is internet poker fixed?

[matt674]

i am mainly a tournament player

me too - thats why i dont play cash......

like woodsey said i think online cash games are too easy to use IM's to collude and even though sites to come down hard on anyone suspected of colluding i still wouldnt trust it 100%, but then thats the individuals not the site. at least with MTT's the seating is a random draw.

next time you are playing in a live game and you see a "sexed up flop" that suits both players or someone hits a perfect river card to out draw an opponent say out loud "its just like playing on pokerstars (or which ever site it is you play) and you'll be surprised how many times you say it in one night........

[Robert HM]

is internet poker fixed? 


was it broken?

[Wardonkey]

I fixed it.

I borrowed RED-DOG's screwdriver.

[AdamM]

this evening I saw a couple of odd hands.
first one I limped with  . player to my left also limps. button and both blinds also see the flop
comes  . I bet limper to my left min raises, others pass. I call
turn comes  , I check, limper checks
river, a  giving me quads.
I bet he raises all in I call. he had 
best hand won the hard way.

later in same tourney, I'd got short. blinds were 600/1200 I go all in for 4000 UTG with  and am called immediately by 
I flop a K turn and river are 
 these both happened live and I personally dealt them.

UI also dealt a flop and turn of  with a river  the guy with  wasnt best pleased but as it happens only the river got him his chips back otherwise the other player would have picked it up with Q high

on presvious occassions I've also personally dealt or seen a royal flush on the board and AA v KK v QQ v JJ and the Jacks win. I've seen AA v AA won with a flush and I've seen quads  v quads.

you put enough hours in you'll see it all

[JungleCat03]

Online poker rigged?

I'm suprised no one has posited this idea before!

Seriously though, like Tikay says, ask yourself what the motive of a site would be. They stand to gain so little through the relatively miniscule extra rake gain and lose so much, through loss of reputation and business.

Sites don't need to rig games. They make large sums of money through running legit games, and their biggest challenge is persuading more customers through their door, not bumping up the rake a few percent.

Most sites have audited RNGs if you want to investigate further.

These are all long standing, well debated arguments.

The debate tends to seperate people into 3 camps.

Group 1 The Mystical Sceptics - Those who think that online poker is rigged. Other firmly held beliefs include the oft voiced opinion that "aces always lose",  that cracks in the pavement should be avoided and the notion that trolls reside under bridges wielding large clubs.

Group 2 The logicians - Those who believe that logic dictates online poker is almost certainly not rigged. Other beliefs include the idea that  cracks in the pavement are neither malevolent nor benevolent, that aces will hold up roughly 80% of the time and that sitting at a cash table full of mystical sceptics is a good way to spend time.

Group 3  The impish antithesists - This group may hold an assorted collection of beliefs and can fall into either of the above camps at given moments but their main concern is playing devil's advocate to whichever side holds sway in the current debate. Other beliefs include the idea that replying to long carefully written arguments on forums, simply writing "lol" is great fun.

After flirting initially with group 1, I myself now vacillate between groups 2 and 3.

 

[tikay]

At Notts, when I was dealing one night, we saw TT, JJ, QQ, KK, & AA in the same hand.

And the board came.....

A........2-3-4-5.

Proves the game is fixed.

[Ironside]

Personally, when I see posts presented like this I don't bother to read them. They are hard to read and the effort is seldom worth it.

thanks

[onespeedo]

One of my mates rang up a popular site some time ago when he was being outdrawn in supposedly mysterious circumstances on a regular basis.

Their response was fairly reasonable - playing live, players tend not to make dodgy calls or bets because of the risk of retribution and / or embarrassment there and then, plus the fact that it is hard to push your own cash / chips into a pot when you are a big dog.

On line, however, people are far less bothered about clicking a button to put "invisible" money in the middle, and the possibility of getting abuse on the chat facility. So you get more muppet calls needing runner runner or an individual miracle card. The site said they dealt cards with the same random nature as live poker, but what they can't control is the percentage of players who play with bad hands that hit, and hit big.

I can go along with this - how many times in live games have you folded pre flop, or folded after the flop needing runner runner and have seen those cards come out? How many times has someone on your table said the same thing - "I'd have won that hand if I'd have played it"? ; "I'd have hit this / that / the other...."

I was experiencing out draws after outdraws playing cash on line, and was starting to think the same thing, so I stopped playing. After a while, I wanted another go so thought about what I needed to do to win. I realised I was just crap at Omaha so I started playing hold 'em (always played Omaha cash as a change to HE tournaments) and have won 10 sessions out of 12, and only lost small amounts on the other two.....

[tikay]

Online poker rigged?

I'm suprised no one has posited this idea before!

Seriously though, like Tikay says, ask yourself what the motive of a site would be. They stand to gain so little through the relatively miniscule extra rake gain and lose so much, through loss of reputation and business.

Sites don't need to rig games. They make large sums of money through running legit games, and their biggest challenge is persuading more customers through their door, not bumping up the rake a few percent.

Most sites have audited RNGs if you want to investigate further.

These are all long standing, well debated arguments.

The debate tends to seperate people into 3 camps.

Group 1 The Mystical Sceptics - Those who think that online poker is rigged. Other firmly held beliefs include the oft voiced opinion that "aces always lose",  that cracks in the pavement should be avoided and the notion that trolls reside under bridges wielding large clubs.

Group 2 The logicians - Those who believe that logic dictates online poker is almost certainly not rigged. Other beliefs include the idea that  cracks in the pavement are neither malevolent nor benevolent, that aces will hold up roughly 80% of the time and that sitting at a cash table full of mystical sceptics is a good way to spend time.

Group 3  The impish antithesists - This group may hold an assorted collection of beliefs and can fall into either of the above camps at given moments but their main concern is playing devil's advocate to whichever side holds sway in the current debate. Other beliefs include the idea that replying to long carefully written arguments on forums, simply writing "lol" is great fun.

After flirting initially with group 1, I myself now vacillate between groups 2 and 3.

 

POTD.

[snoopy1239]

One of my mates rang up a popular site some time ago when he was being outdrawn in supposedly mysterious circumstances on a regular basis.

Their response was fairly reasonable - playing live, players tend not to make dodgy calls or bets because of the risk of retribution and / or embarrassment there and then, plus the fact that it is hard to push your own cash / chips into a pot when you are a big dog.

On line, however, people are far less bothered about clicking a button to put "invisible" money in the middle, and the possibility of getting abuse on the chat facility. So you get more muppet calls needing runner runner or an individual miracle card. The site said they dealt cards with the same random nature as live poker, but what they can't control is the percentage of players who play with bad hands that hit, and hit big.

I can go along with this - how many times in live games have you folded pre flop, or folded after the flop needing runner runner and have seen those cards come out? How many times has someone on your table said the same thing - "I'd have won that hand if I'd have played it"? ; "I'd have hit this / that / the other...."

I was experiencing out draws after outdraws playing cash on line, and was starting to think the same thing, so I stopped playing. After a while, I wanted another go so thought about what I needed to do to win. I realised I was just crap at Omaha so I started playing hold 'em (always played Omaha cash as a change to HE tournaments) and have won 10 sessions out of 12, and only lost small amounts on the other two.....

My guess is that it wasn't Party Poker who delivered this response.

[mikkyT]

I'M FIRMLY IN THE DEVILS ADVOCATE GROUP!

[Wardonkey]

Personally, when I see posts presented like this I don't bother to read them. They are hard to read and the effort is seldom worth it.

thanks

Ironside, I always read your posts. Despite your aversion to punctuation and your frequent typos. You rarely write more than one sentence, occasionally if you are feeling particularly verbose you might stretch to two. This I find managable, especially as there is often an effort to entertain.

[onespeedo]

My guess is that it wasn't Party Poker who delivered this response.


Couldn't possibly say which site publicly. The lad was broke though.

[Royal Flush]

Online poker rigged?

I'm suprised no one has posited this idea before!

Seriously though, like Tikay says, ask yourself what the motive of a site would be. They stand to gain so little through the relatively miniscule extra rake gain and lose so much, through loss of reputation and business.

Sites don't need to rig games. They make large sums of money through running legit games, and their biggest challenge is persuading more customers through their door, not bumping up the rake a few percent.

Most sites have audited RNGs if you want to investigate further.

These are all long standing, well debated arguments.

The debate tends to seperate people into 3 camps.

Group 1 The Mystical Sceptics - Those who think that online poker is rigged. Other firmly held beliefs include the oft voiced opinion that "aces always lose",  that cracks in the pavement should be avoided and the notion that trolls reside under bridges wielding large clubs.

Group 2 The logicians - Those who believe that logic dictates online poker is almost certainly not rigged. Other beliefs include the idea that  cracks in the pavement are neither malevolent nor benevolent, that aces will hold up roughly 80% of the time and that sitting at a cash table full of mystical sceptics is a good way to spend time.

Group 3  The impish antithesists - This group may hold an assorted collection of beliefs and can fall into either of the above camps at given moments but their main concern is playing devil's advocate to whichever side holds sway in the current debate. Other beliefs include the idea that replying to long carefully written arguments on forums, simply writing "lol" is great fun.

After flirting initially with group 1, I myself now vacillate between groups 2 and 3.

 

POTD.

I agree, oh and btw, lol/