Many thanks for taking the time to respond so quickly this morning to my email. It is very much appreciated. You are correct that providing open and honest answers to questions probably triggers more questions and I do have an initial follow up question. However, before posing this I will offer my own response to the question you raised.
I cannot recall an individual online poker customer ever exposing an improper or inaccurate RNG. I also think one never will. An individual poker player has access to a minute percentage of all poker hands dealt by a poker site and would never have access to all hand histories to even make an adequate assessment. Exposure could only ever arise as a result of a wider audit / test. In this regard I am grateful for your links to the various information housed on this website and also links to external sites. I will take time to read these. The best an individual poker player can hope for is the comfort that the testing of the RNG undertaken by an expert third party is thorough and regular with appropriate action taken to address any issues. You are correct that I am interested in the "how" and I hope that these will fill in the gaps of my understanding.
I noted your comments regarding protection of client money and was pleased to read that Sky appears to go over and above the requirements of the Alderney Gambling Control Commission and meets the "Medium" level of the UK Gambling Commission. It is useful to know that in the event of insolvency the bank will not use set-off rights or counterclaims to mitigate its liability. However, in the unlikely event of insolvency I would be grateful for clarification of the ranking order of creditors in relation to client money which is placed in the segregated account. Do Sky poker clients have priority to all other creditors (possibly bar those mandatorily preferred by law) in relation to cash held in this segregated account or would we rank equally to all other creditors and thus only receive back the same pence in the pound as all other creditors with our client money being pooled by the adminstrator? I was not clear on this point.
Many thanks for taking the time to respond so quickly this morning to my email. It is very much appreciated. You are correct that providing open and honest answers to questions probably triggers more questions and I do have an initial follow up question. However, before posing this I will offer my own response to the question you raised.
I cannot recall an individual online poker customer ever exposing an improper or inaccurate RNG. I also think one never will. An individual poker player has access to a minute percentage of all poker hands dealt by a poker site and would never have access to all hand histories to even make an adequate assessment. Exposure could only ever arise as a result of a wider audit / test. In this regard I am grateful for your links to the various information housed on this website and also links to external sites. I will take time to read these. The best an individual poker player can hope for is the comfort that the testing of the RNG undertaken by an expert third party is thorough and regular with appropriate action taken to address any issues. You are correct that I am interested in the "how" and I hope that these will fill in the gaps of my understanding.
I noted your comments regarding protection of client money and was pleased to read that Sky appears to go over and above the requirements of the Alderney Gambling Control Commission and meets the "Medium" level of the UK Gambling Commission. It is useful to know that in the event of insolvency the bank will not use set-off rights or counterclaims to mitigate its liability. However, in the unlikely event of insolvency I would be grateful for clarification of the ranking order of creditors in relation to client money which is placed in the segregated account. Do Sky poker clients have priority to all other creditors (possibly bar those mandatorily preferred by law) in relation to cash held in this segregated account or would we rank equally to all other creditors and thus only receive back the same pence in the pound as all other creditors with our client money being pooled by the adminstrator? I was not clear on this point.
Some studies have used sample sizes of millions upon millions of hands. Even if there were a discrepancy overall in an RNG that these studies did not pick up... It would be so minuscule that it would be irrelevant as the influence of player ability would be a far greater determinant of any difference in results than an ineffective RNG which was capable of passing the scrutiny of millions of hands being analysed.
Whilst I think the questions by @TOOTRUE are fair & reasonable, & coming from the correct angle - he has researched the matter in some depth, we must give him that, & he is, I believe, a winning player - as a general rule, when people chunter about the RNG - which, remember, after all this time, not a scintilla of credible evidence has ever been produced here or any other site that it may be flawed - really, it's a crutch, something to point the finger at because they can't beat the game. It's an easy but lazy accusation.
If those who say the RNG is in more way improper or inadequate spent as much time trying to improve their game, that would be time well spent. Negative thinking solves nothing, nor does always blaming others for our own failings.
Just a quick sidebar here to the "RNG is no good" thing.
I was playing a NLH DYM yesterday. Level 6, fella in front of me raises it up, & so I 4 bet him with Aces. The chap behind me - yet to act, & not a single chip invested - rejams. The opener folds, I call, & we are both all-in.
I have the Aces & the other chap has 4-7.
He flops his 4, then rivers another 4 & gets the lot.
He then writes in the chat box "sorry mate, but there's no explaining Sky Poker's joke rivers".....
Many thanks for taking the time to respond so quickly this morning to my email. It is very much appreciated. You are correct that providing open and honest answers to questions probably triggers more questions and I do have an initial follow up question. However, before posing this I will offer my own response to the question you raised.
I cannot recall an individual online poker customer ever exposing an improper or inaccurate RNG. I also think one never will. An individual poker player has access to a minute percentage of all poker hands dealt by a poker site and would never have access to all hand histories to even make an adequate assessment. Exposure could only ever arise as a result of a wider audit / test. In this regard I am grateful for your links to the various information housed on this website and also links to external sites. I will take time to read these. The best an individual poker player can hope for is the comfort that the testing of the RNG undertaken by an expert third party is thorough and regular with appropriate action taken to address any issues. You are correct that I am interested in the "how" and I hope that these will fill in the gaps of my understanding.
I noted your comments regarding protection of client money and was pleased to read that Sky appears to go over and above the requirements of the Alderney Gambling Control Commission and meets the "Medium" level of the UK Gambling Commission. It is useful to know that in the event of insolvency the bank will not use set-off rights or counterclaims to mitigate its liability. However, in the unlikely event of insolvency I would be grateful for clarification of the ranking order of creditors in relation to client money which is placed in the segregated account. Do Sky poker clients have priority to all other creditors (possibly bar those mandatorily preferred by law) in relation to cash held in this segregated account or would we rank equally to all other creditors and thus only receive back the same pence in the pound as all other creditors with our client money being pooled by the adminstrator? I was not clear on this point.
I could send the Suits a note & ask them, but to be honest, I think my question might be regarded as frivolous. I can only suggest you escalate it if it really troubles you.
I am assuming - correctly I hope - that you realise what a successful & cash-generative business SB&G is. It does not have to purchase "stock" to resell or whatever, which costs money, it sells a SERVICE - the right to enter a £30 MTT if you send them £33, or whatever. That's £30 in the Prize Pool & £3 in Sky's lucy. Night after night, 24/7/365. Everything it "sells" it gets paid for IN ADVANCE. On Bet, Bingo, Casino, Vegas & Poker. Money up front, no credit, every time.
And before you say it, yes, I know, big businesses can go busto. Enron, BICC, Lehman Brothers, WorldCom, Chrysler, Pan Am, TWA, the list is endless. The chances of SB&G being added to that list must be extraordinary small, don't you agree? I mean, like 0.0001% or similar?
Many players simply deposit the exact amount every night, them snap-withdraw anything they win, so they minimise even further the chances of something going wrong.
Sorry I can't assist on that one, I genuinely don't know the answer, &, imo, the possibility is so small that it's never entered my mind.
It's true, some Online Poker sites have played ducks & drakes with players money. With the valuable Brand that SB&G have, it ain't ever gonna happen.
Whilst I think the questions by @TOOTRUE are fair & reasonable, & coming from the correct angle - he has researched the matter in some depth, we must give him that, & he is, I believe, a winning player - as a general rule, when people chunter about the RNG - which, remember, after all this time, not a scintilla of credible evidence has ever been produced here or any other site that it may be flawed - really, it's a crutch, something to point the finger at because they can't beat the game. It's an easy but lazy accusation.
If those who say the RNG is in more way improper or inadequate spent as much time trying to improve their game, that would be time well spent. Negative thinking solves nothing, nor does always blaming others for our own failings.
Just a quick sidebar here to the "RNG is no good" thing.
I was playing a NLH DYM yesterday. Level 6, fella in front of me raises it up, & so I 4 bet him with Aces. The chap behind me - yet to act, & not a single chip invested - rejams. The opener folds, I call, & we are both all-in.
I have the Aces & the other chap has 4-7.
He flops his 4, then rivers another 4 & gets the lot.
He then writes in the chat box "sorry mate, but there's no explaining Sky Poker's joke rivers".....
I should add - for balance, you know - that there are equally absurd 'Stars rivers, Ladbroke rivers, 888 rivers, Party rivers.
And right across the world, players are blaming the RNG for those rivers, whilst failing completely to look at their own failings, or try to understand the maths of poker.
These threads never fail to amaze me with their absurdabilty.
We’re the customer and we have the choice.
I don’t like Ford cars. I don’t buy one and then moan about them.
I don’t like Asda. I don’t shop there and then moan about them
I like Paul Smith clothes. The trouble is they only suit people who weigh 10 stone or less. I don’t weigh 10 stone or less and so i don’t buy them and then moan about them.
If i didn’t like Sky Poker or thought that the RNG wasn’t random enough, or it was rigged, or my money wasn’t safe then i wouldn’t play here and then moan about it
These threads never fail to amaze me with their absurdabilty
Let us not forget what the thread is about.
Chap comes on & claims something happened 4 times in 45 minutes, which, on the face of it, was stretching the bounds of probability.
Not a soul believes him, not one person, but when it is suggested he might be wrong, he gets all defensive, & when it is repeatedly suggested he post the HH's, he can't.
Then Sky Poker come along & say it never happened 4 times, it happened twice so the OP says he made a mistake......
That's the absurdability.
We see it again & again.
I had aces cracked 12 times in a row.
The big stack wins 99% of the time.
The river busted me 32 consecutive times.
And everyone reading it sits there thinking no it did not.
These threads never fail to amaze me with their absurdabilty
Let us not forget what the thread is about.
Chap comes on & claims something happened 4 times in 45 minutes, which, on the face of it, was stretching the bounds of probability.
Not a soul believes him, not one person, but when it is suggested he might be wrong, he gets all defensive, & when it is repeatedly suggested he post the HH's, he can't.
Then Sky Poker come along & say it never happened 4 times, it happened twice so the OP says he made a mistake......
That's the absurdability.
We see it again & again.
I had aces cracked 12 times in a row.
The big stack wins 99% of the time.
The river busted me 32 consecutive times.
And everyone reading it sits there thinking no it did not.
It's hard to know what to think or say sometimes.
I do
I would say that the best resolution for all concerned would be for us to close your account. This way you will no longer be disappointed with our RNG and we won’t have to put up with this bollockks from you anymore
I would say to players who hade grave concerns about the safety of their money. “We don’t want you to be fearful and so we have closed your account and zapped your balance straight into your bank account”
I was playing a NLH DYM yesterday. Level 6, fella in front of me raises it up, & so I 4 bet him with Aces. The chap behind me - yet to act, & not a single chip invested - rejams. The opener folds, I call, & we are both all-in.
I have the Aces & the other chap has 4-7.
He flops his 4, then rivers another 4 & gets the lot.
I was playing a NLH DYM yesterday. Level 6, fella in front of me raises it up, & so I 4 bet him with Aces. The chap behind me - yet to act, & not a single chip invested - rejams. The opener folds, I call, & we are both all-in.
I have the Aces & the other chap has 4-7.
He flops his 4, then rivers another 4 & gets the lot.
Thanks for taking the trouble again to reply to my query regarding priority of creditors. I note that you are not in a position to provide a definitive answer and would prefer not raise the question internally. I understand your view and will not press you further.
My knowledge of the financial standing of Bonne Terre Limited is very limited. I don't think that the consolidated accounts for Bonne Terre Limited are publicly available as would be the case if it were incorporated in the UK, and hence my knowledge is based solely on an impression. I would hasten to add I suspect that the net cash generated from operating activities would be good. I don't think CVC Capital Partner publish any information either on SB&G other than a note on its CVC Capital Partners website that it has Turnover of £185M. If you could point me in the direction of gaining a better understanding of the financial results of SB&G or even a set of results I would be grateful.
Having never seen a balance sheet for Bonne Terre Limited I cannot comment on the creditors. However, I did have a brief look at The Stars Group Inc balance sheet as at 30th September 2017 (in its Q3 results) as thought this might illustrate what percentage clients deposits represented in relation to total creditors. Total creditors amount to $3.06Bn of which just $353M related to customer deposits held.
For the avoidance of any doubt I do not have any concerns about Sky Poker, playing on Sky Poker or the RNG. Anyone who wants to check my sharkscope to see how often I play on Sky (almost daily) and that I am not a losing player finding an excuse for my poor play is very welcome to. However, I do think that improvements could be made in the industry generally and as Sky is receptive to feedback, comments and questions I have chosen this opportunity to express my views.
Just a couple of suggestions I would like to see in the industry:
1) Client deposits placed in a trust account and clients to have priority over all creditors in relation to such money even post insolvency.
2) Regulators to state the frequency of the testing of all licence holder software / hardware including the RNG and for the results of the annual test / audit to be published on the licence holder's website - something similar to a report of an auditors in an annual set of accounts.
Finally, and slightly off track, in an ideal world I would like an improvement in hand histories. Often I review my play and run hands through odds calculators to assess my play on various streets. For those hands which go to showdown, could Sky add the percentage chance of each hand winning at each stage of play - pre flop, flop, turn and river? I would find it useful, but appreciate that this might not be viable, cost effective or even a priority over other improvements. However, if you don't ask you don't get.
Comments
Many thanks for taking the time to respond so quickly this morning to my email. It is very much appreciated. You are correct that providing open and honest answers to questions probably triggers more questions and I do have an initial follow up question. However, before posing this I will offer my own response to the question you raised.
I cannot recall an individual online poker customer ever exposing an improper or inaccurate RNG. I also think one never will. An individual poker player has access to a minute percentage of all poker hands dealt by a poker site and would never have access to all hand histories to even make an adequate assessment. Exposure could only ever arise as a result of a wider audit / test. In this regard I am grateful for your links to the various information housed on this website and also links to external sites. I will take time to read these. The best an individual poker player can hope for is the comfort that the testing of the RNG undertaken by an expert third party is thorough and regular with appropriate action taken to address any issues. You are correct that I am interested in the "how" and I hope that these will fill in the gaps of my understanding.
I noted your comments regarding protection of client money and was pleased to read that Sky appears to go over and above the requirements of the Alderney Gambling Control Commission and meets the "Medium" level of the UK Gambling Commission. It is useful to know that in the event of insolvency the bank will not use set-off rights or counterclaims to mitigate its liability. However, in the unlikely event of insolvency I would be grateful for clarification of the ranking order of creditors in relation to client money which is placed in the segregated account. Do Sky poker clients have priority to all other creditors (possibly bar those mandatorily preferred by law) in relation to cash held in this segregated account or would we rank equally to all other creditors and thus only receive back the same pence in the pound as all other creditors with our client money being pooled by the adminstrator? I was not clear on this point.
^^^^^
Whilst I think the questions by @TOOTRUE are fair & reasonable, & coming from the correct angle - he has researched the matter in some depth, we must give him that, & he is, I believe, a winning player - as a general rule, when people chunter about the RNG - which, remember, after all this time, not a scintilla of credible evidence has ever been produced here or any other site that it may be flawed - really, it's a crutch, something to point the finger at because they can't beat the game. It's an easy but lazy accusation.
If those who say the RNG is in more way improper or inadequate spent as much time trying to improve their game, that would be time well spent. Negative thinking solves nothing, nor does always blaming others for our own failings.
Just a quick sidebar here to the "RNG is no good" thing.
I was playing a NLH DYM yesterday. Level 6, fella in front of me raises it up, & so I 4 bet him with Aces. The chap behind me - yet to act, & not a single chip invested - rejams. The opener folds, I call, & we are both all-in.
I have the Aces & the other chap has 4-7.
He flops his 4, then rivers another 4 & gets the lot.
He then writes in the chat box "sorry mate, but there's no explaining Sky Poker's joke rivers".....
For sure, there's no explaining some things......
Note, as per, Sky Poker were to blame, not him.
I honestly have no idea.
I could send the Suits a note & ask them, but to be honest, I think my question might be regarded as frivolous. I can only suggest you escalate it if it really troubles you.
I am assuming - correctly I hope - that you realise what a successful & cash-generative business SB&G is. It does not have to purchase "stock" to resell or whatever, which costs money, it sells a SERVICE - the right to enter a £30 MTT if you send them £33, or whatever. That's £30 in the Prize Pool & £3 in Sky's lucy. Night after night, 24/7/365. Everything it "sells" it gets paid for IN ADVANCE. On Bet, Bingo, Casino, Vegas & Poker. Money up front, no credit, every time.
And before you say it, yes, I know, big businesses can go busto. Enron, BICC, Lehman Brothers, WorldCom, Chrysler, Pan Am, TWA, the list is endless. The chances of SB&G being added to that list must be extraordinary small, don't you agree? I mean, like 0.0001% or similar?
Many players simply deposit the exact amount every night, them snap-withdraw anything they win, so they minimise even further the chances of something going wrong.
Sorry I can't assist on that one, I genuinely don't know the answer, &, imo, the possibility is so small that it's never entered my mind.
It's true, some Online Poker sites have played ducks & drakes with players money. With the valuable Brand that SB&G have, it ain't ever gonna happen.
Yup.
I wanted to avoid the cliché, but he also wrote that.
Had to, they were suited.......
It's the Sky Poker rivers, I tell ya.
I should add - for balance, you know - that there are equally absurd 'Stars rivers, Ladbroke rivers, 888 rivers, Party rivers.
And right across the world, players are blaming the RNG for those rivers, whilst failing completely to look at their own failings, or try to understand the maths of poker.
Funny old game, poker.
We’re the customer and we have the choice.
I don’t like Ford cars.
I don’t buy one and then moan about them.
I don’t like Asda. I don’t shop there and then moan about them
I like Paul Smith clothes. The trouble is they only suit people who weigh 10 stone or less. I don’t weigh 10 stone or less and so i don’t buy them and then moan about them.
If i didn’t like Sky Poker or thought that the RNG wasn’t random enough, or it was rigged, or my money wasn’t safe then i wouldn’t play here and then moan about it
I do like Sky Poker and so i play here
These threads never fail to amaze me with their absurdabilty
Let us not forget what the thread is about.
Chap comes on & claims something happened 4 times in 45 minutes, which, on the face of it, was stretching the bounds of probability.
Not a soul believes him, not one person, but when it is suggested he might be wrong, he gets all defensive, & when it is repeatedly suggested he post the HH's, he can't.
Then Sky Poker come along & say it never happened 4 times, it happened twice so the OP says he made a mistake......
That's the absurdability.
We see it again & again.
I had aces cracked 12 times in a row.
The big stack wins 99% of the time.
The river busted me 32 consecutive times.
And everyone reading it sits there thinking no it did not.
It's hard to know what to think or say sometimes.
I would say that the best resolution for all concerned would be for us to close your account. This way you will no longer be disappointed with our RNG and we won’t have to put up with this bollockks from you anymore
I would say to players who hade grave concerns about the safety of their money.
“We don’t want you to be fearful and so we have closed your account and zapped your balance straight into your bank account”
Spose I may not be in business for long
Umm, probably not. I'd deffo not leave money on Deposit with that site.
TK says ''That's the absurdability.''
@Jac35 makes up a word
@Tikay10 puts it to use and corrects the spelling
Awesome work, and way more usable than 'covfefe'.
Thanks for taking the trouble again to reply to my query regarding priority of creditors. I note that you are not in a position to provide a definitive answer and would prefer not raise the question internally. I understand your view and will not press you further.
My knowledge of the financial standing of Bonne Terre Limited is very limited. I don't think that the consolidated accounts for Bonne Terre Limited are publicly available as would be the case if it were incorporated in the UK, and hence my knowledge is based solely on an impression. I would hasten to add I suspect that the net cash generated from operating activities would be good. I don't think CVC Capital Partner publish any information either on SB&G other than a note on its CVC Capital Partners website that it has Turnover of £185M. If you could point me in the direction of gaining a better understanding of the financial results of SB&G or even a set of results I would be grateful.
Having never seen a balance sheet for Bonne Terre Limited I cannot comment on the creditors. However, I did have a brief look at The Stars Group Inc balance sheet as at 30th September 2017 (in its Q3 results) as thought this might illustrate what percentage clients deposits represented in relation to total creditors. Total creditors amount to $3.06Bn of which just $353M related to customer deposits held.
For the avoidance of any doubt I do not have any concerns about Sky Poker, playing on Sky Poker or the RNG. Anyone who wants to check my sharkscope to see how often I play on Sky (almost daily) and that I am not a losing player finding an excuse for my poor play is very welcome to. However, I do think that improvements could be made in the industry generally and as Sky is receptive to feedback, comments and questions I have chosen this opportunity to express my views.
Just a couple of suggestions I would like to see in the industry:
1) Client deposits placed in a trust account and clients to have priority over all creditors in relation to such money even post insolvency.
2) Regulators to state the frequency of the testing of all licence holder software / hardware including the RNG and for the results of the annual test / audit to be published on the licence holder's website - something similar to a report of an auditors in an annual set of accounts.
Finally, and slightly off track, in an ideal world I would like an improvement in hand histories. Often I review my play and run hands through odds calculators to assess my play on various streets. For those hands which go to showdown, could Sky add the percentage chance of each hand winning at each stage of play - pre flop, flop, turn and river? I would find it useful, but appreciate that this might not be viable, cost effective or even a priority over other improvements. However, if you don't ask you don't get.