If a site or organization is going to rig the deal, they would do something a whole lot more devious and complex than any of these two ideas above. I am sure that programming could be set up to make adjustments within statistical norm and still be profitable for the site. The question that has been posed in this thread is why hasnt anyone come forward? Are they all dead? Are they all getting threatened by the mob? Why wouldnt we at least hear from one person who used to work for one of the sites? How come there hasnt been any evidence brought forth? Why would a site risk something like this?

The answers are always unlikely scenarios. These may be possible, but we are talking about things like upper management keeping the big secret between them while people like Josem work for them and believe that everything is on the up and up, or some big mob type of criminal enterprise working the angles to keep people quiet. I am sure we can all pitch in and come up with some things, but no one up to this point in time has come up with anything that makes sense and that is highly possible.

I am not going to say that online poker is not or cannot be rigged, but I also cannot find a way to make a strong case for it being rigged. To the people who say that you need to only look in your hand histories to figure out if you are getting cheated, I say that this is a fallacy. You could easily be cheated without being able to see anything wrong in your hand histories. This goes back to the rig not being a one size fits all type of programming adjustment. If someone wants to prove that online poker is rigged, I think there needs to be a real investigation done with the people who run and work for these sites. If something illegal is going on, someone will know about it. Good luck getting anyone to fess up though...

+1

This is all im saying... you can even give out big pairs more often then normal as long as its all equal. Can you get all that done for me.

Puker Stars & Futile Tilted are rigged.
think about how much they know about players' games - every fold, bet & raise. it's duck soup for programmers to take that info, deal out 3 or 4 great drawing/multi-pair hands and dump out a couple of AI losers.

the real way to assess this is to do statistics - figure probabilities for various hand combos to see if they're plausible.
i've done that and can report that PS sends out hands with probabilities in the once-in-trillions, over and over and over. so when you collect that data regularly, you see that it's statistically impossible for you to encounter them. it's about like having all the air molecules in the room just go to one side - can't happen.

an even simpler way is to count the frequencies of A's, K's, Q's per hand. the board should be completely equal for every rank, over a pretty short period. clearly they're not.

another is to watch how bigger stack vs. smaller stack AI's go. time after time the big stack pulls outrageous straights & flushes from small pairs. this seems to be FT's speciality.

so what's in it for these mega million $$ offshore businesses to cheat us? more players down = more new tournaments starting. it's that simple. not many people want to sit around folding 20 hands in a row - J 6, etc - and the game providers certainly don't want the overhead.

anyone know of a legit site?? it would be great to unlearn all the bad poker skills necessary to beat the rigged deals.


thx

Can you please share this with us?

Do you think that there are more or less Aces, Kings or Queens than expected?

Sounds good so far. This almost seems like you're just trolling. Clearly they are, as spadebidder has shown 8 billion times now. Don't like actual analysis get in the way of your "facts" though. You should have a pow wow with the "small stacks win more often" people and try and figure out who's right.

I think an easy way to see if online poker is realistic is to get on stars and count how many monotone flops you see.

OK, how many should we see?

I'm assuming you mean a flop that contains one suit only, not just one color. I would guess this number should be reasonably close to theoretical. This wouldn't make much difference if the people remaining in the hand didn't hold even one card of that suit, though.

The idea of "rigging" would be to have 2 or more hands hit the flop strongly and improve or be strong enough to begin with to see large bets all the way to the river.

For example, maybe 3 spades hitting the flop happens with the correct frequency, but the real issue is that there is an inordinate amount of people holding spades in their hand when this occurs, say:

Flop 6sTs8s

Seat #1: AsKh
Seat #2: QsJs
Seat #3: 9s7s
Seat #4: AhKs

All of these hands are very playable regardless of position even facing a preflop raise, so I'd imagine this situation could occur. Seat #1 is drawing to the nut flush. Seat #2 is drawing to the nut straight flush (or so they think). Seat #3 has the nut straight flush. Seat #4 is drawing to the second nut flush.

If you were in this particular hand and lost your stack, would you think the hand was rigged? It would certainly feel unlucky to be cold decked in this situation, but one hand can't ever prove anything.

Could this occur? Of course, and it probably has happened somewhere in the world of poker. But how do we go from "it can happen" to "it is happening too frequently"? I don't know. In most cases we wouldn't have the knowledge of the other hole cards even. Say the 4th spade never came. We'd likely only know about the QsJs and the 9s7s and never know about the folded big slicks. Our information is so limited it's hard to really form a strong enough database to support any theory.

Please enumerate a hand with a once in trillions probability.

Please get some lessons in probability maths so you have even a vague clue what you are talking about.

Rigtards get pwned all the time.

It's just that they are two stupid to realise it.

The illuminati and fulltilt connection, is this even remotely possible...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPyRlj5HpIs

It's a fact!

Of course, you have to realise that the Illuminati and Bilderberg Group are, in reality, nothing more that puppets of the Lizard People.

1. If they rigg the deck we dont talk about shuffling, here and there a fixed game like players get 44 AQ AK 1010 Flop A 4 10 its sure that you get MAX RAKE 3 $ for this game

2. At small and middle stakes its a big different to have a 30$ pot or a 3$ pot so action flops generate much more RAKE

This is absolutely false and shows a pretty pathetic understanding of statistics. Think about it some more:

1) What *must* occur in a game of hold'em for a 'board' to be dealt at all?

2) Two players cause a board to be dealt. What does the probability distribution of their holecards look like?

3) The probability distribution of the board depends on the probability distribution of the holecards that lead to a board being dealt. What would you expect it to look like?

Let us know if you get stuck.

I think Spadebidder did this - not sure if all the hands were from PokerStars or from a mix of sites. Unless I am misremembering the number of monotone flops was almost exactly as expected. If you play on Stars you can request your hand histories and check them yourself anyway.

Where is SpadeBidder?

He's gone very quiet since he threw out his challenge to show how rigging the deal would be beneficial to sites.

I'm still waiting to see if he's got some subtle angle on that.

He set the bar to high, something like 3% extra rake.

It's possible for sites to rig the deck to make themselves extra money, as long as the percentage diminishes over time and still be undetectable. I doubt there is any possible rigging that makes anywhere near 3%.

Bots/Superbots could probably make the sites an extra 3% and be undetectable.

There's actually a very easy way that the sites could make extra rake that, whilst perfectly visible, would be all but impossible to realistically challenge.

I wonder if any of the rigtards can work out what it is.

I was talking about his challenge to show that the sites could make more rake by not having a fair game. (i.e. He said he thought that perhaps a site could maximise rake by having a fair game.)

Perfectly obvious, I would have thought, so I'm expecting him to have thought of something I've overlooked.

I'm not sure which is worse, crying rigged at every bad beat or defending poker sites as if they were angels. Seriously, I found the defenders too be just as moronic as the whiners.

no one is doing this.

all they are saying is "currently there is no indication that the deal is rigged so if you want to claim it is please provide proof"

I don't see the morony in that

Just provide a pointer to a single instance of any of the regular 'rigtard debunkers' doing that on this thread.

Just one.

That's because you are yourself so moronic that you can't even understand English well enough to comprehend what was posted.

you guys haven't ever read something like "XYZ wouldn't risk doing that because they would go out of business if found out" ?

no proof shown there either... in fact, that's harder to prove than the other... you'd have to know the intentions of the people running the site... and then guess the outcome of what would happen when the news broke... there have been poker scandals on sites that still do business today... what's another one?

both sides to this coin have their fanatics... fervent believers in the cards being rigged... and the fervent believers that poker sites are on the up and up... both sides think the other side are idiots... in a way, these are both leaps of faith with no proof...

i give the poker sites the benefit of the doubt, but who really knows?

Someone else who just doesn't understand English.

I'll give you the standard response.

See if you can see how it differs from the picture you present.

Rigtards say that poker sites are definitely rigged despite there being not one shred of evidence for this position.

Rigtard debunkers say that sites are probably not rigged because there is not one shred of evidence that they are.


We are not dealing with two sides of the same coin - DUCY?

Overgeneralizing the varied responses people have had to this topic. DUCY?