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
a chance to ask somebody with industry experience interesting questions and you waste it with that dribble. Well done.
I am tempted to answer - but they're not for me so I'll be respectful and wait for the answers you're after. However - I just can't leave number #6 alone: Seriously, how daft are you ? Daft enough to buy his book - because I promise you, thats how he is making money, not by cracking PS. Seriously, if anyone could "crack" poker room algorithms or find any other way to exploit it, you think they're be writing a fucking book about it ?
Joined: Mar '11
Location: Germany
Age: 54 (M)
Posts: 217
Posted by jessthehuman: a chance to ask somebody with industry experience interesting questions and you waste it with that dribble. Well done.
I am tempted to answer - but they're not for me so I'll be respectful and wait for the answers you're after. However - I just can't leave number #6 alone: Seriously, how daft are you ? Daft enough to buy his book
Ah my friend again Iif you´ve got other or more qualified questions - ask yourself instead of criticizing others everytime.
Of course I did not buy this EBook, lol. I am just interested in the opinion from dBigMac with some further information about this theory. C A N Y O U R E A D T H I S, J E S S ?? Fine, but did you understand what I wrote? Sometimes I have some doubts about it. Maybe my fault.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by Doberhain: Iif you've got other or more qualified questions - ask yourself instead of criticizing others everytime.
I was referring to your chance, not mine; I'm not that interested, otherwise I would.
------------
Posted by Doberhain: Of course I did not buy this EBook, lol. I am just interested in the opinion from dBigMac with some further information about this theory. C A N Y O U R E A D T H I S, J E S S ?? Fine, but did you understand what I wrote? Sometimes I have some doubts about it. Maybe my fault.
Fair point - you never said you were going to buy the book. However - I still stand by my assertion that all of your questions are pointless dribble.
Joined: Feb '08
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 51 (M)
Posts: 10
1) I found out that it could be an ease to cheat at least at some rooms on the iPoker-Network, for a criminal group with enough members. I will not say "Poker-Mafia" but maybe my bullets aren't that far away from the guns. It is possible to reach the exact same tables from different pokerrooms. For example could a "team" be registered at William Hill, Titan, Celeb, etc. and sitting at the same SitNGo table, entering different pokerrooms by several computer systems with independent IP's and usernames. The advantage they have is to know the cards of each other, pushing odd calculation to a profitable but unfair level. Why do different iPoker-Rooms offer entrance into the same single SitnGoes and tourneys and what do they do, to prevent such a situation? I don't want to believe that I should be the first person having this in mind.
100% - Any network encounters this problem. The solution is twofold -
1) The poker rooms on the network can review hand history for all players although they cannot see the personal information on players who are not playing from their 'skin' so in case of a player complaint they are able to review. 2) The networks have their own fraud teams who review this kind of thing and there are specific queries and ways to track this kind of activity. I am not going to go into how this is done as the entire trick is to try and stay 1, 2 or ideally 3 steps ahead of the cheats.
2) Not only from my own experience but in addition from other users I realized that there is a tendency in stearing the cashflow that is on the line, between several players. I experienced that clearly at FullTilt and especially at PartyPoker (not long ago). Because I am a member of many poker rooms, I believe at least to have a medium overview how these sites act concerning this hypothesis.
It's a lot harder than it looks to 'steer' things. People who complain about collusion tend to have no idea how hard it is to accomplish. It's a lot easier to lose a greater sum of money between the players than it is to make it. Having said that, I have come across (and dealt with) some extremely clever, profitable groups who were colluding so it's not impossible at all but I will say that around 95% of collusion complaints coming from players have no merit and it's normally the result of sour grapes.
3) The software engines of some rooms do have an "action tendency". Giving good starters and/or practically flops to many players to keep them in the game; to maximise the rake and get players to deposit again. As I stated in an earlier reply, my idea is, that this procedure could be independent from the basic shuffle algorithm. It is conceivable that this routine just makes the best out of the shuffled cards before they were dealt and although reaches such a goal on the long run. Who certifies what happens to the cards after they were shuffled and how they would be dealt to the players?
Basically no. I know it sounds feasible but it isn't... it would be a huge amount of code to accomplish this and that would be reviewed and located by the companies who certify the code and RNG process. It's simply that you see more 'odd' things online than you do 'live' due to the greater number of hands dealt. I thought the same thing a few times when I first got in the industry about certain sites, but having worked for many companies it's just not viable, practical or worth it for the site. There are soooooo many donkeys out there who will keep depositing (no offense intended to anyone!) that it's just not worth the effort.
4) Aren't there ways for someone (maybe employees if not hackers) to hang on into the data stream from the poker room servers, before it is transferred to the players? There is a curious clause in the FullTilt general terms of usage, saying that in some cases the results of the cards shown at the users client could differ from the initial cards given from their home servers and that in this case the initial sequence would count as basis for an accepted outcome of a game. Why do they need such a clause in their conditions? (Man, hope I got that right with my english...)
No is the simple answer......
I'm not going to get into why it's not possible as it might inadvertently become a challenge for some programmers but intercepting individual packets of data, decrypting it, parsing it and making it usable as well as hacking the users personal connection and getting this all together simultaneously is to all intents and purposes not viable. More to the point it's a huge amount of work for a very very very small potential gain.
As for the clause in the T&C's.... that's simply a 'get out clause' to prevent any degradation of data and simply means that what 'they say' happened was accurate. I have had people sending in screenshots showing that they should have won a hand and the system says something completely different. These are 99% of the time the results of Photoshop (and yes, there are ways to tell).
5) Why do poker sites allow the usage of handtracking and indicator tools? Especially such indicator software gives a huge and unfair advantage -> thread: "Razz with Studindicators"
This is an interesting point and almost worth a completely separate thread.
It becomes more of a moral question than a cheating tool in the sense that all these indicators do is give you information that is freely available to everybody 'IF' you had played in that hand.
Now, using these tools to record info from hands you played is nothing more than a more accurate note taking function (assuming you are savvy enough to be able to remember all the behavioral patterns of your opponents).
When you get into buying hand history and uploading it into your system or scraping HH by leaving your system tracking players overnight it becomes a different thing..... sites have to make a decision on what they find acceptable - I will say that the attitude taken by various networks and sites is very different and that some networks actively penalize 'skins' who have a winning player base. Again, there's an entire thread here about what is viewed as a good base of players.
6) There is a fellow offering an EBook on how to "crack" Pokerstars I'm sure it's not allowed to post the link here, so I don't do it. By reading the comercial for his EBook, I had to remind some curious situations that happened to me at the tables. Could it be true, that there is a way to filter winning patterns and synchronize the own play to the software?
This guy is 'beating' Pokerstars by making money selling an eBook to people stupid enough to pay money for a completely pointless book which is utter BS! (I read it.... and no I didn't buy it!! and it's just utter cr*p)
I hope that covers your points in sufficient detail but if you have more then please feel free....
Jess, you're also welcome to ask any Q's you have
May the flop be with you!
------------
Posted by jbrooksie: There is no forum anywhere where a discussion about "rigged" poker includes references to quantum mechanics - awsome.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by dBigMac: Jess, you're also welcome to ask any Q's you have
hehe - thanks - but I don't have any - all of this is fairly intuitive IMO. Also - I'm a computer science student and I work professionally in IT and have a very solid understanding of programming fundamentals and I realise the ridiculousness of most rigged RNG theories.
Joined: Feb '11
Location: Canada
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 1660
Ha ha, I love how people just use the word quantum to add crdibility to their theories. They know so few people understand it (Myself included at the moment) and so don't realize it doesn't fit. Like the quantum Xorroid machine, they actually just link to the wiki page on quantum.
Joined: Mar '11
Location: Germany
Age: 54 (M)
Posts: 217
Fair point - you never said you were going to buy the book. However - I still stand by my assertion that all of your questions are pointless dribble.
Haha, this guy is just nice. Jessthehuman, maybe we started on the wrong food. It´s not that easy to go into technical details using a foreign language, without getting missunderstood. Therefor I tried to keep things simple this time. If you would like to nail me on wood because I have arranged _common_ points out of rumours, threads and moanings from many players (not only me), just go ahead. I know for what I am going to bleed then
The questions I made public, do not reflect my personal opinion in every case. Maybe I should have made that clear from the beginning. BUT - like I said - I am interested to build my opinion about this all and I hope it also was or will either be useful for some other people by reading dBigMacs answers. My basic reason to ask this whole bunch is just to sort things out.
------------
, they actually just link to the wiki page on quantum.
Did you? Wouldn´t be wrong. For myself quantum mechanics became a thrilling topic since I first read about it in "Scientific American", maybe 25 or more years ago... I never turned into a physician but still looking to find out, who murdered the cat - maybe Jessthehuman
-----------
My big Thanks to dBigMac for reading my post and writing down his respected opinion about it.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by Doberhain find out, who murdered the cat - maybe Jessthehuman
is a vegan; didn't murder the cat. I'm pretty sure it was Einstein actually, saw his theories going to s**t and got cranky.
------------
Posted by Arithmajik: Ha ha, I love how people just use the word quantum to add crdibility to their theories.
Haha just to clarify - I agree with this sentiment. And it was I who brought that into the thread - but it was an off-topic reference - I merely likened a number that is represented by a random number (X) for example, the turn card yet to come - to the likeness of the Schrödinger's cat being dead/alive. I think it's a fair reference.. ??
Joined: Mar '09
Location: Canada
Age: 66 (M)
Posts: 69
k...only idiots would say it can't be rigged...anybody in computer engineering will tell you it is possible and probable...why would a multimillion dollar site rig it...to make more millions.....sorry guys just venting....went in all with a-k against KK - hit the ace....one card in whole deck will make me lose on river 2% chance..course he hits it.....and again and again and again....my last hand and i mean my "last hand" - I go all in with trip J's with q kicker....get called ----by trip j's with K.. sure it happens ...butit seems all the time!
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by crow58: ...anybody in computer engineering will tell you it is possible and probable...
I am (in computer engineering) It is (possible) It isn't (probable) - in fact, not only is it not probable, but the power required to run such a sophisticated code for so many people at the same time is phenomenal . Also - these RNGs/etc get certified - there would literally be no way to hide this kind of code. It would never pass certification.
------------
Posted by crow58: ....went in all with a-k against KK - hit the ace....one card in whole deck will make me lose on river 2% chance..course he hits it.....
Sounds like you went allin as the dog. 30% vs 70% and lost, thats not even a bad beat. If you went allin AFTER you hit the ace, then unlucky, but it happens.
Sounds like some standard bad beats - and whats more - I don't understand one way or the other how you're trying to explain that this helps the poker room ?
------------
Posted by crow58: ...butit seems all the time!
oh really ? Because I play a LOT of poker. And I hadn't noticed. Sure you're not just a little sooky girl ?
Joined: Mar '11
Location: Germany
Age: 54 (M)
Posts: 217
but the power required to run such a sophisticated code for so many people at the same time is phenomenal .
Why do you soil dBigMacs qualified statements about this with such a nonsens, hm? Because you cannot resist to put a hammer on people posting a controverse statement. WTF do you think to achieve by offending others all the time ???? Maybe you should lean back and take a deep breath from time to time or use a screwdriver instead.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by Doberhain:
but the power required to run such a sophisticated code for so many people at the same time is phenomenal .
Why do you soil dBigMacs qualified statements about this with such a nonsens, hm?
What are you talking about?
I really am qualified in software engineering. My comment had NOTHING to do with dbigMacs reply. As I said, his reply was great. If you think I was just hijacking his response, stealing his comment; you're welcome to search all the older rigtard threads on BRM - I promise I reply in all of them and I've said this before, time and again.
Joined: Mar '11
Location: Germany
Age: 54 (M)
Posts: 217
Posted by jessthehuman:
Posted by Doberhain:
but the power required to run such a sophisticated code for so many people at the same time is phenomenal .
Why do you soil dBigMacs qualified statements about this with such a nonsens, hm?
What are you talking about?
I really am qualified in software engineering. My comment had NOTHING to do with dbigMacs reply. As I said, his reply was great. If you think I was just hijacking his response, stealing his comment; you're welcome to search all the older rigtard threads on BRM - I promise I reply in all of them and I've said this before, time and again.
ty
I didn´t say you are hijacking his response. It has as much to do with his reply, as you are referring to a basic part of it in general - software manipulated/arranged to the disadvantage of players. Or did I got you wrong? ( Mark this point for a good hit with the hammer ) And I stand on my point that this was nonsens. _If_ there _would_ be such parts of software, then it would pay out in an astronomical manner, covering all efforts easily. (my profession: mix out of economics/programming/gambling and getting planes in the air)
BTW: There _are_ definetely posts from you that I do like. I do not doubt about your qualification. It´s just, from time to time I wonder how you guys talk to each other. Who mucks up is a rigtard, idiot, donk, monk, girley and whatever, lol. Maybe these are cultural differences between us, I cannot reconstruct. I wouldn´t call someone a rigtard, because he stands on an other point. That´s a question of respectful communication between each other.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
^ Likewise Doberhain, there are some posts of yours that I like and you definitely don't come across as stupid.
The reason I get so upset/offensive with this whole thing is:
I would be willing to wager if you took a ratio of "believe it is rigged":"believe it is not rigged" of say 20,000 active/random (plays at least 3 sessions a week) players from a given room.
And then took a sample 20,000 losing players and took the same ratio, I would wager a significant amount of money that there was a much higher ratio of rigged vs non-rigged for the ALL losing sample data. And furthmore - if you too 20,000 winning players, I would say you would have a VERY small figure that (as a ratio) that actually believed it was rigged.
My point being - in life in general- it really upsets me and makes me literally sick how little people are willing to take responsibility.
And I'm not just talking about for their losing poker skills. I mean - I'm a vegan - for ethical/environmental reasons. I also do not drive - I am 27 and have never had a drivers license - once again - for environmental reasons. I recycle, I use 'green bags'- I try not to support companies that I don't think at least try to be somewhat ethical. Generally speaking - I try to take some responsibility in life for my actions.
So when I see people, whether they be "rigtards" or "religious" people - effectively off-loading their responsibility and actions on to some third-party/conspiracy it really upsets me.
Now I am not saying big business never cheats, or God is impossible - or anything else. But I do think - if people are gonna come to me and say "God exists" or "This major multi-billion dollar industry is cheating, they are doing A,B,C to make their service biased for XXX $ Million more in profit" then I expect them to be able to provide some pretty significant and empirical (measurable) evidence to support their claim.
Because I really hate it when people are just whining about aspects of their life that they HAVE control over anyway.
Now personally - it took me two years of hard work (lots of playing, reading strategy, etc) to become a winner at MTTs in poker - I am STILL a loser in SNGs and Ring games (mostly due to degenerate bankroll management). Now, I have an IQ of around ~150 - that is very high- so I am in no way an idiot. So for me to say that (online) poker is an EXTREMELY difficult game to beat - especially when you consider 5% or even 10%+ in rake/fees - believe me - do not take this lightly. Most people have some idea in their head - they are good at poker, if they are willing to grind it out, etc - they can make money from it. This just simply doesn't make any sense - for the poker rooms to take their cut, for the pros to win a LOT of money - that really leaves VERY little room for anybody to "grind-out" a living. Or even break-even or make a small profit.
The hard reality is, if you crunch the numbers (the rake, the fee, your edge) it becomes mathematically probable that most players are losing players. It is the way it has to be - people don't seem to realise that even the so called "fish" are generally people who live & breath poker. The boom is over folks. We are studying and analysing our hand histories now, plugging leaks, reading books, etc - just to gain the TINNIEST of edges to win 1 extra big blind over 100 or something. The online rooms are FILLED with people that do nothing but play poker. Then we all wonder why we aren't winning - well, here's the thing, if you're paying 10% in rake - then your edge vs everyone else who plays poker 24hrs a day - needs to be greater than 10% !
People don't seem to get this. They (online poker players) are generally pretty clever and have big egos regarding their intellect - they don't like to be told they are losers - whats more - they find it EXTREMELY difficult to admit this to themselves. However - since numbers dont lie (they ARE losing money after all) the only way they can continue to self-delude - is to invent- or join an existing - elaborate reasoning as to WHY they are actually WINNING players - but are getting cheated/robbed/conned etc
It just seems people can't say "I AM A LOSING POKER PLAYER - I AM NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO BEAT THE GAME" - and by the way - I am saying this. Because i are a losing player (over all).
However - the time I invested to become a winning MTT player is phenomenal, and for some drop-kcik to tell me I'm just "chosen" by the software - or they're just as good, but its rigged, etc - it is actually offensive to me.
Hope this clears up my language issues when it comes to this whole rigtard thing.
Joined: Mar '11
Location: Germany
Age: 54 (M)
Posts: 217
Hope this clears up my language issues when it comes to this whole rigtard thing.
Wow. Thanks for this very personal view. It defenitely shows up a an intelligent person with good and strong characteristics. For me: I try to fetch people at the place they are standing to take them with me and not to drop them even further down as they are already. If I find it useful to convince someone about certain points then I would not assume to be successful by calling him an idiot I agree that it takes a lot of work to become sussessful and learning about MTT´s never seems to end, especially in my case. But as poker has become a part of my soul, I am going to accept that.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by Doberhain: For me: I try to fetch people at the place they are standing to take them with me and not to drop them even further down as they are already. If I find it useful to convince someone about certain points then I would not assume to be successful by calling him an idiot
To be honest, I tend to agree with you - but then, it really depends who/what I am debating. For example - there is no sense arguing rationally/logically with a priest for example over the existence of God - all arguments against will be well thought out rational responses, where-as the arguments for are completely based on irrationality. Which leaves basically zero room for a proper discussion or debate - especially on a scientific level. It pretty much reduces your options to : Name calling, condescending, ignoring, etc.
Now- if you take the rigged poker debate - I challenge you to bring up the rigged poker threads on some of the major online poker forums (the most obvious one I am sure you would know of). Now - look through all the responses and then tally-up all the intellectual, rational and articulate responses against poker being rigged vs for it being rigged. I bet you any amount you want - the "poker isn't rigged" tally will have a LOT higher score.
And for this reason, I can become like this, over time, you just "can't be f**ked" any more. So generally - every time somebody starts a new thread about poker being rigged, my first response is simply "yeah, either that or you're an idiot". Or something of similar nature. Completely and make no mistake - deliberately ridiculous, pointless and unintelligent. I do this with intent. If I can't beat them in an intellectual/rational debate because they either won't, or more likely, can't, engage - then I'll simply stoop to their level and wind them up. I really don't give a s**t how many my posts get or how many people I upset. If they aren't willing to take the time out on their own lives and theories to at least try and scrutinise their beliefs and world-views - why the f**k should I?!
Joined: Feb '08
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 51 (M)
Posts: 10
The hard reality is, if you crunch the numbers (the rake, the fee, your edge) it becomes mathematically probable that most players are losing players
Probably not the answer most people want to hear but in general the results are this..
5% are consistently winning players 5-10% are profitable (slightly) 5% are break even
The rest are losing
They (online poker players) are generally pretty clever and have big egos regarding their intellect - they don't like to be told they are losers - whats more - they find it EXTREMELY difficult to admit this to themselves. However - since numbers dont lie (they ARE losing money after all) the only way they can continue to self-delude - is to invent- or join an existing - elaborate reasoning as to WHY they are actually WINNING players - but are getting cheated/robbed/conned etc
You have no idea! Try working in Customer Service or dealing with escalated complaints from CS....
In fact, ask pretty much anyone you know who plays poker "Are you any good?" ..I'll bet that 99% of the time the response is "Yeah/Not Bad/I'm OK". Poker players are almost always ego-maniacs when referencing the game and they don't like to admit that there's any leaks in their game or that anything could possibly be their fault.
Joined: Mar '11
Location: Germany
Age: 54 (M)
Posts: 217
why the f**k should I?!
(posted by Jessthehuman)
Good point. To be honest from my side, my impression about your personal effort on this whole discussion in all this related threads is at least, you _are_ someone who cares about the outcome of it all. Like me. So why the f**k you should. Why did "Hermann" turn against his beloved "romans" and led his people into crucially fights against them? Because he couldn´t stand it anymore to see them suffer. He was courageously enough to take his place inbetween all these moaners and managed to turn their pain into rage. He cared about and he realized his responsability as a person even beeing blessed with special charakteristic gifts. I suppose persons like dBigMac are knowing that it isn´t helpful to put another "heap of muck" on the other to lead people out of the dirt. It´s more useful to turn the lights on it, if you have got a lamp. (That should work out well for "germans" and "romans", btw).
If someone calls me an idiot because I am using a pitchfork to fight someone with a sword, he should keep in mind, his ass even could be hit by that pitchfork and maybe I manage to capture the sword to use it against him. I am not a victim in life, at pokertables and in this discussion - I prefer to be a m..f.. bloody warrior.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by Doberhain:
why the f**k should I?!
(posted by Jessthehuman)
Good point. To be honest from my side, my impression about your personal effort on this whole discussion in all this related threads is at least, you _are_ someone who cares about the outcome of it all. Like me.
You're right you know. It's a cruel cruel irony. But you're right.
------------
Posted by dBigMac: 5% are consistently winning players 5-10% are profitable (slightly) 5% are break even
The rest are losing
Yes - as painful as it is to face, when you think about it logically
Poker room - takes a MASSIVE share of the money top 5% / winning consistently / pros / reg high stakes / etc - taking a lions share of what is won by players 5-10% - slightly profitable - OK - these guys need some money to thanks 5% break even - ok these guys aren't donating.
my posts get or how many people I upset. If they aren't willing to take the time out on their own lives and theories to at least try and scrutinise their beliefs and world-views - why the f**k should I?!
