What I've learn't about online poker software

[Senfgnu]

You provide evidence => I believe you
You refuse to provide evidence and call me stupid instead => I don't really care about you and your accusations

This is how it works in my reality

[zebedy]

if your hands are always getting cracked dont you think you could be playing them wrong ?, a sign of a good poker player is they are able to adapt there game,
its easy to blame the software when in reality you should be examining your own game to see how you can beat situations like you discribed,
just my 2c,

[BLUEWATER]

Lot of time they say it rigged when they lost a hand or in a losing streak. The fact is not rigged at all. It how you play your hands and how you play the players. Poker sites gain nothing by who wins or loses a hand or tournament but by hand rakes and buy in fees.

Here a link help to explain what random is.

http://www.tournamentmonitor.com/str...tribution.aspx

[pokeraddict]

There are many hands I would never play online because you hardly ever win with them. Such as A10,Q10, K10 or anything with a 10 in it( Although I have noticed that if you have A10, it usually cames out a stra8). KJ, suited A rags, and to a lesser extent, JJ, 1010.

All of these hands are crap except for the last 2 which are decent if played well or hit. Even AP/UB, who were proven and admitted cheats, did not alter their RNG/cards. Post us PT screenshots and hh's including the room and your username at the site and people like me will be happy to investigate.

[dealer wins]

I play a lot of low level online poker, mainly 100 player SNGS for $5 or $10.

It it uncanny the amount of time hands go in pre-flop that 1 or both will hit hard. Compared to watching poker on TV where AA v KQ will have a board of 459K2, online it will be AKJT5 or something that hits both hands.

And the lucky online rivercard scenario, that exists!!!!

Maybe its all in my head, but I find it rare to see an all-in preflop where neither hand hits anything decent.

[lots0]

Originally Posted by pokeraddict

All of these hands are crap except for the last 2 which are decent if played well or hit. Even AP/UB, who were proven and admitted cheats, did not alter their RNG/cards. Post us PT screenshots and hh's including the room and your username at the site and people like me will be happy to investigate.

Very good point.
Why bother to alter the RNG when you can just look at the hole cards?

pissdoff - PokerAddict is an acknowledged and trusted expert in this field. If you have serious questions and truly want them answered and don't just want to bitch... you should think about taking him up on his offer.

[jetset]

I endorse Lots0's comment above - Pokeraddict is your man when it comes to this sort of thing.

[bryand]

Originally Posted by dealer wins

I play a lot of low level online poker, mainly 100 player SNGS for $5 or $10.

It it uncanny the amount of time hands go in pre-flop that 1 or both will hit hard. Compared to watching poker on TV where AA v KQ will have a board of 459K2, online it will be AKJT5 or something that hits both hands.

And the lucky online rivercard scenario, that exists!!!!

Maybe its all in my head, but I find it rare to see an all-in preflop where neither hand hits anything decent.

I play a lot of online poker (with far more losses than wins). If you play low or micro tourneys expect AA, KK and QQ to be cracked often. These players call ANYTHING. That's why the turn and river cards kill ya IMO.

Today I had AA cracked and several hands later KK cracked. Who the hell goes all in with K6 unsuited and 96 unsuited??? DONKEYS! Thanks for letting me vent.

[Kenny Lingus]

I love the side of the argument that yells "you have no proof it's rigged!" when this issue comes up.

You are right. But none of you have any proof that online poker isn't rigged, either.

Statistically, you could set it up so that everything looked A OK, but in fact, the cards could be highly manipulated. So please don't suggest we "look at the numbers".

I, too, have seen way too many lucky "hits" to believe that the draw is not manipulated. But how, exactly?

To me, it seems that way too many times a poor play will rally to win, or an all-in showdown will turn on a one/two/three card out, or the hand will go back-and-forth two or three times, with both players hitting to (re)take the lead.

Just yesterday, in a tourney, I saw 4 jacks on the flop lose to a straight flush. Somebody (I forget whom) went all-in after the flop, and the winner hit runner, runner, to make a straight flush. Possible? Yes. But I have witnessed too many lucky hits to think that it's all "random".

I personally think that the draw is "JUICED". Once hole cards are established, the draw is allowed to make the hand "more interesting" more often than usual. This is not to say the "juicing" favors any one player over another.

This does two things - First, it gives the lesser player a chance to win more often, keeping the player and his action around. Second, it undoubtedly produces higher pots, and thus more rake.

Both of those are exactly what a poker site wants.

[Kenny Lingus]

Originally Posted by BLUEWATER

Lot of time they say it rigged when they lost a hand or in a losing streak. The fact is not rigged at all. It how you play your hands and how you play the players. Poker sites gain nothing by who wins or loses a hand or tournament but by hand rakes and buy in fees.

Here a link help to explain what random is.

http://www.tournamentmonitor.com/str...tribution.aspx

Missed your post the first time around. Responding to your point is a good way to stress mine.

IMO, you are right that a poker site cares less who wins a particular hand or tourney.

But, they have a vested interest in:

A) Having the biggest depositing player pool as possible. In other words, keeping the fish around and depositing at their particular site. There are more fish than sharks in the pool.

B) Making the pots as big as possible. This is key. Consistently doubling the rake from a nickel to a dime will lead to twice the profits. And again, it doesn't matter who actually wins the pot.

This is why I think the draw is "juiced" (see my previous post).

If structured right, statistical analysis would only catch this manipulation by a hand-to-hand analysis; aggregate-type results could be easily kept with the applicable norms.