poker sites "juicing" the game

[scarr]

Even with a million hands you cannot prove it one way or the other. I could rig a site so that there was no way you could catch me, unless there was such a thing as Verifiable Card Decks.

I don't think it will ever come about, but that was my attempt at giving the sites more credability. I do agree that this perception of online poker being rigged is limiting the growth.

-scarr

[Quicksilvre]

[ QUOTE ]
I've only been fleeced once so far. How about you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm dead broke. I only do the play money tables [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

The above, in total, lacks any logic.

[FlFishOn]

"And how do you think shareholders would react if there was either proof or legitimate question of the integrity of the games? "

How did Enron shareholders react? Tyco? Adelphia?

[FlFishOn]

"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. "

If your data stays on track I promise you the RNG is not the problem. It will represent a deliberate site buggering of the deal in the most likely way, favoring underdogs on a few % of the hands.

[FlFishOn]

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

This is flawed thinking, statistically speaking. The sample size needed for a reasonable conclusion shrinks as the observed data diverges from the expected value. Very small samples can prove a hypothesis when the skew is big.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. However...where's the evidence? A number of trustworthy people have collected millions of hands worth of data, and no inconsistancies that I know of have popped up. If inconsistancies do appear, then we can start a serious discussion on the integrity of the big sites...but we're only in the monitoring stage now, not the conclusion-drawing stage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certainly not trying to draw any conclusions here. And for the record, I don't believe any particular site is rigged. I have yet to see any evidence of that being the case. However, I do find it a little difficult to convince myself that it's entirely out of the realm of possibility.

Although, I do suppose that having a healthy perspective, and trusting that the games are fair (which for the most part I do), is important and essential to consistently playing at the top of your game.

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
There are no facts to back up the rigging theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think the rigging theory is applicable in its own right -- I refuse to accpet the premise. It is in a site's interest to NOT to be rigged in favor of the fish. Winning players are more high volume -- rigging the game against yr regular rake generating play is not just bad business. It's really really dumb. Most "fish" as we call them are recreational players, who play only occasionally, often on a lark, to have a little fun, relax, etc.

[FlFishOn]

"As long as you realize that your projected sample size is still painfully inadequate to make any sort of conclusions on the reliability of a random number generator, then knock yourself out."

This is simply wrong. Let's take a look at your coin analogy. We will wager on a coin flip. I'll be flipping the coin. No, you may not inspect it. You may bet heads only on any flip or pass. After 20 flips, 10H/10T you jump in and bet and lose. another 20 go by, 11H/9T and again you bet and lose. Repeat this 20 times, you're -20 bets. Still want to bet? No, you'd be a fool. In fact you likely quit betting after you lost 8 in a row. You drew your conclusion after 8 flips!

"You will not be proving anything either way and any conclusions you draw will be based more on your a priori arguments than any sort of true statistical analysis."

Bullsh+t. With proper analysis reasonable conclusions can be drawn from scant data. It's strictly a question of understanding the statistics of hypothesis testing.

[FlFishOn]

"If the results hold up for a whole year, then I will use the data to my benefit. "

Wise indeed. Your data will have no value to anyone else. I speak from experience.

On data collection: You must avoid 'selection error'. You must be absoulutly certain to record all hands that apply. If you are the least bit biased, even accidently, your data is sh+t.