What I've learn't about online poker software

[pissedoff]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[The Dude]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[NASHVEGAS]

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.

^DERAIL^-----Agree and a my own personal conclusion with reason of what is possible in BJ online.

Plus, I do have some screenshots from one software group that indicates "as is", their BJ is pre-determined. The way it was discovered, I would need a programming consultant at a minimum as I am not qualified to know if other poltergeist possibilities exist and would explain. Proof--been there,done that,never again so it never happened. I recently said "proof a'int easy"!! It's not!

Wonder why I basically stopped or have no desire whatsoever (tried) to play BJ online now which is the only game I have played in BandM's for 25 years. (I once played slots for 30 minutes).

Apologies,carry on

 

[BLUEWATER]

If those players think those sites are rigged then they shouldn't be playing at all. Normally most low stake table or tourney play like a donkey. They pretty much call with anything. I have my AA cracked every now and then. Like slow play with pocket AA. My mistake. I learn from it. It doesn't means it rigged.

 

[lots0]

If I was a poker room owner, I would rather have a table full of Sharks, as opposed to having a table full of Fish...

Sharks pay out far more in Rake than the fish do over time. Think about it, the Sharks goal and the poker rooms goal are the same.. to get the biggest pots possible.

So what would be the point of manipulating the RNG to help the fish? All you would do is drive the Sharks(your best source of steady income) to another poker room

As has already been pointed out, if a poker room wanted to cheat... the easiest way would be to just set up super user accounts that are able to view the hole cards... Like AP/UB did.

So I ask again... What would be the point of manipulation the RNG?

 

[lots0]

If those players think those sites are rigged then they shouldn't be playing at all. Normally most low stake table or tourney play like a donkey. They pretty much call with anything. I have my AA cracked every now and then. Like slow play with pocket AA. My mistake. I learn from it. It doesn't means it rigged.

lol When I've had AA cracked... I usually end up geting mad at myself for slow playing them...

Kenny - It is impossible to get 4 jacks on "The Flop". "The Flop" is only three cards.

 

[Keyser]

Conspiracy theorists unite!

To start, no, I don't believe that poker sites are rigged in the way that has been described.

So far, all the arguments provided have been anecdotal mixed with conspiracy theory as to motive.

OK, having played a fair deal of low limit poker online and at B&Ms, my subjective anecdotal experience is that there is no appreciable difference between the two games. I have been on both sides of bad beats/suckouts in both settings on many occasions, and there is no appreciable difference in frequency on these occurences.

Now, what makes your subjective experience more valid than mine? I can flame just as loudly as anyone else (but I won't because that will violate the forum rules). That doesnt prove anything.

Does it make sense for a poker room to do this? Well, for one thing, its much easier to program a fair game than a non-fair game (BTW, I have a BA in Computer Science and was a programmer for a number of years). To program a fair game, you just need to generate an order for 52 cards based on a "random" number (more on that later), and then program the normal rules of poker. To program an unfair game, you need to either manually program a number of card sequences, factoring in how many hands are being played, and make sure you generate enough sequences so that it isnt noticable that the same exact hands keep coming up. Alternatively, you can come up with some very sophisticated algorithm to deal out certain cards based on various situations. Being able to generate something sophisticated enough to not be noticed would take many more hours than just programming a fair game.

Yes, there is no such thing as a "random" number generated by a computer, but the "random number" generators today are so sophisticated that no human could possibly determine a pattern. Furthermore, in a brick and mortar casino, the shuffle by hand or by mechanical shuffler is hardly "random". Just read about Blackjack players who can track cards despite shuffling to see the fallacy involved there. Consider that in a B&M casino, since people with bad hands will muck first and people with good hands will stay in the hands longer, good cards and bad cards will tend to clump together before the shuffle. If anything, a computer generated "Random number" is much closer to the real thing than mechanical shuffling.

So why do people think that online gambling is rigged. There are many reasons, but I will advance one reason that has been advanced many times before, but this does not make it any less true. People tend to remember bad beats and forget the "normal" hands. Furthermore, people aren't going to remember when they have pocket Aces and everyone mucked by the turn. They only remember the hands that go to showdown, and those are self-selected to have more suckouts.

When a person plays online poker, they see way more hands than in a B&M casino. Firstly, the gameplay is much faster. Secondly, they likely spend a lot more hours playing. Think about it. You plan a trip to Vegas, but how many hours are you actually playing versus travelling, eating, shows, etc. But online poker, people sit for hours and just play. Hungry? Just get something from the fridge and play. Something on TV? That won't stop you from playing at the same time.

When you see many more hands in online poker, you are going to experience more bad beats, and you are going to assume that there is something wrong with online poker as opposed to realizing that you've seen more bad beats because you've played more hands.

Finally, just remember, most B&M casinos have bad beat jackpots, and yes Virginia, they actually do pay them out on a regular basis.

 

[AussieGambler21]

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

It is random but is played a hell of a lot faster then live poker so you are obviously going to see more bad beats then in a live game.In a live game you may only play about 30 hands/hour but in an online game you will play about 90 hands/hour so off course your going to see more bad beats which make it seem rigged but in reality is just the odds and cards taking its course.

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.

They are not going to admit to something that is proven to be not true just because people like you can't accept that. Oh and by the way it's random number generators not shufflers and if you knew anything about the basics of poker software you would know that too regardless of how many years you claim to be a programmer.

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.

Yes they could write scenarios like that into the software but once again why would they do that?They don't have anything to gain but a lot to lose if they did that.If i am playing you in a game of poker the online casinos (or any casino for that matter) don't care if i win or if you win as they make their money as a percentage from each pot.If i win they make a $1 or something like that from a $100 pot however if you win the same pot they make a $1 so regardless of who wins they still make money so why on earth would it be rigged?

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!

That's complete nonsense if it was designed for the most inexperienced player to win then they would be the professionals and be making a lot of money. Anyways how does the software know if you are inexperienced or not? I mean come on use your brain for once before making wild accusations.
As for your example its called GAMBLING! even though poker is predominately skill you will still occasionally lose with Aces, what do you expect to win everytime you got aces?If that was the case then there should be a new rule that Aces automatically win but that would be just stupid on the other hand i bet you don't complain when you have KQ and beat Aces oh no its not rigged then is it and you happily cash out thinking how great a player you are. I mean seriously if you go all in with Pocket Aces you don't want anyone to call?If you seriously think that then good luck to you in your poker career because you need it.

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.

No this comes down to psychology (another important factor in poker). You always always remember the bad beats more easily then the wins which makes it seems like those cards win all the time but in reality they don't. How many times have you made a bet and someone has folded, preflop or otherwise?Chances are they were holding those bad cards that apparently "always win"

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.

No that really only happens at low stakes (high stakes too but not as often) and that isn't because all people know about this "supposed software flaw" but because most people are amateurs with no understanding of strategy when it comes to poker and don't care if they lose a $1.50 or they are just plain gamblers.

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????

If you never ever play those hands then no wonder you are always losing and what the hell is pocket pair protection????? I have played on heaps of sites in the past 3 years and never came across that feature once i mean seriously what site are you playing on???

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.

No that's because by that stage the better players are winning and a lot of the amateur players, new players and just plain gamblers are generally out by that stage.

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.

No trust me if they think you are a fish and not a strong player they will loosen up their hand selection considerably and won't respect you or your play and will play worse hands as well because they know your going to screw up sooner or later. Anyways just because its high stakes doesn't mean they are all great players and the play is going to be any better as there are plenty of fish out there with a lot of money to throw around who are more then willing to play any way they choose gambling or otherwise. Not many people change how they play but at one stage or another they will all go up or down in stakes at least sometime in their poker playing (especially after a big win) If you think you are going to win against experienced players in the long run because they "respect position raises and strong play" then either you dont know much about poker at all really or your ego is huge.

Basically your whole argument is made up of contradictions and no hard evidence.

 

[bcblack182]

OP:

Are you aware that pretty much all respected sites have had their random generator independently audited? You can find these audit reports on the poker websites.

Also if what you say is true we wouldn't have consistant winners and professional players. I have played probably 2 million hands in my career and I have steadily won over that time period. Everything about card distribution has seemed totally random to me.

Furthermore, with sites suchs as tableratings recording pretty much every hand played on the big sites, any non random pattern would be easily noticeable. Some players have databases containing millinos of hands of their own play and nothing suspicious has ever been found.

Clearly what you talk about is possible, but it is certainly not being done on any major site. I doubt it is being done on any small site. If anything, a small cheating site would rig the games in favor of a house player, rather than the weaker players.

 

[Kenny Lingus]

Blah blah blah, you are just a poor loser, blah blah blah, you must be a fish, blah blah blah, poker sites have no reason to cheat, blah blah blah, the random generator works just fine, blah blah blah, I could tell if the cards were not normal, blah blah blah, online you see more hands, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah, blah, blah.

Guess none of you heard about the Absolute poker scandal.....

Or did you have that site pegged, and just never played there?

Naivete is so cute! :baby:

 

[Tengil]

Blah blah blah, you are just a poor loser, blah blah blah, you must be a fish, blah blah blah, poker sites have no reason to cheat, blah blah blah, the random generator works just fine, blah blah blah, I could tell if the cards were not normal, blah blah blah, online you see more hands, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah, blah, blah.

Guess none of you heard about the Absolute poker scandal.....

Or did you have that site pegged, and just never played there?

Naivete is so cute! :baby:

Well its obvious you have only heard about it and not read about it.

It had nothing to do with a faulty RNG.

 

[XenoMorph]

Well its obvious you have only heard about it and not read about it.

It had nothing to do with a faulty RNG.

Correct!

The AP scandal was all about a admin account used to see the cards of all payers at the table.

 

[tennis_balls]

i've observed winbig deep in some big online donkamentz


therefore I conclude that it has to be rigged since he is a donkey

 

[DaftDog]

Is this rigged?

I suppose this live game is rigged as well?

 

[catrina m]

lol When I've had AA cracked... I usually end up geting mad at myself for slow playing them...

Kenny - It is impossible to get 4 jacks on "The Flop". "The Flop" is only three cards.

If you have a pair of jacks and if it flops 2 jacks, you have "flopped" quad jacks.

If you have ace, jack and the flop is JJJ, you have "flopped 4 jacks.

Not impossible.

 

[Tower-Adrian]

you are also forgetting a key point.
That almost all rooms are on networks. If they were to rig the cards for whatever reason who is going to profit from that? Each room is making their share of rake from the tables, since 1 table will have players from a few different rooms, who is going to win a hand does not matter in the least to the room.


In the AP and UB case that was a hole card cheating scam, and you all saw what happened with that... it was exposed very quickly and they paid the price...

 

[4 of a kind]

I play a ton of live poker and online poker. All I could add is that I play two different games. Online I no doubt play a more conservative and defensive game.

 

[4 of a kind]

In the AP and UB case that was a hole card cheating scam, and you all saw what happened with that... it was exposed very quickly and they paid the price...

What price was that? A 500k fine? People could steal millions of dollars from poker site's and no convictions, or jail time. Damn, if I had the opportunity knowing I won't go to jail, I'd be first on that long line.

 

[JHV]

you are also forgetting a key point.
That almost all rooms are on networks. If they were to rig the cards for whatever reason who is going to profit from that? Each room is making their share of rake from the tables, since 1 table will have players from a few different rooms, who is going to win a hand does not matter in the least to the room.

In the AP and UB case that was a hole card cheating scam, and you all saw what happened with that... it was exposed very quickly and they paid the price...

My personal opinion is that the risk is much higher that an individual coder or a small close knit group will instigate this kind of thing - like you point out, I can't think of why a network would ever have a motive, individual rooms not on a network *might* have a motive (just pure greed) but the risk / reward lessens the chance of that imo. But a few of the genius coders who wrote the code? Probably not reimbursed what they were worth (at least that's how they might justify it to themselves)...I believe this is where the threat lies when we're discussing SuperUsers or other kinds of manipulation.

The AP/UB thing was going for many years before it was busted. And it was ONLY busted through an almost COMICAL string of unbelievable errors, from the arrogance / stupidity of Mark Seif and and SuperUsers, to their almost complete lack of understanding of the concept of "cover play" (100% correct river decisions? calling off huge pots with Ten high(?) - these were some of the dumbest people alive, imo).

You give a good player a SuperUser account and if he keeps his mouth shut, for all the rest of the world knows, his name might be durrr

What price was that? A 500k fine? People could steal millions of dollars from poker site's and no convictions, or jail time. Damn, if I had the opportunity knowing I won't go to jail, I'd be first on that long line.

It's a good point you make. And the whole thing was handled messily (and that's putting it generously) by AP/UB, KGC, etc from start to finish.

A lot of people got away with no criminal charges or penalties - when there would certainly have been guys who deserved it and were "let off the hook" imo.

The amount was closer to 15 million I think though - here is a quote from a KGC statement that PN reported:

In particular, the KGC has confirmed that Ultimate Bet has commenced reimbursing approximately US$15M to players who were adversely affected by the cheating incidents. This is in addition to the US$6.1M that Ultimate Bet has already reimbursed to players. The KGC will defer its final decision in this matter for a short period of time for the purpose of ensuring that all required reimbursements have been made.

 

[hippo925]

Just caught up on this thread and made a few observations. Apparently, if you claim that poker sites may not be "random" or that they may be "corrupt":

1. You are told to get a milllion hands to prove it
2. You are told that you may just be a sore loser
3. You are told that there is no reason ever for software to cheat
4. You are told that random number generators have been verified so no cheating is possible.
5. You are told that you play more hands online and it's all in your head, etc.
6. Etc...etc...etc...

But... if you disagree and believe poker software is random and non-corruptable... all you have to say is:

1. I can't tell the difference... it must be fair.

I'm not taking sides either way, but.... wasn't everyone convinced before that there were no such things as superusers? In fact... the SAME arguments were used to slam on people who brought up superusers and the possibility that others might have had the ability to see hole cards. In fact, some people were bold enough to say that it was impossible because of super security measures by the poker sites.

So excuse me, but at this time... i have much more inclination to listen to these type of concerns since we now know what can be done and the fact is... All of those that said these kind of things were "impossible" or "not likely" were in fact...100% WRONG.

 

[JHV]

Just caught up on this thread and made a few observations. Apparently, if you claim that poker sites may not be "random" or that they may be "corrupt":

1. You are told to get a milllion hands to prove it
2. You are told that you may just be a sore loser
3. You are told that there is no reason ever for software to cheat
4. You are told that random number generators have been verified so no cheating is possible.
5. You are told that you play more hands online and it's all in your head, etc.
6. Etc...etc...etc...

I'm not taking sides either way, but.... wasn't everyone convinced before that there were no such things as superusers? In fact... the SAME arguments were used to slam on people who brought up superusers and the possibility that others might have had the ability to see hole cards. In fact, some people were bold enough to say that it was impossible because of super security measures by the poker sites.

You're 100% correct except for the small part bolded above. Anyone with half a brain who understood that human greed combined with writing code means ANYTHING is possible in a software program.

And where it's possible, due to the nature of human greed as it comes into contact with "opportunity"...you have a situation where, if corrupted code does NOT exist, it is THAT which should cause shock. Not the other way around.

All you can do is try and work as best you can in a world of uncertainty, armed with a healthy dose of cynicism and (hopefully) an overdose of common-sense.

 

[4 of a kind]

I play online poker hoping its not rigged in any way shape or form. It will only be proven when it actually could, as in the past.

I rather enjoy everyone that post rigged threads, which are then followed up with an overabundance of posts that defend the sites. Yet, the truth of the matter remains that only 5% of all online poker players are actually profiting from online poker. The names of this 5% also never remain the same for very long. Some players join this elite group while others become losers again. In addition most of the names in this elite group usually consist of either winners of huge purse tournaments, or big stakes ring games. Of course there is the exception which would probably account for 0.001 percent. And bragging about being up a couple of thousand dollars playing online poker today, says nothing about tomorrow. And if you are maintaining a small positive balance, the time invested trying to maintain it, you would probably be much more ahead if you actually worked for someone getting paid for the hours.

My point is that everyone that needs proof like a million hands, or state things like you just suck, and all the other rhetoric that follows are actually losing players.

I believe online poker is different then live. Requires a different game then live for sure. Online I learned to surrender hands quicker then I would have live.

I know when people show win / lose stats when being dealt AA, KK, etc. they are exactly where they belong. But they don't say the amount of chips they actually won or lost with these hands. If 50% of the time I'm dealt AA and can't get anyone to call a 2 or 3 x's raise and only collect the blinds, yes its a win, yet when I flop a set of aces and get all my chips in the pot, I get cracked by quads. Although these hands I mention are extreme I hope you get my point.

Then we got the good old heads / tails theory, of eventually sooner or later getting even. As we all allege, that good and consistent poker players will eventually be a winner in the long run. But if I were betting $100.00 dollars on every flip and after 2,000 flips, I had 1400 heads and 600 tails, my bankroll may not be able to carry me any longer and therefore never will get even.

 

[LooneyTunez]

Isn't there a HUGE set of variables that would make it virtually impossible to rig poker software...the HUMAN VARIABLES...?!

I'm not a programmer, but it would seem to me that no matter how you design the software, there's no possible way to predict how ANY of the players at a given table are going to play what they are dealt.

 

[Kenny Lingus]

Well its obvious you have only heard about it and not read about it.

It had nothing to do with a faulty RNG.

I have said nothing about a faulty RNG. You don't need to manipulate the RNG to cheat in the manner I suggested, and certainly not in general, as they (Absolute & Ultimate Bet) have proven.

So what is your point, anyway?

 

[AussieGambler21]

I have said nothing about a faulty RNG. You don't need to manipulate the RNG to cheat in the manner I suggested, and certainly not in general, as they (Absolute & Ultimate Bet) have proven.

So what is your point, anyway?

I dont think anyone is saying that all poker sites are completely legitimate but there are ones out there that are like PokerStars, Ladbrokes, 32RedPoker etc etc etc I mean isn't this what CasinoMeister is all about? Sorting the legitimate sites from the illegitimate ones?

To say that all poker sites are legitimate sites would be like saying that all businesses in this world are legal however we know if a business is fair and legitimate by looking at its structure and different parts and how they act/behave. The same applies to poker sites like everything else in this world.

Yes i agree that an online poker game is vastly different to a live one only in the fact that it is computer generated with a different playing atomsphere but that is not to say that the known legitimate sites are rigged its just that you have to adjust to the new playing style.

The other aspect is human psychology.....there seems to be two types of poker players, firstly the one who when loses thinks where did i potentially go wrong with this hand and try and fix the mistake for next time.

The second type of poker player however cant possibly believe they actually lost for whatever reason so instead of blaming themselves for the lose or just bad luck for it they decide to blame anyone and everyone including automatically jumping to the conclusion that the site is rigged. These are generally the same people who when they play live poker abuse the player that knocked them out and blame them because their "donkey" play knocked them out so it couldn't possible be their fault either. The only difference is this sort of player finds it much easier to blame the poker site then an actual brick and mortar casino.