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!
RNG
Why does the random number generator not randomly generate numbers?
Comments
In Response to RNG:
Gotta love these "Fixed" posts, its random
In Response to Re: RNG:
What are you suggesting?
I'm just saying that different people have different opinions on the subject matter. We have scandals all around us from the business world.
You say "It is random End of". To end a conversation you really need to have a defining faultless piece of evidence. Like it or not there are many potential discrepencies & potential opportunities for base corruption in Online Poker and RNG's that deliver it.
I dont claim to know either way. But I know many people who dont have full confidence in it, also that many pro's have serious doubts. So was simply asking what you know that many others dont, that provides you with such unwavering faith and trust? Even preists look back on their lives and ask "Have I been a fool?". Why is it that online poker is so beyond reproach?
AH ok i can see what you mean but i didnt mean it like that.
what pros doubt the rngs?
+1 i think the only people who doubt the RNG arre people who have just lost.
Am just stating that its not a cut and dry argument. Fact is we do have discrepencies in RNG regulatory bodies and we do have factual evidence that the online poker industry does have very bad practises, it being unclear where these bad practices begin and end.
I would love to be able to say that I believe online poker is 100% above board. But I cant, frankly I dont see how anyone can. We live in a very dubious time where scandal and devious business practises are rife. I find it difficult to accept at face value that something with such potential to be corrupt or fundamentaley flawed, potentially isnt.
Online poker has done nothing to instill 100% confidence in it. I think there are strong arguments on both sides of the fence. Because I cant prove or disprove I hold my peace mostly. But I dont thing there's anything wrong with engaging in debate on the subject matter, infact I've always believed its healthy and appropriate for a consumer base to discuss a product. This being what most people do, but yes there is an element that are very narrow minded on the issue - on both sides.
A Poll undertaken by betfred announced that 52% of british players had a level of mistrust in online poker
The Ultimatebet scandal was initially brought to light by people discussing perceived issues in a forum just like this one.
50% of British poker players mistrust online poker
sites 16/02/2009
Half of all British poker players mistrust online poker websites, according to a survey
commissioned by mobile gambling firm Probability in the run up to the launch of its head-to-head
mobile poker product.
When asked how much they trusted online poker sites, just 12.5% of the respondents were
prepared to say: “I trust them, they provide a good service”. That compared with 36.9% who said
they “mostly trusted them”, with one or two doubts. However, 19.4% said they mistrusted poker
sites and had “a lot of doubts” about them, while 31% of respondents said they did not trust them
“at all”.
The reasons for this lack of trust ranged from not trusting the randomness of the cards dealt
online for 33% of respondents, while 32.3% said they were worried about the safety of their
funds and bank details. A fifth of respondents, 21.3%, said they were concerned about regulation
and 13% said they were unhappy with the use of “software bots”.
The customer service offered by online operators was average (51.8%) according to most
respondents, the majority of whom believed that more than three quarters of sites used “house
players”, even if the poker sites denied it.
Despite this, 36.7% still rated online as their favourite poker venue, although home games were
the overwhelming winners at 57.7%. Just 5.5% said they preferred casinos or poker clubs, but
36% said they would be more likely to visit such venues if the atmosphere were less intimidating.
Charles Cohen, chief executive of Probability, said: “We don’t have any axe to grind on this
issue. In fact, the reverse is true - a healthy poker industry is good for us because the more
people who are comfortable with playing remote poker the more business there is for us to shoot
for.
“Some 50 per cent of players surveyed by the Great British Poker Survey said they did not trust
the online poker sites. A third said they did not trust them at all. Those figures are striking and
came as a surprise even to us. There is clearly an issue here that the industry needs to
address.”
The Great British Poker Survey was carried out by market research specialist 72Point among
more than 2,500 players.
There are numerous pro's that had made derogatory comments in regard to online poker. I'm scouring the t'interweb to find direct quotes. But equally you have to respect they are hard to come by. Mainly due to the fact that many live players (aswell as online) are heavily sponsored by online sites. Virtually every player you see on TV is sponsored my an online site now, making it very foolhardy for them to speak their minds openly.
Again, I'm not saying I believe online poker is rigged. I'm just saying its not a cut and dry issue. If people want to discuss elements of it in a reasonable way they should'nt be demonised and labelled. If players hadnt voiced their opinions the ultimatebet scandal would never have come to light
But dont let the wood disguise the trees. There may come a day when your perception shifts, which has happened for many players in this forum. Whom once advocated your line, but over time it changed.
But voicing the moaning player = losing player just reinforces the propaganda that online sites are happy to propagate. There really are so many industry lines that are accepted as normal that just hold very little in the way of truth.
But your easy dismissal of 2500 peoples POV is pretty much what the industry relies on bud. When you say 90% of players are losing players, again, your regurjitating a industry line. Why are 90% of players losing? Its easy to repeat the statement without any frame of reference to take it in with. How do you know 90% of players lose? Because the industry says so. Why do they lose? Because apparently they just play badly. Its not neccesarily so.
Take human beings impact on global warming as the perfect example.
There's a huge difference between knowledge and wisdom. Most of the things we think we know are just assumed knowledge. Because somedody tells us a fact or % doesnt tell us anything of the meaning or basis of that "fact" or statistic.
Only way a person will ever be educated on a subject is to study multiple perspectives. History, being another prime example. What we understand of political and geographical history is subjective and biased. Yet it is what we are taught as factual, where its only factual to a degree.
Just to simplify how statistics can be misinterpreted or misrepresented:
It is a statistical fact that 2/3rds of African American males between the age of 18 and 32 are either victims of homicide or are in some aspect of correctional detainment (prison). But the statistic doesnt speak for the prejudices within the judical system which leads to prosecution and investigation of the source demographic (nature of stop and search + simple human prejedice/expectation), not to mention the very real inequalities in education and enviromnent. This is in no way a justification. But it is an example of how statistics are commonly used to misrepesent a complicated issue.
The same works for the 90% of players being losers. Its a simple number, taking away all of the context of the subject matter. Boiling it down ito meaningless.
I dont claim to have made my mind up either way, like I've said.
But at the same time I think there would be financial rewards for tampering. But as you say, would it be worth the risk? Probably not, as if it was ever proven - even if cast in a dubious light - it would be game over for the company.
But then that beggers the question as what risk? The off shore Liscence providers are the main governing body, so any immediate consequence would arise there. Who governs the offshore providers though? The recent legality issues with FT have highlighted some erroneous goings on from their part
However, doing something that cheats everyone of your customers is different as it cuts off all income at source, they would not survive this, while they could probably survive paying a huge fine
I think the rngs prob are random, however if someone produces any reliable evidence they are not I might revise that opinion. I just think the risk/reward ratio would be too great for sites to manipulate the rngs, but its not impossible by any stretch
Thing is once you've been caught conducting such bad practice within your business, well lets call it what it is, blatantly breaking the law in multiple ways, your consumer base should be rightly asking "where does the corruption begin and end?". Do we expect the business to be underhand and corrupt on several issues, yet beyond reproach and morally absoloute on other aspects? Why would a group of people elect to be demons on one issue and angels on another? Where are the invisible lines drawn? This is my main concern.
elsa, Im bored of the argument tbh, produce some evidence that a site rigged hands, games whatever and I would prob change my mind
How business ethic is transferrable from issue to issue. So its not really about morality on an ad hoc basis. If a company has been caught acting in such a decietful way on one matter, why should we then believe they will act responsibily on another? Its about breach of trust, capability and culpability. Blatant disregard for the law and also demonstrating the cabability of pre meditated fraud on a huge scale gives me grave concerns.