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

People are lazy and it takes effort to retrieve a lot of data for lets say for over a year. It gets way harder to collect a large datapool.

Also ALL of hands are lost for ever untill the moment u start downloading the hh's . Combine those 2 factors and u tackle a lot of problems for the already very sophisticated system ur running .

We will get there soon Slugant , then the discussion will be over forever .

The only question is will the manager show these kind of data :

How many times won/lost with AAxx in omaha , how many times opponent flopped a fl draw , how much % did they hit it

How random were turn/ river cards ? How many premiums dealt ( NLHE ) . Overall EV when allin ,

All for tournament hands

I know some of them can be shown . If u say all of them. I will dedicate every minute i have from now on to collect and present the data .

I would rather see it would be easier to get all HH's but its not impossible, not by a long shot
I feel like maintaining a good db is part of being an online poker player.
If that means downloading and importand your hands every day/week/month that doesnt seem like such an unbearable task

People arent lazy. Riggies are lazy. And you especially.
Thats why you call downloading & importing which only takes a few minutes an effort.

With your lazy being I doubt it.

It is. And you should have known that already.
But now you do so get to work 😉

Like it shouldnt mostly approve / benefit the opponents hand.

There are very clear patterns and few versions of them.
First an action flop will come keeping both players in and the turn will hit them or keep them in .

Or the turn will just win them the hand.

So far example opponent will flop a flush draw and then hit the turn or river way way too many times .

Or opponent is crushed preflop but will hit a miracle flop or turn card. For example AQ vs A9 . Turn 9 . It happens a lot of time on the turn . Its a very clear pattern.

A pattern that could be easily shown with a tracker

Good thing you have now dedicated every minute you have into collecting and presenting this data 😉

Im looking forward to seeing it

I always wondered are hand histories stored separately for each player or is there just one hand history that has all the hands visible to the poker site and they filter it out by player before sending it to them?

@woodturner550 Which site is using AI bots ?

Do people think poker economies are insulated and self sustainable? What do you think is the natural progression and life cycle of a poker game? In Vegas do we see poker rooms sprouting up and proliferating or have they been slowly dying and consolidating over time? It’s really not rocket science.

The number one concern for the operators is maintaining liquidity by making sure the losing players don’t go busto and preventing winners from removing money from the site.

I cant speak for other sides but as I remember it and this is about 10 years ago so its a bit fuzzy, the hand history was just like the one you can see in the app.

Ive heard this rhetoric before and I get the idea but its overlooking some major things.

I am a winning player and if I win at site #1, 2 and 3 but lose at site #4 I will drop that site
If regs are unable to win or "remove money from the site" they will not just stubbornly keep on playing there forever, they will leave. And its the regulars that pay the most rake...

Not to mention that if the RNG tweaking story got out they will lose pretty much all volume quickly and they go bankrupt on fines and compensations in a second.

Like Galfond said sites would be absolutely stupid to rig their deck, the risk-reward ratio isnt there at all.

Btw, in the last 5 years the volume of the biggest sites has been very stable.
Stars losing a bit, GG gaining a bit, the rest steady

Interesting rhetoric, but unfortunately you are wrong and Doyle has a valid point.

A) You base your counter argument on an assumption that lacks evidence. Assuming what all regs would do if they lose money is not more than a thin speculation.

B) The assumption that online poker companies value the reg due to his rake production is already been proven wrong, and actually the other way around. Online poker sites have done everything in the recent years to get rid of the regulars. Increasing rake, cutting vip programs, secretly seperating playerpools, banning tracking software and even openly admitting that they don't want sharks at the tables.

You are really talking out of your ass dude. I know you're here since years 24/7, monitoring, trolling and trying to get your points through, to keep the customers busy but that statement was just really really weak. 😄

Kudos on the new account Pizza.

So where is the evidence that sites are making losers not go busto while minimizing the profits of actual winners? 😃
There is literally 0.00% proof of that theory, so do you also think that assumption lacks evidence?🙂

And most regs at my stakes at least are pro's. If they dont win they vanish. Maybe not all regs, but you wont stay professional very long if sites start preventing you from winning

You realize most pros dont rely on rakeback to win the money right? They win at the tables.
And the majority of large sites do allow tracking software. GG doesnt allow a HUD from a tracker but you can import all the hands you'd like. If there really was a discrepancy towards winning vs losing players in the RNG we would have seen it by now, because such a thing wont be hard to show in a tracker.

And numbers dont lie, just like the fact that over the last 5 years online poker volume for the largest sites dropped just a tiny bit. Even though its against riggie's popular belief.

Im not advocating GG. I dont like many things they do.. the high and preflop rake, the shady PVI system, I think their software is crap etc, I think there are better options out there..
But the whole fairy tale of them helping losers while punishing is winners has zero foundation.
If you however think you have the smoking gun for this theory I'd love to see it 😉

Galfond is a shill who was trying to operate his own site so of course he’s going to say something outrageous.

I’m not claiming that any site is actually rigged, merely pointing out that the tired adage that sites have no incentive to manipulate the odds is bogus.

In today’s world where constant growth is everything, maintaining steady volume is losing.

The rest of your post is pure fantasy. Regs will play wherever the fish are. Period.

And shady sites will lose their players and go busto? Cmon lol.

#So where is the evidence that sites are making losers not go busto while minimizing the profits of actual winners? 😃
There is literally 0.00% proof of that theory, so do you also think that assumption lacks evidence?🙂#

I never said that there is evidence.
I said you base your arguments on assumptions. Which is a fact if you assume that you know what all pro players think and do.
So your rhetorical trick of take a word out of context to play it back to me will not work.
You are assuming.

#You realize most pros dont rely on rakeback to win the money right? They win at the tables.
And the majority of large sites do allow tracking software. GG doesnt allow a HUD from a tracker but you can import all the hands you'd like. If there really was a discrepancy towards winning vs losing players in the RNG we would have seen it by now, because such a thing wont be hard to show in a tracker.

And numbers dont lie, just like the fact that over the last 5 years online poker volume for the largest sites dropped just a tiny bit. Even though its against riggie's popular belief.#

Pros beating the game without rakeback was not the topic. You are talking about something else again distracting. The topic was online poker companies doing everything to push pros out of the business. Which is a fact again. One aspect was rakeback.

By the way. You being here for years trolling and not making it out of the midstakes is a classic example for someone that has zero expertise when it come to talk about poker.

Instead of feeding this topic with your pre manufactured opinions calling others riggie's, you should rather either play or train at the solver, if you can affort one.

Once you made it to the high stakes, you might come back wiser.

And correct players dissapear from your stakes all the time and you have zero idea why, apart from your assumptions that have a clear bias because you don't want to believe that they might have been pushed out by the system. Yes I have smoking guns for sure, but don't use them in arguments ��

Why would sites bother manipulating RNG when they can just utilize bot rings?

Do you think robbers still wear masks and hold up banks with tommy guns in 2026?

As Pizza2go says, it’s abundantly clear by their actions the sites disagree with you on who are their most important customers. Maybe the regs generate more rake, but they only play where the fish are so in essence the fish are the determining factor. It’s simple logic.

How does a site make sure losing players dont go busto and preventing winners from cashing without rigging the deck? Seriously. The two dont coincide.

Do you really think a reg will forever play vs fish when the fish keep on beating them by miraculous chance to make sure they dont go busto?
Do you really think a site caught with a rigged RNG wont love massive volume and their license to operate?
Cmon man

Bot rings are a serious issue. But they do not prevent losing players from going busto (as you claimed to be the sites number one concern)
In fact they do quite the opposite
And although bot rings have caught quite a bit in the history of online poker, they havent been operated by a major site. Most of the times it was a Russian outsider group.

You see the irony in this right?
In case you dont I'll explain, your allegation at me is that I base my arguments on assumptions without evidence, yet you have none for yours.

Why am I trolling for wanting to see evidence for those wild claims?
And life is pretty good at midstakes actually.
In fact, since you think im that poor at poker and midstakes is so terrible im sure you are interested in a HU. You can play vs a big fish like me, whats not to like?😃
You are also obviously way more skilled at solvers so you'll beat me easily.
When can we start?

So you have the smoking gun to prove your theory about "the system" but you refuse it to use in an argument?
Makes total sense buddy, the other riggies must be really happy with you that you hide the evidence lolol

Credible stuff 😃

You are right about some points and wrong about others.

Sites care about regulars for many reasons. The high rake contribution and the fact they keep games running. Sure liquidity is important but so is that you can actually offer games to a player that logs on.

If your rec players want to play 5 card Omaha but your Omaha tables are always empty they will leave.

Poker sites just dont care about the regs at any cost anymore. In the past player pools got lopsided and too much marketing budget was spent on acquiring reg type players.

This makes sense from marketing side if your kpi isn well defined as for example a strong rakeback offer will spread in the reg community fast and traffic will spike. In essence its easier to acquire regs than recs.

That being said Poker is for most operators a mere after thought and the income stream from Casino and Sportsbook is what they focus on.

The poker room in both brick and mortar and online operators is a marketing tool to get people in the door and convert them into casino players.

Sites really do have very little incentive in manipulating the odds. There is much better tools at the sites disposal. For one sites can just refuse service to any number of net negative players to maintain a balanced player pool.

Or they can take away the reg players rakeback and use the money on acquiring new players or on giving losing players cashback on casino games or free bets in the sportsbook. Keeps the punters happy while converting them to more profitable games.

They can remove or alter games that make recs bust to fast and by alter I dont mean the rng but the games rules. If the edge of the reg is too high either change or remove the game.

As explained above the reality is much more nuanced than you might think and the Poker side of business is much less important than you might think.

I can tell you from experience that there are very shady characters in the online gaming industry. its much less of them than there used to be the industry has matured tremendously.

They usually look for quick and easy money. Which operating a poker room just doesn't bring in. If you want to cheat people out of their money you just create an unlicensed casino or use one of the licenses with minimal oversight and requirements and steal peoples money.

You just cut out the middle man. why would a thieve who already has your money jump through the hoops of presenting you a rigged game?

They just refuse to pay out your money when it comes to the time to request a withdrawl.

There is no irony, because I never said the game is rigged, nor legit. All I am saying is that your arguments are based on assumptions, which is a fact and needs no evidence, because it is objective that you cannot speak for all poker players or online poker companies.
Your problem is that you cannot handle valid points and admit to being wrong. Instead, you go into childish rants and try to twist what was said.

Which is, by the way, typical troll behavior, which also answers your second question.
Whatever you claim your true motives are is irrelevant because it is also objectivly obvious.
And I am not interested in wasting time with an online mid-stakes loser troll that never moved up.
And the smoking gun topic is something you just didn't get.

You should get some fresh air and stop trolling forums because your life sucks, or you get paid to do so. Either way, mid stakes loser or paid troll, both pathetic and cheap.

That was a long answer, but unfortunately you are speculation from your own bias. Here is something of substance:

1. PokerStars: The End of Rakeback Volume (2015)The most radical turning point in poker history was the elimination of Supernova Elite status. Eric Hollreiser (then VP of Corporate Communications at PokerStars) declared war on volume-only players in an official blog post:

“These new measures are being introduced to reemphasize the fun and social aspects of online poker [...] and to make the game one that rewards skill at the table rather than simply generating volume.”

= We want no regs grinding 24 tables.

2. PartyPoker: Restrictions on Reg Tools (2015 & 2019) In 2015, PartyPoker launched a campaign to curb “bum-hunting” (the practice of professionals specifically targeting weak players).

The official statement in a press release was revealing: “These changes at PartyPoker were designed to create a more welcoming environment for recreational players.”

= We want no good players playing bad players

3. GGPoker: The “Ecosystem” Takes Precedence Over Everything

GGPoker rose to become the world’s number one by embedding a strict “anti-reg” philosophy into its network structure from the very beginning. In their official ecosystem guidelines and terms of service, they define behaviors that are standard for professional players as a threat:Penalties for “piranha behavior”: GGPoker reserves the right to ban players or individually reduce their rakeback (Fish Buffet) (PVI system – Player Value Index) if their playing style drains money from the ecosystem without bringing in new funds. Statement on “Bum Hunting”: Their security and ecosystem guidelines state unequivocally that selectively choosing tables with weak players is classified as “predatory activity” and may be punished with account suspension and confiscation of funds.

= Again we don't want good player playing bad players. We want players to loose their money slow, so we can rake as much as possible.

These are just three quick examples via AI. There are countless more.

My favorite is the secret player pool separation by Partypoker. Sneaky stuff. 😃
These companies don't care about winning players, except a few promotion figures, to get new customers. You people are fools defending these companies, (most of them having dirty past while you bash on "riggies". 😃

yes it was a long post as i gave you the respect to share some my knowledge of the gambling industry.

you just carry on mate.

Yeah I agree with most of this which is why I said it would be pointless for a site to rig the RNG. And obviously any ecosystem has multiple participants that rely on each other. It doesn’t really change the fact that the recs are the determining factor.

Apprechiate the respect. But the topic is still what it is. I have strong evidence of official resources by the sites themselves that support my claim that is: These sites don't care about their regs. They are companies. A companies main purpose is profitability. And especially companies off shore, don't care about anything else.
They are not donators.
Where have your worked? Customer support?

No you don't have much of anything.

You have some preconceived notions and very limited insights in the industry.

I have among many other roles worked in customer support.

Currently I am a Director.

Of course regs will remain loyal to a site when they are caught scamming
Thats why Absolute Poker & Ultimate Bet are still thriving....
Oh wait

I never said anything like make them lose 100% of hands

You said they are making losers lose less and winners win less but they do not rig their RNG. How are these winners being negatively affected by the site as compared to losers when the RNG is fair and they get the same runouts?
Remember, the usual story goes "its always the same bad player who gets lucky on the river..." How does he do this if the RNG is not tampered with?

Then why does every major site have hand histories?
To make it easier for their customers to detect all their system tweaks????
GG has its down hud at the table but you can import all hands in a tracker to see a hud there and prove/disprove all the wacky theories one might have about the dealing of cards.
So even with all this access to hand histories and HUDs, we've zeen zilch. Why do you think that is?