Online Site Theory

[h0ldem]

Assumptions:

1. Online sites thrive on incoming funds.
2. People with their bank accounts linked to ths site are more likely to deposit money.
3. People with a hisory of depositing money are more likely to deposit money.
4. People with a history of withdrawing money are less likely to keep their money under the site's control.

Definitions:

Favor - To give one player an unfair advantage over another either directly or situationally.


Theory:

Assuming my assumptions are correct it would make sense for the site to 'favor' people less likely to deposit. It would also make sense for the site to 'favor' people who are new to the site.

[Sente]

Just for fun, we'll roll with that theory.

People with a history of withdrawing money would be winning players. If they were losing players, they would out of money and done real quick.

People with a history of depositing money are generally losing players. If you are winning, you don't need to deposit more money unless you wanted a larger bankroll to play at higher limits. Losing players would be the ones running out of money and be needing to deposit more.

I'm confused where it says that sites favor those less likely to deposit since the assumption is that they thrive on deposits. They would favor the people that are most likely to deposit. Why would they favor people taking money out than over putting money in?

So let us believe in conspiracy theory for a while. Sites favor those who deposit most often, which are the losing players...the fish.

How does feeding the fish benefit the site? Well, if a fish deposits and loses their bankroll too quickly, they are done. They have lost too much money too fast. They haven't received enough enjoyment for their money. And they will probably think the site it rigged and not look at their bad play.

Say we subsidize the fish a bit, now they still lose money, but the rate of loss decreases. They get to play longer with their money. Now they get entertainment value, many hours of fun, action and enjoyment for their money. Even though they are still losing, they will have more sessions where they make money for positive reinforcement. Maybe they will even believe that if they were a little bit better or luckier, that they would be making money. Now they are more likely to continue playing and depositing.

So how are the fish subsidzed? We all the know the answer. You have AA, you raise, they call. They flop is A5J rainbow. Turn is 9. River is 4. Fish turns over 23o for the straight made on the river.

So there it is, if you choose to believe the on-line sites are rigged, then logically it would make sense to help out the bad players somewhat so that they continue to deposit. Help is given in the form of miracle rivers more often than the statistical norm when playing garbage cards all the time (which incidently encourages them to continue to play badly) so not only their bankrolls are being helped, but also increased action and more fun.

So I don't get flamed, I am only suggesting that these ideas are a possibility. I am taking a line of thought to following through to a logical conclusion. What is said here may or may not reflect my true thoughts about on-line sites being rigged.

[thecadman]

So how are the fish subsidzed? We all the know the answer. You have AA, you raise, they call. They flop is A5J rainbow. Turn is 9. River is 4. Fish turns over 23o for the straight made on the river.

So there it is, if you choose to believe the on-line sites are rigged, then logically it would make sense to help out the bad players somewhat so that they continue to deposit. Help is given in the form of miracle rivers more often than the statistical norm when playing garbage cards all the time (which incidently encourages them to continue to play badly) so not only their bankrolls are being helped, but also increased action and more fun.

Wow Sente!! You just described my entire experience at Pokerpages. This stuff is exactly what happens in the play money tables. I'm too new to try real money just yet, so all I have to go on is how the play money tables pan out. I'm not too happy with my findings at least on that site and it makes me wonder about others. Bad players are constantly being rewarded on the river card. Hard part for me is trying to deal with that and learn how to play correctly when all I do is lose for playing correctly.

[PuckJunkieNY]

thecadman,

Bad players are not exclusive to play $ tables, I've only been playing online for 1.5 months with real $, and in 3 total. I'm still in my feeling out stage and l only play lower $ game till I decide to go bigger. In the low $ tables such as .25/.50 you see a ton of the river miracles made w/crap (especially in limit), but that has to be expected. I found by playing wise (tight/aggressive in my case) game you can have fun and win. I've tripled my deposit in under two months (I can live w/that) and I'm pretty new to the game overall and very green to online play. I consider online play to mostly be entertainment that pays me a little to play. I usually use small ring game winnings to fund tourney/sit & goes. So far I have only won sit & goes, large tourney win has still not happened, but what the heck...it's fun to play.

I'll leave it to the higher $ players to advise on the trends of those games.

[Sente]

Now in reality, with real money it is very true people will play like that. You get used to being sucked out on after a while. Once you hit your groove, it doesn't even bother you anymore.

I play mostly $50 PL. People will call pot-sized bets on a draw. However, when they do, they are making an error. I'd gladly put as much money in the pot as I can (and force my opponent to do so) when I have a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 advantage over someone. That's how I profit from the game. It is also why I prefer PL to limit. I can make people pay for draw and their mistakes, make them have to push in their whole stack.

You do have to deal the the fact that the 20% (or 25% or 33%) side does win sometimes. I'd glady take winning the battle 2/3 of the time or more.

Part of the problem is that you never see when 23o loses. If they miss, it a meek check-fold or fold on the river (or auto-muck in on even if so some reason it does go to a showdown) assuming the hand hasn't been folded earlier.

My experience with play money is that isn't even a game. I would literally have to go all-in pre-flop to ever see a flop. there is an article on this site about play money games. The guy is showing 3 Aces (in 7 card stud) and every bet of his is getting called, all the way to the river.

[jwrussell]

Honestly, I think you are reading too much into this. Bad players stay in with crap hands looking for that turn or river card that will make a hand. No matter if you are playing on line or in RL, there will always be players doing that. It's only noticeable because you get to see it when they do it. When they hit that impossible hand it also tends to stick in your head. I'm not saying online sights aren't, or can't be rigged, but my guess is that most aren't.

[BeerWench13]

My experience with play money is that isn't even a game.

I agree with Sente on this. What's the point of playing with no stakes? There's nothing to lose, so why not stay in for the "miracle" on the river? It's like going to the track and pretending to bet on the horses.

Don't get me wrong, this happens quite often in real money games too (check out the bad beat section of this forum), but if you bet properly, you can get those fish that are on the draw out of the game before they can get it. This is more difficult in limit play, but much easier in No limit.
I mostly play NL now that I know how to play the game, but I started in limit and found that there are many out there with the notion that "it's only $1, why not see if I can get one of my 4 outs?" This play is common, especially on PartyPoker, since there are over 30K+ players online and most are fish that are just learning the game or thought they'd try it after seeing the ad on the WPT.

I don't know for sure that the game isn't rigged, but I do know that if I'm playing and I let someone stay in the hand when I should have bet them out, and they get the draw, I have no one to blame but myself.
Poker has many variables and I've pulled out my share of wins with "miracle" cards on the river because my opponents let me stay in for that card. The river can make you or it can break you. It's your betting that will make the final card either make the hand for your opponent or not worth seeing for the money that they would have to pay. It's up to you to bet according to your hand and to learn your opponent's betting strategy.

I will say this, if PartyPoker is rigged, then I must have a friend that works there that I don't know about because I haven't had to buy back in since I started playing online about 4 months ago.
Now I will promptly go knock on wood.

[JohnnyCache]

I think part of what causes this effect is no one in a play game ever folds . . . so if you are sitting with 5-7 people at the river, as you often are, you know two things: 1. Not all of them can have the winning hand and B) The odds are much higher that one of them will get a miracle on the fifth card. . . just because with 8 people still in, odds on that the fourth and fifth card are going to be help to somebody . . . it seems to favor the bad player because it never helps a good player, because a good player is already out of the hand when the mircle drops . . .