"iPoker is random" fairy tail, or "fair online poker in action" ))
Greetings!
Not to mix up too many materials I will only share a small part of the data regarding iPoker (Red Star Poker skin).
Excuse me, guys, I don't really know probability thread's unspoken rules.
But, if you give your overview, it would be interesting and useful to discuss the following topic, because guys in another threads are not that familiar with statistics. And they suggested me to publish this here.
Introduction
To test the software of iPoker and to check if the game is predictable I refused to play the postflop stage and started to push/fold my hands on hyper-turbo tournaments. This tactics allowed me to concentrate on checking the preflop stage hands dealing of the room.
But as a result of avoiding of a postflop, I noticed that the software "reacted" to this "playing style" (very low flop seen ratio %) by a huge, rare splashes of completed combinations on the flop in a row, in case I folded my hand on a preflop.
I suppose it happens, because the software is designed to provoke a tight player to participate in a postflop stage of a game cone.
Sorry for a number of screen shots, but it is better to illustrate, how it looks -
So, almost with no exclussions, in the start of a tournament or after folding huge hands on a preflop, I stated to get this sequences of combinations flopped.
Players didn't believe the dependecy exists. Didn't believe the game is not random. And, also, I was concentrated on more significant materials, which clearly proved rigging in the room. (I managed to open my opponent's hands in heads-up games and caught iPoker on the "open" postflop rigging. But it's another story.)
During the discussions I found it to be an easy way to show, that the game is rigged, for players, who are not that good in data analysis. And on the 7th of April 2025 I announced testing on the Gipsy Team forum and started to track all the hands, which comply with the following conditions -
- I have got a non-paired starting hand (doesn't belong to 22-AA range)
- I folded my hand on a preflop
- the flop was dealt to other players, who remained in the game cone and reached the postflop stage
The results of stacking
I only played 4 tournaments and got the following results of the wave-analysis -
And this analysis confirmed the dependency (rigging of the flop cards according to the starting hand of a player) with a confidence of 99.98%.
I sent it to gambling supervision authorities as an additional proof of the fraud (rigging of the cards deck) in iPoker. But After I presented this part of proof, I realized that people don’t really understand the materials well enough.
And I provided an easier explanation of the dependency (I kept tracking this type of hands)
So, looking at 11 consequently played tournaments -
Even if I consider only one splash (not all the splashes), in 10 of 11 tournaments a splash of flop hitting takes place, which happens not more then in 20% cases. But actual assessments are much lower.
And, after my explanation of these tests
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
In 111 next hands of this type (8 tournaments more were played) I registered even more rare splash.
And I found it the easiest possible way not to prove rigging, because the rigging has already been proved! But a very easy, primitive example of rigging for players, so that they could understand the relevance of my information, and get sure that iPoker is rigging the game.
The main question, guys
In total, during the tests I played 538 hands of this type.
And I got the following splash of a flop hitting -
(the hand history, if you need to check the data to comply with the real hands played
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jx2g1fx...)
(the statistical report in MS Excel -
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...)
Let's exclude all the other splashes on the distance for a moment.
And take a look at these flops.
I hit 31 of 47 flops.
By "hitting" the flop I mean 32.4% chances to hit at least a pair (or better) on the flop for a non-paired starting hand (one of two starting cards matches with a least one card of the flop).
Let's calculate this deviation chances (the variance).
A chance to hit 31 flop or more on a distance of 47 flops played is
(according to binomial distribution formula)
So, "inside" chances for this variance are 0.00025%.
Meeting of the variance on the distance of 538 hands, played after the testing start was announced, is
0.03% this value is an assessment, based on simulations in MS Excel.
And, approximately, this splash happens once in 300 000 hands. (I can provide you messages from the Russian poker forum, where guys also checked my simulations and got similar assessments. But, I think, you can also check this. I'm ready to participate.)
The question is - what do you think about this assessment. Can we conclude about rigging in iPoker wtih a chance of 99.97% basing on this information?
And, If we got some analysts here (guys, I don't know which members of the forum participate in these discussions - I'm a former risk analyst of european insurance group Zurich Insurance - 10 years in the sphere as a key analyst, graduated from the catherdra of theory of probabilities and math. statistics - 5.5 years),
in total, as experts, do you have doubts that we can state that the game is rigged with a comprehensive level of confidence, basing on all the info I described above?
Could you, please, provide your expert opinion.
A sofisticated method of assessing the deviation
Let's come back to these 31+ of 47 flops hittings.
In fact, guys. If we want to assess a real rarety of the splash. We, certainly, should take into account combination power. Right?
So, if we analyze the data attentively and put to each combination flopped on this 47 flops distance a chance to hit "at least that well" (!)
We will get those estimations which you can see on the picture below -
Spoiler
In the column - "expected chances for the sequence".
So, if we consider a chance to hit
a pair or better as 32.4%
a top pair or better as [a chance to hit a top pair for this hand - it's different] + [a chance to hit two pairs - 2%] + [a chance to hit trips - 1.35%] + [a chance to hit a full house - 0.09%]
two pairs or better as [2% + 1.35% + 0.09%] = 3.44%
trips or better as [1.35% + 0.09%] = 1.44%
a full house as 0.09% (I don't include four of a kind, guys, it's not significant enough]
We will get an evarage "chance to hit that well" as 28.1% for this sequence of flop hits. And this value will be the basic for further calculations -
So, using this deeper method of analysis, we get "inside" chances for the sequence of 31 flop or more been hit of 47 flops played equal to 0.000 008% (8 times of 100 000 000 dealings).
My assessment for this to happen in a random game is that it happens once in 60 000 000 hands in average, approximately (guys, would be nice if you provided your calculations, because my PC didn't manage to find such a rare case. I should have used some outsource though...).
What do you think about this assessing method?
My opinion - it still underestimates the rarity of the case, cause of averaging of the chances for rare combinations with more frequent pair+ cases of hitting. The real rarety is even more critical.
8 Replies
Adding new post made by Johnmir, to bump overlooked thread:
And so it went on.... and on.... and on...... I closed my account despite still going on to win some of these games. The situation became untenable for me, because in the end i just had to call the first all in preflop with absolutely anything, even 3338 and the likes.... as it didnt matter if i had good hands or not, that first all in was going to be trips or better for them.
I met this kind of the software's behavior on iPoker too. But I didn't gather data for this, cause I had got another proof of rigging the game.The reason is very easy, the software tries to keep them in game and, in case we talk about iPoker, it will provoke a negative all-in a bit later, to reduce your potential ROI%.The software aims to reduce your expected profitability like
Mike, thank you.
Yes, TheWaddy met a very similar "behavior" of the software on 888Poker.
To be fair, I also met that on few more sites. This "trick" is pretty important to equalize strong and weak players on heads-ups.
Something like "giving the losing player a second chance". When, closer to a "critical point" of the match, he wins any small all-in (with all the chips involved), and, after this, the software generates some profitable situation for this player, like AT vs AQ (for the losing player).
As a result, "luck-factor" of both players looks absolutely equal - he won 30% all-in, but lost 70% all-in a bit later (yes, it was a provocation of the software - the software "trap", but who knows that))
But I didn't try to gather this statistics. Looks, like TheWaddy gathered it. May be, even sent it to The UK Gambling Commission.
Something like "giving the losing player a second chance".
Your own stats prove that this did never happen lol.
Bob, really?))
What is this then?
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
(The book of rigging
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
Chapter II. Explanation of key rigging schemes of the deck
How the software helps a weak player after a mistake on SnG tournament (illustration)
By the way, my ROI on those hyper-turbo SnGs is -1% - perfect for the room!
And, don't forget, that I played "irrational" in terms of the software (folding strong preflop hands, pushing weaker hands). Player classification factor is also important. You play "wrong" - you don't get enough help. Only that help, that you need to be close to 0 % ROI to get the bankrol melt down due to the commission of the room for gaming.
Bob, really?))What is this then? https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...(The book of rigging https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...Chapter II. Explanation of key rigging schemes of the deckHow the software helps a weak player after a mistake on SnG tournament (illustration)By the way, my ROI on those hyper-t
You pay a fee when starting the game so once SnG is started there is no incentive to rig it John, if there was anything like this going on it would be in cash. Your talking about games that ain't even that popular these days too and are disappearing on many platforms which is a shame.
I have been playing on Bet365 and in microstakes SnGs for past few months and turned a bankroll of €0 to €51.62 just by playing games at 10c, 20c and some 50c. I have been there long enough for them to tear me a new A-hole but nope. I even won in two games on the same night where I never even played a hand because the players were that atrocious. These are DON games btw and I only play one table at a time and play at low volume.
At 888 I have repeated the same thing but in cash games and freerolls and started with $0, won $102 in free spins they gave every week and miraculously cleared it even though it had to be done in casino games. In the space of a few weeks, again playing one table and low volume microstakes and after a break of many years I have ground that up to $140 and continuing.
At Party where I play more poker and have more time invested I deposited €50 in March 2024 and again one table and after not playing there for years, playing micros and low volume I have that account in significant profit.
These are the only three sites I am active on, I have an account at Stars but don't play there because I don't like their DON games and their cash games are gone with a model of random seating so with all due respect they can go **** themselves.
Where is my new A-hole these sites are suppose to tear players like me? And how do you explain Paisting? Why doesn't 888's RNG somehow help him despite him playing in an atrocious manner. I don't like the word delusional so I would say you are obsessed more than deluded but what do I care? If that's what you want to waste your energy on instead of being productive then go ahead it's your life. GL.
PS. I might write a book now given I don't have to do much but ramble and call my opinions and experiences a book. JK Rowling will **** her pants when yours goes on sale.
You pay a fee when starting the game so once SnG is started there is no incentive to rig it John
Mark, hi. Haven't heard you for a while.
Look, the idea of rigging is to avoid stable high ROI% for any player.
If they don't rig tournaments, some guys will start to win too much. And start withdrawing from the room too much.
In fact, I commented it here for heads up SnGs -
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
To be fair, your statement, that they don't need to rig SnG tournaments to make all the players equal surprises me, because, Mark, obviously they got a huge income difference in case
"John played 10 SnGs and won all of them. All the other players lost their money and quitted from the room, the room gets commission for 10 games"
and
"John played 10 SnGs and won same number of games as any other player. Guys decided to play 1000 games more before all the money transfered to the room's commission in stead of John's pocket".
Please, take a paper. Calculate this!
Motivation for rigging tournaments is really clear for the room owners, in my opinion. They do understand this, I don't even doubt. More then that, I see it in the logic of the software, otherwise I would never manage to uncover the fraud.
I have been playing on Bet365 and in microstakes SnGs for past few months and turned a bankroll of €0 to €51.62 just by playing games at 10c, 20c and some 50c. I have been there long enough for them to tear me a new A-hole but nope. I even won in two games on the same night where I never even played a hand because the players were that atrocious. These are DON ga
Good job, there, man.
Played on bet365 too. Made 2500$ starting from 100$ there! Was a good experience for me too. But it doesn't mean they don't rig the game. Because it's also important, how much time did I spend playing? What was my ROI%? And what should have my ROI% been in a fair game?
Have you ever withdrawn any money from there?
Try it. Will you manage to keep winning, but playing 1 table?
At Party where I play more poker and have more time invested I deposited €50 in March 2024 and again one table and after not playing there for years, playing micros and low volume I have that account in significant profit.
The same here (good job, again, btw, man), but I'm not any satisfied with a profit. Especially when I went down to lower limits and started to win even less ROI%, than I made on higher limits.
And it even reduced after I withdrawn some money.
These are the only three sites I am active on, I have an account at Stars but don't play there because I don't like their DON games and their cash games are gone with a model of random seating so with all due respect they can go **** themselves.
Lol, the good thing - there are a lot of games there. No need to wait for a new tournament.
It depends on your expectations, Mark.
If you are satisfied with your income level - I would 100% keep playing. You are right to play there. Just be careful.
And how do you explain Paisting? Why doesn't 888's RNG somehow help him despite him playing in an atrocious manner.
Here, I can't comment this, because I can't know every detail of their account management logic. I don't really know. I can only say that they can't keep Everyone in game, same as they can't refuse Everyone in winning possibility. It's obvious, there must be people who win/lose online. It will never work otherwise.
How they do it, how they balance this - I don't know. What I know - how they rig the deck, and what statistical violations they committed.
I don't like the word delusional so I would say you are obsessed more than deluded but what do I care? If that's what you want to waste your energy on instead of being productive then go ahead it's your life. GL.
Yes, Mark, delusional word is bad, because it's just a question of logic. And everyone might be wrong. Imagine, if after any mistake all the people call each other "delusional". It's simply strange.
About being obsessed.
I think forum guys intentionally use this wording, to somehow arase the inportance of numbers.
I'm not obsessed. I just calculated a concrete stuff. I decoded a concrete algorithm. I fully described everything. I uploaded all the materials. Now you all decide, if it's important. Or it is wrong. I made my job, I'm free now. You can believe or not, but I don't care THAT much. I'm working with a professional tennis player at the moment. This is my real job, my resposibility.
And the same goes to my materials about iPoker - I was an analyst. I analized the game and shared the info with people. They don't need it? Okay, np. I can't be resposible for people to understand my materials. It's everyones personal choice!
PS. I might write a book now given I don't have to do much but ramble and call my opinions and experiences a book. JK Rowling will **** her pants when yours goes on sale.
😃😃
Bob, really?))What is this then? https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...(The book of rigging https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...Chapter II. Explanation of key rigging schemes of the deckHow the software helps a weak player after a mistake on SnG tournament (illustration)By the way, my ROI on those hyper-t
yawn
If you’re trying to sanity‑check deal patterns, I’d stick to running your own hand‑history exports through tools that test for clustering or card dependency instead of trusting anecdotes. I’ve also found the kind of clear, no‑nonsense explanations on the BlackTie platform handy for keeping my thinking grounded whenever I’m dealing with gambling systems that add layers of rules or limitations. Keeps me from chasing ghosts in the data.
