poker sites "juicing" the game

[William]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
after a year you are bankrupt.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, why the f would you be broke? You're raking it in by the truckload.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's assume you look like your avatar, this is my answer:

Cutie, let papa do the talking..... wait for me in bed.....

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
after a year you are bankrupt.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, why the f would you be broke? You're raking it in by the truckload.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's assume you look like your avatar, this is my answer:

Cutie, let papa do the talking..... wait for me in bed.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's assume you just like to use the phrase "let's assume."

Unless you're joking, please explain how you can possibly think you will go broke operating a major online poker site like Party.

[William]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
after a year you are bankrupt.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, why the f would you be broke? You're raking it in by the truckload.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's assume you look like your avatar, this is my answer:

Cutie, let papa do the talking..... wait for me in bed.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's assume you just like to use the phrase "let's assume."

Unless you're joking, please explain how you can possibly think you will go broke operating a major online poker site like Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's the beauty of the word assume. Today I'm rich, tomorrow I'm broke and every night I have 10 bunnies sharing my bed. Ohh, maybe that should be imagine or I wish or...

And yes, I have been known for making a joke or two... but shhhhhhhhhh it's a secret.

Once again, my best response is: "cutie, let papa do the talking....!

[Quicksilvre]

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

[SpearsBritney]

If they do somehow juice the pots or rig the game, it’s certainly not enough to stop expert or even good players from making thousands of dollars a month, and even hundreds of thousands a year in some cases.

It is believed that Party pulls in over a million dollars a day in rake alone, which would lead some to argue that “they make enough money”, and that they wouldn’t jeopardize their immensely profitable business for a few extra bucks.

This to me seems somewhat of a logical fallacy.

First of all, to imply that someone makes “enough” money is completely arbitrary, and in most cases quite far from the truth. I have yet to hear of a company that feels they make “enough” money, and willfully forfeits pursuing any additional avenues of revenue.

To think that there aren’t people working around the clock, sitting in boardrooms discussing and strategizing about how to pull even more money out this very lucrative (albeit shady) industry, would be naïve. Especially now having a responsibility to shareholders. (Keep in mind that just because they may not have cheated in the past, does not mean for certain that they would not do so in the future, especially if forecasting an eminent demise or decline in revenue.)

Mainstream businesses and corporations are known to be seedy and ruthless themselves, and have been caught taking all kinds of corrupt and suspicious measures to increase the bottom line. So to think that an online gambling site would be any different would be overly optimistic IMO.

Secondly, if they did decide they wanted to increase profits in such a manner, they could easily do so, quite substantially I might add, by simply sitting in on games as “players” and taking the occasional pot from unsuspecting customers. The fish would never notice, and those using tracking software would simply chalk it up to variance.

It would be very easy for them to extract very large sums of money using this method without ever leaving a single footprint in poker tracker.

As far as suspicions arising….well, what would be the difference from where things are at right now? They have already been accused by many as being rigged, and have yet to bat an eye.

I am not accusing any online poker site of being rigged as of yet. I am simply taking into consideration possible means and motives if one such company were to be so inclined.

Poker will always be popular, no doubt about it. But the future of online poker is murky at best. No one can say for sure where exactly the law will stand when the dust settles, so putting the emphasis on short-term strategy would be a very wise decision to say the least.

[BigBiceps]

<font color="blue"> Secondly, if they did decide they wanted to increase profits in such a manner, they could easily do so, quite substantially I might add, by simply sitting in on games as “players” and taking the occasional pot from unsuspecting customers. The fish would never notice, and those using tracking software would simply chalk it up to variance.
</font>

I thought about that one too. You can hire some Costa Ricans for $100/day each to pull out $1,000 off the tables can add 100k/day easily.

It is good to read a post from someone who is thinking logically.

[Toro]

After playing on-line for 2 years now I began to feel that the underdog hands were winning more often than they statistically should. And no, this is not based on my bad beats but bad beats of all players in games that I am playing and been able to observe.

But I also know that the bad beats stick out more in your mind but it was still nagging me. So I started tracking and keeping daily records. I've only been doing this since the beginning of August so my sample size is too small but my results to date are showing just what I perceived.

There are 2 categoriers that I track because these are the two that my perceptions told me were out of whack.

#1. Dominated hands or what I call 3 outers. Like AK vs AQ, JJ vs A5, KJ vs KT etc. My rule for tracking these hands is this. It has to be heads up and both players must be all-in before the flop with the hands turned up. Statistically the underdog on these types of hands should win about 27%. To date i've observed and recorded 271 such hands and the underdog has won 100 or 37%, 10% higher than they statistically should.

#2. Flush Draws. My rule for tracking is this. It has to be heads up and both players are all in after the flop and one player has a made hand and the other a flush draw. Statistically the underdog, the flush draw should make his flush about 37%. To date I've observed and recorded 60 such hands and 35 flush draws or 58% have made, 21% higher than they statistically should.

As I said the sample size is too small so I want to continue to observe and record for at least a year to see if it holds up.

[BigBiceps]

This is exactly the type of thing I have observed as well.

[OrangeKing]

[ QUOTE ]
To think that there aren’t people working around the clock, sitting in boardrooms discussing and strategizing about how to pull even more money out this very lucrative (albeit shady) industry, would be naïve. Especially now having a responsibility to shareholders. (Keep in mind that just because they may not have cheated in the past, does not mean for certain that they would not do so in the future, especially if forecasting an eminent demise or decline in revenue.)

[/ QUOTE ]

And how do you think shareholders would react if there was either proof or legitimate question of the integrity of the games? Party going public makes it much less likely that they'd do anything with the very high potential to destroy their business overnight.

These threads are funny; I understand how some fish can psychologically run to "the games are rigged!", but I can't believe that anyone who thinks seriously about it and does a little analysis still believes it to be true.

It would be illogical and naive not to consider the possibility of an unfair game. It is perfectly logical and sound - unlike the conspiracy theorists - to open up my poker tracker database, see that I'm dealt hands as often as I should be, that the big hands hold up as often as I'd expect them to, that the types of final hands (i.e., flushes/straights/boats) come in as often as expected, and that I've already made my yearly earnings goal with nearly 3 months to spare, and come to the logical conclusion that the game isn't the problem.

[ QUOTE ]
There are 2 categoriers that I track because these are the two that my perceptions told me were out of whack.

#1. Dominated hands or what I call 3 outers. Like AK vs AQ, JJ vs A5, KJ vs KT etc. My rule for tracking these hands is this. It has to be heads up and both players must be all-in before the flop with the hands turned up. Statistically the underdog on these types of hands should win about 27%. To date i've observed and recorded 271 such hands and the underdog has won 100 or 37%, 10% higher than they statistically should.

#2. Flush Draws. My rule for tracking is this. It has to be heads up and both players are all in after the flop and one player has a made hand and the other a flush draw. Statistically the underdog, the flush draw should make his flush about 37%. To date I've observed and recorded 60 such hands and 35 flush draws or 58% have made, 21% higher than they statistically should.

As I said the sample size is too small so I want to continue to observe and record for at least a year to see if it holds up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiousity - are you including times when your opponents are on draws and they come in (or don't) in your analysis? Because if you are, there's a problem with your numbers - you do not see what your opponents held the times they fold on the river when their draw doesn't come in. Therefore, they're not actually hitting as often as you think - your sample is just biased in that opponents are more likely to go to showdown and let you see their hands when they win.

[William]

If you all had done your homework and knew about the 78% rule, you would know that observations are not necessary [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]