I am more than 90% certain that all poker rooms are rigged

[ThodorisK]

The stupidity of the people is that they think they know everything, and are 100% certain that poker rooms are non-rigged and fair. Whereas I say that there is a high probability that they do, considering all these indications.

Now, dont some casinos cheat at blackjack? Are you sure they dont? I have tried incredible losses, with the minimoum bet of course.
I dont want to name the casino at least yet. Check this out:http://www.beatingbonuses.com/warningwg.htm
One in a trillion!!!!!!
I checked the same casino myself and lost 40 pounds by betting 1 pound, in 200 hands! I had read the warning, but I wanted to test it, I was hoping they dont always cheat. Similar statistics happened to me at a Ch....ell casino (which is also accredited by casinomeister!).
The chating of these two can be proven by statistics, but others might cheat a little. If they cheat 1-2 bets per 100 hands, how can it be prooven? Impossible.

[ThodorisK]

(sorry, I ment cheating, and not chating at the last paragraph)

[kimss]

Originally Posted by Kenny Lingus

All considered, my theory of how cardrooms cheat players is simple: the hands that are dealt are "juiced". In other words, the better hands come up much more often than they should, to encourage more betting, bigger pots, and to keep the fishies hanging around until the end.

That would be my point aswell. I have a few Texas Holdem friends which heavily confirms all the crazy hands they get in online rooms, which rarely comes that often in real games, and more strangely the other players also get great hands all the time.

Originally Posted by Kenny Lingus

This type of an arrangement would probably be neutral; i.e., it wouldn't favor any particular player(s) in terms of getting good cards, but the number of good hands would increase, and it would also follow that the number of times a hand would improve would also increase.

That is also correct, the deal is still random and fair - except that one is betting from what the cards are showing, and if the cards are "juiced" (I like that way of putting it) the house will win in the long run, since you get more aggressive betting.

[pokeraddict]

OP, these threads are ridiculous. You offer no proof of cards that come out more then others, what hands are beating these "big hands" and how loose the games you are tracking are. The looser the games the more bad beats. I've played online since almost the start and several have tried to prove or disprove whether the rooms deal proper cards. Every room supported by Pokertracker is legit. That's not saying rooms not supported are cheating but often they are way too small for PT to waste their time supporting it.

Offer proof of a specific poker room with millions of logged hands being rigged or accept the fact you are a losing player or whatever the reason is you have brought this up.

The motivation a poker room has to deal a legit game is that if they ever got caught cheating it would be the end of them. The Propoker and Pokertropolis bot issues come to mind there. Keeping fish in games is a ridiculous reason to cheat, especially because losers will keep depositing in most cases and winners will almost certainly keep playing.

Winnings players as a rule generate far more rake then fish ever will. Usually fish are casual part time players where winning players spend many more hours a week playing generating many times the rake.

Simply said a poker room isn't going to cheat if they want to stay in business. They would quickly be figured out. I would be more concerned about a poker room stealing everybody's money like Dutch Boyd/Pokerspot did or more recently Jetset Poker or with a small poker room using bots as props/shills like Propoker and Pokertropolis did.

[pokeraddict]

The proof that casinos give out fixed cards is not that I am losing, nor that I lose because of my strong hands, (strong hands which happen at the 1% of the games, and I fold anything else),

Just noticed this quote. So you only flop AA KK and QQ? That is why you lose. You sit back and wait for monsters. No way you can win playing like that. Also why did you start another thread? Isn't one stupid "online poker is rigged" thread enough?

Also you say "KK should win 50% of the time with 4 players". Do you mean at a 4 handed game or do you mean a table with more players and 3 callers? Either way your logic is flawed.

[ThodorisK]

1) Give me the link on the article which says what exactly did Propoker and Pokertropolis. What exactly is “bots as props/shills”? How was the cheating proven in Propoker and Pokertropolis?

2) Who polices the reputable poker rooms? How can chating be discovered? How can it be proven? By many thousands of hands of extremely complicated statistical analysis? Who’s gonna do this? And even if it is proven that they cheat, will you hear it in the news? I hear it from the first time about Propoker and Pokertropolis.

3) your argument that:

“Winnings players as a rule generate far more rake then fish ever will. Usually fish are casual part time players where winning players spend many more hours a week playing generating many times the rake.”

Is a shallow thought penetration, and mistaken:
Suppose that for every 100$ the fishes lose, 50$ ends up to the rake and 50$ ends up to the skilled players. If there was no rake, the skilled players would get all of the 100$.
When the skilled players will start giving to the rake this 50$ that they previously won, at the same time they will earn more than they give to the rake, from the NEW cash deposited by the fishes.

That is, the time the rake is taking the half of the money lost by the fish which was won by the skilled players , at the same time it will be failing to take the half of the new deposited money of the fish, AND SO ON, AND SO ON, AND SO ON. Therefore, after lets say, 200 years, the result will be again be the same. Half of the fishe’s money will have ended up to the rake, and half to the skilled players.
If this was not the case, the skilled players would be losers and not winners.

Now, if the skill of all players was equal and thus no player would had an edge over the other, then and ALL of the money of all players, would end up the rake.
Both constantly, and in the long run.
And this can be achieved if the casino cheats the ones who’s bankroll is obsereved that is growing systematically. This way the bankroll of everybody will be cropped by the rake, and they will all have to re-deposit.

5.) 50% the KK wins when 4 players, all included are seated and are in play: http://www.westonpoker.com/pokerInfo/preFlopOdds.php

[pokeraddict]

1. I'm not sure someone so paranoid should be reading what a few scumbags did but if you go to 2+2 and search "Propoker" "+pro+poker" or "Pokertropolis" you should find substantial writings on what happened. Make sure to change the search to the max (4 years) and for better results search only the internet gambling forum.

2. Pokertracker software will easily catch cheating poker rooms. If you are really worried about this stick to sites supported by PT. Read poker forums to catch up on news. I've posted about Pokertropolis here warning players years ago and there are a few threads about Propoker here.

3. The skilled players will play many more hours then the fishies because that is their job. Fishies work, skilled players play longer because they earn money while they play. Your example about the players of equal skill will break even and lose equal amounts to the rake is very flawed. Blackjack typically has a .5% house advantage or so. Does that mean every time I bet $100 I lose $.50 each hand? Of course not. Players are still going to win. Also how is a room going to rig the cards to make nobody win? How do they know players will play hands a certain way. Everybody has folded QJ preflop and gotten a AKT flop for the nuts. If I was suppose to win the hand because it was rigged for my turn and I fold then what happens?

4. I don't see any #4

5. You say you only put money is the pot with the top 1% of hands and are playing 4 handed then I know why you are losing so much. I bet you are losing insane amounts of money. You shouldn't be playing short handed. I hardly believe your claim anyway. You certainly have not provided and hand histories or Pokertracker screenshots. Are you basing this because you keep losing online because you play short handed poorly?

If you can't handle losing without blaming it on the big bad poker rooms that don't care if you win or not then don't gamble. There are endless players like myself making a decent living playing poker online. These are the same players that have WSOP cashes and in some cases bracelets. If these online poker games are rigged then why do successful internet pros double as successful live pros? Are we just lucky enough to have internet poker rigged in our favor for years?

[kimss]

Originally Posted by pokeraddict

OP, these threads are ridiculous.

They might be, however I was sitting tonight talking to a few poker friends of mine regarding this. The general belief is that you often get alot of strong hands online compared to real play. This doesn't mean the house is cheating, only that the cards are "juiced", making all players play more aggressive. If you have been playing alot online, do you agree or disagree on this? (It's not a cheat since it's done to all).

[pokeraddict]

Originally Posted by kimss

They might be, however I was sitting tonight talking to a few poker friends of mine regarding this. The general belief is that you often get alot of strong hands online compared to real play. This doesn't mean the house is cheating, only that the cards are "juiced", making all players play more aggressive. If you have been playing alot online, do you agree or disagree on this? (It's not a cheat since it's done to all).

I disagree. When you play online you play between 60-150 hands an hour as opposed to live being 25-35 hands an hour. You're seeing so many more hands so you are going to see more bad beats. You will also see many hands where there is no flop or hands where it is folded around to the blinds. The difference is that you don't remember the time you were big blind and everyone folded, you remember the time you had AA and KK called you down and hit a runner runner straight.

I don't know why I bother to participate in threads like this. If you think it's rigged prove it and/or don't play. Poker Tracker will easily prove/disprove these theories. No site has ever been challenged with any credible evidence but it's amazing how many people have all of these conspiracy theories.

[swampwitch]

3) your argument that:

“Winnings players as a rule generate far more rake then fish ever will. Usually fish are casual part time players where winning players spend many more hours a week playing generating many times the rake.”

Is a shallow thought penetration, and mistaken:

No, it's not shallow, it is what it is.
You have not proven in your essays that it makes sense for any pokerroom to favor the lousy/beginning players. The rake is the same, whether it's coming from a table of sharks or it's coming from the regular player. The amount the pokerroom makes is directly proportianate to the number of hands played. Period. The software doesn't give a rat's ass who has a better chance of playing at a table with Hellmuth.

2) Who polices the reputable poker rooms? How can chating be discovered? How can it be proven? By many thousands of hands of extremely complicated statistical analysis? Who’s gonna do this? And even if it is proven that they cheat, will you hear it in the news? I hear it from the first time about Propoker and Pokertropolis.

And this is really your whole point. It's a pain in the ass to get proof, ergo the pokerroom is cheating?
In the bad old days, when a woman was accused of witchcraft, she was lowered into a river. If she floated, it was proof of witchcraft, and she was put to death. If she sank, she was not a witch and innocent of the charge....but she drowned.
It looks to me as if you're arguing that the lack of proof is the proof itself that pokerrooms cheat.

Your arguments are interesting, and well thought out...I'm just not buying them. If you are really looking for constructive and intelligent discourse on the subject, you might try to tone down the egotistical put-downs a bit.