Online Poker is Legitimate!

[Stu_Ungar]

C'mon Stu. Answer a couple direct questions. You asserted that people at online sites would be prosecutable for fraud, if there was rigging. Back it up with evidence. Who would have jurisdiction to prosecute? What statutes would apply?

I submit the following article, as evidence, for your consideration

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2946938/Sportingbet-hit-by-US-arrest-of-chairman-Dicks.html

Mr Dicks was arrested in 2006 on charges relating to illegal internet gambling.

Mr Dicks was not a US citizen. He was arrested despite very unclear legal justification. He was later released once his firm had agreed to fully cooperate with the US with enforcing government decisions regarding online gambling.

So jurisdiction and statute was in no way a barrier that prevented Mr Dicks arrest. He was simply running a legitimate company that provided online gambling which was hosted outside of US juistiction.

Therefore, in the case of a site that committed fraud, there is no reason to assume that the US government would fail to impose its wrath.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

GDRileyx, you still don't have any ****ing clue, do you?

The primary thing that a poker site needs in order to thrive is action. It needs tables to be running at all stakes all the time, and the only proper way to get that is to have regular players keeping the tables running and opening new ones. So the clever sites will go to great length to keep their regs happy.

The first concern of the regs is probably that the site is legit. And since they play so much, they have the statistical means to check that it is indeed the case. Thus, rigging the games would be a suicidal corporate policy.

Anyway, it would only make sense for micro stakes where most of the pots are below $60. As soon as you play non micros, non trivial pots reach the rake cap of $3, so there'd be no point in rigging those anyway. My advice if you're concerned about rigging: move up to 200nl and come play at my tables...

 

[FEARFACTOR]

Very good debate. I, for one, believe it is rigged. I have no data to support my opinion, just observations of thousands of online hands. Greed is human nature. In this day and age, if a technical manipulation resulting in increased profits is possible, it is not just probable, it is inevitable. Especially when there is no recourse by the players being cheated. There are live casinos that are regulated and audited that pay fines month after month for not meeting minumum payout requirements. They don't care, because their increased profits more than cover the fines. And they stay in business because most players have nowhere else to go but their local casino. They bitch about it, but they still go. online poker players are the same way. If a person wants to play, or needs to play, there is nowhere else to go. We bitch about it, but we still play, even if we think it's rigged. That addiction is human nature, also.

 

[BelgoSuisse]

Very good debate. I, for one, believe it is rigged. I have no data to support my opinion, just observations of thousands of online hands. Greed is human nature. In this day and age, if a technical manipulation resulting in increased profits is possible, it is not just probable, it is inevitable. Especially when there is no recourse by the players being cheated. There are live casinos that are regulated and audited that pay fines month after month for not meeting minumum payout requirements. They don't care, because their increased profits more than cover the fines. And they stay in business because most players have nowhere else to go but their local casino. They bitch about it, but they still go. Online poker players are the same way. If a person wants to play, or needs to play, there is nowhere else to go. We bitch about it, but we still play, even if we think it's rigged. That addiction is human nature, also.

YSY! A new tin foil hat lunatic has come to the forum. arty:

Please read the following thread in full and then leave your insightful comments. https://www.cardschat.com/forum/general-poker-13/online-poker-rigged-investigation-70058/

 

[Stu_Ungar]

...... I, for one, believe it is rigged. I have no data to support my opinion....

You don't do yourself any favors!!

 

[GDRileyx]

I submit the following article, as evidence, for your consideration

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2946938/Sportingbet-hit-by-US-arrest-of-chairman-Dicks.html

I think you should change your name to Half-True Stu. Once again, the evidence you submitted belies your claim.

To quote the article:
Online sports betting contravenes the 1961 Wire Act, though whether internet poker and casino games break that law is a legal grey area.

Andrew Lee, an analyst at Dresdner Kleinwort, reckoned the US authorities are focusing on bets being taken over the phone, which definitely contravenes the Wire Act.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

hey riley you never got back to me about my offer of a heads up furry vampire star wars poker game with pretend internet houses at stake.

 

[justadream82]

Very nice post. Makes me rethink a few sites for sure.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

I think you should change your name to Half-True Stu. Once again, the evidence you submitted belies your claim.

To quote the article:
Online sports betting contravenes the 1961 Wire Act, though whether internet poker and casino games break that law is a legal grey area.

Andrew Lee, an analyst at Dresdner Kleinwort, reckoned the US authorities are focusing on bets being taken over the phone, which definitely contravenes the Wire Act.

That was my point!! The government is happy to act without jurisdiction or statute.

This case and your following quote confirms this.

If online poker were proved to be rigged, the president has already been set.

 

[LyndaNova]

I believe there is no 'winning' this debate.

My suggestion is a simple solution:

*If you think online poker is rigged, then don't play.

There we have it folks. Problem solved.




:goodnight

 

[GDRileyx]

since they play so much, they have the statistical means to check that it is indeed the case.

You argued that 400,000 hands was an insufficient number to determine if the varience between predicted results and actual results was statistically significant. So, by your own argument, no player has sufficient statistical means to actually check whether the hands are being dealt randomly.

Moreover, as I have argued before, if one hand in ten was rigged, the statistical weight of those hands varying from random would not have enough statistical weight to push the whole.

In order to truly test the theory that sites are rigged to increase the rake, we would have to be able to measure things such as how often AA gets cracked versus how often it is supposed to be cracked and how often a flush gets beat by a higher flush, compared to what probability predicts. Since the probabilities of these things are nearly impossible to calculate, and the frequencies of their occurance nearly impossible to measure; I conclude that there is no way to prove this question one way or another. Since you are absolutely certain that online sites are not rigged, without any real proof, just your own evaluation that the preponderance of the evidence is on your side; you are as likely to be wearing a tin hat as anyone. In fact, since you are the one who gets most angry about it, I suspect you have an entire set of armor made of tin-foil.

Anyway, it would only make sense for micro stakes where most of the pots are below $60. As soon as you play non micros, non trivial pots reach the rake cap of $3, so there'd be no point in rigging those anyway.

I just counted 30 tables of No Limit Hold 'Em cash games where the average pot is above $60 on PStars. Yet there are thousands of No Limit Hold 'Em games with an average pot below $60. Clearly, the rake from games where the rake is capped counts for significantly less than half the total rake. I'd be surprised if it was even 10%. So there is significant incentive to up the rake.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

I believe there is no 'winning' this debate.

My suggestion is a simple solution:

*If you think online poker is rigged, then don't play.

There we have it folks. Problem solved.




:goodnight

That was my original suggestion, but the GDRileyx made the claim that although its rigged.. its not terribly rigged.. its rigged enough that GDRileyx is able to notice it with her para-observational abilities, yet not rigged enough that anyone can provide any hard evidence.

GDRileys has also made claims that she is in the top 15% of all players... yet doesn't appear to be bank rolled enough to take up Dorkus's challenge.

I would have thought that it would have been an easy match for 'Rainwoman'

 

[GDRileyx]

That was my point!! The government is happy to act without jurisdiction or statute.

This case and your following quote confirms this.

If online poker were proved to be rigged, the president has already been set.

They arrested the guy for charges related to telephone bets, which is clearly against the statute. So your claim that they acted without a statute to support them is erroneous.

They let him go, which seems to indicate they were afraid they didn't have jurisdiction. So even if the gray areas around poker are clarified, there may still be jurisdictional questions to be resolved.

Moreover, if the people in question simply stay out of the US, it will be hard to arrest them. Sure, extradition is a possibility, just not a really likely one.

You probably meant precedent, rather than president.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

GDRileyx, where did you say you obtained your science degree?

I think I'd like to visit that university. I feel that without the burden of proof I could make 'hourly scientific discoveries', sometimes more!!

Incidentally, has anyone ever seen the film 'Mystery Men'?

The is a character .. invisible boy!! he has the power to turn himself invisible.. but only if noone is looking...

It just makes me think of GDRileyx's style of argument LOL

 

[GDRileyx]

That was my original suggestion, but the GDRileyx made the claim that although its rigged.. its not terribly rigged.. its rigged enough that GDRileyx is able to notice it with her para-observational abilities, yet not rigged enough that anyone can provide any hard evidence.

GDRileys has also made claims that she is in the top 15% of all players... yet doesn't appear to be bank rolled enough to take up Dorkus's challenge.

What I have actually said is that is rigged enough that a vast number of people, myself included, have noticed it.

What I have actually said is that it is carefully rigged by really smart people, to avoid offering easy proof that it is rigged.

I have also said that who can beat who over the table would prove nothing about who is right in this debate.

 

[Irexes]

You probably meant precedent, rather than president.

Someone as willfully ignorant as you are being really shouldn't be correcting spelling.

Locking this as it's now exactly the same as the other thread and I doubt anyone can be bothered to point out the massive holes in Riley's argument, or lack of it, again (and the fact that he said he wasn't posting about this again).

 

[Stu_Ungar]

What I have actually said is that is rigged enough that a vast number of people, myself included, have noticed it.

What I have actually said is that it is carefully rigged by really smart people, to avoid offering easy proof that it is rigged.

Thats exactly it though... you have said a lot, but offered nothing to back up your argument. Just because you say it a lot dosent make it true. As a scientist, you must realise that if you make a claim, you then have the burden of proving it.

I have also said that who can beat who over the table would prove nothing about who is right in this debate.

It would allow us to decide of your previous claims of being one of the top 15% of players

 

[Irexes]

Stu was IBTL

 

[Debi]

Not to worry - despite her promises she has taken up residence again in the other thread.

She obviously gets absolutely no attention anywhere else so has to use you guys for it.

My promise to her still remains.