A Discussion regarding Online Poker is Rigged (long)

[Sifmole]

I find it interesting that such a majority of players are willing to immediately discard any thought
that online poker is in any way "rigged"; I find myself in this camp of knee-jerk reaction most of
the time I see a "rigged" post as well -- but I decided to take a moment and examine the arguements
that are most often used to flame the "complainers":

1) 'A "rigged" game would risk loss of income'

A loss of income would come only after the following things became true: someone managed to amass
enough data to show a non-random deal, that someone was capable writing a coherent and (very) persuasive
document describing the issue, and finally that enough people stopped playing because of the arguements
in the document.

With such a majority of players unwilling to accept the possibility of rigging, the "burden of proof" is quite
high; likely to the extent that someone would have to demonstrate the ability to predict the outcome of hand
in specific detail with siginificant regularity. A case such as was finally reached with Plant

Anybody with a bit of online poker history -- how long did it take for the Planet Poker deal to be accepted
as non-random? and how long after that did it take for it for the company to collapse? By collapse I mean
lose the vast majority of its players -- because even after all this there are still people that play
at Planet Poker; of course they fixed their RNG and the problem there wasn't really "rigging" but instead
a predictable pattern.



2) "The increase in profit would be minimal"

Has anybody bothered to show/discuss how an altered deal would affect the income of an online poker room? Has
anybody bothered to examine it from the aspect of the effect in retaining user base over the long term ( say a year ) v
s. a monthly change in revenue?

I would would be inclined to agree that an altered deal would probably have little/no affect on any given hand;
its effect would more likely be realized in the long term. How? If the alteration is such that it would
somehow favor "poor" play, this could cause this player to remain a viable source of income for a longer period.
Which is better for an online poker room, one player with $1000 or 10 players with $100? and of course we need
to think on larger scales. If you keep the money online more distributed, it means more hands will be played
because there are more available players -- this would have the potential to result in a significant increase in profit that
would also apply an ongoing positive influence on revenue.

3) "It would be too difficult to rig"

This statement is often invoked, and then a lot of hand waving is performed regarding how difficult it would be to track
the sheer number of players and hands being dealt and make sure that player XYZ is taking care off on occasion. I think
many of the schemes invented for rigging that are presented in support of the "too difficult" hypothesis are gross
overcomplications of what would be needed.

Let me present a simple rigged model that I believe would be sufficient to "keep the fish fed":
1) At certain intervals during the day ( likely concentrated during peak periods ) a flag is set ( "feeding time" )
2) This flag will remain set for N periods of X intervals ( say 60 minutes -- N=60 and X=minutes )
3) While this flag is set all tables are 75% likely to recieve an "adjusted deal".
4) When the N by X time is over the flag is turned off ( "feeding time is done" )

So the important, or effective, part of this rigging would be the "adjusted deal" (AD for short) -- this could take one of many forms;
please note I believe that the implementation of a single form would be sufficient -- and will only describe one form here:

"River Rat Deal" -- On any table that has been determined to recieve an AD ( flag is on and random 75% is satisfied )
all hands are dealt as normal until the river. On the river determine if any player still in the hand has a less than 5% change
of winning; if such a player exists deal a river card suffient to allow them to win the hand.

Please notice that the above scenario requires no tracking of who is a winning player, who has lost more, the last cashout, last
deposit, first deposit, etc, and etc statuses. So why would this "feed the fish" or improve the distribution of the money
online? Which players are more likely to end up at the river with a less that 5% chance of winning more often -- the "good" or the
"bad" players? I'd be incline to say that the vast majority would be players that we would describe as "bad". But please notice
again that this "rigging" requires no knowledge of the players beyond the exact current situation in the current hand. And this
would be exceedingly simple to program. Also, this "rigging" would in no way mean that there could be no regular online winners.
I also believe that without access to the actual code it would be extremely difficult to gather sufficient data to expose such a
"rigged" process; keeping in mind that the periods could be as short as a couple of minutes so as to be much less conspicous.


4) "There's just no viable economic reason to rig online poker -- the fish will always come back for more because of the gambool, the sites
don't need to help convince them.... "


As I have discussed previously I believe there is a demonstratable benefit to keeping the money distributed. I will however like to
discuss the "fish will always come back for the [gamble]". In this quote the speaker is refering to fish returning to online
casinos, which I will discuss in a bit; but first I would rather discuss how an online poker room (OPR) economics may be different
in regards to "fish" than a Brick and Mortar poker room (B&M).

For the majority of recreational players going to a B&M is an event, it is planned in advance and not a daily or weekly occurance;
for most it is likely a quarterly or even annual trip. They save up in between and blow their rolls while there. A B&M poker room
can only handle a certain number of players at any one time -- say 10 tables at 10 players per table. So as long as there are
100 players interested in playing the rooms economics are optimal. There needs to be a significant unsastisfied demans in order to
make it profitable for them to expand the number of players they can service -- or better said, a one day spike to a demand of 200
would not be responded to and instead the economic opportunity would be allowed to pass because it would not be cost effective to satisfy it.
And also in many cases are limited to options for expansion.

The dymanic is very different for a recreational online player; most play is probably spontaneous, requiring little or no planning
prior playing ( except perhaps the first time setting up Neteller, etc ). For an OPR the only market friction or
impediment is getting the user to choose their site and make that first ( and more importantly subsequent ) deposits. Once they have
a user they can expect a more regular business than a B&M can from a recreational player, unless this player goes bust too quickly
or does not have fun. An OPR has the ability to react quickly and cheaply to any increase in player demand, they do not
have the cost associated that a B&M does. So an OPR has a signifcant difference in supply and demand economics for its services;
A higher player retention and revisit rate has a much more significant impact on an OPR than it would on a B&M, example:

Month 1: Start with 0 players, gain 100 players who play once per week
Month 2: Start with 80 players ( 20 do not return this month for whatever reason ), gain 100 players
Month 3: Start with 160 players ( 20 more do not return this month for whatever reason ), gain 100 players
Month 4: Start with 240 players ( 20 more do not return this month for whatever reason ), gain 100 players

You can see that for a B&M player retention becomes much less of a benefit after a certain number iterations, because the demand
will exceed supply early; but an OPR's revenue would be significantly improved by greater retention.

Rigging could be employed, as discussed above, to improve distribution. How does distribution increase player retention? Take a postulate
that only 10% of all players are winning players. The logical conclusion of this is that over time, and much more rapily online vs B&M
because of the increase hands per hour and the ability for multi-tabling, the money deposited will tend to migrate from the 90% to the 10%.
As less and less of the 90% have sufficient deposits to play less hands will be dealt and so less rake. Obviously the fish pond is
restocked by new players but I believe it easy to see, by previous discussion, that slowing the "go broke" rate of the losing 90% would be
beneficial for the OPR.


5)"fish will always come back for more because of the gambool, the sites don't need to help convince them. Just look at the success of
online casino sites for confirmation. "

I am not sure that pointing to the success of online casion sites supports the "not rigged" stance. Recently we have seen moves by online casinos that
indicate they are not pulling in as much money as may be thought. I refer to the recently anti-whore audits by many sites and the drastic
increases in Wagering requirements for bonuses. These would seem to be moves consistent with companies that are feeling financial pressure
and are not getting the return business that they need to thrive. Also, they legitimacy of several online casinos has been brought into
question over the years -- I detail two in further discussion below.


================================================== ==================

So those are some of the statements that are usually presented, with zero analytical support, to say why OPRs are not rigged. I don't
accept that they are neccessarily "givens" enough to withstand scrutiny. Furthermore, lets look at some coincendental statements in
related areas, although not specifically OPRs, that may give us further reason to think the above statements may need to be
examined.


1) It has been shown that there have been online casinos that are rigged. And even more have been suspect.

The first two links are to the most egregious I have seen: http://www.casinomeister.com/rogue/s...ur-casino.html and
http://web.archive.org/web/200407081...in/?a=settings

If you have a casino playing a standard game of Blackjack, you are guaranteed to win over time and the fish will always return
for the gamble -- right? So why would a casino adminstrator need an interface as presented in the second link and advertised
as in the copy reproduced in the first? I understand this is a casino and a small-time one at that -- but it shows that
online software providers are willing to provide software to manipulate the outcomes of games to suit the desires of
whoever is running the software.

The next does not contain quite the same extreme evidence, but does indicate that other software from a long-standing casino
was quite suspect: http://www.casinomeister.com/rogue/casinobar.html

And another two that were suspect: http://www.casinomeister.com/rogue/slotsalley.html and http://www.casinomeister.com/rogue/elkasys.html

I do not present any but the first two as proof that some operators are rigging games that should already gaurantee them a win; and present
none as evidence that online poker is similarly rigged. I do however present them as evidence that online gambling operators and
software providers are not above suspicion and at times the suspicion has been true.

2) Party poker is supposedly bringing in revenue of nearly $1 Million per day; yet they are seeking to go public.

Mike Bloomberg ( previously owner of Bloomber LP news and financial services and now NYC mayor ) has a quote very relevant
to this. The quote was delivered to employees of Bloomberg LP during an annual staff meeting in regard to whether he
intended to take the company public any time in the forseeable future:

"If I was selling, why would you be interested in buying?"

His point was that the company already generated significant revenue and that if he was selling it should make you
question why he was willing to give up all or a significant portion of that revenue to someone else.

A company is generally taken public for a couple of reasons ( notice I say generally, I realize that there are always other cases):

a) the lump sum gained by the IPO will be used in specific strategic plans to increase the corporate revenue.

b) so current owners and investors can convert their ownership stake into liquid capital for a variety of reasons; one such reason
relevant to our question here being -- that they believe the company has peaked or is peaking and they are better off
cashing in now rather than continuing to hold on.

Obviously I have no evidence that case b is what is occuring, but do we have any infomation otherwise. I understand that the lack
of contrary information does not make the suspicion true, but it does leave the suspicion as an option.

3) Does any current online poker site make any claim that their actual complete and running software has been exposed to an audit.

Most online sites are proud to trumpet that "So-and-So auditing company" examined many upon many generated hands and have determined
that the results fell within statistically expected ranges. What does ths really tell us if we are willing to be critical? Very little.
Why very little?

It is already well proven that auditing companies are more than wlling to lie and/or fudge data to fit the needs of the companies
paying them; please refer to the accounting fiascos/fraud of the last 90's ( Andersen, PWC, etc ); But even if we eliminate the
compliance of the auditing company there is still very little being affirmed. They were given, or allowed to generate, a series
of data that they would then examine. This generation was performed at a pre-specified and with the explicit knowledge of the
company being audited. It would exceedingly simple for the audited company to turn off or replace any "rigging" code that
may be in use during normal operation. Furthermore, these companies do not submit their data to random, unannounced, and ongoing
audits -- once was enough. Without such an audit, the data generated for the initial will always be suspect.

As regards the running code, I do not believe any online poker room states that the actual software has ever been audited, and that
will always leave suspicion.

4) Companies have taken part in or used stupid, risky, and unethical practices in the search for greater revenue.

Please refer in recent history to Enron, Worldcom, JDS Uniphase, etc from the late 90's and there are of course many many more
examples strewn about history.


================================================== ==================

So I near the end of a post that I feel confident very few of the "not rigged you losing idiot" crowd will bother to read with a critical
mind to the end. I would truly welcome responses to any point within the above, or the above in its entirety. But in order for it
to be useful the response needs to contain reason or evidence, not simply a contrary "Nope, you're wrong fish." ( and to that first guy
who will respond "Nope, you're wrong fish." -- good job and quite creative. On and I will not stick it in my pooper.)

I do not know that online poker is rigged, but I also have no real evidence that it is not. I see many reasons that a company
would and could benefit from rigging the play. And the presence of such reasons make me inclined to suspect that where there is
motive and opportunity it is hard to believe that no-one has/is making an attempt. I beliieve it naive to accept statements
as presented in the first part as "givens" without supporting evidence, and I don't believe the evidence that online poker rooms
have provided is any where near sufficient.

That brings me to my final part, what can we or what can online poker rooms do?

I believe that it would be near impossible for any group of players to gather enough data to expose any irregularities. The data
would have to be gathered from all times and fairly even distributed, and be an extreme number of hands. If anybody is
interested in organizing an attempt to gather such data I would be happy to be involved. Maybe the math guys can
take a guess at the kind of numbers that would be needed, I can't.

What can the online poker rooms do? Open themselves up to an audit of the running code. This would require them to allow
an auditing company to visit the premises, procure a copy of the compiled system as well as a copy of the entire source
repository where the uncompiled code is kept; and this visit would have to be allowed at an unspecified time and date
without restriction as to period and allowed to occur multiple times unannounced. Also, an online poker room could
provide the entire deal history from their archives to an auditing house. The main problem with both of these is
finding a way to ensure that the auditing house does not simply give the result desired by those paying.


Thanks to those who bothered to read, and many more thanks to those with reasoned responses.

[J-Lo]

You took a long time to write what looks to be a thoughtful post. I skimmed the fist few paragraphs, and i agree

IT'S ALL RIGGED!!!! RIGGED I TELL YOU!!!

(this is what the internet forum is supposed to be like, right?)

[Kevin K.]

The only examples you give are online casinos.

[apd138]

[ QUOTE ]
With such a majority of players unwilling to accept the possibility of rigging, the "burden of proof" is quite
high;

[/ QUOTE ] This majority you speak of, in reality is actually an overwhelming minority. This post is extremely long and after that gibberish I stoped reading.

[mcozzy1]

A new post on rigged poker?

[Uglyowl]

Holy sh...

[ QUOTE ]
2) Party poker is supposedly bringing in revenue of nearly $1 Million per day; yet they are seeking to go public.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously you have no idea about anything and I am not going to bother to read the rest based on your arguments laid out in the above statement.

[Freakin]

NO [censored] way am I reading all that! So is it rigged or not?

Freakin

[SackUp]

[ QUOTE ]
NO [censored] way am I reading all that! So is it rigged or not?

Freakin

[/ QUOTE ]/

Dude It must be rigged if the dude can say this much stuff about it. Quantity is all that matters!

[Slacker13]

Do you really expect someone to read all that?
The subject is overdone.

[Sifmole]

So glad you guys didn't let me down. Bunch of un-supported, "I didn't bother reading it" and "loser fish" comments.

Keep knee-jerking.