Online irregularities

[arkadiy]

Ok, here's a real scenario.

(Of note should be that I never said it was rigged. It's very possibly, maybe even likely to be variance. I've just noticed that the upswings are right after I send in money and the downswings are right after cashing out or any other transaction that costs the site money.)

Two people have accounts. One is cashing out via check every week and making the site pay for postage and processing fees. The other is leaving a large bankroll at the website, that the company can then invest and gain interest on for the life of the account.

Now multiply that scenario by about 2 million people. Which person having money left do you think the makes the company more profitable?

btw: I took a couple days off and just played a tournament. With an M of 7 after 4 rounds JJ allin vs. two idiots playing weak aces. Ace on the river. Add it to the list, bud.

You do understand the millions of dollars these sites make right?

1 tournie = 3k people with a .25 going to the site, this is one of hundreds of MICIRO stakes each day. Now go to the bigger tournies with about 1k people and $5 going to the site, this is each day. They gain a lot more than they lose......

 

[robwhufc]

I don't want to be one of those "online poker is rigged" people, but I'm wondering if anybody else has noticed any patterns such as this through their own experience. When I quit playing in the first place, it was because I noticed a terrible shift in "luck" everytime I cashed out.

You just need to play through it - i cashed out $500 from P'stars after winning 66%+ of my H2H SnGs for a few weeks. Soon as I cashed out, i lost 10 out of the next 11 (was knocked out by AA an incredible 5 times of those, in just 2 days). I've almost got i back though (and caught a few beauties along the way). You will get periods when you'll play games that are simply unwinable, but pokersites can't logically (across a number of different sites) programme a cash-out penalty. Just ride it out.

 

[homerphobe]

You do understand the millions of dollars these sites make right?

1 tournie = 3k people with a .25 going to the site, this is one of hundreds of MICIRO stakes each day. Now go to the bigger tournies with about 1k people and $5 going to the site, this is each day. They gain a lot more than they lose......

So you're saying that if a company is extremely profitable, then there's no chance that people will get greedy and become corrupt. Or in other words, power doesn't only not corrupt, it purifies?

How about Enron, or oil companies, or.....get the gist?

 

[joeeagles]

So you're saying that if a company is extremely profitable, then there's no chance that people will get greedy and become corrupt. Or in other words, power doesn't only not corrupt, it purifies?

How about Enron, or oil companies, or.....get the gist?

On this I agree with you, the whole theory about these sites making a ton of money does not prove it isn't rigged, and I've said this before. This seems to be every time the biggest argument in favor of these games being clean, but its a very hollow one. There still are plenty reasons and plenty ways to fix on-line poker, with the biggest one being that they can get away with it.

I don't argue either side, I'm not saying its rigged or it isn't. However, I won't believe it is until I see evidence, or someone proves it scientifically.

 

[Claypool84]

I dont know man. Is online poker rigged, probably not. Does it seem like we lose more often with better hands, definately. One thing u have to realize is that u see a lot more hands online, meaning a lot more variance. I dont know if the sites have much to gain by "tricking u" into losing ur money. However, I could be wrong. If ur that good play in B and M rooms and make some cash if u think the house isnt trying to cheat u too.

 

[Mehman]

I could see a large scam poised at getting accounts made by PS staff to go into the higher end MTT's or the sunday million every week and win it giving them a 5% slice of it and the rest of it going into the big wig of the company i reckon that would make a good sunday movie tbh. And they would have like all the hands that were coming up on like a cheat sheet so they know when to bet big and when to lay low, i know the next movie im making!.

 

[arkadiy]

So you're saying that if a company is extremely profitable, then there's no chance that people will get greedy and become corrupt. Or in other words, power doesn't only not corrupt, it purifies?

How about Enron, or oil companies, or.....get the gist?

It's just that these companys have no need to do it and not smart to take the risk of getting caught

 

[Adm.Halsey]

I have folded on a weak pair and then hit trips...many times. I still enjoy the site though. I just try to control my chasing. lol

 

[homerphobe]

It's just that these companys have no need to do it and not smart to take the risk of getting caught

I never said it was smart, only that it was a possible reason for intentionally adjusting the "odds".

I wanted to make sure to note that I'm not saying that this is the case, only a possbility. I'm still playing online, but I'm only buying in for about 1% of my bankroll becasue I'm still not sure either way. That's why I started the thread, to see if anybody else noticed what I was.

 

[homerphobe]

On this I agree with you, the whole theory about these sites making a ton of money does not prove it isn't rigged, and I've said this before. This seems to be every time the biggest argument in favor of these games being clean, but its a very hollow one. There still are plenty reasons and plenty ways to fix on-line poker, with the biggest one being that they can get away with it.

I don't argue either side, I'm not saying its rigged or it isn't. However, I won't believe it is until I see evidence, or someone proves it scientifically.

The only way to give any scientific evidence would be if about 20 people with accounts participated in a study where half cashed out and then everyone played exactly the same number of hands by exactly the same strategy. That would be pretty hard to organize, so I figured I'd go for anecdotal information so that I could make an impromptu qualitative analysis.

So far nobody has said they've noticed anything similar to what I have, so I'll keep playing online at very small stakes and see what happens. I wanted to avoid paying for gas over the summer, but I guess it's back to the casino if I want to play higher stakes.

 

[tenbob]

On a serious note , Ive cashed out numerious times from both pokerstars and Full Tilt and noticed no difference at all in the hands or beats i get. Poker is a game of variance, and i do in fairness have downswings lasting over 10,000 hands, I have played 19 single table sit and gos tournaments without cashing at all. Its nothing to do with a mysterious "doom" button that pokerstars press, its just pure variance, and learning to deal with it is part of learning the game. I suspect your hand sample is simply too small.

Look at this in practical terms, there are several very large poker forums around, most of the long term posters also hold extremly large pokertracker databases. The majority of big winning players are math/stats heads, and with literally thousands of these players around, each holding hundreds of thousands of hands, not a single one has been able to proove ANY staticical variance based on ANYTHING, apart from tilt, let alone mysterious "doom" switches that "changes" you game to give you more bad beats when you cash out.

 

[Egon Towst]

Have to agree with Tenbob on this one. I have many times cashed out at Absolute, bodog, and Titan and, although I also suffer downswings from time to time, I see no evidence that there is any correlation.

Tenbob`s comment about statistical data is also bang on. There is an old thread here (would have linked to it but couldn`t find it ) in which one of our members (Martin) posted a mathemetical analysis of his own large Tracker database, which proved that the hand distribution was "correct" to within a fraction of a per cent across the thousands of hands he had played on multiple sites.

Lastly, you have only to look at this site to see clear evidence that online poker is in good health. There is a substantial group of regulars here who routinely make money online. They are the lucky ones, you might say, except that by an odd "coincidence" they are the same regulars who often demonstrate their grasp of the game by supplying knowledgeable comment in the Hand Analysis forum and elsewhere.

 

[homerphobe]

Have to agree with Tenbob on this one. I have many times cashed out at Absolute, Bodog, and Titan and, although I also suffer downswings from time to time, I see no evidence that there is any correlation.

Tenbob`s comment about statistical data is also bang on. There is an old thread here (would have linked to it but couldn`t find it ) in which one of our members (Martin) posted a mathemetical analysis of his own large Tracker database, which proved that the hand distribution was "correct" to within a fraction of a per cent across the thousands of hands he had played on multiple sites.

Lastly, you have only to look at this site to see clear evidence that online poker is in good health. There is a substantial group of regulars here who routinely make money online. They are the lucky ones, you might say, except that by an odd "coincidence" they are the same regulars who often demonstrate their grasp of the game by supplying knowledgeable comment in the Hand Analysis forum and elsewhere.

Thanks for the feedback, and for what it's worth I appreciate the tone of this post a lot more than your first. I understand that there is variance in the game, my suspicions were only aroused due to the all too coincidental timing of the bad run of cards.

 

[diamond_06_06]

Hi all,
this is my fisrt post (just now stumbled upon the site).

I wanted to reply to this site because I was involved in a discussion on this very topic at my local casino in Sydney Australia. Nearly all the people had stories and theories of thier own and it came down to 60% feeling the sites were (probably) rigged and 40% beleiving them to be completely fair.

There were a few points raised as to why and how a site may choose to influence certain hands. I can only properly remember 2.

Theory 1. Suppose there are 9 amount of people involved in a hand. All the players have about $200 in their online accounts except one who has only $30. Who out of these 9 is most likely going to have to deposit extra funds in to their account soonest. Would the poker site have anything to gain from stacking odds slightly against this palyer????
(I personally am not agreeing or disagreein with these points.)

Alot of the people I have spoken to have stated that when their accounts have fewer funds they seem to experience alot more bad beats. Now I know this could just as easily be explained with bad play, poor bankroll management, people being emontionally scared of loosing thier last monies.

Theory 2. In the lower stakes games the site rake is of a considerably higher %age than that of the higher stakes. In higher stakes I personally have seen $20,000 pots raked $0.50 andin smaller stakes I have seen $25 pots being raked $2.50. Would any pokersite gain financially by dealing two people the same cards (ie: A J offsuit vs A J offsuit). what if the above two players had $20 each on the table and the flop was K Q 10 rainbow. the both eventually go all-in after some re-raises and both loose $1.50 each and the site wins $3.

This one sits a little closer to home for me beacuse when I used to paly $0.10 - $0.25 games this happened 3 times in a row and 8 or 9 times in the one session where I was dealt the exact same cards as an opponent and we both flopped the nuts.

Any thoughts??

This post is mostly directed to Swanny who asked what a site could possibly gain from rigging thier site.

 

[ripptyde]

Hi Diamond....welcome

where in Sydney do you live ? Many many moons ago I lived in Neutral Bay on Baden Road....I had a gorgeous harbour-front flat with a beautiful view. I worked for a dinner cruise called Captain Cook cruises and used to take the Kirribilli ferry to work. I have some fond memories of Australia...was a shame I only stayed a year. I actually have dual citizenship since my mother was born in Canberra.

anyhoo...welcome to CC

 

[Egon Towst]

Thanks for the feedback, and for what it's worth I appreciate the tone of this post a lot more than your first.

You`re welcome.

You must forgive my earlier impatience. Those of us who have been CCers for a while have had the "is online poker rigged ?" discussion about forty times already, and have proved to our satisfaction, both by reasoning and by statistical analysis, that it is not (At least as regards the big international sites/networks. There may be exceptions on the shadowy fringes.).

We are jaded with it. So, when someone starts it off again, we groan. Not your fault.

 

[Scott_Fischman]

I have had that happen many times but don't believe it is the sites fault. The biggest thing is to keep enough in your account so you feel comfortable. I used to pull out 70% of my stack. Once you go from $500 to $150 and are used to playing $30 sngs 1 or 2 losses hurts alot more. Try not to take out more than 25% unless you really need it. There are alot of "Standards" on what to keep to deal with variance. I try to keep 100-150 bb, or 20 sng buy ins. It seems on the low side, but I am playing Omaha 8 which is lower variance.

Good luck!

 

[homerphobe]

I have had that happen many times but don't believe it is the sites fault. The biggest thing is to keep enough in your account so you feel comfortable. I used to pull out 70% of my stack. Once you go from $500 to $150 and are used to playing $30 sngs 1 or 2 losses hurts alot more. Try not to take out more than 25% unless you really need it. There are alot of "Standards" on what to keep to deal with variance. I try to keep 100-150 bb, or 20 sng buy ins. It seems on the low side, but I am playing Omaha 8 which is lower variance.

Good luck!

I didn't pull out a dime from my account, I only cashed in some FPPs that I had accumulated. And when you lose 10 buyins due to beats, 20 buyins doesn't really seem like very much, because that's pretty much what I did.

 

[WhiteWidowToker]

its quite simple to figure out its not rigged man.

just imagine another player in your exact same shoes, suppose you two meet up at a heads up table by coincidence, are you both going to lose since the sight is rigged against both of you? nope, its poker and its gambling, and i wouldnt be surprised if you were just playing scared poker folding winning hands and just waiting for the OBVIOUS winners like AA KK which arent really all that obvious, now are they?

 

[homerphobe]

its quite simple to figure out its not rigged man.

just imagine another player in your exact same shoes, suppose you two meet up at a heads up table by coincidence, are you both going to lose since the sight is rigged against both of you? nope, its poker and its gambling, and i wouldnt be surprised if you were just playing scared poker folding winning hands and just waiting for the OBVIOUS winners like AA KK which arent really all that obvious, now are they?

Shouldn't be too hard to realize that I wasn't playing scared. For the 5th time I was buying in short stacked and being all in preflop or on the flop. I was actually playing by a pretty basic, tight short stack strategy. AA all in preflop against 77 is a pretty OBVIOUS play. I never said anything about heads up games, I only played ring games.

I'm getting really tired of hearing the same thing over and over, so unless anybody has any specific that you've witnessed first hand, please don't post anymore and let this thread die.

I don't need to hear, "There's variance in poker", "You're playing scared", "Why would they rig the games" or any other obvious comment that's been said twenty times or more. I was looking for whether people noticed downswings after cashing out or not. I wasn't looking for any hand analysis or vague, extremely simple advice.