LOL when I saw the title though it was red line for non-showdown winnings
Notifications
Clear all
I have to agree with EasyonEAS here.
He is not claiming that poker is definitely rigged. He is saying that there is no way of proving that poker is not rigged.
You will get myriads of players popping up in threads like these, spouting off the same arguments in a parrot-like fashion. "It'd be bad for the sites rep". "If someone was rigging the games then surely SOMEONE with all their high tech software would figure it out?" Who the hell is someone? It isn't me, it certainly isn't you.
In fact, if you were to take every hand that's ever been played as your sample-size it wouldn't be enough to prove poker was rigged. Sure, you'd notice huge deviations from an expected value, but it would be naive to assume sites are stupid enough to rig the games so overtly.
Even if they were to, you'd unlikely have sufficient information to prove poker is rigged. When you consider the possibility of any random 52 card shuffle is 1/52! you only begin to touch the surface of how big variance really is. 52! is larger than the number of atoms in our galaxy.
I see this is turning into another bog-standard "poker is rigged" debate. But EasyonEAS is not claiming poker is rigged, he is merely pointing out that you can't prove it's not rigged.
Personally, I have no opinion on whether poker is rigged or not. I make a steady income from playing and therefore this is not a huge issue for me. I like to consider myself an agnostic regarding the "poker is rigged" debate. I see the arguments from both sides, and while it might be likely poker is not rigged, I think it is foolish to say you know so for certain, or that you could prove it.
Saying you cant prove poker isn't rigged is like saying you cant prove adam and eve were not the first humans that god put on earth. It doesn't make a difference though, because anyone who isn't a completely mindless idiot knows that its bullshit and doesn't need to see proof.
There is so much irony in your response, and the analogy fails to hold up on on a number of different levels.
But it's true, claiming that poker is rigged is like suggesting that the earth isn't the centre of the universe in Copernicus' time.
All you have really demonstrated by your response is that you uphold the views of the mainstream, and that you think anyone who doesn't uphold mainstream views is a "completely mindless idiot".
Congratulations on being a sheep.
Originally posted by w34z3l
There is so much irony in your response, and the analogy fails to hold up on on a number of different levels.But it's true, claiming that poker is rigged is like suggesting that the earth isn't the centre of the universe in Copernicus' time.
All you have really demonstrated by your response is that you uphold the views of the mainstream, and that you think anyone who doesn't uphold mainstream views is a "completely mindless idiot".
Congratulations on being a sheep.
Nothing to do with following mainstream. LoL
If you dont know what rake is then i cant be arsed telling you, suffice to say poker sites dont need to rig their sites to make hundreds of millions a year. You are just another idiot who doesn't understand variance and thinks the people who set up your poker room are rigging the game so that the fish win. 
Just pure retardation. The amount of effort required to rig a site is a thousandfold more complicated that just collecting the rake sitting back and enjoying the legal juice rolling in.
Originally posted by Kodark
If you dont know what rake is then i cant be arsed telling you
Heh. Bummer.
Originally posted by Kodark
You are just another idiot who doesn't understand variance and thinks the people who set up your poker room are rigging the game so that the fish win.
I understand variance. If you'd bothered to actually read my post you will see me mention that I am a consistent winner (over a large sample). I also imply that most people drastically underestimate variance.
You will also see me state that I find sites rigging the games to be unlikely. That does not mean I feel the need to go around dogmatically insisting that site-rigging is impossible in various forum threads. I'm merely acknowledging the fact that site-rigging is in fact possible.
The UB/AP scandal is just a case in point. While it does not specifically involve the kind of rigging we are discussing, it is a testament to people's greed and their willingness to engage in underhanded practices if it results in a lining of their pockets.
Originally posted by Kodark
Just pure retardation. The amount of effort required to rig a site is a thousandfold more complicated that just collecting the rake sitting back and enjoying the legal juice rolling in.
I agree. But sadly we live in a world where people will go to extortionate lengths in pursuit of a little extra cash.
EDIT - Also one further thing I'd like to add. I've previously had over $100 stolen in rigged online games. Check out the pitbull poker scandal, there are threads on 2+2 describing the activities of various superusers. So the question really is not, "Are poker sites rigged?", but more a case of "Are most poker sites rigged?"
My money wasn't actually taken by the superusers but disappeared when pitbull poker owner was arrested, the site closed, and no cashouts were issued to the players.
It's not impossible that poker sites are rigged.
There probably have been made some scam poker sites.
It's is very unlikely a big pokersite like pokerstars is scamming people.
Yet it is also not impossible.
You have absolutely no proof that a site is rigged.
Did i miss something? i don't understand why this discussion has been going on for 2+ pages when no one is really defending anything just stating the obvious.
Guys, guys. I happened to see this thread and decided to give you something more to think about. I'm sorry but the thread starter is not even close having a world record at running bad 
These are my first 5700 STT's at FullTilt.
EV +215 buyins, profit -67 buyins.
Difference 282 buyins.
Just remember, it could always be worse. 
I got bored of reading the arguing but:
Easy is abs correct. Why does it matter if fish redeposit or not? (Ok they probs rob u on exchange rate etc) but the fact of the matter is, the more money that's shuffled around, the more money the site make, therefore if say a poker site recognised winning players, and could tilt variance slightly in favour of fish, for example in a spot where winning player has 60% EQ but they could tilt it to 57% EQ, they would make alot more money from the fish winning that additional 3%. It's also very plausable that they could do this, it's not exactly hard to do programming wise, and it would go super unnoticed since 57% is not big difference to 60%, the winning plr would still win because it's still +EV and he would just go off and bitch in a blog abt running under EV. gg.
However baring all this in mind, I still don't believe at this day in age a poker site would do this. Sure they make money from it, but the risk/reward ratio from a multi-million/billion $$ company? I mean for example if it came out that stars/ft did this, gg business goes broke. How much is stars worth? Pah I don't even want to think abt that figure.
The fact of the matter is, it's +EV for them to rig it in favour of a slightly losing plr instead of a winning plr, but the likely hood that any site does/would do is ridiculously small due to the implications of being found out and the fact that they can make money from fish in many other ways.
Also iirc some sites have there card shuffling algorithms public?
It's also pretty cool to note that 'random' isn't possible on a computer, well it kind of is... but it isn't. But even this makes no difference when we consider the law of averages over infinite sample?