Are the games controlled by the site?

OK, so here is an opinion on this subject.
If a site is running 10 $ 0.90 + $ 0.10 STT sit and go tournaments (just as an example) would it or would it not be to the sites advantage to have the tournament end as quickly as possible? For every second that these tournaments continue, the site is not making money! For every tournament that meets its registration numbers, and a new tournament starts, the site is making money. So, it would stand to reason, it is to the sites advantage to have the tournament end as quickly as possible.
A 10 player STT sit and go, 5 players left, the short stack gets dealt a hand that he/she considers is an all-in hand. The biggest stack calls with decent cards but is dominated, the flop comes and the small stack still leads (maybe even improves their hand) the turn comes....no change....the river, the big stack catches the flush and eliminated the small stack. The same thing happens to player # 4 and now you have the money players, now they will usually lower their card values and bet more aggressively and eliminate each other quickly on their own. You have seen this scenario how many times?

I heard that you can make yourself immune to this by self-defenestration.

Question (I don't know the answer, that's why I'm asking) - do the sites have a limit on the number of S&G's running simultaneously? I see no logical reason why they would, but don't know.

If (as I suspect) they don't have a maximum number than can run simultaneously, there's no advantage to them finishing early (other than perhaps when people get knocked out, they'll join another one).

Incidentally, I notice this is your first post to CC. As a matter of interest, did you join CC just to ask this question, or will you be making a useful contribution at some stage?

Wouldn't doing that to their computer be far less painful. Not as effective maybe but well....

Boltneck, I see that you were created in a lab somewhere so, I understand your not being able to recognize a legitimate question! As for usefull contribution...you immediate with drawl from this site would be a fine example of that.

For every second that an STT is in progress, the site is not making money from the players in that game. Is that not correct? Then, it would only make sense to end the tournament as quickly as possible so as to get the players to register (put money in the sites account)in another STT or any other game. Answer honestly now, does that not make sense to you?

I totally agree with oldguy, why belittle a new guy when he asks a question? That's just rude and juvenile.

yeah, it makes perfect sense that sites would be willing to compromise their integrity and their entire multi-million dollar operation for the sake of a few more lots of 10c rake every hour.

Thinking about this practically, and seemingly verified via observation, I think that each processor is only running one game at a time. With todays faster processors it is possible that they each could easily handle more games, but from a maintenance POV, along with memory and storage use, one game per processor is fine. In the big scheme of things this would be efficient as processors are fairly cheap these days.

But then you, as a bean counter, might start thinking about profit per processor per hour, and if they let the bean counters run it then the OP could come into play. God forbid the bean counters. Good example of why? The girl whose insurance refused to pay for a transplant until one hour before she died for lack of transplant. IMO bean counters should stick to counting beans else the rest of us might think they should be counting beans from the root side of the plant!

Here are some stats that I have accumulated from the site I play at. Granted, this is only an example of 1 STT, but, I have hundreds that I have saved and broken down this way, and they average out to about the same results.

No call 91 Hands that were folded without any table cards being dealt



Hole cards 5 Hands that were won with pocket cards that were not improved on and won after all of the table cards were dealt.



Flop 9 Hands that were improved on and won by the flop, but not after.


Turn 7 Hands that were improved on and won by the turn card but not after.



River 22 Hands that were improved on and won by the river card , including hands that eliminated smaller stacks.


Total hands 131




Hands won on the river which eliminated players 7 = 31% of the hands that were won with the river card.

The following stats don’t include the no call hands that were not played out!

Hands decided by hole cards 11.62%
Hands decided by flop 20.93%
Hands decided by the turn 16.27%
Hands decided by the river card 51.16%

Can't really pick on people for responding that way to the 100 millionth is online poker rigged question lol.

[ ] valid statistical sample
[ ] comparison to what the odds should be mathematically
[x] thread likely to degenerate from here

Dorkus, I appreciate your opinion and would ask you a question in response.
What governing body oversees the integrity of any of these sites and enforces them to insure their integrity? Most of the sites are affiliated in some way and probably run by one or two huge corporations that are in this only to show profit. My example was just that, an example...move it up to bigger stakes, or, just leave it at the same stakes and multiply the number of games by thousands and then think about the profit margin. What do they have to lose except disgruntled players? There are no POKER SITE POLICE out there that I know of. Besides, when the sites are off shore, say in Costa Rica, how does anyone bring them to justice if they were caught and convicted? They shut down and come up with a new name and suck the money out of your pockets again.

The governing body of poker players who keep millions of hands in their histories and do valid statistical studies. They caught and sanctioned Absolute Poker recently.

if you believe on line poker is rigged don't play same goes for casino when the dealer puts the cards in the auto shuffler and they go below the table and they get stcked against you it's the same thing.or maybe the game is designed for action cards to hit the flop turn and river and everyone says well "thats poker"

And, to be clear! I did not say I thought they were rigged! I asked a few questions searching for some logical, POLITE, and helpful opinions. To those of you that have met that criteria, thank you. To those of you that were rude, well, there are all kinds out there and your opinion is important too! How about trying to convey it in a more socially acceptable manner?

It would have also been socially acceptable to look below you on the forums before posting a new thread, and perhaps noticing that this subject has been brought up (and properly debunked) approximately 1,000,000,000,000 times before.

I can see the reasoning behind your logic, however, I have witnessed many more occassions that where the opposite of your scenario happens. Small stacks hanging on all-in after all-in to make the SNG drag on and on. And as Dorkus said, it wouldn't be worth it to risk their reputation. And if you think about a site like Poker Stars, where they have a SNG starting every second, well, I don't think they have a problem making money.

this

and this

Dorkus, I am interested. What sanctions were imposed on Absolute Poker? I can't seem to find any information showing what penalties they had levied against them.

sighaments to this thread.

But although old guy does make a good point that the site is not making money during the play of an sng, there is absolutely no proof of foul play etc.

Some unsubstantiated stats are not going to cut it on this one. There would need to be a huge study based on tens of thousands of games. Also your whole notion of the river bringing the bad news is flawed. Any bad beat would need to be counted, regardless if it came on the flop, turn, or river. You would also have to compare it to the odds of a bad beat happening, not compare it to the amount of bad beats happening earlier in the game.

Of course, doing this would be foolish because, as other forums have concluded repeatedly, ONLINE POKER AIN'T RIGGED.

Funny story everyone! I was watching my friend play some online poker, and he called an all in with AJ off. I wasn't really paying attention, so I asked "Is that guy a maniac." He said, "No, but he had pocket aces last hand so he can't have that good of a hand this time."

Every reasonable limit player at the higher levels immediately stopped playing there, and few serious players leave money on there at all.

And note: this wasn't a case of AP doing anything other than having shoddy security.

You can read about it here: Official Absolute scandal thread

sanc·tion (sngkshn) KEY

NOUN:

1. Authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action valid. See Synonyms at permission.
2. Support or encouragement, as from public opinion or established custom.
3. A consideration, influence, or principle that dictates an ethical choice.
4. 1. A law or decree.
   2. The penalty for noncompliance specified in a law or decree.
5. A penalty, specified or in the form of moral pressure, that acts to ensure compliance or conformity.
6. A coercive measure adopted usually by several nations acting together against a nation violating international law.

TRANSITIVE VERB:
sanc·tioned , sanc·tion·ing , sanc·tions

1. To give official authorization or approval to: "The president, we are told, has sanctioned greed at the cost of compassion" (David Rankin).
2. To encourage or tolerate by indicating approval. See Synonyms at approve.
3. To penalize, especially for violating a moral principle or international law.

The biggest sanction is that AP is losing tons of business from people who will no longer or won't ever start playing there due to the bad publicity. AP also santioned themselves by refunding funds to many players who were affected.

The subject of influencing (AKA "rigging") online poker play by a site itself has been done to death. It would not benefit any prosperous business to risk losing their clientel by getting caught doing something like trying to end SNG's sooner.

what actually happens is that for every minute after the 1st hour of a stt, 1$ comes out of the accounts of the people palying, therefore you must pay per minute to keep playing, then the site doesnt lose money

About as often as I've seen the bubble drag on forever because everybody plays like a nit.

The longest SNG I've played went on for 1 hour and 45 minutes (2,000 starting stack, 10 minute blinds). Why would the site allow something like this? Strange, isn't it?

The cost of people playing longer is relatively minimal in terms of actual cost with the low amount of power usage per game and equipment, the only real benefit I could see to speeding up play in tournaments would be to get them to buyin to another tournament more quickly. While this is speculation, I don't see a significant enough reason for them to try to speed up tournament play artificially. It may make their tournaments slightly more profitable but I imagine they get the bulk of their money from cash games rather than tournaments just like in live poker rooms as they collect money from each hand. They'd likely therefore be far more likely to rig live games than tournaments. While I doubt any legitimate sites would rig their games, it would make more sense to do so in situations where there'd be a higher profit such as cash games than tournaments.

Kyle, I noticed that you don't have an avatar, and in honor of your contributions to this post, I made you one:

Behold, the IRON FIST OF LOGIC !

logic.JPG (http://www.cardschat.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7148&d=1198371107)


Keep those beat downs coming!
Enjoy!

omg but oen tiem a shortshack suckd out on me and maed a tournamnent longer. yoor theery is refyuted OP

Brag: Best weekend ever
Brag: Fixed own computer hardware just by reading instructions, saving an expensive repair job.
Brag: Hit biggest MTT score to date.
Brag: Had a major victory in an online football game I've been waiting over a year for.
Brag: Acquired awesome avatar.
Beat: Can't seem to get the avatar to work from work computer, will have to wait until later.
Edited to add:
Suckout: Managed to get it to work.

Thanks!