What I've learn't about online poker software

pissedoff

Dormant account
Ok..............let's get it out in the open. Poker software is NOT random. We all know it.

All the talk from poker sites about random number generators is bumpkin!!! They won't admit it......because it would seriously hurt their business. Random number shufflers are only required to perform what the software instructs.

Poker software operates as a set of instructions. Whatever is written into the software, it will perform. It does not understand randomness, because true randomness cannot be written.

For example, if I was to write into the program for AA to be successful only 33% of the time, that's what it will do. If i was to write in to the program that an allin bet will win 85%, that's what it will do. It doesn't matter what cards are against it, or what position you are in pre-flop, turn or river. The only time you can be sure that there is no more software interferance is after the river card.

Poker software is a goldmine for poker sites. It is designed in a way to ensure that even the most inexperienced player can win. And that's what they want. If only good players won, then these sites would lose millions. Poor to average players would not come back. So in order to ensure a constant loyalty, the software will ensure for example, that AA is 'cracked' 77% of the time, depending on the instructions written into the software. For example, if I was the chip leader and had AA. I raise 3 times the big blind. A player with less chips, goes allin. Now you call. You find that the allin has KQ. What's the bet that KQ will beat you!

How many times do you see an allin win with the worst card possible time and time again??? That's the software for you. Cards you see played online would hardly ever be played in live games. But because players see the most incredible' suck-outs' time and time again, players are willing to take a chance, relying on their knowledge of past experiences to put their tourney on the line.

How many times do you see players call a big bet with nothing? So far behind that it is impossible to comprehend the madness. But they do, because they know that the software is very receptive to callers, allinners and players with less chips.

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. There are just so many patterns associated with software interferance. And how many times have you noticed pocket pair protection????

You can also see the software at work as the tourney gets nearer to the end, for instance, hands that were winning earlier, seem to lose more frequently and allinners won't win the high percentage as they used to.

So if you play online, in the low stakes range, you are really relying on the 'triggers' within the software to be in your favour. At the high end, players are unlikely to suffer as bad because they will respect position raises and strong play.
 

Senfgnu

Dormant account
Come back with a database of 1,000,000+ hands, analyze it and i will listen.
All i can read in your post is no hard evidence. It is the standard
"Oh, AA cracked - rigged"
"I can't beat low stakes - rigged"
"OMG bad beat - rigged"-thing i read all day in poker forums.

Let me have a look in my low/micro stakes database (only 136,578 hands):

P(AA win)= .819 - i run really good, this should be lower.
Low stakes: yes, i win there. No, i did not bribe iPoker's software developers.
Bad Beats: In the borders of probability.

At the high end, players are unlikely to suffer as bad because they will respect position raises and strong play.
No good player respects position raises.

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
There is a reason why you don't win with AT, KT, QT, KJ. They are not good enough to win. You have to make two pair+ to feel good with them.
 

pissedoff

Dormant account
Obviously you cannot read

And obviously you have no understanding of programming.

But your naive comments obviously sit well with poker sites - and they just love stupid players!
 

same_old

Dormant account
webmeister
PABaccred
Hi Pissedoff,

Buddy after the AB scandal and such do you think they would bother with the loss of potential clients and bad publicity over small clients such as ourselves.

If what you are saying is true ( which im not denying it isnt, but you always need proof) then it wouldnt be with the smaller stakes, they will go for the big fish mate.

The company makes money from us smaller ones to generate the bigger clientele.
 

Senfgnu

Dormant account
If a site is programmed to crack AA 50% of the time it is very easy for you to prove this. All you need is PokerTracker/Holem Manager/Poker Office/whatever.
If a site is programmed to let you lose big pots with AA - easy to prove.
Show me you have to win big with AT/KT/QT/KJ.
Just show me something and don't just call me a stupid player.

Not even AP was rigged - a player could see all holecards and was able to play perfect.

And obviously you have no understanding of programming.
This one made me laugh actually.
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Admin note: watch it

And obviously you have no understanding of programming.

But your naive comments obviously sit well with poker sites - and they just love stupid players!
1.1 - No "Flaming": Please do not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. Abusive behavior will not be tolerated and your account may be suspended...

Please do not disrespect your fellow members. Thank you.
 

pissedoff

Dormant account
You make me laugh

A wise man once said:

"to deny what is obvious, is a man's worst enemy"

But you believe what you want Bud
 

shadow123

Senior Member
MM
And obviously you have no understanding of programming.

But your naive comments obviously sit well with poker sites - and they just love stupid players!
1) how do you know he has no knowledge of programming?

2) he gives you comments based on real data, not suppostions and you ignore them.

3) you didnt get the support you expected from your post so its toys out the pram time.

4) I am guessing you have not been doing too well playing poker lately
 

pissedoff

Dormant account
Well shadow believe what you want

I've had my say. I don't really care what you think.............but it is naive players like you that will always encourage sites to manipulate the software, tell lies about randomness and rip off players.

And as for my form.................I've taken more out than lost.

But having played live for many years, I can tell what is random and what is not and I don't need an understanding of software or 1,000,000 hands to know the obvious.

Maybe you need a reality check. it wouldn't hurt...........possibly enlighten you.
 

shadow123

Senior Member
MM
You do make a lot of assumptions.
I have been programming for the gaming industry for almost 30 years, so naive I am not and as a player I see both sides and am quite aware of what can be done if the casino operator/software provider/rogue programmer wish to do it.The fact something can be done is no proof that it is being done.
I respect your viewpoint that in your opinion online poker play is not the same as the real thing and there have been cases to support that in the past but your comments to replies to your post dont promote any intelligent discussion on the subject,you just dismiss anyone who questions your statements as naive casino fodder.
You would do far better if you realized that the members here are mostly very intellegent and expeirenced players who are only too willing to help and advise others.
 

Senfgnu

Dormant account
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

No!!!! Im Spartacus
webmeister
MM
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

Dormant account
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.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 

pokeraddict

Webmaster
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

Full Member
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

Banned User - troll posts - flaming
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

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

bryand

Beach Bum
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.:thumbsup:
 

Kenny Lingus

Tard Counter
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

Tard Counter
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.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
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.
 
Top