Total Free Money Earned

Redeems: $280,439

BTC Rate: $8689.72

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52
  1. #1
    PokerOwned Master gefishy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Post Rigged poker rooms? Read this:

    Hey guys,

    I hear people complain all the time how "this site isn't fair" or "<insert Poker Client name here> is rigged!"

    Found this at cardschat. If you have read this before or this is a repeat, I apologize. If not, give it a read:

    Poker Forums


  2. #2
    Elite PokerOwned Member jcolee2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    this link requires cardschat log in to read...the link is rigged!

  3. #3
    PokerOwned Master gefishy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    oh, sorry! A mod can delete this thread if they like!

  4. #4
    PokerOwned Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    I read that all the time at every Poker Network there is. I've felt that way a few times myself, but this is one of those things that you'll probably never know for sure. Of all the major networks, there's one I really feel is rigged: Everleaf.

  5. #5
    PokerOwned Pro Marko88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    ok gefishy i read this thread and i would like to suggest to copy thread and post again(here)

  6. #6
    PokerOwned Master gefishy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    This is the text as it appears on Cardshat. The original author is Beriac and he did this back in July of 2006:


    So I've seen post after post after post either directly accusing or indirectly insinuating that online poker is rigged. Though the complaints more often than not come from folks who are frustrated from bad beats, the most common theory is that the poker sites so this to encourage action and thus increase the rake at their tables. I think if we polled the regulars here at Cardschat, I bet the vote would slant in favour of "not rigged". Still, despite the fact that accusations of rigging really don't make a ton of sense coming from current players (goodness, why continue to play?), I thought it would be worth investigating.

    So here goes nothing...

    Logic and reason

    This is my own opinion: rigging a poker site would be like a professional athlete stealing sporting goods from his or her team -- the risk of losing something good would dramatically outweight the gains from cheating. I'm trained in game theory, and I can tell you that experts in the field would suggest that this is ludicrous (hip hop afficionados might suggest that it is instead ludacris).

    Thus, I personally believe that it is unlikely that major sites are in any way rigged. I know if I were running one, and I do have a business background, there is no way I would risk the mint that online poker sites make in rake just to add a few extra bucks.


    For the sake of argument, I decided to use Poker Stars as my research subject, though I would apply my conclusions to Party, Full Tilt, and any of the other large, reputable sites. As for and, I speak not for those.

    So, I did something incredibly complex and comprehensive: I went to and looked around. Clicking on "integrity", I found their policy on shuffling basically immediately.

    According to Poker Stars, there are many ways to shuffle a deck of cards. How many? Well, picture a 5 followed by 67 zeroes, that's how many. So what Poker Stars has to do is select one of those 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ways to shuffle a deck and start dealing the cards.

    How do they choose it? Believe it or not, they use us players to generate their random numbers, using "user input, including summary of mouse movements and events timing, collected from client software". In the event that there are problems with this as a RNG (random number generator), they have a backup: "true hardware random number generator developed by Intel, which uses thermal noise as an entropy source". They go on and on describing how they obtain and apply their RNG, but these details are mostly beyond me.

    So why should we believe Poker Stars? They could say anything on their website right? Well, their RNG is certified by 2 independent organizations: Cigital and BMM International. I decided to look into these organizations.

    Cigital: An independent software risk management organization working with such companies as Qualcomm, Visa International, Texas Instruments, AOL, MasterCard, General Electric, Motorola, Pfizer Health Solutions, and Ericsson. Why would they put all that business on the line to lie for Poker Stars?

    BMM International: A global organization that provides independent computer systems assurance and compliance certification testing services, the Australia-based company is a client of the Australian government among other organizations.

    My question: Why would Poker Stars lie about its 2-tiered RNG when it is immensely profitable without it, and why would 2 independent organizations risk their reputations to vouch for it?


    To me, if this is not enough evidence that Poker Stars (and in all likelihood, the major poker sites) is un-rigged and up-and-up, then nothing is. Personally, I believe it. That's why I bother risking my money there, and at Party Poker, and any of the reputable poker sites. If I thought for a second that they might be rigged, I'd take my cash out in a flash -- and so should you.

    So the next time you're thinking you've taken 1 too many bad beats, or that you seem to win more in the morning, or after you've made a deposit, or during full moons, or what have you, and you think about posting that online poker is rigged, please ask yourself 3 questions:

    1 - Isn't it possible that it seems rigged to me, because when something happens in my favour or my best-hand-going-in holds up, I don't notice it as much as when I take a huge bad beat?
    2 - Anyway, isn't it true that even AA vs. 72o is still just a 8:1 favourite (according to this), and even here you should expect to lose once every 9 times, and no hole cards are 100% to win.
    3 - Why would a poker site that is "raking it in", so to speak, bother to risk all its profits and cheat just to generate a little more action?

    If you answer "no" to all of these questions, then I have gathered some additional links that you may find helpful: here, here, and here.


    If anyone wishes to discuss this further, I would be happy to in a constructive way. I have just found that people are all too ready to blame their woes on multi-billion dollar companies rigging their operations to squeeze a few extra cents out of us. Personally, when I lose a bunch of cash on a bad beat, it's more often than not my own damn fault.

    Please feel free to direct future queries about RNGs here, and I will add to it as needed.

  7. #7
    Master Sergeant
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Sometimes i feel that full tilt poker is rigged.

  8. #8
    Sergeant Major
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Its really hard to say with online poker and all of the things that has happened with some of the sites. I tend to only play with freeroll winnings to be safe.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2011
    From 2+2:

    One of the predominant claims put forward by conspiracy theorists is that sites deliberately deal coolers and bad beats to "juice pots" and make them bigger so as to collect more rake. These conspiracy theorists never offer any actual statistical proof. Just their "feeling" that online poker has more "big hands" than it should. This despite the thousands of 2+2 users with large databases of millions of hands, particularly at FTP which is routinely datamined for all hands. Considering how well posters on this site have been able to spot real cheaters, be they bots or super-users, you'd think someone would have some concrete proof by now if there was any substance to any of these speculations.

    Yet no one does.

    No, the conspiracy theorists evidence consists entirely of the argument "It would be good for the site".

    Except that's completely wrong.

    They say it would be good for a site to juice the deck to ensure coolers. Big hands like quads over full house in order to maximize the rake. That the site would stand to make the most money this way.

    This is wrong and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the poker economy and how winning players and the house make money. This is exactly what a site would NEVER do. In fact, if sites were rigged we would never see quads over full house.

    At most sites, the No Limit rake is 5% with a $2 cap. This means the maximum rake is hit when the pot reaches $40.

    At a 50NL game if two players go all in, the pot is $100. At 100NL if two players go all in, the pot is $200. The site still rakes only $2.

    In fact, the best situation for the house would be if the pot was always exactly $40. A $100 or $200 pot is actually bad for the site because they aren't getting their full share of the rake and there's a chance that somebody goes broke. Even worse if they go broke and never come back.

    This is the worst case scenario for both winning players and the house - That losing players go broke too quickly, get frustrated with the game and never come back. You can shear a sheep many times but only kill him once.

    It would actually be in a site's best interest to always have a $40 pot. That is, if a site were going to set hands to maximize profit from pot size, they would rig for medium sized pots.

    Which of course is impossible since pot size depends too much on players. There's always some donk who'll overplay and get it all in. There's always some nit who will underplay and the pot will be small.

    However, from the house's perspective clearly medium sized pots are optimum, small pots are second best since they still collect some rake and nobody goes broke. Large pots, particularly all-ins are the worst case scenario for the house. Both because they miss out on rake and there's a chance somebody goes broke and quits, even for a short time.

    Since a site can't ensure that medium sized pots actually stay medium sized, if a site were rigged it would rig for small pots. Action hands and coolers would actually occur far below expectation.

    So why do people keep coming back to the idea that there are more big hands online than live?

    There are several reasons - Sample size and selection bias are the two most important. You get far, far more hands per hour online than live. At least twice as many hands per hour per table and as many as triple. In addition many online players multi-table. An online multi-tabler can easily see 10-20 times as many hands per hour as a live player. That's sample size. More hands of course means more big hands. Also, if you have the preconceived notion that there are more big hands online, then every time you see one of those big hands it's only going to reinforce that prejudice even if it's not that big of a hand. Whereas live you're not going to be making a note of every big hand. There's your selection bias, we tend to remember things that support what we already believe and discard whatever contradicts it.

  10. #10
    PokerOwned Veteran Steves22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    I will never put money on a casino or poker site because all it is is a computer system. Any computer system can be broken and cheated on. Wheter it be from the inside or outside of the company.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts