If they could establish shitty players that frequently reload, aka action junkies), why not "rig" the system against them? It would be totally possible, and easy to do from a programming standpoint. No one is going to actually calculate the statistical improbablity of losing too many hands, and essentially what the online site wants is someone to lose, probably recognize that they aren't as bad as they are losing, and then reup... and repeat
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
If they could establish shitty players that frequently reload, aka action junkies), why not "rig" the system against them? It would be totally possible, and easy to do from a programming standpoint. No one is going to actually calculate the statistical improbablity of losing too many hands, and essentially what the online site wants is someone to lose, probably recognize that they aren't as bad as they are losing, and then reup... and repeat
my point about the players being good, is if someone lives in a state where they cant play cards, online is their only access, and they probably think they can win once luck turns, except the system might be programmed against them.
to sum it up, it just would seem very intuitive to me to program the site to fuck over re-uppers most
0
my point about the players being good, is if someone lives in a state where they cant play cards, online is their only access, and they probably think they can win once luck turns, except the system might be programmed against them.
to sum it up, it just would seem very intuitive to me to program the site to fuck over re-uppers most
my point about the players being good, is if someone lives in a state where they cant play cards, online is their only access, and they probably think they can win once luck turns, except the system might be programmed against them.
to sum it up, it just would seem very intuitive to me to program the site to fuck over re-uppers most
one problem a LARGE majority of players on line despite what they say ARE LOSING PLAYERS.
What does the program do when 90% of the time in poker there are 6 of them at each table?
0
Quote Originally Posted by WerderFan:
my point about the players being good, is if someone lives in a state where they cant play cards, online is their only access, and they probably think they can win once luck turns, except the system might be programmed against them.
to sum it up, it just would seem very intuitive to me to program the site to fuck over re-uppers most
one problem a LARGE majority of players on line despite what they say ARE LOSING PLAYERS.
What does the program do when 90% of the time in poker there are 6 of them at each table?
If they could establish shitty players that frequently reload, aka action junkies), why not "rig" the system against them? It would be totally possible, and easy to do from a programming standpoint. No one is going to actually calculate the statistical improbablity of losing too many hands, and essentially what the online site wants is someone to lose, probably recognize that they aren't as bad as they are losing, and then reup... and repeat
Your post doesn't make sense. I think it would be very difficult to pigeon hole the poker software for bad players. This is perhaps one of the worst takes for online being rigged, having software as high action for everyone is one thing, now they are going to tweak the program for every swinging dick that sucks? C'mon.
If they are action junkies, it doesn't matter what the software has to do, they will still call A LOT preflop and will still call with any piece of the flop. You see 4x as many hands online, there is plenty of hands for action players see.
0
Quote Originally Posted by WerderFan:
If they could establish shitty players that frequently reload, aka action junkies), why not "rig" the system against them? It would be totally possible, and easy to do from a programming standpoint. No one is going to actually calculate the statistical improbablity of losing too many hands, and essentially what the online site wants is someone to lose, probably recognize that they aren't as bad as they are losing, and then reup... and repeat
Your post doesn't make sense. I think it would be very difficult to pigeon hole the poker software for bad players. This is perhaps one of the worst takes for online being rigged, having software as high action for everyone is one thing, now they are going to tweak the program for every swinging dick that sucks? C'mon.
If they are action junkies, it doesn't matter what the software has to do, they will still call A LOT preflop and will still call with any piece of the flop. You see 4x as many hands online, there is plenty of hands for action players see.
I wouldnt think it would be that difficult. You culd probably even write an algorithm that simply id's players that constantly re-ups and distinguishes them as players you want the program to give more beats.
It's all about profit maximization for these companies, and this would be such a simple way to do it. Who would ever find out?
I know, its super unlikely, but I wouldn't put it past a site to do it.
For instance, also, on the casino games... if they know a certain account is likely to play online blackjack for action, whether they win or lose, why not program it to fuck them harder than statistics would dictate standardly?
0
I wouldnt think it would be that difficult. You culd probably even write an algorithm that simply id's players that constantly re-ups and distinguishes them as players you want the program to give more beats.
It's all about profit maximization for these companies, and this would be such a simple way to do it. Who would ever find out?
I know, its super unlikely, but I wouldn't put it past a site to do it.
For instance, also, on the casino games... if they know a certain account is likely to play online blackjack for action, whether they win or lose, why not program it to fuck them harder than statistics would dictate standardly?
well here's another angle, if the program was rigged, then the money these action heads lose won't be going to the poker website but to another player.
so your argument's basis is a little misunderstood because unless these noob poker players are losing it to a company employee that is pretending to be a player, they aren't necessarily handing money over to the poker site.
remember they only make money off of the rake, and when these new players start out they will be in the micro to low stakes. rake there is like 15 cents.
in my opinion it just seems that it would take too much money and effort to rig the random card software so that they make profit that really isn't that much to begin with. in another words, the benefit cost analysis of setting something up is shittttt
0
well here's another angle, if the program was rigged, then the money these action heads lose won't be going to the poker website but to another player.
so your argument's basis is a little misunderstood because unless these noob poker players are losing it to a company employee that is pretending to be a player, they aren't necessarily handing money over to the poker site.
remember they only make money off of the rake, and when these new players start out they will be in the micro to low stakes. rake there is like 15 cents.
in my opinion it just seems that it would take too much money and effort to rig the random card software so that they make profit that really isn't that much to begin with. in another words, the benefit cost analysis of setting something up is shittttt
So basically, the online site is trying to make the game juicier for an already donk action junky? How much thinking did it take for you to come up with this theory?
0
So basically, the online site is trying to make the game juicier for an already donk action junky? How much thinking did it take for you to come up with this theory?
Listen to my basic premise, you can't poke holes in it.
The site identifies players that habitually re-up.
The site tags these players to lose.
The site doesn't give a fuck if other people "win" the money because it simply means more money is in the system, which in turn leads to higher rakes and profits.
In addition, there is at least the minimal benefit of other players "winning", players less frequently reupping, and keeping them in the game and not withdrawing.
As long as money is in the game, they welcome it. the more cash in action the better for hte company.
Think if they had some donk richass guy who could put in 1k a day (conservative estimate) ... you don't think the site would want him to bust sooner than the guy who puts in 25 a week?
They could almost simply write a program that targets withdrawing players and reuppers to lose most.
0
Listen to my basic premise, you can't poke holes in it.
The site identifies players that habitually re-up.
The site tags these players to lose.
The site doesn't give a fuck if other people "win" the money because it simply means more money is in the system, which in turn leads to higher rakes and profits.
In addition, there is at least the minimal benefit of other players "winning", players less frequently reupping, and keeping them in the game and not withdrawing.
As long as money is in the game, they welcome it. the more cash in action the better for hte company.
Think if they had some donk richass guy who could put in 1k a day (conservative estimate) ... you don't think the site would want him to bust sooner than the guy who puts in 25 a week?
They could almost simply write a program that targets withdrawing players and reuppers to lose most.
I mean every other company in the world has CRM and ERP software that id's potential high $ clients. Vegas will practically suck your dick at the table if you are a high roller. Whats so far fetched about an online site, which is subject to no gaming jurisdictional board like in Nevada, to tweak the probablities to yeild more profitable results? Look at how much money is to be made on a site like fulltilt. More is probably made off the rake in an hour there than in a full day in Vegas.
0
I mean every other company in the world has CRM and ERP software that id's potential high $ clients. Vegas will practically suck your dick at the table if you are a high roller. Whats so far fetched about an online site, which is subject to no gaming jurisdictional board like in Nevada, to tweak the probablities to yeild more profitable results? Look at how much money is to be made on a site like fulltilt. More is probably made off the rake in an hour there than in a full day in Vegas.
Thinking the site is going to target already action players for more action is just stupid, they are going to get their chips in the pot regardless. So, you are wrong, end of story. Now I have to ignore you.
0
Thinking the site is going to target already action players for more action is just stupid, they are going to get their chips in the pot regardless. So, you are wrong, end of story. Now I have to ignore you.
there is no doubt in my mind stars has some form of cash out punishment. everytime i cash out i start to take horrendously bad beats. the bulk of the money made by these sites is not the rake its the interest made off the money they have held in players accounts. that money is held in interest bearing accounts and other investments. its not like they take your deposit and put it in a shoebox under a matress. that money is making them more money. therefore it is in the sites best interest to keep as much money in players accounts as possible. cash out punishment IS a reality. i have spoken to dozens of players with accurate records and hand history prior to cash out and after cash out. and there is a SERIOUS increase in bad beats. i now wait to cash out untill it will be a large payment and then only play very small limits for a month or so after that
0
there is no doubt in my mind stars has some form of cash out punishment. everytime i cash out i start to take horrendously bad beats. the bulk of the money made by these sites is not the rake its the interest made off the money they have held in players accounts. that money is held in interest bearing accounts and other investments. its not like they take your deposit and put it in a shoebox under a matress. that money is making them more money. therefore it is in the sites best interest to keep as much money in players accounts as possible. cash out punishment IS a reality. i have spoken to dozens of players with accurate records and hand history prior to cash out and after cash out. and there is a SERIOUS increase in bad beats. i now wait to cash out untill it will be a large payment and then only play very small limits for a month or so after that
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
