All Categories› Poker› Poker Chat

You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!

Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post

13»

Comments

  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited February 2011
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post:
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post : Problem is Elsa, that no-one who is on the 'is it rigged' side of the discussion, has put forward any evidence to support their point of view.... it's mostly, I don't trust online poker, and it's up to the poker sites to MAKE me trust them. This maybe a slight over simplification, but it's not far from the truth. Occasionally, someone interjects with a 'I once met this man...', but it's rarely / ever a solid source with a name, and the sites they are referring to, and why we should believe them. If it is that bad, why can someone not come up with some evidence that says 'over 100,000 hands the river card was an Ace 14% of the time, instead of just under 8%. That would be far better, as a basis for a debate.
    Posted by jakally

    Hi Jakally. This is a huge subject as we have seen in the earlier RNG thread. Firstly let me say I still play on-line poker, as I have done for about 8 or 9 years. Overall and in all years but one I am a winning mtt player (in fact I have just managed, literally 5 minutes ago, to fluke my way to 8th in the PS 25k - it made over 45k pool....whoooppeeeee). There are rants on this and every site, often by players who don't really understand poker or rate themselves far too high, and so let off steam when they crash. The discussions recently were far from a rant and were conducted in the best manner by almost all who contributed.

    Some reasons given as to why any site might want to alter the game are spurious to say the least. However, all the reasons given for any site not to alter the game, can be challenged with a sound argument. The amount of hands often quoted as a sample is a rather complex area so I'll leave that to the end.  easier reasons to discount are:

    1. It's not in the interest of any site to favour one or other individual;

    This is generally true but all sites make the majority of their profits from the rake - (profits are also derived from currency exchange and short term deposits which attract interest) - and so any way of increasing the rake would be a reason. The common slant is that action hands are induced to increase rake. That as you know is wrong as the rake is almost always capped. However, there are other far more subtle ways of generating large increases in rake. I will cover this when we explore hand samples later.

    2. The site has a certified RNG and is Licensed;

    This is true of all sites that I know. However the question of why the sites choose to have the licence provided by small autonomous licensing authorities, often based off-shore or in some American Indian reservation should give food for thought. The certification of the RNg's is not quite what it appears to be. The function of generating pseudo random numbers is statistically challenged and a site must fall within accepted boundaries in order to obtain a certificate. However, what checks are undertaken to certify that those generated cards are delivered un-affected to the players is rather mysteriously missing from the detail. If, as I have done, you ask the simple question whether there are any checks, you are met with a deathly silence or waffle. The very people who verify the RNg also supply the game software.

    3. It would be too complicated;

    This is of course nonsense. All the on-line casino games (which are licensed and checked by the very same companies) are legally allowed to run with approximately 12% profit for the site. So when you play the site the games are (legally) loaded so that the players can never win more than 86% of turnover. 

    The question of sample hands etc is often quoted. Firstly no matter how many samples you have some will say it's not large enough, and that is probably true, after all there are literally trillions of card combinations from a 52 card deck. The fact that the RNG falls within accepted boundaries should tell anyone that the bigger the hand sample the more certain it is that all will be within expected tolerances. So trying to prove anything with hand histories (other than uncovering a super-user or similar) is futile. However, because there are apparently no checks undertaken to certify what happens to those generated cards there are a number of things that could happen. Card sequences could be dumped and not used. The cards could be dealt to any starting position at the table as opposed to the SB receiving the first hole cards generated. I certainly don't know that this happens but most sites have a fairness policy which states that they will produce a fair game to all players. It doesn't say fair and unbiased - just fair. Now I'll just put my baco-foil hat on and continue.

    Right that's better - If we now take a site that wishes to increase rake and maintain customer base, it could relatively easily include sub-routines to deliver the cards in such a way that levels the playing field. Help the poorer players a little. That will give them confidence and an inflated view of their ability. Their money will last longer and so generate more rake. They will be far more inclined to re-deposit if they think they are good enough to progress at the game. The better players will still prevail - after all the playing field has only been levelled and so their skill will win in the long run. They will be the big account holders with deposits on site, it's just that the site took an extra 20% (or whatever) of rake of them. 

    The sites may not even understand what is done. The software providers will see to that for them. These are the very same people who certify the RNG by the way.

    So if I've made my argument well there are reasons for equalising skill factors. The winners still win and the losers still lose - they just take longer to do it. The worrying thing for me is that if you ask the questions you are stone-walled - now if there was absolutely nothing amiss why would that be?

    Sorry it was so long a reply.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jakallyjakally
    edited February 2011
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post:
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post : I never said poker WAS rigged, and as i also said I shall add more
    Posted by AMYBR

    You said ' There are a number of class action law suits based on this exact thing...', and then the first 'evidence' that you present is for something completely different.

    If you have additional stuff that is more relevant then obv fine.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • penguin7penguin7
    edited February 2011
    I am largely following this thread as an observer on the sidelines and can see merit in some of the opposing arguments. But having followed Amys suggestion and looked at the lawsuits against Fulltilt, I dont see how they relate to the discussion at all. They seem to either fall into the category of ownership disputes or are part of the US governments gambling legislation. The Kentucky case quoted would seem to fall into the latter category.

    Elsadog I am still trying to digest your last post !
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AMYBRAMYBR
    edited February 2011
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post:
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post : You said ' There are a number of class action law suits based on this exact thing...', and then the first 'evidence' that you present is for something completely different. If you have additional stuff that is more relevant then obv fine.
    Posted by jakally

    I'm not the kind of guy that'll argue until I'm blue in the face.  Hands up, the evidence and information that I had thought so readily available isnt there, so I guess I have to retract my comment and aplogise. Was an interesting learning experience trawling for the clear cut info though.

    It does all seem to be copyright infringments, bot usage and money launderings, with few exceptions.  The exceptions being individuals sueing other individuals for apparent colluding.  I'm going to trawl a little more though :)
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ChirpyChipChirpyChip
    edited February 2011
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post:
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post : I'm not the kind of guy that'll argue until I'm blue in the face.  Hands up, the evidence and information that I had thought so readily available isnt there, so I guess I have to retract my comment and aplogise. Was an interesting learning experience trawling for the clear cut info though. It does all seem to be copyright infringments, bot usage and money launderings, with few exceptions.  The exceptions being individuals sueing other individuals for apparent colluding.
    Posted by AMYBR

    OMG..... Major LOL
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jakallyjakally
    edited February 2011
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post:
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post : I'm not the kind of guy that'll argue until I'm blue in the face.  Hands up, the evidence and information that I had thought so readily available isnt there, so I guess I have to retract my comment and aplogise. Was an interesting learning experience trawling for the clear cut info though. It does all seem to be copyright infringments, bot usage and money launderings, with few exceptions.  The exceptions being individuals sueing other individuals for apparent colluding.
    Posted by AMYBR

    It's been a good discussion mate, conducted in a proper way, so I guess I've enjoyed it.

    My mind isn't closed on the subject, and some of the points you've raised have made me question things, so it's all good.

    GLGL with the live pokers.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited February 2011
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post:
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post : OMG..... Major LOL
    Posted by ChirpyChip

    OMG that's two people who have said something they shouldn't, and then apologised - in 24 hours.

    I wonder if this one will get it's own thread too :o)

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AMYBRAMYBR
    edited February 2011
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post:
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post : It's been a good discussion mate, conducted in a proper way, so I guess I've enjoyed it. My mind isn't closed on the subject, and some of the points you've raised have made me question things, so it's all good. GLGL with the live pokers.
    Posted by jakally

    My mind's pretty open on it too bud.  The only thing that I really care about (and was looking for TBH) was having the ability to discuss the issues in an open respectful way.  Overall thats what I think is important.  Good luck (skill) to you also :)
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited March 2011
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post:
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post : Hi Jakally. This is a huge subject as we have seen in the earlier RNG thread. Firstly let me say I still play on-line poker, as I have done for about 8 or 9 years. Overall and in all years but one I am a winning mtt player (in fact I have just managed, literally 5 minutes ago, to fluke my way to 8th in the PS 25k - it made over 45k pool....whoooppeeeee). There are rants on this and every site, often by players who don't really understand poker or rate themselves far too high, and so let off steam when they crash. The discussions recently were far from a rant and were conducted in the best manner by almost all who contributed. Some reasons given as to why any site might want to alter the game are spurious to say the least. However, all the reasons given for any site not to alter the game, can be challenged with a sound argument. The amount of hands often quoted as a sample is a rather complex area so I'll leave that to the end.  easier reasons to discount are: 1. It's not in the interest of any site to favour one or other individual; This is generally true but all sites make the majority of their profits from the rake - (profits are also derived from currency exchange and short term deposits which attract interest) - and so any way of increasing the rake would be a reason. The common slant is that action hands are induced to increase rake. That as you know is wrong as the rake is almost always capped. However, there are other far more subtle ways of generating large increases in rake. I will cover this when we explore hand samples later. 2. The site has a certified RNG and is Licensed; This is true of all sites that I know. However the question of why the sites choose to have the licence provided by small autonomous licensing authorities, often based off-shore or in some American Indian reservation should give food for thought. The certification of the RNg's is not quite what it appears to be. The function of generating pseudo random numbers is statistically challenged and a site must fall within accepted boundaries in order to obtain a certificate. However, what checks are undertaken to certify that those generated cards are delivered un-affected to the players is rather mysteriously missing from the detail. If, as I have done, you ask the simple question whether there are any checks, you are met with a deathly silence or waffle. The very people who verify the RNg also supply the game software. 3. It would be too complicated; This is of course nonsense. All the on-line casino games (which are licensed and checked by the very same companies) are legally allowed to run with approximately 12% profit for the site. So when you play the site the games are (legally) loaded so that the players can never win more than 86% of turnover.  The question of sample hands etc is often quoted. Firstly no matter how many samples you have some will say it's not large enough, and that is probably true, after all there are literally trillions of card combinations from a 52 card deck. The fact that the RNG falls within accepted boundaries should tell anyone that the bigger the hand sample the more certain it is that all will be within expected tolerances. So trying to prove anything with hand histories (other than uncovering a super-user or similar) is futile. However, because there are apparently no checks undertaken to certify what happens to those generated cards there are a number of things that could happen. Card sequences could be dumped and not used. The cards could be dealt to any starting position at the table as opposed to the SB receiving the first hole cards generated. I certainly don't know that this happens but most sites have a fairness policy which states that they will produce a fair game to all players. It doesn't say fair and unbiased - just fair. Now I'll just put my baco-foil hat on and continue. Right that's better - If we now take a site that wishes to increase rake and maintain customer base, it could relatively easily include sub-routines to deliver the cards in such a way that levels the playing field. Help the poorer players a little. That will give them confidence and an inflated view of their ability. Their money will last longer and so generate more rake. They will be far more inclined to re-deposit if they think they are good enough to progress at the game. The better players will still prevail - after all the playing field has only been levelled and so their skill will win in the long run. They will be the big account holders with deposits on site, it's just that the site took an extra 20% (or whatever) of rake of them.  The sites may not even understand what is done. The software providers will see to that for them. These are the very same people who certify the RNG by the way. So if I've made my argument well there are reasons for equalising skill factors. The winners still win and the losers still lose - they just take longer to do it. The worrying thing for me is that if you ask the questions you are stone-walled - now if there was absolutely nothing amiss why would that be? Sorry it was so long a reply.
    Posted by elsadog

    Well that sent you all to sleep ................ job done :o)

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jakallyjakally
    edited March 2011
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post:
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post : Problem is Elsa, that no-one who is on the 'is it rigged' side of the discussion, has put forward any evidence to support their point of view.... it's mostly, I don't trust online poker, and it's up to the poker sites to MAKE me trust them. This maybe a slight over simplification, but it's not far from the truth. Occasionally, someone interjects with a 'I once met this man...', but it's rarely / ever a solid source with a name, and the sites they are referring to, and why we should believe them. If it is that bad, why can someone not come up with some evidence that says 'over 100,000 hands the river card was an Ace 14% of the time, instead of just under 8%. That would be far better, as a basis for a debate.
    Posted by jakally

    Elsa, apologies, your detailed post obv deserves a response.

    I'm afraid it's 'see above'.

    You explain why an online poker site may be inclined to rig / jazz up it's RNG, but can offer no evidence that it's happening... not even the slightest shred.

    And you feel that SkyPoker should be defending their position.... defending what position? The fact that they are a reputable company, improving their customer offer, and increasing their market share, with absolutley no evidence that  they have achieved this with anything other than good business practice.

    If they were in any way suspect, don't you think that some of their competitors, who are losing market share to SP, would be on the case?

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited March 2011
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post:
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post : Elsa, apologies, your detailed post obv deserves a response. I'm afraid it's 'see above'. You explain why  an online poker site may be inclined to rig / jazz up it's RNG, but can offer no evidence that it's happening... not even the slightest shred. And you feel that SkyPoker should be defending their position.... defending what position? The fact that they are a reputable company, improving their customer offer, and increasing their market share, with absolutley no evidence that  they have achieved this with anything other than good business practice. If they were in any way suspect, don't you think that some of their competitors, who are losing market share to SP, would be on the case?
    Posted by jakally
    Sky and all poker sites offer the RNG certificate as an assurance to it's customers that all is kosher. Unfortunately the certificate is like having an MOT for your car and they haven't tested the brakes or steering. It only does half the job. When you ask about the missing bits you are met with silence and waffle. Why is that if all is good?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • penguin7penguin7
    edited March 2011
    Probably a stupid question Elsa, but humour me ! If Sky and other sites are allowed to generate a 12% profit, how do they achieve this, if the rake is generally 10% or less when you include rake back. For Sky is that figure for Sky Poker alone or would it be lumped together with Sky Vegas ?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • pomfrittespomfrittes
    edited March 2011
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post:
    Probably a stupid question Elsa, but humour me ! If Sky and other sites are allowed to generate a 12% profit, how do they achieve this, if the rake is generally 10% or less when you include rake back. For Sky is that figure for Sky Poker alone or would it be lumped together with Sky Vegas ?
    Posted by penguin7

     I think the 12% relates to casinos not poker. i.e. where you are playing against the house, not other players.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited March 2011
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post:
    Probably a stupid question Elsa, but humour me ! If Sky and other sites are allowed to generate a 12% profit, how do they achieve this, if the rake is generally 10% or less when you include rake back. For Sky is that figure for Sky Poker alone or would it be lumped together with Sky Vegas ?
    Posted by penguin7

    Yes as Pomfrittes has said, this relates to casino games. These casino games are certified and regulated by TST and AGCC just as the poker site is. The software is supplied by the parent company TST who then have their subsidiary company issue certificates of compliance for their own product. They in turn are overseen by AGCC who receive their funding from the very poker sites they are regulating and licensing.

    The question of rake on poker sites is different. Proving anything untoward is virtually impossible, but it follows that if a company can design software to give a 12% return from a pRNG and certify that it is within accepted tolerance, it could apply similar software to the poker room either with or without the site management's knowledge. If an inexperienced player joins a ring game with a number of more experienced players it is inevitable that all his money will be lost. The amount of rake is therefore dependant on how many hands it takes for the newbie to lose all his money.  Even a slight levelling of the field post-shuffle will increase the rake substantially. The end result will be the same, all outcomes of the pRNG check will be satisfied, but the rake will have been increased and an inexperienced player will have tasted some success along the way. All good for business, but as I said earlier, impossible to prove. Asking questions relating to this possible scenario are stone-walled and so you have to form your own opinion from that.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • pomfrittespomfrittes
    edited March 2011
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post:
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post : Yes as Pomfrittes has said, this relates to casino games. These casino games are certified and regulated by TST and AGCC just as the poker site is. The software is supplied by the parent company TST who then have their subsidiary company issue certificates of compliance for their own product. They in turn are overseen by AGCC who receive their funding from the very poker sites they are regulating and licensing. The question of rake on poker sites is different. Proving anything untoward is virtually impossible, but it follows that if a company can design software to give a 12% return from a pRNG and certify that it is within accepted tolerance, it could apply similar software to the poker room either with or without the site management's knowledge. If an inexperienced player joins a ring game with a number of more experienced players it is inevitable that all his money will be lost. The amount of rake is therefore dependant on how many hands it takes for the newbie to lose all his money.  Even a slight levelling of the field post-shuffle will increase the rake substantially. The end result will be the same, all outcomes of the pRNG check will be satisfied, but the rake will have been increased and an inexperienced player will have tasted some success along the way. All good for business, but as I said earlier, impossible to prove. Asking questions relating to this possible scenario are stone-walled and so you have to form your own opinion from that.
    Posted by elsadog

      I am sorry Elsa, but i really can not imagine a scenario where a poker site has a member of staff sat waiting to see an inexperienced player sit at a table of regs and then flick a switch to level the playing field as you put it. Who is this person that will know who are experirnced or otherwise. A new player to Sky could be a very experienced player ay any number of other sites.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited March 2011
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post:
    In Response to Re: Is online poker rigged? - Blog Post :   I am sorry Elsa, but i really can not imagine a scenario where a poker site has a member of staff sat waiting to see an inexperienced player sit at a table of regs and then flick a switch to level the playing field as you put it. Who is this person that will know who are experirnced or otherwise. A new player to Sky could be a very experienced player ay any number of other sites.
    Posted by pomfrittes

    LOL you make it far too complicated. There need not be any recognition of individual players. The more experienced players will control pot sizes better and minimize losses. They will be better bankrolled and losing a buy-in or two will not mean they exit the game. It will just take longer to bust the inexperienced player. Equalising the table doesn't change the eventual outcome, it just delays it.

    For simplicity just imagine that the software only allows each player to win one hand per rotation as an average. If all players were of equal skill levels and equally bankrolled then the money would just continue to circulate, generating rake until all the money was gone. Because all players are not of equal skill the better skilled will still win eventually - just less than they would had the extra rake not been generated.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • penguin7penguin7
    edited March 2011
    TBH you fail to convince me that by tinkering with the outcome of the RNG, software can be used to increase the rake as a percentage of the turnover. Although I can see how it would be possible to increase turnover to generate more profit by say producing more action hands. But the rake/turnover ratio would surely be unchanged ?

    The reason for the secondary question, to which you confirmed Pomfrites answer, was that I was trying to relate it to a casino running a poker room. Often tournaments have a fee of 10% of the buyin as the rake and I would think the cash table rake is capped at a similar level. So they are happy to make a profit of far less than 12% on their poker operation even before costs are considered. But this is because they know that some poker players will pump money into gaming machines, where the margins are much higher, or have a spin on the roulette table. In that way they have a busy operation which altogether can produce the required profit.

    Surely the same applies to gaming sites where betting and live casino games are offered (eg Skybet and Skyvegas). I have some experience as a bookmaker and know that the odds offered in the industry are generally in the region of 20% overround. I have never played on Skyvegas but I am sure that software can legitimately used to generate a guaranteed % which is higher than poker produces. I am equally certain that as in a casino, the poker side is exploited to provide more footfall in the other areas, and when all the bits are put together produce the required margin.

    I am no expert and as such I am posting mainly out of curiosity. Personally I doubt if any major gaming site would take the risk of messing about with the RNG output, there is no need for it, and they have far too much to lose.

    But I do understand your concerns about certification and regulation. Unfortunately the status quo is all the law requires, and there would need a lot of pressure applied for any of the major players to offer anything more.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • unknown_usernameunknown_username
    edited March 2011
    I have never suggested the RNG output is altered. Just the opposite in fact.

    I think you misunderstand the reason for giving the example of casino games.

    The % of rake is unchanged. The more hands a player can play for a given amount of money would increase the total rake accordingly.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.