The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

You got it ,Bro

Yes, they left regulatory oversight two years ago and then manipulated the dealing probabilities

The evidence of GG cheating is that when others buy a lot of insurance, the opponent's outs always seem to appear, and the probabilities are absurdly high. Anyone can see this just by observing.

variance

No, this is not it; this has changed the probabilities without properly adjusting the programming. You can clearly observe the card distribution when others purchase high-stakes insurance—it's a very obvious error. I played over a million hands on PokerStars, and GG has also played over a million hands, but the card distribution probabilities are completely different. GG was relatively normal a couple of years ago, but after that, without regulation, it changed.

you shouldnt be playing poker

Its rigged against frequent depositors and in a much more in depth and complex way that people can begin to comprehend. Most just think that the RNG or algorithm is manipulated, I am convinced that it goes far deeper than that. We all have to remember that these companies just like real world casinos have utilized technology to their advantage for decades now.

I spent my entire existence in technology and I have a good idea of what they are doing - remember that they have the house edge because they have all of our data available at their disposal. Anyone that hasn't contemplated this possibility is either clueless or just naive. Facebook was doing it, Google does it openly, every company is about profiling individuals with data.

Poker Rooms probably even know how much money you have in your bank account if you are in Canada and interact e-transfer. If you are on ACR, and used Crypto, they know your balance as well. Nevertheless, I have Stars data for cash and tournaments dating back to 2009. I have GG Poker Data pre-Ontario merge as well.

Its about siphoning as much money from the non-regs as possible - keeping the money flowing into the system. Profiling people, your stats, your tendencies, and compute all that real-time and control outcomes. Tournaments are pre-determined as well. I am sure that it goes something like when you enter a tournament, a bunch of data is computed for all the players, and then manipulate with close accuracy who will end up in the money and in which position.

The only aspect that they cannot control are your actions, but again with the in-depth data that they have on you, they know your playstyle and it makes it even easier to make certain setups - or if all fails, they'll just create a no brainer setup like AK vs. XX and put the card that dictates the outcome.

I am shocked that for over a decade people bash individuals that claim that Online Poker is rigged - its so easy from a technological perspective. They've scammed Crypto, Enron, Full Tilt, and so much more, yet people still remain oblivious.

Start looking into how slot machines are programmed in real casinos and you will begin to understand how infinitely advanced technology is when it comes to software. Poker Software super easy to rig with near impossible level of detection.

Then they bank on the fact that most casual players that have kept the eco system going are either going to move on to something else - and a new sucker will take their place, and the circle continues. The only winners are people that generate a massive amount of rake, who are OG and built a balance on the popular sites years ago, or that depo a serious amount of money and generate rake.

I know some of the biggest crushers, and its simple. They built their balance, or depo'd a lot, suffered through the site trying to initially scam them, and then the site realizes that they can't do much to them because they are clearly winning players and have large bankrolls and generate tons of rake - so the sites starts favoring them by letting them hit here and there, so that they slowly accumulate winnings. Once in a while they have to make them run bad to redistribute hope to the casual players, etc...

For years people had it all wrong, and they would claim variance, sample size etc... The only way to definitely prove that Online Poker Rooms are profiling and rigging the games would be to have a methodical data collection exercise, where you would examine several factors that people have overlooked in this great debate since its inception:

- Player Type (Casual, Reg, Bankroll)
- Are they playing in a risk of ruin situation (easier for the sites to let them win a bit then make them go bust and have them redeposit)
- Frequency of deposits and amounts played (for example if a player deposits a couple hundreds every week) then plays $50T vs. $1T algo has to adjust
- Hand History Data (Correlate all that information together and see patterns) you would not even need large sample sizes - pretty sure it would just be blatantly obvious

For example run standard deviation on 100, or 1000 random people with all the factors above and if the same patterns emerge there's your sample size. Some math geniuses can surely figure out what the probability of having on say X sample size - a certain group of people / profiles vs. another get screwed the same way over and over again.

You can only win Online if you depo tons of $ and make it your life. Oh and leave the majority of the money on the sites :P Almost forgot that part, cashout curses are not a thing, its just controlled. Sites do not like people taking money out!

this sort of fever dream of nonsense garbage by OKFP is a reflection on OKFP, not a reflection of the real world

Calling it a 'fever dream of nonsense garbage' doesn’t address the core of the argument or even attempt to refute it with substance. If you think the ideas presented lack merit, feel free to engage with the specifics and present counterpoints grounded in logic or evidence. The reality is that technology has advanced significantly, and the possibility of systems leveraging user data for profit is not far-fetched—it’s a reality in many industries. Dismissing it outright without meaningful discussion might work if you’re aiming to win over people with a low IQ, but those capable of critical thinking expect more. Honestly, you sound like the type of person who denied global warming 20 years ago—and probably still believes it isn’t real. Let's debate ideas, not resort to ad hominem.

Obviously the poker rooms and casino collect data. obviously they use it to maximise profits.

I have actually worked in roles where this was one of my main tasks.

We obviously didn’t rig anything though. We targeted specifics players with specific promotions.

What exactly do you think how slot machines work by the way? As I am kind of an expert on slots and I am pretty sure you are under some faulty assumptions.

You provided no substance; why do we owe you any?

Your shrill crap is deeply demeaning to those of us who actually provided evidence of cheating, and earned millions of dollars of refunds for the victims cheating in online poker. The way that you cry wolf is deeply harmful to those of us who have a track record of actually catching wolves - because your vomit of nonsense causes people to come to ignore genuine evidence and genuine data.

False alarms like yours mean that actual alarms work less well, as people become used to ignoring them. You are imposing a harm on others, with no awareness, because you have no idea of what you're dribbling onto the internet.

Your contribution here is nothing more than a false car alarm: it is harmful to genuine victims, and it is irritating to others who have the misfortune of hearing your shrill noises of nonsense.

LOL.

I see. Are you aware that pretty much all of those individuals are claiming the opposite of you? They believe online poke is rigged in favour of non-regs/non-winning players. Are you still shocked that people don't agree with them, when you don't agree with them either?

LOL, WTF are you talking about? What sort of "infinitely advanced technology" do you think is required to create a game whose rules favour the house? There is zero technology involved. You simply take a roulette wheel and set rules that pay out players at 36-1 for a bet that is actually 38-1. Or a craps table and some dice and set rules that pay players out at lower odds than the probability of the outcomes they can bet on. Or take a slot machine and set rules that pay out each outcome at lower odds than probability dictates they should be expected to come up at. Making them digital doesn't change anything with regard to the basics behind how the casino makes money. This isn't rocket surgery, man.

Curious. Do you believe you can catch a poker site that was willing to limit their cheating to one hand per hundred for only 1% of their players? If no then you are saying you can only catch greedy or stupid cheaters. If yes I think you are delusional.

I'm saying that I have played a key role in obtaining millions of dollars for victims of cheating in online poker by providing evidence of cheating in poker.

By refusing to answer my question you show you know you can only detect greedy or stupid cheaters. That a simple non greedy cheating in a limited enough number of hands is beyond your ability to prove. Shame you lack the honesty to admit the truth.

Slot machines are a prime example of how advanced technology is developed with a singular goal: to keep players spinning and spending.

Psychological Exploitation:
Slot machines aren’t just random; they’re designed around research into behavioral psychology, particularly variable reinforcement schedules. This is the same principle that makes social media so addictive—small, intermittent rewards keep you coming back for more. Near misses are a prime example of this in action: the system can create the feeling of "almost winning," which triggers the same dopamine response as a real win.

Massive R&D Investment:
The software engineering behind modern slot machines is insanely complex. Take virtual reels, for example. The physical reels we see are just for show—underneath, the software runs virtual reels with thousands of positions per reel. These virtual positions are often weighted to make high-value symbols appear less frequently, which helps control payout rates and create those tantalizing near-miss scenarios. It’s not just about generating random outcomes; it’s about engineering an experience that maximizes engagement and profitability.

Data-Driven Profitability:
Casinos and developers don’t just rely on static designs—they use data. Machines can analyze player behavior in real-time to refine everything from bonus frequencies to gameplay elements that encourage longer sessions. The level of optimization here is staggering, rivaling the gaming industry in terms of complexity and investment.

When you break it down, slot machines are more than just games. They’re highly engineered systems built to exploit psychological triggers, supported by deep R&D and real-time analytics, all with one goal: to keep players engaged and the profits flowing.

LOL, it’s pretty clear you don’t have much understanding of software engineering or the complexities behind modern online gaming platforms, especially when it comes to online poker. Let me break it down for you:

You’re conflating basic probability in casino games (like roulette and craps) with the highly advanced software systems that power online poker platforms and modern slot machines. These are two entirely different beasts, and dismissing the technology as “zero effort” shows a lack of understanding of what’s actually going on under the hood.

Your dismissal also shows a misunderstanding of how advanced technology could be misused, even though regulated platforms operate under strict legal frameworks. The complexity of the software theoretically allows for manipulation—e.g., altering card distributions against certain players or using dynamic profiling to adjust outcomes. The fact that you think this requires no advanced technology shows you haven’t considered how these systems actually work.

When you say, “making them digital doesn’t change anything,” that’s just flat-out wrong. The digitization of these games introduces massive layers of complexity, and that’s exactly the problem—it creates opportunities for platforms to potentially manipulate outcomes behind the scenes. Unlike physical roulette or craps, where you can see and interact with the mechanics, the software running these platforms operates as a black box, making it impossible for players to verify that games are fair or truly random. Ignoring this complexity only shows a lack of understanding of how such systems could be rigged to exploit players without their knowledge.

So yeah, let’s not downplay the insane level of engineering, mathematics, and data science that goes into these platforms. This is far closer to "rocket science" than you’re giving it credit for. If you want to dismiss it, at least learn a little bit about what’s actually happening behind the scenes.

You clearly don’t understand the point I’m making, so let me spell it out. The existence of confirmed cheating cases in online poker only strengthens my argument—those cases happened because the platforms are digital, complex, and opaque, creating an environment where manipulation is possible. That’s the very issue I’m raising.

Instead of addressing the core concern—that online platforms have the potential to manipulate outcomes—you’ve decided to attack me personally with empty rhetoric. If you’ve “earned millions of dollars of refunds” for victims, then great, but it doesn’t make you the sole arbiter of what constitutes valid criticism. Raising questions about potential abuses in systems as complex as these isn’t “crying wolf.” It’s called skepticism, and skepticism is what prevents more victims.

Ironically, your response is far more harmful to genuine discussion. Instead of engaging in thoughtful debate or addressing the systemic issues I’ve highlighted, you’ve resorted to self-congratulation and name-calling. That approach doesn’t help victims; it just shuts down dialogue and prevents people from asking tough questions.

If you have evidence to support your dismissal of my concerns, provide it. Otherwise, spare me the performative outrage and engage with the points raised.

Yes of course it cant be proven that there hasn't ever been a single hand manipulated.

You are pretty much asking to prove a negative.

We can say with very high certainty though that there hasn't been any manipulation over a meaningful sample.

But if something doesn't have a detectable impact it also has a barely detectable impact at best. so what would be the point of an exploit that barely has an impact on your bottom line?

You first point is correct. Thats exactly the way slots are designed.

The second point is not entirely correct but still has some merit. it is clear though that you dont quite understand whats actually going on.

Its baffling how you realised that the reels shown are just a visualisation for entertainment purposes yet you think that the "hidden reels" or the way they are constructed have anything to do with the near misses.

The near misses didnt actually happen. You get that right? the "hidden reals have nothing to do with this.

The software behind slots is not massively complicated. Its not rocket science by a long shot.

When you say symbols are weighted you seem to believe that there is some weird process that makes some symbols appear more often than others. There is of course its called frequency. its about the frequency of symbols high value symbols appear less frequently on the reel also nothing mysterious about that.

The third part is mostly nonsense. The machines arent doing anything in real time. Player data of course is collected and looked into by the game providers and operators. But nothing is adapted on the fly.

never compare real poker to slot machines

Not on the fly.

Casinos and developers don’t just rely on static designs—they use data. Machines can analyze player behavior in real-time to refine everything from bonus frequencies to gameplay elements that encourage longer sessions. The level of optimization here is staggering, rivaling the gaming industry in terms of complexity and investment.

Data is analyzed in real-time, collected - and various parameters of slot machines is adjusted - for example RTP can be adjusted remotely in some jurisdictions after X amount of time of a machine not having activity.

How can you claim "very high certainty" when the concept of a "meaningful sample" is inherently subjective? What exactly defines a meaningful sample in this context? If it's based on aggregate data, wouldn't that data primarily represent players who are not being targeted or rigged against?

Now consider the casual players—frequent depositors and consistent losing players. These players are highly unlikely to collect data or analyze hand histories to detect inconsistencies. If these players are the primary targets of subtle manipulations, how can their experiences—or lack of reported anomalies—be included in any meaningful analysis?

From the perspective of a poker room, it would actually make more sense to rig the game subtly against players who are less equipped to identify or prove such discrepancies. These players not only make up a significant portion of the player pool, but their lack of scrutiny ensures that any exploitation would go unnoticed and unreported.

And let’s not pretend targeting the most vulnerable is a far-fetched idea. Consider the lottery: is it designed to exploit the wealthy, financially savvy players, or the poor and most vulnerable? The structure of the lottery system is built around taking advantage of those least equipped to understand the odds or resist the allure of a “big win.” Why wouldn’t online poker rooms apply a similar strategy by targeting frequent depositors and casual players who lack the tools or knowledge to challenge discrepancies?

For example, in the 1990s, Ronald Dale Harris, a computer programmer for the Nevada Gaming Control Board, exploited his access to modify slot machines, making certain combinations impossible to achieve. This manipulation led to significant illicit gains before his scheme was uncovered.

Such cases highlight that without rigorous oversight and transparency, the potential for exploitation exists. This underscores the importance of independent audits and comprehensive data analysis across all player demographics to ensure fair play. Without these measures, asserting with "very high certainty" that no manipulation occurs remains questionable.

Then I guess it all boils down to audits, transparency, and controls—and how much trust we can reasonably place in these systems.

The reality is that many online poker rooms are licensed in jurisdictions with lenient regulations, like the Isle of Man, Curacao, or similar, which don’t inspire much confidence in their oversight. Sure, some reputable rooms claim to undergo audits, but how much do we really trust private firms hired directly by the operators themselves? There’s an inherent conflict of interest there. Who audits the auditors? How transparent are the findings? Most players never see those reports, and the ones that are published are often vague or incomplete.

Contrast this with other industries or even traditional casinos, which are subjected to rigorous public oversight and in-depth, verifiable audits. In online poker, we’re just expected to take the operator’s word for it, even though there’s a clear financial incentive for them to maintain profitable edges.

If the baseline assumption is that online poker is fair, then it should follow that these rooms are fully transparent, with publicly accessible audits, open-source algorithms, and robust regulatory oversight. Yet, the lack of these safeguards makes the "trust us, it's fair" argument weak, especially given the history of scandals like Absolute Poker or even cases of rigged slot machines where combinations were made impossible to hit.

Without a transparent and verifiable auditing process that includes data from all types of players, particularly the most vulnerable ones, it seems premature to assert "very high certainty" that manipulation doesn’t exist.

I mean if you're a losing player then poker does tend to resemble a slot machine quite a bit so...

I don't know if online poker is rigged, but I can't believe I can only win 44.8% of my equity if the RNG outcomes aren't skewed.

sample way too low

Mathematically it is significant because we aren't talking about only winning 90% of my equity. It 44.8% which way off the scale for 542 all in hands.

No, that's not clear at all - I made a comment on an element of your post, and you seem to be inflating that into a much broader commentary than it actually was.

No, I never made any comment about how the probability of slot machines related to online poker, I was simply responding to "Start looking into how slot machines are programmed in real casinos and you will begin to understand how infinitely advanced technology is when it comes to software." And when it comes to things like house edge, I stand by those comments - "infinitely advanced technology" isn't required to ensure the house has an edge in casino software. But now that you've introduced some different ideas like the psychology of increased gameplay, I would agree that digital games provides casinos with numerous opportunities to make their games more appealing to play and continue playing.

No, I didn't comment on that. Of course it can be misused - we've seen it happen before. And if you think a poker site is being manipulated, you should stop playing there. Better yet, you should share some evidence of it so others can stop playing there too.

https://issuu.com/ionutapahideanu/docs/statrep_-_online_poker_-_rigged_or_

Issuu

Online poker - rigged or not? A case study: Pokerstars

Hallo,
above in the link you find phd work on pokerstars and rng

enjoy the read.

spoiler.