poker rooms and their working process(RNG,security,tests)

hey ticboy,i was just trying to say it is fair and normal that when i have AA to win 4 of 5 not lose 4 of 5...thats all...

and for posting,i ll try to be shorter and more easy to read...

i never said that i am very good at maths,i never went to any university...

alphabet,no,dont like to play victim,i dont lose,and i am winning player(at least at micro levels,as i never played higher)...but dont like even if micro levels,that any two can crack aces 4 of 5,just example...what is message there??play any two as you always have 50%-50%??and i dont agree that for shuflle...online better??LOL...i am not so LIVE player,but play for fun now and then,and by my expirience,you never see LIVE as much things happenning in short time,no way...just my opinion...

what is message there??play any two as you always have 50%-50%??

Go for it! let us know how that goes

Originally posted by janushr

but dont like even if micro levels,that any two can crack aces 4 of 5,just example...what is message there??play any two as you always have 50%-50%??

Nope try not to think of it as 4/5 think of it as 80%. Every time x situation happens you have 80% chance to win no matter what happened the time before. Lets flip it around say you have AA vs KK and we round it to it being an 80/20 situation. Lets play this hand 5 times and your AA wins the first 4 times. On the 5th time have you already lost before you see the board? No exactly. the 5th time you still expect to win you are still an 80% favourite despite your logic saying you must lose this hand. Make sense now?

and i dont agree that for shuflle...online better??LOL...i am not so LIVE player,but play for fun now and then,and by my expirience,you never see LIVE as much things happenning in short time,no way...just my opinion...

You don't see happen in live as much because you are 1 tabling an playing A LOT LESS hands per hour it happens the same amount of times it just takes longer for you to see it.

ok,carl,i have my worries from there,that somebody else decide who wins,RNG or w-e,and if i lose hundred times with aces in row,just hipotecticall,its not fair...and we cant have any test or results and have to trust blindly that all is ok...

i noticed also few guys who wrote about the stuff when you disorted few numbers,not big,but still in favor of weaker players(they obv dont do that,IF THEY DO,ofc,for better players;))

i also agree somewhat with alphabet that my presumptions are perhapse bit shaddy,but the all explenation isnt so well,esspecially this part 3.validation...if you try to understand what say there,i have my conclusions,you can have yours,but nothing is 100% sure...thats why i asked some questions here,and was really trying to avoid RIGGED...i really would like to know just simple answer on this question..part 3..validation??

Simple fact that site allows all kinds of programs to be available to you real time to get unfair advantage is enough proof to me.

They're allowing collusion and bots as well without you noticing.

What else we want to know? Proof that they're tweaking deal for weak players? Likelihood of themselves using bots? Or superuser accounts?

Why do we need that last piece of supporting evidence and allow them to beat us up to the very end? Is it our gambling habits that is so difficult to get off playing? Perception of me having enough skill to beat any game no matter how stacked it is against me? I feel sorry for all who can't stop for one or another reason.

You can check graphs where are the most winners by country and surprisingly you will find Malta & Gib always up top. Why? Are they really having this high ratio of pros or is it just coincidence that ppl with direct access to software have the best success in online poker?

Originally posted by mattisks
Simple fact that site allows all kinds of programs to be available to you real time to get unfair advantage is enough proof to me.

They're allowing collusion and bots as well without you noticing.

What else we want to know? Proof that they're tweaking deal for weak players? Likelihood of themselves using bots? Or superuser accounts?

Why do we need that last piece of supporting evidence and allow them to beat us up to the very end? Is it our gambling habits that is so difficult to get off playing? Perception of me having enough skill to beat any game no matter how stacked it is against me? I feel sorry for all who can't stop for one or another reason.

You can check graphs where are the most winners by country and surprisingly you will find Malta & Gib always up top. Why? Are they really having this high ratio of pros or is it just coincidence that ppl with direct access to software have the best success in online poker?

I'm not 100% sure if this post is serious or not but i'll roll with it ♦ So i've never seen any solid proof or even half solid proof that any of the sites i play on are rigged. There was the Absolute Poker/Ultimate Bet scandal and since then i have never played there. If there was any real proof of any rigging/cheating on any of the PokerStrategy.com partner rooms i'm in no doubt that the partnership would end immediately but there is no proof only tilted players making thread after thread about it being rigged.

As for winning players being based in Gib and Malta well sure. A lot of gaming and gambling companys are based there, they usually hire people who know what they are talking about. Ok not everyone that works at PokerStrategy.com will be crushing high stakes but take the head of our poker school for instance, Pleno1 he crushes up to (and probably higher than) NL1k. Many coaches move to Gib to work closely with PokerStrategy.com and it's not the only poker based company there so of course winners live out there.

Originally posted by janushr

,and if i lose hundred times with aces in row,just hipotecticall,its not fair

But it is fair this is the point i'm trying to make. It is just really unlucky if it happens but it can happen easily. You are only entitled to win 80% of the time on average when you play out this scenario millions and millions of times and 100 is not enough of a sample to tell. You could lose the first 100 times and win the next 700 times you just need to play more to see this

i must also agree with carl,that beside UB/AP there wasnt any conclusive evidence,hard evidence that is rigged in any way...thats true...

this other point,i dont like

man,if i lose hundred times in a row w AA,i would quit instant poker...i get slaped 4,5 times and i am already whining like a wolf

whats with that HU challange??played last night PKR some real deepstacked big blinds w 300k and 1-2k-200 ante...was fun,ended into 30 something out of 500 something...turn 1$ into 2.25$

When you say you found issues with some document, it might be helpful if you linked to it! Regardless, I found what you were talking about, since I am bored.

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/rng/cigital-rng-labresults.pdf

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 Cigital during the evaluation.

Eh, you're reading too much into it. Haven't you read how contracts are drawn and laws in writing? Of course cigitel has to say that, they cant assure that it'll work fine if someone throws a hammer at it. If you were a QA agency, would you even state anything else without opening yourself to all sorts of risks?

Stop looking at all facts as though they are evidence for your argument, and you might find that they say something else altogether...