Hypothetical: Value of proof major site has flawed/biased hand results

[Spaggy]

This is strictly a hypothetical question, and let me clarify that I'm not claiming to have this data, and am also not saying any site is rigged or biased towards certain players. I'm merely asking this based on a "what if" scenario, as it came up in a discussion I had with someone today.

Let's say that one of the major sites is knowingly utilizing one of the following unethical practices:

1. Flawed RNG (does not deal cards on a completely random model) that has an exploitable distribution certain players are made aware of by the site.

2. Favors certain players - either allows new players, site-sponsored pros, or "high profile" players to win more frequently (could also include internal props I suppose).

3. Does predictions on each user's deposit/withdraw/average earnings and creates a slight bias against them during periods where they are likely to withdraw large amounts or their whole balance. Example - new player deposits $100, runs hotter than god and gets to $1500. Player then emails asking how to withdraw their $1500, and site subsequently skews their odds or sets up hands in hopes they will play larger pots to generate the maximum rake possible before they cash out.

Now let's say that you compile a hand history/data set and can show beyond a reasonable doubt one (or more) of these scenarios are taking place. This would basically be a complete tell-all with concrete data incriminating the site in whatever unethical practice they're allowing.

What would you do with the data, and what do you think it'd be worth?

I'm sure there will be some smart ass answers, and I'm hoping this doesn't turn in to "X site is rigged because I lost set over set twice in one week omgomgbbq!" I personally argued that this data/proof would be worth quite a bit, but my friend totally disagrees.

[2461Badugi]

If it was exploitable and could be kept secret, it's hard to imagine how much.

If it was a public company, many millions.

In terms of just making it public and ruining a site's reputation, not much.

[excession]

worth to whom?

to us?
to the site to keep it quiet?
to the person who discovered it?
also it depends if it's a minor RNG flaw or proof of fraud - they don't have the same value

to be honest this thread has little point I think..too may variables

[Spaggy]

Ok, let me clarify the points that might make this confusing.

1. "Worth to whom?" - I'm asking how much it's worth based on what you think you'd plan to do with it. If you would tell the site you'll give it up without making it public, how much would you ask for? If you would sell it to a news agency, how much would you ask for?

2. With the RNG, I'd be talking about an exploitable flaw that the site knowingly allows to exist and puts certain people "in the know."

[BREWMANCHU]

Well, can we first drop the notion of blackmailing the sites? Obviously this information is most valuable to them, but I doubt you would want the legal/personal safety issues assciated with dealing with them.

Yuo have to ask, who gains to profit the most from this information. My guess would be B&M casino corporations. I would take the info to them and get the highest bidder's price.

[CardSharpCook]

It has no real value.

1) every site, I'm sure, gets 1000s of emails claiming the site is rigged. IF you were actually able to get through their buraucracy (I have no idea how to spell that word) to someone that is able to say, "hey wait a minute... this guy is actually on to us!" They'd still give you their stock response, "we use an officially liscensed and verified RNG and our games are..... etc etc..." Show them math... "variance."

2) Informing a news agency has little value either. While "online poker sites are rigged. WE HAVE PROOF!!" may sell newspapers, that proof is likely to be math based. That does not sell newspapers. Additionally, they'd have to couch their expose with, "what we're showing you is statistically possible, just highly improbable to the order of 99.5% (or whatever)" Of course, I've never been in the business of trying to sell stories to newspapers, so maybe there is some value there.

3) if your evidence is not math based, it would have more value to news organizations, but still none to the poker site. The poker site MUST treat your "evidence" as valueless or else they actually give it value. FOllow? Confidential emials? Bad joke btwn executives.

Finally, the scenarios you outlined are the least likely forms of poker site cheating. The most likely would be some sort of algorithm that strives to keep the status quo. Not a program that tracks your cashout patterns, but rather one that merely says - this player has lost 30BB, lets increase his "good card" quotient by 10%. Big tourney winners may actually be the only ones capable of winning in this system. Sure, their "bad card" quotient can be increased, but only slightly. Big tourney winners tend to have the most spectators over their next X sessions.

The sites goal would be to increase the effect of rake. Not to create winners.

[Spaggy]

Interesting input so far.

Brewmanchu - Given the hypothetical nature of this scenario, blackmail can not be dropped as a possible action when quantifying the worth of the data. I would think that blackmail (or something similar to it) would be the riskiest but most profitable use of the info. I also know little to nothing about selling stories to newspapers and such, but I imagine there could be outlets that would pick it up (or going back to blackmail, outlets that would pay to make sure it didn't get picked up).


CSC - my argument (that the data has value) assumes that A. you haven't told the site (at least not yet), and B. that the data is extensive, multi-player, and statistically unlikely enough to be ruled out as "variance" by the site. While the goal of a site "cheating" would almost definitely be to increase rake, I decided to include the possibility of favored players and rigged hands because it comes up at least twice a week, if not more.

Imagine the scenario like this: you just figured out that the odds of the hand results you looked at are 1 in 10 billion/trillion/whatever, and you've found the pattern/logic that ties all the different players together. So you have what is essentially concrete proof of voluntary hand manipulation (for whatever reason), and it's organized and presentable.

Obviously in order to have anything like this, you'd need a system that categorizes certain types of hands where money gets all in and the favorite is ahead by X% and loses, or something like that). I'm not a math wizard by any means, but I'm sure there is a certain point (even with smaller sample sizes) where the outcomes were so unlikely that it's as statistically close to impossible as it could get unless the site was manipulating the cards in some fashion. How the results were obtained is not a key point, as long as the evidence is conclusive.

[Victor]

". Does predictions on each user's deposit/withdraw/average earnings and creates a slight bias against them during periods where they are likely to withdraw large amounts or their whole balance. Example - new player deposits $100, runs hotter than god and gets to $1500. Player then emails asking how to withdraw their $1500, and site subsequently skews their odds or sets up hands in hopes they will play larger pots to generate the maximum rake possible before they cash out. "

this part is kinda dumb since almost all pots are maxed raked anyway.

[Squareview]

i run bad. i will sell my data base for 200$. 4 sites almost 2 million hands. i lose with 70% average equity 75% of the time over the whole sample. but i hate to cry

[realjaydub]

Good thread.

I'm suprised the green mod squad and the other idiots haven't started hurling insults yet.