| |
Main
Date: 23 Jan 2009 13:25:50
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
Alright as we all know there are a lot of people who are convinced online
poker is "rigged." I'm going to use that term loosely because it means
different things to different people. Some think that the sites rig
action hands to generate more rake. I ran into one guy that told me the
site always deals big hands vs. big hands so they can maximize the rake.
When I told him that in most cases hands in a 1/2 game and above already
hit max rake each hand, he had nothing to say, except to point out he
didn't realize there was a cap on the rake taken.
We already had one case of a site (UB/AP is considered one site for this
discussion) that cheated its players out of a lot of money. We know
exactly how they did it and that it had nothing to do with manipulating
the deal at all.
So here's the discussion topic/questions:
1) what would be the best way for a site to cheat its players, assuming it
wanted to go undetected?
2) if a site were to cheat via rigging the deck, what sort of scenarios
would it create?
I had a few other questions but realized that I can't ask them without my
bias showing through. I'll reply to myself to get things going.
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
"It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2009 11:39:04
From: YYZ
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
On Jan 23, 1:25=A0pm, "XaQ Morphy" <a1c5...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> Alright as we all know there are a lot of people who are convinced online
> poker is "rigged." =A0I'm going to use that term loosely because it means
> different things to different people. =A0Some think that the sites rig
> action hands to generate more rake. =A0I ran into one guy that told me th=
e
> site always deals big hands vs. big hands so they can maximize the rake.
> When I told him that in most cases hands in a 1/2 game and above already
> hit max rake each hand, he had nothing to say, except to point out he
> didn't realize there was a cap on the rake taken.
>
> We already had one case of a site (UB/AP is considered one site for this
> discussion) that cheated its players out of a lot of money. =A0We know
> exactly how they did it and that it had nothing to do with manipulating
> the deal at all.
>
> So here's the discussion topic/questions: =A0
>
> 1) what would be the best way for a site to cheat its players, assuming i=
t
> wanted to go undetected?
>
> 2) if a site were to cheat via rigging the deck, what sort of scenarios
> would it create?
>
> I had a few other questions but realized that I can't ask them without my
> bias showing through. =A0I'll reply to myself to get things going.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmor...@donkeymanifesto.comhttp://www.donkeymanifesto.com
>
> "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" =A0--igotskillz
>
> "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
>
> --------=A0
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com
As far as question 1 goes, what I would do is hire a bunch of Poker
Celebrities to endorse my site. That way newbie fanboys will
automaticly believe the site is on the level since their TV poker
heros play there.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 11:44:48
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
I'll be posting your emails soon.
On Jan 25, 8:43=EF=BF=BDam, "FellKnight" <jordandevenp...@hotmail.com > wrot=
e:
> On Jan 24 2009 10:12 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > The next thing to do is to program their accounts so they win. How
> > could anyone argue that the professionals are supposed to win? But, in
> > 45 years, I have never heard of most of the professionals on FT.
>
> That's probably because you are totally clueless about poker since the
> TVSM revolution, and probably before that too.
>
> Fell
> --
> "Don't underestimate Fell. =EF=BF=BDHe's a smart kid."
> - Paul Popinjay, RGP, Nov 15, 2008
>
> -----=EF=BF=BD
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 12:04:18
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
On Jan 25 2009 1:44 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> I'll be posting your emails soon.
Ooh can you post the one where he asked for advice on how to cheat at my
home game? Thanks!
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
"It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
-----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 11:59:02
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
On Jan 25 2009 2:44 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> I'll be posting your emails soon.
I am honored. That would put me in the same lofty company as Negreanu,
Sexton, and Doyle.
Fell
--
"Don't underestimate Fell. He's a smart kid."
- Paul Popinjay, RGP, Nov 15, 2008
_____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jan 2009 19:12:27
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
The next thing to do is to program their accounts so they win. How
could anyone argue that the professionals are supposed to win? But, in
45 years, I have never heard of most of the professionals on FT. Plus,
for an amateur, game selection is a must, so why would a amateur want
to play low or even mid level against a seasoned professional?
On Jan 24, 11:39=EF=BF=BDam, YYZ <istp...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Jan 23, 1:25=EF=BF=BDpm, "XaQ Morphy" <a1c5...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Alright as we all know there are a lot of people who are convinced onli=
ne
> > poker is "rigged." =EF=BF=BDI'm going to use that term loosely because =
it means
> > different things to different people. =EF=BF=BDSome think that the site=
s rig
> > action hands to generate more rake. =EF=BF=BDI ran into one guy that to=
ld me the
> > site always deals big hands vs. big hands so they can maximize the rake=
.
> > When I told him that in most cases hands in a 1/2 game and above alread=
y
> > hit max rake each hand, he had nothing to say, except to point out he
> > didn't realize there was a cap on the rake taken.
>
> > We already had one case of a site (UB/AP is considered one site for thi=
s
> > discussion) that cheated its players out of a lot of money. =EF=BF=BDWe=
know
> > exactly how they did it and that it had nothing to do with manipulating
> > the deal at all.
>
> > So here's the discussion topic/questions: =EF=BF=BD
>
> > 1) what would be the best way for a site to cheat its players, assuming=
it
> > wanted to go undetected?
>
> > 2) if a site were to cheat via rigging the deck, what sort of scenarios
> > would it create?
>
> > I had a few other questions but realized that I can't ask them without =
my
> > bias showing through. =EF=BF=BDI'll reply to myself to get things going=
.
>
> > ---
> > Morphy
> > xaqmor...@donkeymanifesto.comhttp://www.donkeymanifesto.com
>
> > "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" =EF=BF=BD--igotskill=
z
>
> > "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> > obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
>
> > --------=EF=BF=BD
> > : the next generation of web-newsreaders :http://www.recgroups.com
>
> As far as question 1 goes, what I would do is hire a bunch of Poker
> Celebrities to endorse my site. =EF=BF=BDThat way newbie fanboys will
> automaticly believe the site is on the level since their TV poker
> heros play there.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Jan 2009 08:43:10
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
On Jan 24 2009 10:12 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> The next thing to do is to program their accounts so they win. How
> could anyone argue that the professionals are supposed to win? But, in
> 45 years, I have never heard of most of the professionals on FT.
That's probably because you are totally clueless about poker since the
TVSM revolution, and probably before that too.
Fell
--
"Don't underestimate Fell. He's a smart kid."
- Paul Popinjay, RGP, Nov 15, 2008
-----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 24 Jan 2009 08:33:39
From: MMelia
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
> So here's the discussion topic/questions:
>
> 1) what would be the best way for a site to cheat its players, assuming it
> wanted to go undetected?
So there are times when the site would want to go detected? Pardon me,
but who is a nit?
Yes... I'm bored again.
_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 24 Jan 2009 10:45:58
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
> So there are times when the site would want to go detected?
Given that we just saw an example of insider cheating where even the most
basic steps to cover it up were not taken, I believe the answer has to be
'yes'.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 16:12:30
From: Jason Pawloski
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
On Jan 23 2009 2:25 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> Alright as we all know there are a lot of people who are convinced online
> poker is "rigged." I'm going to use that term loosely because it means
> different things to different people. Some think that the sites rig
> action hands to generate more rake. I ran into one guy that told me the
> site always deals big hands vs. big hands so they can maximize the rake.
> When I told him that in most cases hands in a 1/2 game and above already
> hit max rake each hand, he had nothing to say, except to point out he
> didn't realize there was a cap on the rake taken.
>
> We already had one case of a site (UB/AP is considered one site for this
> discussion) that cheated its players out of a lot of money. We know
> exactly how they did it and that it had nothing to do with manipulating
> the deal at all.
>
> So here's the discussion topic/questions:
>
> 1) what would be the best way for a site to cheat its players, assuming it
> wanted to go undetected?
>
> 2) if a site were to cheat via rigging the deck, what sort of scenarios
> would it create?
>
> I had a few other questions but realized that I can't ask them without my
> bias showing through. I'll reply to myself to get things going.
>
> ---
> Morphy
> xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
> http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
>
> "I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
>
> "It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
> obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
Here's how I would cheat people: first, I would give new players a fair
deal. I would track their play strategy and assign a number between 0 and
1 in the database. A 1 is an igotskillz, someone who plays a lot of hands,
plays poorly (I would base this on performance), and despite being a loser
is quick to reload. That last part is important. The people who do not
reload or take a long time to reload will have a small number. A 0 in the
database is someone like me, a brilliant player who plays a mathematically
flawless strategy all the time using good, solid poker playing (I would
base this on performance), even while intoxicated.
Once players get a rating of > 0.8 or so after maybe 1,000 or 10,000
hands, I would start rigging the deck when two or more get in a clash.
This is where you start seeing flopped sets versus runner-runner flushes
and straights, etc. The players who do not have this rating will always
receive a fair deal. When a player with a rating of > 0.8 gets in a pot
with one or more players with a rating of < 0.8, they will receive poor
cards, for instance it would be much harder for them to flop a set. This
is to make up for all the sets they flopped when two idiots get into a
confrontation.
This rating system will be continuously re-normalized so the odds that two
or more idiots are in the same hand is equal to two or more idiots in the
same hand with a decent player which is roughly the same as when decent
players get in the hand. This is tricky but not impossible.
A statistical analysis of the hands will reveal a perfect distribution
over the long run. Since no individual idiot could likely afford to play
for a statistically significant period of time, and no one would know the
existence of this rating system, the rigging system is virtually
undetectable unless someone (miraculously) guesses the criteria I use to
divide the deals into a "fair" deal for some and a "rigged" deal for
others.
The idiots who are likely to reload will just continue to reload and
reload until they mortgage their house, all the while I'm laughing all the
way to the bank.
--
"Actually, I will read Jason's posts too. He's smart also." - Paul
Popinjay, 10/21/2007 (http://tinyurl.com/4bggyp)
____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 15:00:03
From:
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
Someone above responded to the original question and glossed right
over the one of the biggest rip-offs of online poker, that everyone
else misses as well.
Anyone?
.
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 14:51:33
From: MrBookworm
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
> 1) what would be the best way for a site to cheat its players, assuming it
> wanted to go undetected?
I think it is a faulty assumption, especially for a large well-known site.
A large profitable site would actually want to do everything they could to
insure the site wasn't cheating players. This is why it is far more likely
for insiders to screw the customers than the site to do it (similar to the
financial industry). Another problem with cheating the customers is that
some smart fuckers (on the outside) may figure out what is going on and
use that information to enrich themselves.
Your assumption is legitimate for a new/small site. I wouldn't trust them
unless given some reason (big accounting firm audit, government
regulation, etc.).
> 2) if a site were to cheat via rigging the deck, what sort of scenarios
> would it create?
Once you've decided to do this you would want to maximize your income in
as short a time as possible. The only thing that makes sense is to
maximize the rake.
Dean
"First of all, I cannot see Bookworm's post in my newsreader. Probably
just as well, he annoys the fuck out of me anyway." PP - Dec 29, 2008
______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 15:57:57
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
On Jan 23 2009 4:51 PM, MrBookworm wrote:
> > 1) what would be the best way for a site to cheat its players, assuming it
> > wanted to go undetected?
>
> I think it is a faulty assumption, especially for a large well-known site.
> A large profitable site would actually want to do everything they could to
> insure the site wasn't cheating players. This is why it is far more likely
> for insiders to screw the customers than the site to do it (similar to the
> financial industry). Another problem with cheating the customers is that
> some smart fuckers (on the outside) may figure out what is going on and
> use that information to enrich themselves.
>
> Your assumption is legitimate for a new/small site. I wouldn't trust them
> unless given some reason (big accounting firm audit, government
> regulation, etc.).
Yeah umm, I'm not sure what you're replying to, but it sure has nothing to
do with my post.
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
"It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 20:17:36
From: MrBookworm
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
> Yeah umm, I'm not sure what you're replying to, but it sure has nothing to
> do with my post.
Alrighty then, a bit of mental masturbation. I think I'll go rub one out
now.
Dean
"First of all, I cannot see Bookworm's post in my newsreader. Probably
just as well, he annoys the fuck out of me anyway." PP - Dec 29, 2008
____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 14:08:23
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
On Jan 23 2009 3:25 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> Alright as we all know there are a lot of people who are convinced online
> poker is "rigged." I'm going to use that term loosely because it means
> different things to different people. Some think that the sites rig
> action hands to generate more rake. I ran into one guy that told me the
> site always deals big hands vs. big hands so they can maximize the rake.
> When I told him that in most cases hands in a 1/2 game and above already
> hit max rake each hand, he had nothing to say, except to point out he
> didn't realize there was a cap on the rake taken.
>
> We already had one case of a site (UB/AP is considered one site for this
> discussion) that cheated its players out of a lot of money. We know
> exactly how they did it and that it had nothing to do with manipulating
> the deal at all.
>
> So here's the discussion topic/questions:
>
> 1) what would be the best way for a site to cheat its players, assuming it
> wanted to go undetected?
>
> 2) if a site were to cheat via rigging the deck, what sort of scenarios
> would it create?
I don't know that this is the "best" method, but here's my thoughts:
1) Bots don't make sense. They tend to play badly. If you rigged the
cards to make them win, it would eventually stand out like a sore thumb.
That's not to say there aren't bots, but I doubt they belong to the sites.
Bots are also indistinguishable from an array of Chinese sweatshop
workers taught an algorithmic approach to poker, which would be legal, so
I don't even see bots as particularly objectionable.
2) Rigging the cards to give money to live employees/agents doesn't work
for the same reason as bots even though it would be more subtle and they
might play better. It would also create a large pool of potential whistle
blowers. I don't believe the poker sites have the muscle to keep them
silent.
3) Exposing hole cards or board cards to your agents can obviously be
effective, but is subject to detection at the high stakes. To do it right
requires skilled and cautious cheats. To avoid detection, those players
must win at a rate not much higher than they could win honestly (the
win-rate graphs were damning evidence in the AP/UB scandal). As a result
the opportunity costs of implementing such a scheme correctly are almost
as high as the returns from the scheme. Hence a no-go for an intelligent
site (but fair game for idiots like the AP/UB guys).
4) Poker sites work on a fundamental equation: every $ deposited goes one
of three places
a) rake
b) withdrawal
c) sitting in an account balance
The three are mutually exclusive, so if you take steps to reduce b) and c)
the inevitable result is to increase a) (which is obviously desirable to
the site).
So you now have two tasks:
----Decreasing Withdrawals-----
Money is typically withdrawn under three circumstances
i) a player wins enough that they can comfortably withdraw some of the
winnings and repeat the process
ii) a level-headed player with good BR management determines that they
can't beat the game before going broke, and withdraws the remainder of
their bankroll.
iii) a player takes a string of hideous beats, decides this shit is
rigged, and pulls all their money down
I think ii) is rare, so as a poker site I want to prevent i) and iii). I
prevent i) by figuring out who is winning big, and occasionally rigging a
hand against them. I prevent iii) by figuring out who's getting crushed
by the deck and rigging a hand in their favor. Pretty simple. I'll get
to how to rig hands in a bit.
----Keeping money from sitting idle----
In order to do this, you need to make playing poker fun for recreational
players. The best way I can think of to do this is to stimulate action.
You can do that in part by implementing the suggestions from the previous
section, since they will make it correct to give more action. But running
a few big hands off the deck from time to time would certainly spice
things up nicely as well. Makes it look more like TV poker.
----rigging the deal----
So, now how do you rig the deal so you don't get caught but still achieve
your results.
First, it's trivial to write code that figures out who's ahead and what
cards have to be dealt to change that. I'm not going to bother explaining
how. I've already described who you want to rig for and against.
Then the first observation is that you don't need to do much. Messing
with one hand in 10 or probably even 20 is plenty to move money wherever
you want it. Next, never manipulate a hand when there's no more action
due to an all-in. This means that anyone who tries to find oddities in
hand historiess gets stuck in an endless rathole of conditional issues
because some hands don't see showdown, and it's not random which hands do.
Hence no trivial statistical analysis is possible. As a result, no
damning statistical evidence ever appears if you have a light touch.
Implement whatever you do across all levels, and if you change your mind
about how to rig the hands make the changes VERY gradually. That way no
one sees a difference over time or as they move up/down. Any observed
differences between sites will be ignored by the poker playing populace
because they look like whining and or shills for the other guy.
I think the scheme I've described would double to triple the profits of a
large poker site when compared to fair dealing if done correctly without
ever producing anything that anyone could point at other than one smart
coder (who presumably can be paid off).
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 21:59:21
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
Wayne Vinson, DEbaiter:). Can't figure out a better comeback?
On Jan 23, 9:35=EF=BF=BDpm, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Jan 23 2009 10:47 PM, RussGeorg...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > If I wanted to, I'd destroy all your theory.
>
> Take your meds and go to bed Russ. =EF=BF=BDThe theory behind anything mo=
re
> complicated than feeding your cats is beyond you.
>
> Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> ------=EF=BF=BD
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 20:47:54
From: RussGeorgiev@aol.com
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
If I wanted to, I'd destroy all your theory. Play the game with
stripped decks about 80% of the time, taking out certain cards on 20%
of each deal. People want action, action sells. People don't know how
to play. so they connect the dots for them. Next, if you'd have played
online for as long as I have, you'd know that 90% of the middle level
action is gone.
PokerStars had dozens of PLO games with blinds of 2-4, 3-6, 4-8, 5-10
going all day long. They had at least a dozen stud variation games of
10-20 going all day long. Plus, they were competing with Party at the
time, as well as Paradise. Neither is around anymore (at least to US
players) but Stars seldom has even 10% of these games going anymore.
So many ways to cheat it's mind boggling. I've told people that what
casino's want is not what players want. If it's good for the casino,
it's bad for the player. Why get rid of the paid prop players that
were paid pennies for each hand played and replace them with
intergrated into the site bots? This is definetaly bad for the
players, but has to be good for the site, since the site isn't going
to do anything to hurt their bottom line. Bots are not how people
imagine. They are intergrated as in SLOT MACHINES and payoff as
programmed.
They can have bots play for a day, week, month and be gone. Who could
keep track of all the players? A bot wins today and is gone tomorrow.
A new bot comes in. Fact is the sites need new players. They lie for
one thing, as they state they X amount of players, yet 90% or more of
the players are playing mini stakes or freerolls, plus many are
playing multiple tables.
You and the MO-ron are so f*ing stupid you think these are charitable
organizations. There's no one policing the sites, except the players.
The Wall Street ponzi scam went on for years and there were people
claiming something wrong and law enforcement was involved, yet it took
years to find out?
The appointed Czar to investigate cheating in Poker is caught and
indicted in NJ, yet nothing has happened in almost two years? I was
the one who stated you'd never hear anything again. Absolute/Ultimate
bet would never have been caught if they had used any brains. But, you
think you can catch them? They could claim they went bankrupt and
nothing would happen.
Russ Georgiev
www.pokermafia.com
www.pokerunchecked.com
www.russgeorgiev.com
On Jan 23, 2:08=EF=BF=BDpm, "Wayne Vinson" <a7a8...@webnntp.invalid > wrote:
> On Jan 23 2009 3:25 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Alright as we all know there are a lot of people who are convinced onli=
ne
> > poker is "rigged." =EF=BF=BDI'm going to use that term loosely because =
it means
> > different things to different people. =EF=BF=BDSome think that the site=
s rig
> > action hands to generate more rake. =EF=BF=BDI ran into one guy that to=
ld me the
> > site always deals big hands vs. big hands so they can maximize the rake=
.
> > When I told him that in most cases hands in a 1/2 game and above alread=
y
> > hit max rake each hand, he had nothing to say, except to point out he
> > didn't realize there was a cap on the rake taken.
>
> > We already had one case of a site (UB/AP is considered one site for thi=
s
> > discussion) that cheated its players out of a lot of money. =EF=BF=BDWe=
know
> > exactly how they did it and that it had nothing to do with manipulating
> > the deal at all.
>
> > So here's the discussion topic/questions: =EF=BF=BD
>
> > 1) what would be the best way for a site to cheat its players, assuming=
it
> > wanted to go undetected?
>
> > 2) if a site were to cheat via rigging the deck, what sort of scenarios
> > would it create?
>
> I don't know that this is the "best" method, but here's my thoughts:
>
> 1) Bots don't make sense. =EF=BF=BDThey tend to play badly. =EF=BF=BDIf y=
ou rigged the
> cards to make them win, it would eventually stand out like a sore thumb.
> That's not to say there aren't bots, but I doubt they belong to the sites=
.
> =EF=BF=BDBots are also indistinguishable from an array of Chinese sweatsh=
op
> workers taught an algorithmic approach to poker, which would be legal, so
> I don't even see bots as particularly objectionable.
>
> 2) Rigging the cards to give money to live employees/agents doesn't work
> for the same reason as bots even though it would be more subtle and they
> might play better. =EF=BF=BDIt would also create a large pool of potentia=
l whistle
> blowers. =EF=BF=BDI don't believe the poker sites have the muscle to keep=
them
> silent.
>
> 3) Exposing hole cards or board cards to your agents can obviously be
> effective, but is subject to detection at the high stakes. =EF=BF=BDTo do=
it right
> requires skilled and cautious cheats. =EF=BF=BDTo avoid detection, those =
players
> must win at a rate not much higher than they could win honestly (the
> win-rate graphs were damning evidence in the AP/UB scandal). =EF=BF=BDAs =
a result
> the opportunity costs of implementing such a scheme correctly are almost
> as high as the returns from the scheme. =EF=BF=BDHence a no-go for an int=
elligent
> site (but fair game for idiots like the AP/UB guys).
>
> 4) Poker sites work on a fundamental equation: every $ deposited goes one
> of three places
> a) rake
> b) withdrawal
> c) sitting in an account balance
>
> The three are mutually exclusive, so if you take steps to reduce b) and c=
)
> the inevitable result is to increase a) (which is obviously desirable to
> the site).
>
> So you now have two tasks:
>
> ----Decreasing Withdrawals-----
> Money is typically withdrawn under three circumstances
> i) a player wins enough that they can comfortably withdraw some of the
> winnings and repeat the process
> ii) a level-headed player with good BR management determines that they
> can't beat the game before going broke, and withdraws the remainder of
> their bankroll.
> iii) a player takes a string of hideous beats, decides this shit is
> rigged, and pulls all their money down
>
> I think ii) is rare, so as a poker site I want to prevent i) and iii). =
=EF=BF=BDI
> prevent i) by figuring out who is winning big, and occasionally rigging a
> hand against them. =EF=BF=BDI prevent iii) by figuring out who's getting =
crushed
> by the deck and rigging a hand in their favor. =EF=BF=BDPretty simple. =
=EF=BF=BDI'll get
> to how to rig hands in a bit.
>
> ----Keeping money from sitting idle----
> In order to do this, you need to make playing poker fun for recreational
> players. =EF=BF=BDThe best way I can think of to do this is to stimulate =
action.
> You can do that in part by implementing the suggestions from the previous
> section, since they will make it correct to give more action. =EF=BF=BDBu=
t running
> a few big hands off the deck from time to time would certainly spice
> things up nicely as well. =EF=BF=BDMakes it look more like TV poker.
>
> ----rigging the deal----
> So, now how do you rig the deal so you don't get caught but still achieve
> your results.
>
> First, it's trivial to write code that figures out who's ahead and what
> cards have to be dealt to change that. =EF=BF=BDI'm not going to bother e=
xplaining
> how. =EF=BF=BDI've already described who you want to rig for and against.
>
> Then the first observation is that you don't need to do much. =EF=BF=BDMe=
ssing
> with one hand in 10 or probably even 20 is plenty to move money wherever
> you want it. =EF=BF=BDNext, never manipulate a hand when there's no more =
action
> due to an all-in. =EF=BF=BDThis means that anyone who tries to find oddit=
ies in
> hand historiess gets stuck in an endless rathole of conditional issues
> because some hands don't see showdown, and it's not random which hands do=
.
> =EF=BF=BDHence no trivial statistical analysis is possible. =EF=BF=BDAs a=
result, no
> damning statistical evidence ever appears if you have a light touch.
>
> Implement whatever you do across all levels, and if you change your mind
> about how to rig the hands make the changes VERY gradually. =EF=BF=BDThat=
way no
> one sees a difference over time or as they move up/down. =EF=BF=BDAny obs=
erved
> differences between sites will be ignored by the poker playing populace
> because they look like whining and or shills for the other guy.
>
> I think the scheme I've described would double to triple the profits of a
> large poker site when compared to fair dealing if done correctly without
> ever producing anything that anyone could point at other than one smart
> coder (who presumably can be paid off).
>
> Wayne Vinsonhttp://cardsharp.org/
> Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> ________________________________________________________________________=
=EF=BF=BD
> looking for a better newsgroup-reader? -www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted te=
xt -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 22:42:40
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
On Jan 23 2009 10:47 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> casino's want is not what players want. If it's good for the casino,
I don't know Russ, after writing it like 5,000 times and after being told
at least a hundred times that the plural of "casino" is "casinos", you
still insist on putting a goddamn apostrophe there. It makes you look
like an incompetent boob. Only a true moron can take any of your posts
seriously after all that. I actually try to read your stuff but as soon
as I see you go on about "casino's" I just can't take it and skip the rest.
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
"It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 21:35:07
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
On Jan 23 2009 10:47 PM, RussGeorgiev@aol.com wrote:
> If I wanted to, I'd destroy all your theory.
Take your meds and go to bed Russ. The theory behind anything more
complicated than feeding your cats is beyond you.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 22:43:11
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
On Jan 23 2009 11:35 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
> Take your meds and go to bed Russ. The theory behind anything more
> complicated than feeding your cats is beyond you.
cat's?
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
"It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
-----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 13:37:56
From: John_Brian_K
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
> So here's the discussion topic/questions:
>
> 1) what would be the best way for a site to cheat its players, assuming it
> wanted to go undetected?
By letting people that have a 'share' of the company that is the 'site'
play on said site. If they are affiliated in anyway with the site (even
so far as to be a cousin of the programmer etc) they should not be allowed
to play on the site.
If in fact what you said is true (that a 1-2 NLHE game will almost always
have max rake) then rake is not a consideration except at low stakes. How
hard would it be to have a separate RNG for the low stakes games as
opposed to the high stakes games to maximize the rake in those 'penny'
games?
> 2) if a site were to cheat via rigging the deck, what sort of scenarios
> would it create?
The only possible scenario I see is you have player A who is frequent
depositor and you have player B who has only deposited once. You 'rig'
flops once in a while against player B to make it so he has to deposit to
add money to the overall rake they bring in. Player A is a losing player
and will deposit, but player B has no need to deposit because he is a
winning player. Rigging the flops against player B will most likely end
with player B losing his money and having to re deposit.
========================================
You must not think me necessarily foolish because I am facetious,
nor will I consider you necessarily wise because you are grave.
========
BOOM byae
John
--------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 13:31:27
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
On Jan 23 2009 3:25 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> 1) what would be the best way for a site to cheat its players, assuming it
> wanted to go undetected?
I don't think the best way to make money is by rigging the deal. I think
UB/AP proved that having a legit deal (not that it's been proven one way
or another, but we'll assume it's legit) but giving an insider access to
hole cards is really the best way to skim money off of a site. What's
scary is that they were so incredibly stupid about it that they were
caught. Going over the potripper hand histories it's really easy to see
where different choices could have been made to still win money but not be
caught at all.
> 2) if a site were to cheat via rigging the deck, what sort of scenarios
> would it create?
My thoughts are that if a site wanted to cheat its players to maximize the
money taken, they would make it so that most players break even. Things
like the doom switch never made sense to me because they are removing
money from a player in large chunks and giving it to other players. This
doesn't benefit the site because eventually the person is going to stop
depositing. Things like rigging big hands for action don't make sense
either. What would make sense is to just tweak the bell curve a little.
Winning players lose more, losing players win more, but in the end if you
look at the sample, everyone breaks even and the only winner is the house.
---
Morphy
xaqmorphy@donkeymanifesto.com
http://www.donkeymanifesto.com
"I think they are mad that i am borderline psycho" --igotskillz
"It's unfortunate that there are loons on both sides completely
obfuscating what's going on." --Official RGP Mantra
_______________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 23 Jan 2009 14:12:29
From: Wayne Vinson
Subject: Re: Online site cheating discussion...how?
|
> My thoughts are that if a site wanted to cheat its players to maximize the
> money taken, they would make it so that most players break even. Things
> like the doom switch never made sense to me because they are removing
> money from a player in large chunks and giving it to other players. This
> doesn't benefit the site because eventually the person is going to stop
> depositing. Things like rigging big hands for action don't make sense
> either. What would make sense is to just tweak the bell curve a little.
> Winning players lose more, losing players win more, but in the end if you
> look at the sample, everyone breaks even and the only winner is the house.
This is nearly identical to what I described. Help the losers. Penalize
the winners. Not so much that there are no winners (word would get out
fast) but just make the games seem "hard" - after all everyone says online
games are "hard". Your willingness to have a big loser is entirely base
on your prediction of whether they will re-load (if they do, a big loser
is obviously good), and there's a ton of data and heuristics you could use
to estimate that probability.
I disagree with you about rigging for action though - I believe that, if
done correctly, has benefits for the site.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
|
|
