I wonder what reply is given after NOSTRIS post they may have a brew with us afterall but i doubt it ,once it's in their head it'll never go away Played @NOSTRI
There is nothing in his post that we didnt know and there is soooo much that he has got the wrong end of the stick about!
U lot would like to think its game set and match, purely cos you fkd up about what is 'obvious' about the GC's email, with all having conflicting views on whether it related to poker or not, whilst all stating it was 'obvious'. This post was just a welcome distraction for you guys!!!!
I mean this guy for example goes on to say i thought the GC would be cutting off their cash cow, does a big paragraph on it... when i didnt say that and it makes no sense.... clearly i said it the external auditors like ecogra that would be doing that....
But he is the winner, despite 10 inch paragraphs which are irrelevant cos he hasnt read or understood properly. Same 5 people applaud, the ones who know nothing except the calories in each brand of biscuit.
The only thing of note that I took from your email screenshots was that you did a lousy job of covering up your real name.
I’d be interested in seeing some of the stats you’ve compiled that allow you to call the cards.
Sky’s RTP seems to be malfunctioning as there’s quite a spread between player outcomes. Perhaps the ones in the green are the ones who know the secrets.
There is nothing in his post that we didnt know and there is soooo much that he has got the wrong end of the stick about!
U lot would like to think its game set and match, purely cos you fkd up about what is 'obvious' about the GC's email, with all having conflicting views on whether it related to poker or not, whilst all stating it was 'obvious'. This post was just a welcome distraction for you guys!!!!
I mean this guy for example goes on to say i thought the GC would be cutting off their cash cow, does a big paragraph on it... when i didnt say that and it makes no sense.... clearly i said it the external auditors like ecogra that would be doing that....
But he is the winner, despite 10 inch paragraphs which are irrelevant cos he hasnt read or understood properly. Same 5 people applaud, the ones who know nothing except the calories in each brand of biscuit.
Is ONE email from ONE GC employee honestly your only exhibit?
It's not even clear, the email is pretty ambiguous in terms of which games it is referring too. No one is convinced by this and its pretty laughable tbh. I'd like to think we are all fairly open minded but to come on here and question the integrity of a platform that many make their living using and only deliver that as your ace in the hole is insulting the crowds intelligence.
In ten years (YEARS) why haven't you taken the time to run some proper statistical analysis on the very readily available hand histories on this site? It seems whatever you are trying to say is happening would be quite easy to demonstrate with this data.
It seems that your mind is made up on this issue regardless...
There is nothing in his post that we didnt know and there is soooo much that he has got the wrong end of the stick about!
U lot would like to think its game set and match, purely cos you fkd up about what is 'obvious' about the GC's email, with all having conflicting views on whether it related to poker or not, whilst all stating it was 'obvious'. This post was just a welcome distraction for you guys!!!!
I mean this guy for example goes on to say i thought the GC would be cutting off their cash cow, does a big paragraph on it... when i didnt say that and it makes no sense.... clearly i said it the external auditors like ecogra that would be doing that....
But he is the winner, despite 10 inch paragraphs which are irrelevant cos he hasnt read or understood properly. Same 5 people applaud, the ones who know nothing except the calories in each brand of biscuit.
Perhaps I have got some information wrong. I have no professional connection to this subject matter, only a personal interest as a recreational poker player, so misunderstandings and misinterpretations are certainly possible. I love being wrong and would be happy to be so; it would give me an opportunity to learn something today. If you include some details about what you believe I have misunderstood we could try to get to the bottom of it together. If there is "so much" I am wrong about, it should be easy to do this.
The claims I've made have primarily been direct quotes from published documentation by the parties in question, which I have linked to, allowing anyone to verify or disprove what I've said. So you should be able to do so with reference to published documentation or relevant communication with involved parties, which would be helpful.
Instead you have responded by saying "no that's wrong" and insisting you already knew all this information, which, to be clear, directly contradicts the arguments you are trying to make.
You talk about there being a "winner" but my only goal is to try to understand your argument and interrogate it critically. What I posted was the result of those efforts. I'm not interested in winning anything; I'm interested in knowing the truth. Your response doesn't help us get to the truth as you see it, and it doesn't make one single factual, evidence-based counterpoint.
In short, there is nothing in your response that furthers either of our arguments. I'd say it significantly weakens yours, since as noted it contains no evidential counterpoints and contains a predictable amount of ad hominem attacks on myself and others who have posted in this thread, which contributes nothing to the question at hand and rather strongly indicates that you have nothing of interest to add.
I mean this guy for example goes on to say i thought the GC would be cutting off their cash cow, does a big paragraph on it... when i didnt say that and it makes no sense.... clearly i said it the external auditors like ecogra that would be doing that....
Ok. Frankly, it's hard to tell what you are suggesting at many points in this thread. Nevertheless, the same logic applies. In fact, it makes even less sense. Testing houses like eCOGRA are contracted to perform a service; their financial return is likely the same whether they pass an RNG with flying colours or fail it. If anything, they probably stand to gain more by failing them and getting the repeat business when they re-test it. Can you point to any evidence that suggests this isn't the case?
The Tea Club 5 rubbed themselves and got very excited about NOSTRI posting a massive list of requirements the Gambling Commission insist on. Trouble is with this epic post, is that they insist on alot of things for sites to be fair in their operations.... and 888 have just been fined £9m for not taking any notice.
So if you halfwits declare him the winner for that, its rather apt.
Some other amazing halfwits think i should dedicate the next year of my life going through all my hands in an attempt to 'conclusively prove' my opinion... to 5 fkwits, some of which say they are here for the company, not the poker!
Hmm, i will give that a miss, i know what i have seen over 20yrs, i have discussed it with professionals when sponsored, i try and get change.... there is no-one to even approach as regulation stands at the mo, even if i dedicated my life getting 'proof', so that would be silly.
Another fkwit had a go saying i had 'hijacked' alsammys post.... i was trying to give the guy some info as he is convinced it favours players and was on his side.... if anyone hijacked it, it is abs everyone else on this thread who stuck their nose into OUR opinion. But the guy has been back since so fk him too.......
The Tea Club 5 rubbed themselves and got very excited about NOSTRI posting a massive list of requirements the Gambling Commission insist on. Trouble is with this epic post, is that they insist on alot of things for sites to be fair in their operations.... and 888 have just been fined £9m for not taking any notice.
So if you halfwits declare him the winner for that, its rather apt.
Some other amazing halfwits think i should dedicate the next year of my life going through all my hands in an attempt to 'conclusively prove' my opinion... to 5 fkwits, some of which say they are here for the company, not the poker!
Hmm, i will give that a miss, i know what i have seen over 20yrs, i have discussed it with professionals when sponsored, i try and get change.... there is no-one to even approach as regulation stands at the mo, even if i dedicated my life getting 'proof', so that would be silly.
Another fkwit had a go saying i had 'hijacked' alsammys post.... i was trying to give the guy some info as he is convinced it favours players and was on his side.... if anyone hijacked it, it is abs everyone else on this thread who stuck their nose into OUR opinion. But the guy has been back since so fk him too.......
The Tea Club 5 rubbed themselves and got very excited about NOSTRI posting a massive list of requirements the Gambling Commission insist on. Trouble is with this epic post, is that they insist on alot of things for sites to be fair in their operations.... and 888 have just been fined £9m for not taking any notice.
So if you halfwits declare him the winner for that, its rather apt.
Some other amazing halfwits think i should dedicate the next year of my life going through all my hands in an attempt to 'conclusively prove' my opinion... to 5 fkwits, some of which say they are here for the company, not the poker!
Hmm, i will give that a miss, i know what i have seen over 20yrs, i have discussed it with professionals when sponsored, i try and get change.... there is no-one to even approach as regulation stands at the mo, even if i dedicated my life getting 'proof', so that would be silly.
Another fkwit had a go saying i had 'hijacked' alsammys post.... i was trying to give the guy some info as he is convinced it favours players and was on his side.... if anyone hijacked it, it is abs everyone else on this thread who stuck their nose into OUR opinion. But the guy has been back since so fk him too.......
So is that a no on having anything worthwhile to add to the information I shared?
Having opinions is pretty cool. Having opinions that fly in the face of all available evidence is the behaviour of lunatics and conspiracy theorists.
You have no more evidence to support your argument than me, im afraid.
Im not sure why you think you have, its just spouting what should be happening and that the GC state it should too... thing is, it isnt and they are the first to admit that they dont even look.
Once again, i will say The Gambling Commissions only involvement in online poker is issuing the certificate. Nothing else. That is issued purely on the findings of the external auditor. So the GC say alllllll those things you wrote for 2hrs, but ultimately do not check that its being adhered to.
So to be clear, your opinion is that the UKGC is not looking for violations of their regulations and don't care what happens once they have issued a license.
But they are issuing fines to companies that don't adhere to their regulations.
But they're not looking for it.
And you're not trolling?
Do go on. I would love to hear more about this very logical and very sane opinion.
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.
The problem is when u come in half way thru the conversation, you miss half that was being said.... but these guys think your great. Just a pain in the ****.
Once again, the GC consider poker a total luck game, as absolutely everything else under their umbrella certainly is. They look at what they are qualified to look at and act accordingly. No-one at the GC is qualified to look at poker and if their decks are producing ridiculous odds. So we have fines in areas outside of poker.
They are not able to look at a poker sites play and understand the odds being overturned. They will admit that if you ever took the time to ask. So they rely totally on the testing houses, who are paid by the companies they are testing.
Thats a conflict of financial interest and is unbelievably allowed to happen.
If you want to comment further, lets just address the conflict of interest, as you will only point out something else we boxed off on the first page.
The problem is when u come in half way thru the conversation, you miss half that was being said.... but these guys think your great. Just a pain in the ****.
Once again, the GC consider poker a total luck game, as absolutely everything else under their umbrella certainly is. They look at what they are qualified to look at and act accordingly. No-one at the GC is qualified to look at poker and if their decks are producing ridiculous odds. So we have fines in areas outside of poker.
They are not able to look at a poker sites play and understand the odds being overturned. They will admit that if you ever took the time to ask. So they rely totally on the testing houses, who are paid by the companies they are testing.
Thats a conflict of financial interest and is unbelievably allowed to happen.
If you want to comment further, lets just address the conflict of interest, as you will only point out something else we boxed off on the first page.
I think this covers the conflict of interest their financial return is likely the same whether they pass an RNG with flying colours or fail it. If anything, they probably stand to gain more by failing them and getting the repeat business when they re-test it.
But you guys say they would be not allowed to operate if they were found to be doing it.... so now its just a re-test?
All along you guys have been saying 'if they were ever caught they would be closed down'... now its just a re-test. So no threat at all to them to have a deck that maximises their profits then? They just swap the software for the re-test if ever pulled up?
Im done with this, you guys say whatever fits, contradict each other and sometimes yourselves....
Comments
Thanks for the research, fascinating stuff.
Well played Sir, well played!
Played @NOSTRI
U lot would like to think its game set and match, purely cos you fkd up about what is 'obvious' about the GC's email, with all having conflicting views on whether it related to poker or not, whilst all stating it was 'obvious'. This post was just a welcome distraction for you guys!!!!
I mean this guy for example goes on to say i thought the GC would be cutting off their cash cow, does a big paragraph on it... when i didnt say that and it makes no sense.... clearly i said it the external auditors like ecogra that would be doing that....
But he is the winner, despite 10 inch paragraphs which are irrelevant cos he hasnt read or understood properly. Same 5 people applaud, the ones who know nothing except the calories in each brand of biscuit.
I’d be interested in seeing some of the stats you’ve compiled that allow you to call the cards.
Sky’s RTP seems to be malfunctioning as there’s quite a spread between player outcomes. Perhaps the ones in the green are the ones who know the secrets.
Is ONE email from ONE GC employee honestly your only exhibit?
It's not even clear, the email is pretty ambiguous in terms of which games it is referring too. No one is convinced by this and its pretty laughable tbh. I'd like to think we are all fairly open minded but to come on here and question the integrity of a platform that many make their living using and only deliver that as your ace in the hole is insulting the crowds intelligence.
In ten years (YEARS) why haven't you taken the time to run some proper statistical analysis on the very readily available hand histories on this site? It seems whatever you are trying to say is happening would be quite easy to demonstrate with this data.
It seems that your mind is made up on this issue regardless...
The claims I've made have primarily been direct quotes from published documentation by the parties in question, which I have linked to, allowing anyone to verify or disprove what I've said. So you should be able to do so with reference to published documentation or relevant communication with involved parties, which would be helpful.
Instead you have responded by saying "no that's wrong" and insisting you already knew all this information, which, to be clear, directly contradicts the arguments you are trying to make.
You talk about there being a "winner" but my only goal is to try to understand your argument and interrogate it critically. What I posted was the result of those efforts. I'm not interested in winning anything; I'm interested in knowing the truth. Your response doesn't help us get to the truth as you see it, and it doesn't make one single factual, evidence-based counterpoint.
In short, there is nothing in your response that furthers either of our arguments. I'd say it significantly weakens yours, since as noted it contains no evidential counterpoints and contains a predictable amount of ad hominem attacks on myself and others who have posted in this thread, which contributes nothing to the question at hand and rather strongly indicates that you have nothing of interest to add.
Ok. Frankly, it's hard to tell what you are suggesting at many points in this thread. Nevertheless, the same logic applies. In fact, it makes even less sense. Testing houses like eCOGRA are contracted to perform a service; their financial return is likely the same whether they pass an RNG with flying colours or fail it. If anything, they probably stand to gain more by failing them and getting the repeat business when they re-test it. Can you point to any evidence that suggests this isn't the case?
So if you halfwits declare him the winner for that, its rather apt.
Some other amazing halfwits think i should dedicate the next year of my life going through all my hands in an attempt to 'conclusively prove' my opinion... to 5 fkwits, some of which say they are here for the company, not the poker!
Hmm, i will give that a miss, i know what i have seen over 20yrs, i have discussed it with professionals when sponsored, i try and get change.... there is no-one to even approach as regulation stands at the mo, even if i dedicated my life getting 'proof', so that would be silly.
Another fkwit had a go saying i had 'hijacked' alsammys post.... i was trying to give the guy some info as he is convinced it favours players and was on his side.... if anyone hijacked it, it is abs everyone else on this thread who stuck their nose into OUR opinion. But the guy has been back since so fk him too.......
Having opinions is pretty cool. Having opinions that fly in the face of all available evidence is the behaviour of lunatics and conspiracy theorists.
Im not sure why you think you have, its just spouting what should be happening and that the GC state it should too... thing is, it isnt and they are the first to admit that they dont even look.
Once again, i will say The Gambling Commissions only involvement in online poker is issuing the certificate. Nothing else. That is issued purely on the findings of the external auditor. So the GC say alllllll those things you wrote for 2hrs, but ultimately do not check that its being adhered to.
But they are issuing fines to companies that don't adhere to their regulations.
But they're not looking for it.
And you're not trolling?
Do go on. I would love to hear more about this very logical and very sane opinion.
Once again, the GC consider poker a total luck game, as absolutely everything else under their umbrella certainly is. They look at what they are qualified to look at and act accordingly. No-one at the GC is qualified to look at poker and if their decks are producing ridiculous odds. So we have fines in areas outside of poker.
They are not able to look at a poker sites play and understand the odds being overturned. They will admit that if you ever took the time to ask. So they rely totally on the testing houses, who are paid by the companies they are testing.
Thats a conflict of financial interest and is unbelievably allowed to happen.
If you want to comment further, lets just address the conflict of interest, as you will only point out something else we boxed off on the first page.
their financial return is likely the same whether they pass an RNG with flying colours or fail it. If anything, they probably stand to gain more by failing them and getting the repeat business when they re-test it.
All along you guys have been saying 'if they were ever caught they would be closed down'... now its just a re-test. So no threat at all to them to have a deck that maximises their profits then? They just swap the software for the re-test if ever pulled up?
Im done with this, you guys say whatever fits, contradict each other and sometimes yourselves....