[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Understand the pressure here to 'prove' the honesty of the games. People have invested their entire self into online poker. To admit they've been duped is next to impossible, in fact it's a personal attack. No, it makes perfect sense. There is no level of evidence that will allow some to admit they've getting cheated, they're just too wrapped up in it.
WIki this:
cognitive dissonance .
[/ QUOTE ]
Understand the pressure here to 'prove' the
dishonesty of the games. People have invested their entire self into online poker. To admit
they are a losing player is next to impossible, in fact it's a personal attack. No, it makes perfect sense. There is no level of evidence that will allow some to admit
they're not good enough to beat an honest game, they're just too wrapped up in it.
FYP.
Seriously, it works both ways (although I'd bet the losing player who can't admit it and turns to "must be rigged" outnumbers the winning player who doesn't believe it's rigged).
I have yet to see any kind of credible research done to indicate a site is rigged. It always comes down to the person (usually with a small number of posts) making the claim posting some small number of hands (at best).
If someone could show that over a statistically significant sample, that some aspect of the game was out of whack, I'd listen. I just haven't seen anything close to it yet.
[/ QUOTE ]
no site operator is going to create a statistically risky
skew like what you suggest; they would in fact periodically
perform deck selection - you'd never be able to detect this.
or even without deck selection they'd simply imbed a single
bit in a single message that tells one of the attending
players whether or not the deck currently being used is
a win - the comm. channel is very secure and thus nobody
has any hope of detecting this collusion.
it's these types of things that are discussed by real
certification bodies like the ngcb.
ray bornert