GGPoker RNG Certificate is from 2021

I agree for sure.

I think you can write the company who certifies the RNG and they can test it or whatever but I also kinda made that up.

I’m not sure what the actual process any of these gaming authorities are using to “verify RNG”.

Doing a legitimate “RNG test” seems really difficult unless the gaming authority has an open backdoor into the software at all times.

Even if they did, there would have to be some kind of mechanism to verify the RNG function(s) they’re testing are the ones actually being used in live tables.

My bet is whatever the process is - even for regulated sites - it probably doesn’t pass muster.

FWIW - I don’t think any major known sites have rigged RNG, and I don’t think any of them are rigged at all.

At the same time, if someone asked me which major / regulated site has the highest chance of being rigged, I’d guess GG. Mostly because of the super user scandal some time back.

Typically the people who think a site is rigged are bad at poker and think they’re good.

TBH GG is the only place where something feels off with the RNG. Take a break and run good again after...

It does feel like this happens often.

Feelings of poker players generally arent a great indicator for the RNG being rigged or not, thats why a RNG certificate isnt distributed on feel but by math.
People often have these feelings based on a number of hands that is nowhere enough to beat variance, because variance is the real beast of poker:

It says November 2024 on their site.

After you win BBJP on GG you better quit, or at least take a break. Because after that you lose for months. Been this for me and others.

Is that for NLH? That's quite scary. Now do PLO and PLO5 and jump off your roof.

Yes that is no limit holdem cash games
And yes, variance is very scary

I cant find the image but I saw once on this forum variance was discussed and someone brought up an image of 6 identical bots playing each other in a simulation. Just a normal nlh strategy in a rake-less environment. Since they are exactly as capable as each other you think it would go close to all 0bb/100 relatively soon. But no, after 2 million hands, Bot1 was running -3bb/100 and bot5 was running +2,2bb/100. Even though they are pretty much identical.

RNG certification is a sham. It is window dressing designed to make players feel safe but it proves nothing.

As an engineer and someone with a reason to be suspicious of multiple poker sites, I took the time to do the due diligence on RNG certification. I reached out to multiple labs who verify RNGs among other things. They verified the following statements.

Some important notes on the RNG certification process:

1. Much like all other calibration processes in engineering, the ultimate standards and benchmarks for certification come directly from NIST, an international organization who standardizes all measurements and units of measure.

2. RNG certification companies have zero access to ANY poker software. All poker sites keep their proprietary code “black box,” meaning nobody is allowed to see the code except for a very select group of core developers who have signed very stringent NDAs.

RNGs are tested separately from any poker software. They are provided as a modular chunk of code to the RNG certification company with basic instructions on what to input and how to read output and the RNG cert company verifies that the outputs produce an acceptably well distributed randomization over hundreds of thousands of outputs. THATS IT. If the output is sufficiently distributed, they receive their certification.

3. Nobody verifies that the RNG is actually implemented into the poker software or how it’s implemented into it. Nobody is allowed to. It could theoretically be totally unused and literally nobody could prove it except those bound by NDAs and are well compensated for their silence. What seems most likely if a poker site were to manipulate outcomes is that they use randomization and then modify the outcomes based on their business goals.

Some additional notes for the suspicious:

1. UK law for licensed poker sites merely requires the sites to be “fair.” That word has an extremely loose and broad interpretation from a legal perspective. Hypothetically it could be interpreted to mean “the outcomes for worse players should be manipulated to be comparable to the outcomes of better players.”

2. If you submit a complaint in US states where online poker is legalized, they do not have any programmers on staff who would be qualified to forensically analyze the software for any sort of bias or manipulation. Their investigations are basically worthless as a result.

Anything is possible with variance, but the probability of running 3bb/100 under EV over 2 million hands is around 1 in 100,000.

Its in 1 in 4901 with a st.dev of 120

But you know there is more to variance than running below/above right? It was not an EV test, it was a variance test. What we call running good or bad is more than EV. If you get into better spots, hit more sets, hit them more vs made hands instead of vs air etc etc is a bigger part of variance than EV. People always look at their EV-line when they describe variance because its nicely measurable in the poker software wheres the phenomenon of rungood isnt (or you need to look at about a thousand filters). If you ran a sample slightly below EV but got way more AA>KK than the other way around or more set over sets than the other way around, you are running very well. Even though your EV-line says you "should have gotten more"

The point of this test was that the exactly same skilled players had big wr gaps because of the entirety of variance, not because of running lots above/below ev.

I remember seeing it on 2+2 and I was seeing a poker friend and took a picture of the thing. Tried to find it with the search function but no success, maybe someone who remembers this well (or posted it) can find the specific discussion.
Anyway, here are the results of the wr gap test:

Nail on the head. Any plo player knows running into toprange sucks and your ev line is just part of truth.

yeah and after 500k hands one bot was running at 6bb and another at -6bb lol

Frightening stuff, I'd love to see how sick it is for plo and plo5.

any person who is not an idiot, who is not getting paid by this site will tell you that the RNG there is fraudulent

no research is needed for this

of course you can still continue to play and even win

but all your actions will be severely limited by the closed source algorithms, and not by your real skills and mastery

and this has nothing to do with the random poker that you would like to see

if you compare, for ex. Coinpoker, you will notice that this is where the RNG is truly random

If thats true than they need to pay a loooooot of people. Almost seems cheaper just to have a normal RNG than pay 100k+ people to lie about the rng.

But then again, no research is need for this says it all

btw, GG paid me $100 to post this, such a solid business plan😀

Let’s say, theoretically, I own GGPoker and have zero moral values, with my decisions driven solely by profit.

So, I have two choices:

- I make sure the RNG is implemented correctly.
- I instruct a key employee—who has signed all kinds of non-disclosures—to alter the RNG in a way that makes me more profit, while remaining undetectable or at least very hard to detect.

So, how would I actually implement the second choice? This key employee could tweak the RNG so that winning players win less and losing players win more. As the owner, I’d want regulars to win much less, increasing the amount of money that comes to me as rake. Even if someone gained access to a huge database of hands, they would see no deviation on average for all players, and would only see deviation for specific players—which could be explained away as variance. But this isn’t a bulletproof solution; regulars could still potentially prove the RNG is rigged.

What else is possible? Maybe having in-house bots and ensuring the RNG is adjusted to make them more profitable.

If I choose the second option, I risk losing the entire business. Even if I make two or three times more profit by tweaking the RNG, it’s probably still better to stick with the first option and ensure the RNG is correct.

Back to reality: I think the chance of corrupt RNG, if the people in charge of GG are rational, is very low.

It could also be that the people in charge are corrupt by nature—that’s just their way of doing business. Maybe they’re so used to always trying to do illegal, shady things that for them, not doing it would be seen as a sign of weakness.

I would give 5% or less for rigged RNG.

I don't agree with this. By having regular players win too little, you run the risk of losing your game starters and those people who keep games going.

There's a proper balance of luck and skill that keeps poker games going and poker games tend to evolve to that statistical spot. When this is not the case, and this includes those games where the regular players have too large an edge, as opposed to this example where their edge becomes too small, the games tend to disappear.

So, even if the site manages to adjust their RNG so that the best players didn't win as much, I believe, and it could take awhile, depending on how much the adjustment is, that the effect they were looking for, would not only not happen, but the opposite effect would occur. That it, they would hurt business and lose profit as opposed to increasing their profit.

Its underestimated how much more they actually make by creating action boards/rigging runouts. It might be 3-5 x.

So its a no brainer for them. Online poker is sadly totally corrupted and rigged since pkerstars sold their company . And it has turned into a sort of poker casino. Like the action rigged poker apps.

A fish who has just registered and goes on a heater , final tables or even wins a tournament will most likely be hooked for life.

They not only create action boards but enabling the fishes hit their cards. There are clear patterns , which u will recognize when u pay attention.

The scam card almost always hits on the turn , sometimes river.

First a board is created giving the players involved no option to fold the hand. A big hand preflop vs a flush draw on the flop is a very recurring theme

Its getting more wdely known in the community now and i hope it will be their downfall cause every day more people realize whats going on and close their accounts.

Just like a fish who just registered goes on a poker heater, a fish that just registered on 2+2 (with the sn GGruinedPoker to avoid any bias) goes on an insanity heater

Except that most professionals feel something shady on GGPoker regarding the variance and rng.

No, not most professionals feel the rng (or indeed the variance) is rigged
Why would it be the biggest site by far then
What are you even basing this on?
And were all pros (especially the hs players) shady about the rng back before the hs revamping when all the hs players played on GG?