Okay, I gave you the chance to take your licks and go no your merry way but you decided you needed to make one more attempt so excuse me if I don’t afford you the same benefit of the doubt I did in previous responses.

Do you really, really think that the number of questions or criteria on a test is an indicator of how legit it is? Do you realize how stone-cold retarded that sounds? Because you know damn well that if they had 100 questions instead of 101 you would have found some other sliver of hope to hang your hat of doubt on.

I’ll likely never know why you feel it necessary to keep this debate going but I do know that the desperation of your arguments helps validate everything I’ve ever said about the psychology of those who feel the need to believe that online poker is rigged. Facts be damned. You simply aren’t going to allow facts to get in the way of what you believe.

I’m done commenting.

Bill

You made a good point here:

“And it’s not their job to denounce anyone just as it is not the job of an accounting firm to turn you in to the tax authorities. They have the option of either validating the fairness of the game or not. If they don’t validate then the company does not say that it’s been validated. ”

Just like the accounting firm is hired by you to do the job it is not a true auditing firm like the IRS. IF you don’t like how the accounting firm is handling your business you just go and hire another one. There lies the falicy in all this certification. A poker room could have gone through 100 of these different companies before they received a certification from one of them. Since none of these companies state how many certification companies they gone through or how many tests were done how do you know? When I go to a resturant and see the A,B,C signs from the health department I know it is a set of standards that meet some critieria. When a resturant gets it’s grade they can bribe the inspector, but they can’t say I want this or that company to grade me that would be biased in their favor.

Here is a certification link from party poker:

http://www.partypoker.com/images/docs/partypoker_card_analysis_report.pdf

Since you are the expert. I would like to hear a good explaination for this one. In every test that I have taken. The exams questions are given usually an even number. Like 50, 100, 150, 200 etc.. These are standardized tests. Usually because it makes working with percentages easier than working with numbers like 101. What I see here is using a hand history number like 501925 so why didn’t they use an even 500,000 instead? The only thing I could come up with is they were using progressive statistics where they needed the 1925 extra hands to fit their 5% critieria.

That’s a laugh I guess these so called experts the best in their field to once be hired by these companies are boneheads once someone else figures a way to exploit the site. The truth is there is no way to create a true randomness or a seeding that can’t be broken, especially if there is a insider who decides to cheat people.

If these sites are exposed and players are using cheating programs that are able to predict the outcome of the cards. Then it could be the reason why the rngs seem skewed. Explaination:

If even one player on a table is able to predict the outcome of cards and calls or fold knowing your AA will be cracked or not. For the legit player the statistics could be all off or seem skewed because they are taking heavy losses or not winning enough with the AA.

The bottom line:

I know there is a difference in profitability in online vs live playing the same limits. Hence when I refer to skewed statistics whether it’s because of people cheating or the rngs are all off. I know it’s harder online.

Don’t take this the wrong way but, you should really just quit. You don’t have any clue what you’re talking about and each post you make only adds to the snowball of misinformation.

First off, not every company is audited by the same company. Paradise and others have certs on their sites indicating that their rng has passed the sniff test of companies like Price Waterhouse Coopers. The amount of money PWC makes from online gaming firms is a joke, so explain their motivation for turning a blind eye to cheating.

And it’s not their job to denounce anyone just as it is not the job of an accounting firm to turn you in to the tax authorities. They have the option of either validating the fairness of the game or not. If they don’t validate then the company does not say that it’s been validated.

And what in the hell does ZeeJustin cheating have to do with sites being rigged. Do you honestly think people can’t cheat at land based casinos? Literally, you’re now just throwing off chaff in the hopes of escaping this debate with some sort of small victory.

Yes, there is no such thing as true, true randomness as far as computers are concerned. In fact, I don’t believe a random system of number generation can ever be created. Even in total chaos one can find patterns. So, again, what this really comes down to is whether or not it is random enough.

Every busted RNG I’ve ever heard of usually involves someone first figuring out the RNG methodology being used and then somehow they are able to find a flaw that exposes the seeding. They recreate the seeding and thus can then predict the numbers the RNG will spit out. When it happens, it tends to be widely publicized which is why you heard about this keno exploit. Once discovered, the bonehead programmer who implemented the RNG is fired and someone who actually knows something about RNG is hired to implement it correctly.

As far as your last paragraph, if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. You can hypothesize all day but it doesn’t make any of your assertions correct.

It would be really to your benefit to end the discussion here. Like I said, no disrespect intended, but you have more than proven that you bring to the table no special knowledge on the subject matter. That’s fine. I don’t know jack about architecture. In fact there are gobs of topics I don’t know anything about. The problem is, this happens to be one of the topics I do know something about so we have a bit of a problem here. You can continue to keep bringing up random pieces of information that you’ve cobbled together and I can keep pointing out the flaws in your arguments (which I can do all day long as I’ve heard all of your arguments a thousand times before) or we can agree to disagree and we can go on our merry ways each believing what we want to believe.

Bill

I don’t which claim has been proven false, if you’re reffering to the rng certification stating it’s all good. Then yes my statements were proven false. However, these certification companies sole business revolve around certifying poker rooms. I don’t know of any of these companies branching off into other ventures to collect revenue. So if the majority of their income comes from the pokerrooms, I don’t see any positives in showing the rngs are bad hence cutting off their income. With so many pokerrooms out there I have yet to see a certification company denounce a pokerroom. So, am I to believe there is absolutely no flaw in all of these rooms not even one room? Also, the one criteria that is missing in all these certifications. Was it test # 1, 2, 3 or 4. In other words how many tries did they get before they passed. Did they have to get a new set of hand histories because they had failed the test previously or not? Yes, the 500k hands they tested is a good number, but how many tests were actually needed before making the passing grade.

When the story first came out about zeejustin. I clearly recognized 3 id’s. That’s because I played on the step higher games on party poker. In tournament style poker especially sng. It takes only one hand to cost you a lot of money.

I guess you did not see the episode or mis-read my comments. It was electronic keno. He was speaking of rngs specifically just like the rngs you have in electronic poker. You probably know all this, but I will say it anyways in an attempt to clarify my comments. He stated that computers cannot truly create random numbers so the rngs are created to prevent people from predicting the outcome. But guess what he predicted the outcome hence winning the jackpot..

Maybe I went on a little tangent and did not stick to the original post about rng’s being skewed. However, one thing led to another and got to a point where we were discussing how the poker rooms could be compromised.

Hence, do you really need to know a players hole cards to compromise the system? If there was a system to predict only the 5 key community cards that’s the only edge someone would need. I could care less if you had AA. If I had 2 7 and with relative accuracy knew the five community cards would come 2 2 x x x. I’d be the first one to push you all in with 27 and have you call with your AA preflop. To maximize profit at least two people have to play. This is the sure way to go in with the worst of it knowing you’d come out with the best of it.

The problem is, is not whether you call it potato or tomato. You made a very specific claim and that claim has proven to be false.

If JJ got his bankroll via illegal activities, how does that change the odds against you if he’s not cheating?

I don’t even understand your argument. Keno is not randon. Bingo is not random. Slots are not random. The only way a slot machine can claim it pays out 95% is to adjust the random behavior so it equals 95%. Poker doesn’t do any of that. If you get AA, you have the same odds as anyone else getting AA.

Bill

I grow tired of this too and know that it won’t be resolved by either of us debating the issue. So this will be my final note.

“I call it potatoe you call it potato”. You know what I meant when I said multi tabling/ multi accounting. I’m writting all my post playing poker and yes sometimes words don’t come out right with windows popping up and multitasking. If you want to get down to the nitty gritty and evaluate where I dot my I’s or where I insert a commma or an exclaimation point that’s up to you.

When you say you know JJ and Zee I don’t know if you know them personally or just on the forum. However, if these are the high limit players you refer too or similar group of people then they not only got their huge bankrolls by cheating, but are playing the high limits with cheated money. The bs Zee gave like i didn’t know it was wrong. For every two that are caught there are probably hundreds more that aren’t. As I have pointed out before it wasn’t the poker rooms that had to inform the players. It was the players who informed the poker rooms. So, if no one pointed it out no one would be the wiser. I know there is an article where Daniel Negraneau makes a claim that he lost to some players colluding. I don’t know if this was proven positive or negative. However, he did lose a good chunk of change.

As far as the gambling code yes I might not be able to cite it or know the articles listed in them, but do I really have to know what’s in it? Do I really have to know it says you can’t bring in extra cards to know it’s wrong? Some things are common sense. Do I really have to read it in some bill or legislation that shooting people are against the law?

Yes, and I know about luck. I’ve seen it in live games too. I’ve been at a casino where two jackpots happened within less than 20 minutes apart on the same table by the same two players with almost the same cards. So it does happen, but if you were to ask all the dealers, pit bosses, or employment would you see another circumstance like that again…they’d probably all agree no..

Live i can play aggressive and to a fair degree have the 2 to 1 ratio hold up. There will always be luck and you’ll get bad beats no matter where you play. The degree of luck live vs online is what I question.

It was a while back so I don’t remember all the details, but there was an episode on criminal masterminds where the former employee of the gaming commission decides to break the rng for the keno machines.

The guy even stated that it’s amost impossible to break it even if the algorithems aren’t random due to encryption and such…etc.. I believe he said it increased his chances by a small percentage. I don’t even think it was even in the double digits until he bought mulitple tickets. Even then the probablilities were less than 80%. He took down the jackpot in about 3 tries.

Just because it’s highly improbable doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

The emphasis on being able to see the hole cards isn’t even the best way to profit. The best way is if a player was able to predict the 5 community cards. These are the only 5 key cards he would have to know. If he was able to with a fair degree of accuracy know the what cards would come then he could just push with the 2 7 knowing it would be getting trips. Have the worst of it to make the best hand.

I’m really growing tired of this but I’ll entertain you.

I Know ZeeJstin adn JJ, you might want to do a search on my site before asking. Its’ not that they were multi-tabling, it was they were multi-accounting.

As far as regulation, can you cite Ca and NV gambiling code? I didn’t think so. You’re just poking around a topic you don’t know anything about. Do you want to hear about worse beats in live games? I lost a hand when I was a 97% favorite pre-flop. I lost the hand.

Making adjustments is part of playing poker. If this is a new concept to you, you’re the newbie here.

Contrary to your statments, you don’t need to lose a million to prove your point. Go on 2+2 and ask if any other high limit player thinks the game is riggged. You’ll get laughed out of there by guys who worked thier way up from .50/1 to 100/200 who think guys like you are the kooks.

I’ve read some of the articles not all, but the first one shows that the video poker was cracked. The other article seems make fun of online poker being rigged. Another states that bots can be overcome..etc..

I’m pretty sure you know of JJsProdigy and Zeejustin incident…they were multitabling…the only reason they got caught was because someone reported them. If no one had mentioned anything there is a good chance that they would still be cheating people. There are no real regulations in where these sites are located. They confiscated some of their money. Money they would have never had if they had played legit. The question lies in why did someone have to come foward before any action was taken. With all the security measures shouldn’t they have been the ones informing the players and not the other way around? On a side note: I heard that in the 2006 wsop 2.2 million in extra chips. Whether is was intentional or accident it has huge implications because more than likely it helped one player more than others..

This is an old article that shows that one of the earlier poker rooms were cracked. I’m pretty sure you will make the claim that it’s old and outdated. The security measures they have in place now are much better etc.. The only thing I can say is it happened. I’m pretty sure back in 1999 these poker rooms made claims that their security measures were state of the art so it couldn’t be hacked into. Just like we may find out later down the line that the rooms we have now were really not secure at all.

http://www.developer.com/java/other/article.php/616221

Another article states why play if its rigged.

I have racked up a lot of points playing these online rooms and while i’m playing these points i’m playing the cash games too. However, after I have used all my points there is a good possibility that I will be playing only live games because I believe the profitability is not there. Just 2 examples while writing this post.

I had 10 10 2nd player last from the button. Everyone folded it’s to me. I call. Everyone folded, but the big blind decides to raise. I just call. Flop comes K 10 Q. The blind bets out. I tell myself if he has AJ I’ll pay him off i go all in. He thinks long…I don’t know what for only that he’s probably taken his share of bad beats. He calls. Sure enought he has AJ. Whether raised or not the result would have been the same.

In another table i’m not in the hand, but this is what I observed. QQ decides to raise early on. 55 has the balls to reraise pretty big. The 55 gets quads this is probably within less than 20 min writing this post.

On another hand if I had decided to raise with my KK in good position I would have gotten busted up real good by the big blind. He would have called with his suited cards hand hit trip 6’s on the flop. I would have lost a whole lot more if I had decided to raise or make some kind of aggressive play.

I’ve had to make a lot of adjustments in my online and live play.

There is on big problem in trying to prove if the game is rigged or not..That’s cash…Consider that you have to take every hand to the showdown to prove if your point. If your playing 100nl games to provide 10k hands you need a million dollars. Of course it may be less because you may actully win some back still even losing half is enormous sum even at a 100nl level

I know what my gut is telling me.

Did you read any of my other posts like I recommended? The difference between me believing the moon is made of cheese and my belief that the games (for the most part) are fair is that there are mountains of facts to support the games are fair theory. You, like many, many before you, have it all come down to your gut feel. I’m sorry but the evidence doesn’t support your gut feel. You can tell me all of the sob stories and bad beats you want but until you can throw a statistically relevant sample size out there for someone to analyze and demonstrate a statistically significant anomaly from expected results . . . yours is the moon is made of cheese argument.

Bill

that 1 mil comment was in part supposed to be a sarcastic and rhetorical comment. I should have put an astronomical # in the end. However, since I am not able to revise it we’ll leave it at I lied.

The second part of your comment that moon is made of cheese. Prove to me it isn’t made of cheese. I didn’t see you go up there and take a bite out of it see if it was made of cheese.

Yes, the standard. The scientific community says it’s not made of cheese. So we should accept it. A fact is only a fact until a better theory comes along to change it.

For the longest time in the so called “modern world” there was a conception in the scientific community that the world was flat. If u said it otherwise you would be branded a heretic or lunatic. However, in ancient Greece it was already known that the world was round they just could not prove it.

I know what my gut is telling me. I win in both live and online games in the 100-200nl levels. However, my play in live and online games differ in style. I’ve become somewhat more passive in online games because there is a good chance that the hand heads up won’t hold up. In a live game i’d push all my chips in with the best hand hoping for that person to try and outdraw me. I go on a ratio of 2-1. If i lose 1 i expect to win 2. Online I expect to lose 3 if i win 7. At first I thought it might have to do with the blinds being different between the the tables at live games opposed to online. So I moved to the higher games online to try and compensate for the blinds being bigger on live games. The results are the same.

From the results I know I have to be multitabling 3-4 tables in online games to get the same result on live games at the same limit.

Yesterday, while i was playing 4 out 5 hands I lost within a short period. 3 times they hit sets and once 2 pairs on the flop. In live games I don’t don’t worry too much about someone hitting sets even with multiple players in the hand. Yes, they do hit it at times, but not like online where a reraise almost always means sets.