statistical tests to show that online poker is not rigged

Aaron,

Excuse me for tossing a bouquet your way, but I just did. - You've given this thread a lot of insight and things to think about, as usual.

Now I've got a serious (burning?) question for you: Do you play online? I don't, having tried it a few years ago and not caring for it. But I'm thinking of giving it another go. I doubt your answer will affect my decision, I'm just curious.

Nut

[AaronBrown]

Thanks for the kind words. I was slow to go to online poker. I don't like online casinos, and it took a little while to figure out the online poker sites were different. Then I was worried about the usual stuff: the site not returning my money, players colluding or hacking the system, software errors. If there had been on-line poker in the days when I played mostly for the money, I certainly would have jumped in; but these days I play for fun; and fun for me is a good high-stakes, in-person game.

I have played some on-line to see what it was like, but I don't think I'll ever get serious about it.

Thank you for the reply. I'd have guessed you were a B&M guy, but curiosity, and your post, caused me to wonder. again, thx

[ QUOTE ]
I have been having this argument with some people on PStars who say that it is rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why exactly are these idiots playing a game they believe is rigged?

As others have said here, it is possible that cheating is going on while the overall results appear normal. The logical problem with this whole topic is that it is generally impossible to prove a negative proposition. No amount of evidence will prove conclusively that online poker is not rigged. One example will prove that there is cheating.

for the record, like some others, i don't think it's rigged at the top 15 sites (took 15 sites to be the major ones).

but it isn't testable even with a big flow of cards.

they could just a juice a few in-house players cards fairly regularly. you'd definitely need every player's card flow and a huge number of hands for each.

you could probably prove though that the general card flow is pretty much correct i.e. worst case they are just juicing it slightly.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have been having this argument with some people on PStars who say that it is rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why exactly are these idiots playing a game they believe is rigged?

As others have said here, it is possible that cheating is going on while the overall results appear normal. The logical problem with this whole topic is that it is generally impossible to prove a negative proposition. No amount of evidence will prove conclusively that online poker is not rigged. One example will prove that there is cheating.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are correct and that is a good way to look at it...

but one day we may open the paper and find out it's slightly rigged. and would anyone be shocked?

enron and adelphia turned out to be scams (although they was probably some "evidence" beforehand) and i remember that cryptologic's dealing mechanism didn't work properly a few years ago (that's basically "rigged" - turned out they were the victim, but i think it qualifies for what many suspect).

[ohnonotthat]

I was in Vegas a few months ago and happened to find myself chatting with an older gentleman while waiting in line for the buffet. It turns out he was a [poker] dealer years ago. The conversation turned to tipping and I commented on how I was unable to imagine how the dealers at the smaller rooms were able to make a living. A Mirage/Bellagio dealer can afford to deal 30 minutes of 3-6 and walk away with $4 for his trouble; it all evens out if he gets to push a tourist a few winners at 15-30 at 5+ dollars per. A room where 3-6 is the biggest game will not offer this opportunity.

He broke out in a big smile and said, "you'd be suprised just how often that tourist did well when I dealt".

He proceeded to explain that he was neither capable nor willing of actually choosing who won (well, not willing - I suspect he was indeed quite capable) but that he was always on the look for a good tipper who needed a little assistance.

He used to call them "tourist flops" - a nice euphamism for those 9-6-4/rainbows that often flop big hands or draws for the visitor while missing the local rock's A-K.

He claimed he could produce them at will and a quick demonstration left me to believe that he was, if anything, understating his skills.

Cheating ?

Absolutely !


Non-random ?

Hell yes !




But how would an online site benefit from such a ruse ?

Supplementing the rake seems to be a claim the falls short of plausibility when subjected to scrutiny; not only does this theory fail to account for the fact that once the rake has maxed out there is nothing to be gained from building the pot, it also ignores the negligible (and possibly reversed) effect such behavior would have on the HOURLY drop.

$60 3-6 pots take time to deal out. I don't know whether it takes longer to play one than to play three $20 pots (probably not) but it does take some additional time.

I am not suggesting that the "online poker is rigged" bunch be silenced - perish the thought.

These imbeciles are doing the rest of us a huge favor; the louder they scream the less likely that some rogue site will decide to take the "add to the rake" vehicle out for a test drive - and for this we owe them a debt. (Extra meds and free aluminum foil for all the paranoids . . . put it on my tab).

That said, we need to see that for every "Chicken Little" there are at least three voices of reason. People are signing up to give away their cash at a blistering pace. It would be a shame if the claim that online poker was rigged became accepted as fact by as little as 10% of the population.

*

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programing.

I have wondered myself. After reading a couple posts regarding sample size and number of times receiving AA or KK, I checked my PT stats. I am at work, so I dont have exact number.

I had AA 217 times and KK 216 times and QQ 226 times out of 35,000 hands give or take 2000...cant remember exactly. I was impressed that they were as close as they were.

I am gonna be in the same boat as some and always wonder, and just hope that online sites arent rigged. When someone hits that wonder card to fill their flush or 1 outer, I just have to think that its cause its online that they called the bet to begin with. I think that since its online, its not the same as actually putting money in while in a B&M. Therefore producing some of the beats people see.

On a side note, how often should you see Quads come up? I had quads 3 times one day, and saw a few others. I dont ever recall seeing that many while sitting down playing in a B&M or a home game. Just curious.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

On a side note, how often should you see Quads come up? I had quads 3 times one day, and saw a few others. I dont ever recall seeing that many while sitting down playing in a B&M or a home game. Just curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept of seeing something X times in a day does not have significance. You can expect on average to see quads once every XXX hands. You see a lot more hands per hour online, so you can expect to see quads a lot more often online. In a B&M, you might see 30 hands per hour. If you are just playing 2 tables online, you might see 100 hands an hour. If you play for 6 hours, you see 180 hands live, 600 hands online. So you should see quads more than 3 times as often online. That goes up if you play more tables.

Also, you remember seeing quads 3 times in a day because it is so unusual. You don't remember all the days that you never saw quads. Without a database of significant size, reports of incidents like this mean nothing.