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: Nov '10
Location: Serbia
Age: 37 (M)
Posts: 2087
Well I found one very interesting article on one famous site similar to Bankrollmob. What you think, is this proof that online poker is not rigged?
Here is article:
The Debate
Over the years, public opinion has varied greatly about the integrity of online poker. Conspiracy theories have include the ‘cash-out curse’ to pot-juicing by individual poker sites to create action and generate more rake. Some players believe that if they count to ten before going all-in they’re less likely to lose. Most of the live grinders at the Vic card room in London believe that only spies, crooks and the mentally unhinged actually play poker on the internet.
In reality, online poker is facing tough times. Black Friday and the ongoing saga surrounding Full Tilt Poker have thrown the game of online poker into disrepute. For a company of such stature to fall from grace so dramatically is almost inconceivable, and the skeptics’ knives are out.
The Method
For most online poker players, bad beats and downswings are part of the game. The ‘rigged’ theory is simply a by-product of variance. There may be light at the end of the tunnel for the doubters though, as one site is attempting to answer the age old debate. The team at Online Poker Watchdog has run a series of tests over millions of hands at leading online poker sites to determine whether there is statistical proof of ‘rigging’ or unfair practice. The website claims to be an independent statistical auditor, solely focused on maximising the integrity of the game.
PokerStars, PartyPoker and the OnGame network are the three poker operators surveyed so far. The investigation consisted of two tests and was fairly straightforward and similar in all three cases. Firstly, over a million hands were uploaded into a database and were compared by expected number of hands won in comparison with the actual number of hands that won. The second test segregated hands that were ahead pre-flop and hands that were behind pre-flop and a comparison was executed.
The Results
PokerStars analysis focused on a sample of 1 million downloaded hands and 69,663 pre-flop all-ins from Sit n Go tournaments. Actual expectation would suggest that 35,748 of these hands would win. In reality, 35,850 of these hands won, meaning a standard deviation of +102. For those of you without a degree in mathematics, this is very close to normal. When comparing pre-flop all-ins when ahead and behind, the statistics again proved to be close to normal.
PartyPoker research looked at a sample of 1.26 million hands, breaking down 11,984 hands from $50NL full ring cash game tables. Actual expectation predicted that 6,267 of these hands would win. In reality, 6,198.5 hands won, meaning a standard deviation of -68. A pre-flop all-in comparison again proved to be very close to normal.
OnGame’s investigation studied a sample of 1.42 million hands, looking at 12,306 hands from $30NL short handed cash game tables. Actual expectation assumed that 6,457 would win. In reality, 6,454.5 hands won leaving a standard deviation of -2.5. The pre-flop all-in comparison unsurprisingly proved to be close to normal.
Joined: Feb '11
Location: Canada
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 1660
Sounds like pretty standard numbers to me, I never believed it was rigged in the first place though, so I didn't need any convincing. I checked out there site it's kinda cool. Too bad it won't settle anything for anyone because people will just say that the site was made by poker sites to continue defrauding and what not.
Joined: Dec '07
Location: Finland
Age: 70 (M)
Posts: 329
I personally think that some internet poker sites cheat. But the biggest sites dont cheat. Internet poker business is just that kind of business that it is really easy to cheat.
Joined: Mar '08
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 44 (M)
Posts: 6714
Perhaps i'm reading wrong after a few drinks, but, PP sample 1.26mill and used 11,984 for the stats..(just picked one site at random as the rest seam to be the same ish).. but thats 1% of the sample and a very small sample size..the actual game limit should have no bearing. Now 2nd problem, I know for fact that not all hands get tracked, this could make a nice loophole. Now i'm sure you know I don't buy in to the rigged theory, but, from a source I shall not say I do believe not everything is quite as it should be for some games at some sites. If a site was to rig, hinder, influence in any way to make a game some what unfair, they will do it in a cleaver way and would be very hard to spot, tell or make it plausible to most if not all. Even this site looking over 1mill+ hands is very small in comparisment, PTR has tracked 16,059,779,990 hands and caught cheats, they chased the sites on various occasions each time the response being "we were watching them", but not taking action until aired by PTR and its likes. Pokersites iin general don't care how they make money, and if there is something they can get away with then they will. Its not proof, but nice to know some one is watching.
Even if we are getting somewhat cheated, then you cant worry about it untill it is known, its somewhat like getting in to a car knowing that you could end up in a crash, you will be scared to drive.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
I mentioned the results from this particular website in various other threads regarding this. I didn't link however as b1gfoot has as I believe it's in violation to the rules here.. But I did give pretty big clues of what to search for in Google.
However, the thing is - the rigtard is simply never satisfied.. Any evidence you provide is always refuted by suggesting it's rigged in yet another way, that wasn't tested for in the particular tests you have indicated.
So if/when onlinejoke& co read this; before you post your useless dribble, I once again direct you to IRREFUTABLE evidence that online poker is not rigged (include LNP testing !!!!)
Joined: Nov '10
Location: Serbia
Age: 37 (M)
Posts: 2087
I wanted to copy this and paste in post but it was too large so here is link where is described in details how they did this test (This site does not advertise any poker room and it is not competition to BRM so I believe its OK): http://www.ispokerrigged.com/analysis_PokerStars_$3_SnG.html
Joined: Mar '08
Location: Australia
Age: 49 (M)
Posts: 1158
thoise figues dont add up,then online isnt worth playing,if in fact over a million hands you only win 12000,thats crap.the odds of doing well are so bad you better of playing lotto.this debate will go on forever,i myself like playing online,even tho i suk at it,i keep it real and dont deposit more than $50 a month.its for fun.live i play alot ,and i happy to win whatever cauz there no computer involved.case of buyer beware.where did all of fulltilts money go.........there are questions tobe answered.
Joined: May '09
Location: India
Age: 37 (M)
Posts: 4873
first of all what they mention as standard deviation is deviation not standard deviation, its not possible to have a standard deviation on basis of 1 analysis of qualitative variable.
Posted by B1gfoot: but, PP sample 1.26mill and used 11,984 for the stats..ut thats 1% of the sample and a very small sample size.. Its not proof, but nice to know some one is watching.
11.984 is more than enough sample size to get results with confidence level - 99% , margin of error - 2, which are pretty high. the point is how representative the analysed sample is of " actual " sample which is infinite. regarding proving rigged or not, kinda depends what are u trying to prove. 1 single analysis cant disprove all the rigged theories, and even for a specific study design for a particular theory, results of 1 analysis can be misleading due to variance. its kinda impossible to prove that 100% online poker is not rigged, unless u get access to the server of the sites.
Posted by jessthehuman: countdown until we are told that the site is useless because LNP is not involved 10,9,8...
if there was a simple analysis done based on Law of Large Numbers ( or joke's LNP ) this is what it would look like. he keeps blabbering the terms without any idea what they mean.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
Posted by SuperNoob:
Posted by jessthehuman: countdown until we are told that the site is useless because LNP is not involved 10,9,8...
if there was a simple analysis done based on Law of Large Numbers ( or joke's LNP ) this is what it would look like. he keeps blabbering the terms without any idea what they mean.
lol yes I know. I think the thing is, since he actually made up the term "Long Number Probability" (I know, I did look it up and realise he meant the law of large numbers) - no test is ever going to use the semantics he does - literally if you google his phrase - the only hits you get are posts he has created.
But you are correct - this analysis is basically what he is talking about. He will still refute it and demand an "LNP" test. I've posted parts of these exact results in other threads he has created and that is exactly what happened.
------------
Posted by scl1975: thoise figues dont add up,then online isnt worth playing,if in fact over a million hands you only win 12000,thats crap.the odds of doing well are so bad you better of playing lotto.
You have mis-understood the post/site/results completely.
------------
Posted by SuperNoob: first of all what they mention as standard deviation is deviation not standard deviation, its not possible to have a standard deviation on basis of 1 analysis of qualitative variable.
Actually, they calculated this before hand and the standard deviation they then use to measure it against is thus.
quote: "Standard Deviation = √∑[p(1-p)]. To see if the actual deviation from the expected results was within reasonable limits the standard deviation of the population was calculated. In order to achieve this it was assumed that the population behaved as a binomial distribution. In reality the population is an imperfect binomial distribution since the probability of success, p, varied for each hand. In a perfect binomial distribution the "probability of success of each event, p must be the same for each trial". For more on this see this discussion."
I haven't read the discussion. But obviously from this I would say they would have determined a standard deviation that would represent reasonably well a figure that you would get if you repeated this 1million hand analysis enough times to get an actual standard deviation.
Once again I have to point out that this test still leaves room for ALL hands in which no one is allin being rigged. (99% of the game)
But obviously from this I would say they would have determined a standard deviation that would represent reasonably well a figure that you would get if you repeated this 1million hand analysis enough times to get an actual standard deviation.
The results only indicate a fair game if the measured deviation is within 2 standard deviations. If the standard deviation was 1, then the above samples would indicate rigged games. Since noone seems to have a clue what the standard deviation in 1 million hands actually is these results are meaningless. It might be obvious to you they determined a reasonable standard deviation. But what if they didnt ?
first of all what they mention as standard deviation is deviation not standard deviation, its not possible to have a standard deviation on basis of 1 analysis of qualitative variable.
So they have no way of judging what their results mean when they only run this test once with a million hands.
If they have done enough test to calculate a standard deviation, then why dont they run a test with all hands combined afterwards. So if they repeated the 1 milion test 20 times to get a standard deviation, why not then run a 20 million hand test.
And now before people start bashing on me again: I dont believe it's rigged. I just dont see that this kind of analysis will get the riggtards to change their minds.
I would love to see an analysis of the complete 1 million hand sample. And I would test it for how often people hit their magic 2 outer on the river rather than to compare all-in odds. I think it would also be needed to analyse for EV. But You only find those All-In analysis on the net.
PokerRooms must not be dumb. If they want to cheat then they just use 2 RNGs. One is working fine and is used as soon as there are preflop allins, which would lead to these analysis always proving the games are fair. The other is used in the remainding 99% of the hands and could be completly messed up without this analysis ever showing it.
So while this test is an indication that the games are fair, it is far from prooving the riggtards wrong!
Joined: Mar '08
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 44 (M)
Posts: 6714
OK, as expected alcohol has a way of making you interpreting things wrong, I wish I never had that friggin bug, please anyone using PT3(any PT) with a good HH size try the custom report. From what I see, they manage to show that for a set period of time across a particular game that indeed they find no anomalies in the rigged theory they are testing.(bad beat) It obviously does not test every theory, every limit every game etc etc and only hands that are AI pre(which is what that joker was asking for) but a good indication, if people want then it is very easy to pick holes in it, but I believe they are conducting in the most plausible way possible ATM, and would love them to team up with PTR/scout or any other tracking site and show live stats and past results with a much bigger sample. They even state how some flaws may might occur, but as far as hard stats go, assuming they are indeed fair then it seams to point at online poker being a fair game.(for what they are testing) I ask someone again to try the custom report, as I would love to see stats from one player rather than various players.
For those unsure what or how to view the results/testing check out the blog.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
I'm sorry Kraemer, honestly, not trying to pick a fight, but your post only illustrates your own personal lack of understanding of the concepts and data presented
Joined: Oct '09
Location: Spain
Age: 60 (M)
Posts: 2851
Checked the site as well. Very interesting, and nice to know someone is doing the testing at least. Like many said already, won´t convince the rigtards, but it goes a long way in convincing me. (with a 97% probability) which is good enough for me right now.
Joined: Mar '09
Location: Canada
Age: 36 (M)
Posts: 3207
nice post +1 ...i never believed online poker was rigged, its crossed my mind but really didnt care. in my oppinion if it is rigged, who cares the good players are still winning thats all that matters. i think sites have way to much to lose by rigging deals just for a few extra $'s. pokersites earn millions and millions per year doin it correctly and if they rig it with the chance to get shut down for an extra million? sounds like bad business to me, unless online pokers ran by a group of 5year olds it just wouldnt make sense. honestly i could login to my site of choice and have a big sign smack me in the face saying "were rigged, you aint got a chance" and id still be grinding.
Joined: Apr '09
Location: Australia
Age: 40 (M)
Posts: 6483
there is plenty of other ways to be shady (as FTP recently indicated) rigging the RNG is just too obvious and too easily tested. As you say arsenej1; they have too much to lose. Considering all licensed poker rooms get their RNG tested, it is just a dumb way of going about making extra bucks.
Joined: Mar '09
Location: Canada
Age: 36 (M)
Posts: 3207
i think a fulltilt carwash or even bottle drive would do the trick and not have them shut down. "get your custumized fulltilt car wash for the low low price of just 10$" plow, enough of these bad boys will add up
fair play
