gabyyyyy....my response to you

[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.