Do we really know that online poker is on the level? I.E., not rigged

[Double Ice]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if sites are rigged or not, but I'm hoping someone more intelligent than myself can explain it to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already explained it using a very simple Stats 101 approach, and received some very bad replies. Let me explain one more time.

FOR ANY PROCESS WHICH INTERFERES WITH THE SHUFFLE OF THE DECK, that is, where the 52 cards that come out are not random, and interferes some non-neglible amount of time (that is, more than a few times), you are going to see results. How?

Imagine that we are playing a coin flipping game. After 100 million flips of the coin, what interval will it come in over 99.999% of the time? Between .5 - e and .5 + e percent heads, where e = 0.00022086 . That is between 49.9977% and 50.0221%, 99999/100000 of the time.

So say you play your friend Pokerstars and he gets a result of 50.023% percent heads. Then you will notice, because this will be a "significant" result. If you were betting tails, he has a win like that or better much less than 1/200000 of the time.

You can't use tampering together with "averaging" techniques because tampering one statistic ruins other statistics. You can't store data on people's rushes and change river cards both on the good side and then on the bad side so that they average to the same deck, because it is detectable. And it becomes pointless if you are going to make the deck tend toward the mean anyways.

Now notice that places like PokerStars have dealt over 12 billion (12000 million) hands.

[corsakh]

What are you talking about? If there is no significant statistical impact on the data, what is the point of "riggidness". If there is - just open up your pt and do some calculations how many sets over sets and KK vs AA and similar sort of stuff you had in your sample size and compare it to the expected value. Cross examine it with someone else if you feel like the whole world is against you. Half the population on this forum has or is in a science/engeneering degree and no one can figure out the probability table for 52 cards with 7 in play? I feel like I speak to a 12yo with a down syndrome. There were regression analysis posted to figure out the expected WR on this forum years ago when the party was still green and the sun was shining bright - and you telling me the same guy and hundreds and hundreds of people after him did not / could not do a variance calculation?

ps "Serious" "biz" "discussion" in "BBV" with "5 replyes". I pass.

[Double Ice]

That being said, I do agree that there is no real security as to whether or not the games are safe.

However, I don't think it really matters. Why?

Sharks are going to continue playing as long as they continue to win. When they get bled for a while, they will quit.

Fish constantly lose, so it is just a matter of time for them too until they will quit.

If you are a losing player, it really can't hurt you if the game is rigged, since the only reason to rig games that the site takes a fixed fee, is to make fish win to continue the rake-trap

If you are a winning player and you can't profit in games anymore, you will quit.

[Double Ice]

[ QUOTE ]

I still marvel at how posters on this site can be so suspicious of the US government and at the same time assume online poker sites based in loosely regulated third world countries are on the level. Not saying either view is correct or incorrect, but I am always amazed at what people choose to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because of the facts.

When I want to transfer $1000, or even say $100,000 from user to user, PokerStars doesn't give me any trouble. When they made a mistake, they correct it. Their customer-service is par to some of the finest companies in the world that specialize in catering to ultra-rich clients. They take active roles against collusion in SNGs. I personally know people that have been paid their money by Stars. That and more, makes it obvious that as long as players play on Stars, my money is safe and it is a good place to play. Places that I play on have good track records.

OTOH, the government constantly has scandals. Companies even reputable ones that look good, constantly pull bogus [censored] all the time. People get cheated all the time nowadays. Most "real companies", the government, have bad track records.

[fees]

ftp is rigged

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
Places that I play on have good track records.

[/ QUOTE ]

fair enough, but those places don't get anywhere near the level of scrutiny that the government does. I'm sure there is plenty happening at those business that you're not aware of.

Also, I never meant to insinuate that poker is rigged or that all sites are. Some I'm sure are honest and provide a fair game. Stars is probably one of them. My goal as I've said is to inject some skepticism into the discussion.

And good CS really has no bearing on whether or not the games are fair. I'll concede that a site with stellar CS is more likely to run a good business all around and provide a fair game, but there is nothing that would preclude a crooked site from having great CS.

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
What are you talking about? If there is no significant statistical impact on the data, what is the point of "riggidness". If there is - just open up your pt and do some calculations how many sets over sets and KK vs AA and similar sort of stuff you had in your sample size and compare it to the expected value. Cross examine it with someone else if you feel like the whole world is against you. Half the population on this forum has or is in a science/engeneering degree and no one can figure out the probability table for 52 cards with 7 in play? I feel like I speak to a 12yo with a down syndrome. There were regression analysis posted to figure out the expected WR on this forum years ago when the party was still green and the sun was shining bright - and you telling me the same guy and hundreds and hundreds of people after him did not / could not do a variance calculation?

ps "Serious" "biz" "discussion" in "BBV" with "5 replyes". I pass.

[/ QUOTE ]

yet you can't engage in this discussion without resorting to name calling? I feel like I'm talking to someone who hasn't finished college and has trouble keeping an open mind and has no knowledge of fraud or statistics.

Also, I still have never seen a true analysis of a DB to test the "randomness" of HH in it. Not saying it doesn't exist, just I have never seen it. Post a link if you have.

And WR is something different from what we're talking about. You're not comparing apples and apples.

[amplify]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel like I'm talking to someone who hasn't finished college

[/ QUOTE ]
What the [censored] does that have to do with anything?

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I feel like I'm talking to someone who hasn't finished college

[/ QUOTE ]
What the [censored] does that have to do with anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's refuting points on subjects in which he clearly does not have a thorough understanding. That's what it has to do with it. Someone who finished college would likely have taken at least an intro to stat class and wouldn't have written the post that he did.

Unless he slept through it of course.

[corsakh]

I think you can find your answers here:
http://www.billrini.com/2004/11/30/p...ker-is-rigged/

ps There was a research on this subject involving over a million hands a couple years ago. I think on flop turn river. But you have t o google it yourself.

pss I did science most of my life and I slept through it of course.