Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged - Page 4

Josem · #31 09-26-2007, 04:43 AM

this thread made me think of this:

nineinchal · #32 09-26-2007, 05:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
this thread made me think of this:

[/ QUOTE ]

Decent at 18% is much too high...

sheshbeshon · #33 09-26-2007, 07:26 AM

i never made up facts .
and the logic is something you might not understand but it is perfect logic.

it all comes at the end to RISK ASSESMENT ... how much money will it be worth for someone to break into this system.

this is all i ever claimed .

if you admit it is possible, then we think the same .
the problem is that everybody ask for the proof that it is rigged while they should try and get a proof it is not !

and also for facts , the same way you dont know it is rigged for a fact , you also cant know it is legit for a fact.

Your reasons are much better:

1. they make much money without rigging...
2. they would not do that cause they might lose their buisness etc...

my answers:
1. guess what - they can make more if the rigg it.
2. people like you make them belive they can get away with anything...

so - here comes a story about absolute poker and instead of taking actions you all chat about it....

keep on chatting , it probably saves your weekly visit to the shrink

got that ? or should i explain ?

sheshbeshon · #34 09-26-2007, 07:29 AM

oh no - again -

I D I O T on the floor !!!!

yOU DONT LOOK FOR EVIDANCE IT
IS RIGGED -> LOOK FOR THE EVIDANCE IT IS NOT !!!

this is ABC rule for online security !

and BTW - you will not find it !

sheshbeshon · #35 09-26-2007, 07:37 AM

You are all way way way out of focus here...

there is no way to know if a site is rigged or not from
the hand history. You are all thinking in one direction which is viewing a persons hole cards. this is not the only way to rigg a site.

how about - open the source code ? let you compile the source code yourself ... and have a 3'rd party company check the server side of the software....???
and have the clients decide which comapny will check it ...

NANONUTS · #36 09-26-2007, 07:59 AM

It's like with God. There is no proof that he does exist, but there is no proof he doesn't either. Basically it's down to your own personal opinion/beliefs. Although unlike with God you could actually prove that the poker sites are fair/unfair by through compiling and analysing the evidence that is out there in people's databases.

Henry17 · #37 09-26-2007, 08:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You are all way way way out of focus here...

there is no way to know if a site is rigged or not from
the hand history. You are all thinking in one direction which is viewing a persons hole cards. this is not the only way to rigg a site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually yes there is. Just because you don't know how to doesn't mean it can't be done. It is actually quite easy.

StitchNV · #38 09-26-2007, 08:28 AM

I started reading along with the post until people started bashing back and forth so I’m not sure how much of what I got was legitimate, and how much of it was just common internet forum junk.

From what I got nineinchal was talking about starting a type of statistical internet database to determine wither or not a said internet poker site was legitimate or manipulating players into forking over cash.

It sounds like a good idea, but I think his scrutiny was a little diminutive. I’m not trying to under mind nineinchal in anyway; I just think that putting tougher an online database to give players that know about the database an edge over players that wouldn’t know where to look for the database is a little unjust.

Wither or not online gambling is legit or not is a topic we could bicker about in forums for life times to come, or we could just all around say [censored] it and really do something about it… That’s just what I think.

Henry17 · #39 09-26-2007, 08:34 AM

It has been said a few times already. There is no need to share hand histories. For the questions I think most people would want tested any regular player will have enough hand histories that there is no need to merge them.

The reason I see this as a waste of effort though is that the people who believe sites are rigged are exhibiting an emotional reaction. They are losing players and don't want to face the fact that it is their fault so they blame the site. No amount of statistical evidence is going to convince them.

I also don't see why anyone would care enough to want to put the effort in to convince them. I find their form of craziness entertaining.

NANONUTS · #40 09-26-2007, 09:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It has been said a few times already. There is no need to share hand histories. For the questions I think most people would want tested any regular player will have enough hand histories that there is no need to merge them.

The reason I see this as a waste of effort though is that the people who believe sites are rigged are exhibiting an emotional reaction. They are losing players and don't want to face the fact that it is their fault so they blame the site. No amount of statistical evidence is going to convince them.

I also don't see why anyone would care enough to want to put the effort in to convince them. I find their form of craziness entertaining.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes there are some idiot donkeys putting forward the opinion that the games aren't fair but there are also winning players with that viewpoint. It's only natural that this side of the argument will attract more disgruntled people but that doesn't mean the argument in invalid. I've already said why I as winning pro for the last 3 years think the sites aren't fair, check my previous posts, I'm not gonna write it again. I would really love someone to compile all the data and run an analysis on it and find out once and for all if the games fair. And even if they weren't I would still be playing as this is my job and if I'm making money that's good enough for me. But I am just very curious as to what could be going on in the software and it annoys the hell out of me the way some people don't even consider what could be happening, dismissing it out of hand when there is huge motive for the sites to balance the cards.

If you took 10-20 winning players lifetime stats and ran an EV calculation on their all-ins to compare actual winnings to the winnings they should have made in theory, this would be enough imo to put end to this argument once and fora all. I think you'd need this amount of data as you don't want people to be complaining about small sample sizes like with the Absolute poker issue.