The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition - Page 21 - Internet Poker

"if they didn't get rewarded with their five-percenter (you know that means FIVE TIMES OUT OF 100 it'll get there, right?) occasionally (probably 1/20 times or so) they wouldn't play."

Quote:

4. No statistically challenged would not suit me at all thankyou very much. I fully understand and have studies poker statistics in particular.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 05:46 PM

#502

SooperFish24

adept

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,028

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markusgc

If they were poor players but it was rigged in their favor, wouldn't they be rich players?

Expert analysis. Why weren't you interviewed on 60 Minutes?

I went out of a tournament the other night when the other player in the hand made a couple of horrible decisions. But since it wasn't a cash game, the action flop didn't increase the rake, so that couldn't have motivated the site to rig it for the vastly inferior player to win the pot. However, that guy didn't manage to cash in the tournament either. So I just don't know why they rigged that hand that way.

I'm sorry, you don't want to be called dumb? Would "statistically-challenged" suit you better?

I suspect you understand that lizards don't have anything to do with this discussion specifically.

You said that I'm trying to go away from the subject because I mentioned that you had trouble grasping some ideas which I feel that any adult would get without any trouble.

Then I said, no, it's YOU who are ignoring my arguments with accusations of attacks and gave you a random example of what you were doing with lizard people in the starring role.

You chose to do the exact same thing again.

So, tell ya what... here's what I said:

You explain to me how that in any way that implies agreement with you. I think it quite clearly conveys the method by which one could determine a process to prove or disprove this alleged rigging, but maybe I'm wrong. If any other posters ITT would like to tell me what they think that means, I'd love to hear their feedback.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josem

Sooper,

In the Stephen Meares thread, he had a similar theory - that the flop, turn and river cards were fiddled to favour particular players. Let me explain a way to make such 'rigging' impossible.

As you might know, there are two possible ways for a computer to shuffle a deck:

a) Static Shuffle - Just like in a live casino, the cards are shuffled, set, and then dealt out.

b) Continuous Shuffle - While the hand is in play, the cards are continuously being shuffled, and then, when the pre-flop (or the flop or turn) action is finishe, the shuffling is stopped, and then the next card is dealt.

If a deck is set, like in a static shuffle, before the hand starts, then it is literally impossible to create an "action flop" (or any other form of rigged shuffle that is based on community cards) since there is no way that a site can possibly predict what action will take place.

So, if you want to play at a site where such rigging is impossible you need to only play at sites which have a static shuffle.

The easiest way to do this is to just email the various sites, and ask them whether they use a continuous or a static shufffle.

Here are the contact details for the five largest sites/networks according to Poker Scout:

PokerStars - support@pokerstars.com
Full Tilt - support@fulltiltpoker.com
iPoker/Playtech - http://www.playtech.com/html/index.php?page=43
PartyPoker - info@partypoker.com
OnGame/bwin - https://home.bwin.com/page.aspx?view=contact

(If someone has an email address for iPoker or OnGame/bwin to use then feel free to post it - I couldn't find one easily)

Here's a draft email that you can send them:

Now, obviously you don't trust the sites involved (otherwise this thread wouldn't exist) so the next step is to then contact their regulators.

Here are the details on their regulators that I could find from their respective websites:

PokerStars - www.gov.im/gambling
Full Tilt - http://www.kahnawake.com/gamingcommission/
iPoker/Playtech - CDPoker (one of the skins) says they're regulated by Gibraltar, but I couldn't find their listing on http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/gov_dept...net_gaming.htm - still, that's probably the place to start
PartyPoker - http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/gov_dept...net_gaming.htm
OnGame/bwin - http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/gov_dept...net_gaming.htm

I just went to the respective sites home pages and followed the links from there.

Hopefully this will help you get underway to confirming to yourself that online poker is safe and secure.

Feel free to PM me or post here if you have any queries.

Thanks.

So does pokerstars use the static shuffle?

Quote

01-28-2009 , 05:48 PM

#503

SooperFish24

adept

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,028

Studied lol. Give me a break Im kinda tired and the d and s are right next to each other. Is that how you get your thrills going after spelling mistakes, what a joke lol.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 05:50 PM

#504

KingOfFelt

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,886

Quote:

Originally Posted by SooperFish24

Studied lol. Give me a break Im kinda tired and the d and s are right next to each other. Is that how you get your thrills going after spelling mistakes, what a joke lol.

Honestly though, if you did study poker statistics like you claim then clearly you should understand how weak your arguments have been.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 05:51 PM

#505

SooperFish24

adept

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,028

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingOfFelt

Well then shouldn't there be some data that takes the first thousand hands or so of a large sample of players and shows some sort of departure from the typical variance?

You know why there isn't any sort of data that shows that? It's because it doesn't exist.

I know that from my pokertracker my first 100 or so 9/18/27/45 man tourneys have an ROI of like 120%. I literally couldnt lose an SNG.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 05:54 PM

#506

Markusgc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 8,788

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingOfFelt

c'mon, you know new players always have their hand histories saved to their hard drive and are pouring over them to find leaks in their game every night.

it's out there, but online poker shills are buying it from these new customers with logo tank-tops, stress balls, condoms, hats and towels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SooperFish24

Studied lol. Give me a break Im kinda tired and the d and s are right next to each other. Is that how you get your thrills going after spelling mistakes, what a joke lol.

no one mentioned anything about spelling. is this like when you said I was attacking you, when I was only pointing out that you didn't understand something which was plain as day to everyone else?

if you touched a hot stove and then someone told you that was stupid, would you accuse them of attacking you as well?

Quote

01-28-2009 , 05:55 PM

#507

Markusgc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 8,788

Quote:

Originally Posted by SooperFish24

I know that from my pokertracker my first 100 or so 9/18/27/45 man tourneys have an ROI of like 120%. I literally couldnt lose an SNG.

I'm no expert in statistics, but if I had a 120% ROI in those games I'd keep playing them.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 05:58 PM

#508

SooperFish24

adept

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,028

Quote:

Honestly though, if you did study poker statistics like you claim then clearly you should understand how weak your arguments have been.

Look I know my arguments are weak and wouldnt stand up to examination/scrutiny but I'm stating that my opinion remains that based on my experience online poker is not 100% legit. Its not 100% rigged either. I fully understand the % of the game. The beauty of it is there can never be any concrete statistical "evidence" purely because of the nature of the game.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 05:58 PM

#509

Markusgc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 8,788

c'mon, someone else go to the Golden Tee Forum and tell me how dumb I am for thinking it's rigged!

Quote

01-28-2009 , 05:58 PM

#510

Josem

human chemical weapon

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 18,189

Quote:

Originally Posted by SooperFish24

So does pokerstars use the static shuffle?

While I obviously work for PokerStars, I don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm posting on their behalf on this 2p2 account. If I answer your question, then that's obviously going to be self-serving and the answer won't hold nearly the weight that a proper email from PokerStars would do.

I don't want to just tell you what I think about the shuffle - I want you to have your own independently verifiable evidence that you obtain for yourself. If I provide it, then that's not nearly as valuable.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 06:01 PM

#511

SooperFish24

adept

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,028

Quote:

I'm no expert in statistics, but if I had a 120% ROI in those games I'd keep playing them.

I did lol but after like 1000 it was 18% ROI.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 06:02 PM

#512

Markusgc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 8,788

Quote:

Originally Posted by SooperFish24

I did lol but after like 1000 it was 18% ROI.

shucks, you had a very good ROI, but less than 120%? must be rigged!

Quote

01-28-2009 , 06:02 PM

#513

SooperFish24

adept

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,028

Quote:

Ok but cmon can you just tell me.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 06:04 PM

#514

Bernie Madoff

stranger

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 13

Quote:

Originally Posted by SooperFish24

I did lol but after like 1000 it was 18% ROI.

I might be able to do better for you.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 06:06 PM

#515

SooperFish24

adept

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,028

Quote:

shucks, you had a very good ROI, but less than 120%? must be rigged!

Not but I had massive initial luck even though its a small sample.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 06:07 PM

#516

SooperFish24

adept

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,028

Quote:

I might be able to do better for you.

Thanks Bernie. Could you stake me also for say $5,000,000. I know you can afford it.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 06:08 PM

#517

Josem

human chemical weapon

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 18,189

Quote:

Originally Posted by SooperFish24

Ok but cmon can you just tell me.

But that defeats the point here. The point here is so that you can prove to yourself how it all works.

Sure, Michael Josem, "Computer Security Expert" + PokerStars employee can answer your question... but that's not what you actually want. You want verifiable and independent proof.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 06:17 PM

#518

spadebidder

Actually Shows Proof

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,905

Stephen was smarter than this guy, but more fanatical too, making it a little more fun. This time the effort doesn't feel worth it.

Edit: OP at least try to make a case so people have something to respond to.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 06:20 PM

#519

Markusgc

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 8,788

Quote:

Originally Posted by spadebidder

This time the effort doesn't feel worth it.

put that effort into the Golden Tee forum.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 06:25 PM

#520

spadebidder

Actually Shows Proof

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,905

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markusgc

put that effort into the Golden Tee forum.

I saw it.

Brilliant gimmick handle.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 06:30 PM

#521

SooperFish24

adept

Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,028

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josem

Actually I dont I have my opinion I'm not desperate for proof.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 06:33 PM

#522

otatop

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 12,721

Quote:

Originally Posted by SooperFish24

I know that from my pokertracker my first 100 or so 9/18/27/45 man tourneys have an ROI of like 120%. I literally couldnt lose an SNG.

Was my account just not new enough?

Quote

01-28-2009 , 06:41 PM

#523

KingOfFelt

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,886

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markusgc

put that effort into the Golden Tee forum.

It's awesome you got a regular of that forum to agree with you.

Quote

01-28-2009 , 07:45 PM

#524

Josem

human chemical weapon

Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 18,189

Quote:

Originally Posted by SooperFish24

Actually I dont I have my opinion I'm not desperate for proof.

If you don't care about the shuffling of the cards enough to ask the sites concerned how they shuffle their cards, then starting a thread on here about this is pretty nonsensical, imo.

If I'm going to participate in this discussion, I'm only going to do so if you're willing to put in the equivalent effort to at least *try* and do some research yourself.

I've put some effort in here to prove to you how to find a site that is safe from the rigging that you suspect might happen, and you don't even have the courtesy to ask the sites how they shuffle their deck. There's no trickery here. There's no complex mathematics here. There's just some basic common sense that, as far as I can tell, no one disagrees with.

Honestly, I feel like I've put the effort in to help you and you're just spitting in my face.