FINAL ANSWER on "Too many Monster Hands" Debate!

I will admit to only reading posts here for a month.


However, I am SOOOOO weary of the "loaded shuffle, monster hands galore" debate.


Am i over-simplifying things by offering this explanation????


UMMMMM, we are being dealt exponentially more hands per hour online vs. B&M. Would simple math not dictate that we therefore would see MANY more monsters than in a B&M??


This would apply to multi-table tourneys as well.


I see this poor guy (albeit very honest seeming) David, the CEO of truepoker, constantly defending his site against this charge. However, I have never seen him use THIS explanation!


My ONLY problem with truepoker is the necessity for the IDIOTS that seemingly "forgot" their holecards to continue to have to "lift them", HENCE my hands per hour at truepoker are lowest on the web.


If the odds of these straight flushes happening are NOT covered by the increased hands per hour online, the we are all MORONS to continue to play ANY online poker.


Manipulating ANYTHING with my online hand scares the SNOT out of me, and if I trully suspected it, I would instantly return to the Snail-Pace of the B&M.


How stupid would it be for site operators to manipulate this, considering the potential bad press if ever proven, and jeopardizing their huge income (what i would do for 1 hours drop at paradise!!!)..


As my HERO, Homer J. would say after being told, "You saw poket aces SOOOOOOOO many times tonight because you saw SOOOOOO many hands tonight!!!


DOH!!!!!!!

I think I only responded to one "monster hands" thread. Generally, its another site which gets this particular issue raised.


The "so many hands" point you make is a good one. However, it seemed secondary to me to address why people may perceive something which is mistaken. I thought it appropriate to instead address the specific argument which I can contribute, which is that Truepoker does not "juice" any hands as one post asked. I also requested at least one "monster hand" poster to at least give me his naickname so we can investigate his claim ... I'm still waiting for that one.


I know Truepoker deals an honest game. I also believe that our major competitors recognize their self-interest in doing so as well. I certainly agree with you it would be incredibly stupid for a poker site operator to manipulate anything related to dealing or any other game features.


David Gzesh

Truepoker CEO

I think your hero, Homer J also said:


"Hmmm, they put the internet on computers now."

...another genius.


Tom D

You wrote, "However, it seemed secondary to me to address why people may perceive something which is mistaken."


Are you swearing to the integrity of sites other than True?


Tom D

"The internet? Is that thing still around?"


-Homer J

"Are you swearing to the integrity of sites other than True?"


Congratulations. You win the award for dumbest question of the week.

No. (I myself sometimes swear at them.)


I can't answer for them. I just was trying to explaining it is easier for me to discuss Truepoker specifically than to discuss peoples' perceptions in general.

"How stupid would it be for site operators to manipulate this, considering the potential bad press if ever proven, and jeopardizing their huge income."


This argument is worthless and illogical. There is no expectation of "long term thinking" or "ethical treatment of customers" at any business let alone one that is opperating on the fring of legality. Honest hooker? Honest drug dealer? Honest loan shark? Sure, you might be able to point to an example while I can easily point to the rest.


If an online poker site is capable of scooting with all the loot (3 or 4 and counting) why would you expect any of the rest to be more upstanding?


Look to history and count up all those in high places that thoughtlessly jeopardize all (power, money, fame) for just a little ill gotten more.

are you one of the "long term thinkers" that can't remember the original post once you have read 3 or 4 (and counting) threads?


THIS WAS NOT ABOUT WHETHER THERE IS SCUM OUT THERE..

we know there are, just read Leroy's postings..


this is whether we see more monster hand because we see more hands...


BUT,there ARE honest hookers & loan sharks. I used to sell my "kitty" on the strip, and if ya could not pay till payday, the juice was only 2 points..


now THAT'S the fring(e) of legality, not, as you ignorantly, yet INeloquently stated with your generalization that they all must be bad..


What is illegal about delta poker? Are you an australian barrister? How about costa rican law, you know THAT too??


In my state (ct.), intenet gaming is PERFECTLY legal.


whyyyy youuu litttllleee punk, i'll box your ears if ya don't stop with the negativity!! I'ts making my breasts sag!

LOL, Grannie.


Honesty may rationally really be the best policy:


Doug may want to consider whether the expected value of the income stream of a successful site could ever exceed the present value of stealing the funds at hand. Leaving issues of honesty aside in theory, his analysis still has that big hole in it.

"...the expected value of the income stream of a successful site could ever exceed the present value of stealing the funds at hand. "


Milton, you of all people should understand that this calculation is dependent on interest rate predictions. Lower rates protect you from the scum tha twould steal your bankroll, higher rates open the door to more sites scooting with the loot.


There are a damn sight more folks getting into internet business than can move money through time or understand the Rule of 72.


Lastly, often the return OF principal is much more important than return ON principal.

"now THAT'S the fring(e) of legality, not, as you ignorantly, yet INeloquently stated with your generalization that they all must be bad.. "


Welcome! We were short of folks willing to police the typing and spelling here. Your presence will prove to be an asset.


You are not welcome on the reading comprehension squad however since you really missed it on the above point.


You can however get extra credit if you correctly punctuate the last two sentences and perhaps a provisional spot in grammar control and erradication.

It is elementary that you assume an interest rate in making any present value or expected value calculation ..... so what ?


The point is still valid. You haven't refuted the concept that the future income stream of a successful site might be more valuable than the money which can be stolen today (or on any given date projected out). Accordingly your conclusion that every site HAS to be crooked does not stand up to analysis.

"Welcome! We were short of folks willing to police the typing and spelling here. Your presence will prove to be an asset."


pooh, pooh (or is it plain poo?)


"You are not welcome on the reading comprehension squad however since you really missed it on the above point."


yah, sez youse!!


"You can however get extra credit if you correctly punctuate the last two sentences and perhaps a provisional spot in grammar control and erradication."


have not seen an erraction in YEARS.. GrannyPa can't afford viagra due to the fact that highlands stole his money!!


U makin' Granny Mad!!

"Accordingly your conclusion that every site HAS to be crooked does not stand up to analysis."


I've said no such thing. I'm almost certain some sites are honest. I'm 100% sure some have folded and screwed everyone, my PokerSpot check is still in hand. I'm reasonably sure some sites bugger the deal. To believe otherwise would be to ignore human nature as I've seen it.

Question (Doug Duke this morning:)

"If an online poker site is capable of scooting with all the loot ... why would you expect any of the rest to be more upstanding ?"


Answer (Doug Duke this evening:)

"I'm almost certain some sites are honest".


Other people, including me, share your almost certainty that some sites are honest.


I was trying to point out additionally that a rational site operator may decide not to "scoot with all the loot" simply because of economic self-interest (because the value of staying in business exceeds the value of the cash on hand.)

"I was trying to point out additionally that a rational site operator may decide not to "scoot with all the loot" simply because of economic self-interest (because the value of staying in business exceeds the value of the cash on hand.)

"


This is a decision that will be made by all managers at many times during their site's life. If a site is srtongly rumored to be cooking the shuffle then I would think the likelyhood of bankroll theft goes up since the PV of the income stream has gone down. All things are fluid here.


The biggest danger is mismanagement. That kills most businesses.

"The biggest danger is mismanagement. That kills most businesses."


So true


MS Sunshine

I'm pretty damn sure the difference is linear.


also that's a misquote of Homer, that expression would come up after a disappointment of some kind. I think you mean to say duh.


anyone want to help me with the definitions of condescending and patronizing.