statistical tests to show that online poker is not rigged

[ 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 ]
I'm not saying it is definately happenning, but if you look at some of the horrific online beats that we've all seen, and then consider this, I'm saying it logically makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make a bit of sense to anyone who has the least bit of understanding about math and probablilty. See the Lee Jones article I cited a few posts back in this thread. Given enough events, anything that can happen will happen. We notice the rare 1000-1 shot when it happens. We don't notice the 999 times it doesn't happen.

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).

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What are the odds of a 989:1 shot hitting!?! It's like a billion to one!

The odds are 989:1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lee Jones article

[/ QUOTE ]

How are people really this dumb. For god's sakes, my freaking location is "People Suck at Sarcasm."

[AlanBostick]

[ QUOTE ]
How are people really this dumb. For god's sakes, my freaking location is "People Suck at Sarcasm."

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a poker player. You should be delighted that people are this dumb. They are where most of your profit comes from.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How are people really this dumb. For god's sakes, my freaking location is "People Suck at Sarcasm."

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a poker player. You should be delighted that people are this dumb. They are where most of your profit comes from.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good Point.

[UATrewqaz]

The following are simple tests that can be run on a large sample size and would more than satisfy anyone sane (some people will never be satisfied, they lose and don't want to accept it).

1. Preflop card distribution

Every hand you get cards and in say 100K hands you have a really good sample and you know how much you are "expected" to have of each type of hand (AA, KQs, J4o, etc.)

I only have 50K or so hands in my PT database but the distribution is near statistically pefect. Obviously there are deviations but nothing whacked out.

2. How often particular draws come in

When you flop a 4 flush and stay in for turn/river how often do you make your flush? When you flop an OESD and stay for turn/river how often do you make your straight? etc.

This can be done with fancy SQL on a PT database but I'm too lazy.

Obviously these are simle checks but would effectively prove a random shuffle.

And since everyone thinks every site is rigged, you'd probably have to repeat this test on every site.

[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.