[QUOTE=Monteroy;56491583]

Sure you did. You are asking sites to change how they do things to create anon hands of every hand played of every format (maybe you can see what happens in Badugi that way) to be provided to every player. You think that magically just happens, or would work be needed to accommodate that silly request that you use within the generalized"more transparency is better" schtick. Given that your request would cost a lot of time and money for all these sites to do, the logical question for those sites would be whether their customers even demand it or not.

This would take the sites less than a day to anonymize the data and to post it. It would cost them zero dollars because they already have devs and programmers. Is it that hard to input data into infrastructure they already have? Im lost on how this costs them time or money. Theyre either constantly testing their own algo or theyre not and if theyre not then thats another discussion. So im lost how this would cost literally any money or time. They dont have the change anything they just have to randomize the player ids and theres a ton of programs that can do that in less than 10 minutes.



See, you are asking me to do work for you as well to disprove your vague negative.

Tell you what, you do your online poll/petition and get at least 500 people to back what you say (which should be easy with the hundreds of thousands within the horde you talked about) then I will go to work and find a link that will deal with your concern that you will then dismiss and change your goal posts. You can even vote a ton of times yourself with different accounts if you like (as riggies do in the poll in this thread).

The only thing I asked you for was one of the MANY studies that you constantly talk about and are familiar with that show on a player by player basis that the algo and RNG is fair to all that participate. You refuse to provide any when you say theres so many and youve read them all. The reason im asking you is because Ive looked and can not find them myself.

Pls when you link them use studies from companies that still exist and that were done under the same current ownership for the data that youre trying to present. this is the only way to be confident in the data. I.E. if you use a study that was done in 2010 from FTP what good is that?

Riggies have been saying that for a long time. All of them have vanished pretty much. You will as well, but do not worry - a different riggie will say it in the future and be as emotional at that time. I said that to past riggies like you.

Its because people can only take so much when a person or business questions their intelligence. A lot of people will just walk away before they say antyhing when they feel something isnt right, especially something that they cant do anything personally about.

[QUOTE=Monteroy;56491583]

I always wish the best for everyone. I hope you realize that instead of trying to talk down you can have a civilized conversation. Just like poker "pros" who call hobbyists "fun players" those same players call the poker players "fun" players in real life. Stop calling people "riggies" it just reflects poorly on you and will instantly set the tone for any conversation you have.

It has never graduated legally to the US market because people like Sheldon Adelson and other Las Vegas casino operators have donated millions to politicians to block the regulation of online poker as well as given millions to lobbyist to help oppose the regulation.

Nah, this is just you making up stuff. You have no idea how this works, so your belief that it can be done with a flip of a switch is pretty amusing.

But, let's pretend your imaginary scenario is correct and all it takes is a snap and poof that is done. You still have not explained why this benefits the market properly, and have not broken down the potential negative ramifications as well to the games (big evil staking groups would love this data to do some population tendency research on for instance). You have also not demonstrated that there is any real demand from the consumers for this, other than you yelling and saying "lots of people" and "isn't more transparency the better." That is not proper research. You have also not talked about what gets done when the next riggie comes up with what they want that even you say will require work to be done (which other riggies would say of your idea for what it is worth). What happens then - should sites cater to every riggie with a concern and do whatever work is needed? What is your strategy for that situation?





Dude, you have posted here for many years. You should know about the spadebidder study that looked at over a billion hands for riggie needs at the time. You should know about all the companies that datamined and farmed out hands and all the groups that did a ton of research into those hands. If I made the effort to find those for you at this point it would be wasted time on my part since you would side step them and say yadda yadda need every hand anon and for every format forever and ever yadda yadda will only take the sites magically 3 seconds to do it. If those studies are that important to your beliefs then you research them. You are the one who places value on your concerns. I place no value on them. The market places no value on them (and you will do no simple work to prove otherwise on that).

This is your issue - lead by example and do some of the work yourself.



It is because they never had anything behind their concerns. Was all whining and smoke and mirrors and no data. A lot of bad rooms have been properly and verifiable exposed and punished. A lot of bots and colluders have been caught by presentations of verifiable data (some from relatively new posters). A lot of insiders from botting and other rings have come out with information that has been verified. Things happened when that data came out (though how much varied by sites, some take the issues more seriously than others which should be a factor in choosing a place to play).

That process has never happened with a single riggie concern ever. Never any data. Never any insider talking. Nothing. Just riggie whining. Nearly all riggies eventually quit because they simply cannot compete in this industry, and that is why the ones I had this chat with years ago are not even memories at this time. They moved away from an industry in which they failed. You should as well. You hate this industry and cannot compete. Just quit already. Take up whittling.


Do a little research in this thread to see what they used to be called by charming posters like qpw (Wiki) and Kelvis (can't believe someone posted that they miss him =O) years ago when I used to call them riggedologists. I never liked the terms they used, so I always picked one that at least gave a tag that was semi-respectful. Someone else came up with riggies and since that was so cute and easy off the tongue (vs my term) it just stuck, just as riggies call people like me shills. Just part of the riggie thread, so if that upsets you then perhaps the internet is not for you. Consider whittling.

All the best.

@ Monty re the "walk away" part.. I barely play anymore, used to play a lot, used to be profitable, maybe I'm not that good anymore. The state of the industry IMO (the IMO part is key here) is that it could use some significant improvement and unless/until that happens I've not got much interest in playing. Sort of like if I loved basketball, was very good at it, made $ in rec games but the quality of the courts and areas declined so severely that I no longer enjoyed playing felt safe I'd give up on those games. If I used to be a pro rec bball game hustler and my profit went down to where it wasn't worth my time I'd get a hoop for my backyard and shoot a few now and then maybe but..

Current state of the industry isn't due to rigged RNG's IMO but lots of other factors that I don't feel like listing but those that have been around for a while are quite familiar with.

The industry is a lot different these days, and the fact is for a player to succeed consistently that player has to work harder at their game than they used to in the past. You would find that in the basketball games you play as well (even if the courts were in the same condition). The level of the game always improves as people get better at the activity (which they always do) so to have that edge you would need to work harder today (even ignoring the father time effect) then you did then. The tricks you used to increase the edge you had would not work as well in equivalent games today.

A lot of people who did well in this industry 10 years ago were able to do it with a lot less effort than they can do today. One minor weird exception might be SNEs but that volume based skill set (with a need for some emotional control) developed a different type of skill than is used today at the highest levels. Same with the mass tablers. Those strategies fit the market at the time to succeed, but not so much today. I used to tell SNEs back then ( I worked with a handful) that I could not believe Stars kept that promotion going as long as it did. How they ended it was kind of dirty, but that ended years after it really should have been closed as the industry matured.

Let me make it clear - lots of people worked hard back then, and many would succeed today with their work ethic, but what was needed to succeed in the past was far less in general than what is needed today and that tends to create a lot of frustration among those who find they can no longer compete. A lot of riggies fall in this category, though one (dacy) has managed to be a losing player even since 2005, which is kind of impressive.

For people in your situation - play if it is fun. No different than any other activity. If you win some - nice bonus. However your outlook is a lot different than that current riggie who has lingered in this industry a long time. He openly says he hates it. He clearly does not enjoy playing. He is screaming for something for which there is no market demand and even if it was given that would change nothing. It would still be rigged to riggies and he would still hate the industry. He should not walk away like you did, he should run away! Unfortunately for him, he will likely still be kicking around the margins of the industry for years to come whether or not a site sends him anon hands of every hand played of every format from day 1, hating the industry more and more as every day passes. His choice in the end, and riggies tend to make bad choices.

Again dancing around providing your sources and telling me im asking every one to do my work. How can I audit the site without all the hands? How can i read your sources if i cant find them and you refuse to provide them?

How long you wanna play this game?

All the best.

I have done this game for riggies for a long time knowing that none of you are willing to do any work toward your beliefs, and you always expect others to do work for you. Your response is the same as a lot of riggies before you, and will be the same as riggies after you. I will play the next level of game with you knowing you will continue to do zero work.

1) Let us pretend that there are zero studies showing any fairness in hands anywhere. None. Not a single one has ever been done for anything.

2) Let us also pretend that your idea of a site providing anon hands of every hand dealt anon will be of value for you (only 220 billion hands from Pokerstars for instance).

3) Let us also pretend that as you suggest this would take zero effort by all the sites.

4) Let us also pretend that literally no other riggie will have their own individualized riggie request from the sites after you.

There - everything is assumed in a perfect way for you to get what you want - no money/time needed to be spent by companies, no studies showing the game is fair, no other riggies cluttering up with their own requests, and the bulk data will actually satisfy your concerns.

OK, the problem for you and your beliefs is that no company is doing what you want (even with the above assumptions), so now what are you going to do to change that? I do not care if that changes. I suspect most people in this industry do not care if that changes. You do care, apparently a lot. This is then on you to do the work to help make that happen. If you do not then nobody else well.

There - everything is unrealistically assumed in a perfect way for you to get what you want. Now show that enough people care for it to be done. I again say this knowing there is zero chance you or any other riggie will ever do that work, and will instead say this is "dancing around" your issue. You are not the first riggie I played this game with and you will answer in the same way they did. Hopefully they moved on to other things in life they enjoy more. Perhaps they considered whittling.

All the best.

Again you dance around actually answering or providing any sources or information to validate your points. How can anyone do the work without the data?

No company is doing it because it would expose them. What is the downside of anonymous data you still have not proven a net negative to 100% anonymous data.

I want to remind you and bring up AGAIN, that YOU are the one that said these studies exist and have proven me wrong. I have looked for hours and hours trying to prove myself wrong with any studies done in any way on the current sites and their deals. I have never found any but you say they exist in multitudes. Can you please provide any link to a source that affirms your position? My criteria again is done on a player to player basis not player pool aggregated into a whole, by a company that still exists with the same owners from when the study was done.

Im only asking you for your own sources, this should cause you no work what so ever. Ive never once asked any one to do any work for me just to provide sources to prove me wrong when they say they have them.

You can continue posting walls of text to explain why you dont have to do anything to not prove your point but anyone that reads your posts realizes youre the only one on your side of the argument and refuse to prove your point that you say is so easy to make.

Bring the data prove us all wrong.

OK, let us assume a world in which no studies of any hands exist. Not a single one has ever been done, so that no longer needs to be discussed. No hand history analysis of the deal has ever happened. No studies, no sources. Nothing. They do not exist. Not a single one, so you can stop asking because no studies have ever been done. Let's also assume that the sites are fearful of being exposed as you say, so we can add that to the following list:

1) Let us pretend that there are zero studies showing any fairness in hands anywhere. None. Not a single one has ever been done for anything.

2) Let us also pretend that your idea of a site providing anon hands of every hand dealt anon will be of value for you (only 220 billion hands from Pokerstars for instance).

3) Let us also pretend that as you suggest this would take zero effort by all the sites.

4) Let us also pretend that literally no other riggie will have their own individualized riggie request from the sites after you.

5) The sites are fearful of doing this change because it will reveal their treachery.


OK, everything is now setup perfectly for your beliefs, with the only issue being that consumers do not seem to really care about your concern. I get that the sites will never do it because of treachery, but that still does not mean you should abandon your belief and cause due to that.

Everything is exactly as you need it to be, you just need to unite consumers to your cause, so what is stopping you at this point from doing it?

I know you never will do it, and say this is also dancing around, but history has shown a lot of causes being fought for successfully against at times insurmountable conditions. In your case the conditions are all exactly as you need and all you have to do is post your specific concerns in a new thread and post a poll asking if people support it or not. If you are not willing to do even that trivial amount of work for your cause, then why expect others to care about it?

All the best.

But you said that they do exist and affirm your point completely.

Im simply asking you to provide your sources nothing else. Im not asking for anything but the sources you said you have. Please provide them or I will assume you do not have them and will continue to try to find a way to talk around it and make me look ignorant. All you have to do is post your links to your sources but you havent, you wont, and you cant, because nothing you say exists.

I am now saying for the purpose of this exercise that they do not exist. Zero. None. All a myth. Not a single hand history analysis has ever been done. No links ever existed. spadebidder and others were all a collective dream. Not real. There you go, you won that topic because zero hand histories have ever been studied. Literally the only way they could be is if you got 220 billion anon hands from Pokerstars tomorrow. All the millions of riggies in the horde are behind that and it will cost the site nothing, but they are afraid to do it because you would expose them once you have a quick glance at those 220 billion hands.

Now, onto your issue, one that you clearly think is important

Yes or no, are you going to do the trivial amount of work to support your cause in the future? If not, then why not?

All the best.

The issue is once you are given the anonymous hands and they prove that it is not rigged, you will say that the sites have changed the data to show that it is not rigged.

If you are given the source code and it is shown that there is nothing wrong with it, you will argue that we can't prove that it is the code they are using.

No matter what information you are given, you will not accept.

Anonymous hand history riggie, welcome! Hope you enjoy your stay here and that Monty treats you well

You guys make a lot of assumptions about what I or anyone else will say. Why wouldnt it be posted forever open source to be inspected at any time by anyone? That after all, is what open source means.

I asked for the sources that monteroy stated existed after telling me the studies have been done over and over. I said please provide them because I have searched and can not find them anywhere and would love to be proved wrong. The only way he will provide them is if I get 500 signatures on a thread to open source the data of the sites. I mean if thats the litmus to get a source ill see my way out and call it a win.

.

No, I cannot.

Can you post irrefutable proof that online poker is fair? I'll answer because you'll avoid the question, like every other shille.

No, you cannot.

That's why the thread is 90K posts and neither side is right or wrong.

Fyi:

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence:

... There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim. ...

... Philosopher Steven Hales argues that typically one can logically be as confident with the negation of an affirmation. Hales says that if one's standards of certainty leads them to say "there is never 'proof' of non-existence", then they must also say that "there is never 'proof' of existence either". Hales argues that there are many cases where we may be able to prove something does not exist with as much certainty as proving something does exist.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philos...anegative.pdf:

... So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it. That’s why people keep believing in alien abductions, even when flying saucers always turn out to be weather balloons, stealth jets, comets, or too much alcohol. You can’t prove a negative! You can’t prove that there are no alien abductions! Meaning: your argument against aliens is inductive, therefore not incontrovertible, and since I want to believe in aliens, I’m going to dismiss the argument no matter how overwhelming the evidence against aliens, and no matter how vanishingly small the chance of extraterrestrial abduction.If we’re going to dismiss inductive arguments because they produce conclusions that are probable but not definite, then we are in deep doo-doo. Despite its fallibility, induction is vital in every aspect of our lives, from the mundane to the most sophisticated science. Without induction we know basically nothing about the world apart from our own immediate per-ceptions. So we’d better keep induction, warts and all, and use it to form negative beliefs as well as positive ones. You can prove a negative — at least as much as you can prove anything at all.

Steven Hales is professor of philosophy at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania.

Play on CoinPoker. They have exactly what you want. As they put it -

This project consist of multiple projects that are used to implement decentralized card shuffle/verification for hand and award structure selection.

The purpose of this project is that any client, with some knowledge of c++, can verify and test decentralized rng protocol themselves.

Building instructions

Project uses CMake as build generator. In order to test/modify AwardRNG or DeckRNG yourself, generate project to that builds shared libs. Enter following commands from project root.

mkdir build && cd build
cmake -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON ..

After project is built, rename shared libraries DeckRNG, AwardRNG to DeckRNG_custom, AwardRNG_custom and copy to poker client root directory.



There you go - your dream room. You and the other 4 players who play there can talk about how it is where the industry needs to be as long as you ignore the other guy who still insists it is rigged. Also, do not worry about how they screwed a lot of people over with their alt coin offering, and used an actual shill (the Nash nutjob) to push their product here in an unrepresentative manner. Things like that do not matter much to riggies.



As I said - pretend that no studies have ever been done. Go play on CoinPoker that is giving you exactly what you need. Assuming you are correct that the consumers want what you do then CoinPoker and other rooms like it will take over the marketplace in the future, just as digital cameras made film obsolete. No other room will give you what you want, as there is no demand for it in the industry, and since you are clearly unwilling to try to organize others to support your cause then one cannot really take your concerns that seriously as well and all you will do is whine in riggie threads asking for people to do work for you and disprove negatives just like the boredom riggie and many riggies before you whop have long since vanished and been forgotten.

All the best.

Mike, first of all it's nice to see you engaging again rather than sniping and issuing threats of bans. Progress.

To answer your point, I'll start by quoting Bobo:

I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative. I'm asking for proof of fairness, which can and should be provided by all sites.

How can this be provided by all sites in a way that will appease you and other riggies? Be specific. Of course if you answer this properly (you will not) I will then ask if there is any demand in the marketplace for this and then suggest ways for you to determine that. You know - fancy business stuff that you will not understand .

All the best.

Thank you, TJ!

You want to know what that's called? Market research. But of course, you already speak for the entire market, so no need for that.

Not only that, you speak for the entire riggieverse. No answer could possibly appease you. So, oracle of all things poker, business and markets, why don't you give us some ideas?

That is, after you finish digging out those sources for Bawsten, that you claimed to have.

That was a pretty boring (as befitting your name) way of you avoiding the direct question to you, when all you had to say was "No" as your answer.

If and when you can actually answer that simple question as to what the sites need to specifically do to make you happy (since you are the ones upset about this) then you will be able to take your beliefs to the next phase. That other riggie got there after saying he wanted all hands dealt in with anon user names, but then he stalled when it came time to finding fellow supporters of his demand.

Do not worry, nobody ever expects people like you to be willing to do even that . I will ask another easy specific question for you to avoid. That other riggie proposed sites send all hands played (with user names removed) as his solution to the transparency problem(after all, more transparency is good). If the sites did that, would you then be completely satisfied? Yes or no? Feel free to avoid this question as needed and thank you again for behaving in exactly the way I said you would. You are such a newb donk .

All the best.

Imagine that. The great Monteroy silenced by a single question

The biggest shill this site has ever seen, rendered mute. Not a single suggestion from the poker oracle when questioned.

I've given my ideas on how the transparency problem can be solved. Many times in fact. I'd like to see the shuffle and deal algorithms open for inspection. The oracle has responded many times, berating that idea. And he's now claiming he doesn't know what my ideas are. Talk about going around in circles.

Any more of that oracle and Mike will pop up to issue the threat of a ban. But then Mike claims he doesn't know my ideas either, yet he has also replied numerous times to the suggestions. Is he going to ban himself

Back to reality. Bawsten has also posted his thoughts on how to solve the transparency problem. All HHs anonymized and analyzed. That's not massively different from my idea, just different approaches to get to the same end. Proof of fairness.

I'm sure there are other ways to reach that goal. Why don't you ask some of your math friends oracle? Maybe do a bit of market research of your own? Put some of that business prowess on display. That is, after you finish digging out those sources for Bawsten, that you claimed to have.

OK, deal algorithms open for inspection. Now tell us what that means. What format are the algorithms open and who will be the ones inspecting them. Whether is general idea of yours is good or not - well, we will see how much interest there is in it after you better define it (if you dare). I assume you will not go into more detail, nor show where you have in the past (other than saying you did without proof) - so once that happens I will present your idea of "deal algorithms open for inspection" to the other riggie and see if he will give up his every hand dealt with anon user names for your idea. That could be fun!


That is, as per usual, very circumspect and vague of you to say. Your amateurism continues to show. Let me try again then in an easy manner that even you can understand. Yes or no - would his solution be enough for you to be satisfied? Don't worry, I will ask him the same of your "deal algorithms open for inspection" solution (whether you better define it or not).

Again, this is your cause, so you should be the one to do work in support of it. I am simply trying to see if the two active riggies can even agree that the other has a solution that works for them as well. You guys are too lazy to do this, so I am trying my best to help the two of you find at least one supporter of each other. More free labor for you guys (albeit because it amuses me to see you not willing to commit to each others ideas fully. )Maybe after that free work on your behalf (if you guys ever fully support each other - seems pretty standoffish for now) then the two of you can team up and see if you can find a third riggie to agree with your collective solution, and then see where that leads you in further support from the horde.

Obviously none of the above will happen, but that is of course how people in the real world who want to see a change organize things. Riggies are a different breed .

All the best.