Do we really know that online poker is on the level? I.E., not rigged

[UptownExpress]

u sir, r a moran.

[jsbjoe]

Will someone smart please put up one of those voting boxes?

There should only be two choices:

RIGGED

NOT RIGGED



(i know for sure i will vote Rigged)

[Nitilism]

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.

MyTurn2Raise claims to have shown that on pokerstars, the best hand in preflop all-ins only collects 95% of its expected value, you can read about it in the zoo. No one is jumping up and down about it, which is weird, because if the the math is right, then wouldn't that be proof positive that stars is not on the level?

I add that if you are going to say one more site is more likely to be rigged than another, it would be the site that doesn't allow datamining over the one who does. The samples you need would have to be extremely large, to the point that probably only leatherass and/or that Harry Potter kid from Italy could get enough hands on their own to do any meaningful analysis.

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?

[UptownExpress]

Hey Ding Dong,

In your OP u suggest that some online sites favor suckouts at a higher than truly random rate.

i.e. u suggest that if a fish raises allin with 99 and is called by AA the site increases the odds of the 99 winning by say 0-30% and that this goes unnoticed correct?

While it is true that this could be occurring, the problem that I have with your argument is that you provide no statistical evidence for it.

I could make any claim I wanted and post it here, but what is the point?

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Ding Dong,

In your OP u suggest that some online sites favor suckouts at a higher than truly random rate.

i.e. u suggest that if a fish raises allin with 99 and is called by AA the site increases the odds of the 99 winning by say 0-30% and that this goes unnoticed correct?

While it is true that this could be occurring, the problem that I have with your argument is that you provide no statistical evidence for it.

I could make any claim I wanted and post it here, but what is the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

first off, tell me where I said that.

second off, you completely missed the point of my post if you think I was trying to prove that online poker is rigged.

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember posting something similiar and he immediately bashed the idea. Obv. he must've been on some amazing online heater and couldn't fathom the idea of online being rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, prob. I did go on a HUDGE heater earlier this year before I hung it up.

and if you posted it in BBV, I most likely wasn't too nice. sorry, that's just what we do in BBV.

Also I am just as likely as most anyone on this board to jump on the "lol rigged" bandwagon if your basis for thinking a site is rigged is "no fair, my AA got cracked, must be rigged" or something similar.

Many many posters on these boards (not saying you necessarily) insinuate a site is rigged to excuse their losses and bad play. We've all seen it many times.

However, when a poster presents a coherent argument or case that something seems off about a certain site, 2+2ers are way to quick to lump them in the "no fair, my AA got cracked, must be rigged" crowd.

If the whole BK/Adanthar/AP issue would have been happened at lower limits and was presented by lesser-known posters, it would not have been received with as many open minds like it was.

knuwwutImeen?

[DING-DONG YO]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(Aside: interesting how party gaming is audited by PriceWaterhouseCoopers for UK listing purposes but Itech labs verifies the RNG. Why not have PWC perform all the work? PWC is an international firm that undoubtedly has subject matter experts in this area)

[/ QUOTE ]

This would likely be a conflict of interest, or very close to it. While the chances of shenanigans are very slight, there would be too much opportunity for an unscrupulous manager or partner to "cook the books" or overlook inconsistencies related to links between a rigged RNG and the company's financials.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that's all the more reason for PWC to perform the RNG audit. If I was the partner in charge of this audit at PWC, I would definitely perform some kind of work over the RNG to gain a comfort level.

True that PWC is opining only on the accuracy of the Company's financials, but just think what would happen if you were the partner and the business blew up for providing a less than fair game. You would be hung in the media and in your company and the defense of "our firm was not engaged to audit the RNG" wouldn't get you very far.

If I was the PIC, I would set up a separate engagement to audit the RNG and charge them for it.

I wouldn't say it would be a conflict of interest, but it could be that PWC doesn't feel they have the expertise to effectively audit the game's fairness and therefore don't want to accept the work.

edit: there probably wouldn't be any inconsistencies with the financials regardless if the game was fair or not. If the game wasn't fair, the company would just make more money than if it was fair. There is no reason to think that anything would be inaccurate with the financials based solely on whether or not the game is fair.

[augie_]

i know someone who can get us the information that we need...

[JCCARL]

Short answer DDY, yes the games are not on the level IMHO.


After the Absolute debacle, I have lost complete confidence in online poker, and i had never even played a single hand on Absolute.


I have withdrawn all funds from the online sites and will restrict my play to live only.

Regards,
Carl

[O Fen�meno]

[ QUOTE ]
Short answer DDY, yes the games are not on the level IMHO.


After the Absolute debacle, I have lost complete confidence in online poker, and i had never even played a single hand on Absolute.


I have withdrawn all funds from the online sites and will restrict my play to live only.

Regards,
Carl

[/ QUOTE ]
there are no robots offline and that is what makes it honest