Organizing a project to determine which sites are legit or rigged

[Henry17]

1. The max rake is low enough that causing rigged action at higher or medium stakes is pretty much a waste of time.

2. At lower stakes we have an entire thread of individuals discussing the number of base points they earn. Since base points are very strongly correlated with rake they can be used in the place of rake. Nothing in the numbers implies any rake manipulation.

3. The abundance of stupidity continues to surprise me even though I should have come to terms with it years ago.

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
It is very simple. Why do poker sites rig games? BECAUSE THEY MAKE EXPONENTIALLY MORE MONEY

[/ QUOTE ]
You are misusing the term exponential. What you mean is "increnementally" more, at huge risk.

[ QUOTE ]
They put house players in games and allow them to win. There is no regulation there to stop them. Think people. Why would they NOT do this?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is trivial. I hereby announce to the world there there are NO house players on PokerStars (though you could argue that Team PokerStars are house players, I'm not talking about them). I stake my integrity on the matter. If there are any house players for PokerStars, they can now destroy my reputation and that of Pokerstars by simply saying "yeh, I play for them" and produce reliable evidence to say so. Why on earth would I take that risk?

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
1. The max rake is low enough that causing rigged action at higher or medium stakes is pretty much a waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a good point and one I hadn't thought of before. Of course, one could still argue that there's benefit in keeping the weaker players alive longer.

[Nitilism]

I actually think this is a good idea, even though I don't think the major sites are rigged. I posted this in NVG a week ago:

[ QUOTE ]
You can't make fish last longer than they otherwise would and keep it hidden from a regular's database provided he gets a sufficient number of hands. It's impossible to hide the fact that his good hands are not holding, or that his KK hands are bumping into AA more often than they should. Countering this point, I do not how feasible it is to say the typical high volume player can pack in enough hands to get the sample size he needs.








*********





But let's be realistic here--in order to hide your rigging so that it won't show up in the average high volume player's data, you'll be rigging your game at such infrequent intervals that I doubt it would be worth it at all from any perspective at all, considering there a bazillion other ways out there to bilk the players. For example, stars FPP satellites are a great example. Give the player rakeback, but then give the player means to ensure the rakeback stays in the system. And while we are on the subject of tournaments, don't those already do a great job of ensuring a few hundred more fish are going to be rolled for games they have no business playing in every week?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the last paragraph really erodes the argument of fixing the RNG to get more rake. In pretty much every tournament I play, some idiot goes so much deeper than he deserves to based on his skill. Think about it, a fish luck-boxes his or her way to the final table in a 180 man, and he finds himself rolled for $100NL, because $400 is what a fish needs to be rolled for $100NL. Think about this, stars runs these tournies for a profit, and at the same ensures there are fish with money to blow in the ring games, and all of it risk free (as opposed to the risk of ruin they face if their rigged RNG is exposed).

But like I said, I support this because only good stuff will come from it. Dishonest games, if any exist, could be shut down, while the honest ones will have another source of credibility.

[ryanj247]

StichNV wrote:
[ QUOTE ]
I am extremely interested in putting some form of dedicated organization that examines this issue in full depth.

So far the agenda would be a compellation of a lot of the questions brought up by this forum.

I have registered the following domain for the use of this project. www.BetSure.org (the name just seemed fitting)

If you would like information regarding the deployment of this project please just PM nineinchal, myself, or email BetSureOrg@gmail.com for more information.

So far there are a lot of great ideas that I think will really please a lot players in almost every aspect of online poker (from fish to pro rounder)

The project is going to be non-profit and beneficial to all members.

[/ QUOTE ]

nineinchal wrote:
[ QUOTE ]

I will be requesting information for this purpose once we are ready to process it.

I believe accepting hand histories from posters at this point is premature. It will take some time to get a team in place that can determine what type of procedures will be implemented. Moreover, I remain uncertain as to exactly what is required. Right now there is a lack of human resources who are coordinated in their efforts, since this idea was created by nineinch just yesterday.

First and foremost I want to have integrity, honesty and accuracy as the primary purpose of this endeavor. Otherwise it will be totally useless to all of us.

In the interim you got to chill. Either chill, or start posting your resumes.

[/ QUOTE ]

is any of this actually happening?

[Grasshopp3r]

Stars has a database of about 6 billion hands. They are the ones that need to prove that their RNG is sound. It is an easy task for them. Plus, they can use the data to discover any anomalous players.

[bystander]

The best way to do is on a player by player basis. Check if a player is getting a large amount of 'bad beats' after a winning streak or very good luck when he deposits.. This is the way the site would be rigged. To encourage new players and to NEVER discourage bad players. Now if a large amount of people have hand histories that display no connection between bad beats and deposits/withdrawals/ or winning/losing streaks - the site is probably not rigged.

If more than 60% of people submitting handhistories (need to work out a good sample size) have strange connections between winning and then going on 'bad beat streak' - the site is probably rigged.

Also make sure the hand histories are coming from medium - low limits - this is where the 'undetectable' rigging should be taking place..(All this needs is a slight adjustment to the algorithm -- I'm a programmer - I 've done this kind of stuff before)

[bystander]

[ QUOTE ]
My first four years i won 6 figures playing 30-60 limit, and 5-10 and 10-20 nl on party and stars. i was playing about 20 hrs. per week. this last year (since neteller went down) i am break-even.

[/ QUOTE ]

let me ask you this: DO you notice that after winning a few hands, you go into a period of 'bad luck' streak. Conversely if you lose all your money and redeposit - your luck goes up?

[Josem]

lol.

[ QUOTE ]
DO you notice that after winning a few hands, you go into a period of 'bad luck' streak.

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[ QUOTE ]
Conversely if you lose all your money and redeposit - your luck goes up?

[/ QUOTE ]
'Cause I'm not a moron, I don't lose all my money and need to redeposit in the first place.

[Henry17]

[ QUOTE ]
let me ask you this: DO you notice that after winning a few hands, you go into a period of 'bad luck' streak. Conversely if you lose all your money and redeposit - your luck goes up?

[/ QUOTE ]

This just means you are a bad player. When you go broke and need to redeposit you play better because you are determined to not play stupid. But then as you start to win you go back to playing badly.