Originally posted on 12/02/2010:

Quote Originally Posted by iifold View Post
Let's talk about rake,

In real life, the bad players go broke and cardrooms become "slow"..

Do you think the cardclub owners like these "slow" times?

If the bad players all went broke right away like they should (especially playing 4-5 times as many hands) there would be less games which would mean LESS rake..

Is this really that hard to understand?

The more we as players just pass our chips back and forth, the better off they are because the games stay alive..

Just a few questions/thoughts --

I don't have an opinion on whether it's rigged or not rigged I certainly haven't played enough online poker to make a judgment, but I would tend to think it's in the best interest of the poker sites NOT to rig games.

If there's a bias or a pattern to favor "bad players" sharp players with a even a small bit of probability and statistics background should be able to identify and EXPLOIT this "rigging" to their own advantage.

First, how does Poker Stars identify a "bad player?"

Second, is this being done organically by human operators or by a computer algorithm? If it's being done by humans I'd think that would take a lot of man hours to have a human watching every single table to help bad players. That might eliminate their cost advantage.

If it's being done by computer -- if I figure out how PS is classifying/identifying bad players and I tailor my play to fit this algorithm (maybe it already is ) I should have the game rigged on my behalf and should be able to go all-in with 5-2 and win some big cash?

Is this a linear trend i.e. the worse I play the more Poker Stars will favor me?

I've seen a lot of claims of "it's rigged" in forums but none of them seem to come from anyone who has taken even an introductory Probability and Statistics course.

Tell me if I'm off here, but if the bias is obvious enough that it can be seen in "any tournament" then I'd think with a few thousand hand histories collected you should be able to get some decent confidence intervals on "if a player (me) holds AK 2's and 5's are 7% and 9% more likely to be flopped than Aces or Kings.

Again, if it's obvious to show up to the naked eye, then you should be able to bear it out pretty easily in the numbers. Conversely, I'm open to proposals to how they might "iron out" the intentional bias while not inadvertently favoring "good players."


Finally, a lot of people making these claims seem to still be actively playing at these rigged establishments. Or do you now play at online sites that are not rigged, or only at live poker rooms (where pocket aces always win!)

P.S. I suppose SBR might have some incentive to fudge things a bit in their sponsored freerolls so that the same players aren't winning all the time, but I would think variance would take care of this without having to get involved in such dirty business.


Looking forward to responses!