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

You should read and try to understand this Wikipedia page.

Whether the site uses a HRNG or a PRNG doesn't really matter to provide a fair game as what cards will fall next is impossible to foresee in the case of the HRNG, and, in the case of the PRNG, its current state would have to be known.

I see now why you think it matters whether there are fewer players or more players receiving cards at the same time. Making it simple, in your head, you believe if there were only two players playing with a PNRG in operation, and one of them knew the current state, and knew the order of cards that was going to be dealt, and that order was only a few cards, (say, A5A678T3AKAKAQJ294, repeat, repeat, etc), then either one or the other would win every hand dealt, predetermined by whoever was dealt the first card, and when both never fold.

In reality, it would be extremely rare that only two players were playing; that the current state was known by one of those two; that there are only a few cards in the known sequence that repeats; that the uninformed player wouldn't notice he kept receiving the same hole cards with the same board cards; that the GLI would ever pass a PNRG that repeated the same sequence over only a few cards; that the seed value wasn't changed; etc; etc. In other words, once other players enter a game on the site and receive hole cards, or someone folds unexpectedly for some reason, or whatever interrupts the flow of cards in the game of the person that somehow knows what card will be dealt next somewhere on the site, everyone might as well be playing with a HRNG deck.

Of course, this doesn't answer why your AA was beaten HU 20 times in a row, (or whatever it was you claimed), and I would say either you made that up or that your memory of the game is incorrect. (It's very hard to believe the GLI would ever pass any PNRG that was dealing an Ace 40 times in 180 cards in the sequence it would know was going to be produced. The GLI is quite obviously looking for sequences where Aces, Kings, Queens, etc, etc, are each being produced by a PNGR at the rate of once every thirteen cards, to pass it, in order to meet Authorities' demands.)

In fact, you said, (correctly), above, "Let's give the example of you're supposed to get pocket aces once every 220 hands well what if you got them once every 160 hands? As long as everybody got them every 160 hands then it would be considered Fair. Well that's something different than saying we're 100% random." Before, you were claiming your opponent was getting an Ace once in every four-and-a-half cards. (You might not have been claiming that, actually, but I hope you get the point.) There isn't a player anywhere that would play again on a site where they often saw a long sequence of one Ace in every five cards exposed.

E&OE

I am not believing anybody can see cards or know any sequence of order that the cars are going to come out on. I am saying when there are less people on the odds have to add up to what they're supposed to add up to if it's random. So for example say once every 1500 hands somebody's going to hit a royal flush well when you only have three tables in play somebody's going to hit that royal flush on one of those three tables. They're also going to hit quads on one of those three tables they're also going to hit x amount of full houses on one of those three tables and it's all going to happen on one of those three tables. But if you have a thousand tables going the chance of you seeing it your table are virtually zero. So I'm saying when there are fewer tables going you're going to see more crazy things happen because they have to happen at those tables if they don't happen at those tables then the odds are not going to hold up to what they're supposed to be

Here's a great hand someone posted from a site that I would consider the worst RNG of any site I ever played. The spend zero money on site, most likely did not pass any test to get a certificate, as they never had one for a long time. When questioned about it they always had some answer. I personally think they just lost something in their site to keep people quiet. I once tried to contract who ever it was they said they got the certificate from and that company had no idea wtf I was talking about. Shady stuff. But anyway here is the hand.
If it makes you feel better, I recently was 4 tabling on ignition and had AAkq (double suited) and AAqj (double suited) at the same time on two of the tables at the same time. Flopped A44 on one board and A55 on the other. Lost to j755 (one suit) and t944 (rainbow) in 4 bet pots on both.

You can browse old hands from the hand replayer. There is a datetime picker to go back several days, you will just have to find them.... which kinda sucks. But they should be there.

Your conclusion is wrong again, I'm afraid.

If it was correct that someone is going to hit a royal flush once every 1500 hands, on average, (it would not be something that would happen at those odds, as you know; I think it would be about once in every 31,000 hands, but for the purpose of ease of discussion ...), then, yes, if each of the three tables is going to have 500 hands dealt at them, then a royal flush would be seen on one of the tables. If each of the three tables played 1500 hands, then it would be reasonably likely that a royal flush would be seen once on each table.

As we're saying that those odds are correct, then the players at each table are reasonably likely to see one royal flush at the "correct" odds, meeting their expectations, and therefore nothing is rotten in the State of Denmark. Nothing about what players would see (if they knew all the hands that had been dealt) when only a few are playing is (long term) crazy, odds-wise.

Unless you think the deal is rigged, of course; which you don't, you have said.

I was told many years ago that u would see more unlikely things when less tables are in play.
I also emailed phenom back to ask about verification and they never responded.

I'm glad I've been able to show you why that information was incorrect. It's easy to think you are experiencing crazy stuff at the tables. Sometimes it's because of your opponents' results, but, thankfully, it's also sometimes because of your own. Pick your tables, play well and consistently every time you sit down, don't tilt, ignore past hands, and over time you'll find that your bankroll will gradually increase.

Good luck.

Couple of additional stats to add that are suspicious. I drew KK 175 times and saw the flop 143 times. 42 times, one or more aces hit the flop. That's 29.37% when the probability that an ace will hit the flop before any cards are dealt is 21.73%. Again (similar to AK, AQ and AJ missing the flop) 2.21 standard deviations from the mean.

I also hit 3 aces 38 times. I lost my set of aces 15 times. That's 39.47% when the average times other sets lost was about 24 - 25%. There other stats I would like to review as well that I'm pretty sure is happening but it would require a review of every single hand because the software doesn't have a way to filter the hands.

If an online poker site intended to skew the odds to make it more luck based, this is how they would do it. Make an ace hit the flop more often when facing pocket kings. Make AK, AQ, AJ miss the flop more than they should. Draw 3 suited more often when facing a straight or set. And the result is it makes winning only 49.33% of your EV possible.

I understand all that. And just to bring you up to date I do fine playing online poker I've never had a losing year in 20 years. I'm just telling you the stuff you experience on some sites is unlike anything you experience anywhere else. For example when I'm all in on ignition poker and I'm an 85% favorite I get smashed 60% of the time. I used a poker tracker there. So I have all the results from it and I'm saying this is just something that's happened for many many years there. Why does it happen? I don't know I just think the site possibly has terrible software

First of all I can prove it happened so saying the results are impossible is ridiculous.

Second who said it is rigged to make one person win? As I actually stated, if an online poker site intended to skew the odds to make it more luck based, etc.

how can you prove it?
because everyone can alter a db, but you dont even provide a db screenshot.
its all just words and claims, never seen any evidence (and an excel sheet of self provided numbers isnt evidence fyi)

Is that the best you can do? First you claim the sample is way too small. Then I prove you don't know what you are talking about and now you claim I altered the database because you can't discredit anything I've said. The fact that you are now claiming I altered the database is an admission that the results are indisputable evidence that the RNG is skewed, otherwise there would be no need to claim I altered it. And it also proves that there isn't any evidence you would accept, and you will make any claim to deny the possibility that poker sites might skew things. But you are not a shill. Truely pathetic.

You want to read it again, i said Everyone can alter a db.
I dont know if you have because you never posted a screenshot of your db where these things happen. They are just stories. Mostly in your head.

I dont claim you alter your db, I do claim you are mentally ill and unfit to play poker

Still waiting for some evidence though... isnt it weird that in 93.365 posts about rigged poker there isnt a single post that includes any actual evidence? (so not story or own excel based ranting) 😉

I love the way you and you friends passively suggest something so you can deny it later. You bring up something in response to my post and then claim you weren't claiming it. And if you aren't claiming it, why are you asking for a screenshot of my database about something you now claim you aren't claiming. You proved you are lying.

I always said the 2 worst RNG I ever played on, and I would lay money if any site was rigged it would be these 2, were ignition and cake poker. I actually used to be an affiliate with cake poker and I still emailed them many hands saying I don't believe in the RNG. I just watch a video, which I never knew about, that showed the did actually rig the game. Audit showed that results were statistically impossible. Makes u think that is cake poker can do why not others ? I mean cake for away with it for years.

still no evidence huh? guess you have nothing to prove your crazy ramblings with 🙂 except quoting someone else's post from 2020 (this just screams insanity)

If everyone that thinks not all the sites are rigged are my friends, are you friends with Johnmir and all the other disgruntled micro/losing players who keep on playing game they think its rigged?? If I think all online chess is rigged im not going to play for money there. You just keep on being mad and making wild claims with zero proof. Or you can get the professional mental help you so desperately need. Although I can tell you in advance, they will advise you to stop playing poker. Which would be for the better for you 😉

Nothing is conclusive. The video was just about the scandals of online poker sites. I was not even aware that cake polka got caught rigging the deck but I guess that's exactly what happened. Let me ask you this where's cake polka now? Why are they out of business? Polka sites only go out of business usually for one reason they get caught scamming. Because really it's a profitable business when you think about it as long as you're not stealing money, or scamming, are rigging the deck why would you go out of business?

Slugant is a joke. This scrub is defending sites that have already been caught having superusers lmao.

You are a joke Slugant and you will get karma for defending obvious criminal scam sites.

BTW i have an ability of 97 on sharkscope and grinded 100 to 20k and it was very easy on GG Ontario and after I withdrew the money and tried to build up again my account got doomswitched. I have been a slightly losing player over the last 600 plus tournaments with a 97 ability.

I repeat... i grinded 100 to 20 k through around 1600 tournaments and after i withdrew the money and started from scratch i now supposedly cant beat the super fish in ontario midstakes.

What is your name on GG Slugant?

It was about ten or more years ago now, but I think I remember that CakePoker was bought by LockPoker, whose CEO was Jennifer Larson, a former Bodog employee, who is still on the run for stealing millions of dollars of players' money by not paying withdrawals.

I don't remember CakePoker or LockPoker having been proved as being riggers of the deck; but why would they bother risking that and driving away customers, when the gameplan seems to have been to steal all the deposits? The more the better, from their pov.

A quick Google finds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cake_Netwo... and https://pokerfuse.com/news/poker-room-ne.... For anybody interested, the truth of the whole story is out there to be found, and much of it can be found with simple Searches of the forums here.

First of all, quite tough of you to make a new account for this, really amazing😉

Second, I made close to a million in my lifetime career as online poker players while you "brag" about winning 20k but then becoming a losing player with 97 ability lolol and you call me a micro stakes grinder. Sounds like you are the micro grinder, and in fact even a losing one.

And I dont play GG like I said in the other thread. Dont like their PVI slashing my rakeback while paying way too much rake to begin with because of preflop rake.

Guys, I didn't manage to read you since I had to finish the analysis. Even now, I'm sending you the message being not aware of the conversation, sorry. I will read you a bit later with pleasure.

But, still, it's too important to mention.

https://twoplustwo.com/post?postId=58956...

In case you didn't get the true meaning of my postflop analysis against a sit-out player on heads-up. The following analysis is simply the evidence of rigging with no a "but".

The software provokes a player in case he decided to avoid playing postflop and folds few strong preflop hands.

Any opinions? I wanna make sure, you did understand the information. It's not a joke, actually.

I played on the Merge network on a couple different skins when Cake became Lock Poker. Pretty sure they (Cake and Lock) were simply just not sustainable and went out of business like any other site would in that environment

Black Friday and the UIGEA basically made it impossible for a lot of sites to survive

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/misc....

Johnmir, watching your youtube video reminds me of people talking about how the earth is flat. They have no evidence, are 100% sure they are right, keep on rambling incoherently and have an unstable look in their eyes. These people are sick and need help. And im afraid you and your friends Larusso & Amazing need that help too.

Let me summarize my interactions with Slugant. I post my results that show unrealistic variance, and his first reply is to claim my sample size is way too low, which he no doubt has been claiming for years in an attempt to troll forum members. I then expose his BS and obliterate in his claim with actually textbook excerpts that expose the nonsense he has been claiming for years. I continue to post my results with screenshots and provide mathematically proven equations with links to websites that confirm my statements. Because he can't discredit any of the evidence and can no longer make his BS claim, he just trolls the forum claiming anyone who disagrees with him is delusional and mentally unstable. He them makes up additional criteria that others must provide to prove their claims (while he himself has never provided any evidence for his claims) and then lies about it while trolling the forums because he can't actually discredit any of the evidence. But unlike him I don't just claim something and say it is true because I say so, I actually provide evidence. And here is what psychological studies say about internet trolls like him. Talk about mentally unstable.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/...