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

It’s nice to finally hear some “adult man’s speech”. It looks like no one worked in companies here…
The same here. I have been working for insurance companies for 10 years. The last department – Project management office (PMO). Marketing team is always “optimizing” communication with clients, always trying to “avoid” announcing of the weak sides of insurance covering.

Yes, exactly.
We can lead this to extreme example –
In case every player on the table start to get TT-AA, it will be almost always an “all-in” situation, because even good players will be sure, their hand is huge. But in fact – it is not any good. But, as a result, weak players start to win almost as often, as stronger ones.

Yes, man. And now imagine those weak players, who open many tables and get favored for being active in the room. They are not any good, they will never win in a random game. But they manage to win online. They will defend rooms in any possible manner.
Online rooms built the sphere the way, when not really good players manage to win. And this protects the system. That is why we have got an army of forum trolls here, who insult and provoke other players who present any materials.
Their incompetence is simply obvious, but they still manage to make this “noise” to destruct the discussion of the situation.

Exactly, their reports are pure fun…
They don’t check dependencies, they just check probabilities of each card dealt. It’s crazy. Like it’s not a professional statistical research. They just use some standard methods, Khi-squared test, other criterions of uniform distribution testing.

Man, exactly. Any significant pot/critical tournament stage – won’t be played according to a true chances and it’s important to push your hand in case you suppose it the best hand on the table at the moment.

As a result the room will have to deal cards openly, but not while opponent’s hand is hidden.

Man, look. There are no “standards” of considering the RNG flawed. In insurance, there some norms, which are described in laws. But not in gambling. Gambling supervision authorities decide it "expertly".

But the situation you describe is far from acceptable deviations –

I mean this kind of deviations wouldn't be any acceptable in any other sphere like aviation/finance.

I would also add, that you should consider other possible "meetings" of hands.

For example, is there any deviations in KJ vs AJ, 95 vs JT. To make the research valid you should check other all-ins.

I mean, they are around 14 000 different "meetings" of cards. And it is normal that one of 14 000 different "lines of observations", like AA vs AKs failed into a critical deviation.

You should also take it into account. But in your case the deviation is still too huge.

It's natural guys these are natural run outs.

Sorry I dont play microstakes, you need a few more ungrateful BBJ to play my stakes
Why do you keep on playing if the rng is made to screw you

Yea geez you should shown it happened twice, which basically is the same as always. Poker doesnt seem to be your game, mental and skillwise.
But fyi, this isnt the bad beats thread.

losing 33 to KJ isnt a bad beat. Your last you lose AT to J9o and you think that is unnatural??? It would be unnatural if ato always beats j9o
wow the bar for not being able to take a loss just a got bit lower

Nothing is natural about the dozen screenshots I posted.

Nor the ****ing bad beat jackpot lmao

Come get your free $100 mate I got 0 DMs poker pro.

I'll bet $500 you couldn't beat WPTGOLD 10nl over 1000 hands.

Lol you kissass of the few other microstakes losers with a grudge. We cant all be 50 dear old Johnny.
Also, some of us havent worked "in companies" because we are professional poker players. You know, the kind you lie about being.

The deviation didnt happen. It was another hypothetical situation. Someone says "what if you only win 10%" And then you jump on it "well, that shouldnt happen"
Indeed Johnny, because it didnt. Its not only unacceptable in aviation but also in poker.

If it is happening and it cant explained with a fair rng, collect your data and bring the building down. But stop analysing hypothetical situations as if it means something.

Just for lolz I will bring my own hypothetical scenario to prove a point:
What if a player plays a billion hands.... and everything goes as expected
BOOOMMM just proven the rng is fair with a simple hypothetical over a BILLION hands... thats a billion hands!!! cant argue with that.

You seem genuinely upset that you won a $1150 BBJ even though you had $30 in your br playing 10nl... wtf is wrong with you.

Johnmir is a 10nl player (-20bb/100 though) and he would kill for such a payday. It would be the most profitable day in his poker career.

How the **** can you complain that you got it in bad with JJ vs QQ and as a consolation prize you got a 115 buyin reward. Man if you cant even enjoy that poker is not your game.

OK, we have a deal.

Anybody trustworthy wants to escrow?

Deal? Yet no DM.

Great job going allin with KJ on 47582, truly an unreal bad beat. Just like losing 33 vs KQo. I think I have never seen this before!!! If this is wat the riggie community is bringing to the table they are really grasping at straws. But on a serious note: For the love of god, stop playing before you lose all your money.
And since you havent noticed before there is a poker beats part on 2+2 where you can pile all what you think are bad beats, this is a rng discussion thread

And why would I DM you to accept the deal?? You openly challenged and I openly accept it and you have read. All we need to do now is find an escrow and both send $500.
What's nice about doing this publicly instead of DM is that others can read along in case someone tilts away their BBJ winnings and doesnt pay up.

[QUOTE=Slugant;59039171]Great job going allin with KJ on 47582, truly an unreal bad beat.

Wait...you don't even know what you're looking at....hahahahaha bro stfu already.

Still no DM...

Come take my money poker pro lol

Yes. Remember now I'm only playing micros. During the timeframe I posted my stats (Jan 2024 - March 2025) with the rake-backs and freebees I'm actual up $90. Yep, even with losing over 50% of my EV with a 51.5% all in equity I'm actually up $90. During that time I'm cashing on about 22% of the tournaments, 18.7% overall.

I used to play live only and joined in 2020 during covid. For the first few years I actually was making a small profit. But 2023 was brutal and that's where I swung from winning a few hundred to losing a few hundred. And that's when I decided to download Holdem Manager and play strictly micros.

And for all the clowns that claimed GG uses a hardware RNG:

1 Hardware RNGs are expensive

2 Hardware RNGs are slow

3 If they used one they would 100% publicize it (and you wonder why I think you're morons)

4 BMM only test software RNG

From Chat GPT

Certification by BMM Testlabs

GG Poker’s RNG has been tested and certified by BMM Testlabs—a globally recognized lab for auditing software RNGs, not hardware ones.

These certifications focus on deterministic algorithms (PRNGs), not physical devices.

BMM's testing includes statistical analysis of outputs, seeding methods, and algorithm repeatability—all traits of PRNGs.

Oh noes, live Poker is also rigged. Call the press!!!!!!!

I think Johnmirs last post is fantastic. When you read between the lines he it tells the entire story.

yes yes very adult speak and you worked a whole 10 years? why didnt you sayso before that changes everything!

This is the crux of the issue. John is an amazing professional gaming level top 1% player probably at least as good as linus.

Everybody else is much worse then him results be damned.

Since John considers himself a great player and isn't one much for self reflection or improvement as he is already amazing in his own mind the only explanation why others are so much more successful is cheating.

Thats all the evidence necessary. So the result is already there now we just need to find data that correlates to the result and conclusion we already came to. so its not cherry picking. we already know cheating happens.

yep the etstlabs have no idea what they are doing just like winning poker players do not know how to play poker.

John knows though!

Yep that worked flawlessly in your stream i have heard.

Is there a newsagent that sells decks that produce consistent avalanches of sub 10% chance winners? Where can I get one, my physical deck is quite boring, there is only pair beating pair and shit… no back door four flush boards beating flop trips, no nothing!

McColls maybe?

Clearly to back something so insanely obvious, to back to the people who would happily rip you off allll day if they could…. So aggressively back them too…. Clearly you have a vested interest.

Why else would there always just 1-6 players on every forum/site who aggressively stand up for the PlayStation poker?

It can’t be proved, we get it! Stop repeating this!

I’ve asked many sites if I can get a bet on the next cards in certain situations or if I cud bet on how many sub 5% rivers would beat me in a week… I would take combined odds of a tenth of what the odds actually were.

The answer? From a company that is a bookmaker, who will take bets on a new born child playing for England, etc?

No and if you ask again we will close your account! Wow, what??? A punter offering a bookmaker a bet and willing to take a fraction of the actual odds if I win??? Telling me to leave the shop!??? Wow.

I wonder why….

At most they use a hardware RNG for the SEED ONLY. And then every card is generated by a software RNG which has all the correlation and distribution issues mentioned previously. So claiming it uses a hardware (as I said previously) is just another one of your distractions because you can't discredit the math and probabilities.

And I would definitely trust Chat GPT over someone that made a claim without any evidence. Like everything you and your little friends have posted it is based on, because you say so and it fits your agenda. But I forget Chat GPT, like Wikipedia, is out to get online poker. And you claim others rely on conspiracy theories. LOL

And I notice you mention it was fair. That only means everyone has the same chance. It doesn't mean the RNG is truly random. And of course there is the fact that GG doesn't claim to use a hardware RNG which they would if they did.

Guys, I'm reading the chat slowly. But still I have read all the discussion about PRNG vs Hardware RNG.

Am I right, that number of guys were trolling Amazing 3338 for that he didn't know what RNGs poker sites use. But, as a result, now we know, that BMM test lab don't even work with hardware RNGs?

I mean, they were trolling Amazing for being right?

Rofl.

you guys cant possible be so dense. i refuse to believe you are real people.

No, you're both wrong. Shocker right? I'll explain below.

But first, Amazing, since you trust chatgpt i've asked chatgpt again if poker sites uses hardware rng and guess what, the answer is the same:

"Yes, online poker sites generally use a hardware random number generator (HRNG) as the foundation for their card shuffling and dealing processes. However, the output of the HRNG is often combined with other sources of randomness, like user input timing, to create a more robust and unpredictable shuffling mechanism. This hybrid approach helps ensure fairness and randomness in online poker games.

In summary, online poker sites rely on a combination of hardware and software-based random number generation, often enhanced with other sources of entropy, to ensure a fair and unpredictable gaming experience for all players. "

This is chatgpt telling you they use hardware rng's 😉

Which btw first you claim werent used but then you just said "At most they use a hardware RNG for the SEED ONLY". So what is it then? Why do you keep on changing your story. Also, a HRNG for the seed combined with software entropy is more than enough for a fair rng. Its how every site does it, even stars pre-black friday😉

And Johnny where did your info "that BMM test lab doesnt work with hardware rng" come from??? Chatgpt didnt say it, it was said by Amazing. Who shockingly just lied about, he made it up. But you fall for every lie you see if it fits your narrative. Amazing has lied about basically everything and this case was no different, let me show you...

Now I also play on uPoker which has a rng that also been checked by BMM testlab
You can check out its rng evaluation report here: https://upoker.net/cert/BGL.1002.01_RNG_...

Now take a look at the source code review in that pdf where it clearly states:
"The OpenSSL RNG seeds itself with entropy drawn from the system, which in turn uses numerous low-level hardware and software sources of entropy"

Clearly BMM test lab does work with hardware rng's. Amazing just blurted out "BBM doesnt work with hardware rng", you read it and immediately took it as "knowledge". Johnny, you are being manipulated and being lied too, and not by the people you think.

And this is how you prove something. Looking things up and confirming it, not just blurting out wild statements willy nilly with no evidencial backing whatsoever

And for those people still question the rng but have no clue how it works (im looking at you johnmir & amazing) you should just read the rng evaluation to see how combining hardware & software rng makes a perfect reliable and unpredictable RNG. You might learn a thing or two.

Thank you for the links. To be fair, I was asking. It wasn't a statement. Because I am, personally, is not any good in topic of RNG technologies.

But I also searched myself to understand the situation. Looks like BMM testlabs works with both Hardware (TRNGs) and PRNGs. And, also, poker sites use both types. This is what I fould.

Excuse me, anyway. I didn't check it myself before, that is why I asked.

Fair of you Johnny to admit when you're wrong. But be careful not to blindly trust every lie just because its fits your "world or riggedness"

Although I do gotta say the phrase "But, as a result, now we know, that BMM test lab don't even work with hardware RNGs?" does indeed contain a question mark its heavily leaning towards being a rhetorical question.
"as a result now we know"... NO. You saw one lie and went with it. A result is more than 1 bloke yelling at clouds with untrue statements. You were assuming that BMM doesnt work with hardware rng's and you assumed wrong.

Poker sites do use partly a PRNG with this is only in combination with actual true RNG to make it even more intricate, otherwise it would be flawed and predictable. Exactly this is tested by companies like BMM and this is why those certifications do mean a big deal.

And because our friend Amazing trusts chatgpt to the full extent I asked it if there are pokersites that use only an PRNG and it had this to say:

"Online poker sites generally use random number generators (RNGs), but not exclusively Pseudo-Random Number Generators (PRNGs). While some sites may utilize PRNGs, many incorporate True Random Number Generators (TRNGs) or a combination of both, especially for more secure and fair card dealing."

Using it to generate a seed does not mean it generates the cards using hardware. That part is all software. And most people realize, when referring to the poker RNGs, they are talking about the RNG that generates the cards. But what a surprise another distraction. But I see you still can't discredit the math and probability.

I have had it in writing from Pokerstars that ‘it would be technically impossible’ to have decks that were favouring players.

Yet Phil Galfond of Run it Once Poker says ‘it’s possible, but it would be hard’.

How would you decipher their decision to resort to lies to defend the performance of their decks?

It’s an interesting line to take?

And to prove my point

The Optimizer Investments Limited has requested BMM to evaluate the random number generator (RNG) used in
the Poker RNG for operation in Online Gaming.

3.
DESCRIPTION OF RNG:
The Poker RNG makes use of the Random.js library for node.js. Specifically, it uses the “nodeCrypto” engine, which
is a wrapper for the node.js crypto.randomBytes call. This in turn draws bytes from the OpenSSL default RNG,
which is a NIST SP 800-90A Rev. 1 compliant cryptographically secure RNG, using AES-256 in CTR-DRBG mode.

3.1.1 Seeding
The OpenSSL RNG seeds itself with entropy drawn from the system, which in turn uses numerous low-level
hardware and software sources of entropy.

They test the Poker RNG not the seed RNG and they make a clear distinction between the Poker RNG and the Seed RNG. So, no they don't test the Seed (hardware) RNG. Comprehension is important

And the hardware and software sources of entropy doesn't actually have to be an RNG. It could be taken from the temperature when they seed the poker RNG. And they don't even call the seeding source an RNG.