collusion = rigged?

Here's a question for you
why don't the sites have regular audits of thier rngs by independent third partys?
Seems to me if I were a big site that spent alot of money advertising I'd want it in big bold print stating that my rng is legit. Wouldn't that be an excellent selling point to bring in new player?
Why isn't this happening if the rngs are legit?

Go open up cardplayer magazine you see plenty of full page ads for the sites I don't see any mention of audits on thier rngs. WTF isn't that important?

[saves breath]

I'm not going to deal with the audit question (which has been brought up too many times to count ITT). But just to say that the bolded is a logical fallacy. There can be many reasons why the sites might or might not have regular audits (have to define "regular") that have absolutely nothing to do with the RNG.

What're you talking about?

PokerStars' RNG was audited last month!

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/rng/

Where in that link does it say that audit was done last month and my question was why isn't it being used in thier ads. Don't you think that's something they'd want in thier ads?

Taffy, the sites don't bother pointing it out because most players who think it's an issue do the research and find the audit information themselves, and the rigtards would complain about how the auditors are on the take anyway.

Better to spend the ad money on copy/images that attract the casual player as opposed to trying to convert the rigtarded.

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/rng/...labresults.pdf

Its "hidden" in the link "See the Certification of Security for Random Number Generator to find out more."

Because the people who would want that wont accept the findings of auditors who get paid by the sites to do it.

I don't think it is something that PokerStars wants in their ads. I guess if PokerStars wanted this stuff in their advertising, they would include it in their advertising.

I suspect that most potential players aren't concerned about this sort of stuff. I think it's good though to have such detailed information about the shuffle on the website so that those who do care can obtain more information. I also think it is good that PokerStars will provide even more detailed explanation of stuff in email if you email them with queries.

Now this is getting epic... her AA or KK have been cracked 18/21 times over the last few days. Has Bodog's RNG been certified for 2010?

LOL: http://casino.bodog.com/why-bodog-ca...fications.html

whoever is reading this ... check out ecogra.org. Before UIEGA I played at pokerroom.com which was eCOGRA verified. I had a much better win record there. US sites refuse to be eCOGRA verified although they are non-profit. Email your poker sites requesting them to be eCOGRA verified. Cause yeah theres definately suspicion along these levels of "is online poker rigged?" if these sites arent allowing eCOGRA.

Yeah, no way was it the soft competition there along with drop-dead simple deposits to keep the fish playing. It has to be the dealing.

But wait, I can't recall how many posts there were on Pokerroom's forum calling it Jokerroom for all the rigged setup hands that were dealt there. Hmm...

Are you employed by eCOGRA?

eCOGRA is a wholly owned subsidiary of a couple of online poker rooms (micrograming and 888, from memory).

How on earth can anyone possibly argue that a wholly owned subsidiary of online poker sites is more credible than independent government regulation?

That's not the game being rigged. That is players cheating.

Also I'm pretty sure not enough hands have been dealt online for it to be remotely possible for a team to have been in that position anywhere near 10 million times.

Guess you didn't click on the link that was in the link:

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/rng/...labresults.pdf

The irrefutability of actual mathematics in this thread: priceless.

The answer is in this thread.

Would have been even funnier except for these:

I note he got quite a raise after the first one.

Because it's completely pointless.

Only a few paranoid idiots are bothered by the RNG and they will not accept the result of an audit anyway. (We have evidence of that in this very thread.)

To anyone who knows even the smallest amount about programming it is obvious that if you were rigging the deal you wouldn't rig the RNG anyway. It would be far too difficult to get some specific result from that. You'd simply ignore the RNG output when you wanted to 'adjust' a hand.

And the only way to audit the whole process from start to finish is analyse the results from a very large sample.

What a pity no one has done that.

Oh, wait ...

There is great wisdom in this post.

I shall try and learn from it.

Just because QPW's wit far exceeds BS's, doesn't mean that we shouldn't semi- graciously give BS some small amount of credit when he actually writes something amusing.


C'mon riggies: you love throwing around the "shill" label! Who wants to try and make an actual argument that someone here is a shill?

He does, I'll admit, post (intentionally) amusing things occasionally.

tk1133 can be very funny at times, as well.

I really don't see the point.

Apart from the fact that poker sites would (if they were worried about this thread at all) far prefer to have it as just a succession of nonsensical posts by the riggies, if a poker rsite did want an official spokesman here they could just have one.

The difference between the shills and riggies is that the shills (mostly) make cogent arguments and the riggies (mostly) just make unfounded allegations.

At any time a riggie is quite welcome to make a rational argument in opposition to anything said by a shill. But what shills (and riggies) say should be judged purely its the content and logic irrespective of whether they are:

Wholly independent of any poker site.
Employed by a poker site but not making that fact known.
Openly employed by a poker site.

Sure you will....