[Closed] Rigged poker or just very bad luck

To fcumred

You lost me during your long post. Why? Because you're paranoid.

If you don't like giving the site your money, as you call it, then don't.

This is like debating the creation of the earth with a priest really. I'm the scientist and you're the priest:

scien: The earth was created millions of years ago
priest: No. God created it about 6000 years ago - in 7 days.
scien: You're wrong my friend. We have scientific evidence that the earth has been evolving for millions of years.
priest. God is almighty. Don't you think he could make it LOOK LIKE it has been around for longer?
---
Conversation over.

I really don't mean to be rude. But you seem like a paraniod guy/girl.

You claim that they would make money by making bots and putting them out on the micro/low stakes tables? (because the OP was playing that I assume that's what you're claiming).

Hmm. Okay. I have to stop playing poker. The internet pros are bots. Tom Dwan is not durrrr - he's just a face Full Tilt is using. KipPoker is a PokerStars created bot taking our money by the help of a rigged deck.

As I said you're the priest and I reall don't have much more left to do than - ROFL. Quit poker man. They're cheating you.

Don't bother giving one of your smartass replies to this. I won't read it anyway.

horse racing, casinos, fruit machines, lotteries

are -$EV even without rigs.

A rather compelling piece of evidence anti rigging and pro player stupidity is the following.

People I've heard complaining about rigging because they are on a downswing: ~10

People I've heard complaining about rigging because somebody else is on an upswing: 0

Which is interesting, because just because you are on a downswing doesn't mean the site's getting more money, except to the extent that you're tilting, which is your own fault really and happens even without interference.

Originally posted by bluepianist

horse racing, casinos, fruit machines, lotteries

are -$EV even without rigs.

A rather compelling piece of evidence anti rigging and pro player stupidity is the following.

People I've heard complaining about rigging because they are on a downswing: ~10

People I've heard complaining about rigging because somebody else is on an upswing: 0

Which is interesting, because just because you are on a downswing doesn't mean the site's getting more money, except to the extent that you're tilting, which is your own fault really and happens even without interference.

In 2 lines you just said what I tried to say in several posts. I knew someone would be better than me at this thanks.

Also there's this post on the forum:
Is PartyPoker rigged?

Think about what you've just said there Einstein... Who holds the prize funds ? The poker sites of course. So they tell YOU how much is in the pot. If there are 900 entrants how do you know that they havent just made up the fact there are 901 entries and placed one entrant in themselves ?

I dont know if you've noticed that the sites add on 10% to every entry fee.

If a buy in is $10+1 then for every 10 entrants they have $10 for themselves to do what they like with. Perhaps they could decide to pay for an entry themselves making it 11 entrants. ( they dont lose anything because its a free entry for them ). If they win they get the lot. If they lose then it doesnt matter because you've paid for their entry anyway

so, at first, you argue that in a $1000 (I assume this is a "guaranteed" tournament) if 80 players enter, then the site would lose money. So then, you suggest that they put 20 bot players to fill up the slots.

First off, if you lose a part of a debate, or make an error in your judgement, you should accept it as such, and not be ashamed to admit it. By trying to cover your ass, you just make yourself look like more of a fool.

You exact words were

"If its a $10 buy in with a guaranteed payout of $1000 how often do you see only 80 players and the site risks losing $200. It never happens... They always reach the minimum numbers required to cover their payout."

In a latter argument, you try to cover your ass by saying that the site puts players in to increase their own chance of winning, but the key point here is that you stated "the site risks losing $200" which is why they put in 20 players to "cover their payout." Of course, this point is incorrect, since the site would have to "pay" for the bots to go in, thereby not doing anything to "cover the payout" This point was correctly brought on by Kimber88, and instead of admitting your mistake, you try to twist your way out of it, making an even more senseless point.

With your first argument totally foiled, you NOW decide that the REAL issue is that

"If a buy in is $10+1 then for every 10 entrants they have $10 for themselves to do what they like with. Perhaps they could decide to pay for an entry themselves making it 11 entrants. ( they dont lose anything because its a free entry for them ). If they win they get the lot. If they lose then it doesnt matter because you've paid for their entry anyway"

First, you need to keep this in mind - in a guaranteed tournament, say 110 players, the prize pool raises ($10+1) to $1100, it does not stay at the guaranteed $1000.

Second, in such a tournament, the true break even point for the site comes at $1000/($10+1) = 90 players as the prize pool will not increase until at least the $1000 in reached.

But this is where your argument goes wrong:

1) I give you that, in a guaranteed tournament, it would appear possible that if 80 players sign up for a $1000 guaranteed $10+1 tournament, the site could put in 20 filler players to increase their own chance of winning (although this wasn't your original point). There are several reasons why this isn't realistic though.

a) when players (real human) see that a tournament (esp a guaranteed) is keeping small, they are more likely to sign up, therefore bringing the entry to over the barrier

b) even if the site puts in the 20 filler players, they dont' actually "make back" the $200 (actually $120) unless the bots make the money

c) the bots have just an equal chance to everyone else to make the money. although the site will statistically increase their chance taking the money back, this doesnt' affect each player individually (thereby not necessarily "rigged" for the individual user)

unless

d) that you are arguing that the RNGs are geared towards making wins for the bots

Very unlikely

Secondly, most tournaments don't have a guaranteed prize pool, in which case your theory doesnt' work at all. Why would a site want to pool together 11 $1 fees in order to field their own entrant. It makes no sense at all (in a non-guarantee) tournament. Assume again a field of 100 players for $10+1:

this makes $1000 prize pool + $100 profit for the site.

if at this point, the site puts 5 players into the pack, making 105 in total, then:

$1050 prize pool + $50 profit. btw, if site enters 10 players, then they might risk making no profit at all.

Assume an individual player will make money by getting into final table (which is realistic for a 100 player tourney). Their individual chance of making money is 10%. So, a site would have to risk $10 of sure profit in order for a 10% chance to make more. I'm not even goign to get into the ROI to see whether that makes sense, because in the end, why would any business do that?

Instead, the site just needs to run the tournament to make the $100 for sure each time. Obviously, this profit is even more as the limits go up.

Thus, the poker room makes money based on volume, and not based on rigging individual tournaments, and definitely not on individual hands.

Originally posted by Kimber88
To fcumred

You lost me during your long post. Why? Because you're paranoid.

If you don't like giving the site your money, as you call it, then don't.

This is like debating the creation of the earth with a priest really. I'm the scientist and you're the priest:

scien: The earth was created millions of years ago
priest: No. God created it about 6000 years ago - in 7 days.
scien: You're wrong my friend. We have scientific evidence that the earth has been evolving for millions of years.
priest. God is almighty. Don't you think he could make it LOOK LIKE it has been around for longer?
---
Conversation over.

I really don't mean to be rude. But you seem like a paraniod guy/girl.

You claim that they would make money by making bots and putting them out on the micro/low stakes tables? (because the OP was playing that I assume that's what you're claiming).

Hmm. Okay. I have to stop playing poker. The internet pros are bots. Tom Dwan is not durrrr - he's just a face Full Tilt is using. KipPoker is a PokerStars created bot taking our money by the help of a rigged deck.

As I said you're the priest and I reall don't have much more left to do than - ROFL. Quit poker man. They're cheating you.

Don't bother giving one of your smartass replies to this. I won't read it anyway.

You really are an idiot arent you.

You are no way bright enough to be a scientist.

It is actually you that is more like the priest with your claims that there is absolutely no way on gods earth that poker could possibly be rigged. It is beyond the realms of all possibility.

I am saying it COULD be. Merely giving you possible examples of where and how it could be done. I am not saying that they DEFINITELY are doing it, merely they could.

If you believe that poker is 100% squeaky clean and theres nothing that could be done by the poker sites then you carry on. I wish you were a girl actually because If I told you that my penis tasted of chocolate you are that gullible you would taste it to find out..

It was that form of ignorance that made people believe man couldnt fly, the earth was flat and that babies were delivered by storks...

As I say, I am not claiming it definitely is rigged. I am saying it COULD be. You however know so much about the firms and the sites you have 100% conclusive proof that it isnt... Would you provide that proof please ?

rigged for sure !

Originally posted by williamtywong

Think about what you've just said there Einstein... Who holds the prize funds ? The poker sites of course. So they tell YOU how much is in the pot. If there are 900 entrants how do you know that they havent just made up the fact there are 901 entries and placed one entrant in themselves ?

I dont know if you've noticed that the sites add on 10% to every entry fee.

If a buy in is $10+1 then for every 10 entrants they have $10 for themselves to do what they like with. Perhaps they could decide to pay for an entry themselves making it 11 entrants. ( they dont lose anything because its a free entry for them ). If they win they get the lot. If they lose then it doesnt matter because you've paid for their entry anyway

so, at first, you argue that in a $1000 (I assume this is a "guaranteed" tournament) if 80 players enter, then the site would lose money. So then, you suggest that they put 20 bot players to fill up the slots.

First off, if you lose a part of a debate, or make an error in your judgement, you should accept it as such, and not be ashamed to admit it. By trying to cover your ass, you just make yourself look like more of a fool.

You exact words were

"If its a $10 buy in with a guaranteed payout of $1000 how often do you see only 80 players and the site risks losing $200. It never happens... They always reach the minimum numbers required to cover their payout."

In a latter argument, you try to cover your ass by saying that the site puts players in to increase their own chance of winning, but the key point here is that you stated "the site risks losing $200" which is why they put in 20 players to "cover their payout." Of course, this point is incorrect, since the site would have to "pay" for the bots to go in, thereby not doing anything to "cover the payout" This point was correctly brought on by Kimber88, and instead of admitting your mistake, you try to twist your way out of it, making an even more senseless point.

With your first argument totally foiled, you NOW decide that the REAL issue is that

"If a buy in is $10+1 then for every 10 entrants they have $10 for themselves to do what they like with. Perhaps they could decide to pay for an entry themselves making it 11 entrants. ( they dont lose anything because its a free entry for them ). If they win they get the lot. If they lose then it doesnt matter because you've paid for their entry anyway"

First, you need to keep this in mind - in a guaranteed tournament, say 110 players, the prize pool raises ($10+1) to $1100, it does not stay at the guaranteed $1000.

Second, in such a tournament, the true break even point for the site comes at $1000/($10+1) = 90 players as the prize pool will not increase until at least the $1000 in reached.

But this is where your argument goes wrong:

1) I give you that, in a guaranteed tournament, it would appear possible that if 80 players sign up for a $1000 guaranteed $10+1 tournament, the site could put in 20 filler players to increase their own chance of winning (although this wasn't your original point). There are several reasons why this isn't realistic though.

a) when players (real human) see that a tournament (esp a guaranteed) is keeping small, they are more likely to sign up, therefore bringing the entry to over the barrier

b) even if the site puts in the 20 filler players, they dont' actually "make back" the $200 (actually $120) unless the bots make the money

c) the bots have just an equal chance to everyone else to make the money. although the site will statistically increase their chance taking the money back, this doesnt' affect each player individually (thereby not necessarily "rigged" for the individual user)

unless

d) that you are arguing that the RNGs are geared towards making wins for the bots

Very unlikely

Secondly, most tournaments don't have a guaranteed prize pool, in which case your theory doesnt' work at all. Why would a site want to pool together 11 $1 fees in order to field their own entrant. It makes no sense at all (in a non-guarantee) tournament. Assume again a field of 100 players for $10+1:

this makes $1000 prize pool + $100 profit for the site.

if at this point, the site puts 5 players into the pack, making 105 in total, then:

$1050 prize pool + $50 profit. btw, if site enters 10 players, then they might risk making no profit at all.

Assume an individual player will make money by getting into final table (which is realistic for a 100 player tourney). Their individual chance of making money is 10%. So, a site would have to risk $10 of sure profit in order for a 10% chance to make more. I'm not even goign to get into the ROI to see whether that makes sense, because in the end, why would any business do that?

Instead, the site just needs to run the tournament to make the $100 for sure each time. Obviously, this profit is even more as the limits go up.

Thus, the poker room makes money based on volume, and not based on rigging individual tournaments, and definitely not on individual hands.

The most telling point you make in that post is "HIGHLY UNLIKELY"

So you are not saying 100% categorically that its impossible, like the other poster. You are saying its UNLIKELY..

The point I am trying to make, is neither you nor I know for 100% sure that poker sites are not rigging things. As you say its UNLIKELY but that in itself is an admission that its POSSIBLE.

This is GAMBLING we are talking about, and in gambling everyone tries to get the upper hand, be it a bookmaker, a jockey, a slot machine owner, whoever. Someone tries to get the edge to make sure they are ultimately the ones who win...

Why is it absolutely impossible that poker sites arent the same..

Your whole post is based around "But its highly unlikely they would do that"

At no point can you prove anywhere that

a) its impossible
b) THey are not doing it

You are basing your whole argument on the basis that you dont THINK they would do it. That is not enough to base a whole argument. THey didnt think man would get into space based on what they knew. Well clearly someone somewhere knew something the doubters didnt.

When someone can come to me with 100% guaranteed proof online poker isnt rigged then I will listen and admit I am wrong. However until that point I stand by the fact that its possible to rig a game of online poker, its beneficial IF it can be done, and that somewhere someone is doing it...

http://www.bankrollboost.com/poker_blog/absolute-poker-rigged/

This should about sum it up really...

Now bear in mind this is the OWNER of Absolute poker who was being implicated.

Notice how the poster says pretty much the same as those on here..

Its not likely..

Well, it was more than likely. It was definitely happening but all the way through the vast majority of poker players who played online screamed the same thing

NO WAY ITS NOT POSSIBLE...

Look how stupid they ended up looking in the end when it was proven that there was cheating going on..

And I love the way that people try to suggest that seeing someones hole cards from within the company is different to cheating by way of rigging the hands.

If someone somewhere can see my hand then whether the cards are random or not, its still bloody cheating and rigging the game in their favour...

When someone can come to me with 100% guaranteed proof online poker isnt rigged then I will listen and admit I am wrong.

If you take this approach to things perhaps you should find another world to live in. There's a point whereafter it becomes simply sensible to consider everything that is highly improbable to be impossible, insofar as assuming otherwise would not potentially provide us with tangible benefits. Therefore, insofar as our thesis is "internet poker being rigged is so very improbable it is undistinguishable from being impossible", the provided arguments are completely valid.

Even in case the (sufficiently molecular) chance of poker being rigged hits home, experience tells us that good players still make money. It's also within logic that people wouldn't make that much more even if the rigs were discovered and removed for certain, since variance is still there and biting the unsuspecting player in the arse. Basically whether poker is rigged or not is reduced to arguably pointless philosophy, and is something that should be discussed in the kind of circles that speculate whether the government is composed of aliens, and whether we're all just brains in a vat.

Edit: Unless I'm mistaken, you just told us that the one time people did rig online poker, they were caught. Tell us again, are you for or against the motion?

Originally posted by bluepianist

When someone can come to me with 100% guaranteed proof online poker isnt rigged then I will listen and admit I am wrong.

If you take this approach to things perhaps you should find another world to live in. There's a point whereafter it becomes simply sensible to consider everything that is highly improbable to be impossible, insofar as assuming otherwise would not potentially provide us with tangible benefits. Therefore, insofar as our thesis is "internet poker being rigged is so very improbable it is undistinguishable from being impossible", the provided arguments are completely valid.

Even in case the (sufficiently molecular) chance of poker being rigged hits home, experience tells us that good players still make money. It's also within logic that people wouldn't make that much more even if the rigs were discovered and removed for certain, since variance is still there and biting the unsuspecting player in the arse. Basically whether poker is rigged or not is reduced to arguably pointless philosophy, and is something that should be discussed in the kind of circles that speculate whether the government is composed of aliens, and whether we're all just brains in a vat.

Edit: Unless I'm mistaken, you just told us that the one time people did rig online poker, they were caught. Tell us again, are you for or against the motion?

Firstly, it is not me that has a completely closed mind about alternative possibilities. It is those that claim that poker can in no way be rigged that have the narrow minded view. As I said, and I re-iterate, I am not saying poker is rigged, I am saying it COULD be. Are you saying with 100% certainty that it isnt, and in no way could be ?

I can prove that its possible, merely by the fact that two poker sites have been caught doing it. The fact no one else has been caught is not proof that its not happening. As they say, nothing is illegal. It only becomes illegal when you get caught.

I have been around long enough to know that where gambling and poker are concerned, cheating and underhanded behaviour is close by. Thats the way it is, thats the way it always has been. Whether its the people running events, the players whoever. Someone somewhere will try get an advantage.

unless of course you are claiming that all poker players are the model of society and would never dare do anything to cheat. THen I would seriously doubt your sanity....

As for am I againt the motion. I can ony assume that you mean do I care if poker sites are rigged. Actually no I dont. I play because i love the game. SO therefore whether its rigged in their favour or not, I'd still play.

Originally posted by fcumredAre you saying with 100% certainty that it isnt, and in no way could be ?

Originally posted by bluepianist

When someone can come to me with 100% guaranteed proof online poker isnt rigged then I will listen and admit I am wrong.

If you take this approach to things perhaps you should find another world to live in. There's a point whereafter it becomes simply sensible to consider everything that is highly improbable to be impossible, insofar as assuming otherwise would not potentially provide us with tangible benefits. Therefore, insofar as our thesis is "internet poker being rigged is so very improbable it is undistinguishable from being impossible", the provided arguments are completely valid.

Even in case the (sufficiently molecular) chance of poker being rigged hits home, experience tells us that good players still make money. It's also within logic that people wouldn't make that much more even if the rigs were discovered and removed for certain, since variance is still there and biting the unsuspecting player in the arse. Basically whether poker is rigged or not is reduced to arguably pointless philosophy, and is something that should be discussed in the kind of circles that speculate whether the government is composed of aliens, and whether we're all just brains in a vat.

Edit: Unless I'm mistaken, you just told us that the one time people did rig online poker, they were caught. Tell us again, are you for or against the motion?

If you look closely, I already replied to your question, and elaborated on my answer. Can you find it? (hint: look for the bolded text!)

Basically, all portents point to it not being rigged, so the zero hypothesis is that it's not rigged, and challenging that hypothesis would most likely not prove that lucrative, is my point.

Originally posted by bluepianist

Originally posted by fcumredAre you saying with 100% certainty that it isnt, and in no way could be ?

Originally posted by bluepianist

When someone can come to me with 100% guaranteed proof online poker isnt rigged then I will listen and admit I am wrong.

If you take this approach to things perhaps you should find another world to live in. There's a point whereafter it becomes simply sensible to consider everything that is highly improbable to be impossible, insofar as assuming otherwise would not potentially provide us with tangible benefits. Therefore, insofar as our thesis is "internet poker being rigged is so very improbable it is undistinguishable from being impossible", the provided arguments are completely valid.

Even in case the (sufficiently molecular) chance of poker being rigged hits home, experience tells us that good players still make money. It's also within logic that people wouldn't make that much more even if the rigs were discovered and removed for certain, since variance is still there and biting the unsuspecting player in the arse. Basically whether poker is rigged or not is reduced to arguably pointless philosophy, and is something that should be discussed in the kind of circles that speculate whether the government is composed of aliens, and whether we're all just brains in a vat.

Edit: Unless I'm mistaken, you just told us that the one time people did rig online poker, they were caught. Tell us again, are you for or against the motion?

If you look closely, I already replied to your question, and elaborated on my answer. Can you find it? (hint: look for the bolded text!)

Basically, all portents point to it not being rigged, so the zero hypothesis is that it's not rigged, and challenging that hypothesis would most likely not prove that lucrative, is my point.

All portents point to it not being rigged ?

Can you provide evidence that does suggest poker is not rigged ?

Because so far neither yourself or any other person has come up with one scrap of conclusive evidence to suggest there is nothing going on.

Again, and I keep repeating myself, I am not saying poker is definitely rigged, I am merely pointing out it could be.

You have those on one side claiming it definitely is and claiming to have evidence, and those on the other side claiming it isnt, and again they claim to have evidence.

Neither side has produced one scrap of evidence, so therefore on that basis you have to keep an open mind until one side or other proves otherwise.

Saying it is definitely rigged because your pocket Aces got beat by 7 3 twice is laughable, but so is suggesting that its 100% squeaky clean because its "unlikely" anyone would try it..

In short, you have nutters on both sides of the equation. Those that claim it definitely is, and those that claim it definitely isnt. And neither side has a flaming clue one way or the other. So on that basis I discount neither theory until proven otherwise..

So I stand by my original argument that poker COULD be rigged, and it is possible should the sites choose to do so.. Anyone who argues its not possible is clearly living in some weird and wonderful world far away from reality..

You know what, you win. It's pointless semantics, but you win. I'm going to go back to playing now. ♦

1. Poker site playing bots? No...
2. Poker sites gain MILLIONS of USD everyday from rake, so why make a 1% swing for maybe like an extra 100k. Why risk your whole business?
3. Who do they rig online poker at? Fishes? No the might win and the not play - less rake. Everyone says this but surley it would make more sense to rig in favour of grinders to get them up limits higher - more rake
4. What about massive grinders who have played like 500k - 1 Mil hands. Even if there was a 1% rig, they would notice... Even a 0.1% rig.
5. Poker sites are INDEPENDANTLY checked by companys and GOVERNMENTS. Not sure about the absolute thing but they got caught right?!

So that concludes my lesson... Can a Mod Lock this ridiculous thread!

-kingdippy

lol at the bots in guaranteed tourneys theory, is probably the stupidiest thing I've heard in a very long time.

wait.. so if a $1000 guaranteed tournament only reaches 80 players, from which 20 are bots, then the site is rigged? I FKIN KNEW IT!

r1gged and j1nxed imo...

whatsup with the big ass posts?

This is GAMBLING we are talking about, and in gambling everyone tries to get the upper hand, be it a bookmaker, a jockey, a slot machine owner, whoever. Someone tries to get the edge to make sure they are ultimately the ones who win...

Actually, the pokerroom (unlike a casino) isn't gambling. In games like Blackjack or Roulette, the casino IS gambling vs. you, the player, which is why they make the rules in the house's favour, and they tell you that explicitly.

With specific reference to your quote, bookmakers (in collusion with a jockey), and slot machine owners are all GAMBLING vs. the players/betters.

The key point for you to understand a poker site IS NOT GAMBLING vs the players. It is merely providing a venue through which poker players can play poker online. And to compensate for their services, the winner of each pot pays the rake. This is no different than a live pokerroom. In a live pokerroom, we actually watch the dealer shuffle cards. Are you saying that they have special cheating ways of shuffling too then?

Even if there was cheating, it would be done by individual people (i.e. absolute poker), not the poker site as a whole. Which is why cheating is "possible" in online poker (but not by the site as a whole). Although as I said, the chance of this cheating being successful is "highly unlikely."

I'm gettin a headache just thinkin about reading these posts =l srsly have you nothing better to do than write 3000 word essays on how poker is rigged, if you put that much effort into actually studying the game you would realise its not rigged, bad beats happen, if you cant deal with it then quit!!!!!!!!!

This thread got awesome... thrust, parry and some actual reasoned philosophical debate... we definitely got our moneys worth on this one!!

And all because so many of you dudes can't accept the clear fact that poker is rigged to make monies for the Man.