its not sky thats rigged

Grave

everyone always goes on & on about bad beats, got called by the donk with 10 5 off, i got rivered-- again & so on but it usually ends in 'skys rigged' ,,,, well heres another way to look at it (this is just a theory)
       if you think about it in this day & age MOST poker players only play online (including me) which is a totally different game to playing live (i used to be a dealer) so ive seen both sides to the coin, people online will ALWAYS call the mighty 10 5 off or the Arag just because they felt like it, i think this is because when they play online they dont see it as real, all they do see is polygons not money they will always call u a donk in the chat because its ONLY them there (chat box hard men), they will limp every hand even call every raise pre flop all because its just the 'thing' to do (seemingly) meaning u cant put them on a range & before people say 'do the math' theyre limping 53 one hand then limp AA the next? so all your bad beats is NOT skys fault niether is it yours its just a fact of polygons & boredom in an online world,
        this is not a rant or a rage post nor am i trying to upset anyone, this is just a different view that no-one seems to have mentioned before so please stop blaming sky as they have done a great job to give us a decent poker sight in the first place......

stoneface1

prove that online poker software is legitimate??? its not just the beats that occur with strange frequency in tune with  bad play its more than that: player behind me got 7's 3 x in a row earlier in the week @accumalative odds of 10 million to 1. 4 hands later the flop came QQQ and the very next hand the flop came QQQ, the exact same cards. These are the things that occur with frequency that cannot be explained along with the constant perfect boards that keep bad players gambling and better players dumbfounded. When you and other supporters of online veracity can point to the proof that everything is A O.K then your argument is no better than the critics. When you have online poker provision provided by crooks and people that are less than credible or completely honest who is to safeguard and inspect their provision? Name the enforcing authorities and the active appraisal and investigation that takes place to keep them honest.......oh yeah there is none....who'd a thought eh?

scouse_red

In Response to its not sky thats rigged:

everyone always goes on & on about bad beats, got called by the donk with 10 5 off, i got rivered-- again & so on but it usually ends in 'skys rigged' ,,,, well heres another way to look at it (this is just a theory)        if you think about it in this day & age MOST poker players only play online (including me) which is a totally different game to playing live (i used to be a dealer) so ive seen both sides to the coin, people online will ALWAYS call the mighty 10 5 off or the Arag just because they felt like it, i think this is because when they play online they dont see it as real, all they do see is polygons not money they will always call u a donk in the chat because its ONLY them there (chat box hard men), they will limp every hand even call every raise pre flop all because its just the 'thing' to do (seemingly) meaning u cant put them on a range & before people say 'do the math' theyre limping 53 one hand then limp AA the next? so all your bad beats is NOT skys fault niether is it yours its just a fact of polygons & boredom in an online world,         this is not a rant or a rage post nor am i trying to upset anyone, this is just a different view that no-one seems to have mentioned before so please stop blaming sky as they have done a great job to give us a decent poker sight in the first place......
Posted by Grave

balanced view IMO, Grave, but i would imagine you'll be shot down unfortunately and to stoneface if you feel like that how come you're still playing here, we all take bad beats and we also give them, but they DO happen live to, maybe not as often as appears on an online site but that is purely to do with the frequency of hands played 

Grave

In Response to Re: its not sky thats rigged:

In Response to its not sky thats rigged : balanced view IMO, Grave, but i would imagine you'll be shot down unfortunately and to stoneface if you feel like that how come you're still playing here, we all take bad beats and we also give them, but they DO happen live to, maybe not as often as appears on an online site but that is purely to do with the frequency of hands played 
Posted by scouse_red

cheers red a valid point but i must admit i expect to get shot down for this

bludreid11

i have to agree grave.
most of the younger players seem to think its a video game and play accordingly.
their 9 3 off if it has won in the past, they will play it time and time again.
so when you raise 4x b/b they will still call, because they are not so much trying to win money,
but  trying get to the next level.

Goethe

In Response to Re: its not sky thats rigged:

prove that online poker software is legitimate??? its not just the beats that occur with strange frequency in tune with  bad play its more than that: player behind me got 7's 3 x in a row earlier in the week @accumalative odds of 10 million to 1. 4 hands later the flop came QQQ and the very next hand the flop came QQQ, the exact same cards. These are the things that occur with frequency that cannot be explained along with the constant perfect boards that keep bad players gambling and better players dumbfounded. When you and other supporters of online veracity can point to the proof that everything is A O.K then your argument is no better than the critics. When you have online poker provision provided by crooks and people that are less than credible or completely honest who is to safeguard and inspect their provision? Name the enforcing authorities and the active appraisal and investigation that takes place to keep them honest.......oh yeah there is none....who'd a thought eh?
Posted by stoneface1

Interesting point you raise. I've never been one to buy into the RNG is rigged consipracies that have been discussed on these boards in the past, but I think most people have seen outcomes whilst playing online that mean they could be forgiven for thinking things may not be quite as they should. In the last 48 hours I've seen outcomes, both in my favour and against, that frankly have been comical and belong in TV sit coms. One that sticks out is a guy who either shoved all-in, or called all-in, with rubbish and cleaned up every time; against me was the fourth occasion in just one game where he called my pocket aces with K4s pre-flop, and 5,6,7,8 all hit the board. People can say what they like, but I've never seen four consecutive results like that in any live game I've ever played in. Quite remarkable in my view. I also hit my first ever Royal - and on the flop (the odds of which are 19,599-1).

With regard to the RNG, site operators will usually fall back on broad statements that their's are independently audited and so the integrity is beyond question - end of discussion. None, to the best of my knowledge actually publish what methods are adopted as part of the audit exercise though - I suspect the simple fact is that the operator's staff don't actually know? As I don't believe that any of the auditors have the technical expertise to examine the underlying code that drives the software in use, I suspect the audit is based on the level of deviation of results from the expected average(s)? But take the example of flipping a coin 100,000 times - one would expect the result to be around 50,000 heads, and 50,000 tails - so if the result was 49,872/50,128, with the variation from the average being within 3 standard deviations, the actual results would seem to be quite normal. But if the results were tested on a consecutive event basis, and 49,872 heads were tossed with no tails, and then 50,128 tails were tossed with no heads, the actual result, althoug falling within an expected level of variance would be extremely suspect - I would go so far as to describe this scenario as a mathematical impossibility. A very extreme hypothetical example, but you get the picture.

For the record I don't think there's rigging of the RNG on this site, or any other site, that I've played on. Some of the results I've personally experienced do leave me scratching my head at times though.

Good cards.

stoneface1

i've just sat threw yet another session where nearly everyone at the tables is calling the hand distribution and events disgusting. runner runner bad beats coming out 4x in a row to crush A's and K's, etc. Flopped full boat getting beat by runner runner quads. the best hand losin consecutively to idiots calling off their stacks with the worst rags going. This site belongs to Murdoch who is one of the biggest crooks i know and nothing is beyond his enterprise when it comes to making money. Its not enough that online poker can make a rake it has to be perverted into something that doesnt even closely resemble live poker. people want to say its down to bad play getting lucky which in turn suggests probability means nothing but not one of you gave explanation to the 2 events i mentioned that happened in the space of 6 or 7 hands. 10 million to 1 events dont just pop up like weeds on a lawn they belong in the natural history museum with other rare specimens. This site is a cash cow for sky and they dont give a flying fock what happens at the tables as long as their turnover keeps filling Murdochs coffers.

grantorino

I got  3 hands in a row of KcQc, Jh4s, 9c3h. This happens once in 2,331,473,976. Omfg sky is so rigged

Careful with the Maths boys, don't misuse them. You may be of opinion sky is rigged, fine, but think about the figures

Goethe, how do you know how sky is audited? I don't know, and it may well leave a lot to be desired, but seems like blind speculation on your part

You hit a 1 in 19600 shot once, so what?

Lol at live players not playing junk

Goethe

In Response to Re: its not sky thats rigged:

Goethe, how do you know how sky is audited? I don't know . . . .
Posted by grantorino

I don't know the audit method applied, nor do you, nor, I suspect, does anyone at Sky? They could of course publish it, and then let the players who deposit their money and play take a view on how robust it is, but they'd be the first across all operators (to the best of my knowledge) to do so.

If you read my post again, you'll notice that I haven't suggested, or intimated in anyway, that "Sky is so rigged", just commenting that it's possible to prove whatever you want by adoptiing an appropriate audit method. The example I give is an extreme one, but just goes to show that taking averages off of a bottom line doesn't tell you everything? There are audit methods and audit methods - they can be as loose or as robust as you want them to be. How robust they may be for "testing" the fairness of online gaming is an unknown.

It's a bit like asking me the temperature is at the North Pole. I've never been there so I don't know. But if I a saw a photograph of a series of readings that showed that it was regularly above freezing point, regardless of the fact that they had been taken with an independently calibrated thermometer, I think to question those readings is not unreasonable (based on the fact that it's been covered with a think layer of ice since man starting walking the Earth). Such entries wouldn't, of course, constitute proof that the thermometer was out, or the firm that calibrated it and issued the calibration certificate was on the fiddle in some way, but the doubt would remain. Doubt, as a barrister told me once, doesn't constitute proof and isn't an allegation of anything. Possibly one reason why questionable police evidence rarely results in an investigation into whether there're grounds for charges of perverting the course of justice or perjery - despite compensation payouts being awarded to complainants with a fair degree of regularity (but that's another discussion).

In my case, I haven't drawn any conclusions from those results I have seen recently, just that in my own experience of playing they're "remarkable". So I remarked on them . . . .

Chin chin.


 

grantorino

Goethe, I am aware you didn't make claims it's rigged. I know nothing about the auditing process or the people that do it. However I think to suggest they don't do it properly is probably a little unfair, they hardly just produce one figure and go that's ok.

Also people are entitled to think its rigged, but they shouldn't use irrelevant figures to support their claims

Goethe

Who knows? I've first hand experience of financial audits (telephone number turnover organisations) that have either failed to make some pretty basic tests on the integrity of figures on the balance sheet, or have been ineffective in doing so. Either way, some pretty hefty skeletons I was aware of remained in the wardrobe - and for more than one year. Possibly the reason I have a healthy scepticism as to what "independent audits" represent. Look what happened at Enron.

Auditing provides no added-value to any organisation, and so really means dead money - costs that have to be (legally required), or are obliged by some sort of trade membership etc (not legally required), incurred. So there's an incentive to keep these costs to a minimum, and restrict the scope of an audit to a bare minimum. Can't really see that the licensing requirements of the Alderney Gaming Commission will mean it'd be any different for the online gaming industry?

stoneface1

irrelevant figures? specific pairs are not irrelevant and neither are specific events. Attaching odds to unrelated and non-specific hole cards to make a point is like sleeping in a fridge and complaining that its cold? That expectation is normal where if you got in the same fridge and it was 100 degrees C you would be correct to complain and assume something is amiss.

Goethe points to something that is relevant that supports any and all critical argument, of which there is a great deal and such includes direct and indirect evidence, both anecdotal and formal. The reason why there is no visible or  analytical audit information (particularly from a governing body or independent auditor) is due entirely to the fact that there is no requirement for such or resources for such. Any company worth its salt has audit across the whole of their company either because of statute legislation; shareholder interests or good honest business practice. the online poker world has been riddled with bad practice, illegal activity and corruption of one sort or another either due to the greed of individuals or collective nefarious activities.

Other gambling enterprises have done the same covering a range of sports right through to the bankers and stock market and it still happens today even though they have more stringent rules and more robust procedures. Those that think an unaccountable enterprise like online poker is whiter than those others mentioned with history and are supposed to be accountable are either blind or dumb. which of those two is relevant might account for many bad beats and strange scenario's in play but the software provides the whole and in my experiences it fails to meet a required standard. Those believing otherwise and protecting blindly this enterprise should come up with the evidence that demonstrates the veracity of online poker?

BorinLoner

In Response to Re: its not sky thats rigged:

Who knows? I've first hand experience of financial audits (telephone number turnover organisations) that have either failed to make some pretty basic tests on the integrity of figures on the balance sheet, or have been ineffective in doing so. Either way, some pretty hefty skeletons I was aware of remained in the wardrobe - and for more than one year. Possibly the reason I have a healthy scepticism as to what "independent audits" represent. Look what happened at Enron. Auditing provides no added-value to any organisation, and so really means dead money - costs that have to be (legally required), or are obliged by some sort of trade membership etc (not legally required), incurred. So there's an incentive to keep these costs to a minimum, and restrict the scope of an audit to a bare minimum. Can't really see that the licensing requirements of the Alderney Gaming Commission will mean it'd be any different for the online gaming industry?
Posted by Goethe

Goethe, I had a boiler repair chappy in last winter. He left me in the cold for ten days. I suspected he hadn't done a very good job so invited another boiler repair chappy to come and have a look. He "independently audited" the first man's work and confirmed my suspicions that he hadn't done a very good job...

Do you think this story in some way relates to Sky Poker? Does the fact that the first boiler repair man wasn't very trustworthy prove that people are not very trustworthy and therefore Sky Poker should not be trusted?

I don't think your experience of other companies is relevant in any way. Nor do I think the imaginations of some players makes for any evidence of wrongdoing on anyones part. It's simply a fact that when people don't understand something they seek answers based on their own limited knowledge. This is why people once worshipped the sun and believed in witchcraft.

I would strongly urge anyone who thinks that poker is rigged not to re-examine the evidence available to them, but to examine whether the evidence is present in sufficient volume to prove anything, one way or the other. Speculation in the absence of significant evidence is nothing more than tittle-tattle. This is the first and last time I will waste my time with it.

stoneface1

the evidence is visible daily and the frequency is beyond belief. even since my last posting its been churning it out with incredible frequency. I play Asuited rag and get called by 2-9; flop A22, turn A.......river 2. At a 6 handed table that is a 'rare' event. I play A's raising a guy 5x who happened to have 7's, i get 1 caller so the guy with 7's folds. the flop A77. I bet and get a call again, turn comes K, i shove and get a call the guy has K's. "rare event" i'm in BB and get a flat call from SB, i have 6-8 off, flop comes 6C,6D,3D he bets pot and i call, turn is dead. he checks I bet pot he calls and river comes Diamond he checks and i know i'm done. guy has A's gets called by 910 off, flop AJ7, A's bets and guy with air shoves....river comes 8. Guy with A's shoves a utg bet  and gets called by KJ off, flop is dead and turn and river come JJ. Guy leads out with KJ off and gets 4x raise and calls, flop is dead, Q's shove and he gets a call, turn and river JJ. all in the space of half hour or less and its only 50% of what i can remember?

This stuff is normal on here at every table in every tourney and there is no escape from it. It doesnt happen live with such frequency and the other events i mentioned are miracle events that should occur 6 monthly or something but seem to happen daily or weekly at worst. there is no explanation through probability because the frequency doesnt stack up. so why does it happen with such frequency if everyone that is moaning is wrong?

Goethe

Yeah. . . let's leave it. I'll stick with my healthy scepticism as to what "independent audits" actually represent and'll continue worshipping the sun.

Oh, and for the record I didn't write, or imply in anyway, that SkyPoker shouldn't be trusted - just commented on the lack of transparency regarding the independent audits of online gaming operators that have been quoted in the past as evidence that everything is tickety-boo.