The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition
12-03-2009
, 01:08 PM
12-03-2009
, 01:12 PM
12-03-2009
, 01:39 PM
12-03-2009
, 01:54 PM
Quote:
I am sure you naive shills think that bookies want 50% of the action on each side, but that is a common misconception.
They would much rather have 60% of the action on the losing side, as hard as that may be believe, and they set lines to trick the public into betting on the wrong side.
Have you ever heard of the expression Vegas wasn't built on the juice it was built off the suckers?
Generally when you see 90% of the public on one side of a big game, that team will lose, and Vegas will make much more money than just the juice.
Big public plays very rarely turn out good for anyone but the bookies.
And do I really need to post my SN's again Monteroy?
Look up Fedrosilva on FTP or Olajuwon on Cake, if you need proof I'm a winning player.
However over 95% of my play is PLO8 and NLO8 cash games, which aren't tracked.
They would much rather have 60% of the action on the losing side, as hard as that may be believe, and they set lines to trick the public into betting on the wrong side.
Have you ever heard of the expression Vegas wasn't built on the juice it was built off the suckers?
Generally when you see 90% of the public on one side of a big game, that team will lose, and Vegas will make much more money than just the juice.
Big public plays very rarely turn out good for anyone but the bookies.
And do I really need to post my SN's again Monteroy?
Look up Fedrosilva on FTP or Olajuwon on Cake, if you need proof I'm a winning player.
However over 95% of my play is PLO8 and NLO8 cash games, which aren't tracked.
12-03-2009
, 02:00 PM
Quote:
The biggest problem I see with this debate is how the sites react to public opinion.
The non-scientific poll on this internet poker site has 37% of people responding saying they think it might be rigged. This is a poll among people that hang out on a internet poker forum. I would have to guess if a pro pollster ran a survey of people who have played poker over the last 12 months for actual money, and have yet to play online,
50+% would say they don't play online because of fear of being cheated. That is a pretty massive potential customer pool if you ask me.
To try to tap into this market, I would propose the following to management:
Hire a respected, third party firm to write a program that Replaces player screen names with a newly assigned player ID number. Replace existing HH # W/ new number, and remove or change (whichever easier) table name to the hand histories, replacing dates with some kind of sequince number. This should pretty much keep 99% of players screen names private. Where stakes are high enough that the player pool is small, or the player could be Identified by shear volume, remove those accounts from the study.
Have a third party (separate from the company that wrote the HH converstion) to audit the player accounts.
Allow public access to whole account HHs.
If the RNG is random, no one could create workable predictive software.
If there is a new account boomswitch, it could be determined.
If there is a winning player doomswitch, it would be uncovered.
If there were a way to put in deposit/withdraw/bonus markers into the account history folder all other rigologist theories could be proven/ disproven.
This could probably only be done for cash and SNG ( players could get ID'd by MTT scores), but by not having dates on the account origin or the HH's, removing high stakes from public access, as well as the few true volume sicko's, Whole account histories could be reveiwed with the players remaing anonymous.
It would probably cost a couple of million bucks to basically prove your legitimacy to tens of millions of potential customers.
The non-scientific poll on this internet poker site has 37% of people responding saying they think it might be rigged. This is a poll among people that hang out on a internet poker forum. I would have to guess if a pro pollster ran a survey of people who have played poker over the last 12 months for actual money, and have yet to play online,
50+% would say they don't play online because of fear of being cheated. That is a pretty massive potential customer pool if you ask me.
To try to tap into this market, I would propose the following to management:
Hire a respected, third party firm to write a program that Replaces player screen names with a newly assigned player ID number. Replace existing HH # W/ new number, and remove or change (whichever easier) table name to the hand histories, replacing dates with some kind of sequince number. This should pretty much keep 99% of players screen names private. Where stakes are high enough that the player pool is small, or the player could be Identified by shear volume, remove those accounts from the study.
Have a third party (separate from the company that wrote the HH converstion) to audit the player accounts.
Allow public access to whole account HHs.
If the RNG is random, no one could create workable predictive software.
If there is a new account boomswitch, it could be determined.
If there is a winning player doomswitch, it would be uncovered.
If there were a way to put in deposit/withdraw/bonus markers into the account history folder all other rigologist theories could be proven/ disproven.
This could probably only be done for cash and SNG ( players could get ID'd by MTT scores), but by not having dates on the account origin or the HH's, removing high stakes from public access, as well as the few true volume sicko's, Whole account histories could be reveiwed with the players remaing anonymous.
It would probably cost a couple of million bucks to basically prove your legitimacy to tens of millions of potential customers.
12-03-2009
, 02:09 PM
12-03-2009
, 02:19 PM
Last edited by obviously.bogus; 12-03-2009 at 02:20 PM.
Reason: ldo
12-03-2009
, 03:02 PM
