but this is some good info. The top portion is dated, but relavent. Then there is an update in further posts...
Why Online Poker Is Not Rigged
Though it’s more than obvious to many people that most of the major online card rooms are legit, the internet is littered with literally thousands of claims that they’re somehow rigged. Regardless of how many people point out obvious counter-arguments such as the fact that most online card rooms have their games audited by well respected firms to ensure that the games are fair, people continue to insist that online poker is rigged.
Almost without exception, claims of online poker being rigged fit pretty consistent patterns. For instance, nearly every accusation is presented void of any sort of empirical evidence. Perhaps someone will post a particular hand history of a bad beat but I have yet to see anyone post the results of analyzing 10,000 or 20,000 hand histories to show a true statistical anomaly worthy of further research. Readers are asked to take a leap of faith that this person’s bad beat or his gut feeling about how often certain things happen are indicative of long-term trends.
This lack of empirical data should be the first clue as to the strength of the argument. First because with a large enough sample size (20,000 hands or more) one not need make any argument as the numbers will speak for themselves. But more importantly, it’s the fact that those making accusations don’t even collect hand history data which exposes a fatal flaw in their argument because nearly every serious online poker player uses a software package like PokerTracker to analyze their play. Not using a tracking software package immediately casts serious doubt on claims made by most accusers that they are experienced, savvy, online poker players.
Another common characteristic of online-poker-is-rigged claims is a fundamental misunderstanding of probability. Just because something has a low probability of happening doesn’t mean that when it does, something is wrong. In fact, in many cases, quite the opposite is true. Low probability events are expected to happen given a large enough data set. For instance, if you flip a fair coin ten times, the chances of having a run of ten heads (or tails) is .09765625% (0.5^10). However, over a million coin flips, regardless of how seemingly low the probability of a run of ten heads in a row, you expect to get nearly 1000 runs of ten heads in a row. Unexpected things do happen. As long as the chances are above 0%, there’s a chance that it can happen.
Obviously, this doesn’t apply only to online poker. At the 2005 WSoP, during a televised event, Mark Seif, in two different hands, faced opponents with quads. One flopped quad fives and the other flopped trips and made quads on the turn. The odds against this happening in so few hands that are dealt at one final table are fairly high. Yet it happened. In the 2004 WSoP Gallagher flops quad fives, his opponent with pocket nines pushes all-in and Gallagher obviously calls. The turn and river come 99 giving Gallagher’s opponent quad nines and the winning hand. According to PokerStove, Gallagher was 99.899% to win that hand. Both examples demonstrate that the improbable is not the impossible.
Yet another common type of accusation is that from a player who has recently changed sites or is relatively new to online poker (though they claim decades of live poker experience). In other words, Party must be rigged because I was a winner on UB or I’ve been playing at Commerce for 25 years as a winning player but I can’t beat the $2/$4 at Paradise. Usually buried in this accusation is that the card room purposely rewards poor play. Since the accuser obviously plays excellent poker, the only explanation for losing at this particular site is that the game must be rigged. The glaring flaw in this argument is that there are many, many solid players playing on the same site and winning. If the deck was being stacked in favor of the fish, how do other players work their way up from .05/.10 micro-limits to playing the $30/$60 game? Based on the accuser’s argument we would have to believe that their consistent winning is due to how poorly they play. That’s an easy argument to refute if you’ve ever read their posts on forums like 2+2 and elsewhere. They are anything but fish.
But rather than continue with generalities of the accusations being made, let’s jump right into it.
Fair enough. Electric, I just think a lot of the time you come across as condescending. And gramatically, noone should be two words: no one. And I think you present some intelligent points; you just rub me the wrong way at times with your attitude. 
Hot Forum Topics
