There's your problem. This algorithm has selected and rejected hands based upon some criterion. By definition the output will not be random, and an analysis of the data will show that it tended to maximize rake compared with a random deal.

You can't handwave that away by saying it somehow does not deviate too far. If it deviates far enough to have a real world effect, it is measurable.

Also, don't forget that the reality is that the proponents of the rig in this thread are not here because they have detected a small shift after analysing millions of hands; they are here because the rig is so obvious and impactful that they have noticed it with their own eyes over very small samples.

Considering that you have a similar mentality as one of the primitive Earth is flat ignoramuses that you speak about and repeatedly argue nonsense and speculation against a group of people that exclusively want to deal with only facts and reality this statement is beyond comical.

When I thought that I had evidence of a site misbehaving, I posted it on 2p2, let other people review the data and analyse it too.

As it turns out, the data did prove that there was misbehaviour by a poker site, the images and information spread, and 60 Minutes ended up doing a show about it.

Previously* some relatively large online poker networks such as UltimateBet, Absolute Poker and iPoker, used a shuffling mechanism that wasn't truly random. The short version of explaining this is that they generated a number (a seed) using some method (eg, the time) and then applied a mathematical algorithm to shuffle a deck.

If you knew the seed, and the mathematical formula, you could theoretically figure out the shuffle. This is what was basically done in the case of Planet Poker.

However, it's not computationally feasible to figure out the cards in normal cases if they implement it correctly. Such a shuffling mechanism would typically past most tests for randomness.

In such a case, it's not "truly random" (as in, the next card is completely unpredictable) but rather, "computationally unfeasible to predict the next card".


*I don't know if this still continues; if you care deeply, you can research it further.

Your premise seems to be the "countless people" complaining about fairness while in reality the rigtards are a huge minority.

So tell us again why the companies should spend money to convince a handful of unconvinceable degen zombies.

You had the solution right there in your post: If you think it's manipulated and you still play, it's your fault.

Could you explain in a more detailed way how the companies should make a rigtard confirm the fairness of the deal (e.g. high class university checks 10 billion hands and finds nothing unusual, you really think this would impress someone who needs it to be rigged? It has been pointed out several times: Rigtards would simply claim that the high class university is involved in the scam)

So post your full hand history and let us take a shot at it. You're the one saying it's plainly obvious so put your money where your mouth is.

This is the thing though, I accept that could be the case, even manipulating the order of entire hands, not individual cards dealt, could be detectable because I don't know that it wouldn't but how is someone's "word" that's the case "proof"? Is there something out there that explains why that would be the case or is it something that would have to actually be done/tested before it can be declared detectable?

To try to make what I'm stating more coherent, I think it's flawed to start with the position "a rig or wrongdoing will be detectable through individual hand analysis so if it hasn't been then there is most likely no rig or wrong doing". I'm trying to start from the point of "is there a way/method for rigging or wrongdoing to be undetectable in individual hand analysis", which if true negates the first starting point.
Yeah I have read some similar things that you have posted in the past and appreciate the response but I think my base point is being missed. I tried to ask it in parts to avoid anyone just cherry picking what they feel are holes in the logic. Granted it was kind of late and it's all just conjecture anyway but here goes just the first question again.

Even using a truly random method like you have stated PS does, if they were to use that to predeal/generate x amount of hands/cards, then load those same hands/cards at a online poker table to play out the exact same way and order, would they still be considered random, even though they are in reality predetermined? And is there anything different that a hand analysis would show from those hands/cards them from one dealt on the fly, in real time?

Admittedly I'm out of my depth with regard to undetectable "rigs" but still interested in the discussion for now, yet the part about SuperUsers seems very basic and feasible. I asked awhile back ITT about what prevents another AP/UB SuperUser type scam and the general response was hand tracking but with anonymous tables and disciplined methods I don't see how that would be detectable in individual hand tracking.

You don't understand. Random number generators don't pre-deal the cards. The sequence for random number generation *is* predictable, if you know the seed and the algorithm, but all that means is you can theoretically predict the deck order. If the deck randomization process also cuts the deck, you could also theoretically predict where the cut will happen.

But you can't predict how many players will be at the table. One more, one less and the whole table's hands are completely different.

And it's not a question of pre-dealing the cards. Every time a deck is "shuffled", that randomizer is called upon. The randomizer doesn't come up with a small number of sequences, it comes up with a never ending stream of randomized numbers that are only predictable if you know the seed and the algorithm and EXACTLY where in the stream of random numbers the process currently is. That can change based on a variety of factors - for instance you can specify that the seed should be based on time of day plus some other predictable but ever changing value to come up with a unique seed every time.

And then you have to consider that the random number generator may be processing multiple requests at once. When you shuffle a deck you have 52 cards to pick from, so you have to make 51 different random choices starting from 1 out of 52 down to the last one which is 1 of 2. (Number all cards from 1-52. Randomly pick Card 1: Jd. 51 cards left. Renumber deck from 1-51 skipping Jd. Randomly pick card 2: 2s. Renumber deck from 1-50 skipping Jd and 2s, etc...)

You might be able to predict the outcome of all 51 picks - but what if two decks are being shuffled simultaneously? A computer won't make 2 different random generators - it has ONE - and two different shuffling programs going at the same time can cause each other to get different results than they would if they ran on their own. (It's called multi-threading) So both decks still are random, but with deck 1 with 13 cards left instead of the rng picking 7, it happened to pick 7 already for deck 2, so deck 1 ends up picking 11 instead, and then deck 2 which was going to pick 11 ends up picking 3, and you end up with randomly affected random numbers.

End result? Extremely unpredictable results enough to be treated as truly random, because in the end, statistically, they are.

I'm no expert, but alright, I'll give just an off the cuff response:



Seems random to me. And I don't see how any statistical analysis after hands are dealt would show anything else. However, obviously these hands would have to be stored somewhere, so if someone gained access to that, they would then know exactly what would be getting dealt. Depending on how such player utilizes that information, statistical analysis may be able to show that such player is cheating somehow, perhaps by being able to view cards.

In this scenario the deal wouldn't be random. This also sounds basically impossible to me for a site to do the way you are describing and, therefore, it is a moot point. But, just generally, rake would increase if there were a lot of split pots, so I suppose you could test for split pots. You could test whatever other item you think is wrong. Perhaps as a preliminary test, the very item that you are proposing the sites would try to increase could be looked at. Is this site generating more rake per hand than other sites or more rake per hand than may be reasonably expected. If it is generating a lot more rake than other sites or than might be expected, then people could look into why that is.

I already mentioned this above. And, yes, I believe that if someone gained access to what you describe and were smart enough, then it would be extremely difficult and perhaps basically impossible to catch them though statistical analysis. And, yes, they could pick seats based on what they know will be dealt in cash games; I've never seen an MTT where you get to pick your own seat, so not in MTTs.

I think that an appropriate answer to this paragraph is simply to nitpickily (made up word) point out that:

The Earth isn't spherical; it isn't exactly round. If by "round" you only mean "approximately spherical," then that would be correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth

I have some understanding of what RNGs do, the point I was trying to make was using them in a different manner to predeal/generate hands versus using the in real time in an online poker game. Again I attempting to come at the "rigging" questing from a different starting point than what it seems most do and what you are doing, imo. Most of your post seems to be addressing how RNGs are known to work, not if what I'm asking about would or not.

To the bold, maybe I'm missing something but like I stated in the hypothetical, if each predealt/generated hand has 23 random cards, that's enough to cover the outcome of any Texas Holdem game up to 9 man/players.

Why would they only pick 23 random cards though? To what end?

Ok, so you agree in that scenario predetermined hands would still seem random, as far as hand analysis is concerned? So doesn't that at least lay a foundation or method by which predetermined hands can seem random in hand analysis? I'm not trying to take that and go straight to "I knew it was rigged", I'm just trying to establish a framework for an argument against individual/limited hand analysis being the litmus test for if rigging or wrongdoing is occurring.





Like I asked Alien earlier, the "increased rake" statement I made aside, what's the proof that any alteration to the original order, no matter how incremental, can be detected as not random in hand analysis? If the pokersite predeals 1 million random hands/23 cards constituting a hand, so 23 million random cards, takes those 23 million random cards and divides them into 10 groups of 100k hands/2.3m cards, loading each one at ten different poker tables to play out in their original order, from "1" to "100k" hands/"1" to "2.3m" cards at each table, what's the proof or method that explains how breaking up/manipulating those hands/cards in that way, is detectable? I'm really just want to understand is there some scientific method behind knowing this is detectable without having to actual test it.

For further clarification, it makes sense that they can't pick a 100k "action hands" out of those 1m to use, discarding the other random 900k but it's not so clear to me how manipulating the deal in much larger grouping/incremental spacing is detectable.



Exactly so I just wonder why this seemingly isn't taken more serious as a way for pokersites to "cheat" players and get away with it. Maybe it's just considered an understood risk with online poker for some but so many times ITT and other places, it gets swept aside as unlikely because individual hand analysis would catch it. That statement seems false or at least inadequate, in regards to anonymous tables/sites. Also my point about seat selection for MTTs was referring to the pokersite being in on it and putting their SuperUsers in the best positions to win during table restructuring.

No, he meant that in your example they ARE random, they don't just seem random. It doesn't matter if they were shuffled and ordered in real time or a year ago. If you don't change the random order, then they are still random.

Some poker sites create the full random deck ahead of time anyway, and then deal off the top like live (stars does this). It wouldn't matter if they did that immediately before the deal or last year (aside from security concerns as already mentioned). Other sites shuffle continuously and randomize every card in real time. Makes zero difference.

And your point of creating batches of 23 cards at random and saving them, also makes zero difference. That's no different than batches of 52 cards if the deal won't go deeper.

I really don't know how to explain it another way, maybe I'm just not doing a good job of relaying on a message board, which happens at times.

The "23 random cards" was just a way or marker to determine what constituted a "hand" in my hypothetical. To word it a different way, imagine a pokersite that hasn't launched/gone live yet, having bots/scripts play each other at the 9 man ring tables to test the software. They do that for say 1 million hands, now the pokersite has 1 million predealt hands saved. They launch and open one 9 man ring table to real online poker players but instead of using the RNG to deal cards in real time, they just load and re-deal those same 1 million hands.

If even they are random, they are also predetermined, making them exploitable, potentially without detection through individual hand analysis, right?

It seems random because it is random. I'll take the blame for this misunderstanding. When I said "seems random to me," I didn't mean that it only seems random while possibly not being random. I meant that it is random, but I qualified it by saying something akin to "I think it is random in that scenario" just in case I was missing something and could possibly be wrong.

Since it is random, it will seem random and since it is random, it does not lay any foundation for non-random hands to seem random.







If you take a group of random numbers (aka cards) and then manipulate them in any manner that isn't random in order to place them into new groups, then the new groups will not be random. You can detect this by comparing aspects of the new groups of numbers to what one would expect those aspects to be in a random group.

If the sites manipulate the numbers to cause a certain result or prevent a certain result from occurring, then such result will occur more frequently or less frequently than if the group of numbers was random.

What aspect(s) it is/are that will occur less or more frequently depends on how the site is manipulating the original random group.

I don't know how else to state this.


I don't know that people don't take this seriously. But also, I am not aware of any poker site that actually predeals all their hands and stores it for future use like this. So if they don't do that, then no one can gain access to it.

And I am not a programmer, but how much space would storing all of those predealt hands take up? I may be wrong, but I thought I saw people discuss this and show that it was impossible to store that much data. And that was why some sites may have used a seed instead of actually having completely random hands stored for future use. (And I believe that most of the largest sites don't used a seed for pseudo-randomness at this time, but rather have a true random number generator, but that "deals" at the time of the hand and does not save "predealt" hands for future use.

Of course, but now you are talking about a superuser type of scenario and not a manipulated (rigged) deal.

There's always some amount of time between creating the cards and showing them to the user, even if it's only seconds. I wouldn't call that "predetermined". And in the only known case of online cheating involving knowing the cards, they could see them in real time so that doesn't even require a delay. There's also trojan programs that can infect your computer and show a hacker the cards you hold. None of these scenarios have anything to do with a rigged deal. They have to do with playing against someone cheating.

Of course it is exploitable if you keep a list of the randomly generated cards you are going to deal and someone gains access to the list.

It is exploitable in the same sense that if you randomly shuffled 1,000,000 physical decks and put a sticky note with a number on each one indicating the order they will be dealt in and then allowed someone to make a log of the exact order that cards would be dealt in from the 1,000,000 decks, then this is now exploitable by that person with that log.

Hey, McFly... The sites' RNG's are very sophisticated and are designed to cover their tracks and not look rigged in the long run... PLUS, the current way everybody examines the data does not prove that the site is not rigged... YOU GUYS LOOK AT THE END RESULTS OF THE HANDS WHICH DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING... IF I MADE A PROGRAM THAT FLIPPED 1,000,000 COINS AND IT FLIPPED THEM HEADS, TAILS, HEADS, TAILS HEADS, TAILS ALL THE WAY TO 1,000,000 THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE RIGGED, BUT WHEN YOU GUYS JUST LOOK AT THE END RESULT AND SEE IT FLIPPED HEADS 500,00 TIMES AND TAILS 500,000 TIMES, THEN YOU WOULD SEE NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY AND YOU WOULD CLAIM YOU HAVE PROOF IT'S NOT RIGGED, BUT TO ANYOME WHO SAT THERE AND WATCHED IT THEN I T WAS OBVIUSLY RIGGED... YOU GUYS JUST CAN'T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THIS AMD WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND IT...YOU DO NOT HAVE PROOF, AND NIETHER DO I... Do you think that one person can just magically create some kind of program that can somehow detect the rigged stuff and somehow turn it into magical evidence with a 10 million hand sample? I am seriously done with this... You guys think you are all high and mighty and correct because you have your "evidence" to back you up, but you guys are close minded and ignorant... Good day... Keep bringing up the same BS garbage too... Go ahead and say something stupid like " OMG. If the program flipped exactly heads and tails 500,000 times each then that would prove it is rigged because it's not supposed to be exactly 500,000 on the dot! Durrrrrrr...." IT'S A ****ING EXAMPLE! Let's see what garbage you guys post next... THE RNG COVERS ITS TRACKS???? DURRRR WHAT KIND OF a MAGICAL RNG COVERS ITIS TRACKS????? Well you know what I ****ing mean... Or do you? I'm done here...

Um. Why?

That means those 1 million hand combinations have to be stored and rotated through - and they have to randomize the hands anyway - so they would be throwing away a perfectly good randomizer in order to add more work to the code.

But to what benefit?

Sure they are.

Right now with all these caps I picture you in a protective jacket, drooling heavily...

But actually no, a good analysis would look for sequences as well as end statistics.

And statistically speaking, sequences are predictable. For instance, any good basketball player over a series of 100 free throws has a roughly 30% chance of getting 7 in a row at some point.

Um, no, I think a programmer with a background in statistical analysis can do it WITHOUT magic. It's called programming and statistical analysis. IE: thinking, really really hard.

I understand that it LOOKS like magic to some people.

As for the rest of your crap - you're the one making the claims. You're the one who has to bring the evidence to support it. I'm inviting you to do so.

Why are you afraid to have your "evidence" actually analyzed?

Oh its hardly impossible.

With only 52 cards you can represent each card as a single one byte number (one byte being 8 bits: such as 01010101). (not counting compression options). 52 bytes in a row times one million sequences is only 52,000,000 bytes. 52 million bytes - or 52 megabytes.

Odds are your camera's memory card can store more than that today.

Who and when? You can examine every part of the deal, whether it be your hole cards, flops, turns, rivers, showdown cards, relationships between any of these, relationships between any of them and certain kinds of opponents, or anything else you can imagine. Some of this has even been done, but nothing restricts anyone to looking at "end results of hands". That's pretty naive.

It only takes 6 bits per card. So 38 megabytes. A 5GB memory card or USB stick would hold 131 million decks, less a little bit of overhead to organize/number them. At least 100 million decks.

And since most deals use maybe half the deck or less, at least double that again.