I think differently, many times it is only people in good faith who are being deceived, that is, in the event of being manipulated. I think there are many flaws and rough edges that need to be smoothed out and fixed.esoxhunter71 said:
"iTech Labs conducts its RNG evaluations in accordance with the UK gambling Commission's Remote Gambling and Software Technical Standards.puzzlefish said:
HU4ROLLZmrfastflow said:
I apologize in advance, I have not read the entire thread, however, just off the top of my head the only thing that comes to mind for an incentive for the site to RIG/Manipulate the RNG that I can think of is to advantage lesser players to keep them playing at the site versus just getting eaten alive MOST OF THE TIME by better players, becoming disgruntled and giving up. As for the RNG being exploitable either by inside or learned knowledge... that is an interesting thought... but I do not have a depth of knowledge regarding various RNGs and am having a hard time envisioning how just a "random" draw of remaining cards in the deck could be exploitable. Could you give me some ideas on what we are thinking about here?puzzlefish said:
Given this, the possibility of manipulation is not eliminated. Because an audit assesses the general panorama, but within this global panorama, manipulation can be balanced in order to make the accounts close, even if in specific cases, and also, convenient to the sites, they may favor players who promote, publicize and add value to the sites.S3mper said:
The audit has to be independent, I would say not even governmental, but rather like a form of poker syndicate, and even then, humans are disappointing...S3mper said:
Your point of view is interesting, very relevant.CheezeWiz said:
The audits cover backdoors and the ability to manipulate the deal.KingDOG said:
They are government certified and meet international standards, but the company itself is independent.KingDOG said:
One way is for the whole hand to be predetermined, randomly, with a defined sequence of cards that will definitely be dealt. If a player knows what is coming, they can adjust their play.CheezeWiz said:
Is the company independent and who do they get paid to provide this service?S3mper said:
Ok so ChatGPT has shown you that this particular auditor is accredited and certified to conduct audits. Basically put, it meets standards set by the regulatory bodies for how they conduct testing. Now what is the evidence to show that their methods actually work to detect a rigged RNG? Have they ever detected rigged RNGs in the past? Do their methods cover every conceivable way that an RNG can be rigged? Do they share their methods with the companies whose RNGs they are testing? Is it possible that there is an RNG that is rigged in a way that this auditing company does not test? Is it possible that the RNG can be random in dealing cards but that there is a separate software that distributes cards to particular players depending on other parameters?S3mper said:
They get paid by their clients i.e. the sites they serveKingDOG said:
It's not an excuse .but nothing I can say would convince you cause thinking about this rationally would hurt your little knob at the end of your spinal cord , commonly known as brainesoxhunter71 said:
.
You want it to be rigged. There's no audit in the world that can change your mind. Even if it were completely open sourced all hands revealed you would just argue the above.puzzlefish said:
It is possible that there are sites that are engaged in fraud. However, I think that in such top sites as 888 or PokerStars, this risk is minimal because the activities of such sites are controlled by authorised regulatory bodies and in case of any manipulations or even more so fraud, these sites can lose their very expensive licence.esoxhunter71 said:
I do have an audit in mind that would convince me, but it hasn't been done and most likely will never be done. Actually I am certain no site will ever do it.S3mper said:
Who pays them then? Also, keep in mind Itech Labs is also audited as an ISO/IEC 17025 and must meet high standards that can be defended legally.puzzlefish said:
If the RNG itself is found completely random and this can be tested and it is also checked for backdoors and for the ability to be tampered with (which the audits cover) how are the above happening? Not to mention if anything is found in the above it's not necessarily (or even likely) to be RNG manipulation but collusion. That's on site security and if you want to argue that ACR's site security sucks. I don't think you'll find anyone who would disagree with that.puzzlefish said:
It has to be funded by some agency that doesn't create a conflict of interest like a paying site does. Will that ever happen? Probably not.S3mper said:
mrfastflow said:
Speculation with no evidence so to hold to the belief that it's more likely rigged than not is dogmatism. Everything points to a fair deal. Absolutely everything.puzzlefish said:
Ok there is a difference between evidence to prove versus evidence to believe or evidence to suspect. There is more than enough evidence for me to suspect something unusual is happening. I don't really know what your background is, or why you feel the need to take the stance that you do. I don't agree with what you are saying and I feel comfortable leaving it at that.S3mper said:
What evidence?puzzlefish said:
No, that's the worst part of it. You don't get paid.S3mper said:What evidence?
My background is shilling obviously. I get paid to defend the RNG's