Only logged-in members can vote!
→ Click here to create a Mob account which gives you access to our forum and all our free bankrolls (no deposit bonuses) → Log in to existing account!
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
^^ lol I did this
Remind me not to play cards with him. Seriously, I read about this guy for half an hour just then. Slow bandwidth so didnt watch any clips, but f - sounds like this guy is half-jesus or something
Joined: Jan '08
Location: Croatia
Age: 47 (M)
Posts: 1308
@Dellbo Seen that Q`s deal in person, funny thing is that it was the same setup with Q`s dealt to me.
@most of the posters I made this thread because of that "Pokerstars cheat" thread that was live for a while. From what I read there it was obvious that people are misinformed what RNG certificate and gambling license represent in real world. Not some fantasy world where license and certificate protect players from poker sites themselves. Here is the link to my post in that thread where statement is more direct (link: http://www.bankrollmob.com/forum.asp?mode=thread&id... ). I really don`t understand the reasons for negative ratings because this is not another thread how online poker is rigged and stuff like that, intent was to inform more people about this and most of the readers don`t read "online poker is rigged" threads anymore so it would get lost in some stupid bad beat story. Would really like to hear reasons for negative ratings. I don`t see a reason for giving negative ratings just because you don`t understand what the post is about. If you don`t understand ask, maybe answer won`t be given quickly after you ask question but giving same answer all over again to first post readers is dull and nonproductive.
Readers should treat entire quote from certificate as bolded out. Non bolded text in quote is of a same value as bolded one. Put bolded text because it was end of long post so that people don`t just skip reading it.
Joined: Feb '08
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 35 (M)
Posts: 1886
The thing is Predobar I don't think there was any need for this thread. I didn't give you any negative rating by the way but I think you owe us a better explanation.
You say you didn't want to create another online poker is rigged thread but that is exactly what you did. By creating a discussion on RNG you gave the idiots another way to express poker could be rigged. You may have noticed from my other post that I concur that there is nothing to stop Full tilt from changing the software. Your right in that the certificate does not prove online poker is fair. What it does prove is that a fair software is possible and that they have the potential to use a software that is as random as random can be. The point is that Full tilt have no reason not to use that software and you shouldn't be giving the idiot poker is rigged theorists another string to their bow. If you want to use this thread to declare that poker isn't rigged or that we have nothing to worry about, i suggest you do it now.
Joined: Jan '08
Location: Brazil
Age: 36 (M)
Posts: 273
Guys... i don´t know if any of you is a programmer... BUT... as far as i know... the PC can´t really make random decisions.... they try to emulate random BUT ins´t really random... That´s what they tried to explain there... BUT that doesn´t mean POker rooms are cheating on us =)
It a computer system flaw... there isn´t a REAL random..... But it stills plays pretty good uh?
Joined: Jan '08
Location: Croatia
Age: 47 (M)
Posts: 1308
@awood88
What it does is that fair software is possible and that they have the potential to use a software that is as random as random can be.
You see that is the view shared by most of the people playing online poker. This is the fantasy I was talking about. You think that certificate proves that RNG is or at least was random and fair and certificate says this: "Considering typical methods for exploiting RNGs and given our understanding of the source code, Cigital does not believe it is feasible for players to either know or alter the operation of the RNG under normal operating conditions". Certificate is testing weakness of the RNG algorithm not it`s fairness and license is here for legal purpose most of the time. All license issuing bodies intervened only after players started gathering or have already gathered evidence, not before.
I am not saying that either FTP or PS tempered with their software in unethical way but certificate and license exist for legal purpose, RNG certificate is needed to get the license and license to move money legally, that`s all.
Okay, I wanted to avoid these kind of comments but I must post this. It is related to opinion that poker sites would have no interest in doing these kind of things because its not profitable for them to make one player win. For those who don`t know that yet, poker sites make money from RAKE, not by betting on who will be the winning player of the month. Taking into consideration that unless players themselves gather evidence and start putting it together no gambling commission will do anything about it. Just look how long did Pitbull poker exist and what was the reason for closure of it, what happened at AP/UB is history but also no one intervened until players themselves started gathering information. I have already put similar calculation in other thread based on number of tables shown in client rather than poker scout, this one is based on poker scout actual traffic reports For PS there are 4802 tables and vast majority of them are limits where rake is not capped every hand, in this case I`ll take 4000 tables for calculation. If PS would create environment where only $0.02 ( 2 cents) of extra rake would be gathered on each hand, with average 60hand/hour, it would produce the daily extra revenue of $115200, DAILY, which would give little over $48,000,000 each year. That 2 cents extra is overall average considering that big portion of those 4000 tables are in lowest micro limit tables. In my own opinion average should be around $0.05 but even at $0.02 extra per hand profits are enormous.
For those that think they would need large server rooms to do that much calculations let me ask you a question, do poker rooms use players computers in doing these calculations? I know the answer and it is YES, don`t believe it? Google it yourself.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Pitbull poker was a joke and I don't think too many people would have said "there's no way pitbull isn't dodge" I mean it was someone weird flash site with no traffic. The idea of actually transferring money to it seemed totally insane to me.
AP/UB scandle involved individual cheats, this happens at banks too and anywhere else money is handled in large amounts/ The RNG was not to blame. They had super user accounts and saw hole cards. Which incidently, is similar to the pitbull story.
Once again and as always, there has never been a a shred of evidence to back up the "action flops" theories and all the other BS about RNG's designed to payout the donk on the river etc.
Your exampls (pitbull and UB) are not relevant to your topic
And the text you've pasted I think if anything backs up the "fantasy" claim that certificates are there to protect player from the room cheating them.
Also, from a programming background, the algorithms and maths involved to come up with a rigged system, that wasn't obvious/consistent would be utterly mind-blowing vs a simple RNG
I just think, until there is a single bit of evidence pointing towards a rigged system and on a site that is considered legit (decent traffic) people should stop feeding any thoughts that poker sites may be rigged.
Fact is it's unlikely. Did you read the news article on here about I think it was the party poker founder, maybe a different room, anyway it mentioned some share value. If you see the revenue these rooms are making (especially stars) then you'd understand how pointless it would be to risk being shut down and shamed into redundancy by rigging the RNG in any way.
Also, consider that all rooms have winning players on there. They suffer variance sure, but ultimately win and also from what I understand don't claim the rooms are rigged or the RNG isn't fair.
Also, I used to play a lot of live poker and there's pretty much nothing crazy/unbelievable I have seen in online poker that I haven't seen live also. Runner runner quads, backdoor straight flushes, etc etc. It happens live to. Just remember, there's only 52 cards in the deck, unless you have stone cold nuts, you're not guaranteed to win the hand. The chance of any one card coming up isn't that bad.
BTW, I did NOT give you negative rating. Although, i still feel as though you need to explain yourself more here.
^Thats VERY true. Ive had plenty of made hands on the flop like 2pair+/sets/flushes/straights, only to be outdrawn on the turn & the river to bigger hands that get completed, consequently losing BIG pots & the funny thing is its happened to me BOTH online & live. Online defintley alot more... but there's a simple explanation to that; I see an infinite amount of more hands/hr online than live & your bound see more crazy things happen in a shorter amount of time. Its funny how you can quickly forget the times we got really lucky i.e. outdrawing a made hand to a 2 outer on the river, yet you never forget when somebody got really lucky on you! So whenever i take a bad beat, i just remember the times where i was the one who got really lucky & gave somebody a really bad beat & lately thats been helping greatly in keeping my head & emotions in control & on top of things.
Joined: Jan '08
Location: Croatia
Age: 47 (M)
Posts: 1308
@jessthemhuman You see now why I did not want to comment on first post, but thread still went that way. One of possibilities why that happened is because a lot of people are concerned and are actually in state of denial, because they are gambling addicts or just see poker as solution for their every day problems. I`ll start from the beginning of your post: Your first line about Pitbull, well just read thread on 2+2 about it and tell me how many people played there and how much money was involved.
AP/UB scandle involved individual cheats, this happens at banks too and anywhere else money is handled in large amounts/ The RNG was not to blame. They had super user accounts and saw hole cards. Which incidently, is similar to the pitbull story.
I used AP/UB scandal just to show that people who run servers don`t check what is happening at all and it was meant to show that unless players intervene no one cares whats happening, it was not meant to show that RNG was rigged. For Your info super user account must be flagged differently in software otherwise it will be treated as any other account. Simple program could have shown that someone is playing real money games with super user account but either that simple program does not exists and there could still be thousands of super user accounts or no one cared. Either way, commission did not do anything until players started gathering evidence. That was the whole point of mentioning that scandal.
Once again and as always, there has never been a a shred of evidence to back up the "action flops" theories and all the other BS about RNG's designed to payout the donk on the river etc.
No one ever tested the RNG for action flops. That WAS and IS the point of this thread. Point is not to prove that there are action flops, just that no one checked the software for that kind of things.
Your exampls (pitbull and UB) are not relevant to your topic
YES they are. They show that license is not protecting from what most of the players think it should protect. Maybe not that much in Pitbull case, lame license issued for online gaming, but in AP/UB it`s a different story because KGC always represented them as overseeing authority which was proven to be false. So YES they are important to specific part of the topic, my second post in this thread which explains that sites don`t have to worry that much of being caught because unless players don`t know what is going on, commission does not care.
And the text you've pasted I think if anything backs up the "fantasy" claim that certificates are there to protect player from the room cheating them.
Does it? How?
Also, from a programming background, the algorithms and maths involved to come up with a rigged system, that wasn't obvious/consistent would be utterly mind-blowing vs a simple RNG
You know that from experience? What algorithms are those? What is so complicated in having statistic database showing how many times some flop combination has occurred and how it differs from statistical average. For example TP/TK vs TP/weak kicker vs set, occurred less than average. This limits flop to very few combinations. There would have to be TP, one card for set and one card that is of no importance at the moment but may give someone runner straight or flush, ultimate combination would be that TP/weak kicker hits his second pair. Depending who stays in the hand, all 3 or just TP/TK vs set, turn and river could be easily rigged to give TP/TK a second pair using really complicated (<=sarcasm) algorithm like choose between four suits of the same card, or give TP/TK a straight or flush possibility making him bet more in case player holding set raised the bet on flop. Algorithm behind that is also really complicated, (if (set_raise=1 and tp/tk_pocketssuited=1) then deal suit), if not suited deal straight. Which makes nice pot on turn and if somehow set decides just to call turn maybe deal pair which will make TP/TK have nut flush and set have full house. All statistically random and not fair. This is actually A LOT MORE text than there is programming to it because math is non existent in this and only conditional code takes place. DB which holds statistical numbers is doing their part of the job and could further ease things up by just sending request for specific types of hands. No big and heavy algorithm there either. On some sites single server could do the trick where traffic is not that big.
I just think, until there is a single bit of evidence pointing towards a rigged system and on a site that is considered legit (decent traffic) people should stop feeding any thoughts that poker sites may be rigged.
And if we all continue to live in fantasy land there will never be any evidence because no one is doing anything to prevent it from happening. Also noticed that you rank sites on decent/not decent scale by volume of players, now why is that? WHY DON`T YOU USE CERTIFICATES AND LICENSES together with software quality to determine which site is decent? Maybe you are part of that group that is in denial that this problem exists. Sorry for showing you the yellow brick road but hey this is life not some fairy tale.
Fact is it's unlikely. Did you read the news article on here about I think it was the party poker founder, maybe a different room, anyway it mentioned some share value. If you see the revenue these rooms are making (especially stars) then you'd understand how pointless it would be to risk being shut down and shamed into redundancy by rigging the RNG in any way.
That is why I mentioned AP/UB scandal and Pitbull. THERE IS NO RISK AT ALL and by showing you how much profit they would gain by increasing the rake just a tiny $0.02 cents per hand I think that OH YES this does not seems pointless at all and what is the best part in that equation THERE IS NO RISK INVOLVED and even if they do get caught by players, did AP/UB closed, NO!. Pitbull owner ran because they were stupid enough not to pay employees and they have seen it only as quick buck not something that could produce big revenues continuously.
Also, consider that all rooms have winning players on there. They suffer variance sure, but ultimately win and also from what I understand don't claim the rooms are rigged or the RNG isn't fair
So now the fact that there are winning players make all the difference. We are not talking about winning players here but certificates and although I could expand discussion into that area lets just leave it here.
Also, I used to play a lot of live poker and there's pretty much nothing crazy/unbelievable I have seen in online poker that I haven't seen live also. Runner runner quads, backdoor straight flushes, etc etc. It happens live to. Just remember, there's only 52 cards in the deck, unless you have stone cold nuts, you're not guaranteed to win the hand. The chance of any one card coming up isn't that bad.
Of course, that`s why Texas Hold`em is so perfect game for this. Maybe you should do research when and how Texas hold`em became so popular. Why isn`t 5 card stud the game of today. It is much easier to learn than hold`em but it is much harder to produce action flop because there are no community cards. 5 card stud is as far as I know dead game online. And on sites where it was offered, MGS, entry stakes were medium. Why is there no movies produced where players play 5 or 7 card stud?
BTW, I did NOT give you negative rating. Although, i still feel as though you need to explain yourself more here.
Here is the quote from my previous post which answers that.
...I made this thread because of that "Pokerstars cheat" thread that was live for a while. From what I read there it was obvious that people are misinformed what RNG certificate and gambling license represent in real world... ...Certificate is testing weakness of the RNG algorithm not it`s fairness and license is here for legal purpose most of the time... ...I am not saying that either FTP or PS tempered with their software in unethical way but certificate and license exist for legal purpose, RNG certificate is needed to get the license and license to move money legally, that`s all.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
I understand and even agree with all of what you are saying. And I suppose the point of your thread (this) is not to state this is happening, just to say that it is possible and I do agree with you on that - and certainly you are right that the RNG's haven't (and is probably neigh impossible to do) been tested for fairness.
Although I do stand by my statement that creating biased algorithms in such a way as to subtley increase rake without setting off alarm bells and ultimately appearing random would be infinitely more difficult and my background is in programming so I am not talking crap. Also people, wannabe cheats even, have surely taken HUGE amounts of sample data to search for paterns (in hope of finding ways to exploit RNG algorithm or even discover it) and to my knowledge no one has come up with anything but random card sorts.
The only way to really look into it would be with an incredible sample data of hands so you could see past variance and 1:1.000.000 occurancse etc.
Still, I do believe it is highly unlikely on major sites. UB may not have shut down, but it cop'd a lot of flak and did lose high stakes players over that incident. And certainly will be black marked for the rest of its days over it.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if smaller sites attempted something like you're saying, but I would be very surprised to learn if any of the major ones were.
All in all, I agree with what you're saying, that RNG manipulation to favour more rake is theoretically possible and that certificates & licenses do not guarantee it isn't happening. But I do think it is highly unlikely and certainly not worth giving rigtards any more ammo to justify their bad play with.
Mind you, I do NOT think you're trying to say it's rigged or anything - total respect for your argument. I do think you should have explained yourself better though in the orig post for this thread. That was my main beef.
Edited by jessthehuman (11 November 2009 @ 10:07 GMT)
Joined: Jan '08
Location: Croatia
Age: 47 (M)
Posts: 1308
Oh it is possible to test this from happening, only thing is that one must not look in standard statistics like pocket hands dealt to single player or even community card statistics, if person who wrote the code is smart enough, but more in depth look into relations between players altogether. Haven`t really tried to put down number of hands needed to prove something like that but it would have to be over bigger period of time and over bigger player base.
BTW, that test Cigital did on is poker game of skill or luck is now not looking so credible, to me at least after I saw what were the parameters of that test. They used only hands from one month, only hands from certain limits and from not so many players so it is not actually credible that much. I am speaking of test itself, I do believe its little more skill than luck involved in poker but big question is does this skill factor surpasses rake factor in winning equation.
-1 rating to OP. This is junk thread. 
