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

[RoundTower]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]
I will buy it. I'll pay you on verification of your claim.

[ChipFerFree]

[ QUOTE ]


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."

[/ QUOTE ]

1) If you tell them -- they will have you destroyed as there is no other way to 'keep you quiet' and it could potentially destroy them. We're talking about hundreds of millions of future dollars at risk. I'd watch out for my life on that one.

2) not relevant -- not happenin...

[ILuvRiver]

IF you had the kind of proof I think you are getting at, the sites would have to;

a. Write you blank checks for as long as you wanted them.

OR

b. Just dispose of you (lets face it, how hard could it be with the essentially unlimited resources they would be willing to use).

Cool, just imagining a new version of the film Casino, only it's all online and Robert De niro has been replaced by Isai Scheinberg. lol

[qpw]

This whole 'slightly flawed RNG' thing is laughable.

Each server will almost certainly have one random number generator function.

Even if there was a slight flaw it would be unexploitable for the simple reason that there is an inherent further randomisation phase in that the sequence that numbers are demanded from the RNG is chosen by an intricate interworking of the timings of thousands of players.

If you have 200 tables, someone at table 100 taking a mouthful of tea before clicking and invoking the flop will change the cards for every table thereafter.

This wouldn't be the situation for a stand alone training robot on your home computer, but that is a completely different case.

People really should stop worrying about RNG's.

Apart from the fact that they are a mature and well understood technology, the player's actions would do a superb job of randomising the hell out of any imperfections.

[MicroBob]

I've already seen stories about online-poker on TV news where they interview some 'expert' who states as fact that the sites are rigged and not all the players are actually people and that it's impossible to win.
This story was syndicated to different markets.

So offering definite proof that it's all rigged on one of the sites doesn't hold much value imo.

I mean, maybe 60 Minutes would somehow be interested in doing an expose about this stuff. They did give some coverage to the WSEX guys regarding the sports-betting side.
But most of the coverage today is regarding the UIGEA. They would first need to cover how Americans are actually continuing to play on many sites just fine and dandy even with the legislation that was recently passed...and they really don't even take the time to mention that stuff either.

A lot of the stuff they say about online-poker they just get plain wrong.

[oddsock]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]
I will buy it. I'll pay you on verification of your claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

This will bring down any site it may refer to or at least show up massive denial issues in your game.

On-line casinos are far more likely to be rigged than any poker site.

[pucks32]

If you had this hypothetical proof, news agencies would be very interested in the story IMO, but you couldn't make any money off the proof that way. No newspaper, TV station, magazine (outside National Enquirer and other tabloids) would "buy" a story.

[sosorry]

what if only 4% of the tables on a site are rigged? would that still let things stand withing standard variations?

[Tachyon]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I have evidence that site A is unfair, then I'd consider approaching site B with the data. It is likely worth more to them to "expose" site A. Millions? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
Good thread.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would we? This is a good thread based on a hypothetical with no assertion that it's rigged.