a Tuesday - safe to say that would be easy to exploit while not needing to grind (and even keeping within the do not want to win too much constraints)

A lot of rigs that are presented here would be easy to exploit for money without needing to grind much, so it does help if you are more specific with how the rig works, and that will give a better idea of why it may or may not be worth the time. Seriously, no other riggie has ever done this, so even though you will not consider yourself a riggie, and with your post count - you are not a guy whining about your AA losing twice - why not take the small amount of time to show how someone with experience like you identified and did exploit a rig for profit. Pretty much no other riggie has done that to date even when they see blatant rigs with their own eyes and they always know what cards are coming (like a superuser).

You might help by giving a real world example of exploiting a rigged system.


I am not quite sure why you would have thought that game would help prepare you for live games, but as you did play them and won by exploiting the RnG - why not give the details here, as you do not plan to play there much more in the future anyway. Thanks.



All the best.

You kind of give Cigital way more credit than they deserve... Most of the non-rigged claims include item 2. of a Cigital report (2013, they probbaly have it every year); I will slightly extend and quote item 3. this time (a disclaimer on validity and extent of testing) as well [Source: http://www.psimg.com/pdf/cigital-rng-labresults.pdf

What do we see from this report? We see that they tested the RNG, not the software itself and how the software uses the RNG in all instances where the software uses the RNG. They tested the RNG in terms of whether it produces a random shuffle. It does, OK. It is a very good RNG. They have not tested the software a line by line, branch by branch. Most of the claims of rigginess at that time were like "the RNG is rigged" not the "software is rigged", so PS was willing to submit to testing and the testing showed no signs of non-randomness. So far so good. Was the entire software tested ever? And even if it were; how would we know they run the exact tested (and clean) copy at any time at their servers? Item 3. clearly states that this is not the case.

Quite likely, I would say; just an instruction or two, and a rigged version replaces the non-rigged one (if they ever used such...)

It negates... nice and convenient, is not it. So "publicly traded" and "having annual audits" (by accounting body, mind you) automatically implies immunity against public scrutiny, or against special software teams to inspect the software that runs at the servers at any random moment? How many visits by a regulatory agencies to a big site you are aware of? How many of those visits actually brought a "special software team" with them. I am aware of zero. You? "Publicly traded" does not mean much given the history of crime and scam. Many big scams came from publicly traded companies gone rogue.

We get that you will hand wave away regulatory agencies and companies that have expertise in this area, but a bigger concern for you should be the current wave of riggies who believe you as a player is the exact type that the sites rig the games to help.

What would you say to those riggies who suggest long time losing players, like yourself, are helped by the rig, while winning players are actually hurt by the rig? I noticed you forgot to address that in your latest post, so hopefully this will help remind you to do that now.

You did bring up an interesting perspective for the algorithm riggie to also discuss when you said

which shows you believe they can simply turn a rig on and off like a switch, so what good is having it "open" if someone can just turn the switch on when the investigators come in?

Feel free to comment on that, and do not worry - juicy will ignore anything you say just as he will ignore my post asking when he will post his new thread, instead he will simply reply to NewOldGuy to do that. He is easy to predict in that way .


All the best.

1. Where do they advertise a genuinely fair game? Can you link to one such advert?
2. Even if they did advertise as above, it would only be false advertising if rigged. So a minor slap on the wrist, if caught and anyone cared enough.
3. You don't pay for the product. The software is free to download and install.

Also, if you could link to one of those full software audits that you and Dewd talked about, that would be appreciated. Maybe you, Monty and Dewd could put your heads together and come up with the answer.

What do you mean by "very rare cases of the software being broken such as with Poker Bros"?

What is "the discussion"? If you want to have constructive discussion about specific issues with the PokerBros software, and not about rigging, that would be the thread to do so in.

Good to learn I don't pay for Netflix (or a million other examples) because the software is free to download and install. Another valuable lesson in "large scale software development and deployment" from TheJuice.

There you go

Here is the relevant part. Now back to you with some more yipping and yapping.

"Source code analysis did not produce any evidence of improper calculations using the random numbers or misuse that would introduce predictability or bias. In the shuffles of the decks of cards, Cigital found no evidence of bias or predictability. The shuffle test results were statistically significant and correlated strongly with expected probabilities."

Not sure that link went to where you wanted, but I vote for blatantlyrigged to be unbanned (even though he will likely never know it). I never liked that he was banned, and I pushed for him to be let back in at the time, as he was great fun. Riggies today suck compared to him, that guy was nuts (in a fun way) and also the nuts.

You, dayna, and Ferdinand are hopelessly lost. You all spew such utter bullshit with not a shred of supporting evidence, well plenty evidence to support cranio-fecal syndrome. Show anything aside from your feelz, anything. The reason you guys lose money is stunted poker skills. Mouth breathing rigtards like the whole shill/affiliate is a bad guy routine. Yet, you all will whine about CS. Today, I got one player's reward points updated, an ICM explanation in specifics for a cancelled MTT, one account unfrozen, and got another couple of withdrawals. Further displaying your collective intelligence quotient of 11, players that go through affiliates not only get their problems resolved they also make more.

To be clear, I'd never work with a rigtard and have thrown two of them out of our discord. Stupid people generating money is of no e enticement for me. I don't need the money and like to work with people that are actually into poker and learning more. Even your rigtard affiliate argument is of the window licker level of thought.

As for ConspiracyJuice, those answers are clearly written out in annual report, listing requirements, etc...you could not bother show how easy it would be to tweak the software that defies math and is still worthwhile then not a chance copying links for your lazy ass.

I can tell you where they do not advertise such thingy; for example, here is what PS have in their EULA:

dacy,

You seemed to forget to discuss your thoughts on the other riggies directly saying a player like you is the one who benefits from a rig, or commenting that your on/off light switch totally negates any value of Juicy's open algorithm belief, since they can simply turn it off when they like.

Guess you forgot somehow, but feel free to comment on these topics as well. Seems an odd coincidence that you riggies keep missing stuff like this, when you have eyes that can see every rig. Also, be sure to deposit again tomorrow. Thanks!

All the best.

Are you referring to the Stars RNG and shuffle certification that we discussed about 500 posts ago? If so, it's irrelevant to my simple question about a full software audit. The question that Dewd refuses to answer, even after writing 1000 words in response to it.

Maybe you too can put your head together with the others and come up with the elusive audits?

Lol did you just totally ignore this bit, or are you so ****ing deluded that you're blind to it? That's the second post in a row you've ignored someone saying that the software was audited. Or maybe you can explain the difference between a "software audit" and "source code analysis"?

It was even your buddy dacy who posted that excerpt from the audit. Is he a shill too now???

It's in the quote, you ignored it. What problem do you have with the words "source code analysis "?

But whatever, we established long ago that your concerns are irrelevant and will always stay irrelevant. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

K bye.

Not that you do not understand, and not that I have not explained it before, but no problem; here we go again. OK, the shuffle is random. If the cards are dealt according to that shuffle, the hand is fairly dealt. I know that the site claims the cards are dealt according to this very nice and random shuffle, and I know they will stand by this claim, no matter what. I also assume the hole cards are dealt in a fair and random manner. But what if I do not trust them on what happens after that (and trust me, I have pretty darn good reasons not to), what if the software chooses the cards dealt on flop and further in a somewhat less random manner, again randomly, utilizing the fair RNG, but also utilizing something else, like profiling and assigned success rate numbers? All the software needs is to shrink the range of available cards a bit, with some randomness preserved to make detection difficult. It is totally possible. Perhaps someone can persuade me that it is not?

For the software to do that, it has to be programmed to do that. The way that software is programmed is using what is called "source code". The audit did not find the functionality you're describing in the source code. So, unless the servers have grown self-aware and are ignoring their programming a la Skynet, what you are suggesting is not possible.

Of course, what is possible that the code that is running on the server is not the code that was audited, which is why everyone has been trying to explain to MouthBreatherJuice that his idea is ****ing worthless in the first place.

I skipped the most of your paranoid ramblings, because this is the only thing worth commenting.

Nobody needs to persuade you. Your fears are not important to others. Play or don't, nobody really cares except the winning players but they will be ok. Plenty of bad players out there. K bye.

Read 2.0 carefully. They only inspected the RNG and the part of the source code that pertain to using the RNG to generate the shuffle. They HAVE NOT INSPECTED THE ENTIRE SOURCE CODE, what it does, and how it does it. In fact the only sentence that uses the term "source code" is the following: "Source code analysis did not produce any evidence of improper calculations using the random numbers or misuse that would introduce predictability or bias." The reference to improper calculations concerns the part of the code that computes the random numbers for shuffling the deck, so it is again about the shuffle only. These are the type of computations that might produce predictability or bias. No predictability or bias in generating the random numbers, and therefore no problem with the shuffling of the deck. How about the part of the software that determine which card is dealt next and how; did they examine that part? I mean they could have; I do not think it is reflected in the report, plus 3.0 clearly states that they examined whatever was given to them at a particular moment. If there is a foul play involved, the checked software can easily be stashed away for the next inspection and replaced by rigged one. Just so you know how it could be done.

Ok, well, I would suggest that you write to them and ask if they looked at the source code that deals the cards as well, although that would be pointless, since if they say "yes", you will of course claim that it was switched out afterwards as you have above.

Explain that to JuicyFruit, he is too much of a moron to understand it, and he thinks that such an audit would allay everyone's suspicions.

I'll share a simple (basic) explanation what I mean by calculating odds and variance to know if you are being rigged and by how much.

Let's say you're playing with 100 BB and you've been in a scenario of all in preflop with:

KK vs AK (70% favourite)
QQ vs AK (55% favourite)
AA vs KK (80% favourite)
AK vs JJ (45% favourite)

If you add the percentages (which are estimated not exact) it's 240% (or 2.4 times) which means you should've won at least 2 times, but if you've won 0 to 1 times then at first you can give the benefit of the doubt and variance as a factor on day one, but then after a week when you look at every day paying attention particularly on this type of data, and when I mean this data I mean these type of all in pre-flop scenarios you can easily determine if rigging is being done and by how much by how many days in the week you've faced the same outcome.

So, cashing out all your $ and stop playing at least it sends a certain message to the network which is the best way to vote for what is to come in future to that network and in general for online poker.

This is an interesting concept, and I think with a little bit of refinement it could come in quite useful in statistical anlysis that could prove a lot of the theories posited by posters in this thread. Have you thought of what you might call it? I was thinking maybe something like "Actual Amount Won vs. Pot Size Multiplied by Probability of Winning When All In", but maybe you could come up with something a bit more snappy.

If riggies were not allergic to Holdem Manager they could do some simple studies and pass on their outcomes here. Alas, that day will never happen.

I do wonder though - what happens in a cash game if you win as a 55/45 favorite for 98% of another persons stack, they don't have auto rebuy, and then you lose the next hand to him as a 80/20 favorite, but the pot is only 3% the size of your previous win. How does this add the percentages thing account for that, since we are not allowed programs like Holdem Manager to do any statistical work in the riggieverse? Let's use his example sequence for 1/2 NL game


KK vs AK (70% favourite) win $440 pot, leaving opponent with $8 who does not have auto rebuy on
QQ vs AK (55% favourite) lose $17 pot to the same opponent next hand, hey at least he is 1-1 with AK!
AA vs KK (80% favourite) lose $60 pot to a short stacker
AK vs JJ (45% favourite) lose $100 to a person who had a half buy in


You only one 1 of 4 all-ins but are up a decent chunk still. Will this break the software?

I don't know, but it sounds pretty complicated. Probably needs a non-elementary integral using the residue theorem. Maybe Dyna could ask the guys in the maths forum to work on it.

Riggies don't do math forums, or stats software, or question another riggie when they have the opposite view of theirs. We will see how many other riggies support this 240% theory. I would guess about the same as are rushing to the profiling theory. Perhaps double the number, or half - in the end its the same.

Does someone honestly believe that an online poker site's RNG is properly random (and has been verified by reputable auditors) so that the "shuffling" is random, but the "dealing" is not random and that these reputable auditors did not look into the "dealing" or did not discover the non-random elements of the dealing??

A+ for creativity.