[ryanj247]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe this has been discussed elsewhere in more depth, but

The first thing that comes to mind is to define "rigged".

What is "balancing", how would it be used and why would it be used.

Are we talking about a site identifying individual fish and then helping them in their future sessions by substituting the RNG with a program that analyzes their hand and then gives them a better outcome?

Or vice/verse. Identifying pros and doing the opposite.

I can see where a site might have motive, but it seems that the whole rigging process would be rather complex.

First, you'd have to have software to identify fish and/or pros.

Then, you'd have to have the "balancing" software.

So you have software developers.

Some group of people have to manage the process.

You'd have to have someone watching those people.

You'd have to have someone watching the watchers.

A site would have to weigh the consequences of the secret being exposed against some calculated benefit.

Which goes to motive. A site makes money by raking regulars. Unless a site is just assuming that keeping fish happier somehow profits the site, some individual or group of persons must have done a financial analysis to show that. That's even more people that would know the secret.

I guess I would like to see some proof in terms of numbers that a site would even have a motive for this type of rigging.

I worry much more about a site being apathetic to cheating and collusion than I worry about the site actively participating in rigging.

[/ QUOTE ]

all of that makes a hell of a lot of sense. but suppose a statistical analysis was done and the result clearly indicated that the deal was in fact unfair. somehow, you would have to reconcile that with the assumption that it wouldn't make sense for sites to particpate in anything unfair.

well, here's the thing: that analysis HAS BEEN DONE. the result was conclusive.

that being the case, i would like to see people put the debate about whether sites would have any incentive to do this on hold, and instead take a close look at the analysis that has already been done indicating that something unfair is happening.