poker sites "juicing" the game

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only hands I'm recording are all-ins with both hands turned up. For flush draws, it's after the flop where 2 players get it all-in. For the dominated hands it's 2 players getting it all-in before the flop. Both of these situations can be statistically predicted with accuracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

If after 1,000 observed hands you notice that the trend shifts towards the favorites actually winning more than their fair share, what conclusion will you draw then?

[/ QUOTE ]

All I'm saying is that I was leery of what I was observing but didn't want to trust my perceptions and have decided to record the results and see what they are over time. What is wrong with that?

Then I can make my own judgements rather than rely on opinions from both sides like those posted in this thread.

For the record, I don't believe it's rigged, it would be foolish for them to do that. But I don't have total confidence in the rng yet.

[villafan]

[ QUOTE ]

For the record, I don't believe it's rigged, it would be foolish for them to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Specially considering the fact that there are a lot of ways to increase the revenues without rigging the games. Increase max rake (like Party just have done) at the 6max games, reduce the number of players at the tables (9 handed full ring and 5max short tables will increase the rake substantially from limits from 5/10 and upwards) and etc can increase the rake.

[Pinky]

I think the sites are legit. To prove they are rigged, I would need tangible evidence. ie-if Haliburton owned a piece of any of the sites, my money would be out of there in a second.

[turaho]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I don't believe it's rigged, it would be foolish for them to do that. But I don't have total confidence in the rng yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

What sample size would you need before your confidence is restored? Hint: I have a feeling it's bigger than you think it would need to be.

[AcmeSalesRep]

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

[/ QUOTE ]


It is truly sad that you believe anyone that disagrees with you is not thinking logically. It shows just how ignorant you really are.

Acme

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I don't believe it's rigged, it would be foolish for them to do that. But I don't have total confidence in the rng yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

What sample size would you need before your confidence is restored? Hint: I have a feeling it's bigger than you think it would need to be.

[/ QUOTE ]


I realize that the sample size would have to be much greater but I'm going with 1 year.

[turaho]

How about giving me a number of hands? One year of poker means a lot of different things to different people.

While you're figuring that out, I have two other questions for you: First, how many times would you have to flip a coin before you could say with confidence that the odds of it landing heads up is 50%?

Second, if I had a coin that I flipped 20,000 times that landed heads 11,000 times and tails 9,000 times, would you say that coin in rigged?

[jmrogers7]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Post of the YEAR.

Finally, someone who is thinking with a clear head.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
How about giving me a number of hands? One year of poker means a lot of different things to different people.

While you're figuring that out, I have two other questions for you: First, how many times would you have to flip a coin before you could say with confidence that the odds of it landing heads up is 50%?

Second, if I had a coin that I flipped 20,000 times that landed heads 11,000 times and tails 9,000 times, would you say that coin in rigged?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now, after 2 months I have 270 "dominated" hand samples recorded so that works out to 1620 for a year. I know that sample size is too small, but that's what I'm going to go with.

After all, I'm 56 and not going to be doing this for the next 40 years. You younger guys can do a larger sample. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[SlyGuy]

270 hands? hah.