Wow, we finally come to this question. Correct, I have no post-secondary degrees in computer science, math, or stats. The point I was making, however, was that you had no reason to be making such assumptions. All you had to do was ask, but instead you went on and on about my technical knowledge. What's especially funny about it all is alluded to in something you said above - "attempting to discuss". You weren't attempting to discuss anything. You asserted that you could guarantee that Cake's RNG was not random. When I asked about how you could make that guarantee, the only explanation you gave was that since Cake's security was flawed, so was the RNG. When asked for any evidence, you tossed out conjecture about my technical knowledge, or lack thereof.

Asked and answered in the Victory Poker thread.

Maybe you should read my post again. I said nothing about it being trolling, I just used it as an example of the fact that I was leaving you be after your "agree to disagree" post ITT. That's it.

No idea what you're talking about when you say I am stating you must accept that my statement is the truth. What I'm objecting to is you coming into an exchange that doesn't involve you, and suggesting that a poster should disregard what I say because I'm biased. You give no examples of how my alleged bias has shaped my opinion, just like you give no evidence to back up most other claims and accusations you make.

Not sure what nail you think you hit on the head, but here's what I'm saying. Because of your passive aggressive style, you've gotten away with a lot of trolling - making unsubstantiated accusations and refusing to discuss such accusations in a rational nature. Don't expect to keep getting away with it.

Disagree with me or anyone else here all you like. But the trolling needs to stop. It's not helping you, it's not helping me, and it's not helping anyone on this site.

HAHAHAHA god I wish that didn't have to be explained but nonetheless brilliant.

This has been posted several times before by more than one poster but is probably worth repeating:

Rigtards believe that online poker is definitely rigged despite there being not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

Those of us defending online poker believe that it is probably not rigged because there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

No amount of licencing and auditing is going to satisfy the true rigtard.

They will simply change their whine from:

"We need US regulation to ensure a fair game"

to

"Why aren't the government fulfilling their responsibilities to ensure a fair game".

I'm sure I addressed this recently.

When people say 'you can't prove a negative' they mean (or ought to mean if they know what they are talking about): You cannot prove that something (physically based - obviously there are many things you can prove do not exist in maths) does not exist.

You cannot practically prove that there is no rigging because it is practically impossible to examine all deals ever for every type of rigging.

On the other hand, if there is widespread rigging you can prove it fairly easily by demonstrating one instance of one type of rigging.

A crude and offensive example of argumentum ad verecundiam.

In this case, of course, the 'authority' is merely claimed, not proven.

No karma to karma(ram)bling!

If you do not have an advanced degree in comp science, math or stats then you should not really be discussing P/RNGs of poker sites.

Also, P/RNGs are not random thus my guarantee that cakes network is not random is true. However, if bias is equal for all, then the exponential range of shuffles is generally considered sufficient.

My concern stems from detectable bias as a real possibility due to the hole cards vulnerability. This would be a disaster and impossible to detect.

Another concern would be how the P/RNG was seeded. If the cake inept developers were responsible for this then


Karma

Not to put too fine a point on it: That is Utter Rubbish.

Orville and Wilbur Wright did not have advanced degrees in aeronautics and yet the managed to build the first manned aircraft capable of sustained flight.

Frank Whittle held no degrees and yet invented the jet engine.

You don't need a degree to understand complex problems, just an ability to think.

Anyone who thinks about the problem will realise that whilst a PRNG is not truly random that is pretty much irrelevant given the way it's used.

It seems to be a common misconception that because a PRNG is not truly random anyone will be able to make use of that fact to take (in HE) a maximum of seven cards and, from those, deduce something about the probability a few more pairs being certain values. (Unless that design of the RNG is completely inept (and you could just as easily foul up the implementation and use of a hardware RNG if you are that inept), that simply is not going to happen.

I take it you have no advanced degrees in comp science, math or stats either.

I am not going to discuss this topic with uneducated people. It is as you say..rubbish.

Karma

I don't think the poster ever suggested the sites were rigged against them, the suggestion was that the dealing may not be random.

Well, you take it wrong.

If you actually were well educated, rather than, as I suspect, a cocky adolescent indulging in some weird fantasy, you would know from inspection that there really isn't anything in RNG maths that requires degree level knowledge.

Unlike (almost certainly) yourself I have personally known hundreds, possibly thousands, of very well educated people and not a single one would have dreamed of saying anything as arrogant and obnoxious as "I am not going to discuss this topic with uneducated people."

If a deal is non random and that non randomness is causing any measurable effect on the players then, by definition, the effect is measurable and thus detectable.

And yet there has not been a single instance of anyone detecting anything amiss from one of the big five sites/networks.

So, really, no need for anyone but the most paranoid to worry.

'.....there are no such people, at least not in this thread (who are convinced that all poker sites are fair and honest.)'


The poll shows there are 1991 people, (at time of posting,) 63% of people who have voted, who believe that online poker is not rigged.

It's not very clear, but is voting 'no' intended to mean that no poker sites are rigged or that not every poker site, (ie Online Poker as a whole,) is rigged ?

I wasn't disputing that Wiki, I was just pointing out that the guy's words had been twisted.

Why had you not pointed that out yourself, as someone who is normally extremely quick to point out any errors ?

Given that those who voted (seriously) did not have the correct options available, they clearly voted for the option that was nearest their actual belief.

Bobo was referencing people who have posted comments on the thread rather than just made an anonymous vote.

Can you find a single post by a regular shill saying that it is definitely not rigged?

You misunderstand what "you cannot prove a negative" means in this context when people say it. Probably because many times it is simplisticly worded. It doesn't mean that you cannot prove a state of things such as "I'm not dead".

It means you cannot prove the non-existance (or negative existence if you prefer) of a concept, in this case riggedness. It cannot be proven that God, in whichever form different people believe in, doesn't exist.

Alot of religious people use that as an argument against people that don't believe in its existence, or aren't sure "But you cannot prove God isn't there"

If I told you there are intelligent beings hiding in the core of the Sun, you couldn't prove me wrong. Beginning to see where the fallacy lies?

This applies to the rigging concept as well because there is no finite number of tests that can be performed to prove there is no rigging. That number is infinite, because there is an infinite number of rigging possibilities out there, read a few dozen rig claims ITT and you'll being to see. And infinite is of course, by its nature, never reached.

Please see above why the infinite number of tests required to prove it's not rigged can never be achieved. Also, what constitutes reasonable doubt to you may not be so to the next guy.

There is no common agreement of the type "If x, y and z happen according to mathematical expectation then the deal is fair". In fact, many rigged claims are for exact opposite situations, on the same site(s). Good luck proving anything there....

I don't believe that to be true, but even if it were, where's the relevance? In a true debate, the arguments are the only things that matter not the character or interests of the one who makes them. If an argument holds up to be true, that's all that matters.

The obvious tactic when you don't want rational arguments to decide a debate is to slander and insult, trying to make the arguments irrelevant. Isn't that what you're doing in that post?

Believe it or believe it not, I do not have a duty to read every post on this thread and point out every single error that occurs.

I know you think (or think I think) that I run this thread but that is certainly not the case.

i can vouch for wiki here

i run this thread

k

And I have to pay him 10% of my shilling fees to be allowed to continue to post here.

Works out very well for everyone, really.

No, it's not very clear, which is why I didn't vote. I'd be looking for a "Probably Not", or "Prove It!" option. But if I was forced to choose one, I'd choose "No". That doesn't necessarily mean I think it absolutely isn't; it just means I took the option closest to my beliefs in a flawed poll.

May I be mean and say : no they weren't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traian_Vuia

The Wright brothers claim of their first flight in 1903 without the press witnessing is almost the same as all the rigtards' claims without evidence, is it not?

Bobo, you've highlighted an issue I've had with this forum, (this thread in particular,) for a wee while now and as you're both a moderator and someone who has just highlighted the issue, I'd like to discuss it with you if that's ok.


There are many regulars who seem to expect any new people or people with different opinions to themself to clarify everything they say and answer exactly everything they are asked.

However, these regulars themself are given free reign to belittle other people's posts, without even providing a proper argument or response and just saying, 'rigtard,' or 'troll,' or making a sarcastic/jokey comment, or 'tl;dr,' (I think, not a big user of internet forums, don't even know what that means ), or altering people's quotes, or many other general belittling and mocking acts.

This seems very harsh and unfair to me, how 10-15 of you regulars pretty much 'police' this thread and are waiting to pounce en masse on any new people whose opinions might not exactly match theirs. Responding with a proper argument seems fine and indeed helpful, but responding in a belittling, mocking manner, no matter how ridiculous, illogical or stupid the person's post may seem to you, or how many times you think you've heard the argument before, to me is not a fair way to conduct yourselves, as people who are generally clever enough to know better.

Nobody is forcing the regulars to remain here and respond to these posts. They are perfectly free to stop reading the topic and go elsewhere. If you do respond to posts, I think it needs to be in an adult manner, without belittling or mocking people and with the same respect you'd expect people to show you.

As I said, I'm not a big user of internet forums, so maybe it's the 'done thing,' but I personally don't see anything clever about mocking people when you're sat in front of a computer screen, in a way you wouldn't dream of doing in the real world.

I'd be interested to hear your opinion as a moderator, apologies if this has stretched off topic, feel free to move it elsewhere, or respond in a private message.

No doubt. I gave up trying to keep up with this thread a good while back.

This is true, and as you imply, it's true only because the claim is so general and unfocused. "Online poker is rigged." An almost meaningless statement. We can't disprove a statement if we can't even figure out what it means. "Pokerstars' deals are rigged." That's more specific, but we still can't do anything with it because there are endless ways to "rig" a deal.

"Pokerstars' deals favor bad players." Still more specific, but now we have definitions to worry about. What constitutes a bad player?

When the claimant starts getting more specific, we have a chance of disproving his statement, but even then we're usually dealing with statistics, which are slippery and counter-intuitive. "I get fewer pocket aces on Pokerstars than I ought to." This claimant might be getting fewer aces than most, but that doesn't make it rigged. The numbers have to be pretty far out of line before it becomes suspicious. It's hard for him to accept that, though.

"I run into AA every time I get KK." Aha! Now we can authoritatively prove that this is false (or true, if that's the case), assuming hand histories are available, but so far without fail, everyone making claims this specific has disappeared.

Yup. For the reasons you've given, it is impossible to prove beyond all doubt that there is no rigging in online poker. However, given access to all hand histories from a given poker site, it would be possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that site's deal was fair. Unfortunately, this wouldn't do a thing to reassure Joe Sixpack, since he either wouldn't understand the proof or would assume the auditors were in on the conspiracy.

All of which is why this thread has more posts than Bobo. Not many threads can make that claim.

It's a fairly standard example of 'datum shifting'. The press and media of a particular country adopt a datum that allows them to claim that some invention was made in that country.

For example, in Britain we were always taught that television was 'invented' by John Logie Baird - on the grounds that he'd actually made both the first black and white and the first colour TV systems.

And yet many American encyclopaedia claim that TV was invented in the US or 'jointly' in the US and UK. They justify this by changing the datum from 'first to do it' to 'first to do it with a system akin to what was used at the time.

In reality, the idea for TV had been around for some considerable time before either Baird or Farnsworth's work.

FTP, more than once I've thought about commenting on what I'd call your fixation with insults directed at you in this thread. It seems that you can hardly go a post or two without complaining about someone's comment in a reply to you. I mean, you have to have noticed by now that the mods of this forum allow a pretty much "anything goes" mentality to run in this thread. I'd suggest you ignore the little jabs; they really aren't a big deal IMO. And after all, this is the Internet. Whether you think it is right or not, this isn't unusual on an Internet forum.

That said, as for whether the insults should even be part of the posting here, perhaps not, but I've made it a point of not interfering in that regard. And as for responding to the same arguments in a helpful manner every time, that is an awful lot to ask. If someone's going to come in here posting their bad beat and immediately declaring online poker to be rigged, they shouldn't expect a good reaction, and rightfully so. I try to avoid most of the mocking, but I'm not judging those who don't. And I'm not perfect; I'm sure I join in now and then.

Now that I've posted all of this, I feel the need to reconcile this with what I told Karma, because they might seem at odds. Although I recently added myself as a mod in this forum, mostly so I would see any post reports about room reps, I don't consider myself an active mod in this forum - I leave that to Mike and Mark. However, as an administrator, I will step into certain situations from time to time. Spam, scams, profanity circumventions, that sort of thing. And, from time to time, blatant trolling.

As you didn't use the PM system for this 'discussion' it's in the public domain so I'll comment on a couple of your points.

They may expect it but they have no way of making anyone post anything they don't want to.

And, would you believe, the rigtards are given just as much 'free reign' to do exactly the same to the regulars.

It's just that we don't waste so much time whining about as you do.

This is mainly because the 'new people' haven't read the thread - or even a small fraction of it - and just come op with the same old same old over and over and over again.

But, again, we are not doing anything the 'tards and riggies cannot/ do not do.

Nobody is forcing the riggies and 'tards to remain here and make these posts. They are perfectly free to stop reading the topic and go elsewhere.

So, basically, you're saying you want this thread run according to your ideas of what is acceptable.

I'll bet Bobo's response contains something along the lines of: "What have the moderators said when you've alerted them to posts you find inappropriate?"


ETA: OK, I got that one wrong.