"Rigged" - Philosophical Question (caution: potentially flamable)

[homebrewer]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2408624&page=&view=&s b=5&o=

Recently, a member of our forum was bold/foolish enough to suggest that online poker is "almost certainly rigged." He was mercillessly beat down by arguments from many angles (e.g., statistical, computer programming, logical, etc). OK. No problem. I'm in agreement with the masses.

Let's consider for a second the statistical arguments. The statistical arguments against the notion of rigged games are, in principal, correct. However, it is a real possibility, that one could become very old or never live long enough actually reach the number of hands that could provide some support for either argument - rigged or random.

My question is this: What form of evidence (besides written documented proof), if any, would convince you online poker is rigged. Or, is your argument against this possibility impossible to falsify?

Not trying to start another flame war. Just curious. (putting on my flame retardant suit now).

[Phlebas]

I think the only evidence to convince me would be hard statistics that looked at hundreds of thousands / millions of hands and demonstrated both significant divergences from what could be expected from a normal distribution of cards and that such divergences could be profited from.

In the thread you link to, the OP experienced what he considered was an unlikely sequence of events. The trouble is that such unlikely sequences occur all the time. It's a feature of randomness that unusual looking events occur more frequently than we give credit for them. Ask anyone to write down a 'random' sequence of coin toss results (e.g. TTHTHT and so on) and compare it to actual coin tosses - the latter will inevitably contain more patterns and sequences of consecutive heads (or tails) than the manufactured one. Our brains just aren't geared up for randomness.

Looking at it another way, the chances of being dealt exactly 7c7s and Jd9s in consecutive hands is 7,033,103 to 1 against. You could go several lifetimes and not be dealt such a sequence. Yet those were the last two hands I was dealt. It's almost unbelievably freaky that I got dealt that specific sequence but perfectly normal given that I had to be dealt two specific hands and the odds of receiving any specific pair of hands is also 7,033,103 to 1 against.

It doesn't matter how many "but something really, really unlikely happened to me" posts are made. Such unlikely things are happening all the time. We just don't think about most of them. You'll never get a sufficient sample of anecdotal evidence to mean anything given the number of hands of poker being played online.

[irishpint]

Okay, I'd have to see a video of him singing "Pee On You," two forms of government ID, a police officer there to verify the whole thing, four or five of my buddies and Neal taking notes, and R. Kelly's grandma to confirm his identity.

[KeysrSoze]

But Barretta definately did that sh..

[Wetdog]

I think 2+2 is rigged. If I say raise, the pooh-bahs say fold. If I say call, they say raise. I can't win one at all.

It's rigged, I tell you. <font color="red"> RIGGED! </font>

[homebrewer]

Let me see if I can direct the replies.

I get the randomness argument. No problems. The link was provided as a refresher of the arguments that were brought to bear in favor of a random shuffling of cards.

You kinda get to my question at the beginnning of your reply. But, the latter part only rehashes the in principle arguments that have already been made. No problem. I'm in agreement here.

But, given that you (me too) would require hundreds of thousands / millions of hands to demonstrate substantial deviations from normality, is there really any evidence that could cause *us* to change our minds?

[@bsolute_luck]

[ QUOTE ]
I think 2+2 is rigged. If I say raise, the pooh-bahs say fold. If I say call, they say raise. I can't win one at all.

It's rigged, I tell you. <font color="red"> RIGGED! </font>

[/ QUOTE ]
hahahah! TRUE DAT /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, I'd have to see a video of him singing "Pee On You," two forms of government ID, a police officer there to verify the whole thing, four or five of my buddies and Neal taking notes, and R. Kelly's grandma to confirm his identity.

[/ QUOTE ]

WOW! POST OF THE DAY!

Seriously, from what I can tell from a lot of other 2+2ers, the only real proof that a site is rigged is if YOU go through a downswing lasting roughly 50 hands.

Or if YOU get a set of Kings cracked by a rivered straight by some donk playing 7-4 off.

The key point, apparently, is one of these two things has to happen to YOU. If it happens to someone else, they are just being 'results oriented'.

[Edit] - Just messing around, homebrew. I absolutely understand your post. In order for me to be convinced, I would need strong evidence of not only a statistical anomaly, but that the anamoly (or anomalies) could be consistantly shown to be to the benefit of or the detriment to a particular class of player (bonus whores, perpetual losers, etc). I would say I'm sure I won't see it in my lifetime.

[2+2 Junkie]

I am not here to say it is wrigged, I just have a couple of questions:
1. Who polices the poker web sites to make sure they are legit?
2. Isn't it possible, no that it is rigged against a set of people, but that they could increase by less than 1% the odds of pocket pairs being delt to two people in the same hand, or the number of flushes, or boats? Not necessarily more for a certain number of people, just more in general. The number of hands daily on internet poker web-sites are astronomical, and a small increase of those big hands, causing bigger pots, causing more rake would benefit them greatly.

Just a thought.

(big x-files fan, so you can see where i would get this line of reasoning....)

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
Who polices the poker web sites to make sure they are legit?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the site. As near as I can tell, no one polices Party (they're "internally audited"). Paradise gets their RNG audited by PWC which should at least be an impartial party.