Playing online - for the birds???

[lorinda]

My understanding of the PWC review is that it falls between the two claims in this thread.

They certainly look at more than just distribution, they actually perform statistical tests, not just add up the number of aces dealt.

However, Paradise supplies only the data from dealt hands, not the shuffling algorithm itself.

Lori

[Tom D]

You wrote: “However, be fair. Accusing sites of wrongdoing when any of the above could be true seems a little irrational. Agreed?”

Players and online sites have an implied contract: In exchange for rent payments, players will receive a fair deal. This is known as consideration.

Unfortunately, because of the nature of the beast, players have no way to determine if online sites are actually upholding their end of the bargain; so the burden rests entirely with the sites to provide assurances where players can know they are receiving due consideration. Since no sites have done this, even though it is their clear duty, why would you think it irrational to speculate that they might not be providing the consideration they promise?

Be fair. Accusing sites of fair dealing when any number of shenanigans could be going on seems a little irrational. Agreed?

Tom D

[Abe]

Regarding; "some big ten auditing firm".

The Big Ten is a midwestern athletic conference. Has 11 members----hmmm, a conspiracy?

The Big 8 Accounting and Auditing Firms -- of years ago -- has now shrunk thru mergers to half that and is called the final four.

The final four is also a basketball event -- see? another conspiracy----whats the odds on that?

I can't seem to come up with a comment about the birds, but I'm still thinking. 10 birds, auditing birds, basketball birds---something.

[Tom D]

So he's just ignorant?

Tom D

[Tom D]

You wrote: “I honestly don't know if there is some weird stuff going on online.”

That is the key. If online poker sites are unwilling to offer assurances that players are getting what they pay for, then it is terribly irrational to assume they are.

Many people here seem to think requiring businesses to show that consumers get is what they pay for is accusatory or insulting, like slapping Mother Teresa. It's utterly stupid and painfully naïve.

Tom D

[MS Sunshine]

"The goons have propagated the “Conspiracy Theorist” label because it has such a derogatory connotation."

Oh my, but where did the goon , or sh.it wallower, label come from?

Most of the non-random crowd also believe that it was intentionally done and it was done in secret to benefit the site that makes it sound as if they believe it's a conspiracy.

MS Sunshine

[Tom D]

This is old news, but Price Waterhouse did not do an audit; they reviewed information provided them by management. Reviews are internal documents and are not meant for public consumption.

If you know a CPA, show him Paradise's letter, and ask him if it provides any assurances to consumers whatsoever.

Tom D

[ZManODS]

[Tom D]

Goon and sh.it wallower are precise scientific nomenclature. [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

Tom D

[beernutz]

Tom, IIRC the multimillion hand database that Paradise provides on their site has been analysed by Tony Hwang (who posts here as Tony H. I think and is the creator of Pokerstat). Again IIRC, Tony found the numbers of straights, flushes, boats, etc. was not statistically different from the expected numbers for such hands. You may well argument that this large sample of hands has not been audited, but it is there for public observation and review. Tony, please chime in here if I've misstated what you did.

Just my $.03.