Like a dog with a bone !

Culchie

OK, going to write this little essay, and have it off my chest.

Apologies in advance, as some have already said that anyone that suggests that it's in the interests of on-line poker to be rigged, or favourable to one player ar another should be banned, ...so I guess this is my last post !

BTW, I'm not saying any particular site is being dishonest, I'm saying that players should be aware of the benefits a site could derive, if they were dishonest, and why it's critical to find out if On-Line Stats compare with Off Line stats, which no-one has yet offered proof they are the same, as they should be.

All I want to do is provoke a little thought around this.

I'll use Hectorjelly, as an example, as he is a true believer in On-Line, and wants any disbelievers banned from talking about it.

Hectorjelly is currently playing 2000 $25 STT's a month.... 10% rake contributing $5000 to VC's coffers per month ... he's playing with 8 others .... so Hector's tables alone bring in $45000 per month to VC !!
So, there's big money involved.....Hector himself worth $60,000 to VC per annum, all by his lonesome.....his tables $540,000

It's about what is known as Customer Lifetime Values..... Hectorjelly's is over the 5 year period normally used is $300,000.
Why do you get that 100% start up bonus?
Why do you get enticed when playing the 1/2 tables, to play the 2/4 tables instead? .... because you will double the rake, that's why.
All the rest of the money goes round in circles, winners and losers, but the rake and reg fee is what the sites are looking for.

So, to these magical flops of Aces and Kings on-line punters often see ....well if you think you have a good hand, you will bet it, and raise it .... even better, if someone else also has a good hand so will they ...so the pot grows, and guess what so does the rake to the site.
So the quite normal on-line hand of AK V KK V QQ ...starts to make sense (if one was a little cynical)


The FPP and Action Points, Paddy Points whatever ...all based on stake of games....

OK, back to $240,000 Hector, I think we should get Hector's buddies to play on this site as well .... so we'll put in place a refer a friend scheme, we'll give Hector $50 for every buddy that gets signed up .....Hmm, I wonder why.
Give Hector $50, if they are half anything like him, 3 buddies will bring in $120,000 each = $360,000 ..... that $150 wasn't a bad investment was it?

Now what would happen if Hector stopped playing on VC? Bingo, let's get in contact with Hector and entice him back, we've put $100 in your account Hector, all you got to do is play on our site, we love you...really.

Acquisition, Retention, Up Sell/Cross Sell and Win Back .... all the elements of Customer Lifetime Values ..... so the next time it is suggested that it could be in the interest of a site to favour one player versus another .... bear in mind the 'retention' part of that formula.

So .... It is important to know that a site's RNG or whatever does actually prove the same as off-line deals....... and it does make sense if a poker site wanted to favour one player over another, that the cards were biased to Hector rather than JoeStudent ....

OK, over and out.

Waylander

You seem to be forgetting the fact that Joe Student, may only have a few quid to his name now, but in ten years time he could be a wealthy entreprenuer, but he got so sick of getting outdrawn he quit playing online poker so now they do not get any rake off him. Look at the banks for example who are deliberately targetting students in their advertising campaigns, as they know when the students start pulling in the cash so do they. I do not think the various poker sites would be quite as shortsighted as you say. The sites do not have enough info or knowledge of the players to start making judgements like that. The rewards would not make the risk worthwhile, as if their reputation was tarnished they would almost instantly loose most of their customers.

Culchie

Good Point,

Banks don't have customers, they have hostages.

If you don't think Poker Sites are not thinking of better ways to increase your spend with them, you are very niave.

I can guarantee that they have databases that provide them with all the knowledge and predictive analysis statistics that you could shake a stick at.

PPP-Pit Boss

Culchie wrote:

Good Point,

Banks don't have customers, they have hostages.

If you don't think Poker Sites are not thinking of better ways to increase your spend with them, you are very niave.

I can guarantee that they have databases that provide them with all the knowledge and predictive analysis statistics that you could shake a stick at.

Yep indeed we do have databases. Also there is not arguement whatsoever that we are trying to think of bigger and better ways to improve our business. It would be an awful pity then if we were to cheat our customers, this was to get out and we were to lose all of them through no confidence.. a bitter pill to swallow to keep the top percent happy? Statistically (I know I am becoming repetitive) the better players will win more of the time.. this is a no-brainer. No assistance is therefore required.. would the site not help the fish get lucky?
Fish are(have) friends NOT FOOD!
I am not saying you dont have a point.. To me you see it would be the death of a site and I find it difficult to imagine that any company worth it's weight could not see the thundering marketing catastrophe that would follow from such action.

Culchie

Thanks Pit Boss - I admire you commenting on the topic.

I think you will take me at my word that I am teasing this subject out, and I'm not accusing PPP (I play there, and am a shareholder)

However, the point about 'any company worth it's salt' and 'if this gets out we'll be ruined' type defense is fine and dandy for legitable business with high business ethics.

For those who don't give a hoot about this (think of the cigarette industry cover ups, the car safety stories of the 1970's) ... business ethics don't come into this..... money does, and as quickly as they can get their hands on it the better.

From what I can see, the on-line hand historys of a years data should be compared with off-line hands for similar amount of hands, by an independent official....They should provide exactly the same stats, at least within decimal levels of a percentage.

Then and only then will the perception of on-line misdemeanours go away.

It's a challenge for the industry !!

growler

Culchie,

everything you mention above are standard online consumer marketing techniques, sign up bonuses, upsells etc are all part of the marketing, customer retention and loyalty strategy and business should use to maximise their revenue.


I think that the best defence against those who are paranoid about the games being rigged is to say that the entire industry would suffer as a result of any evidence of tampering coming to light, there are always those willing to blow the whistle and I don't see why the online gambling business should be immune to this... it's not like their marketing depts or CEOs know how to programme the system.

There are no rakes on the STTs, so there is no benefit to flopping or dealing big cards to create a big pot , there are enough idiots on any low level STT on VC to create a multi-way pot without any of them having a top 20 starting hand... so no need to tamper anyway. The only possible game to tamper with is a big money game where the actual winnings would be a nice extra profit, but even if they had a computer-as-a-player to do this, people would very quickly start to get suspicious and leave.

Personally I see no reason for any site to want to or need to deliberately alter the random nature of the game, they make shedloads already and they would have to be the dumbest corporate management team in the history of the world to shoot their own golden goose.

Vamos

Culchie wrote:

and why it's critical to find out if On-Line Stats compare with Off Line stats, which no-one has yet offered proof they are the same, as they should be.

Pokerroom.com have a table of stats from their real money tables which rank all the cards.

"The statistics are based on 122,031,244 pair of pocket cards dealt at the real money tables. The unit for EV is average profit in big bets."
Stats Ordered By Card
Stats Ordered By EV

They match up quite nicely with what you'd expect.

PPP-Pit Boss

Culchie wrote:

Thanks Pit Boss - I admire you commenting on the topic.

I think you will take me at my word that I am teasing this subject out, and I'm not accusing PPP (I play there, and am a shareholder)

However, the point about 'any company worth it's salt' and 'if this gets out we'll be ruined' type defense is fine and dandy for legitable business with high business ethics.

For those who don't give a hoot about this (think of the cigarette industry cover ups, the car safety stories of the 1970's) ... business ethics don't come into this..... money does, and as quickly as they can get their hands on it the better.

From what I can see, the on-line hand historys of a years data should be compared with off-line hands for similar amount of hands, by an independent official....They should provide exactly the same stats, at least within decimal levels of a percentage.

Then and only then will the perception of on-line misdemeanours go away.

It's a challenge for the industry !!

Car salesmen and tobacco merchants... Why not use the Mafia for comparison??? ;0)
Independant testing has been done and the RNG we use is certified. However I agree with you. I think this kind of analysis would be much more illustrative. I have begun this work already.
(and not a typo in sight!)

careca

I have being playing online now for about a month and I have to say, I see no difference whatsoever between it and b&m casinos. The only thing is you get to play a lot more hands, hence more bad beats, etc. And before anyone says it, I have suffered a good few bad beats also, but my QQ, KK and AA have stood up just as many times.

Just one thing, Culchie, how would someone get the hand stats from an offline casino ? I seriously could not see it happening. Ok you might be able to find out how many times AA got beaten by KK but if the survey was to be precise, you would actually have to record each persons hole cards (regardless of whether they play the hand or not). Not feasible imo.

Waylander

Culchie wrote:

Good Point,

Banks don't have customers, they have hostages.

If you don't think Poker Sites are not thinking of better ways to increase your spend with them, you are very niave.

I can guarantee that they have databases that provide them with all the knowledge and predictive analysis statistics that you could shake a stick at.

I never said I do not think they are trying to increase their customers spend. Of course they are, point out a company that is not. They are in business to make a profit, and they do make healthy profits form these sites. I am sure their are dodgy sites out there, but if you pick and choose the sites with any care you will avoid these sites. For example, I think it is the Hilton group that own Ladbrokes, so it would not only be Ladbrokes name dragged through the mud, one of the most entertainment & leisure prestigous groups in the world would be blackened. Do you really think that they would risk group wide profit slumps to gain money in one of their subsdiaries?

Also if they can make a large profit legitimately why would they risk this by trying these dodgy tactics. It would be a very short term approach, and could only hurt profits in the long run.

Culchie

http://www.pokerroom.com/main/page/games/cardStats

Even Better .... see I'm easy pleased.

BrendanB

You do realise how easy it is to observe online poker results, right? Some sites offer automatic recording of observed games, and it's not the toughest task in the world to record from those that don't with image capture techniques. Programmers coded these large client programs, large sites have independent certification. If one of the majority of losers on online poker sites had any evidence whatsoever of bias, do you think we might hear about it? Many of the pokertracker folks have databases of over 100K hands? Do you think these are beyond analysis?

Your argument about motive isn't particularly relevant in terms of a lack of any evidence of malpractice, but it ignores lots of variables, like the value of cash holdings, the likelihood of successful players withdrawing money, the value of new players progressing to bigger games etc.

I think you need a bit more experience playing live if you think hands like AA vs KK vs QQ don't happen lots in real life. Or maybe you'd like to comment on the odds of KK vs QQ and QQ, or three pairs hitting sets on the flop, or the odds of flopping a straight flush, or a royal flush in hearts on a board. And all by the one dealer? Rigged I tell ya.

Culchie

BrendanB wrote:

I think you need a bit more experience playing live if you think hands like AA vs KK vs QQ don't happen lots in real life. Or maybe you'd like to comment on the odds of KK vs QQ and QQ, or three pairs hitting sets on the flop, or the odds of flopping a straight flush, or a royal flush in hearts on a board. And all by the one dealer? Rigged I tell ya.

Brendan, my point is not that this does not happen in real life ..... my point is

(a) Does it happen the exact same %'s on-line as it does off line

(b) Is it transparent in terms of having being independently audited and compared.

(c) If the data is so easily available (and it is), then it should be easy to prove that all players receive identical starting hole cards over a period of time of many thousands of hands.

I understand that I'm Devils' Advocate here.

Hyzepher

I dont believe that the poker sites 'manage' the hands to create profits and to be honest the main players would be mad to try it.

However, what I do think is more likely is player collusion. A few guys, at home, with MSN Messenger, all at the same cash table, can do serious damage to anyone umlucky enough to sit down with them. In my opinion this is a much more likely and more serious threat to online poker.

Hyzepher

Hectorjelly

Culchie wrote:

So .... It is important to know that a site's RNG or whatever does actually prove the same as off-line deals....... and it does make sense if a poker site wanted to favour one player over another, that the cards were biased to Hector rather than JoeStudent ....

OK, over and out.

If online poker sites rig their deals in favour of me then Im all for it. I dont understand the point of the rest of your post, but I appreciate the magnitude of it.

medZer

Respect culchie for bringing this up. Its a fair concern, and while perhaps has no bases in fact, is worth mentioning.

I've a lot of experience in the study of CRM (customer rleationship management),and the things that can be learned about you from what sort of deodorant you buy and how long you spend in the veggies isle is amazing, and its no different online. Data is gathered through your browser (cookies etc), the data trail you bring to and leave the site with, but most of all transactions you go through on a particular site can easily be retained by them, and used in marketing and promotions etc. Really, there is very little legislation either nationally or internationally (althought some directives in Europe), and honestly, when you signed up to VC or PPP, who read the privacy policy? - Who ever read s the privacy policies for any site?

Now, dont get me wrong, im not saying anyone is cheating anyone else, and that the data we are sending out when playing is being used to plan the mass murder of babies and cuddly toys, BUT it IS the marketeers who design CRM systems, it IS marketeers who use this data, and it IS the CEO's who ok it all. Technically not illegal, and as someone pointed out, ethics are personal, and as or yet, cannot be controlled.

Think about it. Jimmy is a student, signs up to Company A and deposits 20 quid after playing some points based games. plays for while, loses 20 quid. It may be a while till he plays again, but he just saw rounders on BBC and likes to think he's TEddy KGB, so cracks on again with another 20. he loses. now, does it make ANY sense for a company to let their crap players lose ALLL THE TIME? hell no. Let him drop 10/15, win a 5, drop another 10, o all in for 5, double his money, etc etc...then do him for the 20 quid ##### he'll still come back for more.

I dont know, or suspect, that this is going on, and play at 3 differentonline Poker rooms. Ive been beat bad, and beaten bad, and thats the swings and roundabouts...But who can say it doesnt make sense to weight a few hands heavier than others, cause a 2 8 off suit winning a few big pots will change calculated odds quick flash.

ionapaul

Hectorjelly wrote:

If online poker sites rig their deals in favour of me then Im all for it. I dont understand the point of the rest of your post, but I appreciate the magnitude of it.

I was thinking the same myself, Hector - if any of the sites actually rig the deals in favour of Hector (or any of us), then I will be a bigger poker fan than ever

The Customer Lifetime Value Culchie calculated seems large, lots of zeros, but think of the amount the sites would lose if caught / risk by engaging in rigging. That number would be many, many thousands of times larger. I've said it before on one of these threads, it would be financial madness for any of the sites to risk millions in guaranteed profit by fiddling with the software.

bmc

amount the sites would lose if caught / risk by engaging in rigging

Bang on.

The companies aren't going to expose themselves to the liability of getting caught cheating. If a company was successfully convicted the cost to them would be huge. You've pointed out how much money they can make out of a "Hector". They know that they should keep pushing that "small" edge.

It's simple for a statistician to take stats from the site and compare them to the normal distribution of the cards. If the stats say it's rigged over a big enough sample size they can use it as solid evidence against a site.

They're not going to risk their entire stacks for a few more quid because they don't need to.

Medzer:

The swings and roundabouts that cause Joe student to win €5 before losing it don't need to be manufactured - that's poker.

It doesn't make ANY business sense for an online poker site to cheat.

Culchie

Whatever about anything else, it's been an interesting thread for me.

I'm playing Devils advocate, but the 2 main categories of responses people are giving are

1. STFU Culchie.... You are boring me with these questions, you have no business asking them, it's a silly question.

2. Why would a site do that, they are making enough money anyway, they wouldn't risk it?



So, I'll leave it at that, BTW, I know a fair bit about CRM as well, and was in the recent past in charge of one of the largest loyalty/membership schemes in Europe, so I've a fair idea taking Hector as the guinea pig what is involved and what's at stake regarding brand and risk, lifetime values etc....

It's interesting that no-one thinks that any poker site is dodgy, everything is above board, everything hunky dory......Time well tell won't it ?

henbane

Culchie wrote:

1. STFU Culchie.... You are boring me with these questions, you have no business asking them, it's a silly question.

It is a silly question, especially when you finally realise that you have the resources available to conduct your own "independent" audit of whatever online site you use. Pay for pokertracker. Leave it running on any major site that allows wholesale tracking of hand histories. Do your own statistical analysis (note there is absolutely no need for data from live play for comparison) and show us all for the fools that we are.

2. Why would a site do that, they are making enough money anyway, they wouldn't risk it?

It's all a conspiracy and we're all fúcking dolts waiting to be shafted by any business we have dealings with.

Culchie wrote:

It's interesting that no-one thinks that any poker site is dodgy, everything is above board, everything hunky dory......Time well tell won't it ?

You really are a total fúcking moron. Way to generalise there, numbnuts!

Dodgy poker sites can just run off with your deposits and you will have no recourse as they're based in chumbawumba land. Everyone is aware of that danger and should be choosing sites carefully for those reasons.

MORON!

Doc Farrell

Well done to Culchie for bringing up some interesting questions and, in his own words, playing devils advocate. I'm sure, since online poker is a new industry, that we are only just starting to understand how players could be cheating and/or are cheated.

Well done to PPP pit boss for replying to an online public forum where he could possibly be misrepresented or misquoted at a later stage. I hope your experiences on this site continue to be positive ones.

Shame on the poster (no names) who quickly turned it into a personal sh*t throwing contest. No need for it. Shame on you sir. Shame on you.

Now, where's my walkie-talkie, I'm off to play some online poker with some mates....

henbane

Doc Farrell wrote:

Shame on the poster (no names) who quickly turned it into a personal sh*t throwing contest. No need for it. Shame on you sir. Shame on you.

That's me, right? Do I get a prize?

DapperGent

henbane wrote:

That's me, right? Do I get a prize?

At least you didn't tell anyone to stop playing poker this time.

Poker Player: "I was in the Fitz last week and I went to grab my cup of coffee and I knocked all my chips all over the ground. It was really embarrassing."

Henbane: "Maybe you should stop playing poker."

henbane

DapperGent wrote:

blah blah blah

Maybe you should stop playing poker. Cócksúcker!

BrendanB

I'm interested in the 'I'm playing Devil's Advocate here' line. You started this thread, and with nothing new from the last time you had this discussion. If you don't believe your argument what's the point of having it twice in recent succession?

Culchie

henbane wrote:

It is a silly question, especially when you finally realise that you have the resources available to conduct your own "independent" audit of whatever online site you use. Pay for pokertracker. Leave it running on any major site that allows wholesale tracking of hand histories. Do your own statistical analysis (note there is absolutely no need for data from live play for comparison) and show us all for the fools that we are.
It's all a conspiracy and we're all fúcking dolts waiting to be shafted by any business we have dealings with.
You really are a total fúcking moron. Way to generalise there, numbnuts!

Dodgy poker sites can just run off with your deposits and you will have no recourse as they're based in chumbawumba land. Everyone is aware of that danger and should be choosing sites carefully for those reasons.

MORON!

Hey, great post.

I should probably wait until tomorrow to reply, because it's way past your bedtime now, school night and everything.

Next time you're in school, ask teacher about Enron, Morrogh Stockbrokers, Bula Resources and all those other well respected companies that would never rip people off...why should they, they were making plenty anyway.

Think about that while you're sucking your thumb tonight.

Waylander

I agree with Brendan. I also conceded that Dodgy sites is a possibility but I do think the main ones are legitimate, and would be mad to operate any other way. The reason I was negative towards the discussion is because we had the same discussion in another thread recently with the same people involved. Starting a new thread was unlikely to cause a change of heart for anyone.

Waylander

Culchie wrote:

Hey, great post.

I should probably wait until tomorrow to reply, because it's way past your bedtime now, school night and everything.

Next time you're in school, ask teacher about Enron, Morrogh Stockbrokers, Bula Resources and all those other well respected companies that would never rip people off...why should they, they were making plenty anyway.

Think about that while you're sucking your thumb tonight.

You are now making our point for us. All those companies were found out, which demonstrates that in current climate covering up anything can only get increasingly difficult!

Culchie

BrendanB wrote:

I'm interested in the 'I'm playing Devil's Advocate here' line. You started this thread, and with nothing new from the last time you had this discussion. If you don't believe your argument what's the point of having it twice in recent succession?

Well, maybe I'm like a dog with a bone.

To answer your question, I'm interest in the sheer trust placed in the on-line systems by players.
Whether you agree or not, I think I've shown some reasons why a dodgy company could take a preferential view of one player of another, if they could interfere with a RNG or similar server...yet the only answer coming back on why not to do it is " Why would they, they have to much to risk, they make too much anyway" ... well, as I said on previous post, look at Enron, Morrogh Stockbrokers, Bula etc.....history is littered by seemingly successful companies ripping people off, keeping 'trade secrets' within a select few. Tobacco industry prime example.

Whistle Blowers I hear as well, surely they would whistle..... like the guys that have the coca cola formula maybe?

So Brendan, excuse my repeating myself to your obvious boredom .... but I sure do get bored about the 'last night in the Fitz' stories, and all the 'bad beat' posts, so I guess, I'll post on a subject I think is interesting.

Culchie

Waylander wrote:

You are now making our point for us. All those companies were found out, which demonstrates that in current climate covering up anything can only get increasingly difficult!

They were all found out when investors and customers lost all their money after the event...not before.

Culchie

Waylander wrote:

I agree with Brendan. I also conceded that Dodgy sites is a possibility but I do think the main ones are legitimate, and would be mad to operate any other way. The reason I was negative towards the discussion is because we had the same discussion in another thread recently with the same people involved. Starting a new thread was unlikely to cause a change of heart for anyone.

Waylander,

This is a discussion board, and that's what we're having, it would be pretty boring if we all agreed, so I've no problem with your argument.

Not all sites can be number one, not all sites can be successful, otherwise why don't me and you set one up.
How many poker sites are there now, how many will there be in 2 years time?
It's a corporate world, return on investment, shareholders dividends, chairman's bonuses etc.... all looking for the extra edge.... some take short cuts !

NickyOD

I just want to say that in over 2 years of playing online poker this is without doubt the dumbest online poker conspiracy thread, I've ever come across and I have come across A LOT! If those of you who believe there is something underhanded (excuse the pun) with the poker sites themselves then you need to wake the hell up and get a life because if you don't you will end up like the conspiracy theorists of Area 51 spending the rest of your life in a nuclear bomb shelter with your heads wrapped in tinfoil to protect you from their mind control devices.

Now if you actually went and read about a poker RNG system and how a virual deck gets shuffled, and how the system is certified and monitored by an independent body, then you would learn to see that rare the occasion that your Aces are cracked by J-3 off are down to normal mathematical variance. 67 suited will crack aces every 1 in 3 times, 9T suited is only a slight underdog to the Big Slick and the hammer has a 1 in 8 chance of beating pocket Queens. Any 2 cards can win and when you play the low limits of VC which are overpopulated with faeces throwing monkeys pressing mousepads then you will suffer many of them. Get over it and move on.

Hyzepher

henbane wrote:

It is a silly question, especially when you finally realise that you have the resources available to conduct your own "independent" audit of whatever online site you use. Pay for pokertracker. Leave it running on any major site that allows wholesale tracking of hand histories. Do your own statistical analysis (note there is absolutely no need for data from live play for comparison) and show us all for the fools that we are.
It's all a conspiracy and we're all fúcking dolts waiting to be shafted by any business we have dealings with.
You really are a total fúcking moron. Way to generalise there, numbnuts!

Dodgy poker sites can just run off with your deposits and you will have no recourse as they're based in chumbawumba land. Everyone is aware of that danger and should be choosing sites carefully for those reasons.

MORON!

Henbane - leave it out!!!!

I am sure you can get your point across without subjecting us all to that type of childish behaviour. There are loads of other boards where personal insults may wash but not here. I hope I wont have to mention it again.

Hyzepher

okidoki987

Next time you're in school, ask teacher about Enron, Morrogh Stockbrokers, Bula Resources and all those other well respected companies that would never rip people off...why should they, they were making plenty anyway.

As a LARGE shareholder in the above company (and that's only coz they were penny shares in old money), are you suggesting that I might get my money back at any stage soon?

growler

Culchie wrote:

. well, as I said on previous post, look at Enron, Morrogh Stockbrokers, Bula etc.....history is littered by seemingly successful companies ripping people off, keeping 'trade secrets' within a select few. Tobacco industry prime example.

Whistle Blowers I hear as well, surely they would whistle..... like the guys that have the coca cola formula maybe?

.

there is a difference between going public about illegal corporate activities, which one is required to do by law ... and industrial espionage / sabotage / patent protection violation all of which are punishable by law.

Culchie

Okidoki - I'm with you as a Bula Shareholder ... Don't hold your breath

Growler - My point is rather than it is possible to keep something under wraps, if the determination is there to do so .


Actually, as this thread has developed I tapped in RNG into Google, and it threw up quite a few different articles and viewpoints, from both sides of the argument.

One interesting viewpoint I read (which I'm relaying, as I have no knowledge of whether it is true or not) .... is that the RNG certification is not certified by an completely independent body, but by a body endorsed by, and funded by the gaming industry.... and that the gaming industry will not allow independent analysis of their databases to measure and compare on-line stats and deals versus off-line stats and deals.

And here's an article referring to a Press Release from Pokerstars themselves which talks about the unreliability of another un-named Major Poker Site, and forced them to do an audit.

http://www.winneronline.com/articles/july2003/pokerstars_selects_cigital.htm

As the Indo says " Before you make up your mind, open it"

BigDragon

It was www.planetpoker.com Links:

Press Release

About the testing

NickyOD

The planet poker fiasco was as a result of a major oversite (dumb ass laziness) by the RNG system developers and it happened a LONG time ago.

Basically this is how it works properly. First you have the virtual deck. Then you have a random generated pointer to the virtual deck.

On some sites (UB for example) the virtual deck is constantly shuffled.

The next step is which card is selected from the virtual deck. The next card is not necessarily chosen from the top of the virtual deck, whether or not the virtual deck is in a constant shuffle mode.

I can tell you with almost 100% certainty, that each site running today has a constantly running random number generator at a minimum. I seriously doubt that ANY site has a deck that is shuffled before the hand, and then remains in that state for the duration of the hand, AND that the next card needed from the deck automatically comes from the top of the deck.

All I would need is a few hand histories from a table, then some computing time for a program to tell me what the likely random number generator seed was, and I'm on my way to knowing everyones hand. If the random number generator is contantly running (in which case, when you push call/raise MAKES a difference) then the above program does me no good.

Culchie

Thanks Nicky .. at least the tone has changed for the better.

One other question, I'll throw out there.

Why do the different sites have different RNG's ?

Is one RNG not the same as another RNG ? .... Afterall if RNG is absolutely random and imperiously so ...why the need for different RNG's ?


If they are not the same RNG's ....then what is the difference ... doesn't random mean random ? How and why are they different?

Why do sites say their RNG is better than a competitors RNG? ... Aren't they the same if they are truly random?

mewso

Culchie wrote:

I'm playing Devils advocate, but the 2 main categories of responses people are giving are

1. STFU Culchie.... You are boring me with these questions, you have no business asking them, it's a silly question.

2. Why would a site do that, they are making enough money anyway, they wouldn't risk it?

Discuss this topic all ye want but I would like to point out that the post prior to this one did not contain anything remotely akin to STFU Culchie which harldy helps a discussion that had been proceeding fine up to then. But then you get what you wish for (i.e. the very next post)

PPP-Pit Boss

What difference does it make as long as it is random?
Lets not turn this into a slagging match. To a degree I think we have visited the subject extensively. But it is fine with me if you still have questions.. If I dont know the answer I can try to find out. Is this a new thread then? 'the differences between the programming of one verses another'.. One language verses another? Burn one turn one randomly dont burn just turn randomly.. its all somantics really i feel.. Its random.

NickyOD

Culchie wrote:

Thanks Nicky .. at least the tone has changed for the better.
One other question, I'll throw out there.
Why do the different sites have different RNG's ?
Is one RNG not the same as another RNG ? .... Afterall if RNG is absolutely random and imperiously so ...why the need for different RNG's ?
If they are not the same RNG's ....then what is the difference ... doesn't random mean random ? How and why are they different?
Why do sites say their RNG is better than a competitors RNG? ... Aren't they the same if they are truly random?

Well, that's a very good question. How random is random? How long is a piece of string, how deep is a hole and how many wells make a river?

I think the answer really, is that although different sites may use techniques in achieving the random card selection the end result is still the same, in that it is still completely random. How they go about achieving true randomness is irrelevent as long as it really IS random.

The important thing is that all sites have an RNG which is unpredictably changing and selects a card from any position in the deck, and that the unpredictable random number is generated at the time of the action of the last player to act on each street.

For example on Pokerstars the RNG that selects the position in the deck for the next card is actually a number betwwen 1 and 80, not 52, and any number outside the range is simply dropped and another is selected. I'm not completely certain why they do this but I would imagine it is some form of additional RNG security.

UB and Party (I think) constantly shuffle the deck through out the hand, but not all sites do this. This does not achieve a more random number, just another security feature, although even if you knew the layout of the deck it wouldn't make a difference since the RNG still selects a card from any position.

Different companies offer different certified RNG software that does the same thing, Nothing new there.

BrendanB

Eh Nicky no. This isn't a case of a C programmer going srand(time), industrial strength RNGS aren't seeded sequences.

There are 52! ways of shuffling the deck, which I think is in the ballpark around 2 to the power of 230. So you use an entropy source (generally a physical RNG) to produce more than 230 bits of entropy (probably a lot more, though that's not really necessary) and you get a completely, 100% random deck, with each card as likely to be anywhere and as far away from any other.

If the deck is random in the first place, and only transmitted to the client card by card, there is no real need to continuously shuffle. In fact it kinda wrecks my head to consider that the amount of time I think about a decision affects the cards that'll come out. It's back to paying $5 to cut the deck.

NickyOD

BrendanB wrote:

Eh Nicky no. This isn't a case of a C programmer going srand(time)

huzzuh?

BrendanB wrote:

There are 52! ways of shuffling the deck, which I think is in the ballpark around 2 to the power of 230...

I think what you're trying to say is there are 52*51*50*49*........ ways in which the deck can be positioned, not "52 ways to shuffle a deck."

BrendanB wrote:

f the deck is random in the first place, and only transmitted to the client card by card, there is no real need to continuously shuffle. ...

That may or may not be true but that doesn't mean sites still don't constantly shuffle the deck throughout the hand. Send an e-mail to UB and they'll tell you they do

BrendanB wrote:

In fact it kinda wrecks my head to consider that the amount of time I think about a decision affects the cards that'll come out.

Well then try not to think about it.

BrendanB

OK, first things first: 52! means 52*51*50*...*2*1

All I would need is a few hand histories from a table, then some computing time for a program to tell me what the likely random number generator seed was, and I'm on my way to knowing everyones hand. If the random number generator is contantly running (in which case, when you push call/raise MAKES a difference) then the above program does me no good.

Thus the comment about seeded sequences, and whether you need continuous shuffling. I don't doubt that some sites do it.

Cianos

I dont know much about RNG's, but I would imagine the main concern of the site is to protect their number generators from being hacked. If some guy could break the RNG and proceed to clear thousands from a sites players, this would destroy any sites reputation in an instant. Far more serious than anything from collusion suspicions to odds favouritism.

Leading from this, it wouldnt be too hard to imagine site X employing programmers/hackers to crack site Y's outdated system, to destroy their competitors reputation and in turn steal their players.

Thus I would say that is a big part of why different RNG systems are used, because the more standardised they are, the easier they would be cracked.

NickyOD

Along the same tone as online poker integrity.....

Roy Cook has a column in the latest issue of Cardplayer. In it he gives some insight into what a site is doing to prevent cheating and collusion, although he doesnt go into exact details. Here's an exerpt for the firewall impaired at work:

Each program upgrade includes more sophisticated methodology for identifying cheaters. Software flagging is a big part of anti-collusion efforts, and you’ll forgive me for not itemizing exactly how PlanetPoker does that, or how our competitors do it. Suffice it to say that it’s not difficult to write a routine that identifies situations that may involve cheating and then flags them. In addition to flagging anomalous plays that might indicate collusion, most sites match credit cards, surnames, banks, addresses, ISPs, IP addresses, e-mails, zip codes, deposit and withdrawal patterns, and more.

One of my favorite defenses is sniffers. There are lots of different types of sniffers, and they sniff out lots of different things. One kind is an itty-bitty program on your client base that determines whether you’re running instant messaging software. It matches what you’re running to what other players at your table are running. A match moves you up the flagging list. With such computer technology, it is possible to be proactive, ferreting out the cheaters and bouncing their butts from the site.