IMO, passage of any licensing legislation is still very unlikely. I am in between TE and LG on state opt outs, but with the 10% deposit tax with half to the states, I'm closer to TE.
I disagree with TE that legislation is inevitable; even with a litigation victory which may happen before any legislation. I, also, believe that the status quo is more durable than TE opines.

IMO, LG is right that the PPA is wedded to federal legislation, but I think that could change if the GOP wins the House and no legislation is passed this year.

Also, IMO, PS and FTP like the status quo. They have free access to the US market, ignore the State of Washington's prohibition (which likely violates the Commerce Clause) and have little competition. IMO, these two sites view the present bills to be defensive measures. They don't want to initiate litigation that may open the door to US competition, but will defend themselves in federal court if the DOJ actually prosecutes either of them. IMO, they do not want any of the current licensing bills to become law. Under any of them, they would face competition from US providers like Harrahs. IMO, they could get licensed, but they might face some difficulties. One difficulty may be a RNG audit by a US accounting firm which shouldn't be a problem, but sometimes I wonder if such audit might be interesting.

Forgive me for the hijack, but this silly, bordering on irresponsible, from somebody in your position.

The RNGs of the major sites are statistically bullet-proof. They have been tested multiple times and are internally audited. Any major site (particularly the Big Two, of which you speak) deals enough hands each day to have a strong statistical model of their randomness.

The last thing we need is for people in positions such as yours to be making back-handed comments about the quality of the RNGs in major poker sites. Let the crazies get their hands on such a statement, put it in front of a population that is largely numerically illiterate, and watch the fireworks.

If you have some legitimate cause to suspect that a site's RNG isn't robust, then contact the site or submit data to a public forum such as this one (and not in the legislative forum). Else I would encourage you to hold your counsel.

Regards, Lee

Hi Lee,

Welcome to PL! Good to have you here.

JP isn't a PPA official. He's a respected poster here, and he has the ear of PPA for sure, but I don't follow where his status as a respected poster precludes him from commenting on site RNGs.

I believe the RNGs of the big sites are secure and deliver random cards. That being said, your post would be more effective if you posted the evidence you referenced, such as links to the audits.

As licensing and regulation would include auditing and other verifications of site RNGs, discussions on RNGs are permited in PL. A data analysis would be moved to the appropriate forum, of course.

I'll definitely add a +1 to that.

This looks like the same problem we've had in the past. Posters with PPA avatars are often those who have chosen to show their support of the PPA that way rather than chosing the more traditional scantily clad female favored by most 2+2ers. While their are several PPA officials and volunteers who post in this forum they are only a minority percentage of those with PPA type avatars.

I suspect JP's comment was partially in jest and due to his apparently being on the wrong side of variance lately. Something I can sympathize with.

Winning Low Limit Hold'em was my first poker book. The advice there will still beat the B&M games in my area.

Probably one or the other. I know from his other posts that he doesn't think the game is rigged.

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/rng/

A problem which should be corrected, imo. Maybe one avatar for PPA officials (TE, PPAdc, PPADrew), and a different one or a choice for all non-official supporters (BigAlk, JPFisher55, etc.).

Or, a less formal solution would be for JP and anyone else that uses the exact same avatar as TE to change it. Really, every poster ought to have a different avatar or it defeats the purpose - to visually identify the poster.

I agree I was big on having poker regulated and supported the PPA but after reading JPs comments I am personally going to email my local rep and let him know about how poker sites RNGs are suspect.Maybe the they are right maybe poker should be banned in America until we can be sure the sites are not cheating us.JPs comments have opened my eyes and The Engineer supporting his comments just adds validity to his statements.I think we should start trying to raise awareness about poker-sites possibly fraudulent RNG methods before we even consider getting poker regulated.

Ummm....TE is in no way saying what you think he's saying.

The avatar issue is not an easy one for me to decide. We certainly do not want to be like Elvis' estate and sue everyone and anyone who uses the logo as an avatar w/o permission. And remember that the adoption of the avatar by folks like JP was a very meaningful show of support at a critical time. Still, this is not the first time it has caused confusion....

I will think more about this after dinner.

Skallagrim

PS, Sorrybadbeat: I have complained about criticisms like yours before ... Does every post by ius PPA associated posters have to be vetted like a press release? All of us are very sensitive about our posts, but we can't post the same lengthy boilerplate explanations every post just in case one total newbie might misread it. Anyone familiar with TE at all would know instantly that there was no question regarding the sites RNG's in his mind.

Fraudulent RNGs? What are you talking about? When has there been any evidence of this? The only study I recall relating to RNGs was a 10 million hand study that found nothing outside expected.

Dear Mr. Jones;

As TE stated I am only a premium member of the PPA and have no other capacity with it or any other poker organization. All of the major online poker rooms serving the US market do have Certificate of Audits of their RNG programs. However, some of the companies providing these audits, like eCogra, have connections, or were organized, by the industry. Other companies are not well known auditing firms.

However, they do provide evidence that these poker rooms are fair. OTOH, no conclusive proof exists that the poker rooms are fair and totally random in the deal of the cards.

Little evidence exists to show that any of the poker rooms are not fair and random in the deal of the cards. Some evidence has come to light in the past. The APCW did a test of Full Tilt's RNG and found some evidence that flops were weighted for action with better hands appearing more often in earlier positions. Also, a study of a few hundred hands all in preflop with KK or AA revealed a surprising low winrate when tested against other poker rooms which they did. Most observers felt that the total number of hands used was too small for a valid test, but APCW did show some statistical analysis that the results were outside the expected standard deviations. So I no longer play at FTP.

I have seen some stats on Poker Stars over about 100k hands showing their deal to be fair and random. So I play at PS.

A frequent poster on this forum in the Internet Poker forum, Spadewinner, is conducting a real test of millions of hands from the major poker rooms. So far, his tests show that the flops are fair and random. However, he did post a study of all 169 hands all in pre-flop that seemed to show the better hands not winning as often as they should. However, he removed these hands because he needed to do more research.

The truth is that no online poker room has ever released a full report with millions of hand histories for any outsider to study or review. Thus, no one knows for sure whether or not any of the online poker rooms skew their dealing. I suspect that if any do, then they skew it after the flop to protect the worse players. No proof exists to conclusively prove either side. Thus, the online poker is rigged thread in the Internet Poker forum (the Zoo) is the biggest one.

Therefore, I wonder what would happen if US licensing authorities required a real audit report, not just a certificate, from a major accounting and auditing firms. Many other players wonder. Some claim to know the sites are rigged. I have read blogs and posts from supposed insiders claiming the sites skew the deal, but they present no evidence.

My point is that a US licensing authority will not likely permit a poker room to obtain a license without a real audit report with an audit of hand histories, not just the software, made available to the public. IMO, most online poker rooms will pass such an audit with no problem. IMO that includes Cake Poker and the only reason that I do not play at Cake Poker is due to their no HUD policy. However, IMO not all the poker rooms will pass such an audit.

I am certain that you have misinterpreted or misread the posts which you reference.

None of us need to change our avators. TE properly identifies himself as a member of the PPA Board of Directors. PPAdc and PPADrew clearly identify their capacity with the PPA. We members do not show any such capacity. Our avators just show that we are members and support the PPA.

Ok, I'll admit that part of this comment was a year long, unbelievable, losing streak over 550k hands after 3 years of winning about 3bb/100 at all NL levels up to NL200. However, see my reply to Mr. Jones for my real thoughts on the randomness of the deal of online poker rooms. In sum, no one knows for sure because conclusive proof one way or the other has not been made public by the online poker rooms or their doubters.

Sounds like a level to me.

If you do have concerns over RNGs, you should support licensing and regulation, as that's the way to have enforced RNG verification audits.

That makes no sense, which is why I'm sure this is a level.

Huh?

Even if you believed that, you'd believe regulation was the means to get RNGs verified in the first place.

Anyway, this is not the "bad beat/online poker is rigged" thread. Kindly keep those where they belong.

Just trying to prove a point.We all have to stick together,while an audit of all major poker sites from a government backed firm or from an independent one which would make the results public would be great,this is not the time to be getting people to throw on there tin foil hats.I just wanted someone who read Lees post,The Engineers and then mine to understand what it was that Lee was trying to say in regarded to JPs comments.We do not need anything that puts a shady light on poker being discussed or brought up at this point.Especially from members of the PPA.

This

Understood. I wasn't originally reading those posts with that context in mind, but now I see the point you're making. (and you did indeed level me - nh. I'll try to limit the number of other posters I've misunderstood to less than 2 in my next post in this discussion... carry on!)

+1

I switched to the PPA avatar at the same time. It's never been the official PPA avatar. Rather, it's a means to show support for the PPA. Anyone who wishes a unique avatar -- including me -- needs to find a unique avatar.

IMO, we're all entitled to choose our own avatars. I'm glad JP and others support the PPA. Also, even if I wanted to I'd have no way to insist on a change.

Thanks Skall. I have noticed a definite scrutiny of my posts. However, that comes with the territory and I accept that. I simply proof and reproof every post I make.

It's actually been helpful in some regard. Since some like to go after posting details, I've learned a lot about how specific phrases and posts are taken. I've been able to take what I've learned from this and apply it to my column and other writings.

That being said, I worded my reply fine, as I intended to. For a topic like this, it would be quite irresponsible not to go over it pretty carefully. I clearly stated that RNGs deal random cards in a secure fashion. The interpretation question is SBB's, not mine.

I wasn't critiquing your post I just didn't want Lee Jones point to be over shadowed or lost.I felt it was a good point and that the best way to illustrate it was by example.

Lee's point is correct for PPA leadership, of course. In fact, as you said, it's a very good point for that group. However, I don't agree that it extends to the paid membership.

Fortunately, the PPA's solutions address RNGs and other aspects of site operation, so I don't see that as causing problems for us at all.

Also, I posted that before reading your further posts on it being a level.

If and when online poker gets licensed and regulated who and how will the monitor the RNGS?

Hey Lee,

Let's not throw JP under the bus.

Not once has the PPA(Poker Players Alliance) said anything about an RNG or site being rigged, or even participated in such debates.

IMO they have been very good with handling poker sites' "integrity questions" and accusations about potential customer abuse in the industry.

Just as it is inappropriate to coorelate the PPA's sole purpose for seeking Regulation is "finding/fixing" rigged RNG's [to "back-hand" the industry], so was your post.