C'mon, what kind of idiots do you think we are? Take your medication. Nobody hangs around with you.

Short stack not big stack if the big stack is favoured how will the site make money ? People would be busting in that case

But the card removal bias wouldn't favor any one player over another. In the long run (which might not be all that long), the bias should cancel itself out in the same way that variance does. Are you arguing that all-in equity calculations are invalid due to card removal effects?

You are correct about not favoring anyone, so the bias affects everyone, but in different ways. How that skews your own numbers depends on your own play style and that of your typical opponents. Yes, I'm saying all-in equity does not have a purely random result that approaches the calculated mean, because of the bias from player decisions. Not invalid, but not 100% accurate either. The only exception is preflop all-ins in a heads-up game so there are no folded cards. In any other game the result is always biased over time due to player decisions. In ring games with 9 players the bias is significant.

You can see one example of why here and here.

Some hand types will always tend to have a 1-2% bias away from the equity mean due to how people play hold'em. And that's just preflop. It gets worse postflop if more than two players see the flop and then only 2 of them get all-in, because the 3rd player's (or more) decision to fold is in part based on the cards that flopped.

This post helps understand the effect also.

Nevertheless, calculating all-in luck based on preflop all-ins with a single caller is accurate enough to be a useful indicator, probably within +/-1% of the true mean. Calculating it for post-flop all-ins is less accurate, and trying to calculate equity by street is pretty useless as a luck indicator.

OK, I'm aware that some of the regulars on this thread are probably poker site employees paid to take pot-shots at anyone who criticises them, but...

I'm very sceptical about the fairness of online poker. And here's why...

If a poker site ran a truly random deal how would it survive in this scenario....

1. A group of 10 skilled online poker players target the site's freerolls. Because of their skills they build small bankrolls on that site.

2. They use these bankrolls to enter low stakes tournaments. Because of their skills they gain more winnings.

3. They use these winnings to enter higher stakes games and tournaments. Because of their skills their winnings become even greater.

4. This trend goes on until at last their winnings amount to $10,000 each.

5. They withdraw this money - a total of $100,000 - from the site.

6. End result - a group of 10 skilled poker players have deposited nothing on the site. They have withdrawn $100,000. Players who have made deposits on the site have lost out and may well withdraw their money in search of sites where they 'have more luck'. The site is $100,000 down and previously loyal players are now deserting it.

7. Isn't this a recipe for business disaster?

8. This scenario can be avoided if the site 'tweaks' the random number generator to give results more friendly to the site's business interests.

9. There is no independent audit of the RNG by an outside company.

10. What do you think the site does?

No it isn't. The site profited enormously off the rake from their play. Deposits are not the site's money in the first place, their earnings are the rake from that money being in play. It makes no difference at all who deposited the money. Your theory assumes that deposits are revenue for the site, and they aren't. These players increased the site's profits by their volume of play.

Some fly-by-night sites almost surely use deposits as operating cash. Major reputable sites do not, and aren't allowed to. I know for sure the regulations for Stars, Full Tilt, Party, and iPoker prohibit this. That's most of the market.

Edit: also consider that at micro and low stakes, the rake paid by a good player is often (maybe almost always) higher than his net winrate after rake. So for that $100,000 won by players, the house probably made even more than that in rake. Consider that in tournaments if you have an ROI of 10%, the house made the same amount you did. In cash games it's usually worse, with a 4bb/100 winner (after rake) probably paying something like 6-8bb/100 in rake.

So paying out $100,000 of depositors money would be somewhat devastating to the point that the site begins rigging, but paying people to shill (which would actually come from their money) is totally within their budget?

Oh, dammit, sorry, I used logic again, that almost never works with riggie "theories".

I think we need an "Internet Poker is Rigged?" sub forum.

We could ask all the rigtards to read the sticky on their preferred brand of paranoia before posting. At first it might seem like organizing this mess would detract from the fun, but it would really liven things up around here.

Not only would this actually move the "debate" on this subject forward, but it would inevitably cause hilarity by forcing novelty.

By cataloging the commonly espoused theories and rebuttals, we would nuetralize the rigtard's most distracting tactic: creating new accounts. This form of camouflage provides the mental slack needed to believe that their failure to convince anyone the first time was caused by a lack of persuasion, rather than logic and data. If all of the "new" rigtards were directed immediately to the stickies, it would force them to be creative and hopefully entertaining as they seek validation.

Does this pretty accurately describe the "rigged" mindset, or is it just me?
http://survivingtheworld.net/Lesson621.html

Trying out the new RealDeal poker room.

I wish they accepted real money US players...

They use a real live deck and translate that to the online game screen.

I think this new room could become very relevant to the this discussion thread.

real deal is on? i heard all riggies and live players went there, let's stroooooooooorm it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_0Ws...Itndzo#t=0m44s

Actually if you look into it they most likely don't do that. The creator of the site said they deal something like 48,000 decks per minute from 3 machines. That would be over 250 decks per second. From the video of the machine in action that seems highly unlikely. However, if you combine that with their "deck matrix" technology it starts to sound like they're artificially creating decks through software from the actual shuffled decks. Meaning they basically have a random deck generating algorithm and the machines are just a small portion of the equation.

Of course that's speculation about how they're doing things. I recommend requesting videos of every hand you play there being shuffled. See what they can produce and try to get to the root of how they actually "shuffle the deck".

The inventor has already said for sure they don't do that (contrary to their marketing).

The game plays a lot faster than I expected it so you may have something.

I will see if I can find some more information on this.

I guess if you have some type of identifiers on the cards so that they can be translated into representing many different valued cards depending on what identifier is used for the game it is intended for, you can use one deck to play out a random shuffled deck on a ton of tables.

does RDP provide rakeback or they have some bonus system?

It is in beta right now so I assume none of that is anywhere close to available yet.

Only play money games atm.

I have experienced a few times so far where I get a message that says "Game Check Certification Has Failed, Rolling Back Hand".

So it seems each hand is checked for validity somehow to the live deck before each new street is dealt.

lol that doesn't sound very comforting. "Rolling Back Hand" sounds way too much like good old Diablo 2 on battle net where they would roll back the characters when something bad happened and you'd lose any items, experience, etc you'd gained over the time period they roll back.

I'm picturing "Oops that last hand was bogus. We're rolling back your balance." That could either make you very happy or very pissed in certain situations.

Yeah it has happened about three times in the first hour of release but that is what beta is all about.

It actually gives me a feeling that it is authentic validating system.

What do you think they're validating?

Can you think of any reason not to validate before the hand is dealt?

It sounds like an issue that shouldn't have even hit alpha testing to me.

can you give me link for download i wanna try the site out ty sir

Funny, I was thinking the exact opposite.

+1

Ha!

That's exactly what they want you to think.

heres a tip you brain washed stars and full tilt fans

wait untill real deal is up and running give it a try and if it sucks then start bashing it umm k