Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Dodgy Beat?
-
24-05-2006 2:05pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
El Stuntman wrote:what do you say musician/laf etc - will you allow debate or is censorship the order of the day??????
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
lenny_leonard wrote:Also, I'd say there's a hugh number of players here who play on Tribeca, hence the apparent high number of BBs. There's no reason that one network should be any different to another.
Tribeca has more bad beats because it has worse players, it's as simple as that.
The standard of play on Tribeca is shocking at times, and at levels up to and including $1/$2 the general ability level leaves a lot to be desired. You see more bad beats because hands that are normally folded by better players are played by muppets on Tribeca. (and yes I'm normally one of those muppets
) Some examples from yesterday, all .50/1 full ring games
UTG limps and I raise to $4 from lp with QQ
blinds fold and UTG calls
Flop comes down Q 9 6 rainbow, UTG bets $5, I raise to $15, UTG goes all-in for $65. I call. Turn is Ad and the river is 5s
UTG turns 87o to take the pot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I raise from UTG+1 with 65s, making it $4 to go, 3 callers. Flop comes down A 6 5 rainbow. I bet $10, 2 folds, LP (who just has me covered) raises to $25, I push for $80 more and he calls.
Turn Q, river A
LP turns over JJ for two pair Aces & Jacks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm in MP and flat call with AA, MP2 makes it $5 to go and both blinds call, I raise to $15, MP2 pushes for $50 more. Both blinds fold, I call
Flop K Q 9, Turn T river Q
MP2 turns AJo for the straight
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More bad players + More Loose play + More hands dealt = Higher bad beats
don't need a computer system to set that one up.
edit : Just for clarification on the Tribeca network these are the stats for my strongest hands
AA wins 85.1 %
KK wins 87.8%
QQ wins 77.4%
AKs wins 68% (more my bad play than anything else)
Over a period of 20K hands the hands that should stand up generally do.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
rounders123 wrote:When your all in before the river you should have such a lock hand that no river card matters(even pre flop all in!). Because of this there should never be any bad river card excuses.
Seriously though the argument of online rigging or 'doggyness' really is the last living brain cell.
. - the point
x - You missing it.
0 -
Spiritus wrote:. - the point
x - You missing it.
I get your point. My second remark was directed to the earliest poster and similar likeminded folk.0 -
-
-
lafortezza wrote:1) What benefit is there for poker sites to have rigged games?
2) What proof do you have that they are actually rigged and that Villain isn't just getting a bit lucky in one particular hand?
3) Say a large poker site was found to have a non-random number generator and that the cards were predictable and the cards also favoured particular players. Do you think this would be good for their business and they would keep their customers?
Why would they risk it?
If the people who think it's all rigged can't answer simple questions like these then this thread will have a short life.
Just to ensure that the thread keeps going
1. There is an obvious immediate and long-term benefit to rigging a RNG so that worse hands win from time to time. The key would be how to go about doing it. If you change it too much then you have a double negative effect, firstly you'll be caught because people will be able to produce records showing that the RNG is skewed over say 100K hands. Secondly if you continously reward bad play, good players will cop to it and stop playing at the site altogether.
You could change it by a tiny margin, this would reduce the chances of being caught but would increase your margins significantly. Say the chance of two people having full hands is 1.2% and you increase this to 1.4% this isn't really appreciable over any set of hands for one player, but the sheer volume of hands and players means that it could have a huge effect on rake paid and money generated for the company.
In addition you could set up a RNG rule of some sort that rewards players who have only just joined the site. A bit like drug dealing really, your first one is free say you make an allowance that new players to the site will have a better than average chance of winning for the first 4-6 weeks (or whatever period of time) this would be very difficult for individual players on a site to track as the number of hands played in this period would be insignificant, and certainly wouldn't draw interest from any regulator in relation to supposed irregularities. It would however keep new players interested and once they get hooked they start to play more, but now they start to get real averages and although they are losing more than they used to they still want to play.
In this way every player would get a short-term benefit, the good players will push on and make money, the bad players will continue to lose at a normal rate and be none the wiser. Very little risk to an operator but keeps everybody interested.
This could also be applied at any point to a players account, a week of bad variance would be written off as simply that, variance. And when the following week they made money from other players they would convince themselves that it's all swings and roundabouts and everything is ok with the world. Not knowing/thinking that these are different players and this is just "their turn" to lose for a while. It wouldn't be time based, but based on the number of hands played etc, so that taking a cooling off-period wouldn't help. It also wouldn't be a non-stop losing streak simply a reduction in the average chance of hands holding up, or an increase in the number of times you have a hand that could well be best but turns out it isn't. i.e. KK v AA, QQ v AKs etc etc.
This would obviously only work at the small stakes, but then that's where the companies make their money, the volume and mass market of small stakes games.
2. There is no proof without a huge volume of hands, and even then the proof would be very hard to document. Particularily if the change is only miniscule, enough to skew the odds in the operators favour but not enough to hugely differentiate from expected levels. A very small change would result in a very large effect on profit/margin levels due to the volumes in question!
3. Of course they wouldn't, but the only way this would really come to the fore would be through stupidity on the operators part. It's a lot like someone robbing a bank, if you rob a local bank without a mask and then spend the next 6 weeks spending money like it's going out of fashion then you'll be caught.
If you rob a bank in a different county, with a mask on and full plan, lie low for a couple of months and keep the money hidden. Then start to slowly spend it in different areas, and if you have no previous record, then the odds are you'll get away with it (if anyone is interested in this plan pm me )
If an operator did this in a smart way it would be nigh on impossible to catch and they would still generate huge profits from it.
I'm not saying they are rigged or they aren't rigged, but I definitely believe that if someone wanted to rig them they could do so very easily and with very little chance of being caught, as long as they weren't too greedy about it.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
If you put the two terms together the words 'Niall' and 'Disco' you could even get a song out of itcardshark202 wrote:I think quins is more appropriate. 0 -
We're through the looking glass, here, people...Iago wrote:Just to ensure that the thread keeps going
1. There is an obvious immediate and long-term benefit to rigging a RNG so that worse hands win from time to time. The key would be how to go about doing it. If you change it too much then you have a double negative effect, firstly you'll be caught because people will be able to produce records showing that the RNG is skewed over say 100K hands. Secondly if you continously reward bad play, good players will cop to it and stop playing at the site altogether.
You could change it by a tiny margin, this would reduce the chances of being caught but would increase your margins significantly. Say the chance of two people having full hands is 1.2% and you increase this to 1.4% this isn't really appreciable over any set of hands for one player, but the sheer volume of hands and players means that it could have a huge effect on rake paid and money generated for the company.
In addition you could set up a RNG rule of some sort that rewards players who have only just joined the site. A bit like drug dealing really, your first one is free say you make an allowance that new players to the site will have a better than average chance of winning for the first 4-6 weeks (or whatever period of time) this would be very difficult for individual players on a site to track as the number of hands played in this period would be insignificant, and certainly wouldn't draw interest from any regulator in relation to supposed irregularities. It would however keep new players interested and once they get hooked they start to play more, but now they start to get real averages and although they are losing more than they used to they still want to play.
In this way every player would get a short-term benefit, the good players will push on and make money, the bad players will continue to lose at a normal rate and be none the wiser. Very little risk to an operator but keeps everybody interested.
This could also be applied at any point to a players account, a week of bad variance would be written off as simply that, variance. And when the following week they made money from other players they would convince themselves that it's all swings and roundabouts and everything is ok with the world. Not knowing/thinking that these are different players and this is just "their turn" to lose for a while. It wouldn't be time based, but based on the number of hands played etc, so that taking a cooling off-period wouldn't help. It also wouldn't be a non-stop losing streak simply a reduction in the average chance of hands holding up, or an increase in the number of times you have a hand that could well be best but turns out it isn't. i.e. KK v AA, QQ v AKs etc etc.
This would obviously only work at the small stakes, but then that's where the companies make their money, the volume and mass market of small stakes games.
2. There is no proof without a huge volume of hands, and even then the proof would be very hard to document. Particularily if the change is only miniscule, enough to skew the odds in the operators favour but not enough to hugely differentiate from expected levels. A very small change would result in a very large effect on profit/margin levels due to the volumes in question!
3. Of course they wouldn't, but the only way this would really come to the fore would be through stupidity on the operators part. It's a lot like someone robbing a bank, if you rob a local bank without a mask and then spend the next 6 weeks spending money like it's going out of fashion then you'll be caught.
If you rob a bank in a different county, with a mask on and full plan, lie low for a couple of months and keep the money hidden. Then start to slowly spend it in different areas, and if you have no previous record, then the odds are you'll get away with it (if anyone is interested in this plan pm me )
If an operator did this in a smart way it would be nigh on impossible to catch and they would still generate huge profits from it.
I'm not saying they are rigged or they aren't rigged, but I definitely believe that if someone wanted to rig them they could do so very easily and with very little chance of being caught, as long as they weren't too greedy about it.
OK, here's what we've got: the Rand Corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people, under the supervision of the reverse vampires...0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Mmmmmm, server greasekarlh wrote:...of course we rig those to finish quicker so we don't have to grease our servers as much.0 -
If something is a Statistical Possibility, it is therefore a Statistical Certainty.
Lets say the odds on you being dealt KK your opponent to be dealt Ax, and for the flop to come K1010, the turn to be a 10, and the River to be another 10 is say about 50,000,000:1 (complete random guess, I couldn't be bothered to even come close to working it out for this discussion).
Now if we think that PokerStars recently played their 5 Billionth hand, that means that this exact situation should have happened at least 100 times, so if these kind of hands DIDN'T occur, then I would agree that On-Line Poker is rigged. But seeing as it just happened to occur to you is proof that in fact On-Line Poker is not rigged, as we now have proof that these crazy Long Shots actually do come in from time to time.
However if this situation happens to you another 100 times over your next 5 Billion hands then it'll be a toss up between you having a claim for the World's most unlucky person, or that On-Line Poker is in fact rigged, and TBH I'd say it's a 50:50 decision....
Love an update per million hands, might get some proof at last...
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement