![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It just seems like the player all in wins way too frequently. And the way that player wins is even more pathetic, such as back door straights, flushes, case card on the river. Did anyone ever perform a study of of the randomness of internet poker sites? Do we just believe that the poker sites are legitimate since we assume these are honest businessmen who don't want to compromise their business?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
its obv rigged, everyone knows that
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
we pretty much all use the programs that tilt the odds in our favor.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
OMFG! Teh internet is rigged!
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It's probably because the loser just made a withdrawal.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
its obv rigged, everyone knows that [/ QUOTE ] Rigged for me biaatches! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
It just seems like the player all in wins way too frequently. And the way that player wins is even more pathetic, such as back door straights, flushes, case card on the river. Did anyone ever perform a study of of the randomness of internet poker sites? Do we just believe that the poker sites are legitimate since we assume these are honest businessmen who don't want to compromise their business? [/ QUOTE ] Couldn't have anything to do with the fact he went all in with what he considered the best hand? That's probably why he went "all in". But sure, Stars is rigged. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
It just seems like the player all in wins way too frequently. And the way that player wins is even more pathetic, such as back door straights, flushes, case card on the river. Did anyone ever perform a study of of the randomness of internet poker sites? Do we just believe that the poker sites are legitimate since we assume these are honest businessmen who don't want to compromise their business? [/ QUOTE ] I've found that at pokerstars, when two people have gone all in, at least one of them will win 50 percent of the time. This is in contrast to Party poker, where, when there are two people all in, one of them will win only 25 percent of the time. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It just seems like the player all in wins way too frequently. And the way that player wins is even more pathetic, such as back door straights, flushes, case card on the river. Did anyone ever perform a study of of the randomness of internet poker sites? Do we just believe that the poker sites are legitimate since we assume these are honest businessmen who don't want to compromise their business? [/ QUOTE ] I've found that at pokerstars, when two people have gone all in, at least one of them will win 50 percent of the time. This is in contrast to Party poker, where, when there are two people all in, one of them will win only 25 percent of the time. [/ QUOTE ] Enjoy! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
No one has been able to gather any evidence that the major poker sites RNGs and shuffling algorithms are in any way flawed. I myself analyzed 37k boards on Party Poker to illustrate that there are not a statistically significant increase in potential flushes there. It will be better when I can crunch numbers on even more boards.
On the other hand, several people have analyzed large amounts of flop/board data to find anomalies and have not found any. Those that are concerned about site shuffling/dealing legitimacy have had over five years to develop significant evidence to present their case. None of done so. Those that are concerned about site shuffling/dealing legitimacy have had over five years to find a former employee or programmer for a major poker site to expose flaws or conspiracies. None of been able to do so. The last retort is that "statistics don't reveal the flaws/rigging because it is cunningly done within the margin of error." A non-falsifiable argument such as this is essentially meaningless. I have no doubt that several people within management of online poker companies are not particularly ethical. Certainly the profile of these businesspeople would be no more ethical than any segment of typical businesspeople. There will be a desire for unscrupulous behavior in this market segment -- and we have seen it show up in other areas on occasion (read the FAQ.) |
![]() |
|
|