Trust

unknown_username

Before you answer remember that Banks are regulated by the FSA and overseen by The Bank of England, whereas Poker sites have their RNG certified by a company based in a nice little house in a London suburb.

unknown_username

It would be interesting to hear from those who voted as to why they voted that way.

NODEAL

In Response to Re: Trust:

It would be interesting to hear from those who voted as to why they voted that way.
Posted by elsadog

Well    the banks play the biggest game of deception ever,   they loan up to 20 times what they have,    they con peopel into thinking that they are lending money to them when it is the lender who creates the money and then those greedy so an so s charge interest on nowt,     hate the banks

RedHouse

You can't operate in today's world without using banks, you don't have to play poker online or at all.

I just don't trust any organisation that is guaranteed custom and success regardless of how they operate.

Banks have nothing to lose, or at least what they have is guaranteed by the state, poker sites have everything to lose.

unknown_username

In Response to Re: Trust:

In Response to Re: Trust : Well    the banks play the biggest game of deception ever,   they loan up to 20 times what they have,    they con peopel into thinking that they are lending money to them when it is the lender who creates the money and then those greedy so an so s charge interest on nowt,     hate the banks
Posted by NODEAL

Hmm, I think that is probably a fairly common view. What the banks do is extract money from as many people as possible whilst remaining generally within the rules.  They also cover the interest they pay to depositors by this means whilst investing the capital for greater returns. The general consensus is that they extract the maximum from everyone and get away with it. 

Yet the Banks are huge organisations that dwarf poker sites by comparison. A major argument, put forward by many on this forum, for having no doubts about on-line poker is that the sites are too big, too profitable and wouldn't jeopardise their reputations just to make more profits. 

Banks are regulated in the UK by the FSA and are overseen by no less than The Bank of England. Poker sites on the other hand are 'regulated' by off-shore, self appointed organisations and answer to no-one. I find it interesting that the general consensus on here is that Banks are the less trustworthy of the two industries.

I myself, haven't voted in the poll for the reason that it's (purposely) a bit of a loaded question. More reasoning from those who voted would be good.

AMYBR

I trust banks far more poker sites.  Simply because when playing online poker your battling players, bots, software.  Banks do indeed take as much as they can from individuals but witin very specified criteria.  I've got to admit I have zero faith in online poker these days.  Combination of experience, history and what I see day in day out.  But also the human factor.  In alot of ways i'd just rather be at the casino getting the full experience.

BelovedLtd

lol - good post elsa; an area 51 for banking is a great innovation

unknown_username

In Response to Re: Trust:

lol obv person above would put trust in the banks who have put this county in millions of debt/ billions even plonker I put Banks, as i trust poker sites get regulated and any wrong doings will be found out eventually and punished
Posted by YOUNG_GUN

But Banks are regulated and monitored by far more powerful watchdogs than the poker sites.

Banks get found out from time to time and punished but it doesn't stop them. 

unknown_username

In Response to Re: Trust:

lol - good post elsa; an area 51 for banking is a great innovation
Posted by BelovedLtd

LOL thank you but I fear this is all going whoooosh over some people's heads.

GaryQQQ

I can't remember now , who did the all the irresponsible lending that caused the current global financial crisis and bankrupted whole countries?

Was it online poker sites or banks?

In December my business account went overdrawn by £12 for one day, for that my bank charged me a £16.50 fee. No wonder the bankers can afford to give themselves multi-million pound bonuses.

Anyway, I could go on about banks for a long time, but it was an easy choice where to put my vote.

NODEAL

In Response to Re: Trust:

In Response to Re: Trust : LOL thank you but I fear this is all going whoooosh over some people's heads.
Posted by elsadog

Most people that read this forum know exactly your point.    but   all you have done is open a gate for people /me    to rant about the most corrupt system in human history,  (banking system)

regulated???   your having a laugh!!    Banks are more powerfull than governments,  since the early 1900s most currencies have been backed by nothing,    its all fiat currency,   I know your point,   its clearly ill pick a hated regulated body to ram home my point,     Unfortunately for you , you picked a very corrupt one.

unknown_username

Charging £16.50 for a 24 hour £12 overdraft is obscene but it's not corrupt or illegal. You will find it's all there in your T&C. 

Banks get away with what they do because the rules and regulations allow it and you choose to bank with them. 

GaryQQQ

In Response to Re: Trust:

Charging £16.50 for a 24 hour £12 overdraft is obscene but it's not corrupt or illegal. You will find it's all there in your T&C.  Banks get away with what they do because the rules and regulations allow it and you choose to bank with them. 
Posted by elsadog

Thanks, what about the global financial crisis then?

unknown_username

In Response to Re: Trust:

In Response to Re: Trust : Thanks, what about the global financial crisis then?
Posted by GaryQQQ

That's rather a big subject. Banks certainly played their part in it. As did the people who overburdened themselves with debt creating huge portfolios of toxic debt which the banks then bundled up and traded ........ you don't really want me to finish this .....do you?

My point is/was that whenever anyone suggests that something might be flawed in on-line poker various individuals come on here stating that they trust poker sites implicitly because they are too big to cheat and they are regulated.  Big and regulated means very little when it comes to making money by any means.

BADBOY985

its is impossible to live without a bank account and currently it is still possible to bank for free in this country.
ive had a current account for 25 years and havent paid a penny in fees in which time they have paid all my bills for me,never lost my cash on the other hand by the time i finish paying of my mortgage i would have paid for it 3 times over and know from friends in business that the charges for business banking are exhorbitant but all these fees and penalties are avaliable for all to see.
poker sites for me fall into the catorgary of things i want to have or use so have to believe they are honest because if i spent my who live thinking everyones out to con me and rip me off,i would never do anything or have to spend my whole life constantly review and checking every decision i make.
i like a bet on the horses and greyhounds i am not nieve enough to think that every horse is trying 100% and when some carthorse who hasnt won for two years suddenly gets backed and wins as if it was kauto star,but its something i enjoy so i put up with it.
i think the scrachcards are the biggest rip off ever so dont buy them

IF YOU THINK THE SAME ABOUT ONLINE POKER DONT PLAY ONLINE POKER

 

GaryQQQ

Do you really let Rupert Murdoch would allow his huge multi-billion media empire be severely tarnished by letting this poker site (which is very insignificant in the grand scheme of things) rip off a few thousand punters for a few quid? Of course he wouldn't. You can see how Sky treated Andy Gray when he embarrased them. And why would an insider do it? For kicks? Imagine the suits at Sky Poker having to answer to Mr Murdoch if deck rigging scandal was uncovered that brought the entire Sky empire into disrepute. There's no way Sky would ever consider doing such a thing in a million years, they stand to lose infinitely more than they stand to gain.

AMYBR

BADBOY, not a valid comment and you pretty much have no right to make such a statement.

What confuses me the most about people that make such comments is this: regardless of style or approach one of the things that is common between good poker players is the ability to process as much information as possible.  To sit and look at patterns and react to all the information at hand.

Thats all that these posts are about  People sharing their real experience and discussing it.  You have no right to rudely announce if you dont like dont play in a dogmatic way.  It would be like me saying to you if you dont like the debate dont entor the forum.  Its beyond arrogant.

AMYBR

In Response to Re: Trust:

Do you really let Rupert Murdoch would allow his huge multi-billion media empire be severely tarnished by letting this poker site (which is very insignificant in the grand scheme of things) rip off a few thousand punters for a few quid? Of course he wouldn't. You can see how Sky treated Andy Gray when he embarrased them. And why would an insider do it? For kicks? Imagine the suits at Sky Poker having to answer to Mr Murdoch if deck rigging scandal was uncovered that brought the entire Sky empire into disrepute. There's no way Sky would ever consider doing such a thing in a million years, they stand to lose infinitely more than they stand to gain.
Posted by GaryQQQ

Again look at the subject matter within these posts.  Very rarely is it said that it is rigged.  What is said is that the RNG is not what it is commonly accepted to be and that other elements of online play add up to a non true game.  There is a difference. 

unknown_username

In Response to Re: Trust:

In Response to Re: Trust : Again look at the subject matter within these posts.  Very rarely is it said that it is rigged.  What is said is that the RNG is not what it is commonly accepted to be and that other elements of online play add up to a non true game.  There is a difference. 
Posted by AMYBR

funny that,i thought the subject matter of the thread is weather you trust banks or poker sites

AMYBR

In Response to Re: Trust:

Do you really let Rupert Murdoch would allow his huge multi-billion media empire be severely tarnished by letting this poker site (which is very insignificant in the grand scheme of things) rip off a few thousand punters for a few quid? Of course he wouldn't. You can see how Sky treated Andy Gray when he embarrased them. And why would an insider do it? For kicks? Imagine the suits at Sky Poker having to answer to Mr Murdoch if deck rigging scandal was uncovered that brought the entire Sky empire into disrepute. There's no way Sky would ever consider doing such a thing in a million years, they stand to lose infinitely more than they stand to gain.
Posted by GaryQQQ

Was responing to enlarged underlined sections stokefc.

Just on a side note its odd how quickly people forget that there already has been two major online poker scandals.  People talk as though its impossible but it has already happened and these companies have been prosecuted (ultimate bet and absoloute poker)  I guess they dont matter though.....

unknown_username

In Response to Re: Trust:

Why dont I trust banks, bear with me i'm no economist, but this is how i understand it very briefly: -We deposit money in banks.  The only other choice we have is to put it under the matress. -Banks use this money to invest into other projects to make a greater return, when investing money there is a risk you lose.  When making money they paid themselves huge bonuses, fair enough? -The banks didnt assess the risks adequately and lost big time and should have gone under, we are all still suffering, government watched and did nothing. Banks continued to pay themselves bonuses. -They were then bailed out by the government, in other words you and me.  Bank bonuses continued. -Bank of England boss says we should be not getting pay rises but forgets that he is on £300K a year and has done nothing to stop this mess. -All this is happening with the government watching, they are all in it together.
Posted by Patching99

I can understand all that you say. The Banking crisis came about because of the huge volumes of toxic debt in the USA. This country wasn't an innocent party on that score but the real problem was in the USA. One of the reasons it came about was because of the scale bonuses paid and based on sales of mortgages and loans. This led to money being lent to people who couldn't afford to borrow it in the first place. Regulation by the B of E the FSA and bank bosses was inadequate and so it went on until it all crashed. If the banks had been allowed to go under the consequences would have been far more dire than they are now. 

You might be surprised to know that I tend to agree with you. The poll was set to show that a lot of people trust poker sites but not banks because they have the knowledge that the banks have misbehaved despite all the rules and regulations intended to protect us all. 

RedHouse

In Response to Re: Trust:

In Response to Re: Trust : Was responing to enlarged underlined sections stokefc. Just on a side note its odd how quickly people forget that there already has been two major online poker scandals.  People talk as though its impossible but it has already happened and these companies have been prosecuted (ultimate bet and absoloute poker)  I guess they dont matter though.....
Posted by AMYBR

Both those cases were examples of individual employees using back door software to cheat when playing on the site themselves, i.e to see hole cards.

Big difference between this and a large corporation scamming people.

BADBOY985

In Response to Re: Trust:

BADBOY, not a valid comment and you pretty much have no right to make such a statement. What confuses me the most about people that make such comments is this: regardless of style or approach one of the things that is common between good poker players is the ability to process as much information as possible.  To sit and look at patterns and react to all the information at hand. Thats all that these posts are about  People sharing their real experience and discussing it.  You have no right to rudely announce if you dont like dont play in a dogmatic way.  It would be like me saying to you if you dont like the debate dont entor the forum.  Its beyond arrogant.
Posted by AMYBR

sorry but i have every right to make any coment i want to. elsa asked for peoples opinions those are mine, if you dont agree fine but please do not tell me (or anybody else) what they can or cant say.
ive read many of your post and most seem to be pointing to problems in the online poker industry it just seems strange that many people with these believes risk large amounts of money on a product they think is flawed at best or corrupt at worst

unknown_username

In Response to Re: Trust:

In Response to Re: Trust : Both those cases were examples of individual employees using back door software to cheat when playing on the site themselves, i.e to see hole cards. Big difference between this and a large corporation scamming people.
Posted by RedHouse

I don't think intentionally scamming people comes into it and I've never suggested it. In fact the problem is apparently just the opposite.

Because of the inability of mathematically generated cards to be dealt randomly and the possibility of having the RNG compromised, changes were introduced. Because only a very limited number of deck sequences are possible, additional programmes were introduced with the intention of ensuring a fairer game for all players because it was recognised that the shortcomings of the RNG could allow a small number of players to dominate the games. This is known as Equitable Distribution or Equidistributive sequencing. 

Some sites actually make the statement that their game is ''fair to all players''  This fairness factor is the part of the card dealing that I question. If the game is to be fair to all and not allow players to dominate then it cannot be random even within the limitations of current PRNG's.

RedHouse

In Response to Re: Trust:

In Response to Re: Trust : I don't think intentionally scamming people comes into it and I've never suggested it. In fact the problem is apparently just the opposite. Because of the inability of mathematically generated cards to be dealt randomly and the possibility of having the RNG compromised, changes were introduced. Because only a very limited number of deck sequences are possible, additional programmes were introduced with the intention of ensuring a fairer game for all players because it was recognised that the shortcomings of the RNG could allow a small number of players to dominate the games. This is known as Equitable Distribution or Equidistributive sequencing.  Some sites actually make the statement that their game is ''fair to all players''  This fairness factor is the part of the card dealing that I question. If the game is to be fair to all and not allow players to dominate then it cannot be random even within the limitations of current PRNG's.
Posted by elsadog

Surly they are saying it is fair to all as we are all equally effected by any shortcomings (variations to live poker dealing) within the system they use. In this situation any advantage is based on player skill alone as you would expect, so it's a fair game.

unknown_username

In Response to Re: Trust:

In Response to Re: Trust : Surly they are saying it is fair to all as we are all equally effected by any shortcomings (variations to live poker dealing) within the system they use. In this situation any advantage is based on player skill alone as you would expect, so it's a fair game.
Posted by RedHouse

In that case it would not need to be stated.

unknown_username

This is an extract from a well know site's Certificate of Security.

3.0 Validity 

This determination of statistical randomness does not extend beyond the software and hardware 

components examined. These results pertain only to systems composed of the hardware and software 

that were tested when they are operated in the manner described to XXXXX during the evaluation. 

That's interesting - 

1. They don't test the manner of operation, they accept the word of the poker site.

2. The certificate is only for the software and hardware sytems they tested. Does that mean there is software and hardware they don't test?

3. The certification is for ''Security'' not conformity.

AMYBR

In Response to Re: Trust:

In Response to Re: Trust : sorry but i have every right to make any coment i want to. elsa asked for peoples opinions those are mine, if you dont agree fine but please do not tell me (or anybody else) what they can or cant say. ive read many of your post and most seem to be pointing to problems in the online poker industry it just seems strange that many people with these believes risk large amounts of money on a product they think is flawed at best or corrupt at worst
Posted by BADBOY985

I guess in a way your right and I owe you an apology.  You do have the right to make any comment you like.  But what you express isnt an opinion its an ultimatum.  It doesnt connect with any of the subjuect matter and basically makes a moot issue of all points for and against in the debate.  Its needless and disrespectful to the whole conversation thread.  Your basically saying if a person has an issue with online poker, dont discuss it, simply go away and dont play.  Which to me would be totally stupid.  So I wont ill try and re phrase things in the future, but it really is very rude and a huge over simplification to come in with such unhelpful comments.  People are looking for a discussion, not simple blind ultimatums.

unknown_username

In Response to Re: Trust:

This is an extract from a well know site's Certificate of Security. 3.0 Validity  This determination of statistical randomness does not extend beyond the software and hardware  components examined. These results pertain only to systems composed of the hardware and software  that were tested when they are operated in the manner described to XXXXX during the evaluation.   That's interesting -  1. They don't test the manner of operation, they accept the word of the poker site. 2. The certificate is only for the software and hardware sytems they tested. Does that mean there is software and hardware they don't test? 3. The certification is for ''Security'' not conformity.
Posted by elsadog

To follow on from this -

This means that they test the validity of the shuffle but not the validity of the distribution of cards from that shuffle. By only certifying the shuffle and not what happens afterwards. Any checks done to determine card frequency will of course pass with flying colours, as will checks to determine winning ratios of particular hands. What it doesn't certify is the distribution of those cards/hands amongst the players.  To be cynical, it would be easy for any hand to be given to any player, and if equalising skill levels was a desired effect (this would have the effect of increasing rake over the long term) then this could be achieved without any ill-effects to the test results.

It is also apparent that the tests relate only to a moment in time. 

“This determination of statistical randomness does not extend beyond the software and hardware components examined. These results pertain only to systems composed of the hardware and software that were tested when they are operated in the manner described to xxxxxx during the evaluation.”

What about all the other times. They only test the source code and the outcome of the RNG - they don't test the entire source code of the poker server or the outcome of hands. Why not?

The poker site in question is not Sky btw - I couldn't find theirs.

NODEAL

Hmmmm  Still awaiting a retort to my last post.

unknown_username

In Response to Re: Trust:

In Response to Re: Trust : Most people that read this forum know exactly your point.    but   all you have done is open a gate for people /me    to rant about the most corrupt system in human history,  (banking system) regulated???   your having a laugh!!    Banks are more powerfull than governments,  since the early 1900s most currencies have been backed by nothing,    its all fiat currency,   I know your point,   its clearly ill pick a hated regulated body to ram home my point,     Unfortunately for you , you picked a very corrupt one.
Posted by NODEAL

This one ?

I thought you wanted a rant not a retort.