OK, I get that you are conducting a thought experiment. However, you keeping on and on about predealt and stored decks makes no sense.

It would be a ridiculously terrible implementation of a game server that did such a thing, and I'm not aware of it existing. If you are aware of a process that works the way that you are describing, please provide further information.

You seem to be on a quest to find a method by which a poker site can alter the deal so it is to their advantage. You want to establish that they can do this so that the effect upon them is measurable, it is worth doing, they gain some kind of (presumably financial) advantage from it.

If the tampering with the deal produces a measurable outcome (say more money for the poker site, or shortstacks winning too much, or bigstacks winning too much etc), then it is by definition measurable by looking at the deal.

Handwaving this away by saying 'oh clever software would be able to hide this signal in the random noise of the deal' just isn't correct.

You are not the first around here to propose that there could be an undetectable tampering with the deal, which would produce a detectable and measurable result at the poker site HQ, but everyone else would not be able to find it even if they were looking.

Do you see the logic problem ?

nh

TTHRIC

What made me wonder about the hypothetical stored hand theory was a video from a visit to PokerStars, I think, where they stated they have every hand ever played on the site stored. Considering they can store those old hands, it begs to reason they could do what I'm referring to.

No, I don't think I'm presenting something groundbreaking but I have read this thread enough to see seeming conjecture repeatedly get presented and accepted as fact, just because it's popular opinion. Case in point, the repeated claim that tampering with the deal produces a measurable outcome (say more money for the poker site, or shortstacks winning too much, or bigstacks winning too much etc), then it is by definition measurable by looking at the deal. without any proof of this being the case. To reference your exact quote, how would individual HHs show this, what is the formula or method by which HHs can show this and it be proof? Just repeating the claim "HHs will catch it" without proof is no different than saying 'oh clever software would be able to hide this signal in the random noise of the deal'

What I see done repeatedly ITT is people repeating what they've seen others state and they accept, to others as facts. It's fine if you, I or anybody else don't have all the facts about this topic but we shouldn't be presenting our beliefs on it as if they are factual.

How is storing all hands that have been dealt related to your belief that they also potentially store rigged hands that have not been dealt? The former is simply a database of something that has happened, which is what databases are for, whereas your theory relies on a lot of fairly extreme assumptions and a lack of mathematical or common sense.

Actually, many times in this thread and in others it has been shown how various riggie theories that seem untraceable to riggies (just alter it 1%) become trivial to detect after a not as large as you may think sample size of hands.

Toss out a theory that you believe would increase the rake of the site an amount that is worth doing, and then go to the stats forum and ask how hard it would be to detect.




You are hardly the first to be doing the theoretical "what if" scenario, however whenever I ask these questions they tend to get ignore by those who present these types of theories, so let's see if you do the same.

- How would the site make sure everyone who knows about the rig never tells the secret? How many people per site will know about it? Keep in mind that riggies believe all the sites are rigged and many have long been out of business, yet to date we still have not heard about a rigged RnG.

- As you can see in this thread - most riggie theories are ones that they observe with their own eyes. Granted many contradict each other (the recent one saying Stars rigs it against new players, while others claim it rigs for new players). Will you say that all of these rig theories/patterns that are reported through mere observation are invalid?

- Do you have a specific rig theory that you believe fits into your thought experiment that will be undetectable by statistical analysis and will never be revealed by any of those working on it.


You seem to be clinging to the anon player thing quite a bit, so does this mean your beliefs will only work on Bodog and not the other sites? If so, what do you say to the riggies that know (yet cannot prove) those other sites are rigged. Do you believe them, yes or no?

All the best.

lol, I stop reading right here just due to the notion of you trying to ridicule my point without even apparently having a clue of what I posted. In relation to "stored hands" I haven't offered anything concerning rigging yet and that was a direct answer to a question I was asked to explain blah, blah, blah, I'm pretty sure you stop paying attention again at this point anyway so I'll do likewise.

A good example of the point that you're making is in the hand histories of PokerStars and Full tilt.

The PokerStars shuffling process takes place before the hand is dealt, the full tilt process takes place while the hand is being played. There is no indication of this in the hand histories.

Oh I see. I wouldn't play at a site that doesn't identify players or provide hand histories. I think that concept is really scary.


Well, presumably the purpose of the alleged cheating is to have an impact of some sort. If you're having an impact of some sort, then that is going to be reflected in the hand histories, because that's the record of the event. My sentence seems truistic and self evident to me. I can't comprehend of a situation where something is happening in a game of online poker and it not being recorded in the game/hand history. What things can you change without it being recorded in the hand history?

Here's a simple hypothetical example that shows a simple bias that would be detected in hand histories.

RigSiteA wants to maximize the rake they get from players. Therefore, they avoid so-called action hands. Therefore, their scheme means that players only get dealt AA half as often as they should.

Because your hole cards are recorded in the hand histories, you can check how often you get dealt AA. If your results from your hand histories are more than a few standard deviations from the mean, that would be cause for concern and further investigation.

The same principle applies to every other rig theory in this thread: PersonB thinks that flush draws always make it, so you can review your hand histories to see if that is true. Same applies to every other facet of the game- if you think the shuffling has been fiddled in someway, then you check the results of the shuffle to see if that has been happening (or whether it is just a figment of your imagination.

Convenient, because shortly after in that same post I said the following (before also asking a few questions I knew you would avoid answering):


You want to have a "discussion" but you refuse once someone questions your beliefs and starts asking you specific questions that you really do not want to answer, because the fun for you is in the vague theoretical based on a "disprove a negative" infrastructure.

If you ever actually get the courage to answer the questions I did ask then we can have that discussion, but your behavior is predictable, because many of your thought experiment clones came before you.

Anyway, Josem kind of suggested you should not play on Bovada. I agree that nobody should play on a site they are not comfortable with, so why don't you take that as a victory of sorts since I assume you are basically a Bovada is rigged riggie at this point. Stop playing there if the anon tables spook you.

All the best.

OK, suppose that we have the following situation, which is what you are advocating:

1. A poker site provides games, and purports to deal the cards on a random basis.

2. The poker site is actually manipulating the deal, so that it is non-random in some way.

3. The outcome of the manipulation is that a real world measurable effect occurs (else why bother doing it ?).

4. The measurable effect flows entirely from the deal.

5. The deal is recorded in hand histories.

6. The records, when compared with calculated expectation, disclose the manipulation.


How can it be otherwise ?

Of course we can get into details, when it comes to any specific rigging scheme, as to sampling and sample sizes, confidence levels required etc etc.

Yeah but you're taking a truism and offering it as evidence to prove something it doesn't. It's truistic and self evident for me to state that if players are being cheated by SuperUsers on anon pokersites it's recorded in the HH but we already established that doesn't mean we can prove it using those HHs. So yeah, in the general sense HHs show everything that happened but that doesn't mean we can decipher all that info accurately.

To answer your question, so far we've established that we can change random unpredictable hands with predetermined ones without any difference in the HHs. That's about as far as I have gotten thus far though, lol. Next I may try to figure out what's the acceptable ranges for luck and/or variance to see how much potential manipulation is possible while still seeming natural. I know some video games use a Luck algorithm or something along those lines so I'll probably try to check that out at some point too.

All that said it's kind of odd that so many ITT just accept things they have very little direct knowledge of. Where does the declaration that it's not possible to manipulate the deal enough to not be proven in HHs yet be profitable come from, has it been tested or simulated? It's one thing to state that in one's opinion pokersites aren't rigging the deal because they haven't been caught yet or exposed in HHs, it's another thing entirely to offer up HHs would prove it as a fact, with no proof, which has been done repeatedly ITT.

normally im against a "site xy is rigged" discussion but what on pokerstars happened to me this week is sickening.

200$ hyper turbo 6 max. i loose two times in the same sit and go against players holding 55 and flopping a set. one time against my AA another time against my 99.

100$ hyper i loose with my 55 to another guys 33 after a flop of AT245.

or another one in a random tourney im allin with A8 vs K6. after a flop of ATT i felt safe but what happens? Q...J...


always believed in stars that they have a random shuffle but these things happened to me in last few days. sry but its hard for me to believe in a random shuffle anymore.

only question im asking is, why should they rigg the game for certain players or against certain players?

OK, how many hands are needed to be statistically relevant and what range of standard deviation from the mean is acceptable?

What exactly does this even accomplish? If a company stores a billion hands for a year for who knows what reason. I assume only the preflop hands, since no way the site can know exactly how they will play out - people fold AA hands when they go to the bathroom.

I assume a computer can churn out millions or billions of pre-flop potential hands quickly, and therefore that data can also be stored. So what?

What do you think the crime would be associated with doing this?

Prove a major site has a rigged RnG and I will toss you $5,000.

Still not quite sure what a site generating sample hands has to do with anything, but to fuel your theory further - wouldn't sites do test hands to make sure their software works properly. Therefore that PROVES they can deal test hands. Very spooky...

OK, now what?

Have you seen my list of riggies? Do you believe them? One says Pokerstars rigs it to help new players. Another now says Pokerstars rigs it to screw new players. Are they both right in their observations?


You seem to think it is odd that conspiracies and thought experiments are not all accepted at face value, but imagine a world where all of them were accepted and heavily researched. Not a fun place.

The burden of proof is on the people with the theories for a reason, because I dare you to prove a site is not rigged for new players and also not rigged against new players at the same time.

You keep asking for proof that something has not happened. Either it has or it has not, and given this industry has existed for many years, with thousands of rooms (many now closed) without a single rigged RnG issue (aside from Planet Poker which was never exploited), and add to it that not a single rigged RnG has been determined by extensive hand history analysis, and not a single rigged RnG has been exposed by an insider - for now I will say the burden of proof is on those claiming it is rigged.

If you think Bodog is rigged then prove it, or do not play there. If you have concerns about superusers due to the anon nature of the players there then do not play there.

I type all of this fully expecting you will not be willing to specifically and directly discuss the points I am making. Riggies hate specifics and common sense based reasoning. Good luck with your thought experiment research. Feel free to search the thread to contact the others who also were planning to do similar research over the years. None has ever provided an update for some reason.

All the best.

Man you come across as egotistical ITT, according you because I choose not to have a/this discussion with you for whatever reasons, that means;

"You want to have a "discussion" but you refuse once someone questions your beliefs and starts asking you specific questions that you really do not want to answer, because the fun for you is in the vague theoretical based on a "disprove a negative" infrastructure. If you ever actually get the courage to answer the questions I did ask then we can have that discussion, but your behavior is predictable, because many of your thought experiment clones came before you."

even though I'm having a discussion and engaging in those elements with other posters. To each their own.

Go easy on Donkeystars... You guys are rude and wrong and you all look silly... Good job Donkeystars... You know what poker is and you're able to spot foul play... Good luck buddy...

I thought you were done here ?

There are people like this guy playing $200 hypers. Poker is not dead.

He comes here for an easy troll fix, which is understandable given all the soft targets here, and it is good to see he also trolls the riggies. Perhaps Donkeystars will be grateful of his support...



If you had a genuine discussion with me, you might actually be forced to confront the logic that disrupts your beliefs, and I realize people like you hate that, which of course why why I enjoy putting people like you in that position. As I said, I never expect my questions to be answered, because they are questions that you will do anything you can to avoid discussing.

How should anyone take a thought experiment seriously if you so obviously avoid discussing potential holes in your theories.

Look, if you are just a geezer that likes talking for the sake of talking then go for it, and continue to have your thought experiments, and your discussions with others, where you selectively choose parts of what they say (often not in the correct context) and pronounce that you have reached an agreement with them unilaterally. That's basically being the TV character of Cliff Clavin.

If you ever have the courage to discuss your beliefs, including the massive logic gaps they include, then let me know. I am the only one who has offered your kind thousands of dollars for proof of your beliefs. Amusing that that reward annoys so many riggies.

All the best.

well...what are you playing? 4$ tournies you must really suck being down there playing for pennies with your 38 years and not take profit of guys like me #toughlife

well if Stars "rigg" the $4 games, they "rigg" them in my favour because I don't "loose"

Hey. I`m a regular speed SNG grinder. Is this normal, I am like 285BI under ev line :/? On the graph posted there are about 95% 1-table regular speed SNG. http://tinypic.com/r/2who3lx/8

Sp you're saying there are no people in the world that could get a job as a dealer that are skilled enough to switch out the deck they are shuffling with a pre-arranged deck to be used in the game?

Like there would be no-one able to do this that might want to make some money in a game with a whale involved?



Also how can you guarantee that the auto-shuffler tables aren't doing an OCR on the cards to put the deck in to a pre-determined state before telling the dealer the deck is ready?

No, that is not normal, but everyone here think's it's normal because they don't know what real poker is... I can't wait to see these kinds of stats from an absolutely 100% fair and random online poker site! One day... One day...

For your last 7000 tournies you look dead on EV (parallel lines). The under part was all before that. There is no expectation to ever make that up. You might get lucky and get it back, but you might not.

Agree, I can see 4 spots where your EV took a hit compared to your winnings and one spot where your EV merged but the majority of the graph appears to be even with the difference attributable to the section around game 3500 where you took a big hit and the lines separated the most.

It's possible that you'll get a spurt where you run enough over EV to bring the lines back to even (or even cross-over) but if we expect a game to be EV-neutral in the long-run then we should never expect to see our lines re-converge over time after taking one or two below-EV hits.