[nineinchal]

[ 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 ]

"Balancing" would come under my definition of rigged. My working definition of rigged is anything that would cause a poker site would alter to deviate from a live poker game as provided in a casino to create an advantage or disadvantage to one player over another.

Perhaps some of you would like to formulate the the working definition of rigged. Then we can vote on our definition of "rigged" by taking a pole...