If only you were in possession of a subset of hands which you know to be rigged through observation. It would be so easy for you to prove that online poker is rigged...

52! ~= 8.06e67
2^225 ~= 5.31e67

so you need 226 bits since

2^226 ~= 1.07e68

There is an algorithm that will encode and decode such a string although the best one I've come up with so far is somewhat computationally intensive. Nonetheless it would encode or decode at least many thousands of hands a second and nothing could encode all possible decks in any realistic time frame.


Of course all this is completely academic for (at least) two reasons:

a) Even if you did want to pick a deck for a particular purpose you would have to work on the decoded version to pick the cards you required.

b) If a site was sufficiently dishonest to be prepared to manipulate hands in that way they would certainly be sufficiently dishonest not see any need to actually store all the encoded representations in the first place.

What algorithm (just curious, as spent a while thinking about it this morning then decided it was probably impossible).

Im going to quote spadebidder few posts ago:

"What you are missing, is that to be undetectable all 5 million hands must be played by the same set of players, and the only distribution examined must be the entire set of hands. The distribution is only normal for the entire set as a whole, not for any subset of it if those subsets are chosen non-randomly. "

That I think answer your question:

In the kind of manipulation we are talking about here theres a lot of difference between analysing the entire set of hands (that will always be ok) or time or player subsets, where could be found any anomaly.

toltec, you need to read it again. We're never going to have the entire set, which would entail having every hand the site dealt. So any spadebidder-style analysis will naturally be a subset, and if rigging in the manner we've been discussing has been going on it will be detectable.

Ok, I may be wrong but I think that hes is talking about the 5 million hands as the "entire set" and saying that everything would be ok in this entire set is analysed, because the frequency of the cards distributed would be inside the randomness limits. But if take a subset of this entire 5 million hands subset you would actually find it is not random at all.

Assign each card in the ordered deck a number.

To decode you repeatedly calculate the divisor and remainder of V / (decreasing factorials) adjusting the resulting numbers as the deck builds up and assigning the remainder to V at each stage.

That was just off the top of my head. I might be able to design a better algorithm if I spent some time on it but it's so pointless that it's not really worth the effort.

...

the 5 million in the hypothetical was every hand dealt from the start of rigging. In practice we're never going to have that. I think that was Spade's point. Any sample we analyze will be a subset.

I just need to say this so take it as you will

Ive played on full tilt for a few years and never really had a problem, of course big hands happen, suck outs etc but I played enough to understand variance etc and learnt that you dont win them all

Not long ago I moved my roll to Pokerstars because I wanted to try something different and was interested in their larger range of tournaments. To work up a roll I started grinding 10-25NL

Never in my few years at fulltilt have I seen what I have seen in my few thousand hands at Pokerstars. The pure action flops that are created on many many hands are extremely questionable. These kinds of hands are the ones where money goes in inevitably, i.e flopped straights v sets etc

I am not a tin foil hat kind of guy, I dont believe or understand why a site would set up decks, but what I have seen in my small sample size is unbelievable. I dont have samples or graphs that people demand when someone claims a site is rigged, but to be honest how can a graph tell a story when the money goes in post flop on action flops? It cant, simple as that. Again I say small sample size, but either way I've seen some interesting stuff, stuff I have never seen in my time at Full Tilt.

I am not broke, Stars has not destroyed my roll so I've come here tilting. I just need to say it. The stuff I have seen on Stars raised my eyebrows many times. Graphs cant tell the story, when your AA is getting cracked by JT flopping 2 pair and the money goes in on the flop, EV graphs dont show that.

Again I say I dont believe sites set up decks against people, but it is certainly possible they can set up decks to create higher raked pots. Its simple business.

I'm not a fool, I will keep playing on stars because to be honest Ive done some pretty good sucking out etc since coming here, so it goes both ways, but I dont have much doubt in my mind that some flops are generated for action. I just needed to say it, its suspect.

Again I want to stress that Im not tilting because my AA and KK is getting cracked. Its more the 78 v a set of 44's getting straights etc. I have lost and won, I am actually up an extreamly small amount, so pretty much breakeven, its just amazing how I have sucked out and been sucked out on and the types of scenarios I've seen

So thats it, I've said it because I couldnt not talk about it. Take it as you will, there will always be a debate until online poker is regulated. Ill keep playing on PS but if things to straighten out a little I might just go back to fulltilt for peace of mind

Thanks for reading

Here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=14061
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=14924

I'm sick of linking to those posts, so now have a saved template to do so.

It is regulated.

Absolute/Ult bet wasn't rigged, there were people at the high stake games who had access to hole cards that could play perfectly. It wasn't like the site was caught giving action cards to players on the turn or river..there is a difference

Sorry, maybe missing something but doesn't that use more than 226 bits to encode a deck? It seems like it uses even more than the naive 249 bit method.

Just so we're on the same page, suppose my shuffled deck is the exact reverse of the ordered deck. The ordered deck goes 2c,....Ac,2d,....,Ad,2h,....,Ah,2s,.....As for the sake of argument. 2c is card 1, As is card 52 = 110100 in binary.

I look at my first card, its the As.

V+52 = 52, multiply by M = 2704, decrement M to 51. Next card is Ks, card 51, 2704+51 = 2755 * 51 = 140505. The end number is going to be bigger than 52!, so bigger than 2^226, and likely much bigger...

For a deck of four cards, 4321 is encoded as 119 which is 7 bits in binary, whereas 4 card decks can theoretically be encoded in 5 bits as 4! = 24 < 32.

I see your point with the linked thread and can accept it, but I also have a belief that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then its a duck

How is it regulated though? Who regulates it? All we have is stars suppourt telling us the RNG has been independtly tested. Can we see results, can we get updated? Can they make the results public etc, even to stop our questions? Maybe they do but its the best kept secret on the internet

Can't wait for the day I can do this as well, as soon as we can get a good US based site with real regulation

u mean like real deal poker?

Full Tilt is just the same they want to rake people
understanding the RNGs at these sites is really very simple when you apply logic
Q.How do sites make money?
A.rake
Q.how do sites maximize profitability?
A.Keep people in action for as long as possible

the sites tweak the RNGs so that the shorter stack wins a higher% of the time thereby keeping fish in action longer and guaranteeing themselves more rake

now im not saying the shortstack wins every time cause thats to obvious but they just tweak the odds a bit. For example a short stack pushes all in with AK suited and is called by QQ the AK definatly has better than 49% which is the correct percentage

Now i know the shills will flame me for this but if anyone wants to try it out got play 1c-2cent get it in bad with a short stack and see how ofter you suck out

So you have your hand histories to prove this right?

I can answer that for him.

No.

By Americans? In America?

Show me where something has to be regulated by Americans to be regulated? Also tell me whose fault it is that online poker sites aren't regulated by Americans?

Hint: Not the sites' fault.

L O ****ing L. I won't even get onto the silliness of the US based thing again. But I just love the fact that a guy who is always in here whining about online poker being rigged and has chosen "banonlinepoker" as his screen name, not only still plays online, but apparently can't leave.

You really don't know the answer to this?

But of course you do, so my question back to you is...WHO CARES?

I don't live in the U.S. so none of the local companies that provide me services are regulated by Americans. Should I be worried?

Not worried. Terrified. America is the greatest at everything and everyone else is only great at not being great.Little history lesson: Who won WW2? America. The Vietnam War? America. The Punic Wars? America.

(My last two post in this topic were levels and I apologize to Fuego and Boba for not realizing my first was.)

If you lived in Brazil you should, for sure.

I live in Brazil, and if I knew that any site was based and regulated in Brazil I would be 100% that it would be rigged. Im using this as an example, to make the point that being regulated isnt enough, who regulates, how it is regulated and where the site is based cares a lot.