Providing evidence would be backing up your opinion, merely asserting that its true is not the same thing.
Evidence please, in the meantime I'll have another cup of Darjeeling, no milk, no sugar, no biscuits, however a nice cucumber sandwich would go swimmingly.
For 10yrs, i have tried talking with poker sites, i have emailed AND spoken directly with The Gambling Commission, i have emailed the external auditors.... all in an attempt to get to the bottom of what is going on..... or if u like 'provide evidence'...
unfortunately all parties, despite disclosing shocking facts along the way (eg the GC to actually admit they have no involvement in online poker whatsoever, other then issuing the certificate based on testing they have no involvement in, or ever look at in any way... i think would even raise your eyebrows.... im sure 99% of online players did not know this), have refused to provide details on what tests are actually run and in what manner. So you will have to ask them why they are unprepared to put this matter to bed.
They are getting fined left right and centre for things they know the GC (not Gemma Collins btw) will look at, but you totally believe they wouldnt use something to their advantage that they know 100% they are NOT looking at. Its totally, totally naïve to think that that is not even a possibility, even if you are somehow not seeing the obviousness on the tables.
This is obviously the way they like things, as if it remains this way, nothing can be proved...your right... I can't personally think of any other reason why their main argument is the RNG is audited and tested, but dont want to tell you any details.... but when they are getting £9m fines and continue acting in this manner im surprised they have anyone trusting them at all.
So post the emails or copies of any communication that you have, in order to back up your claims or alternatively move this thread across to the Conspiracy Theory Thread and then witness how real CTNs flood the pages with post after post of supposed proof.
u want me to go back over 10yrs of emails to prove wot? That ecogra answered my first two emails, with claims they 'had award winning technology', but when i asked them what tests they do specifically, they then wouldnt reply?
How do i demonstrate a no reply?
These are the guys at the centre of it all, the guys who take hundreds of thousands of pounds to 'conduct a stringent audit', but wont tell me what they are actually looking for.... and if they did tests that was actually to how cards actually affected the hand (ie the sheer amount of odds busting outcomes), instead of just how often each card comes out, they would cut off their own cash cow if they had to say they had found inadequacies.
Its called conflict of financial interest. Its something that should never happen. It is something the GC will not comment on.
Love to hear your excuses here.... The RNG derived games has a designed outcome.... this is known as a 'return to player percentage'..... email from Gambling Commission, who have no idea about poker being a skill, just the same as all other forms of online gaming, there is a return to player percentage.
Is there a 'return to player percentage' when you sit in a casino or home game? So is online poker the same as a real deck? Well The GC is telling us this, they supply the certificates, they are the ones supposingly regulating it... ask them! Sorry to **** on your chips guys....
Obviously that reply is referring to slots or something similar. If they sent it with regards to poker then they may of been confused with video poker or they simply misunderstood your initial email.
If you think that this is proof then it makes it easier to understand why you come to the short sighted conclusions that you do.
I know i have limited intelligence compared to most folk and a lot of this goes over my head but i always presumed that when playing that it was a designed outcome it's just not designed for any particular player , you just have to have the right cards for the designed outcome to be favourable Your playing against other people some good some not so good , how many times have you folded but if you hadn't you'd have won
I accept it, its the way it is.... i can overcome the way the deck is by not going all in with cards still left to come and many other techniques... but im not playing for any serious amounts as there is an element that will look to pay my opponent if its his 'turn' to win, ie return to player percentage
Love to hear your excuses here.... The RNG derived games has a designed outcome.... this is known as a 'return to player percentage'..... email from Gambling Commission, who have no idea about poker being a skill, just the same as all other forms of online gaming, there is a return to player percentage.
Whos first?
The last paragraph on the section regarding RTP specifically refers to 'spins' It is quite clear that it is referring to casino/video poker and not online poker played by humans against humans. This isn't proof. In fact it demolishes your entire conspiracy theory.
Wow. Honestly thought id have some back tracking here. It quotes 'ALL RNG derived games have a designed outcome. This is known as a return to player percentage'.... what part of ALL are you not getting!? Does it say 'ALL RNG, except poker'.... No!!!!
My only reason ever to post on these forums, is to get change for all of us, as we all want a game that mirrors the real thing. Im wasting my time with the Tea Club and unfortunately the majority of players dont read these threads. Theres like 5 of you.
Its only if the masses know the score we can get change. Im wasting my time here, clearly, as you are all just interested in the biscuit of the week.
Even an email from the GC saying ALL rng games, and they still stand their ground...... The GC do not understand poker... ring them!....they do not see poker as anything different to slots or absolutely everything else under their guidance.... ask them! They allow RNGS to have a designed outcome and player return.... it says that! Is online poker a RNG derived game, yes or no? It goes on to give spins as an example... remember this is an answer to my SPECIFIC question on poker RNGS. They did not send me a 'spins only' reply!
Time and time again poker players study and improve their win rates. It's happening every day on every site. How can this be possible if it's RTP based or is there some sort of socially engineered algorithm watching how much the players study?
Wow. Honestly thought id have some back tracking here. It quotes 'ALL RNG derived games have a designed outcome. This is known as a return to player percentage'.... what part of ALL are you not getting!? Does it say 'ALL RNG, except poker'.... No!!!!
Please also post your email to them and the entire email response from the GC for the context to be clear and not simply your interpretation. To my mind, from the excerpt you have posted, it makes it clear it is regarding spins and not this site or any similar site.
I have added this that I found which may also help in relation to RNGs
Determining the winner of a game
Chance influences the winner a lot in some games, but not very much in others. Consider craps, lotteries, and slot machines: they are 100% luck. Winning or losing depends exclusively on the outcome of the random result. Betting strategies are not luck; but, they’re beyond the scope of this article. Consider poker: there is exactly one random event in a game of poker. The deck is shuffled randomly. That’s it. The rest of the game is down to the actions of the players. For many poker variants¹ the actions of the players cannot influence the cards that come up. Once it is shuffled it is the actions of the players that determine the winner or the loser of the game.
I think if i even posted a copy of an email from The Gambling Commission that said 'all RNG derived games have a designed outcome' (as they have quoted) and added 'to ensure the wins were shared around more fairly than normal odds would dictate'.... all the replies would still say, well they dont actually mean that, they mean this......
I mean you are so invested in trusting sites, that you are even correcting The Gambling Commissions statement and saying although they say 'all' rng derived games, your sure they just mean slots. In that case at the very least, they are showing their incompetence by making that error.
But they are not, as they dont require poker to be any more random than slots, as they dont know the difference. Thats why sites as regulation stands, will never be at risk from anyone 'finding out'.... There is no poker team at the GC, its just lumped in with all the other chance games ... games which we know and accept ARE designed for the house to make all the profits.
The sites really are not at risk, if the GC ever get round to realising poker is different, the sites would purely just say 'well how do you expect us to know if you didnt, you make the rules and we stuck to them'.
Time and time again poker players study and improve their win rates. It's happening every day on every site. How can this be possible if it's RTP based or is there some sort of socially engineered algorithm watching how much the players study?
It only 'obviously' means slots (kapowblamz), its clear its only spins (tvspice), its 'obvious' that all poker games are similar to aeroplanes The Edge)..... think u need to get that crayola out cos the Tea Club are at differing views to how 'simple and obvious'; this is.......
It only 'obviously' means slots (kapowblamz), its clear its only spins (tvspice), its 'obvious' that all poker games are similar to aeroplanes The Edge)..... think u need to get that crayola out cos the Tea Club are at differing views to how 'simple and obvious'; this is.......
Once more you MISS the main point. I have to conclude that you are either deficient in the required number of braincells to process the information or you are deliberately being a provocative 4rse.
I did not compare poker games to aircraft. I said that the RNG does indeed produce a designed outcome and used aircraft to symbolise the outcome.
However you are confusing a designed outcome with a predetermined outcome and that is an entirely different thing.
Let's try it this way. Pregnancy is derived to produce a designed outcome of birth it does not predetermine the outcome of that birth or any single thing related to the outcome..
Understand now or do you need to read "An Idiots Guide To Derived, Designed and Predetermined Outcomes" by R.N.Gotcha.
It only 'obviously' means slots (kapowblamz), its clear its only spins (tvspice), its 'obvious' that all poker games are similar to aeroplanes The Edge)..... think u need to get that crayola out cos the Tea Club are at differing views to how 'simple and obvious'; this is.......
I think we've all come to the same conclusion whatever spin you might wish to put on it. Ever heard the story about the mother saying at an Army passing out parade "look, all those soldiers are out of step except my son"?
Now, would you like a ginger nut bsicuit as I have a new supply?
Even when you ask what the audit actually looks at (i suspect it is just looking at how often cards come out and not how they are affecting the hand), no-one will give you an answer... why is that?? Sites show a bought certificate but wont give you any info on it when asked.. and when you ask the auditing company direct, they refuse as well! I mean that sounds all kosha doesnt it???
I’ll give you an answer. I’m not sure why you have been unable to get an answer from the people at the UKGC but fortunately their technical standards for remote gambling games are published online for anyone to peruse. I’m quite surprised you haven’t chanced upon them at some point in your ten-year investigation; it took me about 15 minutes to dig up.
If we make our way to RTS 7, we can find their requirements for the generation of random outcomes. No doubt you will be eager to read this yourself but I’ll quote some highlights:
Random number generation and game results must be ‘acceptably random’. Acceptably random here means that it is possible to demonstrate to a high degree of confidence that the output of the RNG, game, lottery and virtual event outcomes are random through, for example, statistical analysis using generally accepted tests and methods of analysis. Adaptive behaviour (ie a compensated game) is not permitted.
It is further noted that games must be capable of demonstating a) a uniform distribution of outcomes, b) unpredictable outcomes of random events, c) a prohibition on “automatic or manual interventions that change the probabilities of game outcomes.”
That all seems fairly cut and dry. It is certainly clear that adjusting the outcomes of poker hands is prohibited under these guidelines.
There is a helpful article on the UKGC website outlining exactly the scope of what they demand for RNG testing. And I quote:
- review of RNG documentation to understand the implementation of RNG in the gaming system. - research about RNG algorithm/hardware to ensure there is no publicly known weakness or vulnerabilities associated with the RNG under evaluation. - review of source code to verify the implementation of RNG is in accordance with the RNG documentation. - statistical testing of raw output of RNG and scaled/shuffled decks data. - any issues or non-compliance are reported to the supplier. Once resolved, these issues are re-evaluated to confirm the non-compliance has been addressed adequately
That same page notes that the precise statistical tests are prescribed by the International Association of Gaming Regulators (IAGR) Multi-Jurisdictional Framework. Funnily enough, that too is available online and it notes that this particular technical standard should be enforced by employing a third party test house to perform statistical analysis of the RNG in question. The UKGC has a list of approved testing houses here. They all have full, independent BS/ENISO 17025 accreditation, which affirms their demonstrated competence to generate valid results. So something else that seems clear at this point is that the likely reason you were unable to get an answer from the UKGC about how they verify these sorts of things is that they don’t, they employ an independent, accredited, third party to do it.
Understandably, they are fairly tight-lipped about their exact methods but one such testing house, Gaming Associates, helpfully explains that their batch of tests include “diehard” and “chi-square” tests.
Here is an informative article that explains the idea behind diehard randomness tests. It's not hard to find more information about these tests; they have been used for years and are well-regarded in academic circles. Notably, they can confirm the randomness of an RNG to 0.0001% certainty.
So to summarise, acquiring a UKGC Casino license requires an audit by an independent, accredited testing house to the satisfaction of the IAGR, another independent body in addition to the various other documentation/research/review requirements quoted above.
Therefore, if you intend to suggest that Sky Poker, or any other poker room online, is deliberately adjust its decks to provide "odds busting" outcomes, then you should provide either a) evidence that the diehard randomness tests are flawed, that b) the testing houses employed to perform these tests failed to administer them correctly, c) Sky Poker was somehow able to avoid being subject to these requirements.
It is, of course, equally valid to provide concrete statistical evidence that the outcomes you have observed somehow disprove the findings of those tests--ie, are not truly random. However, to date in this thread you have not been able to provide anything other than anecdotes and a few random screenshots. But, lucky you!, I have just revealed to you the industry secrets that you've been seeking for the last ten years. Gather some data and apply some worthwhile statistical analysis to it that disproves the findings of those mentioned above.
If you are unable to do any of the above, you really do not have anything remotely resembling a worthwhile argument.
And that is why everyone in this thread is laughing at you.
They use lies in their statements about the RNG. One of the top 3 major players in online poker were suspended and got shut down for not operating the way they are supposed to. Another of the top British names in online gaming has just been fined £9m for not operating the way they are supposed to. They have your complete trust depite this.
While I'm here, I might as well address this interesting argument you keep bringing up, and the associated implication that it is somehow to the UKGC's benefit to hand out these toothless licenses and keep scooping up those yearly fees.
Your argument appears to be that the UKGC fining companies -- you are aware it is your friends the UKGC delivering these fines, yes? -- who don't follow these regulations is evidence that... the UKGC doesn't adequately enforce these regulations. That seems a little backwards to me.
Something else that seems a little backwards to me is that those fees amount to a few hundred thousand pounds, while the fines noted on their Wikipedia page range from £600,000 to £6.2 million. I know which "cash cow" I'd rather hitch my horse to. And those same companies they fine still have to come crawling back for another license if they want to resume business! Suggesting their primary financial interest is in collecting license fees seems patently absurd.
Comments
How do i demonstrate a no reply?
These are the guys at the centre of it all, the guys who take hundreds of thousands of pounds to 'conduct a stringent audit', but wont tell me what they are actually looking for.... and if they did tests that was actually to how cards actually affected the hand (ie the sheer amount of odds busting outcomes), instead of just how often each card comes out, they would cut off their own cash cow if they had to say they had found inadequacies.
Its called conflict of financial interest. Its something that should never happen. It is something the GC will not comment on.
Whos first?
If you think that this is proof then it makes it easier to understand why you come to the short sighted conclusions that you do.
Your playing against other people some good some not so good , how many times have you folded but if you hadn't you'd have won
Love to hear your excuses here.... The RNG derived games has a designed outcome.... this is known as a 'return to player percentage'..... email from Gambling Commission, who have no idea about poker being a skill, just the same as all other forms of online gaming, there is a return to player percentage.
Whos first?
The last paragraph on the section regarding RTP specifically refers to 'spins' It is quite clear that it is referring to casino/video poker and not online poker played by humans against humans. This isn't proof. In fact it demolishes your entire conspiracy theory.
My only reason ever to post on these forums, is to get change for all of us, as we all want a game that mirrors the real thing. Im wasting my time with the Tea Club and unfortunately the majority of players dont read these threads. Theres like 5 of you.
Its only if the masses know the score we can get change. Im wasting my time here, clearly, as you are all just interested in the biscuit of the week.
Even an email from the GC saying ALL rng games, and they still stand their ground...... The GC do not understand poker... ring them!....they do not see poker as anything different to slots or absolutely everything else under their guidance.... ask them! They allow RNGS to have a designed outcome and player return.... it says that! Is online poker a RNG derived game, yes or no? It goes on to give spins as an example... remember this is an answer to my SPECIFIC question on poker RNGS. They did not send me a 'spins only' reply!
Tea club 'it doesnt and yes but no'.... f me
Please also post your email to them and the entire email response from the GC for the context to be clear and not simply your interpretation. To my mind, from the excerpt you have posted, it makes it clear it is regarding spins and not this site or any similar site.
I have added this that I found which may also help in relation to RNGs
Determining the winner of a game
Chance influences the winner a lot in some games, but not very much in others. Consider craps, lotteries, and slot machines: they are 100% luck. Winning or losing depends exclusively on the outcome of the random result. Betting strategies are not luck; but, they’re beyond the scope of this article. Consider poker: there is exactly one random event in a game of poker. The deck is shuffled randomly. That’s it. The rest of the game is down to the actions of the players. For many poker variants¹ the actions of the players cannot influence the cards that come up. Once it is shuffled it is the actions of the players that determine the winner or the loser of the game.
I mean you are so invested in trusting sites, that you are even correcting The Gambling Commissions statement and saying although they say 'all' rng derived games, your sure they just mean slots. In that case at the very least, they are showing their incompetence by making that error.
But they are not, as they dont require poker to be any more random than slots, as they dont know the difference. Thats why sites as regulation stands, will never be at risk from anyone 'finding out'.... There is no poker team at the GC, its just lumped in with all the other chance games ... games which we know and accept ARE designed for the house to make all the profits.
The sites really are not at risk, if the GC ever get round to realising poker is different, the sites would purely just say 'well how do you expect us to know if you didnt, you make the rules and we stuck to them'.
ITS OBVIOUS but that doesn't mean its predetermined in a certain way.
Most planes land perfectly safely, some crash, some blow up, some fall apart, some land where they are not scheduled to.
They all come back down which is the designed outcome. It's how they come down that's the random element.
Short of drawing pictures with a big wax crayola I can't make it anymore simple.
I did not compare poker games to aircraft. I said that the RNG does indeed produce a designed outcome and used aircraft to symbolise the outcome.
However you are confusing a designed outcome with a predetermined outcome and that is an entirely different thing.
Let's try it this way. Pregnancy is derived to produce a designed outcome of birth it does not predetermine the outcome of that birth or any single thing related to the outcome..
Understand now or do you need to read "An Idiots Guide To Derived, Designed and Predetermined Outcomes" by R.N.Gotcha.
Now, would you like a ginger nut bsicuit as I have a new supply?
I’ll give you an answer. I’m not sure why you have been unable to get an answer from the people at the UKGC but fortunately their technical standards for remote gambling games are published online for anyone to peruse. I’m quite surprised you haven’t chanced upon them at some point in your ten-year investigation; it took me about 15 minutes to dig up.
If we make our way to RTS 7, we can find their requirements for the generation of random outcomes. No doubt you will be eager to read this yourself but I’ll quote some highlights:
It is further noted that games must be capable of demonstating a) a uniform distribution of outcomes, b) unpredictable outcomes of random events, c) a prohibition on “automatic or manual interventions that change the probabilities of game outcomes.”
That all seems fairly cut and dry. It is certainly clear that adjusting the outcomes of poker hands is prohibited under these guidelines.
There is a helpful article on the UKGC website outlining exactly the scope of what they demand for RNG testing. And I quote:
- research about RNG algorithm/hardware to ensure there is no publicly known weakness or vulnerabilities associated with the RNG under evaluation.
- review of source code to verify the implementation of RNG is in accordance with the RNG documentation.
- statistical testing of raw output of RNG and scaled/shuffled decks data.
- any issues or non-compliance are reported to the supplier. Once resolved, these issues are re-evaluated to confirm the non-compliance has been addressed adequately
That same page notes that the precise statistical tests are prescribed by the International Association of Gaming Regulators (IAGR) Multi-Jurisdictional Framework. Funnily enough, that too is available online and it notes that this particular technical standard should be enforced by employing a third party test house to perform statistical analysis of the RNG in question. The UKGC has a list of approved testing houses here. They all have full, independent BS/ENISO 17025 accreditation, which affirms their demonstrated competence to generate valid results. So something else that seems clear at this point is that the likely reason you were unable to get an answer from the UKGC about how they verify these sorts of things is that they don’t, they employ an independent, accredited, third party to do it.
Understandably, they are fairly tight-lipped about their exact methods but one such testing house, Gaming Associates, helpfully explains that their batch of tests include “diehard” and “chi-square” tests.
Here is an informative article that explains the idea behind diehard randomness tests. It's not hard to find more information about these tests; they have been used for years and are well-regarded in academic circles. Notably, they can confirm the randomness of an RNG to 0.0001% certainty.
So to summarise, acquiring a UKGC Casino license requires an audit by an independent, accredited testing house to the satisfaction of the IAGR, another independent body in addition to the various other documentation/research/review requirements quoted above.
Therefore, if you intend to suggest that Sky Poker, or any other poker room online, is deliberately adjust its decks to provide "odds busting" outcomes, then you should provide either a) evidence that the diehard randomness tests are flawed, that b) the testing houses employed to perform these tests failed to administer them correctly, c) Sky Poker was somehow able to avoid being subject to these requirements.
It is, of course, equally valid to provide concrete statistical evidence that the outcomes you have observed somehow disprove the findings of those tests--ie, are not truly random. However, to date in this thread you have not been able to provide anything other than anecdotes and a few random screenshots. But, lucky you!, I have just revealed to you the industry secrets that you've been seeking for the last ten years. Gather some data and apply some worthwhile statistical analysis to it that disproves the findings of those mentioned above.
If you are unable to do any of the above, you really do not have anything remotely resembling a worthwhile argument.
And that is why everyone in this thread is laughing at you.
While I'm here, I might as well address this interesting argument you keep bringing up, and the associated implication that it is somehow to the UKGC's benefit to hand out these toothless licenses and keep scooping up those yearly fees.
Your argument appears to be that the UKGC fining companies -- you are aware it is your friends the UKGC delivering these fines, yes? -- who don't follow these regulations is evidence that... the UKGC doesn't adequately enforce these regulations. That seems a little backwards to me.
Something else that seems a little backwards to me is that those fees amount to a few hundred thousand pounds, while the fines noted on their Wikipedia page range from £600,000 to £6.2 million. I know which "cash cow" I'd rather hitch my horse to. And those same companies they fine still have to come crawling back for another license if they want to resume business! Suggesting their primary financial interest is in collecting license fees seems patently absurd.