Why I think online poker is rigged

[Wonka22]

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!!!!

Doesn't Daniel Negreanu do this 10 times every televised tourney that he is in??

The thing is...you don' tsee the 20 other times that Daniel makes a call and is completely off.

 

[Wonka22]

Someone has brought this up before in the forums.

At least here in America, our newsmedia love nothing more than being able to blow open a huge story.

With that being said, with all the poker tracking software out there do you HONESTLY think that there aren't some mathematicians checking these things out??

This would be as big a story as "To catch a Predator"

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

I don't think I get it. You're saying that they're not singling any particular player out, but they're "juicing" the game in general. In that case, I wouldn't need to know everybody else's holecards since they would have the same - juiced - distribution as my own. Therefore, if I can show that my pairs, two pairs, draws, flushes, straights, full houses, trips and quads come with the expected frequency, and that they WIN with their expected frequency (this is a major difference) then we're well on our way.

Testing for stack sizes can probably be done as well, depending on what you're looking for. How do you mean that they might juice the games with the stack sizes as a variable, and can that variable actually not be eliminated? I.e. are you saying that if we look at the distribution of how the hands play out without regards to stack sizes, you'd expect to see a fair distribution, but if we look at "only short stacks" for instance, we might see a disproportionately large shift towards, say, top pair hands?

/thread

 

[ellisman7]

poker isnt rigged, its just absolute that rigged...thank you.

 

[DaFrench1]

The bitching starts when you are having a run of bad luck. It happens to all of us. And after whatever the time period is it will flip back to a winning period. It has nothing to do with the sites either being rigged or juiced.

So you sit back and go with the flow. And if you don't have the temperment to ride out the downswing then don't play. Read and study until you are clear in your head enough to go back into the fray.

"poker is rigged, blah blah blah, boo hoo, i can't win and i'm a poker god."

See what I mean? Ridiculous, just plain ridiculous.

So BBB, I'm bitching because I'm losing? I don't know how many times I have to say that isn't the case but obviously you don't believe me. Take a lot at these forum leaderboards here , here , and here. I'm in the top 5 of all 3, I don't know out of how many players but I'm guessing its hundreds, with the last one its thousands. In the same time I've built a BR from 0 - 800 split across 5 sites. I guess I really suck, huh? Even more funny is that you are on the same leaderboards and have played twice as many games as me on both.

I think YOU should read more books.....

The fact of the matter is we just have different ways of attributing our successes and failures (see Sports Psychology > Attribution Theory). You (and it seems all your buddies) believe that all your results are as a direct consequence of your actions. I only partially believe this. In my case it means that both wins and defeats are pretty much water off a ducks back and I move on, thus I have a perfectly adequate pyschological disposition to continue playing this game. I'm guessing you must be beating yourself up on a pretty regular basis based on yours...But that isn't really of any concern to me, because I accept the differences in personalities that we all have and am willing to listen to views from anyone, and tolerate them if they are different. So why can't you?

 

[DaFrench1]

Someone has brought this up before in the forums.

At least here in America, our newsmedia love nothing more than being able to blow open a huge story.

With that being said, with all the poker tracking software out there do you HONESTLY think that there aren't some mathematicians checking these things out??

This would be as big a story as "To catch a Predator"

Actually, I do believe there are mathematicians checking these things out, but anyone with the intelligence to accomplish this task is hardly going to run to a newspaper to be a 'hero' (what a joke). Much more likely is that any discrepancies are going to provide an edge which they will themselves exploit and so they will hold it back as long as they can. If you want an example of this then look at all the super-geeks that work in financial markets calculating fantastic formulas, equations and creating instruments that provide them and their bank with a hidden edge. They don't run to the newspapers exposing discrepancies in market trading do they? they ruthlessly exploit any edges in favour of who-ever they are working for and are richly rewarded for doing so. I've had the pleasure of working with a lot of these guys so I know what I'm talking about.

I've asked this in another post before. Name me one of these guys thats got my back, name me one scam they've exposed, or at least show me where I can find some data or reports that they are producing.

 

[Chiefer]

if you are going to quote me and call me rediculous, then quote my whole post. it is meant as a generalization to the whole online poker is rigged theory plays out on a poker forum.

 

[DaFrench1]

if you are going to quote me and call me rediculous, then quote my whole post. it is meant as a generalization to the whole online poker is rigged theory plays out on a poker forum.

Fair enough. I retract that.


Anywayz, gang. I've got some donkey bashing to be getting back to, as I'm sure we all do. Shall we say same time next week?!

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

that's some expert ignoring of FP's post you've done there *golf clap*.

 

[DaFrench1]

that's some expert ignoring of FP's post you've done there *golf clap*.

Ya, I actually learnt that one from you.

I think everything has been stated quite clearly previously.

 

[skd1337]

are we all done now? after reading all this mess I came to the conclusion that this thread is REALLY BORING and it just took 10 mins of my life I expect to be refunded IN FULL

 

[rob5775]

that's some expert ignoring of FP's post you've done there *golf clap*.

I concur *golf clap*.


Nothing like FP riding in to save the day.

 

[aliengenius]

lolz at Dafrench matching wits with FP and Cheetah. Here's a fly swatter kid, go pick a fight with those two gorillas over there...

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

Ya, I actually learnt that one from you.

I think everything has been stated quite clearly previously.

No, no it hasn't.

- You've stated in past threads that you have a good grasp of statistics (I think you have, anyway, forgive me if this isn't the case - I'm sure as hell not backtracking through your dozens of conspiracy posts).

- You've stated in this thread that while you don't think the games are 'rigged' against any particular people, they are 'juiced' overall.

- You then proceed to state that one person's hands won't be enough to analyze these allegations - you'd need everyone's holecards turned up.

- FP points out that, if your assertion that the games are not particularly biased towards any individual are true, then you in fact can conduct a perfectly adequate analysis with just your own hands, as the distribution of your hands would, assuming an unbiased game, be in balance with the distribution of hands to all other players. In other words, if one person can expect to hit more strong hands than is to be expected, then in an unbiased game the same will apply to all other players and thus only one set of holecards is needed, given a large enough sample size.

- You completely ignore said point because it makes you look stupid and throws your 'good understanding' of statistics into question.

gg sir, gg

 

[-Phil Ivey27]

online poker is rigged. A statement that i have believed and irrationaly screamed at tables. But, the truth is online poker is not rigged. We say it so we dont feel badly about our play but instead say its the sites fault. The truth is you dont look at the abundance of normal hands played at the table you just look at the ones that r like wtf did that just happen. If you play loose you are usually the ones who are complaining about the bad beats. If you played hands like ace 9 of daimonds from early postion and lose to a "bad beat" then that was really your fault for playing it in the first place. Full tilt rewards tight play and definetly doesnt reward slow playing keep that in mind.

 

[DaFrench1]

No, no it hasn't.

- You've stated in past threads that you have a good grasp of statistics (I think you have, anyway, forgive me if this isn't the case - I'm sure as hell not backtracking through your dozens of conspiracy posts).

- You've stated in this thread that while you don't think the games are 'rigged' against any particular people, they are 'juiced' overall.

- You then proceed to state that one person's hands won't be enough to analyze these allegations - you'd need everyone's holecards turned up.

- FP points out that, if your assertion that the games are not particularly biased towards any individual are true, then you in fact can conduct a perfectly adequate analysis with just your own hands, as the distribution of your hands would, assuming an unbiased game, be in balance with the distribution of hands to all other players. In other words, if one person can expect to hit more strong hands than is to be expected, then in an unbiased game the same will apply to all other players and thus only one set of holecards is needed, given a large enough sample size.

- You completely ignore said point because it makes you look stupid and throws your 'good understanding' of statistics into question.

gg sir, gg

You're a weird guy, but just for you:

1). Correct

2). Correct

3). Correct

4). You might think that you can make a pefectly adequate analysis with 22-44% of the available data while making assumptions about the rest, but I do not concur with this.

5). I'm not feeling particularly stupid at the moment, but if makes you feel to better to think that I am then by all means knock yourself out with that thought!


Now, if you really want to put a nail in my argument's coffin, then answer me this and lets put this to bed once and for all. This is the one YOU have been avoiding.


Re: The number crunchers that will save us from evil:

I've asked this in another post before. Name me one of these guys thats got my back, name me one scam they've exposed, or at least show me where I can find some data or reports that they are producing.

No. Not only do you not understand statistics, you clearly don't understand basic logic. You don't get to claim "I believe there are pink gremlins under the bed" and then say it has just as much weight as "pink gremlins don't exist" because I can't "prove" that they don't.

Eh, Pink Gremlins? oh, do you mean 'Number Crunchers'? Are they one and the same thing? I'm confused you see because I don't understand basic logic.

 

[vanquish]

well the absolute cheating "scam" was exposed....

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

4). You might think that you can make a pefectly adequate analysis with 22-44% of the available data while making assumptions about the rest, but I do not concur with this.

i'm only operating under your assumptions - i'm making no assumptions of my own. if, as you say, the games are not biased to any particular players and are just generally 'juiced', the remaining 66-88% (?) of 'available data' will correlate with the given data in the long run.

if you're not comfortable with me using your assumptions, then you're obviously not comfortable in your assumptions. amusing.

I've asked this in another post before. Name me one of these guys thats got my back, name me one scam they've exposed, or at least show me where I can find some data or reports that they are producing.

the obvious example is AP. however, 2 mins in google for more fun.

How We Learned to Cheat at Online Poker: A Study in Software Security

next pls

 

[aliengenius]

4). You might think that you can make a pefectly adequate analysis with 22-44% of the available data while making assumptions about the rest, but I do not concur with this.

o m g. But... How do you not underst... I mean...
Oh, never mind...

 

[Debi]

Clearly, as a poker player I am rigged as my bankroll has been going up. You should all avoid confronting me as I am rigged and it is predetermined that you will lose!.

Be forewarned!:deal:

This is the only real evidence that online poker is rigged that anyone has posted in this thread.

 

[bubbasbestbabe]

So BBB, I'm bitching because I'm losing? I don't know how many times I have to say that isn't the case but obviously you don't believe me. Take a lot at these forum leaderboards here , here , and here. I'm in the top 5 of all 3, I don't know out of how many players but I'm guessing its hundreds, with the last one its thousands. In the same time I've built a BR from 0 - 800 split across 5 sites. I guess I really suck, huh? Even more funny is that you are on the same leaderboards and have played twice as many games as me on both.

I think YOU should read more books.....

The fact of the matter is we just have different ways of attributing our successes and failures (see Sports Psychology > Attribution Theory). You (and it seems all your buddies) believe that all your results are as a direct consequence of your actions. I only partially believe this. In my case it means that both wins and defeats are pretty much water off a ducks back and I move on, thus I have a perfectly adequate pyschological disposition to continue playing this game. I'm guessing you must be beating yourself up on a pretty regular basis based on yours...But that isn't really of any concern to me, because I accept the differences in personalities that we all have and am willing to listen to views from anyone, and tolerate them if they are different. So why can't you?

What do the leaderboards have to do with this? And if you read my post it didn't say you sucked. What it did say was that most rigged posts start after a bad luck run. Just because you are on top doesn't mean you haven't hit a run of bad beats. And that's when these posts come out of the woodwork. And you can't tell me you haven't had a run of BL.

Playing lots of freerolls and not showing well on the LB has no bearing on my play. I subscribe to the allin or bust theory of FR play.

And as for me reading more books...you should be very grateful that I don't. Else you wouldn't be anywhere near the top of the leaderboards.

The one thing that really gets me is that you state that results are only partially related to your actions. That is such an assinine statement. You make the choice whether to bet, raise or fold. And because of your actions other reactions take place. You are responsible for the results. And if you can't take responsibility for your actions and have to look elsewhere to place blame suggests to me that you are the one with the attitude problem and needs to rethink how and why they play.

And case in point, by writing what you wrote resulted in me calling you an ass. So take responsibilty for your actions.

 

[DaFrench1]

i'm only operating under your assumptions - i'm making no assumptions of my own. if, as you say, the games are not biased to any particular players and are just generally 'juiced', the remaining 66-88% (?) of 'available data' will correlate with the given data in the long run.

if you're not comfortable with me using your assumptions, then you're obviously not comfortable in your assumptions. amusing.

I don't get your point. When I'm referring to 22%-44% of available data, I'm specifically referring to the fact that you have your hole cards + the other players cards that you are going to see at showdown to work off. There isn't a remaining 66-88% of available data to correlate with as this actually is hidden or more specifically missing data (the cards that are folded). As this is the data I would be most interested in it is pointless for me to proceed with a test without it, and any attempt to make up for the missing data with statistical manipulations would be using assumptions rather than accurate data.

the obvious example is Absolute Poker.

We both + Vanquish all know that this scam had nothing to do with number-crunchers. A player got scammed, he was suspicious of being scammed and made a whole heap of noise about it and posted HH's that looked suspicious but were unconclusive. The scam was only revealed when Absolute inadvertantely released the whole tournament transcript which revealed an inside-job, if it wasn't for this event this would still be just a conspiracy theory right now. Later reports (thanks for the link Stick) suggest that the scam may have been perpetuated over a 3-year period (bu..b...but...the number crunchers?) and estimated that as much as 7 MILLION DOLLARS had been scammed from players. Any repurcusions for Absolute Poker thus far? nah, its business as usual.


however, 2 mins in google for more fun.

How We Learned to Cheat at Online Poker: A Study in Software Security

next pls

Dude, this article is 8 1/2 YEARS OLD!!!!! How many of the sites we play on today were even around in 1999! Pleeeeeeeeease!

Next pls

 

[DaFrench1]

Phew! I'm glad I just folded this one pre-flop!

Here villain 1 flops a straight, I would have turned a nut straight had I got involved, but villain 2 takes it on the river with a boat. Here we can only see 33% of the data I'm interested in and 66% is missing (Obviously simplified as I'm not counting the board). Wouldn't you want to know what the other players had here? How many more do you think get a made hand here? theres got to be a couple of hearts out there at least, so count as couple of flushes on top, maybe. Q8? QJ?

How does PT help me solve this riddle??

 

[aliengenius]

Phew! I'm glad I just folded this one pre-flop!

Here villain 1 flops a straight, I would have turned a nut straight had I got involved, but villain 2 takes it on the river with a boat. Here we can only see 33% of the data I'm interested in and 66% is missing (Obviously simplified as I'm not counting the board). Wouldn't you want to know what the other players had here? How many more do you think get a made hand here? theres got to be a couple of hearts out there at least, so count as couple of flushes on top, maybe. Q8? QJ?

How does PT help me solve this riddle??

Ok: because with a very large sample you will eventually also be involved as one of those two hands: since no single player account has been singled out to win or lose per se, your "juiced" situations will be of the same percentage as the population as a whole given enough hands. [Never mind that you actually get to see these hands here when they are shown down]

If you can't understand that rather simple concept, then I don't think there is any way to rationally continue this discussion with you.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

Logical inference time!

If the likelihood of predetermined big hand over big hand situations occuring is larger than one could reasonably expect, it logically follows that the number of big hand over big hand situations at showdown will be larger than one could reasonably expect.

I don't really know what to say re. Absolute. The PT screenshots, infinite river AFs, winrates that were 12 standard deviations greater than the mean convinced every decent poker player before the Absolute Poker HH did. I'm not going to dispute that the HH was indeed the 'smoking gun', but the Absolute Poker issue illustrates that if someone has a legitimate complaint about the fairness of a poker site, there are people datamining who will be able to confirm that person's suspicions. Absolute Poker could have continued to deny the allegations without the HH, but their denials would simply not have been plausible in the face of the statistical evidence. Besides, a lot of the stuff AP have said since they admitted the problem has been utter bollocks too (they "immediately investigated and identified the problem"? lol!)

The article is old, it's just the first really extensive thing I stumbled onto on google. Nonetheless, again let's try a little logical inference. If people were doing such things in 1999, and the popularity (and arguably the legitimacy) of online poker has grown by many times since then, would you expect more or less of the same to be going on today? If you want more links and stuff, google is your friend.