So now in this theory they secretly have a different RNG for cash games and for tournament games ..... ?

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?"

This is right for higher stakes, for micro limits that doesnt apply.

It applies .... it just takes a larger % of the player's stacks to reach the cap if it is even reachable. And of course sites don't actually make the most money by maximizing the rake they take on each and every hand anyway:

At say 5NL, 10 $3 pots is better for the site than 2 $10 pots .... so therefore they don't want to make action hands and have people bust quickly ... they want the money to keep circulating without anybody busting.)

If someone busts after 2 $10 pots and then leaves ending the game the site made $1.00 in rake. If it takes 10 $3 pots before someone busts ending the game the site made $1.50 in rake.

(The best case scenario for a poker site would be that even were exactly the same skill level and everyone broke even minus rake ..... or that every single hand ended up in a split pot.)


So that's argument one but even if that didn't exist and if we were in pretend land were the sites made the most total rake by maximizing their rake on each hand regardless of how it affected the players (like busting them so they stop playing) ... here's another question:

Are you now suggesting that they use a different RNG for micro games than for other games?

How many different RNG's do you guys think these sites run?



Argument One: Shows that sites would make less money by doing what you hypothesize they do.

Argument 2: Not really an argument ... just a question because when adding up different claims from different people for different games/stakes/forms/time periods/specific players/etc. the number of RNG's a site is using is starting to get a little ridiculously high. There's no need for them to use as many as 2 RNG's and using different RNG's would in my mind raise eyebrows ..... but many people here seem to believe that they use multiple RNG's (with at least some being rigged) based on nothing other than they personally thought up the idea of it because they are trying to explain a perception they have of an incorrect pattern in the cards, despite not being able to use statistical data that is available to show said incorrect pattern .... (and of course when it comes to patterns such as these human perception is not capable of evaluating them correctly over sample sizes large enough to be meaningful).

It's common sense that maximum rake is not achieved by busting players quicker with larger pots. Maximum rake would be achieved by keeping the money circulating for as long as possible so that all of it turns into rake, rather than moving the money quicker from one player to another. One player holding the money can only generate rake half as fast as two players holding the same money.

The only thing an action hand would be useful for is to transfer money from regular and winning players to new and almost broke os loser players. (Not saying this actually happen)

So now in your theory we have a pretty smart RNG .... it deals randomly until something determines that someone is a losing player and that player's account is getting low and now it deals an action hand making sure the losing player gets the better hand.

But if this is true how come so many people bust their account so often? How come so many people do lose so much money? People do lose. In fact most people lose.




And if this did happen would somebody not eventually notice the aberrations in the winning players' EV graphs, the amount of big hands dealt to them, the # of coolers taken? Admittedly the first and 2nd one would probably be much easier to notice than the third. There are a lot of losing players as I said who get close to busting their account on a regular basis so I would think these situations would occur often enough for it to be noticeable in the samples that the winning players have in their software.

The whole 'action hand' theory is idiotic, and it highlights that the rigtards don't understand fundamental poker concepts of variance.

After all, a poker site would benefit from reducing variance, not increasing it.

Can you show me where I posted a theory about action hands? My last post was an observation, cant call that a theory.

So what is the point of observing it?

To observe.

I observe your observation.

The sites skew the winning percentages to favor short stacks in all in situations so that instead of busting the short stack they keep them in action longerim not saying a short stack will never lose because that's too obvious but I say they add some percentage points so they suck out more than they should

Post the statistics that prove this.


Also it is kinda funny how several people in this thread have posted just like you did and said that the sites skew the winning percentages to favor big stacks.

And amazingly, both sides claim to have discovered this rigging through simple observation, meaning it's incredibly obvious.

No idea. Maybe.

What I didnt get yet is:

lets say you store the deal of the next 1K hands in a FR table before it is dealt, and after that you chooses the TIME when the players will get the cards.

If one of the players get out of the table or is replaced for another player the system begins again, another 1K hands deal is stored and the time when they will comes is chosen, keeping the total frequency.

I think the system would have to start again when the players change or the deal would be obviously non random for that new player.

Its been said that it would affect the stats anyway, but I dont understand how.

Clearly he must be discussing a cash game situation. And the big stack idea would be tournament play.

Either way, I don't support the idea of rigging via stack size. I've seen way too many situations that contradict both.

I agree with this statement.

One point not being discussed is that high variance hands DO lead to higher rake than low variance hands as long as no one is busting out.

If the pokersite has any control over who is winning the hands and when (aka rigging) then high variance hands are much more profitable.

Clearly those situations just involved nemeses.

wtf, no.

'cause you don't even bother to read this thread, I'm not going to bother retyping all this stuff:

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

Testing for randomness is about more than just looking at total frequencies.

Say I flip a coin 100 times. The first 50 tosses comes up as heads and the last 50 tosses come up as tails. It's 50/50 just as it should be so it looks perfectly random right? Of course it doesn't to anyone who examines the actual output rather than just the total frequency of each outcome.

Here's one statistical test out there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diehard_tests

I have no idea what that means or how these tests work, but it seems someone who actually know a thing or two about statistics and randomness has given this some thought. So I wouldn't go ahead and assume that [my really smart idea on how to rig games and make it undetectable] is actually undetectable just because "well the total frequency would still be the same".

Actually my assumption would be that if you make a change in the software that is based on some form of rule, you could test to see if that rule is in place. If the output is affected so that it's non-random, it's detectable.

Now you're getting the picture

You are assuming randomness for your conclusion. I am not.

If I assume randomness, I will concur with your idea that lower variance is more desirable since it would lead to fewer bust outs.

Incidentally, you mention that an online casino would never accept $500 million on red for roulette. Well, if it could guarantee the ball would land on black, they would certainly take the bet. If it is truly random, again I concur with you.

someone told me today online poker is rigged discuss

Two people told me today that online poker is not rigged. Discuss.