[RayBornert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what about us winning players who know it is to a certain extent? --- please refer to most recent posts on bots/collusion/deckswap uncertifiable to support loosing players/ and much more. Happy thanks giving...

and please dont bring up cognative dissoncance again, you sound like a poly sci professor i had back in my college days.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you "know" it is, please provide some kind of verifiable evidence.

Second, I'm not talking about bots or collusion. I know bots exist, and collusion is a problem that existed long before online poker popular. The original post was a claim that online poker has been rigged all along. A claim that's been made many times before and will be again. I've yet to see a claim backed up with any kind of meaningful proof. Saying "They can rig it so that there's no way to detect it" isn't proof.

Lastly, I didn't bring up cognative dissonance. I replied to the poster who did (and only then to point out that if it applies in his claim it applies equally to the losing player who can't admit it, and insists the game is rigged). Pay attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

the scientific facts are that if the channel is secure
between a game server and a player then that game server
can collude with a player (i.e. the rigged scenario) in
total secrecy.

the site operator can know that he himself is honest but
he cannot prove it to anybody but himself because there's
no way for anybody to listen to that secure channel and
verify that he didn't collude with a player.

by this same measurement, an individual player can know that
they themselves do not track, bot or team but they cannot
prove it to anybody but themselves.

so all of online poker right now is built upon the idea
that everyone (operators and players) are voluntarily
cooperating with the rules of the live game.

these are called "good faith" security requirements and as
long as they exist there will always be accusations of
every kind. and this is why major gaming jurisdictions
wont touch it - their job depends on being able to address
accusations in a satisfactory manner.

if you want to get rid of accusations:
"the site is rigged"
"he's using a bot"
"i got teamed"
"they have 19gb tracking db"
etc.

then you have to eliminate the good faith security issues
such that accusations become a thing of the past.

over time, people get weary of constant accusations because
something deep inside rebels against that type of jungle.

ray bornert.