Do you think some SBR poker players time or hack the poker software?

[dlowilly]

I have played a lot of poker live and online for years and have never seen such weird play from players who have consistently good results. Wouldn't necessarily be cheating, just playing software patterns or glitches as opposed to the cards.

[Cross]

Sounds like sour grapes to me, lol.

[dlowilly]

Sounds like sour grapes to me, lol.

Thanks for ur input

[JoeCool20]

LOL Dlow, I saw it today! First the guy won with K - 6 offsuit, then he called your all in hole 88 with KQ offsuit,

I knew right away he was going to donk a K or Q, and there it came!! But then he was AHEAD of me on the next all in,

and I donked a last card flush on the guy! LOL What the hell has changed about this crap? Just get it all in with he worst hand,

and then sit there and watch it donk out the best hand!

[JoeCool20]

Hell man we all know that in this 1000 chip "quick tourney" format, you have to get lucky and win about 10 all ins

to even get sixth place or higher. Then you have to get lucky and win even more all ins to get !st or 2nd place!

Don't let it irk you so much! I mean shit dude you got so lucky on the all ins in the Lightning Poker finals that you won the

whole damn thing! You can't expect to get that kind of luck in every damn on of these things!

[Triple_D_Bet]

I don't doubt some folks here would cheat if they could, but seems unlikely anyone has the capacity and the lack of integrity combined.

[franklee168]

Tell us the secret on winning the 2019 Lightning Poker tourney bro. Then I'll mark the poll.

[Crusherrr]

I have played a lot of poker live and online for years and have never seen such weird play from players who have consistently good results. Wouldn't necessarily be cheating, just playing software patterns or glitches as opposed to the cards.

If someone were good enough to actually hack poker software they'd be doing it on an anonymous site or doing so on a much bigger scale.

Colluding, card sharing, chip dumping, stuff like that, is FAR more likely to happen. Hacking SBR software would be extremely unlikely. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I doubt it.

Even fish/bad players win sometimes, or they'd never come back. It's also very easy to run extremely well over a short period of time.

Most of the people you may suspect end up losing all their points in cash games after running good in tournaments. Their idiotic play doesn't fair nearly as well in deep stacked games where greater edges exist.

[dlowilly]

Tell us the secret on winning the 2019 Lightning Poker tourney bro. Then I'll mark the poll.

I think that was in the pre hack days

[dlowilly]

If someone were good enough to actually hack poker software they'd be doing it on an anonymous site or doing so on a much bigger scale.

Colluding, card sharing, chip dumping, stuff like that, is FAR more likely to happen. Hacking SBR software would be extremely unlikely. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I doubt it.

Even fish/bad players win sometimes, or they'd never come back. It's also very easy to run extremely well over a short period of time.

Most of the people you may suspect end up losing all their points in cash games after running good in tournaments. Their idiotic play doesn't fair nearly as well in deep stacked games where greater edges exist.

I'm talking about players generally recognized to be above average though, and I'm wondering if the software used here is subpar (real money sites need the best) which could mean it's easier to time or hack.

[Triple_D_Bet]

I'm talking about players generally recognized to be above average though, and I'm wondering if the software used here is subpar (real money sites need the best) which could mean it's easier to time or hack.

It seems likely that SBR poker software is more vulnerable to exploits. I won't claim to know everyone's skillset, but I'm fairly confident enough of the above-average people are unable to do anything that complicated that it doesn't matter.

Look at this way: a guy like bobbo could participate enough to be middle of the field on these things despite being just awful...you really think hacking is necessary to do well against guys like that and the people he does better than?

[fried cheese]

name names! is it me?

[dlowilly]

It seems likely that SBR poker software is more vulnerable to exploits. I won't claim to know everyone's skillset, but I'm fairly confident enough of the above-average people are unable to do anything that complicated that it doesn't matter.

Look at this way: a guy like bobbo could participate enough to be middle of the field on these things despite being just awful...you really think hacking is necessary to do well against guys like that and the people he does better than?

I understand all that

What it boils down to though is I keep seeing long term winning players make long term non winning plays and it doesn't add up

[JoeCool20]

I think that was in the pre hack days

LOL So nobody was "hacking" the poker software even just a few months ago when you were getting donk lucky

so often that you won the whole event, but now that you aren't getting donk lucky in this event,

you say people are "hacking" the software! LOL Thanks for the hilarity! I needed it!

[Triple_D_Bet]

I understand all that

What it boils down to though is I keep seeing long term winning players make long term non winning plays and it doesn't add up

Hard to see everything, and I don't know if there's enough volume here to add up to anything statistically close to long-term. Variance (even extreme amounts) is surprisingly common.

[dlowilly]

Hard to see everything, and I don't know if there's enough volume here to add up to anything statistically close to long-term. Variance (even extreme amounts) is surprisingly common.

Believe me, I'm well aware of variance

It's hard to rationalize a long term winning player ever making some of the plays I've been seeing though in these tourneys

[cincinnatikid513]

double up early or call it a day

[dlowilly]

What a coincidence

There are 19 players I suspect of timing or hacking the software

[blankoblanco]

Basically poker site RNG is "pseudo-RNG" only because it can't technically be called random, since there has to be a process to generate said randomness. But it's about as random as anything humans can come up with, and in 2019 it's just not hard or particularly expensive (relatively speaking) to get hold of a sophisticated engine that can do it. The rest of the poker software is probably the harder part

Any poker RNG system being used today can't just be "timed." We're talking about milliseconds, and you'd have to somehow also understand the entire process used to generate "randomness" on top of that which probably consists of several small and very opaque steps itself

Hacked? Sure, that's always some kind of a possibility. Do I think that's happened on SBR? Nah. Haven't seen a Mike Postle yet

[Crusherrr]

What a coincidence

There are 11 players I suspect of timing or hacking the software

Not helping your cause with this lol.

[franklee168]

What a coincidence

There are 11 players I suspect of timing or hacking the software

We need names of the suspects so I can avoid them. Probably will go up to 15 soon.

[Triple_D_Bet]

What a coincidence

There are 12 players I suspect of timing or hacking the software

The few times out of a butt-ton that actual poker cheating was going on, it was caught because someone brought it to light. Tell us what you've got, and if there's any truth to it, the SBR detectives will sniff it out.

[dlowilly]

The few times out of a butt-ton that actual poker cheating was going on, it was caught because someone brought it to light. Tell us what you've got, and if there's any truth to it, the SBR detectives will sniff it out.

It's difficult to do because I don't have access to a lot of the hand history info. Most of the times cheating was discovered was when someone had access to all the hole cards of the suspects regardless of whether there was a showdown or they won or lost the hand. On the HH here you are only guaranteed to see the hole cards of the winning hand.

Once again, I'm not even saying it has to be cheating or hacking. Possibly just playing software patterns or "timing" it as opposed to playing the cards because they've recognized inadequacies in the software.

[Triple_D_Bet]

It's difficult to do because I don't have access to a lot of the hand history info. Most of the times cheating was discovered was when someone had access to all the hole cards of the suspects regardless of whether there was a showdown or they won or lost the hand. On the HH here you are only guaranteed to see the hole cards of the winning hand.

Once again, I'm not even saying it has to be cheating or hacking. Possibly just playing software patterns or "timing" it as opposed to playing the cards because they've recognized inadequacies in the software.

I don't disagree with the difficulty without access to all information, but without at least some information, an accusation doesn't carry much weight. If you suspect software exploits, post the detailed reasons you think so. Some of us are pretty tech-savvy and can evaluate these pretty quickly.

[thechaoz]

I have played a lot of poker live and online for years and have never seen such weird play from players who have consistently good results. Wouldn't necessarily be cheating, just playing software patterns or glitches as opposed to the cards.

It happens. The RNG isn't random guys. You have to have an entropy based system like pokerstars/all major sites use which is 100's of thousands of dollars. Anyone play yahoo poker on messenger years ago? It's the same type of "random".

I show my last 12 all ins, I was 70% or better pre. I won once.

It's sbr poker, before that I won back to back tourneys, but the previous two weeks was the same situation.

I told the lady I'd rather have my bad variance now, then in the World Cup.

[dlowilly]

I don't disagree with the difficulty without access to all information, but without at least some information, an accusation doesn't carry much weight. If you suspect software exploits, post the detailed reasons you think so. Some of us are pretty tech-savvy and can evaluate these pretty quickly.

Ok first technical thing i would like to see done is collect data on 1000 or so 2 handed pre flop all ins comparing preflop win % to actual win %, and then the same for post flop action hands comparing win % on the flop to actual win %. This isn't about players hacking or timing software as much as simply verifying the fairness of the software. The thing is, I think it would have to be done live because many times you can't see losing hand info and just going by the ones that show all hand info might skew the results.

[MrSink]

funny

[Triple_D_Bet]

It happens. The RNG isn't random guys. You have to have an entropy based system like pokerstars/all major sites use which is 100's of thousands of dollars. Anyone play yahoo poker on messenger years ago? It's the same type of "random".

I show my last 12 all ins, I was 70% or better pre. I won once.

It's sbr poker, before that I won back to back tourneys, but the previous two weeks was the same situation.

I told the lady I'd rather have my bad variance now, then in the World Cup.

Blanko gave a pretty good explanation of why random isn't truly random, and why that doesn't matter for the purposes of poker. Losing 11/12 70%-ers isn't an indication of a bad RNG; even if that stat is 100% accurate (as with all anecdotal memory, there's good reason to believe it might not be), it's not at all uncommon.

Ok first technical thing i would like to see done is collect data on 1000 or so 2 handed pre flop all ins comparing preflop win % to actual win %, and then the same for post flop action hands comparing win % on the flop to actual win %. This isn't about players hacking or timing software as much as simply verifying the fairness of the software. The thing is, I think it would have to be done live because many times you can't see losing hand info and just going by the ones that show all hand info might skew the results.

The test you described isn't a good test of a RNG, statistically. That's the perpetual problem with poker accusations: humans don't have a good intuitive grasp of even relatively simple probability. As a result, frequently occuring phenomena are misunderstood and people think something fishy is going on when it's a completely-expected effect of seeing such a tiny fraction of reality.

What evidence do you currently have that makes you think people are exploiting the software?

[dlowilly]

Without the ability to compile statistical evidence my evidence is just observational. Like I said before, long term winning players on here making long term losing plays that cannot possibly be +ev. Constant occasions where a winning player makes all in bets or calls with bad hands and either wins or when he loses still makes a hand like he knew what his future hand rank would be after the river but didn't know the opponent would make a better hand. Overall it seems like some players have access to pre flop info on what the strength of their hand will end up being.

[fried cheese]

why do you call them long term winning players when these are freerolls?

[dlowilly]

why do you call them long term winning players when these are freerolls?

Come on you know what I mean

Some players who have historically had success on here

[Triple_D_Bet]

Without the ability to compile statistical evidence my evidence is just observational. Like I said before, long term winning players on here making long term losing plays that cannot possibly be +ev. Constant occasions where a winning player makes all in bets or calls with bad hands and either wins or when he loses still makes a hand like he knew what his future hand rank would be after the river but didn't know the opponent would make a better hand. Overall it seems like some players have access to pre flop info on what the strength of their hand will end up being.

I guess what I'm saying is your observations don't support the conclusion based on information you've given. Without quantifying things, bad plays winning isn't evidence of anything. I get how it might seem like you've seen enough evidence, but there's a reason these things have to be quantified: human instinct in these situations is almost completely useless.

why do you call them long term winning players when these are freerolls?

Being freerolls doesn't matter, there are still winners (even though it's not a tough field because of the freeroll aspect). Being a freeroll and having a less-skilled-than-usual participant base is probably contributing to his observations though.

[fried cheese]

Being freerolls doesn't matter, there are still winners (even though it's not a tough field because of the freeroll aspect). Being a freeroll and having a less-skilled-than-usual participant base is probably contributing to his observations though.

everyone is a long term winner in freerolls.

[dlowilly]

I guess what I'm saying is your observations don't support the conclusion based on information you've given. Without quantifying things, bad plays winning isn't evidence of anything. I get how it might seem like you've seen enough evidence, but there's a reason these things have to be quantified: human instinct in these situations is almost completely useless.

Right, and I am saying I would love to quantify it but it's almost impossible to do without hh info. That's the reason this thread is a poll and not a post full of statistical evidence. The only reason they caught Mike Postle is because they could analyze all his hands knowing what his hole cards were, whether he won or folded. Without that info they could only suspect.

[fried cheese]

Right, and I am saying I would love to quantify it but it's almost impossible to do without hh info. That's the reason this thread is a poll and not a post full of statistical evidence. The only reason they caught Mike Postle is because they could analyze all his hands knowing what his hole cards were, whether he won or folded. Without that info they could only suspect.

have you looked at your own hand histories and added up the percentages for your all ins?