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!
its not sky thats rigged
everyone always goes on & on about bad beats, got called by the donk with 10 5 off, i got rivered-- again & so on but it usually ends in 'skys rigged' ,,,, well heres another way to look at it (this is just a theory)
if you think about it in this day & age MOST poker players only play online (including me) which is a totally different game to playing live (i used to be a dealer) so ive seen both sides to the coin, people online will ALWAYS call the mighty 10 5 off or the Arag just because they felt like it, i think this is because when they play online they dont see it as real, all they do see is polygons not money they will always call u a donk in the chat because its ONLY them there (chat box hard men), they will limp every hand even call every raise pre flop all because its just the 'thing' to do (seemingly) meaning u cant put them on a range & before people say 'do the math' theyre limping 53 one hand then limp AA the next? so all your bad beats is NOT skys fault niether is it yours its just a fact of polygons & boredom in an online world,
this is not a rant or a rage post nor am i trying to upset anyone, this is just a different view that no-one seems to have mentioned before so please stop blaming sky as they have done a great job to give us a decent poker sight in the first place......
if you think about it in this day & age MOST poker players only play online (including me) which is a totally different game to playing live (i used to be a dealer) so ive seen both sides to the coin, people online will ALWAYS call the mighty 10 5 off or the Arag just because they felt like it, i think this is because when they play online they dont see it as real, all they do see is polygons not money they will always call u a donk in the chat because its ONLY them there (chat box hard men), they will limp every hand even call every raise pre flop all because its just the 'thing' to do (seemingly) meaning u cant put them on a range & before people say 'do the math' theyre limping 53 one hand then limp AA the next? so all your bad beats is NOT skys fault niether is it yours its just a fact of polygons & boredom in an online world,
this is not a rant or a rage post nor am i trying to upset anyone, this is just a different view that no-one seems to have mentioned before so please stop blaming sky as they have done a great job to give us a decent poker sight in the first place......
Comments
cheers red a valid point but i must admit i expect to get shot down for this
i have to agree grave.
most of the younger players seem to think its a video game and play accordingly.
their 9 3 off if it has won in the past, they will play it time and time again.
so when you raise 4x b/b they will still call, because they are not so much trying to win money,
but trying get to the next level.
With regard to the RNG, site operators will usually fall back on broad statements that their's are independently audited and so the integrity is beyond question - end of discussion. None, to the best of my knowledge actually publish what methods are adopted as part of the audit exercise though - I suspect the simple fact is that the operator's staff don't actually know? As I don't believe that any of the auditors have the technical expertise to examine the underlying code that drives the software in use, I suspect the audit is based on the level of deviation of results from the expected average(s)? But take the example of flipping a coin 100,000 times - one would expect the result to be around 50,000 heads, and 50,000 tails - so if the result was 49,872/50,128, with the variation from the average being within 3 standard deviations, the actual results would seem to be quite normal. But if the results were tested on a consecutive event basis, and 49,872 heads were tossed with no tails, and then 50,128 tails were tossed with no heads, the actual result, althoug falling within an expected level of variance would be extremely suspect - I would go so far as to describe this scenario as a mathematical impossibility. A very extreme hypothetical example, but you get the picture.
For the record I don't think there's rigging of the RNG on this site, or any other site, that I've played on. Some of the results I've personally experienced do leave me scratching my head at times though.
Good cards.
If you read my post again, you'll notice that I haven't suggested, or intimated in anyway, that "Sky is so rigged", just commenting that it's possible to prove whatever you want by adoptiing an appropriate audit method. The example I give is an extreme one, but just goes to show that taking averages off of a bottom line doesn't tell you everything? There are audit methods and audit methods - they can be as loose or as robust as you want them to be. How robust they may be for "testing" the fairness of online gaming is an unknown.
It's a bit like asking me the temperature is at the North Pole. I've never been there so I don't know. But if I a saw a photograph of a series of readings that showed that it was regularly above freezing point, regardless of the fact that they had been taken with an independently calibrated thermometer, I think to question those readings is not unreasonable (based on the fact that it's been covered with a think layer of ice since man starting walking the Earth). Such entries wouldn't, of course, constitute proof that the thermometer was out, or the firm that calibrated it and issued the calibration certificate was on the fiddle in some way, but the doubt would remain. Doubt, as a barrister told me once, doesn't constitute proof and isn't an allegation of anything. Possibly one reason why questionable police evidence rarely results in an investigation into whether there're grounds for charges of perverting the course of justice or perjery - despite compensation payouts being awarded to complainants with a fair degree of regularity (but that's another discussion).
In my case, I haven't drawn any conclusions from those results I have seen recently, just that in my own experience of playing they're "remarkable". So I remarked on them . . . .
Chin chin.
Auditing provides no added-value to any organisation, and so really means dead money - costs that have to be (legally required), or are obliged by some sort of trade membership etc (not legally required), incurred. So there's an incentive to keep these costs to a minimum, and restrict the scope of an audit to a bare minimum. Can't really see that the licensing requirements of the Alderney Gaming Commission will mean it'd be any different for the online gaming industry?
Goethe points to something that is relevant that supports any and all critical argument, of which there is a great deal and such includes direct and indirect evidence, both anecdotal and formal. The reason why there is no visible or analytical audit information (particularly from a governing body or independent auditor) is due entirely to the fact that there is no requirement for such or resources for such. Any company worth its salt has audit across the whole of their company either because of statute legislation; shareholder interests or good honest business practice. the online poker world has been riddled with bad practice, illegal activity and corruption of one sort or another either due to the greed of individuals or collective nefarious activities.
Other gambling enterprises have done the same covering a range of sports right through to the bankers and stock market and it still happens today even though they have more stringent rules and more robust procedures. Those that think an unaccountable enterprise like online poker is whiter than those others mentioned with history and are supposed to be accountable are either blind or dumb. which of those two is relevant might account for many bad beats and strange scenario's in play but the software provides the whole and in my experiences it fails to meet a required standard. Those believing otherwise and protecting blindly this enterprise should come up with the evidence that demonstrates the veracity of online poker?
Do you think this story in some way relates to Sky Poker? Does the fact that the first boiler repair man wasn't very trustworthy prove that people are not very trustworthy and therefore Sky Poker should not be trusted?
I don't think your experience of other companies is relevant in any way. Nor do I think the imaginations of some players makes for any evidence of wrongdoing on anyones part. It's simply a fact that when people don't understand something they seek answers based on their own limited knowledge. This is why people once worshipped the sun and believed in witchcraft.
I would strongly urge anyone who thinks that poker is rigged not to re-examine the evidence available to them, but to examine whether the evidence is present in sufficient volume to prove anything, one way or the other. Speculation in the absence of significant evidence is nothing more than tittle-tattle. This is the first and last time I will waste my time with it.
This stuff is normal on here at every table in every tourney and there is no escape from it. It doesnt happen live with such frequency and the other events i mentioned are miracle events that should occur 6 monthly or something but seem to happen daily or weekly at worst. there is no explanation through probability because the frequency doesnt stack up. so why does it happen with such frequency if everyone that is moaning is wrong?
Oh, and for the record I didn't write, or imply in anyway, that SkyPoker shouldn't be trusted - just commented on the lack of transparency regarding the independent audits of online gaming operators that have been quoted in the past as evidence that everything is tickety-boo.