stupid theory from a smart individual

[poke111]

my roomates been playing poker online for a few months now. he has try
most of the major sites,and have been winning on all the ones he play. we
got into a argument last night. he claims that if you act slow that the
sites were going to screw you over with bad beats. i said thats
ridiculous. now you got to understand this statement is coming from a
individual that has been playing poker professionally for
+20yrs(definately not a moron).when his running bad, he also states that
the site were program to make him lose, even though his been winning
overall at all of the sites he played at. it seems that live players have
a hard time coverting from live to online. he also states that the sites
doesnt like him because his a tight player. i told him if you look for
reasons for your beats you will always find them. question for you
programers out there. how hard would it be to program an account to lose
if he acts slow all the time or plays tight? just want to know for the
hell of it.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com

[Adam Trace Spragg]

poke111 <anonymous@yahoo.com> wrote:
: reasons for your beats you will always find them. question for you
: programers out there. how hard would it be to program an account to lose
: if he acts slow all the time or plays tight? just want to know for the
: hell of it.

I'm a real live professional programmer. :)

(Please, if you're going to read the beginning of this post, read the
end of it too!)

1) It would NOT be hard at ALL to program a certain player to lose.

if( playerA.PlayingTooSlow == true)
{
// deal playerA second nuts
// deal playerB true nuts
}

You know how a slot machine works? You pull the handle and the wheels
spin, and they "randomly" stop at different settings. That's all BS.
You pull the handle, and a microchip rolls some dice and determines if
you're a winner. If you are, it stops the wheels at the appropriate
positions. If not, it stops the wheels somewhere else.

I don't see why online poker *couldn't* be the same way. That is, at
the very begininng of the deal, pick a player who will eventually get
dealt cards to make the best hand. Maybe that player is the one with
the lowest chips, or who is playing the fastest, or just someone who is
NOT playing the slowest.

Of course, this could be ruined by players folding when they were about
to make their nut straight or whatever.

2) I personally don't believe in all this conspiracy, loser-whining
bullshit. Any big-name poker site should have had it's shuffling and
dealing algorithms independantly verified. Sure, the site could have
bought off companies to do this for them, or something like that. I
personally don't buy that, either.

3) Why would they want to cheat? Why would they want to punish slow
players? How could they punish slow players and not people who need
time to think? If they wanted to encourage faster play, they'd put in
some sort of timer system (which, of course, they have).

Don't you think it's a HUGE RISK for them getting SHUT DOWN for
cheating? Would that be worth it for the couple extra dollars they'd
make?

There isn't really that much of a need to attract new players to those
sites. With the televised poker sweeping the nation, I don't think they
need to cook the books to keep lowbies arounds.

Adam

PS: I'm naive. These are my opinions only. Don't hate me.

[Adam Trace Spragg]

Gary Leddering <anonymous@yahoo.com> wrote:
: My opinion is too many people would have to be "in the know" to design and
: operate rigged software in the manner you suggest.

Good point. If I knew I was a part of shady gambling software, it would
be so easy to either sell my story to the media or whoever was
interested, or blackmail the company or something. Another risk.

Adam

[SpannrWrks]

>... Any big-name poker site should have had it's shuffling and
>dealing algorithms independantly verified.

Has that actually been done?

There seems to be a lot of complaining about online poker.

---
"He's going all in. I don't understand this at all."
(From: WSOP)

[Linda K Sherman]

poke111 wrote:
> my roomates been playing poker online for a few months now. he has try
> most of the major sites,and have been winning on all the ones he play. we
> got into a argument last night. he claims that if you act slow that the
> sites were going to screw you over with bad beats. i said thats
> ridiculous. now you got to understand this statement is coming from a
> individual that has been playing poker professionally for
> +20yrs(definately not a moron).when his running bad, he also states that
> the site were program to make him lose, even though his been winning
> overall at all of the sites he played at. it seems that live players have
> a hard time coverting from live to online. he also states that the sites
> doesnt like him because his a tight player. i told him if you look for
> reasons for your beats you will always find them. question for you
> programers out there. how hard would it be to program an account to lose
> if he acts slow all the time or plays tight? just want to know for the
> hell of it.

I've been programming for 30 years. Is that long enough?

Sure, it could be done. But I fail to see why anyone would do it.

Programmers don't come cheap, and a mediocre programmer would make it so
obvious that the site could never get away with it. You'd have to hire a
world class programmer who is also good enough at poker to know how to
make it undetectable. The code to analyze how players are doing would
be fairly complex, as would the code to rig the deck.

It would cost a poker site a lot of money to pay someone to do it right,
the more so because they'd have to pay that person enough to ensure his
or her silence.

Then there's the problem of keeping it a secret. Sooner or later some
other programmer is going to wind up looking at that source code.

It just doesn't make any sense to go to the trouble.

Linda Sherman

[PigDog]

SpannrWrks wrote:
>> ... Any big-name poker site should have had it's shuffling and
>> dealing algorithms independantly verified.
>
> Has that actually been done?
>
> There seems to be a lot of complaining about online poker.

Of course there's a lot of complaining. As in any poker there's far more
losers than there is winners, only difference with online is people can
blame the software for their own failings.

[lvdlrs]

Linda K Sherman wrote:

> I've been programming for 30 years. Is that long enough?
>
> Sure, it could be done. But I fail to see why anyone would do it.
>
> Programmers don't come cheap, and a mediocre programmer would make it so
> obvious that the site could never get away with it. You'd have to hire a
> world class programmer who is also good enough at poker to know how to
> make it undetectable. The code to analyze how players are doing would
> be fairly complex, as would the code to rig the deck.
>
> It would cost a poker site a lot of money to pay someone to do it right,
> the more so because they'd have to pay that person enough to ensure his
> or her silence.
>
> Then there's the problem of keeping it a secret. Sooner or later some
> other programmer is going to wind up looking at that source code.
>
> It just doesn't make any sense to go to the trouble.
>
> Linda Sherman

Lin, when's the last time you saw Jurassic Park? If it can be
done, it usually will. Too many people out there with the
means and the meanness to inflict harm on others. They get off on
it. Want proof? Just look at all the virus programs going around.
They do it because it can be done and because it will cause a lot
of grief to others. That seems to fit the case here, no?

Gary (...) Philips

[Linda K Sherman]

eggrock wrote:
> "Linda K Sherman" <dimsbam@pwy.com> wrote in message
> news:3F4BE081.8060306@pwy.com...
>
>>poke111 wrote:
>
>
>>I've been programming for 30 years. Is that long enough?
>>
>>Sure, it could be done. But I fail to see why anyone would do it.
>
>
> Just for the hell of it, say an unscrupulous programmer did it to benefit
> him/herself (or a partner).

My response was to the assertion that the poker sites rig the deal to
get rid of slow players or good players or whatever they deem
undesirables, presumably to increase their drop. I said it didn't make
sense.

The matter of a crooked programmer putting a hook in the code for his or
her own personal gain is not what I was responding to. That's much,
much easier to do, although you still have the problem of keeping it
undetected.

Linda Sherman



>
>
>>Programmers don't come cheap, and a mediocre programmer would make it so
>>obvious that the site could never get away with it. You'd have to hire a
>> world class programmer who is also good enough at poker to know how to
>>make it undetectable.
>
>
> Kind of defeats what I'm saying, because a really good programmer can make
> so much more money doing other, legit things. But bear with me, say the
> programmer is a closet gambling addict or somesuch.
>
>
>>The code to analyze how players are doing would
>>be fairly complex, as would the code to rig the deck.
>
>
> Not necessarily, depends on what exactly the cheat is.
>
>
>>It would cost a poker site a lot of money to pay someone to do it right,
>>the more so because they'd have to pay that person enough to ensure his
>>or her silence.
>
>
> Supports my fun little theory, maybe they're not paying their programmer
> enough or pissed him/her off in some way. (We all know it's a he. ;)
>
>
>>Then there's the problem of keeping it a secret. Sooner or later some
>>other programmer is going to wind up looking at that source code.
>
>
> What if it's hidden in plain sight? A combination of small things that add
> up to one big exploit, probably requiring a major rewrite to fix? An unused
> buffer here, some extra inheritance there...
>
>
>>It just doesn't make any sense to go to the trouble.
>
>
> Okay, I doubt it too, just playing devil's advocate, and I'm on the lower
> end of mediocrity when it comes to coding.. But I don't doubt that it's
> possible.
>
>

[Linda K Sherman]

lvdlrs wrote:
>
>
> Linda K Sherman wrote:
>
>> I've been programming for 30 years. Is that long enough?
>>
>> Sure, it could be done. But I fail to see why anyone would do it.
>>
>> Programmers don't come cheap, and a mediocre programmer would make it
>> so obvious that the site could never get away with it. You'd have to
>> hire a world class programmer who is also good enough at poker to
>> know how to make it undetectable. The code to analyze how players are
>> doing would be fairly complex, as would the code to rig the deck.
>>
>> It would cost a poker site a lot of money to pay someone to do it
>> right, the more so because they'd have to pay that person enough to
>> ensure his or her silence.
>>
>> Then there's the problem of keeping it a secret. Sooner or later some
>> other programmer is going to wind up looking at that source code.
>>
>> It just doesn't make any sense to go to the trouble.
>>
>> Linda Sherman
>
>
> Lin, when's the last time you saw Jurassic Park? If it can be
> done, it usually will. Too many people out there with the
> means and the meanness to inflict harm on others. They get off on
> it. Want proof? Just look at all the virus programs going around.
> They do it because it can be done and because it will cause a lot
> of grief to others. That seems to fit the case here, no?

Read my response to eggrock.

The OP's friend was opining that the site was rigging the deal to punish
slow or successful players. That makes no sense. And I have trouble
imagining a site owner would tell the programming staff to do it just
for kicks.

However I agree that there may be the temptation among some poker site
programmers to make "unauthorized enhancements" to the code for their
own personal gain, and some of the less successful sites might be
tempted to try something along those lines, such as giving the owners a
client program that shows everyone's hole cards. But it makes no sense
for any site, successful or not, to take an unnecessarily complicated,
expensive, and risky method of increasing drop when there are easier,
cheaper, and safer ways to simply steal the money.

Linda Sherman

[Gary Carson]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 02:14:43 GMT, Linda K Sherman <dimsbam@pwy.com>

>The matter of a crooked programmer putting a hook in the code for his
or
>her own personal gain is not what I was responding to. That's much,
>much easier to do, although you still have the problem of keeping it
>undetected.
>

With the apparant level of integrity in testing procedures I've seen
with some sites, that probably isn't a big hurdle.

[rhythmofvision]

Linda, this is one of the most rational posts I've seen on my (short)
stay in rgp- thank you.

For all the conspiracy theorists out there, I leave you this:
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" - Ockham's Razor

Linda K Sherman <dimsbam@pwy.com> wrote in message
> I've been programming for 30 years. Is that long enough?
>
> Sure, it could be done. But I fail to see why anyone would do it.
>
> Programmers don't come cheap, and a mediocre programmer would make it so
> obvious that the site could never get away with it. You'd have to hire a
> world class programmer who is also good enough at poker to know how to
> make it undetectable. The code to analyze how players are doing would
> be fairly complex, as would the code to rig the deck.
>
> It would cost a poker site a lot of money to pay someone to do it right,
> the more so because they'd have to pay that person enough to ensure his
> or her silence.
>
> Then there's the problem of keeping it a secret. Sooner or later some
> other programmer is going to wind up looking at that source code.
>
> It just doesn't make any sense to go to the trouble.
>
> Linda Sherman

[Linda K Sherman]

Gary Carson wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 02:14:43 GMT, Linda K Sherman <dimsbam@pwy.com>
>
>>The matter of a crooked programmer putting a hook in the code for his
>
> or
>
>>her own personal gain is not what I was responding to. That's much,
>>much easier to do, although you still have the problem of keeping it
>>undetected.
>>
>
>
> With the apparant level of integrity in testing procedures I've seen
> with some sites, that probably isn't a big hurdle.
>

That actually makes it harder to implant naughty code. If some other
piece of code isn't working right, that greatly increases the likelihood
that another programmer will go poking around, trying to find the
unrelated bug. Or in the process of fixing the unrelated bug, the
programmer may break you code.

The most successful cases of programmer theft that I know of all
involved software that ran perfectly for months, giving no one any
reason to poke around in it.

Still, inadequate testing can give you other reasons to worry. Just for
example, when I was working at a large bank some years ago, inadequate
testing resulted in the nightly posting program zeroing out all of the
account balances.

Linda Sherman

[Beast]

I've been a Senior Software Engineer for the last 10 years.

In relation to the original question "How difficult would it be to
do" - the answer is trivial. There are many ways to skin a cat and
there is no need to make the "juiced deck" algorithm difficult. As
one poster suggested, just deal one player the nuts and another the
second nuts. The hands don't have to be the nuts of course, any two
high hands would do.

The second question of "Is it being done" - well, who knows? I won't
say for certain that it is. Similarly, Linda cannot say that it is
not. Is it simply a case of losing players whinging? Or, does the
fact that so many people from all over the world notice similar
patterns in the dealing lend credence to the argument that the deals
are rigged?

You decide !

One thing is certain, the poker sites could easily end the debate if
they wanted to by showing the shuffle and deal algorithms ! Why do
they insist on hiring third party vendors to tell us everything is OK
?

[JD]

lvdlrs <lvdlrs@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3F4C0DA6.70409@midsouth.rr.com>...
> Lin, when's the last time you saw Jurassic Park? If it can be
> done, it usually will. Too many people out there with the
> means and the meanness to inflict harm on others. They get off on
> it. Want proof? Just look at all the virus programs going around.
> They do it because it can be done and because it will cause a lot
> of grief to others. That seems to fit the case here, no?

Jurassic Park is a MOVIE. If it can be done, someone will make a
movie hypothesizing what would happen if it were done (particularly
Michael Crichton, whose philosophy can be summed up simply as
"technology is evil"). A better example would probably be human
cloning, except that it certainly appears that the press releases
about this were bogus.

As for virus programs, yes, people can and will be malicious for no
good reason, and moreso when they can get money out of it. But
viruses and worms are all noticed fairly quickly. The thing about the
poker sites is that as soon as such a thing was noticed and
publicized, that site would be effectively out of business just from
the bad press. Has anyone written a virus that stayed undetected for
even several weeks?

Overall, I believe Linda is correct. In an environment where all the
hands are available for analysis, it would take a lot of effort to
tweak the cards while keeping the statistics correct, and the benefit
would be very minor, particularly compared to other valid ways of
achieving the same result (like speeding up tourneys by pushing the
blinds up a little faster).

The most plausible way that a site would cheat would be simply to have
access to hole cards or undealt board cards. Then a house-paid player
could win consistently with no blips in the shuffle statistics and no
odd flops. The obvious problem there is that the player might talk,
but it's probably in the same category as the high-stakes cheating
that GCA discusses.. nobody talks, and it would probably be the
owner's brother-in-law or something doing the playing anyway.

[JD]

Beast <theeasternbeast@aol.com> wrote in message news:<u8gpkvk4i9o3qn8hdq9vfo2l9kj95l364s@4ax.com>...
> One thing is certain, the poker sites could easily end the debate if
> they wanted to by showing the shuffle and deal algorithms ! Why do
> they insist on hiring third party vendors to tell us everything is OK
> ?

And how would you know that they were running the code they showed
you?

"True" RNGs use an external source anyway (like a radioactive isotope
and a detector), if not more than one, so the code for that wouldn't
be very enlightening.

[Linda K Sherman]

JD wrote:

> ...the benefit
> would be very minor, particularly compared to other valid ways of
> achieving the same result (like speeding up tourneys by pushing the
> blinds up a little faster).

Or simply taking the same percent rake from cash games in smaller
increments.

If you're cutting $1 at $20/40/60, you can hugely increase your profits
by cutting .50 at 10/20/30/40/50/60 instead.

At the Horseshoe in Tunica, they threaten to fire dealers if they don't
take the 10% out in quarters rather than dollars in the 4-8 hold'em
game. That's how much the breakage is worth: they'd rather fire a good
dealer than give up the extra booty.

UB cuts .05 from every $1 in its smaller games. I'd like to have a
piece of that action.

Linda Sherman

[A. Prock]

According to Adam Trace Spragg <spragg@pc10.cs.ucdavis.edu>:
>I'm a real live professional programmer. :)


>You pull the handle, and a microchip rolls some dice and determines if
>you're a winner.

You may be a professional, but microchips just don't
roll dice.

- Andrew


--
http://www.pokerstove.com

[Gary Carson]

On 27 Aug 2003 18:40:49 GMT, prock_rgp@pokerstove.com (A. Prock)
wrote:

>According to Adam Trace Spragg <spragg@pc10.cs.ucdavis.edu>:
>>I'm a real live professional programmer. :)
>
>
>>You pull the handle, and a microchip rolls some dice and determines
if
>>you're a winner.
>
>You may be a professional, but microchips just don't
>roll dice.
>

Do you computer science guys think microchips are god or something?

[Adam Trace Spragg]

Lucas Ford <lucasford_@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> Don't you think it's a HUGE RISK for them getting SHUT DOWN for
:> cheating? Would that be worth it for the couple extra dollars they'd
:> make?

: Here's the thing. Exactly what risk are you referring to? Who is
: going to "shut down" a site? These are off shore sites and are not

VERY good point. I have no idea. Maybe there actually isn't any risk
to running a scammed site at all...

That's an ominous thought.

[SpannrWrks]

>: Here's the thing. Exactly what risk are you referring to? Who is
>: going to "shut down" a site? These are off shore sites and are not
>
>VERY good point. I have no idea. Maybe there actually isn't any risk
>to running a scammed site at all...
>
>That's an ominous thought.

How do you know everything is on the level if it's not independently tested?
And who's going to force them to do that?

If there is a problem, what are the owners going to say? It's not us, WE
didn't write the program (pointing to the programmers). We thought it was
okay. (Uh, yeah.)

As far as to WHY it might be done, (juicing hands) which site do you think more
players (and more money) would go to: the one where the cards are dealt
straight up or the site where players can keep filling those inside straights
and taking the pot?

I don't have any first-hand knowledge of any of the online sites, but--with the
amount of complaining going on--I'm erring on the side of caution.

Of course, when I sit down with a tablefull of strangers, I don't trust any of
them either. <grin>

Too bad we don't have a way to check some of these sites.

---
Why do you think the same 5 guys are at the finals of the world series of poker
every year? They're the luckiest guys in Vegas?
(From: Rounders)