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

Hope you will get this back!

And yes, sure, if you monitor this I would exclude all the allins with 100% and 0% chances, cause this is not random, it's the same as you would won chips postflop (bluff, showdown, etc). It should be excluded!

Players going broke faster doesn't necessarily mean more profit. Players play until they don't want to deposit anymore and you have winning players consistently taking money off the table. If I play a fish HU and break them before a table fills up, then they're not making any rake. If they're sick of losing and quit, then a site can't make a profit off of them. They make money thru raking the deposits and only the fish do that

For example, if a site wanted to rig the deal for max profit, then they'd make everyone break even, forever and ever, always. No player profits, everyone sifts their money like sand thru rake. 100% of deposits churn into rake. If I play a fish HU and end up on the wrong end of variance for a while, then the site makes a ton more in rake and the table likely eventually fills up. Full tables w ppl grinding long hours is more profitable for the site

If you kill the fish too fast, then you kill the ecosystem. If you don't have grinders starting tables and entering SNGs/MTTs, then you won't have games consistently churning rake for the site to profit. You need a balance of both

Yes it is a balance but these sites and casinos know that balance better than anyone. Rigging it for actions would also give players that slot machine adrenaline rush. Oh I was so close to hitting that triple 7. Is it happening, don't know because it is too difficult to prove. I originally mentioned chops as a means because they seem to happen a lot at GG and would happen if players had similar cards (both hitting the flop). Not the best way but better ways would require hand by hand review and that is not practical. And in an effort to maximize profits that's a reason to also skew it to favor the underdog (skewed to win less than your equity on your high equity hands). That keeps the fish in longer and gives them that rush.

Exactly. But it seems we have a couple of people here who are convinced that a site or sites are rigged for action, and so they need the narrative to fit that conclusion.

"In cash games, rake is capped. More small-medium pots makes them more money than a few big pots. Far better for them to have people swapping money back and forth all day long; no need for extra 'action pots'."

In response:

"Huge pots converts all the players bankrolls into a room's commission seriously faster. Pretty obvious."
"Doesn't matter. Higher pots ensures maximum rake"

Not much point in arguing against "logic" like that.

Are you actually arguing that higher pots don't ensure maximum rake? Unless the pots all hit or exceed the limit it increases rake. That's basic math. That fact that GG has increased the rake over the years proves that the game could tolerate a higher rate. That's a fact. But you pretend that you proved they haven't rigged the game for action with zero evidence and pass it if as logic.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/292/o...

If the images in comment #942 are authentic, then this is the smoking gun. At least for Global Poker. RTP or Return to Player is most commonly associated with slot machines. It is a mandate by the state gaming authority that a certain percentage of the money played must be returned to players. With poker the only way to ensure that you meet the requirement would be to manipulate the outcome of hands. You wouldn't have to do this with every hand played.

Yes, good point and totally matches with my observations.

All the players on the table got "close" hands almost every hand, I'm not only professional analyst, i have also played offline poker pretty much, nothing even close to this "same hands" frequency appears offline on the same distance (100 hands of offline and 100 hands of online game - are totally different). Of course we need numbers here, statistical analysis. But just intuitively it looks simply obvious, guys.

It's doesn't mean the game is unfair. But cmon, too much action from 2010-2015?
Did you play in 2005-2010 online? Totally different game play, and i remember it really well. Nowadays it's like an arcade game. Not a poker game any more. What is this, lol.

I don't know, if there are other pro players here but ... All the pros "feel" chances for everything in the game. And they are not natural online everywhere, preflop and postflop. Simply different game.

About action and attraction of new players. Agree with Amazing. But he is saying, again, some basic marketing stuff. Yes, action flops makes the game more exciting. And all the game developers use it, in card games it's involved everywhere nowadays.

If you watch the first season of Game of Gold, Charlie Carrel said something I found interesting in a hand with Maria Ho. Maria hit a straight on the turn and Charlie had top pair and paired the board on the river. Maria raised and Charlie tanked and said, if we're playing online I would fold this but, I'm really strong. He eventually folded but I think his remark was telling.

Didn't play online until after covid. Use to go to Vegas twice a year and play for 5 days each trip. Really liked the Aria, Venetian and Encore/Wynn tournaments.

Well it's simple. They have no clue what they're talking about

This thread is basically an echo chamber for the delusional and ignorant at this point

The funniest thing about this thread is it is filled with people who swear they're playing in a rigged game and yet they insist on continuing to play in a game apparently designed to take their money away from them. It is the height of stupidity and absolutely hilarious to me

Thank you for the story, haven't seen this yet!
I'm surprised they didn't cut this. But the business works too well lately )) They are not afraid of anything. In modern society you can say anything! And it will be fine.

Me, personally - I don't play online anything expensive any more. I managed to figure out what is going on, and it's interesting to test the soft for me, but not to play.

But many guys keep playing even knowing it's rigged cause it doesn't mean you can't win something. This is the reason, man. Regular players do win. Means it's possible to win.

Long time ago, i knew the game was rigged, but i kept playing, and kept winning. I quitted cause i didn't want my potential to be limited by online rooms. And chose another direction in life.

And by the way. Many "online pros" (regular players) suppose the game is rigged, even admit that, but they keep playing, keep winning (due to some reasons, which are not connected with their level of playing).
They are okay mentally, they are not stupid, they just earn money by clicking the screen "some card game" :P
But this kind of job doesn't satisfy everyone.

If a site rakes at 5% of the pot up to a rake cap of $2, then whether the pot is $40 or $100 the site only receives $2.

The recreational player with his weekend $100 might lose his $100 in two HU $100 pots of which only $40 of his money has been raked, him earning the site $2 before he disappears. It's obviously much better for the site if the loser loses five HU $40 pots, when the site rakes all $100 of the loser's money, him earning the site $5 before he disappears.

He's arguing that smaller pots, up to $40 in this example, ensure that the maximum rake is earned by the site. If there was an "action rig", the pots would probably be increased to over $40, reducing the rake earned on the money on the tables before the winners win it and take it off the tables.

Before the trial version expires I decided to run one final set of numbers. How often does 3 or more suited hit the board when I hit 2 pair, a set or a straight. One of the things that can drive betting is potential flushes. Unless I made an error, by my calculations, before any cards are dealt, there is a 34.02% chance 3 or more suited cards will hit the board.

2 pair 228/670 = 34.03%
Set 63/156 = 40.38%
Straight 44/108 = 40.74%

By my calculations the sets and straights combined are 2.23 standard deviations above the mean. Not a huge deviation but something to keep an eye if it remains at 6.5%.

He already admitted most pots are small or medium (not exceeding the rake limit) and if they are currently doing it, the recreational players are still playing. Regardless you can't make a claim and expect it to be taken seriously without any evidence, and neither have actually provided any evidence. Because I say so isn't evidence. As I acknowledged it is a balance, but it is a a balance sites like GG know better than anyone here, and that's not debatable. For example they probably know the average time recreational players play and what they will tolerate losing and still return. And GG also returns the largest portion of their rake-back to losing players which they use to ensure their recreational players return. And I would argue most recreational players don't want to grind so a little more action isn't necessarily a negative for them.

1, 57% here )) Pretty rare, yes. Suspicious, but acceptable ))

"Many guys" still playing because they "know it's rigged" just means they don't understand variance. That and they don't handle being on the wrong end of it very well. You do understand that just because you state things as if they were fact doesn't actually make them true, right?

I've played on at least a dozen sites and the people who whine and complain (and probably end up in this thread) all say the same exact things about the specific site they happen to be playing on. Here is a hint: The only way they could be correct is if ALL sites were rigged. And we know with 100% certainty that's not true. It's much, much more likely none of them are rigged and it's exactly what I've already said. They're just delusional and ignorant players who neither understand nor handle variance very well. Even winning players are pretty clueless...

I remember before the US had states that explicitly legalized online poker that people were clamoring for everyone to wait until the US regulated sites to show us all how rigged Full Tilt, PokerStars, PartyPoker et al were. Whelp, we have explicitly legal and regulated sites now and the deal of the cards has literally not changed for any site in existence. What's their excuse now?

You want to do statistical analysis on a given site's deal then I would suggest getting at least 500k-1 million hand histories and take a look. The stuff that gets posted on here is pretty laughable, honestly

The only site in existence in the past that actually had a rigged deal was Planet Poker and they died a pretty quick death. Every site since then is likely aware of them and have a great incentive to NOT rig the deal. Whether you trust the regulator or not, they do get audited and publish info on their own websites. You literally know what they're doing and how they're doing it and who is checking them. I think there's nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, but this thread is no bastion for quality debate and observation. It's overrun with paranoia, trolls, and ppl solely interested in being toxic and negative simply because they got their ass kicked in a game they truly do not and maybe never will understand

So I asked DeepSeek, "Is it possible to win only 60% of the money you should win based on the poker hand odds over 1000 all in hands." This was its reply.

**Conclusion**

- **Equal Pots**: Winning 60% of the money you "should" win over 1,000 all-ins is **effectively impossible** unless the game is rigged.
- **Variable Pots**: It’s **possible but highly unlikely**, requiring catastrophic losses in a few large pots where you were a heavy favorite.

**Final Note**: If this result persists, verify your data and/or test the site’s RNG. Over 1,000 all-ins, equity realization should closely align with expectations (within 5-10%).

In fact, you are right.
Before any of us show some clear and testable evidence It's rather a useless discussion (like some clever man in the thread said).

Your position comes from you are sure - online poker gaming is fair. Since, officially, it's like that, I have got nothing "serious" to contradict you!

Your detailed response is interesting to read, actually. And, in general, I agree with you, in case the game is fair.

To Amazing 3338.
To make this "well-preformed" report for others. You need to do something in Excel with your data. So other guys would manage to see the data. Personally, I understand what you are talking about (i'm a professional insurance risk analyst in the past), but even me would need to check your statistics. To work with it.

At the same time, i'm not sure it will help us, because "sceptic" guys will tell you "everything happens, you just got an unlucky wave".

This is a bunch of nonsense and a sample size of 1000 hands tells you absolutely nothing. This is what I mean by players wholly not understanding variance and wholly not understanding the game of poker. In a recreational player's mind, they think they're entitled to pots (no player is ever entitled to anything, ever, in any hand), and have a perception of what they should or should not win over any given time period that is 1000% divorced from reality

Play hundreds of thousands of hands minimum. Analyze the entire history. Share the results. Be prepared to find everything unremarkable

Guys, it's not a personal talking, so I feel free to react.

TeflonDawg, I totally disagree with you being a professional analyst.

1. In statistics (in insurance, in finance, social researches, everywhere) we never talk about distance without taking into account chances for the event we observe.

This is like some basics of statistics. If an insurance company indicates only five-ten thefts of the same car model in the specific region it will correct insurance rates, or simply refuse voluntary insurance for the model.
It's too unprofessional comment from you to ignore this. And Amazing 3338 has already stressed this. You just ignored :P

2. Amazing3338 says about 1000 allins, it's not a talk about hands in general, it's a talk about "coin flip like events".

If you open any book about statistics, the very basic books. You will read there something like 200-300 coin flips is a comprehensive distance to develop most hypothesis.
But still, the distance is NEVER considered without taking into account what we see in chances.

How many banks should go bankrupt in "Happybanks-city" so you would decide - this town is not the best for investments? 200 thousand banks? There are no so many of them ))

3. "Play hundreds of thousands of hands minimum". It's time to admit that all the respected and successful offline pro players we like to watch on youtube - are just luckers. Just favorites of variance. Is your point that variance is not applicable to offline poker? Some other hands are played there. No allins, no rivers. No huge pots closer to final tables?

Live play gives you a tiny sample size to work with because it takes forever to deal cards and moves incredibly slowly

When you play online, you can get in 1000+ hands in less than an hour. More if you're just stuck playing people heads up and shorthanded a lot. I would know since I literally do that everyday. It's trivially easy if you're playing multiple tables

I say 100k hands because you need a statistically significant sample size. 1000 all-ins won't tell you anything. You're just going to get weird results that tell you to...go get more results lol maybe 10k works...I highly doubt a company auditing a RNG is approaching anything resembling rigorous testing analyzing such small numbers. All-ins or not

The game of poker is multi-layered and complex. Whether you're playing .01/.02 or the nosebleeds. As you go up in stakes, the players better understand the game fundamentally and are harder to beat. Nothing changes that no matter how many times you try to assert the games are rigged in some way for the "luckers" whatever that means...

Not everyone you watch on YouTube or whatever you're talking about is actually a profitable poker player. Some of them are degenerate gamblers who actually hemorrhage money left and right. Some are very good at keeping up appearances. Some are legit crushers. Whatever nonsense you're making up in your head about them, however, is neither here nor there, as you'd need their entire body of work and tallies in cash games likely never recorded in any way in order to know profit and loss, and especially over a longer time horizon

That being said, it should be noted that most players are never going to make a profit. The rake simply makes that a reality, and the competence of your opponents also impact that. The only thing the deal of the cards does is obfuscate the varying gradations of skill each opponent has relative to each other. One player ends up with all the chips after infinite trials. That's what a lot of players don't really comprehend and it causes them to think they're better players than they actually are, or aren't supposed to be losing after any given length of time spent at the tables, live or virtual

You and others can spend all the time you want until you're blue in the face about it, but if you aren't making a profit it's because you aren't good enough vs your opponents and the rake's cut out of each pot. There's no way around that. The game is a pure meritocracy. The real problem is people don't look at it as one long infinitely running continuum. They obsess over whether they're up or down that session or day when in reality being up or down is relatively meaningless. That's just a massive psychological hurdle even the GOATiest of GOAT poker players have to navigate. The inexperienced usually just end up lying to themselves or invent any given range of explanations other than the stone cold truth since every human brain has an ego and their own respective indoctrinations...Nobody's "lucking" they just don't get the concept that if you get all-in as a 55% favorite in a $100 pot and win, you didn't really win $50. You risked $50 for a ROI of $5, over and over, forever and ever, until the end of time...IYKYK

That's where the psychological hurdles come in. Bc if you lose those same pots the human brain is affected far more than the significance of winning the same pot. That's why people tilt. They can't handle variance. They can't handle the psychologically draining aspect of playing for hours and losing money, even if every significant pot you got the money in +EV. The reactions of players thereof mean absolutely nothing. It's just math and brutal nature of reality. You lose a $100 pot as 55% favorite all you really did was risk $50 for a ROI of $5, over and over, forever and ever, until the end of time...IYKYK

I agree in many aspects of what you said. Let's leave it like that before we get some new info... Who knows, time changes, some people find answers! ))

To be fair, when I discuss this stuff with regular players - my friends, I always say "If you win stably, don't change anything, just keep playing!".

I'm glad that guys manage to win playing online, that's good, really.

Lol, this is serious, online poker is so dead now... Since we brought some science here 😃

The Hardly brothers are back, which way are your raging clues pointing?

The Hardly brothers are going to open a new era of online poker. Some heads will be taken off in the transition period though...

Narrator: No new era of online poker was opened. Ugly John and the Amazing Moroni kept posting worthless bs for some time and then disappeared forever, like every other rigtard in the last 20 years.