The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition
04-14-2010
, 09:35 AM
Just read this comic and thought it was apropos to this thread ($DEITY knows it's not going to clutter things up any more). Replace "Secret international bankers" with "Rigged poker sites" and it's the same thing.
http://www.apenotmonkey.com/2010/04/...for-religious/
http://www.apenotmonkey.com/2010/04/...for-religious/
04-14-2010
, 03:34 PM
04-14-2010
, 03:37 PM
04-14-2010
, 03:50 PM
04-14-2010
, 03:50 PM
04-14-2010
, 03:51 PM
04-14-2010
, 04:45 PM
04-14-2010
, 05:04 PM
Quote:
By this, I assume you're not trying to say that one of these paired players will always beat the other in a hand. You're just saying that one is favored much more often than he would be in a truly random deal. And since you're referring to it as "favored," you seem to be implying that once the hole cards are dealt, the site allows the rest of the deal to be random. They simply exploit the probabilities that they themselves set up to begin with.
Again, you're not saying to avoid all pots, so you're implying that you could actually win some pots. I mean, it would be too obvious if the site set it up so that a certain player always won every hand against you, so it's really only sometimes, right? More often than it should be, but still not every time.
Couple of questions:
You find yourself at a table with two nemeses, Bob and Miguel. You're a favorite over Bob, but Miguel is a favorite over you. And Bob is a favorite over Miguel. So we have a relationship like this:
You > Bob > Miguel > You
Now, how does the software figure out who to favor, here? Or does the server hardware start smoking and finally freeze up, like that android did in that Star Trek episode when faced with an insoluble logic problem?
Also, does the software use a different RNG for the rigging? I mean, as each hand occurs, it has to make a decision about who to favor in that hand. My question is, what if you suspect that that RNG is rigged? Have you thought of a way to test that?
Or maybe that RNG isn't rigged, but you still think there is some problem with their method of determining when you're supposed to be a favorite over one of your nemeses. If you suspect that you're not getting as many favored hands as you ought to be against Bob, do you think FTP support will respond to emails about that? Okay, maybe not FTP, but surely Stars would look into it for you?
Again, you're not saying to avoid all pots, so you're implying that you could actually win some pots. I mean, it would be too obvious if the site set it up so that a certain player always won every hand against you, so it's really only sometimes, right? More often than it should be, but still not every time.
Couple of questions:
You find yourself at a table with two nemeses, Bob and Miguel. You're a favorite over Bob, but Miguel is a favorite over you. And Bob is a favorite over Miguel. So we have a relationship like this:
You > Bob > Miguel > You
Now, how does the software figure out who to favor, here? Or does the server hardware start smoking and finally freeze up, like that android did in that Star Trek episode when faced with an insoluble logic problem?
Also, does the software use a different RNG for the rigging? I mean, as each hand occurs, it has to make a decision about who to favor in that hand. My question is, what if you suspect that that RNG is rigged? Have you thought of a way to test that?
Or maybe that RNG isn't rigged, but you still think there is some problem with their method of determining when you're supposed to be a favorite over one of your nemeses. If you suspect that you're not getting as many favored hands as you ought to be against Bob, do you think FTP support will respond to emails about that? Okay, maybe not FTP, but surely Stars would look into it for you?
You are correct in why I used my particular verbage. One player is not a guaranteed winner over another in this theory. Nor is every pot guaranteed to go a certain way. It is a theory that a player is more likely to have a better hand than a certain other player. As the pot increases, this likelihood also increases.
In the "You > Bob > Miguel > You" table, the strategy is quite simple. If Miguel has folded, you should enter almost any pot with Bob that you can. If Bob has folded, you should be very hesitant to play a hand. Even if you have a decent hand you should avoid large pots. If all 3 players are involved in a pot, the server will continue to favor certain cards over others, with no particular winner in mind.
For instance, say you have A
Q, Bob has 3
3
, and Miguel has J TThe flop will favor Aces, Queens, Threes, Jacks, Tens, Spades and Diamonds.
There is no guarantee precisely what the flop will be, but those cards will be given a greater chance at being picked. Let's say the flop comes:
J
3 QWe like our TPTK w/ nut flush draw and bet it. Bob loves his set of 3's and raises to fight off the draws and get value for his hand. Miguel has an easy fold and bows out. Having such a strong draw, we decide to push over Bob's bet and he calls.
We like that Miguel is no longer in the hand. Being favored over Bob, the deck will now favor Aces, Queens, and Spades.
Let's say the turn comes: A
We need an Ace, Queen, or Spade still. They continue to be favored.
River: 5
These situations happen quite often if you look for them. If my theory is the reason behind it, who knows? I don't have the mathematics or data to prove such a thing. Just postulating. More of a random exercise than a belief. Again, just for FTP, not Stars.
Last edited by smithcommajohn; 04-14-2010 at 05:13 PM.
04-14-2010
, 05:33 PM
Quote:
Since you took the time to ask the questions semi-politely, I'll answer them.
You are correct in why I used my particular verbage. One player is not a guaranteed winner over another in this theory. Nor is every pot guaranteed to go a certain way. It is a theory that a player is more likely to have a better hand than a certain other player. As the pot increases, this likelihood also increases.
In the "You > Bob > Miguel > You" table, the strategy is quite simple. If Miguel has folded, you should enter almost any pot with Bob that you can. If Bob has folded, you should be very hesitant to play a hand. Even if you have a decent hand you should avoid large pots. If all 3 players are involved in a pot, the server will continue to favor certain cards over others, with no particular winner in mind.
For instance, say you have A Q, Bob has 3 3, and Miguel has J T
The flop will favor Aces, Queens, Threes, Jacks, Tens, Spades and Diamonds.
There is no guarantee precisely what the flop will be, but those cards will be given a greater chance at being picked. Let's say the flop comes:
J 3 Q
We like our TPTK w/ nut flush draw and bet it. Bob loves his set of 3's and raises to fight off the draws and get value for his hand. Miguel has an easy fold and bows out. Having such a strong draw, we decide to push over Bob's bet and he calls.
We like that Miguel is no longer in the hand. Being favored over Bob, the deck will now favor Aces, Queens, and Spades.
Let's say the turn comes: A
We need an Ace, Queen, or Spade still. They continue to be favored.
River: 5
These situations happen quite often if you look for them. If my theory is the reason behind it, who knows? I don't have the mathematics or data to prove such a thing. Just postulating. More of a random exercise than a belief. Again, just for FTP, not Stars.
You are correct in why I used my particular verbage. One player is not a guaranteed winner over another in this theory. Nor is every pot guaranteed to go a certain way. It is a theory that a player is more likely to have a better hand than a certain other player. As the pot increases, this likelihood also increases.
In the "You > Bob > Miguel > You" table, the strategy is quite simple. If Miguel has folded, you should enter almost any pot with Bob that you can. If Bob has folded, you should be very hesitant to play a hand. Even if you have a decent hand you should avoid large pots. If all 3 players are involved in a pot, the server will continue to favor certain cards over others, with no particular winner in mind.
For instance, say you have A
Q, Bob has 3 3, and Miguel has J TThe flop will favor Aces, Queens, Threes, Jacks, Tens, Spades and Diamonds.
There is no guarantee precisely what the flop will be, but those cards will be given a greater chance at being picked. Let's say the flop comes:
J
3 QWe like our TPTK w/ nut flush draw and bet it. Bob loves his set of 3's and raises to fight off the draws and get value for his hand. Miguel has an easy fold and bows out. Having such a strong draw, we decide to push over Bob's bet and he calls.
We like that Miguel is no longer in the hand. Being favored over Bob, the deck will now favor Aces, Queens, and Spades.
Let's say the turn comes: A
We need an Ace, Queen, or Spade still. They continue to be favored.
River: 5
These situations happen quite often if you look for them. If my theory is the reason behind it, who knows? I don't have the mathematics or data to prove such a thing. Just postulating. More of a random exercise than a belief. Again, just for FTP, not Stars.
Why would they rig it that way? That would cause them to make less money from rake:
Quote:
Rake is capped ... usually rake is like 5% with a max of like $3. Say we're playing with $100 stacks at a .5/$1 table. Each player puts in $30 so a pot of $60. 5% of $60 is $3 so $3 is the rake but that's it ... rake is now maxxed out. Each player has $70 left but if each player puts that $70 in the pot no new rake is collected on that $140 ... still just $3 rake.
So pot stays at $60 site collects $3 rake and game continues and more rake is collected ....... players go all-in for last $70 dollars and site collects $3 rake and one player loses all money and game is over and no more rake is collected.
If you were the site which would you prefer?
As you can see for poker sites to maximize their profits they need players to have money and keep playing. For them to maximize profits they want lots of medium sized pots and lots of split pots and would most likely rather err from medium sized pots toward smaller pots rather than larger pots so players don't get wiped out and the games can keep going and they can keep collecting.
Yet for some reason nearly every single rigged theory has the idea that sites give setup hands or cause huge beats or something with the goal toward inflating the size of the pot. In reality making the pots bigger is not what the sites want to do ... it is near the opposite of what they want to do.
Originally Posted by Lego05
Rake is capped ... usually rake is like 5% with a max of like $3. Say we're playing with $100 stacks at a .5/$1 table. Each player puts in $30 so a pot of $60. 5% of $60 is $3 so $3 is the rake but that's it ... rake is now maxxed out. Each player has $70 left but if each player puts that $70 in the pot no new rake is collected on that $140 ... still just $3 rake.
So pot stays at $60 site collects $3 rake and game continues and more rake is collected ....... players go all-in for last $70 dollars and site collects $3 rake and one player loses all money and game is over and no more rake is collected.
If you were the site which would you prefer?
As you can see for poker sites to maximize their profits they need players to have money and keep playing. For them to maximize profits they want lots of medium sized pots and lots of split pots and would most likely rather err from medium sized pots toward smaller pots rather than larger pots so players don't get wiped out and the games can keep going and they can keep collecting.
Yet for some reason nearly every single rigged theory has the idea that sites give setup hands or cause huge beats or something with the goal toward inflating the size of the pot. In reality making the pots bigger is not what the sites want to do ... it is near the opposite of what they want to do.
04-14-2010
, 05:40 PM