poker sites "juicing" the game

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
The poorly player loses in general to average players and other poor players, and highly rated players too ... (but once in a while gets a "bonus") where he wins slightly more often than he should.

Of course people take money from the sites, if not then the sites would cease to exist. However, as you know by design, less money comes out of the site than goes in. It is all a question of how much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's called "rake."

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
I've found that if I wear an aluminum cap while multitabling, Party cannot scan my brainwaves via satellite to discern my tendencies.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make your own out of aluminum foil, I trust. The commercial beanies are worthless. Also, I find they work better with the shiny side out.

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume you have 30 million dollars.
Let's assume you want to invest them and start an online poker site.
Let's assume you have to make a decision:
1. Perfect site, no rigging, after 6 months all sharks are laughing, all fishes are broke, after a year you are bankrupt.
2. Rigged, sharks still win, just not as much as they should. Fishes still lose, just not as much as they should.

As a businessman what do you do?


yes, yes, I know, usual replies, assume you're an idiot, 3 jump in the river, etc... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

As a businessman, I'd call Dutch Boyd.

[Scotty O]

LOL


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone around here belives online poker is rigged. There will be an overwhelming number of votes for "Yes".

[/ QUOTE ]

You're so naive. You failed to realize that the major online poker sites are also rigging this poll. Do not underestimate their power.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]



no it isn't.

you just think it is.

Is the concept of selective memory really that hard to understand?

When your draw comes in on the turn you are winning a smaller pot if everyone folds at that point and it is less exciting (or it is less heart-breaking and less noticeable if your opponent caught his draw on the turn).
When you catch it on the river it is a bigger pot and thus more memorable (either as an exciting win or a heart-breaking loss).





What truly amazes me is that all these 'online deals are not right' conspiracy dudes all THINK they are agreeing with each other even though they aren't.

There are those who say that they need to set it up to keep the fish winning and therefore donating.
there are those who think that a high-volume player is the type they want to have win...because he'll come back to start more games and generate more rake.
there are those who think that the draws ALWAYS hit on the river (supposedly to build bigger pots).
there are those who say they just create general 'action' flops toinduce more bets and create more rake


It is my theory that if they wanted to generate more rake at 15/30 and higher then they would do the OPPOSITE of 'action-flops'.
They are almost guaranteed to have a $3 max-rake as long as they get to ANY flop.
So if there is ANY post-flop action then it is just taking them longer to get to the next hand.
They would want totally dead flops to end the hand faster if they REALLY wanted to generate more rake (which is a theory that nobody seems to be expressing).
Action-flops would actually HURT the site's intake of rake.


And then there are those who say that such-and-such site feels 'right' while the other sites don't feel as right.

There are conversations where 1 guy thinks Paradise is rigged but Party is 'mostly ok' while the other guy thinks that it's party that is the one that is rigged while paradise is okay.
They KNOW they are on the same side here. Because they both KNOW that the online-sites are rigged to varying degrees.
but which sites are MORE rigged than the others is just friendly banter and a matter of opinion similar to whether a hamburger tastes better with ketchup or mustard. They both like hamburgers and that's all that matters.


The inconsistencies of everybody in the conspiracy group as to WHY it would be rigged in the first place and HOW the hands are rigged (action flops, rivers completing more draws, fish's all-in's ALWAYS coming through with dominated hands, etc etc) is really interesting to me.
Because many of these people making these arguments aren't completely stupid (believe it or not).
tHey live normal lives and have normal jobs and they do NOT think aliens took Kennedy's brain or anything like that.


But they have ALL gotten frustrated from their losses and beats in poker and ALL refuse to believe that the beats that are happening to them could be just 'normal'.


(also - the Paul Phillips post that was copied in this thread was very interesting. I hadn't read that before. I love Paul Phillips).

[Degen]

funny how this crap always comes from losing players with post counts under 10

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

no it isn't.
you just think it is.
Is the concept of selective memory really that hard to understand?
When your draw comes in on the turn you are winning a smaller pot if everyone folds at that point and it is less exciting (or it is less heart-breaking and less noticeable if your opponent caught his draw on the turn).
When you catch it on the river it is a bigger pot and thus more memorable (either as an exciting win or a heart-breaking loss).

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course this is a huge factor as to why many people insist that online poker is rigged, however it does not in the least bit negate from fact that it is still possible.

[ QUOTE ]
What truly amazes me is that all these 'online deals are not right' conspiracy dudes all THINK they are agreeing with each other even though they aren't.

There are those who say that they need to set it up to keep the fish winning and therefore donating.
there are those who think that a high-volume player is the type they want to have win...because he'll come back to start more games and generate more rake.
there are those who think that the draws ALWAYS hit on the river (supposedly to build bigger pots).
there are those who say they just create general 'action' flops toinduce more bets and create more rake

It is my theory that if they wanted to generate more rake at 15/30 and higher then they would do the OPPOSITE of 'action-flops'.
They are almost guaranteed to have a $3 max-rake as long as they get to ANY flop.
So if there is ANY post-flop action then it is just taking them longer to get to the next hand.
They would want totally dead flops to end the hand faster if they REALLY wanted to generate more rake (which is a theory that nobody seems to be expressing). Action-flops would actually HURT the site's intake of rake.



[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to see a complete mathematical analysis supporting your theory as to which scenerio would be more profitable before excepting it as fact.

Also, I think you are only thinking in terms of cash games, whereas in tournies it would be to the their advantage that people got eliminated quickly moving all-in.


[ QUOTE ]

And then there are those who say that such-and-such site feels 'right' while the other sites don't feel as right.
There are conversations where 1 guy thinks Paradise is rigged but Party is 'mostly ok' while the other guy thinks that it's party that is the one that is rigged while paradise is okay.
They KNOW they are on the same side here. Because they both KNOW that the online-sites are rigged to varying degrees.
but which sites are MORE rigged than the others is just friendly banter and a matter of opinion similar to whether a hamburger tastes better with ketchup or mustard. They both like hamburgers and that's all that matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is probably very true, but still does not rule out the possibility of sites being "rigged".

[ QUOTE ]
The inconsistencies of everybody in the conspiracy group as to WHY it would be rigged in the first place and HOW the hands are rigged (action flops, rivers completing more draws, fish's all-in's ALWAYS coming through with dominated hands, etc etc) is really interesting to me.
Because many of these people making these arguments aren't completely stupid (believe it or not).
tHey live normal lives and have normal jobs and they do NOT think aliens took Kennedy's brain or anything like that.
But they have ALL gotten frustrated from their losses and beats in poker and ALL refuse to believe that the beats that are happening to them could be just 'normal'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this for the most part. But I think it's a pretty broad generalization to say that ALL refuse to believe that ALL beats and losses are normal.

[ QUOTE ]
(also - the Paul Phillips post that was copied in this thread was very interesting. I hadn't read that before. I love Paul Phillips).

[/ QUOTE ]

That post, although very interesting, did not dispel a single theory.

Just because he pointed out some anecdotal instances of selective memory, does not mean that another site would not take advantage of that tendency and use it in their defense.

The point of my post was not to defend the tinfoil-hat crowd, or accuse any site of being unfair.

It was simply to play Devil's advocate, and point out to people who insist, with great certainty, that online poker is not rigged, that they are about as lacking in the proof department as anyone else.

Just because there is documented evidence of people beating the games long-term, does not mean that a site has not devised clever little ways of pulling that little bit extra out of the game. And if that “little bit extra” ads up and translates into millions of dollars at the end of the year, than I can think of no good reason why they would not at least consider it.

On the other side of the coin, the people who claim that the games are rigged, should realize that although this may possibly be the case, there are many people making a substantial earn regardless, and that any wrong doing should be considered as an added cost amounting to nothing more than a small fraction of the rake.

To me that seems like a reasonable price to pay, all things considered.

Also, to those who believe that the underdogs are winning a little bit more than their fare share in order to keep the fish from wandering too far - wouldn't this also be advantageous to the winning players in the long run?

[Nigel]

Bob, if one was rigged, I would imagine it would be only to support the player base.

The rake really takes care of itself.

Nigel

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
It was simply to play Devil's advocate, and point out to people who insist, with great certainty, that online poker is not rigged, that they are about as lacking in the proof department as anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

You either have not read or have not understood many of the posts here. No one is insisting "with great certainty" that online poker is not rigged. Many of us here are insisting that:

1. there has been not a shred of evidence that online poker is rigged other than the usual "Everyone knows that there are more runner-runner suck outs online.";

2. all available quantitative information (hand histories, players' data bases, etc.) show results 100% in line with statistical expectations; and

3. those of us who have studied the game and know how to play find that the results at the table are entirely consistent with what we would expect, both in terms of theory and live experiences.

Therefore, the logical and efficient course is to procede under the assumption that online poker is not rigged until it is proven otherwise.

As far the failure to provide proof that online poker is not rigged, that is conceptually impossible. You generally cannot prove a negative proposition. Can you prove that you have never cheated on your spouse (assuming you have one)? No. Can you prove that you have never stolen anything? No. That is the legal principle behind the assumption of innocent until proven guilty. It is not because we are nice people who give everyone the benefit of the doubt. It is because not guilty is a very difficult thing to prove, while guilty can be shown with a single fact.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course this is a huge factor as to why many people insist that online poker is rigged, however it does not in the least bit negate from fact that it is still possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of the online-is-rigged nuts fall back on the argument that since it is possible, it must be true. The same argument is used to show that we didn't land on the moon, that the UN is using black helicopters to take over the US, that ETs hang out at trailer parks, etc. Online-is-rigged is the ultimate ploy in self-denial. I am not a loser, but I am losing at poker, so it must be rigged.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because there is documented evidence of people beating the games long-term, does not mean that a site has not devised clever little ways of pulling that little bit extra out of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The absurdity of this is stunning. The work required would be enormous, as would the bad PR if if came out. And given the number of people involved in the industry it would come out. Has no one ever considered how much Stars would benefit if they could prove that Party was rigged? You think they don't watch Party for evidence?

If Party wanted to pull "that little bit extra out of the game", they can do it openly. A few minor tweaks on the rake structure would get them millions. They could announce it in a small bulletin buried somewhere on their web site and few players even notice.

People who can't accept the simplest explanation, that online poker is not rigged, are people who cannot accept the personal consequences and implications of that explanation.