Why I think online poker is rigged

[unlucky79]

You aren't going to get any sympathy on this board and this post is going to get nothing but replies along the lines of "Here we go again!".

That's all well and good but your post and every other one like it all say the same thing "I THINK IT'S RIGGED! IT HAS TO BE RIGGED! LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY, NO WAY THAT CAN BE RANDOM!". Every single rigged post boils down to what I just said.

Don't know why I'm replying to this but I'm bored.

Statistically, these sites are kept very close track of by alot of people. If they were rigged, there would be obvious statistically anomalies. There aren't. There just simply aren't. If there were they would lose business and go out of business, and the sites know this. Random means you can get anything at any time. Random means what you just got last hand, or the last hour, makes absolutely no difference at all to what you get next hand (or what your oppenents will get..or for that matter HOW YOUR OPPONENTS WILL PLAY WHAT THEY GET). Anything is possible with random.

People in general have such a terrile understanding of probability and statistics though..that's one reason all these threads pop up. Come in here with a good half-million hand database and tell me it's rigged or just go home cause your opinion is only as valuable as the facts you have to back it up. In your case, and in 99.9% of "rigged" posts, you have effectively ZERO facts to back you up, meaning your opinion is worth just as much.

Just wait till someone tells you what you have in your hand and makes a big laugh over things. Then I think your viewpoint might change just like mine did the other night. You must put yourself in a business standpoint. More tables free more money to be made on the server. The faster they can rotate games in and out the quicker the money will come into the house. I agree and I myself would operate the same way if I didnt have anyone there to actually regulate things. These sites are making a killing on poker everyday. It amazes me how much greed comes into the equasion. This is my insight take it leave it call me what you will as I would be calling this reply a bunch of crap about 1 month ago myself. I guess this is another worthless post to all who think so. Sorry to dissapoint everyone!!!!

 

[unlucky79]

2nd hand after sitting down. Figured you might like that 3 players had suited pockets with a flush flop...

Thats crazy can anyone do the math on the odds on that!!!!

 

[unlucky79]

This is long but I just gotta get it off my chest.

First let me say right up front, that I DO NOT think online poker is rigged to favor any one player. I think that poker sites are rigged to juice the pot, thus making for more rake and more profit.

There are several reasons why I think online poker is rigged. They are both from observation and from real world logic and experience.

Any company or corporation is in the business of making money, as much money as possible, in any way that it can be made. If Company A can make $50 million a month that’s great, but if it can $50M and 50 cents that’s better. If it can make that extra .50 cents in some unethical or illegal way without getting caught then it’s all good. The larger the company or corporation, or the more money involved, the more likely it is that this sort of thing will happen. There will be some underling out to impress his boss (who is out to impress his boss) that will come up with a scheme to boost the company profits. The chairman of the board or any celebrity spokesmen may have no idea, and may not care to check, if anything unsavory is going on. Can we spell “plausible deniability” boys and girls? It may also be that the chairman may not be able to detect that anything is wrong, as in the case of companies whose business is entirely computer generated. It would be very easy for an enterprising underling to twiddle the code for the desired results and unless there was an INDEPENDENT auditor that part of the code would never be seen. There could easily be multiple programs, one that you would show to outside verification firms that would put their stamp of approval on it, and another that would actually run on the site. There would have to be independent and unannounced spot checks to prevent or at least deter this sort of thing. I do not see that this sort of independent auditing happens. That would probably need to be a governmental or possibly a trade group process.

How might some one be able to detect that things are not quite right? By observation of course. I have heard and read in several places statements by the companies themselves, their celebrity spokesmen, and various pundits about “why would poker sites do such a thing and risk killing the golden goose”, or “you play many more hands online that there are bound to be more suck outs”. To that I would say just observe. If you play multiple tables watch to see how often a hand on table A would win on table B or C. How often is there some kind of coordination between tables? How often do you get the same cards at the same time on 2 or more tables? Just look for patterns. If you see patterns IT’S NOT RANDOM!! If it’s not random there is a reason for it.

I have played a lot in casinos and home games. It is strange to me how often in online games that what ever cards I am dealt, I will pair the flop or get 4 to a flush or straight. I do not see this in live games. There is a tendency for low to mid limit players to call the blinds with almost any 2 cards. Low and mid limit players make up the bulk of players online. Could a poker site exploit this tendency by making sure the flop hits the most players in some way thus encouraging more action? I know…more hands per hour and all that but I have watched and kept track of how often this happens live as opposed to online. The percentages online are higher than live. That means that online is NOT random. If it’s not random there is a reason. I do not think this happens every hand but 5, 10, 15 percent......Hummmmm.....10 percent of $50M is some serious cash.

Again I state that I do not think that poker sites favor any one player. Also if you play good solid poker you can win online but you better have the nuts by the river ‘cause some donkey will suck out and beat you with a 2 outer.

Until and unless there is some sort of independent ongoing oversight of online poker sites I will not trust them. I will still play there ‘cause I love to play poker so much but I will not put very much if any real money in them. Hopefully we can get the government to see the light on poker and we can get some sort of regulation but I’m not going to hold my breath.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

Until online poker is truly regulated anything goes plain and simple!!!

 

[DaFrench1]

So let me see, yep, true to form the post has panned out as expected. We've had the 'no statistical anomalies, some number crunchers that nobody knows and who never provide data are on top of it for you', the comparison with a live game, the off-topic side conversation to make the OP seem irrelevant, the explanation of why people who even consider that there might be any rigging taking place are delusional, and the random bad beat to discredit even further. Yep, everything in order there. Definitely no randomness there at least. Usually the same posters too.

But wait, wheres the variance guy? He's late! Well I guess its Sunday so we can forgive him that. I tell you what, I'll fill in for him.

Now BitznBitez, did you know that if you toss a coin 100 times yadda, yadda, yadda? No? Well, there you go. Undisputable evidence that poker isn't rigged. Oh and BTW I hope you've got a couple of trillion hands in Poker Tracker to back up what you are saying!

There we go, another job well done. Pats on the back all round. Now move along now, nothing to see here.

 

[BitznBites]

It's a matter of percenatges

I did not mean to imply that every hand on every table was "adjusted". 5, 10, 15 percent??? 10 percent of $50M is a goodly chunk of change. If this was done every hand it would be counter productive people would howl and they would lose the fish. I just think it's done for just a little extra boost....boost the profits, keep the shareholders happy, keep the chairman happy, get a nice little promotion....Who knows. As I said, if you play good solid poker you can win. If you are counting on the donkey not to make his flush on the river you're probably gonna lose more than in the same situation in a live game with a real shuffle.

I did not expect to really convince anyone....I expected to get lotsa flames for not keeping to the "Party Line". This is just my opinion, something I've wanted to say for sometime. If I've hurt anybodies feelings I'm sorry. I think common sense and a look at the greed that seems to permeate the corporate culture these days are good arguments that things are not as we would wish them to be.

 

[Tammy]

So let me see, yep, true to form the post has panned out as expected. We've had the 'no statistical anomalies, some number crunchers that nobody knows and who never provide data are on top of it for you', the comparison with a live game, the off-topic side conversation to make the OP seem irrelevant, the explanation of why people who even consider that there might be any rigging taking place are delusional, and the random bad beat to discredit even further. Yep, everything in order there. Definitely no randomness there at least. Usually the same posters too.

But wait, wheres the variance guy? He's late! Well I guess its Sunday so we can forgive him that. I tell you what, I'll fill in for him.

Now BitznBitez, did you know that if you toss a coin 100 times yadda, yadda, yadda? No? Well, there you go. Undisputable evidence that poker isn't rigged. Oh and BTW I hope you've got a couple of trillion hands in Poker Tracker to back up what you are saying!

There we go, another job well done. Pats on the back all round. Now move along now, nothing to see here.

If we still had the rep system I would so give +rep to you...:laugh: Awesome post.

 

[dj12inches]

If you knew Kennedy was assasinated by the CIA - then why didnt you leave the USA?
If you knew poker was rigged - why didnt you stop playing?
All theories aside - it's still fun.

Somebody created all of this and now you dont have to wait a month to get some drunk buddies together before you can play a round. I'll believe that they are trying to get rich - and bless them, if it keeps me playing, I'm happy. I can sharpen my skills, win some and lose some, and then take it to Vegas or the WigWam. I am sorry that many of you are tired of the debate - but dialog is necessary for creating change. Perhaps things will be regulated one day. I hope to see online casinos that are regulated by a state agency like Nevada's - maybe credibility can grow that into fair business practice. Besides, I would like to earn points towards free rooms in Vegas or something. Thanks for chiming in even though you are tired of hearing it. It is a new discussion to a newb like me, and I like hearing both sides.

JB

 

[vanquish]

plz collect a 50k hand PT database and post legit screenshots

 

[Debi]

This phenomenon of "selective memory" to support rigged "theories" is similar to "bad-luck theories" or superstitions in general.

Interestigly, superstitions are not unique to humans but also observed in animals. Apparently the brain has a tendency to correlate events that have no causal relationship. It seems that this can happen spontaneously by "observing" a pattern that is a coincidence, and then selectively remembering all the times this random pattern is confirmed (and forgetting the times it is not).

Here is an exerpt about the original research into superstitions in animals:

"One of Skinner's experiments examined the formation of superstition in one of his favorite experimental animals, the pigeon. Skinner placed a series of hungry pigeons in a cage attached to an automatic mechanism that delivered food to the pigeon "at regular intervals with no reference whatsoever to the bird's behavior." He discovered that the pigeons associated the delivery of the food with whatever chance actions they had been performing as it was delivered, and that they subsequently continued to perform these same actions.

Skinner suggested that the pigeons believed that they were influencing the automatic mechanism with their "rituals" and that this experiment shed light on human behavior:"

+rep for this one too!

 

[DaFrench1]

With the bodog hand in the screenshot above, I'd love to know if someone folded the 9 5!!

EDIT: Actually I didn't see the 6 on the end was diamonds. Damn, who still uses 2 color decks!

 

[DaFrench1]

plz collect a 50k hand PT database and post legit screenshots

You're Late!!! Look, if you don't want this gig anymore then we have plenty of others ready to step in and take your place.

Capiche? :deal:

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

There must something CC can implement for anyone who attempts to use "Rigged", disallowing the post to go through.
Then, if they still want to post about it, they'll have to be calm and sly enough to do a work-around.

better yet, we could set up a pseudo-censor which changes every instance of "rigged" to something like "DON'T LISTEN TO ME PLZ" or "PASS ME THE TINFOIL HAT, MARVIN"

If you knew Kennedy was assasinated by the CIA - then why didnt you leave the USA?
If you knew poker was rigged - why didnt you stop playing?

Worst. Analogy. Ever.

 

[DaFrench1]

better yet, we could set up a pseudo-censor which changes every instance of "rigged" to something like "DON'T LISTEN TO ME PLZ" or "PASS ME THE TINFOIL HAT, MARVIN"

If you've already got your head buried in the sand then I don't think you need the tinfoil hat as well. Its kinda overkill .

 

[Chris_TC]

2nd hand after sitting down. Figured you might like that 3 players had suited pockets with a flush flop...

I had something similar happen on Ongame a few weeks back. Two hearts on the flop, a third heart on the turn.

Person A got it all in with a Queen high flush.
Person B (that would be me) got it all in with a King high flush.
Person C got it all in with an Ace high flush.

That's what I call rigged

 

[beardyian]

Well, why is it when I have AA does no one else have an "all-in" hand?

I had AA x 3 times today, every single time it was either folded down to me (big blind) or folded to any raise.

Theory dead?

Myth Busted

With the Bodog hand in the screenshot above, I'd love to know if someone folded the 9 5!!

EDIT: Actually I didn't see the 6 on the end was diamonds. Damn, who still uses 2 color decks!

Long live the green clubs and blue diamonds

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

better yet, we could set up a pseudo-censor which changes every instance of "rigged" to something like "DON'T LISTEN TO ME PLZ" or "PASS ME THE TINFOIL HAT, MARVIN"

If you've already got your head buried in the sand then I don't think you need the tinfoil hat as well. Its kinda overkill .

you're right - i've missed all the overwhelming evidence because i have my head in the sand, obv.

it would get pretty hot with one's head being buried in the sand complete with a tinfoil hat though, absolutely.

 

[K_Kahne_Fan]

...Damn, who still uses 2 color decks!

I've tried the 4 color a few times, but I'm affraid it may trip me up in a live game if I get too used to the colors. As it appears to have done to a few of you looking at my screenshot.

BTW, I've had similar instances at live tables, I just thought this would help the OP's cause

 

[wsorbust]

better yet, we could set up a pseudo-censor which changes every instance of "rigged" to something like "DON'T LISTEN TO ME PLZ" or "PASS ME THE TINFOIL HAT, MARVIN"

ah. Now we're thinking. Good times can be had! lol

 

[vanquish]

You're Late!!! Look, if you don't want this gig anymore then we have plenty of others ready to step in and take your place.

Capiche? :deal:

lol wtf

 

[jaketrevvor]

AAHHHH!!! I read 3 posts by Dak in a row - I guess this means CC must be rigged!!

 

[Tygran]

2nd hand after sitting down. Figured you might like that 3 players had suited pockets with a flush flop...

No offense to you on this particular hand... but you could say the 2/4 was an idiot from playing it from first position and you getting all in with Q high flush was a bit suspect.

Is it the fault of the site that the 2/4 and the J/Q played this hand at all, let alone get all in with it?

I love how all the action rigged conspiracy theorists always bring examples were the people who lost had no business being all in in the first place. But it's always far easier to blame the site for being rigged than admit that I played poorly.

Besides all this the very premise that this one hand somehow proves some overarching conspiracy is very tiring. Are you trying to tell me this particular set up should never happen? And if it *should* happen that there is some reason it shouldn't happen early at a table?

 

[voodoobich]

of course the sites r rigged... when u lose!!!! but not when u win. its called gambling for a reason. true they do seem to favor the aggressive player with the bigger stack but how many times have you won a hand with the crap cards and lost with the best. it happens to the best and worst of us. in the end if you dont like it dont play

 

[K_Kahne_Fan]

No offense to you on this particular hand... but you could say the 2/4 was an idiot from playing it from first position and you getting all in with Q high flush was a bit suspect.

I definitely agree with the 2/4. Although 2/4 had both of us overstacked and may have thought we were both drawing and therefore (to them) it was worth a shot. I only had $1.50, so "all-in" post flop in my case was not much. And to think my QJ may be the best flush is a decent call. Could someone have Ax, or Kx suited, sure, but with $1.50 it was worth the call. Not to mention if someone had A or K with an unsuited connector and another heart on turn/river would've killed me. I understood all this, but that's what they call a gamble.

Is it the fault of the site that the 2/4 and the J/Q played this hand at all, let alone get all in with it?

It's not a question of if it's the site's fault we played, but the site's fault we were dealt these in hopes we would play --> increase the rake. BTW, I don't know weather I agree with any conpiracies, I'm just clearifying the difference between what the OP said and you said.

I love how all the action rigged conspiracy theorists always bring examples were the people who lost had no business being all in in the first place. But it's always far easier to blame the site for being rigged than admit that I played poorly.

QJ suited has no resone to be played? You're right, that's an absolutely horrible hand. I'll be sure to fold that every time I get it from now on.

Besides all this the very premise that this one hand somehow proves some overarching conspiracy is very tiring. Are you trying to tell me this particular set up should never happen? And if it *should* happen that there is some reason it shouldn't happen early at a table?

BTW, I've had similar instances at live tables, I just thought this would help the OP's cause

Read the entire thread and you would see I've seen similar hands at live tables. I just found it funny that it happened right around the time this thread was posted.

 

[DaFrench1]

+rep for this one too!

I agree. In fact while we are it I think we should take this opportunity to stamp down on all creativity, free-thinking, and deviations of opinion from the mainstream. Otherwise, well the world will just become chaos.

Furthermore, I think CC should change the T & C's to stipulate that all posts be accompanied with a Wikipedia cut & paste job to substantiate anything said (because Wikipedia is God!). This will ensure complete bias, sorry I mean impartiality, consesus of all thought, and a further step towards world peace.

BTW, Cheetah, I think when you do such cut & paste jobs in future it would be best to show that many sides to an argument (as there are in all academic disciplines) rather than just cherry-picking the parts that suit your argument. Though maybe you were just trying to demonstrate to us how a "Selective Memory" works in those people that believe in "theories" that online gaming is "not at all rigged for action"

For anyone interested here is the rest of the Wikipedia doc that Cheetah CHOSE to ommit:

"Modern behavioral psychologists have disputed Skinner's "superstition" explanation for the behaviors he recorded. Subsequent research (for instance, by Staddon and Simmelhag in 1971) while finding similar behavior failed to find support for Skinner's "adventitious reinforcement" explanation for it. By looking at the timing of different behaviors within the interval, Staddon and Simmelhag were able to distinguish two classes of behavior: the terminal response, which occurred in anticipation of food, and interim responses, that occurred earlier in the interfood interval and were rarely contiguous with food. Terminal responses seem to reflect classical (rather than operant) conditioning, rather than adventitious reinforcement, guided by a process like that observed in 1968 by Brown and Jenkins in their "autoshaping" procedures. The causation of interim activities (such as the schedule-induced polydipsia seen in a similar situation with rats) also cannot be traced to adventitious reinforcement and its details are still obscure (Staddon, 1977). Eduardo J. Fernandez of the Department of Psychology of Indiana University sought to follow up on Staddon and Simmelhag's debunking of Skinner's hypothesis and to "further contrast superstitious versus functional interpretations of behavior" in pigeons. In a 2004 paper titled "Superstition Re-revisited: An Examination of Niche-Related Mechanisms Underlying Schedule Produced Behavior in Pigeons," he demonstrated that what Skinner had seen as "superstitious" behavior was accounted for by the natural foraging behaviors of the species he used as test subjects"

Source: B. F. Skinner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tosborn]

............ I will not trust them. I will still play there .............

Hmmmmmm...........