(Rigging) 2 to 3 minutes, sorry

[chauncey134]

I'm like a great number of online players. I started playing poker online shortly after the popularity of Texas hold 'em took off with the WSOP on tv with Moneymaker. I play small stakes for fun. A dollar here, a dollar there. A five or ten dollar tourney now and then, and all the freerolls i can. If I could play for play money and find it enjoyable, I would. But it seems something has to be at stake for the integrity of the game to be intact.
Talking about online poker one day at work, someone mentioned 2 x 2 and I logged on. One of the first things I noticed, after making myself familiar with the site; was the ever present and heated debate over whether or not online gambling is rigged. My half-hearted allegiance is with the conspiracy theorists, so let me have it if you feel you have to. I don't dwell on the notion of rigging. As I've said,I play small stakes for fun.
When I first took note of this great debate, I posted a thread about sites somehow proving they are legit. It was a spur of the moment post and not very well written. I apologize for this. It wasn't responded to much and I only mention it now because someone may construe it as a pattern that I am not only half-hearted in my sympathy with the so-called cry babies.
Sorry for the pre-ramble, just wanted to set the table. I have a point, I swear. One of the arguments renderred by site proponents, is that the sites have too much to lose by rigging. I don't understand this given the history of what men and or women are willing to do to one another in the name of greed. I don't think rigging a game of chance is a stretch.
I noticed someone posted one day that they figured it was only a risk for sites if they thought they would get caught. I have to agree with that. After all who keeps an eye on them. A foreign gaming commission. I don't think i'm alone when I say I don't have the greatest faith in a domestic commission of this type. A Canadian gaming commission is responsible for these sites in Canada. What's their motivation. A great majority of the players are south of their border or on another continent altogether. Not to mention this commission would probably be funded by tax revenue from the sites they are responsible for monitoring. Add the idea that Canada has every bit the unemployment issues we have in the states. ( How many of these guys would wanna lose what would probably be a cake job) I don't think this is a great environment for integrity to prevail, to say tyhe least.
On the up and up, these sites make millions a day. The possibility to maybe double this money (I have no idea what some actual numbers could be) would be a huge motivation to carry this out. Investors in such an industry may think they have too much to lose not to perpetrate such an act.
Monetary motivation, and carte blanche from authorities aside, I would address their ability to carry out this scheme. Being a hugely profitable computer driven industry, I think sites might have the resources to enlist some top software people from maybe India, That could come up with something that would be impossible to detect by some gaming agent in Canada, who may not want to detect anything.
Anyway, having read this statement about sites hanving too much to lose got me thinking about this stuff. I don't know how much of it I give any creedence to, but it's food for thought anyway, if not fuel for the fire.

[fluff]

1) Use paragraphs.

2) Post something new.

[grimel]

how about a very simple counter - the rake caps at pot size X and the sites make money via rake. They do NOT care who wins the pot just so they (the site) get's their cut. If anything they want hands played MORE quickly than now. The more hands per hour the more rake.

At the low limits good/bad cards has little to do with the pot size. At mid/high microlimits (say .50/1 and up) the rake pretty much happens "every" pot. MORE hands makes for more rake. Rigging the deck would extend each hand, thus lowering the rake per dollar bet (once the pot passes size X the rake stays the same). WHY would any site want to increase the time for each hand AND lower the rake/dollar?

At the mid/higher limits the max rake is reached just about every time a flop is seen, the sites really don't want a 10/20 game having every hand see the river with 8 people - they want 3 to the flop and everyone fold - max rake, new hand, increase hourly rake.

[ZBTHorton]

[ QUOTE ]
how about a very simple counter - the rake caps at pot size X and the sites make money via rake. They do NOT care who wins the pot just so they (the site) get's their cut. If anything they want hands played MORE quickly than now. The more hands per hour the more rake.

At the low limits good/bad cards has little to do with the pot size. At mid/high microlimits (say .50/1 and up) the rake pretty much happens "every" pot. MORE hands makes for more rake. Rigging the deck would extend each hand, thus lowering the rake per dollar bet (once the pot passes size X the rake stays the same). WHY would any site want to increase the time for each hand AND lower the rake/dollar?

At the mid/higher limits the max rake is reached just about every time a flop is seen, the sites really don't want a 10/20 game having every hand see the river with 8 people - they want 3 to the flop and everyone fold - max rake, new hand, increase hourly rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]

On the up and up, these sites make millions a day. The possibility to maybe double this money (

[/ QUOTE ]

No. People consistently underestimate the effect of the rake on these games.

[evans075]

First off I don't have a side on this Rigged Stuff. I agree with your post, and the only thing I wanted to say on the rigging side is in a simi-responce to your first point. This has been said a 100 times, when you said that they don't care who wins, your right they SHOULDN'T care. But, they need to keep people playing so WOULD they give a little edge to a bad player every once and a while? This obviously can't be proven and I'm pretty sure people aren't going to stop playing anytime soon. The question everyone needs to ask themselves is, am I winning if it is rigged? If so, then keep playing. If not, then stop.

[solucky]

1. rigged is definetely possible, but i hope it is not

2. cheating is for me absolute sure, not from the site from other players. But mostly on higher limits.

[crazy canuck]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
how about a very simple counter - the rake caps at pot size X and the sites make money via rake. They do NOT care who wins the pot just so they (the site) get's their cut. If anything they want hands played MORE quickly than now. The more hands per hour the more rake.

At the low limits good/bad cards has little to do with the pot size. At mid/high microlimits (say .50/1 and up) the rake pretty much happens "every" pot. MORE hands makes for more rake. Rigging the deck would extend each hand, thus lowering the rake per dollar bet (once the pot passes size X the rake stays the same). WHY would any site want to increase the time for each hand AND lower the rake/dollar?

At the mid/higher limits the max rake is reached just about every time a flop is seen, the sites really don't want a 10/20 game having every hand see the river with 8 people - they want 3 to the flop and everyone fold - max rake, new hand, increase hourly rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

nh




[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not a nh at all. The sites ideally would like to keep the losers in the game as long as possible so they can generate more rake in the long run. I'm not saying poker is rigged, but sites do have a motivation to rig the deck and favor bad players.

[iluzion]

Had you used paragraphs, I would have read it.

[BruinEric]

Along those lines, this is taken from a prior post of mine on the subject:

====

Party could improve their earnings in many ways besides this. They could kick out sit-outers at full tables when they miss TWO blinds instead of three. They could reduce the bet/check/raise timer by a few seconds. They could raise the rake. They could change their rake to get money earlier (say .25 when pot reaches $2.50). All of these are easier and more lucrative than making custom rigged deals.

Let me help you:

A quickie 2-5 players at flop hand at Party might get to a cheap showdown or maybe a player will win on the turn or with a river bet. Let's say that hand lasts one minute, and has a rake of $.50.

Total Party earnings per minute: $.50

=======

A "setup" hand has many betting/raising actions during the hand. It would necessarily take longer. Let's say that hand lasts one and a half minutes, and the rake for the larger pot is $.75.

Total Party earnings per minute: $.50

====

Net gain from software tweaking: $0