The Truth about Bad Beats

I see lots of posts on this and other forums about bad beats online, and how they're so much worse than live play. I don't buy any of the conspiracy theories about inadequate shuffling, hackers that can see the cards or any of that, but there is one reason why more bad beats DO occur online, and others why they MIGHT (and I believe do) occur.


1) Bad beats DO occur more often because the hands are a lot quicker than live, so more hands are played. Most references (not all) to a run of bad, online beats are prefaced with "I had this happen in only 2 hours..or one night". More hands, more bad beats.


2) I strongly believe people are encouraged to play looser online because it feels like it isn't real. Casinos went to chips instead of cash because it doesn't feel as real, so people bet more. I don't know about anyone else, but shelling out cold hard cash and buying chips feels far more real to me than clicking a button for cash on a credit card or from my bank account that I never see, then keeping score by a number printed on top of a fake chair on a screen with me in my underwear. Doesn't feel real...looser play... more bad beats.


3) I believe collusion is real. If so, it will cause more hands to be played by the team so they can take advantage of an opportunity. In this case, you can have 2-3 extras in a hand, someone with the best hand, and a couple of others to help run out a possible winner. All have the capability to suck out regardless of where they stood pre-flop.


I'm sure many will fight me on #3, but can anybody disagree that #1 and #2 are real? Are there any other things that come to mind that you would say cause "so many bad beats"?


I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'm kinda sick of hearing about them. Maybe if we can come up with a consensus of what causes them, everyone will understand what's going on and quit claiming that the site owners are all corrupt.

I'm sure many will fight me on #3


not me juggy.... in certain sites/games, i beleive it has more validity than most will admit... there are incredibly proactive and safe sites, and there are some that don't really give a shit..


i REALLY beleive small sites are much safer for the aware player.. less games means you are able to detect patterns of people playing together, and the fact that most players get to know each other leads to amazing results in self-policing.

shorthanded try this site. www.solitare.com (http://www.solitare.com) You can play without fear of collusion day or night!! /images/smile.gif Plus you always know the player!!


Net Kook Numero UNO

I agree with you concerning #3, no doubt there is and will be in the future. Simply because it's too tempting to cheat when they get the chance.


Bad beat theorists however seems to put the weight on preprogrammed software wich is an interesting question. What kind of softwares are the online pokerrooms really using. I have not seen any post from neither the conspiracy theorists nor the advocates of online poker who undoubtly put their belief in optimism,that gives proof and conclusion to the problem.

I myself have not the slightest clue whatsoever. One thing I know for fact is that the softwares real casinos are using to run their slotmachinesystems are preprogrammed. All the machines in a casino are being overlooked from a room full of monitors and employees are practically able to determine

every win, to whom and the size.


Knowing this I believe the online pokerrooms also have that ability. To detemine or programme the outcome. As for bad beats I think they can programme the software so that the players opponents will draw the card(s) they need to beat the players hand no matter how long shot it is.

I also think they have the ability to deal more strong hands simultaneous, to steam up the bets and the rake. All this for the same reason as colluders-they take the chance when they get it.


This is my thoughts on online poker ( slightly sceptical but not convinced-I do play online, mostly because I'm a poker addict and the abscense of real live games) and they will stay the same until clear proof from one of the pro or against sides comes up.

Then you must believe that the sites have players themselves in the games. Otherwise, they would have no advantage in making the outcome happen the way they want. Unless they have players in the game, they win based on the rake, not based on who wins (unless they try to keep everyone with money...which we KNOW is not the case).


As for preprogrammed software, it's doable...but far easier to be legitimate. All they have to do to be legit is have a random number generate determine a card out of the deck of 52 each time one is needed. Look to see if it has been dealt yet, and if not, deal it. If so, try again. This might slightly slow down the game ever so slightly, but would guarantee without question that nobody could ever predict what was coming.


The other alternative (which I think most do) is to shuffle the deck thoroughly before each hand, and trust their security to keep people out.


Realistically, if they have a good network setup and security scheme, either should be fine.

You're wrong on all counts here, Kook. I took your advice, figuring it was safer than poker. When I logged in, I pushed the button that said "play" and I was in this double solitaire thing, playing against "artmom" (who I didn't know). She kicked my butt in 5 out of 6, and it wasn't even close. Personally, I think it was rigged, because I know I'm better...but she got all the good cards. I'm sure she works for the house.


Still looking for that safe game.....

You say that unless someone has substancial proof that the software is rigged we should take the sites word for it.


First of all the only people who could ever tell you if the software had flaws would be the programmers who designed the program or an independant programmer. This makes it relatively impossible for the average player/person to give proof that the software is not on the up and up.


I will tell you one thing though, regardless if more hands are being played bad beats happen a lot more frequently online. In a full ring game on line you are maybe getting double the amount of hands than live. So fine I can live with per say double the amount of bad beats. But, usually it is far more than just double the bad beats occuring. Most of the time you will see about 5 times the amount of bad beats online than in live.


Finally about the chip to click argument Juggler mentioned. When I am in a casino I throw around chips just as I would online. A chip is about as null as clicking a button. Chips are worth nothing until they are cashed in. I see no tangible difference between throwing a chip in the pot or clicking a bet online. Granted their may be lots of horrible players online but that doesnt mean that they have or ever will play live. Many players who play online dont play live so your theory on the difference between chips and virtual chips is flawed.


Draw your own conclusion.

**I posted ths is the wrong section now it is right**


You say that unless someone has substancial proof that the software is rigged we should take the sites word for it.


First of all the only people who could ever tell you if the software had flaws would be the programmers who designed the program or an independant programmer. This makes it relatively impossible for the average player/person to give proof that the software is not on the up and up.


I will tell you one thing though, regardless if more hands are being played bad beats happen a lot more frequently online. In a full ring game on line you are maybe getting double the amount of hands than live. So fine I can live with per say double the amount of bad beats. But, usually it is far more than just double the bad beats occuring. Most of the time you will see about 5 times the amount of bad beats online than in live.


Finally about the chip to click argument Juggler mentioned. When I am in a casino I throw around chips just as I would online. A chip is about as null as clicking a button. Chips are worth nothing until they are cashed in. I see no tangible difference between throwing a chip in the pot or clicking a bet online. Granted their may be lots of horrible players online but that doesnt mean that they have or ever will play live. Many players who play online dont play live so your theory on the difference between chips and virtual chips is flawed.


Draw your own conclusion.

ego said "One thing I know for fact is that the softwares real casinos are using to run their slotmachinesystems are preprogrammed. All the machines in a casino are being overlooked from a room full of monitors and employees are practically able to determine

every win, to whom and the size.


I would never call you an idiot but is "nuttier than a fruitcake" OK? Casino personell have absolutely NO IDEA how much each slot machine is going to pay off to whom or when. What could have ever put an idea like that into your head? The extent of their knowledge is the payoff percentage on the machines and that knowledge is very limited in it's scope and availability.


If it were not a lot of brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers would be at the machines when it was "due". Peoples' lack of knowledge never ceases to amaze me!!!!!


Net Kook Numero UNO

"Then you must believe that the sites have players themselves in the games. Otherwise, they would have no advantage in making the outcome happen the way they want."


I don't believe they have their own players to rip off as many honest players as possible. But I believe they take advantage by giving disadvantages to nonprofitable players. EX. A player who buy 100$ worth of chips and wins 500$ in one week then cash out those 500 and starts over again to do the same thing the next week.

The reason is to keep as much money in circulation on the site as possible and preferably to keep those players on minus so that they can't cashout.


Yours Ego

Talk about flawed logic....


I didn't say you should take the site's word for it. I said that I don't believe in the conspiracy theories. If you do, don't play. My point is that everyone complains, and I think there are reasons beyond the site is trying to screw us all. And your thinking is what? If we complain loudly enough, the sites will all change their algorithms to be fair, so we'll quit whining, even though the number of players keeps growing every day? That's flawed logic.


And where did you get this 5x beat number anyway? Is this based on statistical evidence or because you lost 2 1/2 times as much money on line?


And...you say that only the programmer knows for sure. I'll give you that one. So which of the following options do you think is true?


1) These sites (some of which make millions) are passing those millions into the hands of the programmer so they won't tell?


2) The programmers, who generally average $100K or less, love their bosses so much that they would never get disgruntled and leave and then turn them in, even though their bosses are making millions and they could shut em down in a heartbeat?


3) The sites are all truly loaded with guys named Guido that have them in such fear for their lives that they are afraid to tell all, even to the media under promise that the source would not be revealed?


You may be right about the conspiracy, but I am curious which of these three is really going on (or is it all 3)? Or is there another reason we have not heard from even a single programmer?


And lastly, you may be the only guy in the world who thinks chips and clicks are the same. I may be the only one in the world that thinks they're different. My real guess is that the truth lies somewhere in between...which would mean my logic is not flawed after all.

*if* paradise pokers main-dude programmer could see the cards coming, or other players hole cards, and

*if* paradise was systematically cheating everyone with house players, main-dude would obviously know, and

*if* main-dude got canned cuz he took too long of a lunch, then i contend that main-dude would not blow the whistle, but sit in his bungalow in Belize or wherever, and become his own boss. i doubt seriously if he would tell anyone, cuz that would shut his earnings down as well.


that being said, anyone that thinks sites are rigged or loaded, and continue to play, must have a severe heroin addiction, or the syphllis has spread to their brain.

and *if* that happened to main-dude, they'd promote somebody to be a new main-dude, and he'd be mad because the old main-dude was making more than he was without even working and actually got a raise for being canned.


and so new main-dude would start taking long lunches.


and *if* that happens, then we also know that security is in on it, because *if* any of the rest of us made that much money there, we'd get a 265 error or whatever that was everybody was complaining about a while back. Of course, main-dude security guy probably started taking long lunches too, and then they got a new main-dude security guy...


Internet Poker has been going about 4-5 years now, so this cycle should be in full swing by now. My guess is that about Feb. 18, 2003, they'll be putting a sign up on Belize because it's full. Look out Tahiti, you're next!

good point jugg..


if this type of cheating was possible, the traffic at all sites would probably be 99% ex-programmers just waiting for a fish to swim in, making it quite obvious by now that something stunk.

I agree with 1-3 of Juggler's statements BUT


I think another problem is that many online gamblers do not understand the correct probabilities of their hands standing up after all cards are dealt or the concept of variance. For example I have seen many players complain about at bad beat when up against an opponent who has an up and down straight and a 4 flush draw. This example gives 15 outs to their opponent, which corresponds to 54.1% chance of the draw being successful. It is stupid to complain about a bad beat here when you are not favorite to win in the first place. Taking another example flopping 2 pair gives you a 16.5% chance of going full even though you only have 6 outs. I think if people properly understood the correct odds of being draw out on, they would complain less about bad beats. Furthermore a good player can have a bad run where 250 big bets that can be lost purely due to the variance associated with the game and that’s a good player.


Tommy R

Site manager http://www.onlinepokerreview.com