After all, who believes that most poker sites are rigged?

[puzzlefish]

So they are putting an algorithm on your account (wtf?) in hopes that you'll purchase play chips if (or when?) you bust. But it'll never happen.. so they're wasting their time by 'wasting the algorithm on you'. Yah.. they should save that algorithm for some Fish... like a guy who doesn't have Billions and a tracker.

You've seen a player who barely played on PS just win a Sunday Million MTT. Can you honestly tell me, after playing as long as you have on PS (your stats say since 2020), that you haven't used sharkscope on many other players and found disparities in how well someone runs compared to how long they have played?

 

[fundiver199]

Since I can no longer play real money online, I play on PS for chips. Turned the 15k they give you to 8.5 billion.

There are still sites, that accept US players. One of them is ACR Poker, where at least half the player pool is americans. I just played a session there this morning and ended up around +$50. They have both traditional single table SnGs and On-Demand SnGs, both with decent activity in the american time zone peak hours. So if you are such a SnG crusher, why dont you play on ACR Poker instead of wasting your time on "rigged" play money games? Finally I assume, you are aware, that it was PokerStars, who bailed you out, when Full Tilt did not have the money deposited by players?

 

[ramdon p358]

I don't think this is the case, these poker rooms are monitored and they are constantly blocking bots that are detected and they make it public on their social networks.

 

[S3mper]

You've seen a player who barely played on PS just win a Sunday Million MTT. Can you honestly tell me, after playing as long as you have on PS (your stats say since 2020), that you haven't used Sharkscope on many other players and found disparities in how well someone runs compared to how long they have played?

So everyone's PokerStars graphs should shoot upwards at the very beginning. if this were true. We can empirically look at this over a large sample size, right?

Also, though I don't know who won The Sunday Million or their account history - MTT crushers who live in the US for example will travel to play on PokerStars during large events like this, they will have a low sample size on Stars as they only play on the site for these events. Seeing small, sampled accounts do well wouldn't be too shocking if we take this into account.

Not to mention this stuff happens live too... Non grinders win big events.

I don't even think structuring an algorithm for low sample accounts would be wise. Why risk having players who don't play take money out of the eco system - If you were to risk rigging it for anyone it should be high traffic losing accounts.
---------

 

[puzzlefish]

So everyone's PokerStars graphs should shoot upwards at the very beginning. if this were true. We can empirically look at this over a large sample size, right?

It would depend on what games they play, right? They wouldn't be running good on every single game and they can't be winning every single hand that they play.

I don't disagree that it's a stupid way to rig it, if it was in place, and yet I am quite aware of this weird honeymoon stage for new accounts. Most don't go and play the Sunday Million right away when they join, though.

 

[jmbluffnstuff]

There are still sites, that accept US players. One of them is ACR Poker, where at least half the player pool is americans. I just played a session there this morning and ended up around +$50. They have both traditional single table SnGs and On-Demand SnGs, both with decent activity in the american time zone peak hours. So if you are such a SnG crusher, why dont you play on ACR Poker instead of wasting your time on "rigged" play money games? Finally I assume, you are aware, that it was PokerStars, who bailed you out, when Full Tilt did not have the money deposited by players?

I already told you from a different thread that I did join ACR, and promptly got a virus from it on my laptop.
Pokerstars didn't pay me a dime from FT. I got my money from the USDOJ after 4 years trying to get it.
Full Tilt made the mistake of paying people out from US accounts they opened, and all the money that they had in them was taken by the USDOJ.
I still have one of the last checks that FT issued, and it was from New York.
They wanted to get their players paid faster and made the mistake of setting up US accounts to do so.
All the checks I got from them prior to this one had come from Canada.
All the top pros played on FT back then except for Daniel Negreanu. Why?
Pokerstars was involved in several superuser scandals, and none of the people who were cheated got anything back from it.

 

[S3mper]

.

I don't disagree that it's a stupid way to rig it, if it was in place, and yet I am quite aware of this weird honeymoon stage for new accounts. Most don't go and play the Sunday Million right away when they join, though.

You're quite aware of it based on what?

Did you check to see how many newer accounts bricked these same tournaments or how often it actually happens? I mean I know it does happen anecdotally speaking my very first online tournament (and real money play) at PlayersOnly I got 2nd for $800. Of course, it also didn't happen on every other site I joined.

My first live play I hit quads, I also won my first 3 live tournaments. The fact that these "honeymoon stages" or "beginners luck" exist doesn't mean it's actually a thing (If that makes sense)

 

[puzzlefish]

You're quite aware of it based on what?

Did you check to see how many newer accounts bricked these same tournaments or how often it actually happens? I mean I know it does happen anecdotally speaking my very first online tournament (and real money play) at PlayersOnly I got 2nd for $800. Of course, it also didn't happen on every other site I joined.

My first live play I hit quads, I also won my first 3 live tournaments. The fact that these "honeymoon stages" or "beginners luck" exist doesn't mean it's actually a thing (If that makes sense)

I am aware of it based on my own experiences with sun running on PS when I first started playing (but not as well as you) and with my experiences playing against others, where I plug their names into Sharkscope as I play just to see who I am up against. More often than not, there were accounts that were made within the past month or so that were getting incredibly lucky on the tables that I shared with them. And no, not just in hands against me.

But you are right. I am not going to look up every player in a tournament to see how many new players bricked it. That's where this all falls apart because I do not have access to a method to efficiently screen that kind of data, even if I did have access to it.

 

[WoodyWood]

So you are suggesting, that PokerStars has rigged its play money games? Ok then

Why not? Why would a site pay up for multiple RNG? They would use the same one across the board.

 

[S3mper]

More often than not, there were accounts that were made within the past month or so that were getting incredibly lucky on the tables that I shared with them. And no, not just in hands against me.

Personally, whenever I see a new account I'm immediately suspicious of it but more so for concern of a bot or some type of cheater than the site rigging the game in favor of it. So we share a skepticism on new players - Even if it's for different reasons. lol.

But you are right. I am not going to look up every player in a tournament to see how many new players bricked it. That's where this all falls apart because I do not have access to a method to efficiently screen that kind of data, even if I did have access to it.

I would imagine people have and do go through this type of data. Earlier ITT you mentioned not having a large enough sample size but people data mine and have access to millions of hands so it's not as if no one is looking.

Here's an example with some middle ground for us on sites "rigging" someone will have to correct me if I'm wrong it was a few years ago so maybe I'm misremembering. But I believe Party Poker had it set up where certain players were receiving less buttons than other players on their Zoom tables.

^ I looked for this story but I can not find it - so maybe I'm wrong?

 

[Poker Orifice]

how well someone runs compared to how long they have played?

tbh, I don't give AF how well a player runs. It's not something I look at or for when playing. I'm watching for how well (or not well) they play, etc.
I never look for anything I'd consider as 'unfair in the deal'... ever.

 

[puzzlefish]

tbh, I don't give AF how well a player runs. It's not something I look at or for when playing. I'm watching for how well (or not well) they play, etc.
I never look for anything I'd consider as 'unfair in the deal'... ever.

You don't have to look for unfairness in the deal to notice these things. They just run good, regardless of how they play. So you're saying you look up players when they play well or when they play poorly?

 

[10gerka]

For me I believe that they are not manipulated, that is the online poker card game, things happen the same in live events.

 

[mssmotilda]

Alright mate, I'll engage. Tell me WHY they do it?

The most popular version. that they do this so that recreational players do not quickly lose their money and continue to play, generating rake. I think that as competition grows, the poker rooms that will survive will be the ones that give up this, because more and more attention is being paid to it.

 

[Poker Orifice]

You don't have to look for unfairness in the deal to notice these things. They just run good, regardless of how they play. So you're saying you look up players when they play well or when they play poorly?

I'm saying I don't care how they run. It means NOTHING to me. Wow!
Is it that hard for you to wrap your thinking around this?

 

[WrongUsername]

most are, but they don´t want to you to believe anyway just don´t play them

 

[puzzlefish]

I'm saying I don't care how they run. It means NOTHING to me. Wow!
Is it that hard for you to wrap your thinking around this?

Sounds like you're not running very well, tbh.

 

[puzzlefish]

I would imagine people have and do go through this type of data. Earlier ITT you mentioned not having a large enough sample size but people data mine and have access to millions of hands so it's not as if no one is looking.

I read this a lot but there's never anything actually published showing that any of what we are talking about has been looked at. The closest I have is maybe ACR's RNG having been tested with some weird battery of tests (Marsaglia's "diehard" tests) that demonstrate randomness. It's on their RNG certificate.

https://assets-americascardroomeu.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/26142245/RNG_Certificate_UK_winningpokernetwork_24Apr23.pdf

Problem is, what I am talking about (sequences of results based on previous results from previous hands) isn't on that battery of tests. It's not talked about anywhere and auditing companies don't test for it.

 

[fundiver199]

I already told you from a different thread that I did join ACR, and promptly got a virus from it on my laptop.

Thats very unlucky, since it has not happened to anyone else, or at least none that have shared it to this forum for several years. Of course you could just clean out the virus and then start playing. Or maybe the real story is, you did not like the software? And sure its not as good as that of the major sites. It has been updated a few times though, so if your first download was in 2011, you could try again now.

All the top pros played on FT back then except for Daniel Negreanu. Why?

Maybe because there was more high stakes action? Some were also among the owners of the site.

Pokerstars was involved in several superuser scandals, and none of the people who were cheated got anything back from it.

Really? What were those scandals, and where can we read about them? Doug Polk has told, that he was cheated by someone, who had planted software on his computer, and that PokerStars refunded his losses after banning this player. So at least one person did apparently get something back from such an incidence.

 

[fundiver199]

You've seen a player who barely played on PS just win a Sunday Million MTT. Can you honestly tell me, after playing as long as you have on PS (your stats say since 2020), that you haven't used Sharkscope on many other players and found disparities in how well someone runs compared to how long they have played?

Being new to a certain site is not the same as being new to poker in general. We dont know, who this person is, or their history on other sites. But maybe they started playing on GG Poker 4 years ago and is now a well established mid to high stakes player there. And then they just decided, that now it was time to try something else and got lucky right out of the gate.

 

[Poker Orifice]

Sounds like you're not running very well, tbh.

what?

 

[puzzlefish]

Being new to a certain site is not the same as being new to poker in general. We dont know, who this person is, or their history on other sites. But maybe they started playing on GG Poker 4 years ago and is now a well established mid to high stakes player there. And then they just decided, that now it was time to try something else and got lucky right out of the gate.

I'm not arguing about new accounts being new poker players. That's not it at all. I am arguing about new accounts frequently being lucky right out of the gate or, more specifically, unusually lucky for a short period of time right out of the gate.

I also know that this isn't something that I can verify without looking at every new account and how it performs versus an average account that has been around for years. It's impossible to do and it isn't done during auditing.

 

[fundiver199]

I'm not arguing about new accounts being new poker players. That's not it at all. I am arguing about new accounts frequently being lucky right out of the gate or, more specifically, unusually lucky for a short period of time right out of the gate.

I also know that this isn't something that I can verify without looking at every new account and how it performs versus an average account that has been around for years. It's impossible to do and it isn't done during auditing.

Its pretty easy to look at random accounts on Sharkscope and verify, that not everyone started with a sunrun. This is my first account on 888 Poker, and it took 600 games, before I started winning anything significant. The account was closed by 888 in 2020, because it was under the danish license, and I now live in Sweden. Of course one such example does not disprove a conspiracy theory, but the burden of proof is also on those, who claim, they are getting cheated, not the other way around.

SharkScope - Online Poker Statistics

Track your poker statistics and avoid the sharks. SharkScope is the most complete database of poker tournament results available and covers virtually all online poker sites.

www.sharkscope.com

 

[puzzlefish]

Its pretty easy to look at random accounts on Sharkscope and verify, that not everyone started with a sunrun.

Of course one such example does not disprove a conspiracy theory, but the burden of proof is also on those, who claim, they are getting cheated, not the other way around.

I'm sure that, despite your stance on all of this, you realize how impossible of a task this is to get the right sample size, especially doing so manually by cherry picking from Sharkscope, and the right selection of players within that sample to make the proof statistically robust.

 

[pjokay]

I think programming might open up possibilities that probably goes beyond most tests. Is a sutile manipulation, maybe not simply of the cards dealt, but the possible results in a tournament, for instance. Also, there is always an algorithm that can "direct" the kind of thing that appear to us in a random system, right? The random mode on spotify is not entiraly random.
But I'm only speculating about online poker rooms. After all, what does it mean to be "as random as possible"? Is it random or not?

I think random as possible because it is a computer generating the numbers this is likely more random than a live deck in its randomness.

This question comes up a lot and to me the big sites would not risk their reputation on cheating (although some small sites have in the past). Why would they risk it? You have got to remember every player that plays a real money game on the site is paying the site to play so the site is profiting just by hosting legitimate software. For instance just on one game out of the tons of hosted in a week Pokerstars Sunday Million had 11,414 entrants each paying a $9 entry fee. This meant just histing that one tournament the site made $102,726.

If they are making this much profit for ONE GAME just running software it really does not make much sense rigging it.

A different matter though which can come up is sites investing enough in security and against things like bots, although this is player cheating, not site cheating.