So I asked this question - Is there a list of sites that generate pure random hands? - my first question asked on the site, although I have thumbed through the site hundreds of times.

I am a long time poker player and have won a lot of money both online but mainly in in-person tournies. I ALWAYS win over time. Maybe not a lot higher than rake but I win. Now in-person tournies are harder to come by and really it is hard to trust online sites.

So if a site can't take a question like mine serious... then it is useless to me. My first question is how do I know I am getting fair cards (even playing in-person).

The WSOP app is the most rigged system I have ever seen. I finally figured out what makes it tick and it is all about them getting you to buy chips. They want players to play at higher stake tournaments. They only need to rig those as there is little use in rigging the little things. So there is a cut-off point of stakes where if I get involved in a tournament the only way I can win is if I see my hand first. If I go all-in blindly I will lose 80% of the time no matter what and my average odds put me winning over 62.5%.

I don't "care" - I love seeing it because it is like watching a car accident. I find it absolutely fascinating the programming that must go in it. I am at 22 hands in a row of having Ace (X) and opponent Ace (lower than X) and losing every single one.

If I play in a high stake tourney I can't win. Maybe 1 out of 50. When I do win it is complete horse shit. Computer gives me AA two or three times with a bunch of three of a kinds. When I play at a low stake tourney I win 1 of 2.5 and the odds should be 1 out of 25. The players suck for sure but they suck at the high stake ones too.

My point is if this site wants to be something then it needs to accept that there are issues with online poker and discuss those. If you aren't discussing those then you are missing about 80% of what poker has become. If this site has their programming down this good I would assume all sites could do it. No use in discussing when to go all in if I lose 60% of my AA all-ins head to head.

  • Nooooo :D another one who complains about WSOP! I never downloaded it and by reading the comments of people complaining I did not dare to download it. But good to know one who playes WSOP. Anyway, the only answer is like the one I received to my question: Manage to download a huge bulk of data and analyze it. You will need TONS of data since you will account for combinations and permutations as cardinality, which are both above 1.000.000 possibilities. Jun 30, 2016 at 22:28
  • @LuisMasuelli It isn't about complaining it is the obvious complexity of the rigging. It literally took me one week to start seeing hand patterns. You see the EXACT same hands over and over. One that I love has you hold JQ and flops 9/J/Q. Someone else will have K/10 and another will have AQ. There are several hands that pop up like this. So you have to remember the pattern or have absolute nuts to even bet. The overall pattern to the site is a good two pair is earned on river and early two pair (3 of a kind flopped too) will get beat by straight or flush almost 80% of the time.
    – blankip
    Jun 30, 2016 at 23:00
  • It is not bad to complain! Actually it is good for me, since I asked a question regarding how can I tell when a site is rigged considering one or more users complain like this, and quoted the WSOP case, although I only read the comments and did not download the app because of them. Jun 30, 2016 at 23:02
  • @LuisMasuelli ... cont - so the site is rigged... so what? Well it isn't about this stupid app. It is about if they can do it this well and engage so much "play" on each hand - entertainment level is up for sure, than what can the boys that control money do? They can do anything they want. Even if you view normal distribution on its own - that doesn't matter. It only matters on does normal flop odds play out and are flop odds changed based on size of bets? And then the last question is do you call against certain hands at certain points - odds don't matter if comp has picked winner!
    – blankip
    Jun 30, 2016 at 23:05
  • I think this question is not the place to ask what you are asking. My reasoning is the following: If I manage to have a huge history and prove there is no uniform random and there is somehow a trend given the behavior of a player, then I wistleblow it and dont play anymore!! If I cannot but I feel scammed, I ask for other ways or just dont play there anymore. Jun 30, 2016 at 23:11
  • But never risk money in an online server unless you're sure you feel like playing there. Be observer in many tables, while trying to focusing on specific random players you choose and see whether you feel the game is fair. Unless you find a huge history you will never know. Jun 30, 2016 at 23:12
  • Said this, I have no more value to add to your need, due to already having said it, or lacking of the exact same information you lack of. Jun 30, 2016 at 23:13
  • However for this question I already answered: this site has not the appropriate format for our specific needs, so we are forced to change the scope of our questions. Jun 30, 2016 at 23:14
  • I strongly doubt that this guy is a winning player
    – David
    Aug 1, 2019 at 9:59

2 Answers 2


Simply put, if you cant offer any statistical evidence that can be analysed, then you're offering an opinion. It seems you have offered your experiences which may well be valid, though only if you share your experiences with data to back them up.

Unless someone can refute your experience by independently checking your statements for truth, then what you have offered is "primarily opinion based". These sites, play money or real money keep records that are audited. You'd need to access that data to make the case that you claim for "rigging" the game.

Id be happy to look over it if you had that data.

  • I would be happy for someone to prove me wrong. There is no way I can get the data independently that I know of. This is what I am saying - this is the biggest question when you play poker now. You say it is opinion based, I say every answer on the site is opinion based because you are answering based on random odds. I don't think the online game works that way. Even bigger sites I have won real money on - their hands were not truly random.
    – blankip
    Jun 27, 2016 at 21:47
  • To make a claim you cannot prove, or even offer tentative evidence for, won't work on this site, or anywhere. Even a probabilistic answer with confidence levels is impossible as you offer no data.
    – Toby Booth
    Jun 27, 2016 at 21:53
  • Not getting it. You are assuming that the sites have legit hands when you give advice. I am simply saying that all sites should be presumed guilty until someone can canonically prove them innocent. We are talking about programs. Even if you think a site is flushing a "fair" set of hands it is easy to program your "good" hands as slightly worse than someone else's good hands. We we are talking about poker it needs to be analyzed like any other computer program.
    – blankip
    Jun 27, 2016 at 22:03
  • The sites I play on are all independently audited. I'm confident enough in their fairness which is why I choose to play there. Also, good poker strategy is independent of whether a site is fair or not. Checking fairness is up to you.
    – Toby Booth
    Jun 27, 2016 at 22:26
  • "Even if you think a site is flushing a "fair" set of hands it is easy to program your "good" hands as slightly worse than someone else's good hands." - This statement contradicts itself.
    – Toby Booth
    Jun 27, 2016 at 22:29
  • No the statements don't contradict themselves. You don't understand them, as you don't understand the topic I have posted. I don't know what I can do to help you get it. Your answer in no way answers my question nor does it broach understanding my topic. No offense because I see you are a mod but this "not getting it" is a theme I am seeing on the site and maybe why site isn't getting the hits.
    – blankip
    Jun 27, 2016 at 22:50
  • Ok, fair enough. A simple yes/no then; Are you asking if a poker site is generating random hands?
    – Toby Booth
    Jun 27, 2016 at 22:58
  • Poker is a game based on statistics. I would say that 99% of all poker games happen online now. There is a whole SE site dedicated to Poker yet I have seen zero analysis done on randomness of hands. I keep hearing "until you prove otherwise" or it takes a large amount of data to prove an anomaly or if you play poker long enough anything can happen. WAKE UP!!! It is all rigged unless it is proved that its not. Even the most "straight" sites have genius programmers that can easily skim/set up hands. Anyone who ignores this, its hard to take anything they say serious.
    – blankip
    Jun 27, 2016 at 23:12
  • Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Search for the terms "random", or "cheating" on this site and you'll find plenty. Here (poker.stackexchange.com/q/413/88) is one example. Online poker uses pseudo-random number generators, so yes it's not truly random but it is audited, & as close as you'll ever get at this time in history.
    – Toby Booth
    Jun 27, 2016 at 23:29
  • Toby your last comment sums up the site. You are commenting like a sheep. You act like you know online poker is legit. Audited by who and who pays for the auditing and what is in it for the auditor for outing a site? Are you kidding me? Also what is random? My 2s or the table cards? I won for years at a very very big site because I knew one loophole. The sites are even smarter now because they know they might get "audited". Online poker isn't about it being rigged, it is how/can you play in the rigged environment. Please show any proof that one site is random.
    – blankip
    Jun 27, 2016 at 23:37
  • I feel like this is a conversation about baseball and you are telling me that no players are on PEDs because MLB is testing for it. hahahahahahaha
    – blankip
    Jun 27, 2016 at 23:39
  • I've never claimed any site isn't rigged/"legit". I've only given you the sources & methods I use to judge them. Your analogies are misrepresenting my statements, thus irrelevant. Re: auditing, it's a business! What do you think they do it for. Bring evidence and we can settle your question immediately. Ps. That not a defence of poker sites; that's a defence of due process.
    – Toby Booth
    Jun 27, 2016 at 23:53

This website is about poker facts, and not about poker anecdotical records which cannot be cross-checked. This is not a forum, and I seriously doubt the poker.SE chat is actively visited to discuss those topics.

This means:

  • You can ask everything about poker (any poker style) rules.
  • You can ask everything about hour a tornament and a table is lead.
  • You can ask everything about mathematical issues, odds, and so. The answer will be a math calculation.
  • You can ask what would you consider to test whether a site could be rigged, but not if site X is actually rigged unless is widely known.
  • You can ask about how a specific poker company handles a well-known feature. The question here is about a fact, and the answer will be a fact. No detective or hack task is involved here unless a blatantly shameful new regarding a cheating server has occurred, and the fact becomes of public domain. E.g. asking whether Pokerstars uses a sound-sampling-based seed for their randoms could be asked here, and asking about the Absolute Poker scandal can be asked here, but asking about something that is not well-known will not be well-received by the community, specially if the fact cannot be known a priori (i.e. I seriously doubt someone will hack a server to answer your question).

This network, in general, is not about what you believe, but about what you can answer. This is about facts because facts are useful for future readers, while opinions or speculations are not useful, except perhaps to undermine a specific server's reputation, which is not the purpose of the site.

Your question is subjective as long as a direct and documented answer exists elsewhere. If the question is not answerable by documentation or theory, and also cannot be fact-checked easily by anyone, then you're going the wrong way.

By reading this blog entry -which is overly quoted by moderators across the whole SE network without properly giving the appropriate context of applicability or even considering it when judging subjective questions- I suggest you read the item 4. Great subjective questions invite sharing experiences over opinions and 5. Great subjective questions insist that opinion be backed up with facts and references.

  • I agree. My point is that online poker has become the main form of poker. The answers here though around odds/what-to-do use normal random distributions, which have been proven nonsense by analysis of online hands. It is like a fitness site ignoring performance enhancers. If there needs to be "proof" that a site doesn't have normal distribution, I ask what proof is there that they do? It seems that this site is OKing a lot of assumptions that aren't true in most cases.
    – blankip
    Jun 30, 2016 at 22:29
  • This site is about well-known facts. It is not to perform detective tasks. It is not that those activities are bad or contrary to the scientific method, but this site does not have tools for them, nor format for them. It is only a Q&A website, and the chat tools are not engaged appropriately to have discussions like this (which is bad since, as you tell, you lose scope for cases like this). Jun 30, 2016 at 22:44
  • 1
    IMHO this particular site should engage the chat! Since Q&A is not enough to answer theeeese answers. This site has no way to prove that a uniform random distribution is not used, so it is not that users presume those distributions are used, but have no way to presume otherwise. They do not respond this is the truth! but This site has no way to prove that the truth is being violated in this case Jun 30, 2016 at 22:48
  • @blankip "The answers here though around odds/what-to-do use normal random distributions, which have been proven nonsense by analysis of online hands." If you had provided this analysis in your original question there might have been be something interesting to discuss or a question to answer beyond just subjective opinions.
    – 3N1GM4
    Dec 20, 2016 at 14:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .