How often does the Isle of Mann test Pokerstars' RNG?
What fines do they impose?
What regulatory body has frequent, mandatory RNG tests with the ability to enforce a fair game?

I suggest you ask them if it's that important to you.

It's normal to wait until someone has been found guilty of wrongdoing before imposing fines.

Sites that are intent on wrongdoing tend to choose American jurisdictions rather than the IOM.

None.

Because they are not generally run by idiots and know that even if they tested the RNG every day a rogue site could simply ignore its output and rig the deal in any way they chose.

They know that with hundreds of thousands of players playing tens of millions of hands per day if there is any irregularity in the deal it will be brought to light pretty quickly by those capable of detecting the Evidence.

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/gambling/...rt20082009.pdf

See page 18.

Number of RNG queries resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction: All.

Evidently they also had a rigtard complaint about a doomswitch, mentioned in this footnote:

There were two complaints in the period that we were unable to resolve. One related to adata protection failure which was referred to the Office of the Data Protection Supervisor; the other was related to the complainant’s inability to furnish evidence of their claims whilst insisting that they had been subjected to discriminatory software.

I love how they refer to it as "discriminatory software". And what dumbass actually called them about a doomswitch?

[QUOTE=Wiki;18331096]
Because they are not generally run by idiots and know that even if they tested the RNG every day a rogue site could simply ignore its output and rig the deal in any way they chose.

QUOTE]

Fair enough, RNG tests are nothing more than a posture. Sounds reasonable.
Couldn't a competent regulatory body, then, easily prevent a 'rogue' site from rigging the deal. I understand stars is doing everything it can to prevent this, unless they, or some inside party, do it to themselves.

There are probably countless ways it could be rigged, and no oversight.

Not sure if it would be worth the increase in rake, fees and taxes....but I don't doubt a US based sight would have regulators onsight for long stretches of time, inspecting software, RNG, and any inbound manipulation.

Exactly what would these "onsight" regulators be doing?

Prime example of what all of you do in this thread.

Mock silly ideas?

Edit: and if you want to be a nit about it just ignore the picture and focus on the question above it which is a quite reasonable question is it not?

For one, they could test for inbound manipulation(with or without a flashlight).
Test RNG.
Every hand history would be at their disposal, although nothing could be learned from these..........

I got alot more, for those who think regulation is impossible without a flashlight.

Not you went throught the trouble use photoshop, was that easier than thinking, or do you have another agenda?

Fixed the image (with actual RNG):



This illustrates the real absurdity of "examining the servers". The only thing that matters is the output, and millions of players audit that all the time.

Look, I appreciate that you want to find ways for us all to know for certain that the games are legit.

But what do you mean "test the RNG"?

How, in your opinion, is a RNG best tested?

And I imagine the hand histories is easier obtain from a remote location via a network connection that from being in the same building as the servers. The hand histories are not printed on paper directly from the server you know.

If there was "inbound manipulation" do you imagine that the site would sneak in a few masked men into the server building during the night to tamper with the machines, or do you imagine it would be done in another fashion?

Sorry for the tone, but this is getting ridiculous...

I'm assuming you're being saracastic here. All they really need is the HHs.

fyp

Having a regulator onsite is just incidental....true regulation is the point.
Simple, random RNG tests.
Hand histories sent directly to another computer with software that can detect a variety of anomalies.....every hand history ever dealt....DUH(sorry for the tone).
By inbound manipulation, I mean manipulation of the server...hacked from an outside source or, possibly, (during a restart) direct manipulation of the hardware...perhaps swapping one of the servers hard drives.

I would recommend getting regulators who have technical proficiency, unlike myself.
Who would possibly recommend no regulation?

Done!

No one who matters.

The IOM, Gibraltar and Malta all have competent regulators.

KGC and Costa Rica maybe less so.

I don't think they are the only nessecity, but HH"s are key.
I think getting the software to analyze the HH's isn't a problem.
Getting 500 billion HH's from stars, however....

A regulator who had punitive powers could get them, at least from said point forward. Every single one.

Are the IOM's regulators watching stars, they have the analysis of HH's we need? The 500 billion?

Ok, here's the problem I've had from day one. I would not go out of my way to claim that the IOM and Gibraltar or Malta do not have competent regulators. But I will argue the fact that you claim that they are. I am just at a loss for words as to how you can claim something with out first hand knowledge of exactly what they to do competently regulate sites. It's competent in relation(or compared) to what? You read a piece of literature that claims something and now your an expert?

Note: Not picking on stars. They are just the best example I know the most about.

I only post at 2+2 when I am at stars, actually....usually winding down.

This is a problem in epistemology and one that will remain no matter how many countries provide a regulatory framework.

Anyone can ask the exact same questions you ask above about a putative US regulatory authority.

With the added piquancy that they can point to failures in extremely well established US regulatory authorities charged with regulating functions that are just the tiniest bit more important than on line poker. (Anyone for Enron!)

You do not need 5e8 HH's to check for irregularities in the deal.

Those of us who know something of statistics and confidence limits are quite happy with a few tens of millions.

I think a random sample of 50 million is insufficient. I think a US regulator would agree.
Is "10's of millions" the IOM's regulators sample, or is 2+2 doing it for them?

Ok, is Enron still operating? Were criminal charges filed? In the poker industry, and in light of our discussion, which site would you compare Enron with?

Aside from that let's compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. See the Nevada Gaming Commission doesn't operate solely on bribes and kick backs, they're operational mission is to ensure a fair and safe "gambling experience" and enforce gaming laws.

Would you like to compare the NVG with the regulatory regime's you mentioned?

Your basing that on what?