Do poker sites rig the game?

[twizzybop]

Actually you are comparing apples to oranges. I did go and read my post and can see where you mis-read based apon my own typo. I am comparing apples to apples.. I was comparing 1 Video Poker Machine to 1 Table of 10 Players playing hold-em.

Not 1 Video Poker Machine compared to 1 Complete poker website with multiple tables of Hold-em.

Now if you wish to do that we can now add the same # of video poker machines to equal that of the same # of tables playing hold-em on a poker website. Then you may compare the # of hands that come out on both variables, but yet I would still bet the farm that the Royal Flush would hardly come out on those video machines compared to a Poker website.

Next time if I were you, I would get the variables correct before stepping on your gold plated soapbox.

 

[diabloblanco]

First, its a platinum throne, not a gold-plated soapbox. Second, if you know there was a typo and the thread didn't read correctly, how do you justify jumping my ass? I didn't insult you at all, but invariably here you come barking in my direction.

Last, your comparison is so wrong, on so many levels, I'm not even going to bother to reply other than to say simply, there are enough hands dealt/day on online poker sites to easily justify a Royal Flush that often. Period.

 

[twizzybop]

if you know there was a typo and the thread didn't read correctly, how do you justify jumping my ass?

Ok I will fix the typo but yet it will be unnoticable. Then again you jumped 1st by saying "apples to oranges". I just happen to jump more abruptly than you, mine was more noticable.

I didn't insult you at all, but invariably here you come barking in my direction.
I didn't insult you either.

Last, your comparison is so wrong, on so many levels, I'm not even going to bother to reply other than to say simply, there are enough hands dealt/day on online poker sites to easily justify a Royal Flush that often. Period.

LOL this is funny. Why is it wrong? Cause you say so??? So we are supposed to believe you are right because you have the platinum throne??

See again you keep adding more variables to the picture. I will fix the typo to variably keep it simple. 1 Poker Machine dealing 1 complete hand vs 1 Poker table of 10 players gettting the possibilites of getting non-completed hands to 10 completed hands.

1st lets start with 1 hand of video poker=5 cards.. Minimum one can get
1 hand of hold-em =20 cards and just the BB wins cause everyone folds(non-completed hands by the way).

So on a guesstimate that hand of video poker was dealt faster and over with then the 10 hands of hold-em. Without further variables to see if the poker player makes a decision compared to the 10 players making a decision.

Then last of all.. You haven't been an online player for how long?? Just recently got back to playing online didn't you but odd on how all of a sudden that you are so right on so many levels?? Hmmmmm.. makes one wonder that stature of your throne.

 

[MicheleW]

Twizzy - Diablo disagrees with most everything I say too - but that doesn't make him right. I know that and don't let it get under my skin. I think its a personality fault of his or his gender. ROFLMAO

Like Diablo says - "those who can do, those who can't teach" - he's a teacher, get it?? LOL (insert humor, just in case its taken wrong).

 

[diabloblanco]

I simply stated that you were comparing apples to oranges and you're the one that got offended. How dare I say your comparison was wrong. Then you threw in the barb about my "gold plated soapbox."

It matters not that I am a live player rather than an online player. What difference would that make at all? Your analogy makes no sense, mainly because your grammar sucks and I can't understand what point you're making. It is a rambling mess and I would venture to say I'm not the only one that can't make sense of it. Leave out all the odd examples and numbers you threw in and tell me what the actual point you were trying to make is, and I will form a response. I can't respond to the above post because it makes no sense.

 

[twizzybop]

mainly because your grammar sucks and I can't understand what point you're making. It is a rambling mess and I would venture to say I'm not the only one that can't make sense of it.

Wondering when this pop shot would come out. I admit it sucks then again even some of the best business men in this world have no clue about english either.
What I did was paste and copy from your post. Made certain points of yours in bold and responded to those bold posts. Yet what seems just as odd is that assuming that Michele understood partial or most of my post.

Like I said I seen my typo and actually it won't let me fix the typo.

So instead of worrying about a fixation on my typo I have allready corrected it by saying again for the 3rd time. 1 Hand of Video Poker Vs 1 Round of hold-em with 10 players on 1 table.

 

[diabloblanco]

OK, one hand of video poker and one 10 handed ring of holdem dealt. What are you proving? This is laughable.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

Anyone who thinks online poker is rigged should have listened to the wsop broadcast last night/this morning. For the first 6 hours or so I don't think there was a big hand where the underdog didn't catch to win or some generally crazy stuff happened. Examples - AA vs. KK second hand (!), K on flop, AA makes runner runner flush, AQ vs. A7, flop 77x, AQ vs TT, Q on flop, TT rivers a flush, AJ vs TT, AJ makes a wheel on the turn, and so on...

Just goes to show the crazy stuff you see in online poker can and does happen "in real life".

 

[diabloblanco]

Twizzybop...why is it so hard for you to comprehend that a poker site that deals millions of hands a day will hit a Royal Flush often? That was my only point. Your comparison of video poker machines and 10 handed ring games doesn't make what I said even the slightest bit wrong.

If you want to compare video poker to live cards or online hands, it would have to be put in context. A hold-em hand- before you select your five playable cards- has 7 possible cards to be played. You take 5 of those and make a hand. To compare the two (video poker and online hold-em) you would have to take completed hands. Your comparison used the number 20, which is everyone at the 10 handed table folding to the big blind without there even being a flop dealt. That leaves the hold-em table in your comparison unable to even make a single 5 card hand. Additionally, in hold-em you have two extra cards from which to form your hand because you only use 5 of the 7 available cards. That's why your comparison is akin to apples and oranges. You shouldn't believe it simply because I say so, you should belive it because common sense says so.

 

[twizzybop]

Mmmmm actually it does make it wrong cause you were and still are adding more variables while I kept it simple.

Your comparison used the number 20, which is everyone at the 10 handed table folding to the big blind without there even being a flop dealt. That leaves the hold-em table in your comparison unable to even make a single 5 card hand.

Geee! See what simplicity will actually do for you? I haven't even gone into the mathematical and algebra part of it all.


But wait there is more.
Additionally, in hold-em you have two extra cards from which to form your hand because you only use 5 of the 7 available cards. That's why your comparison is akin to apples and oranges. You shouldn't believe it simply because I say so, you should belive it because common sense says so.
Since you now have added another variable, lets add another to the 5 card video poker machine and draw just 1 card.

This is going to be interesting. However I will keep it simple.
30% that an Ace will fall on the flop in hold-em. That card might be part of the flush.
Now depending on how many players actually play, keeping it simple again 2. Rest had folded and left the SB and the BB to fend for themselves. Leaves 8 Unknown(incomplete hands). Correct me here cause I can't recall but I think it is 40% that someone on the table was dealt an ace. For giggles lets keep it simple and make it one of the blinds. So now we have Ace+Ace+7X/31=Y(royal flush). Considering though you won't know what X is until both players turn over cards and both go all the way to the river.

Yet lets add another variable considering you like to add variables.
Since an ace has hit the flop, lets say it is low limit table(yeah yeah I know more than 2 players will be in the hand). Keep it simple, The other player has Queen,6 suited(clubs).That ace that feel on the table is indeed a club, eliminates the 1st player from the royal then. Most higher limit tables most nobody would call with Queen,6 suited.

So based apon even on that variable, your royal flush should be hit way more often on low limit than high limit.(yet that doesn't happen) The higher limit tables seem to hit it more often then not then a low limit.


Now if you wish me to keep on going I can? Cause video poker, I completed hand can be done in less than 3 seconds. Yet that variable on video poker is done by the 1st 5 seen cards, not done by the unseen in hold-em.

Yes my grammer my be off but my math skills are very very very good. Probably my biggest downfall in this game because I can calculate %, odds, remember #'s like no tommorow.

 

[diabloblanco]

Wow. All I can say is wow. I stopped reading that after about 5 lines.

 

[webber286]

It's unlikely that online poker is rigged, especially at the larger more established sites. Those sites live on their reputation, and if it ever got out that their site's were rigged, they would quickly loose all of their players. Also keep in mind that the site's don't really care if you win or loose, just that you keep playing the game. Which has brought up the question of are they making it too fair to keep the game going on longer and gain more rake. This also seems unlikely as their reputation would once again be at risk. Consider this, party poker is about to go public, do you really think they would risk their reputation just for a few extra hands of rake? Especially when they have so many people playing and contributing rake all the time.

 

[Crippler450]

Also keep in mind that the site's don't really care if you win or loose, just that you keep playing the game.

WRONG!
If more people get good hands, the site gets more $ in rake. I'm not going to explain it again b/c people cant get it through their heads when they read it. But Small sites can, and will use these tactics if they arent making enough money.

 

[diabloblanco]

You say can and will as if you have proof positive that it has been done. Either provide proof or stop making claims you cannot back up with facts.

 

[zoied]

rigged

this thought has actualy crossed my mind more than once as well, yes i think they are rigged, but i still keep playing lol and do ok every once in a while:tee:

 

[twizzybop]

http://loveandcasinowar.com/blogarch/000251.php
A royal flush in holdem is expected to occur once every 30,940 hands

Odds of Getting These poker hands in Games Using 5 Cards
Royal Flush 1: 649,739


http://www.fastodds.com/game_odds/video_poker.htm
Royal Flush 1 in 40,390

I can come up with more stats if someone wishes?

 

[hackadart]

If online poker is rigged or flops are juiced for action then why is it that not one single person using poker tracker or similar software has posted actual proof of this?

Millions of us use this software but yet not once has any of the rigged theorists ever had any sort of proof when it would be easily attainable using this type of software.

Post the proof based on a minimum of 10K hands and people will start to listen until then leave the rigged theories alone.

 

[diabloblanco]

Ding, ding, ding, ding, DING! We have a winner folks. Hackdart, we can't let something as trivial as fact, get in the way of assumptions and theories. After all, what would we blame our losses on?

 

[twizzybop]

If online poker is rigged or flops are juiced for action then why is it that not one single person using poker tracker or similar software has posted actual proof of this?

Same reason that nobody has actually disproved it either. DING! DING! DING! We can't let something trivial as common sense get into our ways of dillusions and misconceptions. After all there is no such thing as casino's, poker sites, players, et cetra who are evil wrong doers. We can't think such notions now can we?? Wouldn't be right to actually think that everyone on this planet isn't 100% honest,truthfull, caring, loving, sympathetic, empathetic and downright good.

 

[XXIII]

I don't use any tracker. I just play poker. Yeah a lot of things seem funny to me. I hit AK and nothing higher then a 5 hits. I have KJ and KJ flops but so does the rest of a flush and a straight draw. I get 7 straight pocket pairs and never hit but I play 7 8 off suit and flop a straight.

I played a few hundred home games and the best I ever saw was Aces and Kings Full house. Online I see quads at least 3 times a day. And a few times if someone didn't fold the right cards a straight flush would have hit.

But poker is fun. You just gotta play your game. Play right and you will do well. And fear the chasers lol

 

[ywoodb77]

Well i believe that if they are cheatin than there wouldnt be anyone winning ! I won a little bit and lost some to but i dont think that they are cheating because your not playing the owner of the company 99 % of tha time so if they took your money and gave it to another player than what good would it do them?

 

[diabloblanco]

Same reason that nobody has actually disproved it either. DING! DING! DING! We can't let something trivial as common sense get into our ways of dillusions and misconceptions. After all there is no such thing as casino's, poker sites, players, et cetra who are evil wrong doers. We can't think such notions now can we?? Wouldn't be right to actually think that everyone on this planet isn't 100% honest,truthfull, caring, loving, sympathetic, empathetic and downright good.

If someone was capable of proving it, it would have been done. Period. Since it has not been proven even provided all the software available for hand analization and study, common sense would lead a rational person to the conclusion that it isn't a valid argument. Why would someone want to disprove a conspiracy theory that has yet to be proven? There is no need to disprove what does not even exist in any place other than the minds of some players. Until the theory of juiced hands or rigged sites is proven, using the technology that is widely available right now, then the argument simply does not hold water.

 

[diabloblanco]

Here is a sampling of 37,867 hands played at low limits on Paradise Poker. This sampling was taken by Tony Hwang and was posted on RGP newsgroup. The actual sampling contains much, much more information, however, the information below is a sample of the product in its entirety. The entire thread on RGP can be found here:
Http://www.playwinningpoker.com/rgp/02/
I suggest everyone go there and read the thread in its entirety and then make an educated judgement on the state of online poker as it pertains to the online cardrooms employing dishonest tactics in order to maximize profit or entice betting.

All suited cards dealt: 8982 (23.72%)
All suited cards expected: 8910 (23.5%)

All connected cards dealt: 5980 (15.79%)
All connected cards expected: 5940 (15.70%)

Suited connector starters dealt: 1486 (3.92%)
Suited connector starters expected: 1485 (3.92%)

Paired starters dealt: 2264 (5.979%)
Paired starters expected: 2227 (5.88%)

AKo dealt: 363 (0.959%)
AKo expected: 343 (0.905%)

AKs dealt: 98 (0.259%)
AKs expected: 114 (0.302%)

Any AK dealt: 461 (1.217%)
Any AK expected: 457 (1.21%)

Pocket Pairs
A's: 157 (0.415%)
K's: 140 (0.370%)
Q's: 184 (0.486%)
J's: 168 (0.444%)
T's: 183 (0.483%)
9's: 167 (0.441%)
8's: 185 (0.489%)
7's: 182 (0.481%)
6's: 192 (0.507%)
5's: 178 (0.470%)
4's: 186 (0.491%)
3's: 162 (0.428%)
2's: 180 (0.475%)
Each pair expected: 171 (0.452%)

Flop Analysis
Only data from hands where a flop was dealt is used in the following percentages.

Total hands dealt: 37867
Total times a flop was dealt: 35691 (94.25%)

When player dealt AK, flops at least one A or K: 154 (34.45%) Expected: 145 (32.4%)

Dealt any 2 suited cards: 8546 times
Using both hole cards the player flopped
3-Flush: 3593 (40.04%)
3-Flush: expected: 3554 (41.6%)
4-Flush: 922 (10.79%)
4-Flush Expected: 935 (10.9%)
Flush: 70 (0.82%)
Flush Expected: 72 (0.842%)

The 3 cards on the flop made:
3-Straight: 293 (3.43%)
3-Straight expected: 272 (3.18%)
2-Flush: 4698 (54.97%)
2-Flush expected: 4710 (55.1%)
3-Flush: 463 (5.42%)
3-Flush expected: 446 (5.22%)
Any Pair: 1470 (17.2%)
Any Pair expected: 1447 (16.9%)

Players Hand Flops
High card: 4453 (52.1%)
High card expected: 4497 (52.6%)
Pair: 3503 (41.0%)
Pair expected: 3453 (40.4%)
Two pair: 373 (4.36%)
Two pair expected: 345 (4.04%)
3 of a Kind: 107 (1.25%)
3 of a Kind expected: 134 (1.57%)
Straight: 32 (0.37%)
Straight Expected: 35 (0.412%)
Flush: 70 (0.82%)
Flush expected: 71 (0.835%)
Full House: 7 (0.082%)
Full House expected: 8 (0.0918%)
4 of a Kind: 1 (0.012%)
4 of a Kind expected: 1 (0.012%)
Straight Flush: 0
Straight Flush expected: 1 (0.00589%)
Royal Flush: 0
Royal Flush expected: 0

User has any pair (dealt 2196 times):
Using both hole cards flopped a:
Underpair (to flop): 523 (23.82%)
Underpair expected: 515 (23.5%)
Overpair (to flop): 496 (22.59%)
Overpair expected: 515 (23.5%)
Set: 238 (10.84%)
Set expected: 253 (11.51%)
Quads: 5 (0.228%)
Quads expected: 5 (0.228%)


As I stated, this is a small sampling of a huge amount of information gathered using poker tracking software.

Compare this real data with the few people that refuse to believe online poker isn't rigged and the ACTUAL statistical data will win out every time in the mind of a sensible player. People who use tracking software anylize and re anylize this information over and over to search their game for leaks and it is an utter impossibility that someone has never used raw data such as this to promote or prove that any site is doing anything wrong. On one hand you have real numbers, tangible evidence, and on the other you have conpiracy theorists jumping up and down claiming they saw too many "funny" hands. Which do you believe?
PWNED!!!111!!11

 

[Alon Ipser]

Video poker games can be changed to be tight or loose by changing a chip. A bar I worked at had a very loose machine that hit Royals quite regularly. I don't think any of the big sites do that with their games but i do know it can be done with the machines

 

[twizzybop]

If someone was capable of proving it, it would have been done. Period. Since it has not been proven even provided all the software available for hand analization and study, common sense would lead a rational person to the conclusion that it isn't a valid argument.
Ok since I don't have the time to prove that 500 hands are dealt in 1 hour of video poker compared to someone less than 200 per hour. I guess that leaves that out for now. Provided software, you don't need software to realize simple common sense of how many hands one can play. Any person can do a hand history for themself in 1 hour and analize a guesstimate about the %'s. You also haven't even validated your arguement except spew "They deal 1000's of hands"
Apparently you don't know much about #'s and RNG in general. Be surprised on what you can learn from sampling.

Why would someone want to disprove a conspiracy theory that has yet to be proven?
Apparently logic doesn't ever come to your mind. What you believe is that "We believe that all poker sites are 100% honest". It is horsehockey and you know it.

There is no need to disprove what does not even exist in any place other than the minds of some players.
You remind me of another site I frequent. Never believe that no wrong doing is going on what so ever. More horsehockey, been there, done that, and dealt with people with your thinking. It won't ever change, one can't change a one tracked mind. So the most we can do is to agree to disagree.
Until the theory of juiced hands or rigged sites is proven, using the technology that is widely available right now, then the argument simply does not hold water.
Yeah keep believing what those sites say.. they have the best RNG and have those RNG's checked by so and so from We check #'s INC. So since We Check #'s INC says it is a great RNG that those sites aren't doing anything wrong.

This sampling was taken by Tony Hwang and was posted on RGP newsgroup

Yeah one thing you forgot besides the skewed data I mentioned in your thread. He was in 90+% of the hands. Someone in 90 something % of the hands. He was in hands he just wasn't supposed to be, everybody knows this.