Independant verification of sites?

Found exactly what the original poster was looking for. (Elapsed time to find: 10 seconds.)

[ QUOTE ]
PokerStars shuffle verified by Cigital and BMM International

In May 2003, PokerStars submitted extensive information about the PokerStars random number generator (RNG) to two independent organizations. We asked these two trusted resources to perform an in-depth analysis of the randomness of the output of the RNG, and its implementation in the shuffling of the cards on PokerStars.

Both independent companies were given full access to the source code and confirmed the randomness and security of our shuffle. Click here for more details.

[/ QUOTE ]

HTH.

In addition, PlanetPoker WAS found to have a predictable shuffle algorythm in 1999. Its business suffered for years.

http://www.cigital.com/news/index.ph...t&artid=20

So yes, there is a very good reason for sites to ensure as random a shuffle as physically possible, including having independent audits of their shuffle procedures.

And IF a site's shuffle is predictable, you can bet the news will spread like wildfire. (Just look at how stuff that isn't even true spreads like wildfire!)

[Sciolist]

Poker sites in particular trade off having a good reputation. If one were discovered doing anything unethical, they'd lose most, if not all of their players.

Gas stations price gouging aren't going to lose them many long term customers, if any.

It's a pretty ridiculous assertion that a site would look random in the long term but "vary" the randomness in the short term. When you deal 3 or 4m hands a day, you'd be changing this setting for about 2 minutes before it becomes statistically obvious should anyone be tracking a significant portion of those. Two minutes isn't going to be affecting anyone's bottom line.

Also, two independent audits of the PokerStars shuffle algorithm: http://www.pokerstars.com/rng_audit.html

[6471849653]

Some primas like the Royal Vegas Poker at least when playing no-limit holdem at low limits, as a European (if that matters). The gamingclub didn't seem obviously rigged (that's now at the top of recommendation), and the Expekt.com (European Prima skin) has so far been good to me, all going as it should; but now I hear they are going away from Prima, so need to see what happens (maybe no americans for example). (Some parbet was offerend as an alternative for Prima EU.)

The Primas have had that from somewhere around 2000 when the ex-poker.com (some pokerclub these days) with its skins where there, they too having the generally typical Prima not getting lots of cards (stiff), and they were known to cheat and cheated me too (some hacking, maybe inside but I once asked "how do they do it" on the chat and the next got pocket aces vs. victim's top pair" so maybe not inside though that's what I felt), the "club" especially. Prima took their poker.com back from them in the past. That is the Prima bases, then there are some other Prima winds, though skins. There's non-prima prima Ladbrokes (for non-US etc. players) too, but I never felt very comfortable there, and that's all I can tell about it. Ladbrokes is not Europe I think, but just did not want to risk they other business at US because of gambling laws, but it operates fully at Europe.

Paradise let good players win a long time (200 hours or so) and then no-one could win there, not even at lower limits. The cards came normally and everything was normal first, but then the stacking started (much like prima way), though after a new computer and two years in-between I little tested it again and everything felt normal at limit (before that the stacking started instantly, and instead of winning like 4 out of 5 sessions one was more like losing like that), and at no-limit it was not all that giving but decent. They used bots, and had those disappearing e.g. four players all at once at times. Planet Poker turned hard on me at the same time, in 2000. Paradise has a low rake a heads up limit games (3-6 and 5-10) but it's 3-6 minimum at holdem, and populated by some aggressors.

Parties have those double fluctuations, and I never got any of the bonus money when I played them some five times but steadily lost that much (got just my winnings, minus the bonus money) during the bonus period, while testing after at other sites and vs. programs how the game should be going and no problems as I was winning as usual. The shorthanded 1-2 limit holdem was good when I played it, and I didn't lose at no-limit, but I didn't play there long. They were juicy games when they started in 2000+ but then all was tight, except pot-limit omaha when those highest limits came there, they were very preflop loose (got their bots wrong?). This is one of those many sites that became big all fast, partly with bonuses but as it doesn't help elsewhere, bots. Many have reported long time wins both at shorthanded limit holdem and no-limit holdem, but it seems they all got busted at some point, by those always bigger fluctuations I think. But I could tell from the very start of bonus play that I wasn't getting an honest game, though I made quite a bit of money at 1-2 limit holdem shorthanded, some years ago. This is a dangerous place to play, so some protection is recommended that how far one should go with the loses before not playing here anymore.

24hourPoker has bots at holdem and draw poker; they had to go for that as they were not getting customers.

Propoker had all bots and was possibly cheating at river.

Pokertropolis has/had all bots.

the ex-WSEX (similar name today) had all bots for few days when they tried them, but gave up of them.

Pokerroom has/has had bots that played straight like not waiting to turn to raise, and did not adjust to shorthanded situations. One was was winnig there half the bonus period and losing the other half (taking the bonus money back strategy), still won about one big bet per hour plus the bonus. I haven't further tested this place.

TruePoker is honest from other than I suspected some (50% of your profits) fish protection. They doesn't seem like paying players too much. (I remember the type of player who often tries to steal the pot at river, both at limit and no-limit, just one point of something of a typical to this place). One can win here, but don't expect a party. This is the place where I played mainly in 2001 after both Paradise and Planet turned no good, and I came back on my feet with the help of this place, but I was winning one big bet per hour at 1-2 limit holdem only because I played like a God, meaning I read so well and did stuff only a superman does. I played it later a bit too and won better but it was a short perior. I also tried no-limit and saw that horrible play but could not get enough hands and broke just even. Things are pretty nice here, much like UB as far as cards (and humans) go, but I am worried about the fish protection.

UB in the past seemed to give the prima dog hand somewhat (at some primas it might always win) better winning chances, later it wasn't so but any time one comes to play after being away for a long time, not only me has so far winning. There's much to normal cards here, that's good (some "bubble" shuffle system), and the players seemed somewhat normal though often very tight. The interface is overall nice to play. So, this place has a lot good to say about it, and one might make a longer shot here to see how it goes, but this is no easy place, just a pretty nice place to play at.

PokerStars has somewhat strange players, similar styles like late open-calling in limit games for example with ace high hands, then up to overplaying them on the flop. They used to have some action maniac player too it seemed. Luck seems to go on streaks there (cash games) and some lucky river cards (tourneys). I never felt things are quite right here though I liked to play shorthanded no-limit holdem here and my overall score at all holdem (but not omaha) was positive. But one needs to be prepared for some strange things on how the cards are coming and how the players are playing. Those were something I didn't like though otherwise I liked to play there, though I got sucked out seriously when I started to play by bonuses, and that was the last drop to scale me out of there.

Absolute Poker. The bonus came nicely but the fluctuations were not to my liking, scared me away. (I like normal players and normal card distributions.) But I don't know, might be worth a shot.

The room (Higlansclub) doyle supported that went down had hack(s), and he got cheated himself there too though the hack didn't (that time) got the money out.

The person who is perhaps coming out with the rakefree.com took many players money when they went down because the place that operated their money according to them took that money, and there was no law to say the poker site should pay them back to players. That money was not returned, the software was not sold (though there was no use for it for years if at all anymore). I got my little money out just at those times, but many didn't, some losing thousands.

Finding a (completely) honest site (for you) is not easy. It's so easy when one knows how the cards normally come out and how people both at casino and non-casino sites play them, though there are some site differences. When you know the odds and can always take an ordinary deck of cards or something and see how often your 80-90% favorite should hold up; it doesn't lose like five times in a row (when you start somewhere - later stuff like that happens by stats too), and it isn't a general trend to lose first once or more times and only then win, but it should win and then just occacionally lose. But there are sites where that for example is more or less the general trend. And you can pick out all the other not-right trends if you know how the cards should come out and how the players should be playing. There's nothing any stats of anyone could do about it, and there's so much stats that is needed to verify, and it hasn't been made, but with poker tracker one can at least see something, so getting more of verification, but it won't tell about that suckout card or when some better stacking is being done.

[Chadt74]

IF you look on most sites (at least the ones I play at) they all have a link to their Independent verification. What this is is the company going to an audit/accounting/consulting firm like Pricewaterhousecoopers and saying "please check out my computer program to see if it acts like a shuffled deck of 52 cards". The independent auditors accept the engagement for a fee of like $20K or something and issue a report. Now $20K for one of the Big Four auditing firms is in no way close enough to get any of them to fudge the numbers, and do not forget that who ever signs that opinion is liable for it personally. So if the person who signs "pricewaterhousecoopers" lied about how the program works or did not investigate and this caused a suite of $1 Million dollars then he and/or his fellow partners would have to pay that back personally.

So understanding what that opinion entails I feel comfortable playing at those sites.