FTP RNG not certified - Page 2

On November 09 2007 20:51 hockey4433 wrote: There are a number of players who run below expectation on that site, sure you dont win all your 70/30's but it doesnt even out for the better players..yeah you can still win but the suckouts are higher there

proof? this statement makes you look like a rookie fish, not saying you are but "the suckouts are higher there" without documentation? come on

On November 09 2007 20:51 hockey4433 wrote: This is not about blaming a site for losing etc. This iste channels millions and millions per day and there are some very serious players who play these sites and want to be assured that its random and not shady. If a site like bodog or stars has gone thru the trouble of having there rng certified then why wouldnt we expect full tilt to already have done this some time ago. There are a number of players who run below expectation on that site, sure you dont win all your 70/30's but it doesnt even out for the better players..yeah you can still win but the suckouts are higher there

lemme guess, you also think they 'rig' big pots so they can rake more

congrats on losing all credibility, your just another rtarded fish

If the FTP shuffler wasn't up to par, people would have proven it very early on. It's not that hard to gather data and analyze it and come to conclusions with some mathematics/probability wiz

This is more about FTP making a business decision that you might not agree with. They chose not to address the randomness of the shuffler at all publically, probably because they thought that most people didn't even give thought to it, and that addressing the issue of the secure RNG would only raise doubt in the minds of those people that never thought about it anyway (which are in the majority)

To take a defensive position might seem to a lot of people to be an admission of guilt, or at least seem like an admission to the validity of the idea that some shufflers might be rigged. That's probably why FTP decided it wasn't in their best interest to even talk about it

I like what PokerStars did though. They addressed the issue of a secure RNG in a very air-tight way, and then they tucked all that information away deep in their website where it wouldn't be visible to anybody unless they already had doubts to begin with.

The idea that a site like FTP could have a bad shuffler or a rigged shuffler is totally foolish. Talking business, it'd be extremely -EV for them to do such a thing. What they could gain by rigging their shuffler doesn't even compare to what they would lose if they got caught doing it. And online poker is so transparent, it'd be very easy to get caught

On November 09 2007 21:30 qu4nTum-fLuX wrote: Show nested quote + On November 09 2007 20:51 hockey4433 wrote: This is not about blaming a site for losing etc. This iste channels millions and millions per day and there are some very serious players who play these sites and want to be assured that its random and not shady. If a site like bodog or stars has gone thru the trouble of having there rng certified then why wouldnt we expect full tilt to already have done this some time ago. There are a number of players who run below expectation on that site, sure you dont win all your 70/30's but it doesnt even out for the better players..yeah you can still win but the suckouts are higher there lemme guess, you also think they 'rig' big pots so they can rake more congrats on losing all credibility, your just another rtarded fish

Don't you just love 136 post forum creeper losers who can't wait to jump on the bandwagon insulting someone? Sure what he said was kind of silly but it speaks for itself.

The certification companies have no credibility anyway (read: they are uncertified), so it's irrelevant.

The basic retort to "x site is rigged in a statistical way" (ie not "people can see my holecards" but "I lose all the coinflips" is that it's very very easy to analyse these situations on Poker Tracker. Especially with FTP, which is dataminable, you can very Quickly build statistically significant databases and analyse them. Nobody has come forward and stood any heat with such a database of hands showing a statistical anomaly over a very large sample siZe, so I'm not concerned.

hm this is bad indeed. there was the AP scandal...and everyone knows Stars is rigged, now it has been confirmed that FT is also.

On November 10 2007 00:00 bigredhoss wrote: hm this is bad indeed. there was the AP scandal...and everyone knows Stars is rigged, now it has been confirmed that FT is also.

i think my flush lost to a straight on rednines, throw that in there too

i run bad at ftp for some reason... i have no idea why... i run good at pstars, everest, party, and prima... tho i stay at party cos it is my bread and butter site and there's still plenty of fish at 1/2...

i know a lot of ppl are gonna flame me... but i think there is something fishy with FTP's rng... i dunno... maybe its just me...

Well the title says it all. I promise you guys I will under no circumstances ever play another hand at Full Tilt poker. I'm not going to go as far as to say it is rigged but I really have my doubts. I know I'll probably get lambasted for this but I am slightly suspicious about what goes on there. I'm going to be perfectly honest with everyone and tell you all about my experiences there. I have played there for the past four months and the quality of play is very poor in my opinion. At least at the mid range NL games. Now I can accept when people simply run bad. I can accpet that that does indeed happen. However I have had such poor results that it defies what math suggests is even within the range of possible. Before I ever played a hand there I had a long track record of winning at a rate of nearly 8PT bb/100. I have over 150k hands there and I am down nearly 3PTbb/100. I'm sorry but no amount of running bad or even mega tilting can account for this. I am very suspicious about that site. If I am all in with one card to come I would estimate that I get rivered close to 95% of the time or more. The site is nuts. I don't know what else to say really. But if you ever see Leatherass9 at Full Tilt poker I can assure you it is my wife goofing around at small stakes or something else weird. I will never seriously play poker there again. I have already cleared all of my money out of there. I now play Pokerstars when I 'm not playing my UB account. UB is my bread and butter.

I hate to even sound like one of those "online poker is rigged guys" but what can you say when you record a -3PTbb/100 150k hand stretch? I have never had a simliar stretch of less than +4PTbb/100 anywhere else. It's literally all on the river card there. The river inevitably comes whatever the hell it needs to come to give my opponent the winning hand. So F U Full Tilt Poker. I'm going to trade my points in for a flat screen and be done with you people. Nice no phone number too.

the above is the data you wanted, author leatherass from stoxs site and truth be told he did right a rebuttal but he does in fact believe what he has written. Many people run worse all in luck on ftp...the better players sufffer more

So this means I should be a 12bb/100 winner at Stars, right?

i dont care where anybody plays or doesnt..if the ap scandal has brought light to possible corruption with other sites and you dont critique or question where your money goes or if its 100 percent legit then you are the fool. Im not even suggesting that ftp is corrupt...just have audits done and at the very least explain your rng....why the heck to other sites go into detail about there rng

thatswhy fgators never won
nvm thought stars too

lol you guys are all retarded. funny thing is most of you people bitching abt this suck at poker. lol. getting FTP certified for their rng is not gonna make u better/win you money. lol

Submitted by : seatown12

Full Tilt Poker Game #4129821187: Table Marina (6 max) - $0.25/$0.50 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:08:39 ET - 2007/11/10
Seat 1: Hero ($74.40)
Seat 2: gionnibgood ($48.40)
Seat 3: mmmchocolate ($169.90)
Seat 4: hobiejuan1 ($48.75)
Seat 5: caspercold ($50)
Seat 6: GambleForMe ($50)
hobiejuan1 posts the small blind of $0.25
caspercold has 5 seconds left to act
caspercold is sitting out
caspercold has timed out
GambleForMe posts the big blind of $0.50
The button is in seat #3

Holecards(Odds)
Dealt to Hero
Hero raises to $2
gionnibgood folds
mmmchocolate calls $2
hobiejuan1 calls $1.75
GambleForMe has 15 seconds left to act
GambleForMe folds

Flop(Odds) (Pot : $6.50)

   
hobiejuan1 checks
Hero bets $5
mmmchocolate folds
hobiejuan1 raises to $17
Hero has 15 seconds left to act
caspercold has returned
Hero raises to $72.40, and is all in
hobiejuan1 calls $29.75, and is all in
Hero shows
hobiejuan1 shows
Uncalled bet of $25.65 returned to Hero

Turn(Odds) (Pot : $100.00)

   

River (Pot : $100.00)

   
Hero shows three of a kind, Fives
hobiejuan1 shows a flush, Ace high
hobiejuan1 wins the pot ($97) with a flush, Ace high

On November 10 2007 10:05 sooon2b wrote: lol you guys are all retarded. funny thing is most of you people bitching abt this suck at poker. lol. getting FTP certified for their rng is not gonna make u better/win you money. lol

This thread is not about being a winner or loser in the long run, it's about how often you flopped 'very good hand' vs 'extremely good hand (or a mega draw)' on some site compared to other site.
I played 900k hands on stars lifetime, and I had a flop setup 'set over set over set' like 6-7 times, catch lots of royal flushes, also i run with KK into AA shorthanded every long session (the probability of that is 4/50*3/49*5 which is 2.448% of all the times u dealt KK pf and thats why THESE ARE TRUE http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sho...4334&page=0&fpart=1&vc=1)
Compare this to partygaming: almost 750k hands total: 1 royal flush ever, KK vs AA once per week (I play 10k hands a week avg.) Alot lesser terrible setups that may tilt me hard.
note that im not a microstake fish who blame RNG instead of himself for pressing call button on a previous street.

On November 10 2007 10:23 TedHastings wrote: Submitted by : seatown12 Full Tilt Poker Game #4129821187: Table Marina (6 max) - $0.25/$0.50 - No Limit Hold'em - 13:08:39 ET - 2007/11/10 Seat 1: Hero ($74.40) Seat 2: gionnibgood ($48.40) Seat 3: mmmchocolate ($169.90) Seat 4: hobiejuan1 ($48.75) Seat 5: caspercold ($50) Seat 6: GambleForMe ($50) hobiejuan1 posts the small blind of $0.25 caspercold has 5 seconds left to act caspercold is sitting out caspercold has timed out GambleForMe posts the big blind of $0.50 The button is in seat #3 Holecards(Odds) Dealt to Hero Hero raises to $2 gionnibgood folds mmmchocolate calls $2 hobiejuan1 calls $1.75 GambleForMe has 15 seconds left to act GambleForMe folds Flop(Odds) (Pot : $6.50)     hobiejuan1 checks Hero bets $5 mmmchocolate folds hobiejuan1 raises to $17 Hero has 15 seconds left to act caspercold has returned Hero raises to $72.40, and is all in hobiejuan1 calls $29.75, and is all in Hero shows hobiejuan1 shows Uncalled bet of $25.65 returned to Hero Turn(Odds) (Pot : $100.00)     River (Pot : $100.00)     Hero shows three of a kind, Fives hobiejuan1 shows a flush, Ace high hobiejuan1 wins the pot ($97) with a flush, Ace high this is no joke, someone contact the Kahnawakee Gambling Commission

OOOOOOOOOOMG SICK HAND THAT SHIT IS SO RIGGED

i once had KK preflop and the villain had AA. such bullshit.

too many good players are running below ev on 2plus2 at ftp..all in luck...the better players are the ones that suffer

I'm a fish but only logical thing that comes to mind to solve this problem is that the players that play high mid stakes and have a huge hand sample in PT (like 1mill hands on FTP and 1mill or stars or somewhere else)run it trough pokerEV graph and if out of 100 players who do this more then 80% shows that they "run worse" on FTP and better on stars might make some kind of a point.

But maybe I'm just talking jibberish as usual.