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

I find it amusing that in so many of your posts you are not getting why Im quoting Galfond, you think I love the guy and i am contradicting myself as he believed in online poker.

I quote him because hes the only owner that has come out and been honest that a rig could be done where as all the big sites lie about it.

He identified how a site maximises profits, but ultimately failed to see it wasn’t so much about juicing the rake ( although this is a bonus to a rig) it was about spreading the wins out and retaining customers.

He can see retaining customers is the number one priority but failed to see how rigging a deck relates to achieving that.

Its the ultimate example as he didnt believe sites were stupid enough to rig decks (they are, they are also stupid enough to get fines for malpractice in other areas too) and thought running an honest site could be successful.

He lost $10m before he realised he was wrong.

So I quote him, not because I agree with all he says …. Because he had all the answers but didnt want to believe they were true. Its a fascinating interview, because it contains everything you need to know.

A man ignoring his instincts, believing sites were doing it the same way as he did with his site …. but very very quickly losing $10m.

You quote him selectively and you believe him selectively.

you think he gathered the knowledge to be right in saying "poker sites could potentially rig decks"

So why would he be wrong in saying:
"At any large site i would be shocked if any of them are riggin the action."
"They have to be idiots to rig the deck"
"IF YOU BELIEVE ANY POPULAR POKER SITE HAS A RIGGED RNG, YOU'RE NOT READY TO BE A REAL WINNER"

You see him as honest and wise through his adventures so he must be telling the truth with these statements right??

And he said this after losing $10m on RIO the poker site. He btw made a shitton on RIO the coaching site so he could take it but thats not the point..
Even after running an honest site to the ground he firmly believes that other successful sites would be idiots for rigging their decks.
And that players who think so just arent cut out to be winners.

So merely taking one quote from Galfond saying it technically could be done isnt quite the evidence of rigging you think it is.

Although everyone sees swings in their luck I do think winning less than 50% of your EV over 1187 all in hands is wildly out of line. I don't believe you would ever see this in live poker and that number of hands would be significant for live play.

Initially I suggested others post their results to compare. However, that's actually not even ideal. Ideally you would compare them to live results because, if the RNG is skewed, the variance would be higher than the mathematical probability of a live shuffled deck. But obtaining results from live play is impractical. Regardless those who have claimed it is normal variance have never posted their results with similar swings. I think that speaks for itself.

And when I looked at my graph of my all in adjusted differential, of all the all-in hands I lost, it looked like something that would be impossible playing live.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28/di...

Lol at that last link, you filtered it for hand lost and are surprised to see this??? What are you thinking would have happened in the graph, its all your lost hand duhhh. Talk about cherry picking "hey guys look at how bad i run in all my lost hands" hahhaha

If you want to feel the site is treating you well just filter for all the hands won and you'll be amazed that you're running tremendously over ev😃
Not to mention that the graph is win winnings so heavily relying on later stages of the tournaments. If you put in bb it would already be closer.

But since you are present and responding here why not answering these questions, its quite overdue:

"So pro's get more AA vs KK than others?
The RNG is there to benefit weak players, you've said it all the times.
Pro's are the opposite of weak players, how can they sustain the rng rigged against them and still make a living compared to you and the likes that so clearly cant?"

You have contradicted yourself so many times that even your crazy imagination cant think of something that fits that fictive situation.

Same way you ignore this question time and time again. If you fail to answer these 2 (over multiple times) we can just all assume that you have no answer to these questions and no clue what you are talking about. Otherwise you wouldnt keep on ignoring these questions and you could easily explain...

What do you think the rng-certificate company does? You do realize they see millions of hands and see AND JUDGE the outcome right? They dont look at a specific line of coding for the rng and say thats it then. If they only looked at software parts of rng (they didnt, but you believe so) how did all the millions of hands they analyzed for unpredictably and fairness come out clean?

Btw, you know you fit the definition of a weak player right? So if the RNG acts like you claim it would have in fact favored you... and yet still you lose😉

Genius, like when you filter all your all in hands you won your differential line would not hover around zero. It will rise with your total chips won but at a shallower angle. And the same applies for your loses, it would drop but at a shallower angle. Truly how stupid are you.

Again, put in bb and it will look closer. And just filter it to hands won and you since you believe in fairy tales you will think you have the most favored account ever.

But since you are answering me (very selectively) maybe answer these questions as well. Especially since you have all the answers🙂

"So pro's get more AA vs KK than others?
The RNG is there to benefit weak players, you've said it all the times.
Pro's are the opposite of weak players, how can they sustain the rng rigged against them and still make a living compared to you and the likes that so clearly cant?"

You have contradicted yourself so many times that even your crazy imagination cant think of something that fits that fictive situation.

Same way you ignore this question time and time again. If you fail to answer these 2 (over multiple times) we can just all assume that you have no answer to these questions and no clue what you are talking about. Otherwise you wouldnt keep on ignoring these questions and you could easily explain...

What do you think the rng-certificate company does? You do realize they see millions of hands and see AND JUDGE the outcome right? They dont look at a specific line of coding for the rng and say thats it then. If they only looked at software parts of rng (they didnt, but you believe so) how did all the millions of hands they analyzed for unpredictably and fairness come out clean?

Btw, you know you fit the definition of a weak player right? So if the RNG acts like you claim it would have in fact favored you... and yet still you lose😉

Again, put in bb and it will look closer. But you wont do this so let me explain:
Over your lost hands you have a lossrate of -11241/4,84 = -2337bb/100. Sounds like a lot but remember its all your lost hands.
Over your won hands we see the bb/100's so we can calculate. (1,03*2129+0,27*3444+3,45*2980+0,52*2695)/5,27 = +2809bb/100
Meaning that in those 527 winning hands you won 14803 big blinds (5,27*2809=14803)
Lets combine the winning and losing all in hands: 14803bb win in 527 winning hands and 11241bb lost in losing hands makes for 3562bb won in (484+527)=1011 hands.
So this already tells a hugely different story. Your lossrate on lost hands is actually lower than your winrate is on winning hands. The net will always look weird because in tournaments you begin with a small net stack but large in bb and end up the other way around.

If you ever want to understand the difference between tournament and cash game poker I suggest putting your graph on bb instead of net won, its tells a more truthful story.
That line hovering around zero is not a differential line btw:/

Also, in 484 lost all-ins you have only lost 9 times with 75% equity or more, talk about sunrunning... must be that fish-favoring rng you keep talking about😉
And just filter it to hands won and you will have the most favored account ever.. luckbox

As usual you believe I need to prove something to your satisfaction after you have been proven wrong about a claim you made. I don't, especially since you repeatedly haven't put a scratch in any statement I've made. And if you make a claim you have to prove it. I don't have to disprove it, especially since you have no credibility and I really have no interest in what you say. Your delusional grandeur.

I believe HE believes everything he says! I think it was YOU who slagged off certain parts and cherry picked other parts to use in your favour! Unfortunately, he is just like you that everything points to rigging decks for their own greed, but without proof refuses to believe it.

It cost him $10m to find out, but as you said the blow has been annulled by the money he made out of coaching and by the sale of the software…. So he has no real need to change his opinions, or shall I say, his opinion in public.

There is as we all know, only one poker pro Charlie Carrel that speaks out on online poker. This is because with sponsorship up for grabs and tournaments run by these companies, they would be mad to voice a negative opinion.

But none of them actually play online themselves any more.

Why is that exactly? A quote I hear from big sites is that you see avalanches of long odds losses because bad players call too much…. The very thing most poker books say (correctly) is the thing that will make you money!

The next excuse is you see more hands online. Why on earth would that be a negative thing? Variance evens out much faster when you getting through much more hands, right?

So you playing players who call too much and getting through much more hands. Apparently sites think that’s a recipe for disaster… wow!

You havent proven anything. Let alone to my satisfaction.
Havent put a scratch in your statements?? LOL surely not in your mind
But anybody else can see i disproved your entire point. With facts, you should try them some time 😉

You are showing a graph filtered for lost hands and whine about running bad
you dont, you are probably playing really bad

Books are in on the scam too? wow this conspiracy keeps on growing

Buts lets stick to the point of thread. Proving the rng is rigged.
You thought a good way of doing that is to quote Galfond.
Who is very outspoken about poker not being rigged even after losing 10m on a failing pokersite.
You say "he is just like you that everything points to rigging decks for their own greed, but without proof refuses to believe it."
This makes me think you cant read. Nothing points to rigged decks. Not for me. Not for Galfond, who was your go-to poker guy until 2 days ago.
He does not think sites are rigging, in fact he said they would be idiots if they did!!!

He also said everyone who thinks the rng isnt fair is simply not ready to be a winner. And thats coming from one hell of an expert.

Also, which big sites are telling you "that you see avalanches of long odds losses because bad players call too much"?

Fish are generally overcalling and thats costly for them. I hope you understand. You might be doing this too.
More hands does equal evening out variance quicker. But thats only helpful if you are a good player. If you play a poor strategy more hands/hour means more loss/hour.

What are you even saying with theres only 1 pro charlie carrel that speaks out on online poker... and then.. none of them (1?) actually play online anymore.
There are a lot of current hs winners who speak out on online poker. There are dozens and dozens podcasts filled with them. They do not ever say the rng is rigged though😉
You are just looking in the wrong places. You are looking for a rig.

Right, that's why my all in adjusted differential is so high. And that's not what I say, it's what the people at Holdem Manager say. And it's easily verifiable what a high all in adjusted differential mean. So you are either lying outright or stupid.

And unlike you, I post university textbook excerpts, links to sites like wikipedia and outputs from AI models that say exactly what I stated. I don't post certificates then add an unproven claim because it doesn't actually say what you want it to say.

Ive also posted some math above but either you cant understand or you wont understand because it tackles the idea of rooms rigging against you.
You actually mostly posted chatgpt, which you fully trusted until it turned out chatgpt was proving you wrong
Same with wikipedia. By the way, quoting wikipedia.. WOW, you must be a scholar and a gentleman haha
You did quote wikipedia but a wrong and completely irrelevant part.

But since you think of the world of ai models i asked google AI if poker is rigged and it says:
"No, poker, especially on reputable and regulated online platforms, is not rigged. While it's common for players to feel frustrated after losing streaks or unlucky hands, this is often due to the inherent variance in the game and not evidence of manipulation. Legitimate online poker sites use certified Random Number Generators (RNGs) to ensure fair and random card distribution, and these RNGs are regularly audited by independent agencies. "

And this is not me saying it. This is an output from an AI model. You trust this so we assume now that you 100% believe poker is fair. an AI model told you so!!!!

Tell me which AI model do I have to ask if poker is rigged that will confirm exactly what you stated?? Just for once back up one of your insane claims.

Like the holdem manager people have told you your "all in adjusted differential" means something is going on... show us. Show us what they said. You claim they said it, why not for once take 1 minute extra and actually copy-paste their response.
Its much not work for something you deem so important.
Wonder what they would say if you show them a graph filtered for only losing hands with equity and complained about running way under ev :clown:

hahahahahha man amazing you are my second favourite new riggy.

Johmir and you are essentially the same person only that you dont put in as much effort.

please come back with some more in depth theories supported by some home brewed excel sheets.

Ok I think by this post and many other comments you have made, it appears it’s just getting lost in translation.

You have got the wrong end of the stick of what is being said in nearly all of this, maybe being aggressive on an English speaking site is not a good idea for you.

Your not helping your cause interpreting what is being said so wrong.

Yep haven't proven anything.

What do those mathematicians know about statistics, calculating standard deviations and probabilities.

What do those mathematicians referenced and subject matter experts who contribute to wikipedia know about PRNGs and their correlation and distribution problems.

What do the staff at Holdem Manager know about the software they developed.

What do the guys who have spent billions on AI know about AI.

Your posts reek of desperation. As the expression goes, thou protest way, way too much.

And, unless I missed it, you didn't deny my claim about your educational background. Yeah there are a lot of high school keyboard warriors who desperately pretend to know something on internet forums.

https://youtu.be/HAFI1gNgZic

Why do you get a feel for what’s about to happen online, which you just can’t do with a real deck?

Decisions are made of what the deck is likely to do online rather than anything to do with maths or reason.

This is not a bad beat thread. There is a Beats, Brags & Variance section for that.

Mathematicians have proved variance exist, something you frequently disregard

We havent seen anyone from Holdem Manager saying that the rng is rigged

AI is 100% disagreeing with you. You again put so much faith in AI even though AI is telling us poker is not rigged. If you trust AI like you say you do, you must be certain poker is a fair game and you are only losing because you are not good enough.

I studied econometrics so I have a decent mathematical background. Playing poker for a living for 20 years has done me well either. It helped me to really understand variance and fixing my leaks instead of blaming everything on non-existing factors.

Are you saying Phil Galfond and AI are both clueless???😃

The riggies are really grapsing at straws to prove their case now
1 riggie regularly quotes someone who firmly believes the rng is not rigged as an argument on his side somehow. Even though this person also says that if you think the rng is rigged you are not ready to be a winner and sites would be idiots to rig their ng.
2nd riggie posts a graph of all his losing hands to show how bad he runs lmfao
And he puts all his trust in AI which constantly says the rng isnt rigged
Even the arguments you show up with are proving the rng to be fair. You riggies must have been **** at debate club :clown:

And because your believe in AI is so strong I asked it:

How come someone loses at poker?..

This is the answer you must fully trust because its from AI. Newsflash: It does not mention a rigged rng:

--
A poker player can lose due to a combination of factors including poor decision-making, a lack of bankroll management, playing out of position, and not understanding the game or their opponents. Tilting, or playing emotionally, is also a significant factor in losing.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
1. Poor Decision-Making:
Not making optimal bets:
Betting too small with strong hands, or calling when you should fold, can lead to losing value or losing pots to more aggressive players.
Playing too many hands:
Playing too many hands pre-flop, especially those that are unlikely to connect with the flop, can lead to losses.
Calling down too often:
Calling bets when you should be folding or raising can lead to losing chips.
2. Tilting:
Playing while frustrated or angry: Tilting can lead to irrational decisions and poor play.
Chasing losses: Trying to win back losses by playing more aggressively or taking bigger risks can lead to further losses.
3. Lack of Bankroll Management:
Playing stakes too high for your bankroll: This can lead to going broke quickly during losing streaks.
Not understanding variance: Poker has inherent variance, meaning that even good players will experience losing streaks. A proper bankroll allows you to weather these fluctuations.
4. Poor Understanding of the Game:
Not understanding position:
Playing out of position (acting after your opponents) puts you at a disadvantage.
Not understanding opponent tendencies:
Not paying attention to how your opponents are playing can lead to being exploited.
Not studying the game:
Not reviewing hands, learning basic strategy, or understanding odds can lead to consistent losses.
5. Other Factors:
Playing under the influence of alcohol or drugs: This can impair judgment and lead to poor decisions.
Rake: The rake (the fee taken by the casino or online site) can significantly impact your winnings, especially in low-stakes games.
Variance: Even the best players can experience losing streaks due to luck.

A couple of strange comments, given online poker is supposed to be the same as a real game, from well known pro’s;

In tvs Game if Gold Charlie Carrel made a comment ‘if this was an online game, I’d fold here as I know you would have it… but here… hmmm’.

Hmmm indeed.

Way back in the day I saw a tv table with Jennifer Harman, Mike Matusow, Jesus Ferguson, Howard Lederer amongst others where they all had big hands where the lead swayed back and forth …. At the end one said ‘wow, that was an internet hand’ and they all laughed.

I did not see one not laugh and say what do you mean?

These pros in both cases knew it was improbable they were beat, but equally knew if it was an online game it was highly likely they were.

And here lies the discrepancy.

charlie carrel said so?

also some player might have made a comment at some point?

that changes everything!

Case closed!

None of its proof. Anything you say is not proof. It’s a thread where you can offer an opinion and the reason why you have that opinion… eg constant BS hands, quotes from pros etc etc

It’s funny how you people who are delaying getting a proper game by further years, insist of proof of a rig. How about you prove there isn’t one? Oh you can’t either, that’s right.

But the sites could prove it right now by releasing their auditors info or allowing any doubting player to run their database through their audit.

But the auditors don’t have anything like that technology do they.

To admit that, would be admitting their audits are not doing anything other than checking how often each card comes out and not how they affect the hand.

And that is another reason why I have my opinion.

I love you guys ideas that it’s players bad play that results in losing to the type of beats you would be lucky to see once in a lifetime in the real world.

And that players are better than before Black Friday.

This explains that on a daily basis you will see the likes of someone setting you all in after a raise and a reraise with 5 2 to your KK on a K 5 3 flop… and them hitting the runners A 4.

Ahh it’s better players and my bad play, I must study harder….

I will give you another example of why I hold my opinion. Please don’t try and pass this off as my proof. It’s an example of why I hold this opinion.

This player I have played hundreds and hundreds of Omaha hi lo heads up games against. He displays a very poor understanding of the game and will regularly have all his money in the middle with a less than 20% chance of surviving.

He gets what he needs time and time again. I can’t beat him, despite the odds in my favour I would say 9 in ten. I’ve observed him playing others, as I needed to know whether it was just me. Nope the guy plays like he’s never played before and is also keen to go all in preflop even when it’s still low blinds, which is a complete crapshoot at hi lo heads up.

11547 games on sharkscope, would be half million to a million hands. He has an unwavering win rate.

I have a similar win rate, before you say I’m a big loser etc etc. which is your go to line.

Forgive me for thinking mathematically, getting your money just 50/50 each time, nevermind the countless times he’s 10%, would result in at least flatlining!? 29% ROI he has. Wow.

It’s a big enough sample.

Site didn’t want to know.

I somehow think a casino would want to know.