gabyyyyy....my response to you

[OldLearner]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the reason you would do this is because the MILLIONS and MILLIONS you are already making are worth jeopardizing for a miniscule amount of additional profit gained by STEALING from your customers.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No offense but you are an idiot. Look we have a few people claming that this very thing is occuring, yet the vast majority of people are saying the sites would never juice the flops to create more revenue.

So how exactly would it affect their buisness? Morons like yourself think you are shielded and will protect internet poker till the day you die regardless of evidence produced.

In closing who gives a fuk. Internet poker is fun and the vast majority of us have made money from it. I could care less whether it is rigged or not, as it is still a fun activity.

Your theory just went down the crapper! */*POOF*/*



[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't respond to this in the original thread (Common Sense Internet Poker Rigged) because the Reply button wouldn't work, but because of your personal attack I really felt you were deserving of a response.

Idiot....Moron.... /images/graemlins/blush.gif

Well, I could respond with some name calling myself but I think enough (the majority) of posters have already called you everything I can possibly think of so that ground has already been covered.

With respect to the topic, let's deal with facts and evidence only please (you cow). I don't have PokerTracker, but some of the respected posters here that have hundreds of thousands of hands report (with statistics) that the games seem to operate within expectation (you cow).

If you (cow) or any of the other "corruption" posters could provide "hard" evidence (I think a couple of posters said they conducted conclusive studies) I would be more than willing and compelled to believe the evidence supporting these claims (you cow). Actually, if they were to publish their results here it would probably be greatly appreciated by this community. I'm sure none of us would like to be taken advantage of (even if it is profitable) by a dishonest site.

I've been in the computer industry for 20 years so I am not some naive fuk (your word, cow) that thinks corruption is not possible. Of course it is (you cow). A programmer could write code that could easily create bias, despite the RNG. A corporation could easily instruct their programmers to create bias under certain situations as you have described.

But why would they (Party in particular) jeopardize their MILLIONS in revenue (from just running a straight up game) by skimming a few hundred thousand here or there.

Did you know that casinos actually realize a 16% advantage in blackjack despite the fact that the game has an approximate 1% mathematical advantage when played perfectly. They don't need to mess with the game.

Party poker or any of the other major sites do not need to "mess with the game" and they would be stupid to do so. This is obviously not the same as the blackjack example, but why would poker sites or casinos risk their cash cows (sorry don't mean to confuse with the multiple uses of the word cow...I am not speaking about you now) drying up by being labelled corrupt for a fraction of what they are making legitimately.

If you (cow) or any of the other corruption posters are able to provide some real (not perceived) evidence to support your claims, I would love to know about this.

[ QUOTE ]
and will protect internet poker till the day you die

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, this is funny. I will protect my family till the day I die, internet poker, ummmm.....don't think so.

Have a nice day (moo).

[Stew]

You're wasting your time, trying to talk rationally and logiclaly with Gabbyyyy is akin to banging your head against a concrete wall for an hour and not expecting to have a headache when you are done.

BTW, Gabbyyyy is one who constantly complains that the online game is rigged, the flops are juiced and that it is rigged in some fashion or another. Yet, has no understanding of the mathematical concept of the game and continues to play online despite it being rigged.

Oh yea, one other thing, don't offer free money or she'll be all over you for not tossing some in her direction.

[OldLearner]

That's the funniest part of this. It thinks I would DIE defending Online Poker sites, but I am only casual player (10-15 hrs a week - casual compared to many). Its profitable but I certainly wouldn't suffer financially if internet poker died.

Offer it free money? /images/graemlins/grin.gif (Is the end of my boot considered free money? If so it can have all it wants)

[FlFishOn]

"I would be more than willing and compelled to believe the evidence supporting these claims (you cow). Actually, if they were to publish their results here it would probably be greatly appreciated by this community. "

Nothig could be further from the truth. No study, published here, regardless of it finding or provinance will be accepted. The true believers have it worse than any religeous zealot.

Your thoughts on human nature and honesty when making millions are also garbage. Humans cheat. Almost always
with little regard for the consequences.

[Wahoo91]

Humans cheat. Almost always with little regard for the consequences.

This is simple truth. Lying, cheating, and stealing is human nature, regardless of the consequences.

Bill Clinton almost tossed the Presidency (the most important occupation in the world) into the toilet for a trivial indiscression. He had everything, why would he need a rendevous with a overweight staff person?

Human nature...

Its the same answer every time.

"Becuase they have millions" is so naive its hard to comprehend.

[OldLearner]

oh ok...there we go

Undisputable proof. OK.

I concede to you. My naivety had me believing that the sites are not corrupt. I never thought about human nature (specifically the Bill Clinton example) as an argument.

I suppose you would obviously cheat given the opportunity, after all you are human and it is your nature.

I wouldn't but I have this apparent naivety problem of which I was not aware.

Without a doubt, they could easily have behind the scenes control of the outcome of the events that occur on their site.

You claim they do and that they exercise this control corruptly. So despite what other posters that have actual (100,000's) tracked hand histories that indicate the contrary, you state this claim as unequivocal fact.

Now I am really confused, who am I to believe?

[Wahoo91]

Let me start by saying that I have no idea if the sites are corrupt or not. I am looking at this simply from a quality of evidence standpoint. I would not be surprised to discover some sites were skimming profits by cheating, but have never heard any convincing evidence on EITHER side of this argument.

The sites are not corrupt "becuase they have millions" is not a valid argument and should be abandoned becuase there are many, many examples (and more come every day) that completely refute this statement in general.

So despite other posters that have actual (100,000's) tracked hand histories that indicate the contrary

How can a hand history prove the contrary? Everyone lost some hands didn't they? How can anyone prove these were lost normally? Everyone has bad beats that seem odd don't they?

Again, I do not know what the answer is but I do believe all the people who vehemently believe the sites are not cheating based on this evidence are deluding themselves to the very real possibilities that this could be happening.

Neither of these are any evidence whatsoever.

I will also say that I have never seen or heard any evidence that the sites are corrupt either. The best current answer is that we all throw our hands up and say "I have no f'kin idea if this is happening or not".

That is the real answer.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
but have never heard any convincing evidence on EITHER side of this argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is evidence ever required that something "did not happen"? A rational person would believe something did not happen unless presented with concrete evidence that it did in fact occur. Otherwise you would leave yourself open to believing in absolutely anything did not have evidence to the contrary. One of many examples would be that Santa Claus does in fact exist.

Think about the logic and please respond.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but have never heard any convincing evidence on EITHER side of this argument.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is evidence ever required that something "did not happen"? A rational person would believe something did not happen unless presented with concrete evidence that it did in fact occur. Otherwise you would leave yourself open to believing in absolutely anything did not have evidence to the contrary. One of many examples would be that Santa Claus does in fact exist.

Think about the logic and please respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point, but it also seems reasonable to be undecided on some things absent compelling proof either way.

If somebody asserted that Santa Claus did exist (assuming I heard this for the first time) I would be very skeptical. It would seem unreasonable to believe him absent some compelling evidence, yet it may be premature to close the door on the possiblility (even though it may only be open a crack).

Anyway, I would merely ask that person if he ever witnessed Santa Claus first hand, or if he knew anyone else who had. Of course, since the man's description of Santa Claus would necessarily describe him as a world-wide phenomenon, it would be relatively easy to investigate. If nobody is able to affirm a credible, first-hand account of Santa Claus, that would tend to prove he does not exist.

I am glad you brought this point up, anyway ... you have certainly sharpened the issue: It defies logic that given the explosion of internet poker and the exponential growth of those involved in it from both sides, that the industry is not on the level AND there has been no evidence to reveal such a scheme.

The same argument that these companies are based on islands, etc., and therefore, it is more likely they will not be caught if they cheated or they would be more tempted to cheat because of jurisdictional problems, also brings to light the fact these same locales would be low security and certainly word would get out about any wide-spread, operational scheme.

I would say that in this case, when someone says they saw Santa Claus, I would certainly insist upon some good evidence before taking the claim seriously.

[Wake up CALL]

That is a very good logical extension of my basic premise Oski.

[Wahoo91]

Since when is evidence ever required that something "did not happen"?

A: When there is no evidence that something did happen.

There is no *real* evidence that sites are playing straight or crooked.

I will grant that there is probably a greater volume of intuitive evidence that the sites are ok than not, but not nearly enough to close the book on the discussion.

[Lazymeatball]

There is real evidence that the sites are not crooked. There are evaluations by PriceWaterhouseCooper and other third parties. Plus users have thousands upon thousands of hands which indicate that the shuffle looks pretty legitimate. I agree with you that this does not shut the book on the discussion, but the evidence is there.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
There is real evidence that the sites are not crooked. There are evaluations by PriceWaterhouseCooper and other third parties. Plus users have thousands upon thousands of hands which indicate that the shuffle looks pretty legitimate. I agree with you that this does not shut the book on the discussion, but the evidence is there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with most of what you say and I'm on the side that I do not believe the shuffle is rigged. That doesn't mean it isn't so and I don't rule out the possibility, I just don't see the reason someone would jeopardize the amount of money that is being made via the rake.

For example, since 06/01/04, so approximately three months, I have approximately 20,000 hands in my Pokertracker Database. These are are all at the .50/1.00 and 1/2 level. A little over 15,000 of those hands were raked and the rake collected was...get this, $8,368. Now, I only play at night, probably 20 or so hours a week and I multi-table. That DOES NOT include the fees earned from sit N go and MTT entry fees.

Further, I'm obviously not a high limit player. Just imagine if someone played full-time at higher limits and how much rake they might have in their database. It obviously doesn't include the amount of rake I've paid at non PT supported sites.

Now, do you think an internet poker site would do something as stupid as alter their shuffle for any reason and jeopardize that profit? Personally, I don't think so.

Anyway, to get to my original point, regarding the shuffles being evaluated by PriceWaterhouseCooper and other well-known auditing firms. If the sites were indeed altering the shuffle, they are surely paying these auditing firms a nice little amount to say the shuffle is honest, don't ya think?

[Lazymeatball]

Yeah, i wonder about those third parties as I'd never heard of them outside of online poker. but I'm too lazy to do any research so if they're bluffing, it worked on me.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, to get to my original point, regarding the shuffles being evaluated by PriceWaterhouseCooper and other well-known auditing firms. If the sites were indeed altering the shuffle, they are surely paying these auditing firms a nice little amount to say the shuffle is honest, don't ya think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Auditing firms do not always behave honestly (consider Arthur Andersen), but their opinion is not for sale as readily as you assume. Postulating that some partner of PWC is taking bribes to render a false opinion on the shuffling algorithm would take the original conspiracy theory to another level entirely.

[Losing all]

As important as reputation is to a huge money maker like party poker, it's way more important to a company like Pricewaterhouse. Party couldn't juice the flop or outright steal enough from us to equal a kickback that would be +EV for PW to risk their main asset, reputation.

Texaco could make a nice sum by cheating everyone out of an octane or 2 for a day, but I'm not going to consider it next time I fill up.

[Wahoo91]

PwC checking *the shuffler* is meaningless reagrding other types of fraudulent activity. In fact, the most likely frauds are not affiliated with the *random deal* of the cards.

Stew, the amounts you mention, even multiplied by thousands, are monkey nuts compared to amounts (multiple billions) other firms have put in jeapordy by cheating.

[FlFishOn]

"Now, do you think an internet poker site would do something as stupid as alter their shuffle for any reason and jeopardize that profit?"

It must be repeated and repeated. Humans are f'ing cheats and very often not to clever about it. Bill Clinton! Martha Stewart! Bob Torricelli! R M Nixon!!! Enron! Global crossing! Adelphia!

The prisons are full of folks that were SURE they wouldn't get caught.

Wake up.

[Wahoo91]

Humans are f'ing cheats and very often not to clever about it. Bill Clinton! Martha Stewart! Bob Torricelli! R M Nixon!!! Enron! Global crossing! Adelphia!

Agreed. Add to that list Dennis Kozlowski, Bernie Ebbers, and Richard Scrushy, all multi-millionaires that threw it all away by cheating.

What is really confusing is how many people can not or refuse to see that the possiblility of cheating is very real.

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
Humans are f'ing cheats and very often not to clever about it. Bill Clinton! Martha Stewart! Bob Torricelli! R M Nixon!!! Enron! Global crossing! Adelphia!

Agreed. Add to that list Dennis Kozlowski, Bernie Ebbers, and Richard Scrushy, all multi-millionaires that threw it all away by cheating.

What is really confusing is how many people can not or refuse to see that the possiblility of cheating is very real.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wahoo, you make excellent points and they are certainly warranted. As I said, I do not know if online sites cheat or not. I've been playing online for a little over 18 months and I personally don't feel that any of the sites I've played INTENTIONALLY alter the shuffle. Sure, I've seen some weird things occur, but I've also seen some unusual things occur at home games (that I knew weren't riggged) and at casinos (which I'm pretty sure aren't rigged). I don't rule out the possibility that it could be rigged or whatever. I just don't think it is.

[Wahoo91]

Hi Stew-
I agree with you.

I *don't* think the sites are rigged, but there is plenty of intuitive data out there that suggests that the possiblity exists and we should keep our eyes open.

[FlFishOn]

"I *don't* think the sites are rigged,"

Wahoo91 has been a thoughtful voice in this discussion. I respect your opinion.

That said I would first mention that my poker experience extends to 1969 and I would say I've been a winning player since 1973, pro since 1995, internet player since the begining. I've been posting at 2+2 since it's begining and I've run through 10 different handles. One was closed because M att S klan sky was having a bad day.

Much of online action is honest, I have no doubt here. UB is my home and I would be stunned if there was any problem except collusion at that site. I am equally convinced that the first site to cheat was Paradise poker. This occured a few months after their startup, in May 1999. Things may have changed but many pros were sure they were cheated. I'll never return.

Party/Empire is as crooked as a dogs hind leg. Underdogs win roughly 25% more hands than they deserve. This makes it the very best site for a fish hence the large number of them. The games there are very beatable even with the house cheating the pros. It's not real poker and you will have to play differently to maximize the potential. There is also the fear that such a site would be likely to scoot with the loot during an inquisition. I dunno. I keep exactly zero BR at P/Empire unless I'm hitting them for a bonus.

Bottom line: It doesn't matter if the site is cooking the deal if you are winning. Consider your BR a junk bond with serious default risk and simply look at the income stream it generates. If this suits your needs then why worry?

Uber-troll since 2004

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Stew-
I agree with you.

I *don't* think the sites are rigged, but there is plenty of intuitive data out there that suggests that the possiblity exists and we should keep our eyes open.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this another term for "gut feeling?" In any event, how can it have any weight to support any argument.

[Copernicus]

[quote
Party/Empire is as crooked as a dogs hind leg. Underdogs win roughly 25% more hands than they deserve.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have numbers to back this up. Show me.

[FlFishOn]

"You must have numbers to back this up."

Yup. I'm convinced 99.5%

"Show me."

Nope. You don't know me so why would you believe me?

If you wish to duplicate my research then do some searching on my handle. I've posted the recipe twice. There is no other way to convince yourself.

Uber-troll since 2004

[FlFishOn]

I clearly have no life and looked it up for you.


I will not post my results since they have no provinance and i have no interest in defending my work. I stopped collecting data when I was convinced that the trend of divergence from expectation was several SDs and not looking back.

You wanna do it too? Here's how:

Play (or observe) SNGs at Empire. Record every hand that has exactly two players before the flop and at least one of them is all in. You must carefully restrict your sampling to every occurance, not just when you 'remember' to do it otherwise sampling bias will creep in. Record which hand wins (ignore ties). Suits are important in the starting hands. The board cards are of no importance, just the winner.

Each matchup has a W/L probability (twodimes.com or Poker Probe are required to determine the exact %) and the easiest way to analyze the data is to bracket the data, lumping all match-ups that are 80/20 to 77.5/22.5 for example and looking at the actual W/L results. It takes a lot of data to smooth out the lumps. Bigger brackets have some advantage here.

Good luck.

Uber-troll since 2004

[Wahoo91]

Is this another term for "gut feeling?" In any event, how can it have any weight to support any argument.

Intuition is very powerful way of taking in information and putting it to use. It is much more than a *gut feeling* becuase intuition actually relies on significant amounts of *real* data to develop/create patterns that would indicate the truth/falsehood of a particular statement or thought process.

For example, one of the most prevalent arguments in this thread is that "the sites have millions, why would they jeapordize that". That argument is *intuitive* not factual in nature. It is, in fact a very powerful argument, and one that carries the day in my opinion. However, this argument is not nearly as strong as most posters would be lead to believe, due to other *intuitive* data (again not factual) that indicate many possibilities that the site could be cheating.

These are namely:
1) Human nature (greed) has proven to overcome good sense time and time again.
2) These site are already in an industry many think is tainted with crime (international mob)
3) These site are off-shore and completely beyond regulations and scrutiny
4) No one really knows who owns these sites and who is in charge.

This is just some of the *intuitive* rather than factual data that indicate that we should at least a little wary here.

Hope that clarifies what I meant.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I will not post my results since they have no provinance and i have no interest in defending my work. I stopped collecting data when I was convinced that the trend of divergence from expectation was several SDs and not looking back.


[/ QUOTE ]

Meaningless gibberish unless you state the number of samples used and the calculations, plus you need to examine the betting action on each and every hand. Also you need to know the mental state of both participants, hopefully you understand why.

Personally I bet you looked at no more than 25 or 30 hand historys, formed an opinion and have nothing better to do than post crackpot theories with no meaningful hard data.

Jimbo

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Party/Empire is as crooked as a dogs hind leg. Underdogs win roughly 25% more hands than they deserve.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've played over 100,000 hands there and I have never noticed this!

Thanks moron!

[FlFishOn]

"I will not post my results since they have no provinance and i have no interest in defending my work."

This still stands. It's the true believer zealots like yourself that convinced me to keep my work private. You can not be convinced, I'm not trying to do it.

"Meaningless gibberish unless you state the number of samples used and the calculations, plus you need to examine the betting action on each and every hand. Also you need to know the mental state of both participants, hopefully you understand why.

Personally I bet you looked at no more than 25 or 30 hand historys, formed an opinion and have nothing better to do than post crackpot theories with no meaningful hard data."

I can't even begin to detail how wrong you are. The depth of your ignorance is difficult to plumb. Since you know nearly nothing about me you have no frame of reference. You're like a child the wanders into the middle of a conversation...

Uber-troll since 2004

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't even begin to detail how wrong you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you can't, my point exactly. Do you know how many net kooks like yourself have come on here like Chicken Little hollering "The Sky is falling, the sky is falling" and can never offer any evidence of their contentions?

Jimbo

[Drunk Bob]

Maybe my tax dollars going to UVA are not completly wasted. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Homer]

Did you know that casinos actually realize a 16% advantage in blackjack despite the fact that the game has an approximate 1% mathematical advantage when played perfectly. They don't need to mess with the game.

I just saw this thread and don't know if anyone commented on this yet, but:

The house does not have an advantage of 16% in blackjack. I can't remember the exact number, but it is more like 2%. You are probably referring to the hold percentage, which is the total percentage of money that they earn from an average person during a session. For example, if you come to a table with $500, you can expect to walk away with 84% of that, or $420, on average.

-- Homer

[Lazymeatball]

Homer,
Another possibility about the blackjack advantage quandary, was that 1 or 2% was the HA for perfect play, but many people don't exercise perfect basic strategy, splitting tens on a whim of good luck and such.

[OldLearner]

Exactly right Homer.

I termed it as the percentage they "actually" realize, you are more correctly calling it "what they hold".

Still, at 16% for a game in which the house has only a
1% -2% matehmatical advantage is pretty amazing.

[Wahoo91]

Still, at 16% for a game in which the house has only a 1% -2% matehmatical advantage is pretty amazing.

Amazing, yet not surprising as most gamblers are simply tourists and have how no idea how to play correctly. I am sure the real distribution is pretty scary and something like this:

Edge-
Random tourist 30%
Tourist who read a book or two 9%
Educated gambler 3%