Wait, are you suggesting that the number of ways 52 cards can be dealt out somehow means a rig can't be proven?

I mean to analyze if a deck of 52 was manipulated or not, even if you would have access to it and see the entire deck would be a insane challenge.

Or to put it in a simpler term if I would say I can prove to you that a roulette wheel is rigged or not by evaluating just the results of 5 spins for example.

Perhaps you should learn about software programs like Holdem Manager that can actually analyze a lot of hands in a lot of ways, most of which are stronger than the patterns you and other riggies believe they see with their own eyes.

There also have been studies done that definitely prove collusion and bots and softplay that someone like you would believe was impossible to do, but that is because you do not understand how they can be done.

All the best.

@Monteroy

HUDs now only make it too obviously which is why you don't see some of the highest skilled players at the highest limit of poker. Further tables are barren empty beyond $1/2 with 1-2 tables through the day at $2/5. HUD shouldn't even be allowed at a legitimate software.

As long as software developers believe great "promotions" will attract far less skilled audience in return they are losing huge amount of $ from high limit players. The market has a lot of skilled players today and they are missing out on it. Theoretically it's possible to have a network with strong rake return and accurate software, but usually these networks don't have these insane tournament guaranteed prizes.

Because of what poker players have been experiencing over the last several years it's why also the market today is far less than it used to be. On top you have entire U.S banned from most of these networks. Just look at your "Net won" and "Ev Won" after sampling multiple times 5k+ hands and then you have a 100% accurate answer if a site is indeed rigging or not.

To add further today software is so advanced that for example on party poker they can manipulate it so if you haven't played in a while and deposited the first few days the software odds will be accurate. This is not only to lure players in believing it is but also to protect themselves from deep investigation. Over the long run of sampling 5k hands though you'll see the same pattern.

No, it wouldn't. Proving rigs is in no way related to the number of possible deck outcomes.

If the number 17 came up 5 times in a row, I'd be a little concerned, and I think the house would be too. 6 or 7 times in a row, and I bet someone's having a close look at that wheel.

This is party poker.

It increases the complexity of the problem and makes it way more difficult.

lol

Nice VPIP/PFR, good to see you're playing like it's 2009 and wondering why you lose.

Yes, I know in 2009 there weren't that many HUD's or advanced softwares with rigs like today, but please show us your VPIP + PFR + net Won and Ev Net then you can talk.

@Obvious Shill Alt

Also its just 4 stacks below Allin EV over 4,7 k Hands.
Thats like 3-4 Suckouts.
2 times 80-20 or 75-25 and one flip you close to it.

I got 4 suckouts above average over 5 k Hands its rig is a really extreme statement

Lol. We don't need Clark Griswold up on the roof checking each and every Christmas light bulb individually. We already have knowledge of basic probabilities, such as how often we'll be dealt a pocket pair, how often QQ will flop at least an overpair, etc. And we can look at large samples of hands to see if these numbers are true to their expectations. No one who has ever conducted this type of analysis over a large enough sample has ever found anything to be amiss.

Yes, over smaller samples, the numbers won't line up with their expectations. You know what we call that? Randomness.

I'm pretty sure the chance of rigged poker sites was a lot higher in 2009 than today. HUDs or no HUDs is irrelevant to this. Regulation is much tighter, some shady operators have been forced out of business, and the biggest ones are public companies now. On second thought, the prevalence of HUDs today makes rigged sites less likely too, because the chance to get caught is much higher when everyone has data histories. And lots of people have tried to find proof and failed. It isn't hard to put together enormous hand databases for study, you can buy them.

I kind of doubt there is going to be a feasible method for us regular users to test if we are just running bad or if the deck is rigged against us because there are to many possibilities to influence the game.
I mean like a tool/algorithm that is going to enable you to analyze your hand history over a lets say a 1 billion hand sample that can't be fooled.
I am not even sure if it would be theoretical possible to write a script like this with a good confidence level lets say for example 70 % and higher.
But also with a confidence of 90 % for example you still get to deal with the possibility to end up in the 10 % unlucky group.
So it won't get you far either.

I had pokertracker and pokerace already back in 2005.
You also have to consider that the A.I. and processing power has increased over the years.
The chance to produce a rigged deck and go undetected should also be way better today then back then.

I think it is also a "mooh"-point even if they would rig their decks I don't think anybody of us would have the capability to prove it anyway.
It is kind of a take it or leave it situation.

You have to pull the machine then. 3 f'ing jackpots in 20 minutes???!! The probability of one four-wheel machine is a million and a half to 1, in 3 machines in a row it's in the billions! It can not happen! It would not happen! You f'ing momo! Didn't you see you were being set up on the second win? What's a matter with you??!!

Wait, you didn't see you were being set up on the second win?

I can't remember if you're a rigtard or a paid shill, but your comments are good, imo.

With regard to:

I disagree to an extent.

If a rig is "undetectable", I can't see how it could earn the site money of any size that it would be worth their effort or the risk.

As an example, they could so easily ban a few players and confiscate their money, not giving any specific reasons for doing so, and remain within the ambit of their T&C to avoid reversal of those acts by any overseer, that a site wanting to make more money, by any means, than their golden goose is already producing, would simply go that easy route.

There would be no one that could squeal later, as there would be with a rigged RNG, because the PTB would simply give apparently reasonable instructions to their Security Department as to what to look for, and agree with their findings whenever a rich sucker is spotted who fits the fake brief.

Yes, there could be a method to pull the switch every now and then to make a winning player lose a big pot to a loser - but that switch would have to be manned by someone and someone would have had to write it into the software; and it might make the site only $3.50 if the winner decides to move to another site and the loser takes his money and runs. Risky and not very profitable.

Imo, we should give up on the rigged RNG idea, and concentrate more on insisting the regulatory bodies do a better job - including forcing the sites to write far less one-sided T&C.

casino on netflix now. gotta watch it twice a year minimum

For instance, here's an e-mail recently received from a poker site (we are told), where they have confiscated over $2k:

"Good day,

Thank you for your response.

Kindly note that a thorough review has been done at the sole discretion of our security team which have indeed confirmed prohibited activity. Due to this prohibited activity, we have decided to permanently close your account and reclaim the remaining balance.

Your are more than welcome to refer to our terms and conditions ...

Thank you for your understanding.

Regards ... "

No, it really doesn't.

Most plausible rigs are very much provable. Obviously some are more difficult to prove than others. And pretty much any rig that can be observed can be proven - that should be extremely obvious.

Ace Rothstein: [interrupts] You didn't see the scam? You didn't see what was going on?

Don Ward: Well, there's no way to determine that...

Ace Rothstein: Yes there is! An infallible way, they won!

Don Ward: Well, it's a casino! People gotta win sometimes.

Ace Rothstein: [grows more irritated]

and my personal fav

Ace Rothstein: [voice-over] Nicky's methods of betting weren't scientific, but they worked. When he won, he collected. When he lost, he told the bookies to go **** themselves.

I hope you are not trolling.
It should be quiet obvious that a system with lets say 10^4 possible out comes is far more easier to analyze than a system with 10^30 outcomes.

Statistical analysis does not quite work in the way you think it works.

How about this. What are the odds of you guessing a random number selected between 1 and a trillion three times in a row.

Now there are a ton of possible combinations of numbers that can happen in that scenario, but it would be trivially easy to calculate, and would be very easy to prove if true as well (ie a rig was in place that riggies could see with their own eyes that had these type of odds).

You are letting your own limitation as to how statistical research is done be your guide. Here is an example of work that was done that definitively proved softplay (despite an insane number of card variants that could have happened). Take a read through it and tell me what you think, and whether this modifies how you think this type of reseach can and is done.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...-tl-dr-757267/

All the best.

Perhaps I wasn't being clear enough, sorry. Your implication through all of these posts seems to be that because there is an "astronomical huge" or "unimaginable huge" number of deals available, it's impossible to prove anything. You couldn't be more wrong. Statements like this:

tell me you don't really have any idea what you're talking about.

If the deck only had 26 cards, could analysis be simpler? Sure. But it doesn't matter, because it's not too complex to analyze now, despite your beliefs to the contrary.

No.

You don't analyse the gazillion possible ways cards can be dealt. You analyse the sample that was actually dealt. We already know exactly what the entire population looks like, that takes zero analysis to know with 100% certainty, and the size of it is irrelevant.

Stop trying to explain what you yourself don't understand.

That must be one of the dumbest things I ever heard in a poker context.
And I had some hitting a river nutflush telling me he made a "topfullflush" so the bar is quiet high.

Understand that when I make this suggestion it is because 100% of the time people like you are wrong, however my suggestion is you go to the forum that specializes in statistics and probabilities and present your concerns and how you believe statistical analysis is done. After they politely (they are much nicer there) tell you that you are incorrect you can dismiss them despite their expertise on that topic (explain to them your "quiet" bar situation for instance), and then perhaps I will be amused at that interaction.

Most never post there, and I doubt you will, because deep down you know you are wrong, but feel free to prove otherwise. here is the link to the forum.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25/probability/

All the best.