Why I think online poker is rigged

[Boltneck]

This arguement will rage on and on. Those who believe the game is rigged will always believe the game is rigged. Those who believe that it is not rigged, will never believe that it is rigged. For that reason alone, I don't think that it's worth argueing about, particularly as the arguement is becoming ever more vitriolic. However, I did follow the link that DaFrench posted regarding games being rigged, and read it with interest.

Given that DaFrench is in the "juiced" camp, I found it ironic that he should post a link to an article that is the best evidence that I've seen so far that the game is not rigged / juiced.

The main thrust of the article is that the RNG algorithem was crap. The author says that the algorithem is the one used by a company that supplies most of the main poker sites. Well, lets assume that the author is correct and the algorithem is crap. He was able to fairly easily demonstate that the result of the RNG would not actually produce a random number. Okay, lets think about this. What does that tell is? It tells us that the algorithem is crap, and doesn't produce a random number, and probably that the creator was not particularly good at his job. What it absolutely does not do is demonstrate that the algorithem is biased to generate more income for the poker roon - quite the reverse! If the RNG was so bad that certain cards would be likely to come up significantly less than they should, then how could the game possibly be juiced to generate more rake?

The second thrust of the article was to demonstrate that it would be easy for someone clever enough to be able to calculate the next cards with reasonable accuracy. At this point I nearly wet myself with laughter. So, we have king donk playing 25c / 50c tables, playing 5 3 off suit to a raise and a reraise. Am I worried about whether he is clever enough to calculate what the next card will be? Erm, no!!!!!!!

This arguement will inevitably rage on and on. Someone will shortly point out that if it's possible to create a bad RNG, it's also possible to create a rigged / juiced one. I don't know how many millions of people there are that play online poker - but I know that there are a lot. I don't know how many people work within the "poker industry", but I would suggest that there a significant number.

As I have as yet not heard the BBC reporting on the scandal of [insert favoured scandal here] that makes me pretty damn confident that it's because there is no scandal to report. If there are only 1000 people working within the poker industry that are of sufficient seniority to be aware of any rigging / juicing, then I believe that there will be at least one person within that 1000 that would be honest enough (or possibly greedy enough) that would leek the scandal, or more likely sell it to the press for enough money to retire on.

Of the 10,000,000 people (a stupid guess that I've given no thought to) that play online poker, I'm prepared to bet that at least 20 of them are clever enough to have got definitive evidence if there were something dodgy going on. As I've not read about it in my favourite newspaper, I'm happy to continue to believe that it is not happening.

Boltneck

 

[K_Kahne_Fan]

...If the RNG was so bad that certain cards would be likely to come up significantly less than they should, ...

Depends on which cards would be coming up less than they should. If the "pretty" cards happen to be the cards that come up more often, then yes it would give you a juiced game. If it was paint that came up less then you would have a boring game and no one would play. Again, don't know if I believe they are rigged... I just like to support the flip side sometimes.

I do, sort of agree that out of 10M(?) people some may report it. But, say out of 10M(?) 1K(?) figured it out, do you think they would report it or quietly mine the sites for a nice steady income?

I also agree that 1 will not agree with the other until the pink gremlin shows his face to all. Even then some will say it was a photshopped picture and still disagree.

 

[Tygran]

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.

I have a masters degree in a field that uses tons and tons of probability/statistics. What AG is saying here is dead on correct and if you refuse to accept this your opinion as a whole will continue to be completely discounted because of it. This fact is not up for debate.

 

[twizzybop]

I also agree that 1 will not agree with the other until the pink gremlin shows his face to all. Even then some will say it was a photshopped picture and still disagree.

LOL Nope I normally see this gremlin more than not when I have quite a few beers in me, always sits next to the Leprechaun at the bar though.

 

[DaFrench1]

This arguement will rage on and on. Those who believe the game is rigged will always believe the game is rigged. Those who believe that it is not rigged, will never believe that it is rigged. For that reason alone, I don't think that it's worth argueing about, particularly as the arguement is becoming ever more vitriolic. However, I did follow the link that DaFrench posted regarding games being rigged, and read it with interest.

Given that DaFrench is in the "juiced" camp, I found it ironic that he should post a link to an article that is the best evidence that I've seen so far that the game is not rigged / juiced.

The main thrust of the article is that the RNG algorithem was crap. The author says that the algorithem is the one used by a company that supplies most of the main poker sites. Well, lets assume that the author is correct and the algorithem is crap. He was able to fairly easily demonstate that the result of the RNG would not actually produce a random number. Okay, lets think about this. What does that tell is? It tells us that the algorithem is crap, and doesn't produce a random number, and probably that the creator was not particularly good at his job. What it absolutely does not do is demonstrate that the algorithem is biased to generate more income for the poker roon - quite the reverse! If the RNG was so bad that certain cards would be likely to come up significantly less than they should, then how could the game possibly be juiced to generate more rake?

The second thrust of the article was to demonstrate that it would be easy for someone clever enough to be able to calculate the next cards with reasonable accuracy. At this point I nearly wet myself with laughter. So, we have king donk playing 25c / 50c tables, playing 5 3 off suit to a raise and a reraise. Am I worried about whether he is clever enough to calculate what the next card will be? Erm, no!!!!!!!

This arguement will inevitably rage on and on. Someone will shortly point out that if it's possible to create a bad RNG, it's also possible to create a rigged / juiced one. I don't know how many millions of people there are that play online poker - but I know that there are a lot. I don't know how many people work within the "poker industry", but I would suggest that there a significant number.

As I have as yet not heard the BBC reporting on the scandal of [insert favoured scandal here] that makes me pretty damn confident that it's because there is no scandal to report. If there are only 1000 people working within the poker industry that are of sufficient seniority to be aware of any rigging / juicing, then I believe that there will be at least one person within that 1000 that would be honest enough (or possibly greedy enough) that would leek the scandal, or more likely sell it to the press for enough money to retire on.

Of the 10,000,000 people (a stupid guess that I've given no thought to) that play online poker, I'm prepared to bet that at least 20 of them are clever enough to have got definitive evidence if there were something dodgy going on. As I've not read about it in my favourite newspaper, I'm happy to continue to believe that it is not happening.

Boltneck

Dude, that wasn't my link, that was Dorkus trying to prove that there are vigilante number crunchers out to protect us (see post #93 in this thread).

Because of this fundamental error you made I will not respond to the rest of your post nor take offence from it. BTW that article was written in 1999.

 

[grndizzle]

i think your just seeing a lot more hands online, than in person. Cause i couldn't tell u how many times i've been in the bb with aa and it gets folded around to me.

 

[tuda51]

online poker is not rigged

y would they rig tournaments?? they alredy get the rake from the buyin... then after that they let the tourny run and dont make any more off of it

 

[DaFrench1]

I have a masters degree in a field that uses tons and tons of probability/statistics. What AG is saying here is dead on correct and if you refuse to accept this your opinion as a whole will continue to be completely discounted because of it. This fact is not up for debate.

You, AG, and Dorkus appear to be talking about the same thing (what Paulsson suggested), but this is not the same thing that I was talking about. I understand exactly what they are saying but it is not relevant to my query.

To clarify, my query is how many times and at what frequency are hands played out where half the table or more ends up with a made hand. What I have said is that the only way to test this is to see all the cards (because people will have folded some of the cards we need to see).

I don't give a toss about how many times 1 good hand comes up against 1 other good hand. I'm not that moronic (cue loads of disagreements, lol).

Besides all that, you previously stated in this thread that our (the juiceh camp) opinions are worth zero. Being that you are a gifted mathematician, you should therefore be able to calculate what you estimate the net worth of your opinions are to us based on that statement alone. To give you a little head-start I'll give you a push in the right direction, It's a nice round number!!

 

[Craized]

I have watched and kept track of how often this happens live as opposed to online.

Show us.

'nuff said

 

[HartAttack3]

interesting thread, and I must say the best "rigged" thread ive seen around here in a while so I will just throw in my 2 cents.

French you talk about how a lot of people end up with "made" hands. in a hand with a-10, kj, and 10-9 if one hand hits they all usually hit since they are so close. I think this needs to be taken into account. In the one time the kj hits 2 pair, all that is needed is a queen to make straights for the a-10 and 10-9. Now lets say this one time hand sees another jack or king and lets make it the third heart (like in your hand), any person who stayed in with a flush draw made their flush. The important thing is, the kj, 10-9 and a-10 should have been betting much more before that river card comes. Online poker is a lot of people chasing draws and with the hands stated above, if one hits a good flop the others all have hit good draws and with everyone chasing everyone will hit if the others do.

I hope my point got across, when a lot of similar drawing hands go into a hand, and hit a good flop or good draw, everyone will chase and SOMEBODY will hit their draw. All im saying is when a lot of hands like that play a hand together, it will look juiced when everybody gets a draw and when the same card hits everybody's draw, we will think its even more juiced.

 

[Tygran]

DaFrench

I am not trying to thump my chest (even thought that's probably how it comes off) with the statement that I have a masters degree, but I am trying to lend some weight to what I say by simply indicating that I've spent years studying this sort of thing. That has to be worth something to this discussion doesn't it?

I completely understand what you are saying but what I'm telling you and what AG/Dorkus have said is that you do NOT need to see all the hole cards to prove or disprove your theory. With a large enough sample of your own hole cards and only your own you will have enough data to prove or disprove it. You do not need to see anyone else's cards, they are completely statistically irrelevant. As Dorkus said this is based on your own set assumptions, not ours. Namely that the game isn't biased for or against any specific player(s).
To put this another way.

querying "how many times and at what frequency are hands played out where half the table or more ends up with a made hand" is an identical question to "over the long run, am I seeing certain made hands more often than I statistically should." I realize that you are saying they aren't the same but mathematically, if I can answer one I can answer the other.

I'm not trying to spark conflict or have this discussion turn nasty as I do enjoy a good debate, so I hope there are no hard feelings of any kind. But the above is a proven mathematical fact and not even that advanced a statistical concept. If I felt motivated enough which I really don't right now I could provide you a formal proof. If you want to keep debating this that's your right but to put it quite simply, you are wrong and as AG said if you want to keep arguing it there isn't much point in continuing this discussion. I think I'm done posting in this thread now. Have fun with it all!

 

[WVHillbilly]

You, AG, and Dorkus appear to be talking about
To clarify, my query is how many times and at what frequency are hands played out where half the table or more ends up with a made hand. What I have said is that the only way to test this is to see all the cards (because people will have folded some of the cards we need to see).

And how many home games have you played in where 2 donks groan when the flop come 335 with 2 hearts (1 having thrown away 35 and the other the flush draw)? Ever think about how many hands get thrown away in a "non-rigged" live game that would have won at show down? I'd venture to guess the same number as on-line, but I know you wouldn't agree, online being "juiced" and all.

 

[Boltneck]

Dude, that wasn't my link, that was Dorkus trying to prove that there are vigilante number crunchers out to protect us (see post #93 in this thread).

Because of this fundamental error you made I will not respond to the rest of your post nor take offence from it. BTW that article was written in 1999.

My apologies for "crediting" you with that link. I am pleased that you did not take offence, but whilst accepting my error am somewhat disappointed that you did not see the validity of the point, which was not materially effected by the fact that I atributed the link to you rather than Dorkus.

Regards

Boltneck

 

[DaFrench1]

Firstly, to Tygran and Harty, I would like to commend you on the tone and content of your last posts, it is in this manner that debate should take place and I truly appreciate it.

You're correct with your points Hart, its what makes holdem a great game, you have made hands betting and protecting against drawing hands, lots of bluffs. We love it. My whole premise kind of rests on whether multiple strong hands and draws leading to high 'action' hands occur more frequently online than live, it is a valid question to pose being that we are comparing a real-world event with a simulation, and especially as we are putting money into it with the assumption that it is. In an ideal world we WOULD have number crunchers and statisticians monitoring the output from different sites and producing reports to either confirm fair-play or flag suspicious events, but we don't, and we are left to try and figure it out for ourselves (which is not a fruitless exercise in itself as it actually gets you to think about the game on different levels!). Some people will take the leap of faith, others will question the integrity to varying degrees. The discrepancy is amplified due to the lack of checks and balances present.

DaFrench

I completely understand what you are saying but what I'm telling you and what AG/Dorkus have said is that you do NOT need to see all the hole cards to prove or disprove your theory. With a large enough sample of your own hole cards and only your own you will have enough data to prove or disprove it. You do not need to see anyone else's cards, they are completely statistically irrelevant. As Dorkus said this is based on your own set assumptions, not ours. Namely that the game isn't biased for or against any specific player(s).

To put this another way.

querying "how many times and at what frequency are hands played out where half the table or more ends up with a made hand" is an identical question to "over the long run, am I seeing certain made hands more often than I statistically should." I realize that you are saying they aren't the same but mathematically, if I can answer one I can answer the other.

Again, it's expanding on Paulsson's proposal, it works to a certain degree, but it misses one crucial point for me. I understood that "over the long run, am I seeing certain made hands more often than I statistically should." will give figures that, if you are assuming that everyone is treated equal, which I do, you can then correlate for your opponents, agreed. Again, as with hole cards, I wouldn't expect any excessive deviance as it would be too easily picked up. BUT, I can question whether those hands are being made at the SAME TIME as other hands more than they statistically should, and that is where your methodology falls short, because I wouldn't have the information available to make that assessment. Now for that to be possible, you are going to need a lot of 'dead' hands to compensate statistically (where very few players, if any, get a hit above 1 pair), and I'm seeing that a hell of a lot as well, not to mention all of the hands that don't get to showdown and that would remain a complete mystery either way.

Why is this important? You should be able to see that a game that has lots of dead hands but with high-action hands interspersed between WILL be quicker than a game left to total randomness. This is because as Hartattack3 said: "when a lot of similar drawing hands go into a hand, and hit a good flop or good draw, everyone will chase and SOMEBODY will hit their draw", to this I would add on the end "And the rest will likely go bust!"

Does that make sense?

 

[F Paulsson]

It makes sense, but as I said earlier, it's testable.

If action hands are pitted against each other, it means, by necessity, that some of these actions hands aren't winning as often as they should. And if they aren't, that will be noticeable in statistically large samples even if you're only seeing your own cards. And while it's difficult to analytically figure out how often a full house "should" win, it's easily done with a simulator.

I've been trying to think of a way that it's possible to juice the games that you suggest that wouldn't be clearly visible in PT, and I've even brought the matter up with my wife, the mathematician. She, for what it's worth, agrees with me. She also mumbled something about "binary variable needing only a relatively small sample" but I'm not sure what that means.

 

[mwciowa]

rigged/not rigged, can't say. but definately flawed.

 

[aliengenius]

rigged/not rigged, can't say. but definately flawed.

I don't you post a one line bs response in every single thread on the site. Oh, wait...

 

[God_Mode_On]

I've heard this argument over and over, and it seems to be the most popular defence of the 'not rigged' camp. But the thing is this, the cards dealt can be randomly spread, you only have to rig the board cards to marry cards to the players that have called the hand. Then if the board cards are being matched to random cards obviously the flops will appear to be random as well. Its beautiful really from a scam point of view.

Also, another thing is that unfortunately Texas Holdem is probably one of the easiest games to rig. I was messing about with a pen and paper the other day doing set-up hands, you know like a set against a flush against a two pair and a straight and a boat, that sort of thing. Basically you start by creating a draw heavy board and then deal out the corresponding cards so that all the players get a piece of the action. Its soooooo easy its ridiculous. I even set up a hand where I gave AA to UTG and then made it so that ALL the other positions could crack it with junk cards. The hand would probably play out with a big raise UTG and everyone folding, but I decided to reward anyones bravery (or stupidity) if they made the call or if the AA guy tried to limp in, Muhahahahaha.

Another thing is that the set-up hands don't even have to be exact, there are only key cards that need to be matched and the rest can be randomized. So for example if I'm gonna give a player a nut flush I just need to make sure the A is there, the partner card can be from 2-K and it doesn't really matter. The guy I'm giving the lower flush just needs random suited cards from 2-10 say. So by adding semi-randomness from one set-up hand I created I can morph it into 100's of variations of the same play-out. Oh, and then because I'm using a RNG for the semi-random components I can lawfully claim I use this for my gaming site .

Personally, I've accepted that its rigged for action and I play it accordingly. If you know when to fold and use BR managent then you can still make money.

This thread is old but I just want to point out that this ^ is the best post I have read so far when it comes to the whole "online poker is rigged" debate. In favour of the so called 'riggedtarts'.

It actually asks the "not rigged camp" to speak and reply... basically...

 

[adueno81]

I dont want to go into too much detail but I did observe some things. First off all hands are numbered. Are any hands ever repeated? When the same hands are repeated do they get a new hand number? I think they do. Also If I end up with a pocket pair I can sometimes accurately predict if I would win. I think most websites that cardschat is affiliated with uses the same basic software so the probability of winning a hand on Americas cardroom is the same probability of winning a hand on bet online. But you would be amazed a simular probability happens in real life poker games too for example always fold pocket kings.

 

[dbchristy]

I see you're a new member, welcome. I myself enjoyed reading the first post, and all the replies. We all think about it. I actually feel alot better, and that Im just on a long bad run Have a good night and good luck on the felts!

 

[PackinPat]

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?

Agreed Random is Random