Is online poker rigged??? An investigation!

you are a retard. ever hear the phrase 'innocent til proven guilty"? you provide the evidence.

Best post of this whole thread yet. Gotta love Primus.

this guy again

wasent going to talk with him but cant resist.

so what are you proving. that your a doochbagfag

Please just stop it. You're embarassing yourself.

Problem solved.

Chuck, he knows that already, the "instantwinner" can't help himself. Let him vent as he is, anything else we say just encourages him. Obv we're not going to convince him otherwise, so we should all just sit back and just have good laughs when the moments present themselves (which so far, has been coming by droves). Until he does something that mods believe requires a ban (which may have already happened) let him keep going. I'm sure mods will ban him eventually if it is needed.

THANK YOU SIR


^^^true, Estelle. I'm not sure why we gave this guy the attention he was craving for...

I thought this thread was for laughs........people really think this stuff is rigged? Lol........

just for shits and giggles, I played in a home game last night where a one guy got pocket 10's 6 times and they lost EVERY TIME. He got beat by running spades for a higher flush than his, and the infamous lower pp flopping a set. Also ak never won the whole night. We played 5 tourneys, took 6 hours and in that whole time, ak never won and 10s never won. I also took 2nd in the last game when my aq got beat by kq. Is the home game rigged? OF COURSE!!!! ITS THE ONLY REASON THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED! It didnt play by the numbers OMFG!!!!!!!

nobody gives a damn about your silly 6 hour home game which maybe contains 200 hands all night ... TOPS 200

go deal out a 75,000 to 100,000 hands and then we can talk you friggin home game ninnie

if you are running a computer program that is supposed to simulate a coin flip, for example... yes... after sufficient number of hands, that must play out EXACTLY and should not different by an amount that is statistically significant

Im telling you that when these computer hands are played out on theri own in a large enough sample, THEY ARE DEVIANT FROM THE ODDS THAT SHOULD BE AND BY AN AMOUNT THAT IS SIGNIFICATN

CASE CLOSED

Actually the more you flip a coin it doesn't mean the more likely you are to be near the centre.

Simplistically this is because you flip it once you are 1 away from the centre. Flip it again and it's either back to the centre or 2 away. The tendancy over time is for the centre to move.

ok now im going to do what you said you were going to do, and this is my last reply to you in this thread period.

The odds of getting cards are numbers. Im sure you have all heard of the debate, luck vs skill. Im sure if you look at all the wsop events from the beginning (yes this is unrealistic) im sure you will see that the odds dont play out perfectly. Does this mean the WSOP is rigged? According to you of course it does! Its rigged for tv ratings!

Now seriously, odds are fine, but you must think about this, cards arent machines, and if any good poker player is aware the odds dont play out as they should all the time. Odds are here for us to do things such as calculate pot odds, but we all know that odds dont always play out as they should. Luck is a part of this game, and if you cant accept that, be it online or offline, then stop playing poker because obviously this isnt your game.

Its not my fault you took so many bad beats, but you need to realize that this happens in poker. I dont want to hear the odds must play out because obviously in my home game they didnt, and according to you the odds must play out exactly, because according to you numbers dont lie, well obviously they do. Look man, you lost the argument deal with it, im done here so whatever you say im not gonna read because im not lookin at this joke thread or your joke posts anymore. I made my point, you never did. Prove it instead of saying that, youd make an awful lawyer, judges dont like to hear "go look at the evidence yourself I dont have it" he would laugh you out of the courthouse in the same way we laugh at your notion of it being rigged.

Im done with you...CASE CLOSED

What's with the hostility? Now go bring me a beer...

It does make you wonder sometimes though. 5 people on a table. The board brights up 567 and three people go all in and all three of them have straights. One 34, one 84 and one 89. I mean thats just rediculous!.

I don't wanna hear about bad beats ... I've been beaten with quads 5 times in brick n mortar games in casinos....

I dont want to hear about someones 200-hand home game

One day, when it becomes public, you will find out the sad truth of online poker (which, by the way, since seeing these statistics which confirmed what programmers told me, I don't play anymore) .. that day you will remember that you were told.

Anyone willing to do the work will find out the SAD TRUTH of online poker. ALL HANDS ARE EQUAL PREFLOP ... PERIOD.

The only refuting of this that I will accept is someone who shows me data from at least 75,000 online heads-up hands, all cards exposed and shows me pokertracker data refuting this... which of course you cannot have since I have the opposite... ROFLMAO

Show me that. No more other nonsense. You've been forwarned, and forwarned is forearmed.

So you honestly dont think that if you flipped a fair coin 100,000 times that the results would be pretty damned close to 50-50?

If you really believe that, I have some oceanfront property in Nebraska to sell you.

Can someone close this dawg gone thread? it is fruitless.

But at least it lets all of the mis-informed rigged mongers keep all of their non-sensical babble in one location.

On the contrary, I think the mods should make this a sticky and make the rigged theories be focused on 1 thread, instead of splattering the forum with multiple threads titled:

"OMG, MY AA lost twice in a row! PokerStars IS RIGGggggEddddd!!"

Keep the crap where it belongs: the latrine.

I am posting this reply in response to Dan1888 who says he is the friend of a PokerStars programmer. Before I begin, let me clear something up: I play poker semi-professionally. By this, I mean I supplement my income with poker. I play in Las Vegas when I can because I live in a neighboring state, and plan to move to Vegas to play full-time in seven years, when both my kids are off to college. I play both live games, and online, and I am a winning player in BOTH arenas. I also run a poker website that is a PS and Full Tilt Poker affiliate. I will not disclose the site, as PS once tried to ban me for selling bots because they were opposed to them. They are very controlling, and I do not want my affiliation discontinued, or my player ID banned. (ChubbDaddy is not the moniker I use on PS, for the record.)

While I cannot verify that everything Dan says is true, I can tell you this: Online poker, especially PokerStars IS DEFINITELY RIGGED. Dan is right. The sites stand to lose a lot more by losing the 80% of bad players than the 20% of good ones. Besides, bad players do not usually make a profit there. The key is to keep bad players coming back by giving them action similar to what they see on edited down TV and not siphoning their bankrolls too quickly. It is a fundamental rule of professional poker: "Don't beat a fish too badly, you want him coming back." Pros let bad players who are regulars win a small percentage of hands in cash games because we know that if we beat them up too badly in one session we will miss out on future profits for the sake of making a bigger score short-term. As long as the sucker wins sometimes, and thinks he's got a chance, he keeps coming back and generates much more revenue long-term. The poker sites operate on this same principle: Give the fish just enough to keep them coming back. The sharks will also return because they still make a profit, just not as large a profit as they could live, and internet games are far more accessible. They don't even lose the sharks! (Myself included.) Of course, online profits for the pro would be smaller anyway because of the physical tells not being present, but what most people don't realize is that betting patters are the PRIMARY tell; physical tells are secondary. Even online, I know if I've got the best hand post flop 90% of the time.

As I said, I play live AND online, and I can tell you without hesitation:
THE ONLINE HANDS ARE FAR MORE ACTION-INDUCED THAN LIVE GAMES THAT HAVE A TRULY RANDOM SHUFFLE. (By the way, there is no such thing anywhere in the gaming industry as a true random number generator. It just hasn't been invented yet. These "generators" actually operate on algorithms, and at best can be called random number "simulators".)

Dan already made a beautiful point about what the industry actually has to gain by juicing the software. Now let me respond to some of the more common arguments against what I am stating.

1. "Why do ALL the top poker pros I see on TV say the shuffle is the same as live?"

Look at the shirt/hat that pro is wearing. It usually is emblazoned with "Poker Stars", "Full Tilt", "Bodog", etc. Who do you think pays them? Time was, a tournament player won a $250,000 tournament, and he was barely even for the year considering travel expenses and $5,000-$10,000 buy-ins. Now the top players have their entry fees paid and make a killing on endorsements alone before they even sit down at a table! Their risk is gone. Who in their right mind would EVER want to jeopardize that? They aren't even being asked to lie, they just need to exercise some common sense!

If you want the real dope, don't ask a TV pro, or a recreational player. Ask a semiprofessional player or a player who plays cash games for a living. (You know, they guys without paid contracts.) The vast majority who play both arenas will tell you the shuffle is not the same.

2. "You will see more bad beats online, because you see more hands."

When dealing with raw numbers this is true. But this does not account for the PRECENTAGE of bad beats being higher. And I'm talking about heads-up all-ins post flop; not 5 donkeys calling AA and negating the odds of it holding up.


3. "I saw a website that showed a study they had done, and they said the percentages of bad beats held up to the mathematics of live play."

I have seen several of those too. Every single one of them had links to the major poker sites. In other words, like me, THEY ARE AFFILIATES who get paid to endorse Poker Stars and the like!


4. "Most sites have been audited and it has been verified that the Aces come out the same number of times as the Twos, etc.."

Look up the PRIVATE companies that perform these audits. (I have.) Who do you think pays for the audit? You guessed it! The company being audited does! But here's a shocker: Those audits ARE legitimate. the Aces really do come out the same number of times as the Twos! THAT'S ALL THE COMPANY IS BEING ASKED TO AUDIT! It creates the ILLSUION of legitimacy, while not addressing the real problem: Suck-out percentage and coordinated boards. It is easy to make the cards come out the right number of times over the long run, while inducing the action and crafting bad beats.


5. "Can you show me statistical proof that the games are rigged?"

Have I done my own studies? Yes, and they do support my claims. But the samples are too small to be considered scientific, and I will not lie to you here. BUT DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT! Get online YOURSELF and watch and log 100 hands that two players, AND ONLY two players get all-in. Go to any pot odds calculator and plug in the hands if you are unsure which is the favorite. Tally up your results, and you will see that the bad beats happen at a higher percentage on Poker Stars! (The worst offender in my opinion.) Or you can just watch how many times a three-flush flops. The frequency of this occurrence is WAY too high in terms of percentage of flops.


6. "Why do you play at Poker Stars if you claim it is the worst offender?"

I play live limit cash games and online NL sit-n-gos. Poker Stars offers the best blind structure for U.S. players and, despite their outrageous rigging, I have found I am more profitable and able to "beat the software" when the blind structure is lower, and I don't necessarily have to go all-in on my bigger hands.


I still like online poker. Just know what you are walking into. It IS NOT what it claims to be.


In short:

If you are a bad player (and 70-80% of players are), play online as much as possible. You will still lose money, but not as much. You will also get more big, short-term wins and there is more entertainment value for your dollar there. Believe it or not, you would lose even more money live.

If you are a good player/shark (5%er) play live as much as you can, but still play online when you can't play live. There is still profit to be had online.

If you are a marginal winning player (15-25% of players fit this bill), you are better off sticking with live as you will probably make a long term profit, but will probably be a long-term loser online, with swings in both the red and black. Or, improve your play on the play money tables... It will teach you the patience you need to beat the software and the donks, without losing real money. But beware: The software is the same as the real money tables, but the dynamics and psychology are very different jumping from play money to even micro-limit real dollar tourneys and cash games.


I hope I have shed some light on the subject, but am certain I am now going to be ripped by both sides. Oh well, let the $#!+ storm begin!

So you've not got any actual evidence then?

honestly, as much as i love these threads if you think that it is not fair then don't play i can understand why people think it is rigged but if you play the % plays in the end you are always going to end out better off then the donkeys who get the case card bad beats and as such.

Just read his whole post thinking the exact same thing. Nice attempt, but still, nothing there.

Irexes: As I said, my samples are too small, but the results do support my claim. Observe and draw your own conclusions. I will not be dishonest and claim to have done a study large enough to be published in a journal. Just putting forth my opinion as someone WHO IS PAID by online poker sites to send them business based on my real life gaming experience. Clever response though.

Mehman: I never said good players don't make a profit online. I make a lot of money there. If I could play live exclusively, I would. I know the action is induced. That doesn't mean it makes financial sense for me to give up a profitable endeavor simply because the shuffle is "not fair". This isn't about entertainment for me, it's about $. So c'mon, despite it not being ideal, I'm not going to give up a large percentage of my annual income simply because the shuffle is action inducing or handicapped. If I were losing, I would not play. But to say "...if you think that it is not fair then don't play," is a bit simplistic. I actually said I like online poker and recommended that both sharks and fish continue to play online. It's the marginal players who are getting the worst of it.

Uh, guess you couldn't. So what was the point of that post again?

Right, I can do this too - to show that shuffles are not rigged. That is why scientists use large sample sizes... anyone can manipulate a small sample size and use it as "evidence".

If they are too small then by definition they don't support your claim.

Out of interest in 100 allins where someone was a 60/40 favourite how many would they have to win or lose for it to be statistically significant? 65/35? 70/30? and what % certainty (ie p-value) would you be able to give to the findings over that size of sample?

Cause without that (and it would be pretty simple to do over a decent sample) it's just anecdote and selective memory.

I suppose there was no point. That one line was the entire post, and offering my opinion as someone who makes money from online poker as a player and an Poker Stars affiliate carries no validity at all. I stand corrected.

Happy gaming.

I hate Stars. This one time I called off all my money (all in) as a 2:1 dog (had a Jack high flush draw!) and I LOST the hand !

I only like to play at Bodog.

Nice post. First off let me say I have no trouble believing you are a semi-pro, there are many of those that make a nice profit from playing poker, and I really have no reason to doubt you. Personally, I'm a small stakes on-line tournament player who has had fair success (no big money, small stakes), and just recently I've moved to playing tourneys with $10 buy-ins, sitngos and MTT's. I've never played NLHE live. I try to keep an open mind about on-line poker not having any sort of evidence if it is or not rigged, and having never played live I lack that experience to enable me to compare the 2. There are, however, plenty posters in this thread that are much better players than me and have played live also. But lets get to the discussion.

From your post I highlighted 5 arguments you make to sustain your thesis that on-line is rigged.

As for #1, I wouldn't be honest if I said it didn't make sense. You could very well be right, w/o any doubt pros have made a ton of money in endorsements from on-line sites and will keep doing so. Asking a pro means squat because noone would bite the hand they feed off, if indeed it were rigged.

As for #3, again it makes sense. Any affiliate is not a trusted source.

As for #4, you stand correct again, the fact that aces come out the same amount of dueces is not a disclaimer, it doesn't prove anything, and your subsequent observations in #4 cannot be argued either.

Here's the thing though, arguments #1, #3 and #4 give us some information on why we shouldn't assume it isn't rigged, and those points are all valid and make sense. Now the problem that needs to be solved is proving that it is rigged. There is a substancial difference. And here is where arguments #2 and #5 come in play and they both intend to represent proof that you're right. But they both fall short for the same reason, because you fail to give samples.

I stated that I keep an open mind about this, but I need to see some evidence or else this is only pure slander. Its very easy to get caught up in the whole "80% of players are fish, if they lose too fast they won't come back" type of thinking because, admittedly, it does make a hell of a lot of sense. It certainly would be in their interest to have all fish stick around and keep a high volume of players, there is no denying that. And the fact that pros let their regulars win a small percentage of hands is something I believe (only if they're regulars), its a smart strategy, so on-line could be the same. But no matter how logical and convenient to them it appears, you need to back this up with evidence. Then you tell me to check 100 hands where 2 players go all-in every hand, but for what? What is 100 hands going to prove? You know that is not enough. You write this huge post and in conclusion you ask me to take a 100 hand sample to prove you're right, it is rigged?

As I said, up until today I don't argue either side. But in order to prove that its rigged, I'll need numbers, not people who claim to know the programmers. Logical thinking is great, but in absence of scientific evidence, its adds up to pure demagogy.