Anyone else notice this?

[popcash]

It's really interesting how quick you all are to defend the poker sites.

First, let me clarify... I didn't say the sites are rigged. I said they use selective shuffling (there's a big difference). There's nothing illegal about selective shuffling and the sites have nothing to worry about from former employees "exposing" anything. Selective shuffles ARE random... they don't decide who wins or loses... they just guarantee lots of exciting hands and lots of conflict, keeping players in hands so someone will take a beat.

I live in Vegas and I've been playing poker for a very long time (way before it was cool) in cash games and tournaments all over town. I'm also a programmer by trade and have written quite a few shuffling and poker simulation routines since online poker went big. In addition, 5 of my friends and I have run 6 separate experiments where we played at the same online table, recording our cards for 500 hands each session, playing to the river each hand to see the full compliment of community cards. Our findings were very consistent... the number of straights, flushes, boats and quads was staggering (staggering!) compared to the simulations and our live game experience.

I'm not posting all this to start some big fight. Take it any way you like. As for me, I'll be out here in la-la land playing and winning at live poker. No offense to any of you fine players out there.

Having said all that, you may now continue with your insults. Have a nice life.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

I'm not posting all this to start some big fight. Take it any way you like. As for me, I'll be out here in la-la land playing and winning at live poker. No offense to any of you fine players out there.

...and I'll be here playing and winning at online poker. Take care.

 

[Stick66]

Anyone who thinks the online shuffles are rigged is half right. They are actually random, however the site software evaluates every shuffle to see if there are enough strong hands to make the game exciting and bring conflict to the game. If not, the shuffle is discarded and the next random shuffle is produced. That's why there are so many monster hands in online poker. The sites want quick and fatal conflicts to speed up play... the faster your game or tourney is over, the more games they can run ($$$). The more monster hands out there, the more excitement. If online poker used every single random shuffle produced by the software, it would be so boring no one would play.

These are the simple facts of online play... we simply have to accept it or quit playing.

You mean there's no bluffing in online poker because every "shuffle" has "strong hands"? Thank God! Now I can throw away everything but my Aces and Kings. The other cards are so ugly anyway. :icon_joke

 

[whyareunvs]

Anyone who thinks the online shuffles are rigged is half right. They are actually random, however the site software evaluates every shuffle to see if there are enough strong hands to make the game exciting and bring conflict to the game. If not, the shuffle is discarded and the next random shuffle is produced. That's why there are so many monster hands in online poker. The sites want quick and fatal conflicts to speed up play... the faster your game or tourney is over, the more games they can run ($$$). The more monster hands out there, the more excitement. If online poker used every single random shuffle produced by the software, it would be so boring no one would play.

These are the simple facts of online play... we simply have to accept it or quit playing.

I would disagree with this post for a few primary reasons --

1. What motivation is there to rig the deck? In almost all limits you're going to cap the rake and yes number of hands per hour is certainly important but not if people believe that their play has no impact on the outcome.

2. I've seen 1000's of hands folded to a single moderate raise. This is not consistent with a desire to increase action flops.

3. The number of monster hands is stictly based on the number of hands per hour. When the speed of play is hastened then you're going to see more of these types of plays.

4. You're going to generate a lot of action with moderate hands as a lot of online players are willing to go at it with TPTK when the TP is 7's or worse.

5. The only thing that prevents sites from running as many tables and tourney's as possible is bandwidth.

6. Maybe some out there would consider playing normal hands boring. I love getting something like 8-9 suited in one of the blinds; seeing the flop cheaply, hitting the flop, and extracting as much cash out of guy slow-playing his Q's.

7. Typically, most people that I've met that start the "online poker is rigged" argument are people who cannot turn the page from the bad beats that they've encountered. Not saying that is you popcash.

There is plenty of money to be made in poker online without having to rig the deck. Vegas games in the 70's were much more apt to be rigged than online poker in my opinion. It wasn't until you had Johnny Moss and Eric Drache cleaning up the rooms that poker was able to played by the normal folk.

My .02

 

[whyareunvs]

How come no one ever notices the 4 hour sessions where the table never sees better than a flush?

joosebuck --

I was playing in the Caesars boat outside Louisville, KY and in a matter of 3 hours, saw quads 4 times, at that same table and three of those four it was 7's. It happens everywhere both the long droughts and the long streaks. Online your number of hands per hour is so high that you're going to see it much more often.

 

[popcash]

whyareunvs... that's a nice, well thought out posting. I respect that. In response...

1. What motivation is there to rig the deck?

Again, not talking about rigging the deck, simply avoiding lack-luster shuffles. Motivation is to provide excitement to keep players coming back and to speed up play. Thought that was clear in my previous postings.

2. I've seen 1000's of hands folded to a single moderate raise. This is not consistent with a desire to increase action flops.

My findings were not with starting hands but with online hands played out to the river versus our software simulations. Our various randomization algorithms didn't even come close to producing as many final monster hands as online shuffles did... somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/6th as many.

3. The number of monster hands is stictly based on the number of hands per hour.

??? How do you figure that? We run a 500 hand simulation and compare it to 500 online hands... where does time come into the equation?

4. You're going to generate a lot of action with moderate hands as a lot of online players are willing to go at it with TPTK when the TP is 7's or worse.

I don't see how the loose play of online players changes our findings as to the number of big hands created by selective shuffling. I understand that's why you end up seeing more of them online, but our random shuffles just don't produce all those big hands... it takes selective shuffling to have that many produced.

5. The only thing that prevents sites from running as many tables and tourney's as possible is bandwidth.

OK... this one is just plain wrong. Shorter games and tourneys = more available time... more available time = more games and tourneys.

6. ... I love getting something like 8-9 suited in one of the blinds; seeing the flop cheaply, hitting the flop ...

And this is a reason to disagree with my post?

7. Typically, most people that I've met that start the "online poker is rigged" argument are people who cannot turn the page from the bad beats that they've encountered.

Again, not "rigged"... "excitement enhanced" might be the term we're looking for here. And you're right... most people who complain are speaking from their bad beat experience. If you re-read my posts above, you'll notice that I wasn't complaining, just pointing out my findings. The poker sites are free to present their games to the public in any legal way they choose. I am free not to play there if I see a problem with it.

In any event, I appreciate your opinions and was impressed with your posting (unlike some others).

 

[Fish]

I live in Vegas and I've been playing poker for a very long time (way before it was cool)

Are you that old nit that demanded the dealer give a new setup every time your small pocket pair didn't hold up ?

recording our cards for 500 hands each session, playing to the river each hand to see the full compliment of community cards.

As a computer programmer you should have some sort of basic math background.
What can you tell me about a sample size of 500 hands?
What can you tell me about a sample size of 10,000 hands?

You probably can't, so I will answer for you:
VARIANCE. YOUR SAMPLE SIZE IS TOOOOOOOOO SMALLL!!!!!!!!

I'll be out here in la-la land playing and winning at live poker.

I like it just fine here in normal land where I can win at live poker also, and where I can Play4-6 tables online at a time.

Funny thing is, when I play live, it's almost just for fun, because even on my biggest good nights, I still would have made more online.

Having said all that, you may now continue with your insults. Have a nice life.

OK, You sir are a Poopy Head.

 

[Bombjack]

Well popcash, sounds like you've got some pretty explosive evidence building up here. Has it been published yet? If not, you can make a fortune selling it to a national magazine or newspaper. Imagine the headlines! I look forward to reading about "The Great Online Poker Scam" in the near future.

 

[popcash]

Isn't it odd how all of you defenders of the sites are doing nothing but winning on line? Yeah, right. I'd love to meet any one of you at a cash table some time.

You've convinced me of one thing, though... for the most part this forum is frequented by a bunch of flamers. I'm sure you'll all be happy to see me leave, so good bye. The insults you fling from this point on will be a waste of time... I'll not be back.

 

[Tammy]

Well, I personally think it's a shame you're leaving us so soon. While I don't necessarily agree with the points you've made, I do appreciate the fact that your posts were well thought out and of good quality. I hope you'll stick around a bit longer and give it another shot.

 

[whyareunvs]

Not to beat the dead equine, but I don't see this as flaming. It is more associated with that your set of data is essentially flawed (because the sample size is too small to be meaningful) . While your experiences online may have been poor, it doesn't prove that the game is rigged. I would love to play you in a B&M where do you typically play, I'll look you up?

 

[JAMILE1]

He'll be back for more

 

[wsorbust]

Everyone takes things like we just killed their best dog or something. . .Geewiz . . .

 

[Stick66]

Isn't it odd how all of you defenders of the sites are doing nothing but winning on line? Yeah, right. I'd love to meet any one of you at a cash table some time.

You've convinced me of one thing, though... for the most part this forum is frequented by a bunch of flamers. I'm sure you'll all be happy to see me leave, so good bye. The insults you fling from this point on will be a waste of time... I'll not be back.

(Folks! Lay off this guy! Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'd be a little sensitive too if my first post got this kind of reaction. Sheesh!)

I'd like to apologize, buddy. This is not the typical treatment of new folks here at CC. I guess it is because the "rigged", "semi-rigged", "juiced-up", etc., etc. issue is somewhat of a sore subject around these parts and has been done to death. Over time, many members tend to react in a sarcastic or flippant way (myself included) after repeated coverage.

I could see how you would get a bad first impression of this place, but I assure you that it is not typical of the CC membership at large. As Juicee said, your posts seem to be of good quality and I think your poker experience could be of interest to some of us.

Again, I apologize. Don't let a few folks scare you away. I hope you'll reconsider.

 

[wsorbust]

I don't blame him either for thinking that. His first post probably should have been in the introduction section......I hope he comes back, though I somewhat doubt it.

 

[bubbasbestbabe]

Personally I think it was wsorbust's avatar that chased him away. Bleechhh!

 

[Fish]

Yeah, right. I'd love to meet any one of you at a cash table some time.
.

Let me know the next time you are in Toronto. K? Bye. :hello:

 

[Fish]

I do appreciate the fact that your posts were well thought out and of good quality.

He's made 4 posts. Did you read any of them.
Grammatically they were correct, And they were even very easy to read.
As for writing skills, Absolutely A++ should be given.

As for content, a grade of F should be given.
Sample ain't big enough. Come back with some decent evidence, and I will be first in line to apologize.
Until then, Taking a quick look through pokertracker says one quick thing.
Everything seems to be in order here.
Must just be for him.

 

[wsorbust]

The more monster hands out there, the more excitement. If online poker used every single random shuffle produced by the software, it would be so boring no one would play.

I think Fish is right and the above quote makes a very strong point. Ludicrously IMO.

It seems he is an expert on random shuffling and other shuffling methods. . ....IMO if he was an expert he wouldn't care if he was jabbed at for it. I don't know what he's so upset about... Not being taken seriously from online strangers? It's very hard to back up those statements, especially the one above...Not to mention the fact that he tried to back them up by started out saying " I live in Vegas and I've been playing poker for a very long time"...? What? Are you kidding me?.................. Everyone has their opinion...it's too bad.

 

[ChuckTs]

OK, You sir are a Poopy Head.

Fish gets my vote for best quote ever on CC.

 

[wsorbust]

lol...Poopy Head M.D.


I second the notion.

 

[Freakakanus]

I give props for starting a good discussion (albeit long debated) about online vs. live poker.
I will admit that I have wondered about "action pots" every time we see a post showing AA, KK, QQ all-in pre-flop hand.
I think everyone has to admit that it is strange how often we all see it.
Some of us just accept that it's because of the number of hands played per hour and some of us don't.

 

[Fish]

Some of us just accept that it's because of the number of hands played per hour and some of us don't.

Yet another point to ponder from Fish:
If you believe online poker :
'is rigged'
'creates action pots'
'throws away random shuffles'
or even
'only lets players with the letter h in their screenname win on the 3rd Tuesday of each month'

Then I pose this question to you: WHY THE HELL DO YOU PLAY?
Don't post about it, don't whine about it, don't tell your friends about it. Just don't play. Every time you believe any one of the above conspiracy theories and play even 1 hand of online poker, you are proving your lack of intelligence by playing an odds based game with improper odds. Posting about it, or talking about how it is rigged (or whatever you believe) and still playing is just LUDICROUS!

This is by no means directed at anyone person in particular, but the online forum as a whole.
One last time, If you think it's shady, don't play it.

 

[wsorbust]

Anyone play Go Fish for money? Call me... lol I kid. . .

 

[Bombjack]

OK popcash if you're still reading, ignore my somewhat flippant remarks above. Sounds like you've spent time doing some research. I don't believe that shuffles are not random for a number of reasons, but if you have evidence to the contrary I think everyone would be very interested to see it. Why don't you start another thread and present your research so that we can cross-examine your numbers and methodology? You will undoubtedly at the very least get some useful feedback and points to think about from it.

I think any flames were probably the result of your presentation of this as "fact", when actually it's still just your theory. And even if your results are correct, there's no way you can generalise as you do across all poker sites - maybe it's just the one you tried (which is....?). Wasn't meant personally I'm sure.