Any feedback concerning the fairness of online play??

[helter skelter]

[ QUOTE ]
People complain about every single site, including those that use physical sources for random numbers and are certified to pass independent objective tests of randomness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this certification done for all the popular online sites, like Stars, FT, and UB? Does it have to be done with their co-operation, or can it be done without it?

[AbreuTime]

[ QUOTE ]

I have total confidence in the integrity of sites I have had money on (FT, Stars) with respect to the handling of my funds and the fairness of the deal.


[/ QUOTE ]

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People complain about every single site, including those that use physical sources for random numbers and are certified to pass independent objective tests of randomness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this certification done for all the popular online sites, like Stars, FT, and UB? Does it have to be done with their co-operation, or can it be done without it?

[/ QUOTE ]
There are labs which charge sites to test the RNG. They are sometimes listed on a poker site's web page. The labs don't generally do this for free, and some testing methods require a lot more data than would be easily available to someone just playing on a site. I didn't see where the information might be listed on the UB web page, but there are two testing agencies listed on this security page for PokerStars.

Despite the objective evidence that PokerStars is fair, you'll find many fools saying PokerStars is rigged, it's RiverStars, the deals are totally unreal, etc. Any actual irregularities that could be caught by the naked eye should have been found by statistical tests, which are far more sensitive. Many of the patterns suggested by people are easily refuted by studying PokerTracker data, although this is not nearly as good as being able to see all of the cards dealt.

People will almost never bet on the patterns they claim; they are trying to convince other people without being convinced themselves. On some level, they are lying, perhaps to see how many other people believe it, or how easy it is to shoot their claims down.

[helter skelter]

I guess the question is, is there any ongoing independent statistical testing? I'm sure the RNG that is shown to anyone will pass the test. I think the concern that some have is whether that same RNG is being used all of the time.

[gedanken]

yes, I've seen people who actually know statistics analyze their own pt databases for irregularities.

Interesting point that if a site wasn't very, very random, that would be exploitable. We know that there are very smart, knowledgeable people looking extremely closely for weakness in the RNG. A PROGRAMMED weakness (non-randomness) would show up to these guys pretty quickly, and you'd be reading about them in the paper a few months later.

[Nairb]

It all boils down to the fact that every hand except quads and a royal flush can be beaten and are with regularity. The volume of hands seen online vs live play makes most things seem like they happen more than they should. I get sucked out on a lot but playing thousands of hands per week it is bound to happen.

I find it humorous when a player gets dealt aces and they already have added the pot to their stack. Well guys thats why there is a flop, turn and river. Otherwise just bet your hole cards and flip.

As a side note I wonder if people in general remember the bad beats they give as much as the ones they take? I know I do but it is all odds and probabilities, not certainties. Aces are just one pair and are easily beaten. But one thing to keep in mind is when someone calls your push with J 6 and you hold aces and they suck out, make a note. Welcome that player back to your table. They are who I want to play with because I will ALWAYS profit over time with those sorts of calls.