Online poker: are they all the same?

corblimey

Having decided to quit ppp, but just not getting enough action from the b&m games I like to play (twice a week, but on the most awkward days for me), I wonder if ppp is indicative of the online poker scene. I don't want to harp on about ppp in a negative light, there are better people than me making money from it, but is everything I dislike about it just the "way things are online"?

- the short levels
- the muppets
- the unbelievable rivers
- the variance

Is there any point in trying to find a poker room online where things seem 'fairer', more like the live games I enjoy so much? This is not an 'online poker is rigged' post, I understand the reasons there are so many suckouts and runner-runner beats online than I would see in my local room, so I guess my question is, basically are they all the same online?

Drakar

- Different sites do have different blind structures, I'm not sure what site would have the slowest levels, but there are definately huge differences between some sites.
- Generally if you play at higher stakes, you get less muppets, but your bankroll may not allow you to do this. Some sites again do have intrinsically a more sensible type of player (not that that's who we should be looking for!), I heard Full Tilt has good players...
- You'll get weird rivers everywhere, and if you have the same number of players in a hand have the same chance of getting them on each reputable online site or in B&M casinos.
- If you do play 'better' players, you will probably have less variance (less +EV too though). Other alternatives are to play particular game types, STTs instead of MTTs for example.

hotspur

- Tribeca (PPP) is worse than many big sites in terms of how quickly sit n go's go up in blinds, check out pokerstars
- Tribeca as a network with many bookmakers sites feeding into it has more gambling muppets than many big poker only sites
- Unbelievable rivers are of course a function of the above. Not particularly related to rivers - but not all random number generators are the same, co-incidence of hands relating well to the texture of the flop is not uniform across online poker sites in my opinion
- The whole online poker cash cow is predicated on the fundamental in-built fact of variance in poker

Bananna man

The more muppets on a table the better if you ask me. Yes, its really annoying when you get a bad beat against a poor player but in the long run you'll defenitely have the advantage.

Drakar

hotspur wrote:

... not all random number generators are the same, co-incidence of hands relating well to the texture of the flop is not uniform across online poker sites in my opinion

I would definately agree not all random number generators are the same, but I'd be of the opinion that except for infinitessimally(sp!) small differences, we'd expect them to be very close to equally random. I'd be very interested to hear you expand upon your second point though. Are you suggesting that if I have J10c on one site that you feel it has a better chance of winning at a showdown against a random set of cards on some sites than on others?

Idbatterim

When is it decided what cards you get? i mean is it completely random? i mean sometimes i fold low hands and you get alot of low cards on the flop and iv had had a good hand, would these cards come down if i had stayed in?

Drakar

(If it's not 'completely' random) it's near enough to completely random as makes no difference. Most random number generators have time as a partial seed, so if you delay for a moment to move your mouse over the call instead of fold buttons, you should expect the cards would be different.

TrueDub

Idbatterim wrote:

When is it decided what cards you get? i mean is it completely random? i mean sometimes i fold low hands and you get alot of low cards on the flop and iv had had a good hand, would these cards come down if i had stayed in?

no, of course they wouldn't. It's all designed to frustrate you, nobody else but you...

hotspur

Drakar wrote:

I'd be very interested to hear you expand upon your second point though. Are you suggesting that if I have J10c on one site that you feel it has a better chance of winning at a showdown against a random set of cards on some sites than on others?

I don't really want to get into what I was implying, but no I'm not suggesting that one's chances of winning with J10c are any different across the sites due to differences in RNG's.

ArmaniJeanss

hotspur wrote:

- not all random number generators are the same, co-incidence of hands relating well to the texture of the flop is not uniform across online poker sites in my opinion
..............
I don't really want to get into what I was implying, but no I'm not suggesting that one's chances of winning with J10c are any different across the sites due to differences in RNG's.

I'd love you to expand on this if you would. Do you mean that you think some sites are corrupt (the old nugget of a flop hitting everone to increase the rake), or that the RNG is poorly programmed leading to incidence of side-by-side cards (a bit like a new deck given a poor first shuffle)?
Or is it you think that it's possible to manipulate the (seeds of the) RNG to improve the chances of hitting certain cards?

Drakar

l would agree that all those would seem highly unlikely.

ocallagh

As Drakar said the difference between RNGs is miniscule and should not be taken into consideration. Rogue code would be required to manipulate the textue of the flop/turn/river (if a site was looking to generate more action).

So what explains the strange river cards?
Human error... The river is only ridiculous if it helps a certain hand. The more hands that see the river, the higher the chance a hand has improved because of it. At the lower stakes you regularly have 3 or 4 players staying till the river.

Even heads up, muppets can make it feel like the site is fuking you over. A decent player will not call a pot sized bet on the turn to hit their flush. Against an idiot, they will outdraw you 1 in 5 times, and each time they hit their flush it re-confirms your suspicion that the site is rigged. When they miss the flush you type "ty", move on to the next hand and forget about it. You only remember the times you get unlucky which makes it seem like you get unluckier more often than not.

Samba

Some site use software based RNG's others use Hardware Based RNGs.... Hardware RNG's are generally more reliable as they are referred to as "true" RNG's

Just to add - you will find that almost all online casinos use sofware based RNG's

Re-posting this link - http://www.tstglobal.com/articles/Software_vs_Hardware_RNGs.pdf

It gives a good break down of pros and Cons. In short - if you want 100% Randomness with no bugs - you go hardware.

While software RNG's can perform as well as hardware - they can also be vulnerable to predictiveness if not correctly developed.

Samba

LOL @ what i just found in my sifting of google.

http://cgi.ebay.ie/Authentic-Poker-Cheat-Software-SEE-OPPONENTS-CARDS_W0QQitemZ5670680377QQcategoryZ47103QQcmdZViewItem

hotspur

ocallagh wrote:

Rogue code would be required to manipulate the textue of the flop/turn/river (if a site was looking to generate more action).

*If* a site were looking to generate more action and maximize the rake at stakes where it doesn't always get maxed and thus increase profit undetectably ? Why wouldn't they? Ultimately it wouldn't affect the randomness of whether a specific player won or lost overall, so it would be, um, fair.

ocallagh

hotspur wrote:

Why wouldn't they?

1st off it would be illegal.. and unethical..

However, if Doyle Brunson, Paddy Power Poker, Victor Chandler etc etc all agreed to break the law:rolleyes: , we can explore another reason why they might not:

They would be risking EVERYTHING to increase their profit. Their entire business and reputation would be at stake. They would lose it all if they were caught. No established business would take a risk like that.. EVER!
PPP are worth a lot of money. Do you really think they'd risk it all to take in an extra bit of rake.. ridiculous to even consider that IMO.

Goodluck2me

Ive heard from a few people of the dangers of the RNGs as shown above there.. they are selling the things for 400 euro but if they worked they would completely compromise the honesty and integrity of online poker...it wouldnt affect PPP though as theyd go in favourite and still be rivered but the others would tho...

hotspur

ocallagh wrote:

1st off it would be illegal.. and unethical..
However, if Doyle Brunson, Paddy Power Poker, Victor Chandler etc etc all agreed to break the law:rolleyes: , we can explore another reason why they might not:
They would be risking EVERYTHING to increase their profit. Their entire business and reputation would be at stake. They would lose it all if they were caught. No established business would take a risk like that.. EVER!
PPP are worth a lot of money. Do you really think they'd risk it all to take in an extra bit of rake.. ridiculous to even consider that IMO.

God only knows what laws about the nature and application of RNG's in online poker you're talking about or even what jurisdiction, I would suggest that almost every online poker site is a really law unto themselves in most respects.
And I think the point about the risk is key, there's no risk for something that cannot be established. If it *did* occur it would be risk free, so one cannot argue that it doesn't occur because it would be risky.
And "an extra bit of rake" translates into millions for the major sites.
And for the record I wasn't singling out Tribeca Tables's software in this thread.
This thread should be let die, what I'm suggesting as a genuine reality is controversial enough without publically juxtaposing named gaming firms with the argument.

Drakar

I don't think we can leave it at someone making an allegation that any of the major sites are manipulating their cards. It's so completely absurd that it's unreal. If anyone wants to make that allegation they'll have to spell it out alot better than is being done currently.

New players (and older players of course), need to know that the sites aren't cheating in any way by manipulating their deals to provide more action etc. Yes, it is correct to say that by doing so poker sites could in the short run make more money, but to do so they are risking their entire business. Poker sites are making a fortune as it is, it doesn't make sense that they'd risk all this. Imagine if the sites manipulated just 10% of the final cards to produce more action (players who think the deals are rigged would guestimate a far higher percentage). This action by the poker sites would be easy to prove by looking at people's poker tracker stats. Lots of players have 10k hand histories. In addition, most of the major sites have their RNGs certified by outside independent firms like PwC.

If anyone believes the sites are manipulating cards online, they shouldn't be playing online, and should be encouraging others not to aswell. If someone has evidence that this is the case, provide it and make yourself famous. On the other hand if we as players believe that the games are fair, we shouldn't leave allegations with no proof to circulate as this discourages new players from getting involved in what is a very interesting game.

ocallagh

First off, I'm not making allegations and this thread should certainly not die. I used the names of PPP and VC as examples of established businesses who would have nothing to gain by cheating.

hotspur wrote:

God only knows what laws about the nature and application of RNG's in online poker you're talking about or even what jurisdiction, I would suggest that almost every online poker site is a really law unto themselves in most respects.

When you deposit money to a site, and agree to their terms & conditions, you have taken out a contract as such with them. If you could prove they broke their side of the contract by fixing the outcome of the cards (which is in direct violation of the terms of the contract); and you could prove you lost money because of this, you would have grounds to privately sue them.

Whether they commit an offence by violating their own T&C’s by fixing the cards is also up for debate. It might be possible to argue they committed fraud and this would lead to criminal charges against them.

Jurisdiction will of course be an issue for some poker sites, but for most including PPP and VC etc it would not.

hotspur wrote:

And I think the point about the risk is key, there's no risk for something that cannot be established.

It can be established.

hotspur wrote:

If it *did* occur it would be risk free,

Nothing in this life is risk free:)

hotspur wrote:

And "an extra bit of rake" translates into millions for the major sites.

I agree, an extra bit of rake would mean millions, however that is a small percentage. A few million on top of the billions they are worth means nothing to them..

Hectorjelly

hotspur wrote:

- Unbelievable rivers are of course a function of the above. Not particularly related to rivers - but not all random number generators are the same, co-incidence of hands relating well to the texture of the flop is not uniform across online poker sites in my opinion

This is absolutely 100% untrue, a random number generator will either generate random numbers, or they wont be random, there is no in between. If they werent random then there would be plenty of evidence that could be picked up by the players that use pokertracker.

If a rng was flawed, then the results would not affect things like board texture to hole cards, that would be crazy. Think about the process that goes on. All that would happen is that certain numbers would just be more likely to come up,and that would probably mean certain cards would be more likely to come up than other ones. The Ac might appear more than the Kc and so on. Note if this did happen then it would still be a fair game as noone would have any more info than anyone else.