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

There's really no need for you to confirm once again that you have a severe mental illness.

But thanks anyway, right now it feels like playing you would be like beating someone up who's in a wheelchair.

I hope you get all the help you need!

You arent exactly the first person to say live shuffle machins can be rigged, its as obvious as the sky is blue

The mob had an x-ray table and recruited basketball players/coaches to lure in players to then be cheated
How does this compare with your claims that the RNG of online poker sites dont deal random?
Because sites dont make more money by scaring away players with a non-random rng...

So you're agreeing that live shuffle is can be rigged, but online sites wouldn't do it? It's pretty weird. The one thing I've learned in my life is there's no such thing as enough money. If somebody can make more money oftentimes they will it doesn't matter what gray areas they need to operate in.

cmon even you must see the difference here... Between online and very shady (in this case run by the mob) home games. For starters online sites dont really use a hardware shuffle machine do they? Do use an RNG that has been tested. If someone decides to play on a site without an RNG-certification that is on them.

In these live cheating scenarios the ones running the operation are cheating specific individuals and their ring of players are taking money away from them. Online is not "their" players.
That would mean that online Linus and other crushers know the cards on all major rooms. And midstakes pro like me perhaps know only some of the cards then?? No of course not, a website has no incentive to deal a non-random deck, they earn from rake. So the more volume, the more earnings. Scaring away customers why dealing an unfair deck is absolutely not the most profitable route for them.

Let me put it to you this way and Im looking forward to your insightful answer 😀
How come we've seen countless cases proven of home games where the runners were caught cheating but never once there has been proof of a non-random or rigged deck on a major online pokersite?

Do some research and find out what an actual verification is. U may be surprised to find out its not what I think it is. Their incentive to not deal randomly is more money. Like every business the incentive is more money. The main reason u don't see it online is twofold. 1. It gets buried quick. 2. They always explain it away as not a big enough sample size. Google party poker giving winners less buttons. Google cake poker unrandom deal. But u never heard of either of these.

You are so full of nonsense its uncanny

I am 100% sure ive done more research on what a RNG certification entails. Ive posted outcomes in this thread. Their main thing is to look through multiple millions hands and check for anything non-random. And they found nothing.
All you do is say they want to make money therefore they cheat you. Maybe you are the one that should do some research 😉
My local supermarket wants to make money too, with your logic they put poisin in my apples then. You would think that would scare me away to a different supermarket just like a rigged RNG would scare customers away, but apparently in your "logic" this doesnt happen.

1. It gets buried quick... what that does mean certain people have evidence that the RNG isnt random on places. But we have seen 0.000000%
2. Its not a matter of sample size. Of course if you lose kk vs aa 3 times in a row its not a rig, its just very bad luck.
The sample size is the live cheating scandal was very small, but they have found an x-ray table. They have found actual evidence.
Now where is yours, and please do some research.

You would be wrong my friend. In order to get a certificate for your random number generator it has nothing to do with them testing millions of hands to find something unrandom. To get a certificate for a site for a random generator all you have to do is prove that the random generator actually works. And that's a fact you can call gaming associates are any other site and ask them that specific question and that's what they will tell you. In order to get a certificate you just have to prove that the random number generator works. They don't actually test for anything. And you have to understand and stop with the rigged thing. I'm not saying it's rigged. I never claimed that it was rigged. I'm saying to you I just don't think they're dealing 100% randomly. Either one because their software can't do it or two some sites just may not be willing to spend any money on good software. Or the possibility that no computer could deal randomly. But I'm not saying it's rigged I never claimed that they wake up and decide to make one guy win and one guy lose. Why would they do that it would make no sense? They would get the exact same rake out of that. I'm claiming it's possible that they could not be dealing 100% randomly to lower a winner's win rate which would in turn allow losers to lose slower. Everybody claims that winners have smaller win rates online, why is that?

So they've proved the RNG works. How is this done without anything being tested? The site just says, "Yes, we have a RNG that works - it generates numbers randomly", and the testers say, "Ah, ok, thanks - here's your Certificate"?

Now, you say, "Ah, but I don't think the RNG works. I think it's not generating numbers randomly. I think winners should win more quickly and losers should lose more quickly, like they do in live games."

Have I got that right? The site states the numbers are generated randomly. The testers are giving a Certificate that states the numbers are generated randomly. But you are stating that you think the numbers are not generated randomly.

You are not only saying the sites and the testers are lying, but it also sounds like you are saying therefore the deal is rigged.

Can you provide some hard evidence for this rig, please?

I actually called gaming associates once they were based in Australia. And I asked them this point blank question. I said when you guys test the site would you test for say something like more aces being dealt than they should be? He said you're thinking about this the wrong way. He goes think of it this way, you bring your car into us to get checked, we're just going to turn the key to make sure the car starts we're not actually going to check the engine to see if it's running efficiently. And here's another thing. You never hear a sight say they deal randomly. You always hear them say that I deal or I shuffle is fair. Well those are two different things. For example you're supposed to get pocket aces once every 220 hands on average. But what if everybody got pocket aces once every 100 hands on average well that would technically be fair because nobody would have an advantage. But would you call that random?

https://help.ggpoker.com/article/O-GGPok...
"GGPoker’s RNG is 100% genuinely random."

https://eur.pokerstars.com/security/?&no...
"Our software uses an independently verified random number generator to produce a shuffle that is completely random, and which favors no player over any other."

https://faq.acrpoker.eu/security/rng/
"Each card dealt is random, every hand is fair, and all games are secure."

I believe that if everybody got pocket aces once every 100 hands on average, then the relevant RNG would not be generating numbers randomly and it would not pass its tests and receive its Certificate by the respected independent bodies charged with the certification of RNGs.

Therefore, your statement and question is totally irrelevant to what actually does happen - players receive pocket aces once every 220 hands on average.

^^^^ hahahah
Look at Burkeman, jungmit, sites do call themselves random after all :p
Also, very convincing that your best argument was a hypothetical of "you're supposed to get pocket aces once every 220 hands on average. But what if everybody got pocket aces once every 100 hands on average well that would technically be fair because nobody would have an advantage. But would you call that random?"

No I wouldnt because the deck is altered, so its not random, just like Mike said.
But even more importantly. This never happened. (and if it did, show us)
You are making up a situation in your head and then presenting it as evidence.
In that case, good news. I have evidence I slept with Scarlett Johansson last night :p

I know you make a distinction between rigged and non-random and thats why I also said non-random, you should read my posts better
But it seems like you dont know what the term "rigging" means
If you make the deck non-random you are indeed rigging it.

And if, like you claim, they are making winners winrate lower and losers winrate higher they are indeed 100% rigging. Then they specifally target winning players with bad luck and losing players with good luck. How is that a non-rigged game is your view?

Mostly table construction
Online games (on decent limits) often have 1 fish and 5 regs. 5 regs share the fishes losses
Live games often 2/3 fish and 3/4 regs. So winrates for the winners get higher. Understand?
In online micro games where there are multiple fish at a game you can see regs with a consistent 15bb+/100 as well. Just like live. This isnt exactly rocket science.

Yes they will say things like they have a random shuffle. What does that have to do with how the cards are dealt? They never test anything with the flop turn in the river and that's a fact. No sight ever does that. They may say they have a random shuffle they might say every card they deal pre-flop is random but they never test flops turns and rivers.

You dont understand what the words random & rigging mean.
You also dont know how to answer a question except with a totally made up hypothetical new situation that never happened and never will.
Its too bad at one point you actually had proof but you cleared your hard drive 🙂:p

You also dont know how to be consistent as is clear from this:

So first they never claim its was random but now they do say that ????

And how come you are sure they never tested anything with a flop turn and river?? What are your sources, I really want to know?

Because I know what they do, and just by hanging on the phone with someone who says he is from a gaming authority and just decides to tell all his secrets to a random stranger.
I know because I studied rng-certificaton input & output.
They check millions of dealt hands. And therefore they also check millions of flops, turns and rivers.

Honestly, what makes you think they only check preflop?

Now you're simply being even more ridiculous than usual.

You imply that the testers test for a random shuffle and certify that it's a random shuffle.

Then you ask what does that have to do with the F, T and R?!

The shuffle has randomised the cards. The F, T and R come off the same randomly shuffled deck, so they all fall randomly, like the hole cards. That's what it has to do with it.

Unless ... are you saying they randomly shuffle the deck, deal the hole cards, and then give out the F, T and R from some other rigged deck they have up their sleeves and are running separately?

If that was the case, then, without a doubt the deal would be totally rigged, the deal wouldn't be at all fair, and you wouldn't keep saying you don't think they do rig the deck/deal.

Please - think about what you are saying. If you think the deal is rigged, admit you do think it's rigged. Explain how it is rigged in a possible real life scenario, not from some "maybe they do this or that" guessing game you like to play, and provide some real life evidence that relates, that others can check in their records of their own hands.

So you're saying because the shuffle is random then nothing could be rigged or fixed from that point on? Like they could be no program installed to somehow distribute the cards in a less than random way after the shuffle? Well that seems highly unlikely. Back when ignition had phone support I called one time complaining about how every person that sees a flop magically loves the flop. So no matter what you got that flop would come out magically close to the cards that you have straight draws flush draws pears boards under your overpairs things like this and the guy on the phone told me well if everybody missed the flop all the time the game would be boring and nobody would play so of course they do something to make it more exciting. And he basically admitted this to me on the phone. Now again I know you guys probably won't believe this but between my calls to gaming associates my emails to cigital and my calls to ignition and the fact that I used to prop games at ultimate bet so I would talk to the inside is because that was part of the program I've gotten information that maybe some people wouldn't have. When I used to prop games at ultimate bet the guy that I used to work with there told me after working at ultimate bet he said he would never play online poker. And I asked him why but he never actually told me. No I don't know if he knew about the cheating scandal and all that but

You should really start recording the phone calls that make up the basis of your evidence.

ACR literally says this "Each card dealt is random". You are intentionally obtuse I think.

"Like they could be no program installed to somehow distribute the cards in a less than random way after the shuffle? Well that seems highly unlikely."

I'd say that although almost anything is possible, it is highly unlikely that there is a program installed to do that, for all the usual reasons of, "Why would they risk killing the goose?". You have to read the worst into everything.

"... no matter what you got that flop would come out magically close to the cards that you have straight draws flush draws pears boards under your overpairs things like this ..."

That is simply not true.

"... if everybody missed the flop all the time the game would be boring and nobody would play ..."

That is true. It is exactly why people do play poker. It's why some people are winners - those who select what to play, when to play it, and against which players. You have to read the worst into everything.

"... so of course they do something to make it more exciting."

That is not true. I think it might say more about you than about the many sites I have played on. You have to read the worst into everything.

"... the guy that I used to work with there told me after working at ultimate bet he said he would never play online poker."

But he didn't tell you why not. There are dozens of legitimate reasons why someone doesn't gamble or stops gambling. You have to read the worst into everything.

Look up the word "paranoia". It means: "unjustified suspicion and mistrust of other people or their actions. {See jungmit}"

You think I'm going to trust acr?

What goose are they going to kill? There's not a anybody in the world that can do anything to any poker site if it ever got caught cheating. Nobody's going to shut it down nobody's going to make them return money they're not going to do anything. There is zero risk for a poker site to rig a game. All it does is make them more money. There's no regulators anywhere that are ever going to shut down any online poker site ever in history. Unless the government seizes it for illegal gaming that's different. They can cheat all they want and nobody's going to shut them down. And no customers are going to leave. People know that ignition poker is loaded with bots and they still play there. So I would just have one question for you. If this is 100% randomly doubt how do you explain the fact that obvious Muppets run hot for tens of thousands of hands. Like in a live game I understand you could run hot for a session and then you look back and say in reality that was only 200 hands. But I play online with guys that run hot for two or three days in a row basically playing every single hand that's still to them on multiple tables. So when you add it up at the end you go this guy has probably played somewhere between 6 and 10,000 hands in the last 4 days and it's been crushing every table for four straight days basically playing every single hand dealt to him. Getting his money in behind on well more than half of the Orleans and still somehow winning for four straight days. When you know for a fact that this guy is a massive losing player. So you would just have to believe that this guy is just incredibly lucky for those 10,000 hands? I'm saying what are the odds something like that happens? And I know people say well it's poker anything can happen. And I say yes it can there's only one problem it always happens. I play basically with the same guys pot limit Omaha pretty much every day and every week there's one losing player who's on a massive hot run like that every single week. It's highly unlikely that if you played with the same guys in a live game that that would happen. If you go on a poker variance calculator If you have a losing player who's losing 15 big blinds per 100 hands at around 10,000 hands there's about a 93% chance they're going to lose money. Even at 1,000 hands there's like a 68% chance they're going to lose money. Yet every week I see one of these losing players running incredible for an entire week.

My apologies. I thought that even you would know I meant the "golden goose". "They" being the poker sites:

Definition of "golden goose" = a continuing source of wealth or profit that may be exhausted if it is misused.

You obviously have evidence of these losers winning a lot of the time, or some readers might think your claims are the wild ramblings of a crazy person. Are these massive losers actually winners? If they're not, and they are just having a few winning streaks, isn't that exactly what you want? Or do you want them to lose every session, become disgruntled, and give up playing poker? Isn't the ongoing game of poker so popular just because everyone does have winning sessions? As long as those who know how to play well continue to win money over the long term, meaning they have more and greater winning sessions than losing sessions, then that is poker as we know it, wherever it is played.

Please show some of your evidence to us of your obvious Muppets winning constantly over 10,000 hands. Of one Muppet might even suffice.

Thanks in advance.

Ultimate bet owners got caught seeing players cards at the table , they knew and still let it continue. What goose did they lose? No site will ever be shut down for cheating. They will just pay a fine and continue to do business.
And yes the streaks are what you want to keep the game going, I agree with that. What I'm saying is no sight is going to cater to winning players because when and play is a bad for the poker economy we all know this. So the best profit center for any poker site is to make sure winning players have the lowest win rate possible. This was the whole ignition poker plan with anonymous poker. The idea was you couldn't take notes you couldn't use trackers you couldn't get really any information cuz you had no idea who you were playing against it was supposed to lower the win rates of the winning players. Perfect example is it didn't work so the winning players were still winning at about the same clip so what ignition poker say? They basically said screw polka we just don't care anymore. The only step for them now would be just to rig the deal to make sure when is when less. And I'm saying I wouldn't put that past them. This is why people get mad that they allow bots. But I'm saying they want bots bots are just passing money around to other bots and nobody's really winning if that's the case. I mean think about it if you started to poker site you would say I don't even want humans I want all bots just playing here passing money back and forth from bot to bot with nobody actually winning. You would have no complaints no customer service nothing you would just take rake out of parts where bots were playing exactly the same GTO format and nobody would win. Why would you even want human players at that point? All I'm saying is any site can do something to lower a winner's win rate it's going to be more profitable for the site. How sites do that? Well that's open for interpretation. Some of them may manipulate the deal? Some of them might try anonymous tables? Some of them might try disconnections during big pots? Some of them may limit how many tables you can play? It's going to vary from site to site whatever they think is the best thing to lower the win rates. I'm just saying to you if you let the game go as it may you would see very few winning streaks from the bad players. They might win for a day but they're not going to win for weeks on end. When I play live I play against a lot of the same players I don't see anybody go on these week or two week winning streaks

Not about whether you trust them, you said no sites say that cards are dealt randomly so there's an example of one that does say that.

Well if they talk about dealing cards randomly this must be something new. Because they never did in the past. Also if they got a certificate from gaming associates call gaming associates and ask them what they test for. I guarantee you they will tell you they don't test for any dealing of the cards