statistical tests to show that online poker is not rigged

I have been having this argument with some people on PStars who say that it is rigged. Now, I was just wondering if anyone knew of any high profile tests that were run to show that the distribution of the cards is statistically sound.

Any help would be amazing. Thanks!

[Mens Rea]

Independent audit reports.

Could you send me a link to results that have been published online? There must be something like this available to the public.

[Oblivious]

these independant tests dont test if its "rigged." they only test to see if the outcomes generated by the random number generator are distributed appropriately. so in theory, pokerstars' random number generator could pass test, while they could still rig the cards on particular hands. for the record, i dont think this is happening.

[Snarf]

[ QUOTE ]
these independant tests dont test if its "rigged." they only test to see if the outcomes generated by the random number generator are distributed appropriately. so in theory, pokerstars' random number generator could pass test, while they could still rig the cards on particular hands. for the record, i dont think this is happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually have thoughts on this ... but I probalby wouldn't be able to sound very intelligent....and I definitely wouldn't be able to explain/defend any of my points...so I'll just keep quiet....

Though - NO - I don't think any site is 'rigged.'

A question of frequency of occurence of rare anomolies MIGHT be in question. (I said might - huge might - don't flame me)

Oh my goodness, I have created the very beast that I sought out to destroy!

Look, I don't want to argue about whether or not online poker is rigged. For the record, it's pretty clear to me that it isn't.

I just wanted to know if there are any results published online that statistically prove that the card distributions are fair.

Please start another thread if you want to debate about whether or not online poker is rigged.

[cyberer]

[ QUOTE ]
these independant tests dont test if its "rigged." they only test to see if the outcomes generated by the random number generator are distributed appropriately. so in theory, pokerstars' random number generator could pass test, while they could still rig the cards on particular hands. for the record, i dont think this is happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do think that it is happenning. The number generator is random, but as you just said they could rig cards on particular hands. For instance, giving someone 4 of a kind and someone else a straight flush. They know that both parties will bet heavy and GUESS WHAT? that means that the bigger the bet, the more rake they take. It makes perfect sense. However, it is random in the sense that you have an equal chance of coming out the winner or the loser in such a situation, but it is still technically "rigged."

[bmxreed36]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
these independant tests dont test if its "rigged." they only test to see if the outcomes generated by the random number generator are distributed appropriately. so in theory, pokerstars' random number generator could pass test, while they could still rig the cards on particular hands. for the record, i dont think this is happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do think that it is happenning. The number generator is random, but as you just said they could rig cards on particular hands. For instance, giving someone 4 of a kind and someone else a straight flush. They know that both parties will bet heavy and GUESS WHAT? that means that the bigger the bet, the more rake they take. It makes perfect sense. However, it is random in the sense that you have an equal chance of coming out the winner or the loser in such a situation, but it is still technically "rigged."

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a max rake on every hand. For example, if you look at a 30/60 limit game on Stars, the rake is the same whether the pot is $1000 or $135. With all the money these sites make every day, I find it hard to believe they will go out of their way every once in a while to rig a hand in order to get 50 cents more rake.

You could try the "Integrity" page -- they don't have literal published tests, but it certainly looks promising when you use hardware RNGs (not the pseudorandom, "seeded" software RNG that most home microcomputers use), which are officially verified by two security firms -- including one which hacked an online poker site in the past!

(Incidentally, I wish they did something kind of like PokerRoom's EV chart at http://www.pokerroom.com/games/evsta...php?order=card )

Seriously, the "OMG STARZ IZ RIGGED!!!1" people need to quit whining. No one seems to realize you hit an 80% shot, oh, say, 80% of the time. (which, honestly, is why I usually play limit poker)

[AaronBrown]

There are three distinct issues.

First is whether the hands you get in on-line poker are distributed precisely as a theoretically perfect shuffle. The more transparent sites publish enough details of their methodology to reassure people that it should be almost perfect, and some publish sample outcomes which always conform to statistical expectation.

However, if I were hired as a statistical auditor, I would concentrate on the outputs (the cards dealt) not the inputs (the theoretical perfection of the random number generator). I wouldn't just look at the unconditional distribution of pocket and board cards, I would look at what matters to poker players, the distribution of hand strength; particularly the correlations between different hands at the same table and the same player in different hands. There are a lot of steps between random number generation and hand output that could have bugs. To my knowledge, no one has ever done anything like this. I'd also look hard to see if any player enjoyed superior luck, more than could be explained by random chance. This could be an insider or someone who figured out how to hack the site.

So, on this point I would say there is some published information, but less than a skeptical person would demand.

The next point is whether the sites deliberately skew the distributions, whether to push up the rake or attract players. I don't agree with the "it's only a few pennies in rake" argument. If you push up revenue by 1% while keeping costs constant, you can push up profit by a much larger percentage. Moreover, a manager under pressure to hit some target might well compromise the integrity of the business to make a few dollars, we've certainly seen enough of that over the last few years.

No site publishes anything that would refute this. It wouldn't matter if they did, because if you don't trust them to deal the cards fairly, why would you trust their reported statistics? Even if an independent audit firm did the analysis, it's hard to know what they would look for. You could easily rig things but keep the overall distribution of cards as expected by chance.

So on this issue, I'd say there is no information and not likely to be information. Trusting people will trust the sites, suspicious people won't.

While either of those types of non-randomness would bother me as a player, neither one is unfair. Assuming they're too subtle to notice, they wouldn't affect play much. So they're only theoretical problems, even if they exist.

The third kind of rigging is the really worrying kind. The site could have hired players, or bots, to win people's money by cheating. But here there is no evidence that could be produced. The cards and hands could be perfectly random, but the bot could know what they were. An auditor might discover that some players seemed much better than others, but unless she contacted individuals, she couldn't prove it was anything more than skill differences.

The bottom line is that people who believe the sites are rigged will never see evidence to disprove that. On the other hand, there's never been a shred of evidence to prove that any site is rigged in any of the three ways.