Online Poker is Unregulated and Can Be Rigged

[pokerprop]

I wrote about this back in May. Though it's nice to see someone else finally pointing it out. Can see this in the HHSmithy video.

Major counters against games being rigged has always been the RNG audits, or sites not wanting to rig their games because they make money from the rake. The first counter has always been flawed, in a long but no where near complete article on regulation my general conclusion about RNG audits is these are beneficial for the sites to know their RNG functions properly. It in no way confirms or even hints to a player that the games are fair - it only confirms these sites on that particular day with this particular hardware and code were capable of dealing that output. Other factors outside the RNG are not anlayzed, nor are audits done on actual hands dealt nor do we know the RNG given for audit was the one used, nor are live gaming systems tested nor do they look for the presence of weighing systems or anything else. In short RNG audits do not a thing to ensure games are fair; they are for the benefit of the sites only.

The second counter is flawed a well. Bodog is going to great lengths in an attempt to drive away winners. If (and this is a huge if that accuses no one) a site was dishonest, a far better method to simply driving away winners would be to rig games against them. This would accomplish what Bodog is preaching about, far more effectively than they're going about it. This is a FACT - the only reason it changes is if it was detectable or the site was guaranteed honest - the risk might be greater, it might now become a crime, but the fact it would be far more effective (if sure to get away with it) does not change.

The entire idea that:

1) RNG audits protect games from being rigged = FALSE
2) Site have no motivation to rig games = FALSE

RNG audits do little to nothing to ensure games are fair, and sites have plenty of motivation to rig games. They might all be honest, or scared to be caught and not attempt it but I repeat "RNG audits do little to nothing to ensure games are fair, and sites have plenty of motivation to rig games."

Thoughts on Bodog

Bodog is well within their rights to launch any game they choose or to modify their poker software anyway they want. I'm within my rights to share my personal opinion which is: I strongly suspect Boodg did this with dishonest intentions and will be cheating players soon. I have no proof of that, am not saying there is no room for doubt, I'm only stating this is my very strong suspicion. I'm not going to waste time if no one else is interested in discussing but would be willing to share more in the future if an intelligent conversation follows (I will not be the third, fourth, fifth or most likely even sixth person to respond to this thread).

[parttimepoker]

You say this (bold is mine)

The second counter is flawed a well. Bodog is going to great lengths in an attempt to drive away winners. If (and this is a huge if that accuses no one) a site was dishonest, a far better method to simply driving away winners would be to rig games against them. This would accomplish what Bodog is preaching about, far more effectively than they're going about it. This is a FACT - the only reason it changes is if it was detectable or the site was guaranteed honest - the risk might be greater, it might now become a crime, but the fact it would be far more effective (if sure to get away with it) does not change.

... but then you get rid of the "if" entirely and say it's a matter of time before Bodog reveals their dishonesty.

Bodog is well within their rights to launch any game they choose or to modify their poker software anyway they want. I'm within my rights to share my personal opinion which is: I strongly suspect Boodg did this with dishonest intentions and will be cheating players soon. I have no proof of that, am not saying there is no room for doubt, I'm only stating this is my very strong suspicion. I'm not going to waste time if no one else is interested in discussing but would be willing to share more in the future if an intelligent conversation follows (I will not be the third, fourth, fifth or most likely even sixth person to respond to this thread).

I have a ton of respect for your research skills and ability to uncover what stinks about this industry. That said, it seems like you have a real focus on smacking down Bodog these last couple of weeks (the hacking, the cashout complaints, now this).

Is there a history of Bodog practicing fraud in their book, casino or affiliate program that I don't know about? Given their long and loud opposition to rooms that cater to "sharks" - several years now - wouldn't it be odd to draw that much attention to yourself if your ultimate plan was to cheat players?

I do understand the logical line between an environment that favors casual players and software designed to tilt the odds in their favor. You definitely make an interesting point. I'm just letting you know that from my perspective as a reader, you seem to have something personal driving your posts / articles.

Anyhow, great post, this sort of discussion is imperative if affiliates are going to do more than just mindlessly promote rooms with the highest CPAs that week.

Disclosure - I promote Bodog via PokerSource's free bankroll on a site or two, and via a banner on another site. My earnings are < 1k a month from anything related to Bodog.

[Shay]

Is there a history of Bodog practicing fraud in their book, casino or affiliate program that I don't know about?

Without going back into Prop's posts for formal citations (when I read his writing, I tend to read a whole lot longer than I planned to because it is quite insightful), I believe his original concern was the combination of their anonymous tables, their shift away from being friendly to "winning players" and most importantly if I understood correctly the upcoming re-branding under a group headed up by someone close to AP/UB/Kahnawake - groups with a track record of turning a blind eye and/or acting unethically.

[pokerprop]

I will respond one single time. "thoughts on Bodog" was intended as a header to indicate "personal opinion to follow". In research articles I like to use the word summary opinion for section name as a header and keep those words italicized to show the difference between factual position and findings open for dispute, and opinion which is opinion. Obviously on forums it's often not clear. Regarding the rest no one man forum thread from me on this topic

[thefarang]

1) RNG audits protect games from being rigged = FALSE

RNG audits do little to nothing to ensure games are fair, and sites have plenty of motivation to rig games. They might all be honest, or scared to be caught and not attempt it but I repeat "RNG audits do little to nothing to ensure games are fair, and sites have plenty of motivation to rig games."

I want to make a distinction here. While you are correct in saying that RNG audits do not, in themselves, ensure that nothing funny is going on, it is not correct to conclude that rigging games is necessarily easy (which you did not say but I worry some people may infer). A further distinction should be made between cheating and rigging.

UB and AP cheated. They did not set up a poker site that had doom switches or rewarded players for making bad plays which is what rigging a game is. They left in a backdoor that someone exploited against players which is cheating.

Rigging the game is very complex because there are thousands of variables and if you mess up covering your tracks even slightly the whole thing comes tumbling down. I mean, just look at Bodog, Ongame, and iPoker trying to come up with these rake models that discourage good players. They can't even get them right (in my opinion) so if that is just a handful of the factors in rigging a game it's easy to see how complex rigging the entire game for maximum profitability would be.

And while you are correct in saying that RNG tests the randomness of the algorithm used to generate cards but does not guarantee fair play, there are other studies done that have used actual hands dealt rather than hypothetical randomness. There have been at least several of these done on 2+2 over the years using actual hand histories from the players. Likewise, I was at Party when a particularly famous economist/author asked for hand histories for a billion hands or so in order to prove poker was a game of skill. We actually had to fight with Full Tilt over this because they wanted their name mentioned in his results and they wanted to supply the hand histories.

The bottom line is that Bodog is clueless about poker. They are sportsbook and casino guys. They don't understand the poker model correctly. Even as much as I respect Kim Lund, formerly of Ongame, he and I have had debates as I think the people running network models just won't come to terms with the fact that the network model is fundamentally flawed which is why they feel the need to impose their will on the players via convoluted point/rake distributions which penalize players for doing exactly what is in the player's best interest of doing (maximizing profitability).

To me, the network model is a lot like communism. It sounds great on paper but it relies on betting against human nature. And when the architects of such a system start to figure out that people will act in their own self-interests they try to force people into a pattern of behavior via force.

But that doesn't make Bodog or any other network operator more or less likely to rig their games. In fact, their follies trying to impose their will on players should serve as evidence of the fact they don't even understand the problem well enough to have the expertise to rig the games in a way that they wouldn't get caught.

[parttimepoker]

Without going back into Prop's posts for formal citations (when I read his writing, I tend to read a whole lot longer than I planned to because it is quite insightful), I believe his original concern was the combination of their anonymous tables, their shift away from being friendly to "winning players" and most importantly if I understood correctly the upcoming re-branding under a group headed up by someone close to AP/UB/Kahnawake - groups with a track record of turning a blind eye and/or acting unethically.

I'm not intending to play Bodog defense or anything in this thread, but I wanted to respond / clarify:

My point when asking the question about the history of their book and casino was that poker would be a strange place to start "rigging the game" if you have an otherwise clean rep for your book and your casino. It would be idiotic to risk that reputation for the sake of rigging your room so that fish lose their money more slowly.

Bodog has never been friendly to "winning players", at least not in the last few years, so that's nothing new. If they wanted to tilt the odds slightly in losing players favor - no mean feat, as Bill points out - they could do that without anonymous tables in a way that would be impossible to prove statistically.

You could do the same with insider cheating, etc. Were it not for a few blatant POTRIPPER hands where the cheaters just couldn't control themselves, there's a very good chance the AP/UB scandal would have never broken at all.

What I understood was that the US players at Bodog were being shifted over to a new room controlled by the Morris Mohawk group. Morris has a connection to Kahnawake, but no direct connection to AP / UB that I am aware of. I don't even know if this new room will use the Bodog software or the anonymous table feature. If I'm incorrect about any of that, please let me know.

...

I guess I ultimately feel like it's a bit of a leap to go from "bodog has anonymous tables and publicly disparages winning players / poker room models that reward winning players" to "bodog is going to rig games to favor weaker players". That said, it seems like nothing is out of the question anymore when it comes to online poker.

[pokerprop]

If they wanted to tilt the odds slightly in losing players favor - no mean feat, as Bill points out - they could do that without anonymous tables in a way that would be impossible to prove statistically.

Consider the slightest tilt as a whole with player's style, win rates, etc. known. Then add in thousands of players and millions of hands. Impossible to prove statistically or not?

[parttimepoker]

Pretty sure you could, yes. Just screw a small % a small % of the time - you'd never know where to look for proof.

[pokerprop]

Someone you all know wrote an over 3,000 word response to this thread, but did not feel it was in his best interest to share it publicly. He gave that to me with a note I had permission to use it on any of my sites. In any case that response can be read here:

Response to Suspicion Bodog Poker will Rig Games

Please respect this member's privacy and not participate in discussions here or privately about who wrote this.

[parttimepoker]

Big winners are not necessary for the stability of the game. Props do that job just fine. As for casual players being kept in the channel by rigging, you could argue that when you rig in favor of the casual player you'll actually cause them to go bust quicker because they'll play even more recklessly since they're "running hot".

It's worth noting that the word "if" appears 52 times in that post. Again, to return to Bill's analysis, that's a lot of variables you have to get right for an outcome you're not even sure will be positive - and you're taking the action against the risk of being caught, which is significant.

Also, I wish someone would clarify one way or the other if the Morris room is actually going to be using the Bodog software / be part of a Bodog network or act as a standalone room.

I will in no way dispute that the KGC can't be trusted to regulate a bag of M&M's - too many bags would come out all red . I don't know anything about Morris, not enough to have an opinion, but the association with the KGC isn't in his favor in my opinion.

I don't have a horse in the race, I just think it's an interesting discussion. I appreciate the analysis of the post (It did make me nostalgic for NBA Jams) - and from Prop - but I really feel like the gap between "could happen" and "will happen / is happening" in this scenario is pretty large.

If I was running a room that had this sort of issue, I would just hire props, pay them hourly and limit their winnings to some amount. I would also give casual players losing money bonus cash, just like a casino would, to keep them in the channel longer. I have to think the cost of those two steps is a lot cheaper than an elaborate software rigging that would require a math PhD or three to design and a CS pro or three to implement.

Plus then you'd have to kill all those people so they wouldn't talk, and that ain't cheap (nor is there a marketplace thread for it currently).