Stars admits that RNG has NOT been audited since 2003

[hlester25]

Took me 2 weeks of being totally ignored and over 20 emails before I finally received this response...

Hello xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your email. The last official audit on
the RNG was in 2003 although thousands of players
continue to audit it on a regular basis utilizing hand
histories and analysis programs. Please understand
that further audits on a random number generator are
not necessarily unless evidence arises that it has
somehow stopped performing as expected; such evidence
has not surfaced in regards to our RNG.

I hope that helps answer your question. Please let us
know if there is anything else we can do for you.

Regards,

Larry
PokerStars Support Team

[a500lbgorilla]

"I understand that there would be no need for further auditing if I could trust that the RNG of today remains identical to the RNG of 2003, but as you enjoy the privilege of snagging a vig on the transfer of millions of dollars daily, something tells me that my concerns for the authenticity of your RNG are grounded in a little bit of common sense."

See if they won't offer up a bit more privileged information.

[Jason]

Any back story on this? Do we think the RNG is bad, flawed, being exploited? What if they had said it was audited this morning and got an A+?

[bode]

i know nothing about RNG's really, but would that be the sort of thing that once its working rigth (i.e. after the 2003 audit), and the coding hasn't been altered, that it would always be just as random? It doesn't seem like a random number generator would get less random over time. I mean, its not like its an old piece of machinery that needs to be oiled every year or it slows down, right?

[a500lbgorilla]

Right, and I trust that the RNG is still as R as ever, but that doesn't mean we can't push them a little.

[flomo]

i want more randomness, not just the minimum requirements
i also want it more fresher and newer not the old shit

[spoonitnow]

This same bullshit was posted in the zoo on 2p2. Obvious trolls are obvious.

[hlester25]

This same bullshit was posted in the zoo on 2p2. Obvious trolls are obvious.

is there a problem with this thread? What harm can come from more security?

[givememyleg]

good, they will never catch my superuser account then

[Jason]

It just seems random, pushy, and vague. It looks like someone emailed Stars multiple times out of the blue like they are looking to pick a fight.

I'm not against more security, but I think there are better ways to approach them. If you and others can't predict what cards are coming next and don't have any data to prove the RNG is flawed, I would say you don't have a leg to stand on.

[spoonitnow]

This same bullshit was posted in the zoo on 2p2. Obvious trolls are obvious.

is there a problem with this thread? What harm can come from more security?

When people who have no clue what the fuck they're talking about spread shit like this it only causes more people who have no clue what the fuck they're talking about to know less about what the fuck they're talking about. That's the harm that comes with spreading senseless bullshit like this.

[Erpel]

This same bullshit was posted in the zoo on 2p2. Obvious trolls are obvious.

is there a problem with this thread? What harm can come from more security?

Fly much?

There's security and then there is ineffective draconic harassment being carried out in the name of security. The two are not the same.

Yeah, I was talking about airport security, not (necessarily) this crusade. But the point holds. Any sensible approach to security will assess the EFFECT of measures intended to improve security as well as the administrative COST.

A randon number generator, once working and certifiably random, will continue to work as long as it is not modified. You could make an argument that it would be just as worrying (or more worrying) if PokerStars felt the need to audit their RNG twice a year - what makes them think the behaviour may have changed?

I read their statement to state simply - we did a good job with an RNG that was audited last in 2003 and we're proud not to have needed to change it since - and because we have not changed it no additional audit has been relevant. When time since last audit is time since last change the longer this period is, the better a mark of quality it is.

[hlester25]

This same bullshit was posted in the zoo on 2p2. Obvious trolls are obvious.

is there a problem with this thread? What harm can come from more security?

Fly much?

There's security and then there is ineffective draconic harassment being carried out in the name of security. The two are not the same.

Yeah, I was talking about airport security, not (necessarily) this crusade. But the point holds. Any sensible approach to security will assess the EFFECT of measures intended to improve security as well as the administrative COST.

A randon number generator, once working and certifiably random, will continue to work as long as it is not modified. You could make an argument that it would be just as worrying (or more worrying) if PokerStars felt the need to audit their RNG twice a year - what makes them think the behaviour may have changed?

I read their statement to state simply - we did a good job with an RNG that was audited last in 2003 and we're proud not to have needed to change it since - and because we have not changed it no additional audit has been relevant. When time since last audit is time since last change the longer this period is, the better a mark of quality it is.

If they are proud in regards to this matter then how come it took two weeks of being ignored and almost 2 dozen emails before I even got ackowledged. In the same time frame I emailed about depositing and got two responses back within 2 hours. And even when I finally got a reply, I was idshjeartened bc all they did was dance around and duck my question. After a few days of hounding they finally gave in.

[hlester25]

this was my 6th or 7th email asking about an audit...

To whom it may concern:

Hello, my name is xxxxxxxxxxxxx. I go by the username AMEC04 on your site (Poker Stars). The reason I am inquiring you is to ask one simple solitary question. When is the last time your RNG was audited by a reputable third party organization? I realize that it will take weeks or even months for you to find out this information, as I am just hoping to get a response reassuring me that you are attempting to discover the answer. As a paying customer to your site for over 5 years, I think I deserve the right to know the answer to this question. Thank you for your obviously valuable time and gl in oyur future endeavors.

Regards,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AMEC04

[hlester25]

After asking why a paying customer was consistantly being ignored I got this response...

Hello xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,

Thank you again for your email to PokerStars and for taking the time to
write back to us.

First, I want to say that we appreciate the concerns that you have and as a
fellow poker player myself who also goes through some rough moments in poker
I completely understand how you feel.

Now if you are offended by the lack of responses, then please accept my most
humble apologies. We have no intention of ignoring you. We most definitely
appreciate your loyalty and patronage to our site, and hope you will do so
for many years to come.

Having said all this, I have reviewed your email history with us and notice
that we have addressed our site integrity concerns with you on quite a
number of occasions. We have stated a lot of facts and presented to you a
different number of ways to help you better understand how the long term
game of poker truly works. After all that we have offered, there comes a
point where we feel that we can no longer respond to you with anything of
further constructive value to your questions that deal with our site
integrity.

Sending any further emails about how your pocket Aces was beaten by
deuce-seven offsuit will only result in receiving the same educational
responses time and time again from us. So what would be the point then of
having us respond at all if we have already issued multiple responses and
clearly no effective communication is being established?

As a final note and to summarize all that we have stated on the subject
surrounding site integrity - know that bad beats happen. Please accept it as
it is an integral part of poker. Writing about how much it happens to us
will not change that fact.

Again, any further emails surrounding the subject of site integrity will not
be answered. This is by no means to state that we are ignoring you or to
offend you in anyway. We will still gladly help you out with any other
questions you have regarding your account.

If there is anything else we can do for you, please let us know and we will
be glad to help you. I sincerely wish you the best of luck.

Regards,

David C
PokerStars Support Team


We have recently provided an easy to use contact method in the PokerStars
client. To take advantage of this feature go to the Help menu in the client
and select "Contact Support". Please note this feature requires you to be
logged into your account.

[hlester25]

Clearly unsatisfied with the response I responded wit the following...

Thank you for the reply, and I greatly appreciate your effort at a response. However, the question I had was not answered, nor was it even remotely addressed. I cant help but feel that you are intentionally ducking my question. Again, I will ask when the last time your RNG was audited by a third party organization? Thanks in advance for answering this question for me. Nowhere in this post have I complained about a bad beat or questioned the integrity of your site... I just asked a simple honest question. I will ask it again for clarity... when was the last time your RNG was audited by a third party organization? Thanks again.

AMEC04

[hlester25]

Hello xxxxxxxxx,
>
> Thanks for the reply and for clarifying the matter.
>
> The RnG software was audited by two independent
> companies. This may have
> been a few years ago but the software has never been
> changed. So the time
> frame involved is irrelevant.
>
> You can find details of this here:
>
> http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/rng/
>
> If there is anything else we can help you with, please
> don't hesitate to
> contact us.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael S
> PokerStars Support Team
>

[hlester25]

Thank you very much, I appreciate the response. It does make me feel better to know this information. However I have a one more minor inquiry and I thank you for your patience and diligence on the matter. Exactly how long ago was the last audit? You stated that it came "a few years ago" and that it is "irrelevant". I'm not exactly sure exactly how many years is a few because I personally find that information very relevant. Thanks again,
AMEC04

[hlester25]

again I went ignored for a few days...

Is there a specific reason as to why I am being ignored again? This entire situation has me a little uneasy, like you have something to hide. I do not understand what is so hard about answering my question. Ill ask it again... How long ago was the last audit? Thanks again.

AMEC04


a follow up email...

Also, if the information I am requesting is somehow top secret, sensitive information, then I sincerely apoligize for requesting it.

regards,
AMEC04

[hlester25]

then afterclose to 2 dozne emails and 2 weeks of being ignored I got the answer I was looking for...

Hello xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,

Thank you for your email. The last official audit on
the RNG was in 2003 although thousands of players
continue to audit it on a regular basis utilizing hand
histories and analysis programs. Please understand
that further audits on a random number generator are
not necessarily unless evidence arises that it has
somehow stopped performing as expected; such evidence
has not surfaced in regards to our RNG.

I hope that helps answer your question. Please let us
know if there is anything else we can do for you.

Regards,

Larry
PokerStars Support Team

[hlester25]

Best part is I already knew that they had not been audtied since 2003, I just wanted to hear it from them

[ChrisBCritter]

Whippdee fucking doo. Do you want a cookie?

[kingnat]

Hello xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,

Sending any further emails about how your pocket Aces was beaten by
deuce-seven offsuit will only result in receiving the same educational
responses time and time again from us. So what would be the point then of having us respond at all if we have already issued multiple responses and clearly no effective communication is being established?


Regards,

I <3 David C.

[Erpel]

Best part is I already knew that they had not been audtied since 2003, I just wanted to hear it from them

Fantastic. You're a moron. So you deliberately waste PS supports time with questions you already know the answer to. You have unearthed a horrible truth that is completely and utterly innocuous to anyone with two brain cells.

Just to try to prevent anyone from following you into ga-ga-land let me briefly present the correct perspective.

A die is a physical RNG. Where it is produced lots of dice are produced. As part of a quality control exercise a sample of the produced dice are tossed a large number of times to ensure by statistical means that no flaw or weighing has been introduced in the manufacturing process. Once a batch of dice that have been produced using the same manufacturing process and materials has been certified the whole batch is stamped as good for an effective life. Dice have an effective life because wear and tear and material decomposition may mean in the longer term that it no longer rolls true.

With dice, if you want to be particularly dilligent that they roll true for any event that is determined by dice you either make sure you use a new set of dice or you submit an existing set of dice to a statistical analysis so you can verify that they roll true before they are used in the event.

The same statistical analysis is used on a computer RNG to determine if it rolls true random. However, in the case of a computer RNG there is no aging. No matter how dilligent you wish to be, there is never an argument for re-verifying a computer RNG based on time alone. If and only if the initial statistical methods are called into question or if statistically significant (huge) amounts of data indicates that it does not roll true should this question be revisited.

A computer RNG that has at any point been audited and verified to be sufficiently random to be considered true random will be statistically closer to true random than a physical deck of cards. If this fact is not obvious to you, then there really is no hope for you.

The PS RNG has not been audited since 2003 because not auditing it is THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

Now that you have your answer I can only hope you will stop wasting PS supports time. And now please stop wasting ours too.

[hlester25]

buuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, just got a case of the shills

[GatorJH]

early candidate for worst thread of 2010.

[hlester25]

early candidate for worst thread of 2010.

congrats now u are part of it, couldnt resist could you

[bode]

Love the ownage by David C.

[spoonitnow]

Will someone strike 1 this dumb motherfucker plz

[Jason]

I'm not sure why you seem so passionate about this since it looks as though you haven't played @ Stars in almost a year. And before this thread, you haven't posted here since 2008, so it's difficult to take your original post at face value.

If you want to have an intelligent, rational discussion about the RNG, I'm sure many people here and two plus two would be happy to engage, but your emails and posts come off as someone who is angry, lost money, and has an axe to grind.

[Vinland]

It was I that cracked your Aces with J2o.....muhahahahahaha!

It was I that tangled with your worthless random number generator....you now have realized the full potential of the dark side of the force....

[chardrian]

I still love ya AMEC.

[drmcboy]

Romeo, oh romeo

[spoonitnow]

Haha @ Jason using PTR to say someone hasn't played on Stars in a year. PTR wont' give you that info.

[Jason]

Haha @ Jason using PTR to say someone hasn't played on Stars in a year. PTR wont' give you that info.

You lost me. I thought PTR datamined most to all hands played @ popular sites like Stars. Is there an opt out feature I don't know about? Unless he only plays tournaments now. If that's the case, I can imagine the whirlwind of variance and paranoia ANY tournament player must feel. I remember it drove me up a wall when I played them exclusively as flips are a way of life

[surviva316]

i can't decide which is more hilarious. David C's response, or AMEC's PTR profile.

i'm thinking i lol'ed more at David C's response because it was much more of a surprise, whereas the PTR was like exactly what i was expecting

[kevster]

I'm loving the fact that no-one's brought this guy up on the facts. Why? Because they don't need to.

[hlester25]

http://officialpokerrankings.com/pok...2B330.html?t=2

[hlester25]

http://officialpokerrankings.com/pok...2B330.html?t=2

AMEC04 2,808 $5 $10 65% $13,170 Tilt 79 PokerStars

[hlester25]

I'm loving the fact that no-one's brought this guy up on the facts. Why? Because they don't need to.

lets hear some facts bud

[kevster]

All of the winning Stars players on FTR cry into their pillows every night because the RNG is such a bitch.

[spoonitnow]

Haha @ Jason using PTR to say someone hasn't played on Stars in a year. PTR wont' give you that info.

You lost me. I thought PTR datamined most to all hands played @ popular sites like Stars. Is there an opt out feature I don't know about? Unless he only plays tournaments now. If that's the case, I can imagine the whirlwind of variance and paranoia ANY tournament player must feel. I remember it drove me up a wall when I played them exclusively as flips are a way of life

PTR hasn't been tracking most stakes for the past year is what I meant.

[hlester25]

[ ] has heard some facts

[Jason]

I think PTR is the opposite actually. They used to explicitly not track anything lower than $100NL but sometime in the summer started tracking EVERYTHING it seems like. Granted, they don't catch everything 100% but if anyone has logged minutes on Stars, I believe it should show up.

So, ya, apparently he plays tournaments now.

Who knows why he's so upset or even if it's legitimate is anyone's guess, but everywhere this has been posted everyone is saying the same thing, so I don't think there's anything left to say.

[a500lbgorilla]

You're a spammer according to this thread: http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...rt-t91885.html

That puts you on thin-ice, Buster! Post better asap.

[hlester25]

wats wrong with that thread? u can delete if you want. i was actuallyu being serious because I have been asking for filtered HHs for a long time now only to be turned down every time. Recently, on another foruym, someone said that Stars once sent im all of his race hands. Thats why I asked that.

you can delete if its a problem, I dont really care.

And seriously, what exsactly is spamming? I have an idea but being accussed of it here made me think I dont know what it is.

[Ash256]

OP, the feedback you're getting here from not only the FTR community, but PokerStars is that people think you are an obsessive moron. Not a bad or unlikeable person, but a moron. This is something that David C made fairly clear when he explained exactly why PokerStars is ignoring your e-mails.

I notice you have also posted this topic in other poker forums and have received exactly the same responses: http://www.pocketfives.com/poker-for...0970/p/5099323
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...31/?highlight=

Your best play here would probably be to run some analysis yourself.

[Ash256]

Also, OP fully reveals his position here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=229

I win, and I have been winning for years, thats why I continue to play. I just don't believe that I win as much as I should. I also believe that it is only the micro-low stakes and maybe some mid stakes that are in question. I believe that high stakes are 100% legit, even though I do not play them.

Now then OP, please can you enlighten us all exactly as to:

a) Why you don't believe that you win as much as you should
b) Why you believe that low and mid stakes are rigged but high stakes are not
c) What your proof is for either of these


No prizes for conjecture, hunches or other stupidity

[chardrian]

I'm loving the fact that no-one's brought this guy up on the facts. Why? Because they don't need to.

Actually the best part about AMEC is that he is a longterm winning player. Yet he still believes that the sites rig the rngs in favor of newer players. He went on absolute monkey tilt earlier this week after taking some sort of bad beat.

I am glad he is here now because I was sad when he got banned from pwnage.

[kevster]

I'm loving the fact that no-one's brought this guy up on the facts. Why? Because they don't need to.

Actually the best part about AMEC is that he is a longterm winning player. Yet he still believes that the sites rig the rngs in favor of newer players. He went on absolute monkey tilt earlier this week after taking some sort of bad beat.

I am glad he is here now because I was sad when he got banned from pwnage.

Fair enough. Pretty unusual a long term winner not being able to deal with beats and instead clinging to theories about site riggage though.

[Ragnar4]

I've fed all of Hlesters posts into a translator, and re-translated his arguments for us, because we're missing the point he's kind of getting at: This is what he's trying to say.

SWEAR TO GOD GAIS! I'M SUPER CEREAL, FTR'S RANDOM STATS GENERATORS HAVE SLID FROM RANDOM, TO NOT RANDOM AND THEY MUST BE AUDITED REGULARLY IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M RIGHT! THE REASON THEY ARE IGNORING ME, IS BECAUSE WHEN WE FIND OUT THEIR STATS ARE NO LONGER RANDOM, AND INSTEAD ARE PREDICTABLE, THEY WILL LOSE THEIR PATRONAGE.

ALSO, I'M A MOUTHBREATHER, A LOUD ONE.

I hope this helps.

[a500lbgorilla]

He's super cereal? This is serious, fellas. FTR Commune is now at DEFCON 4!

[hlester25]

I'm loving the fact that no-one's brought this guy up on the facts. Why? Because they don't need to.

Actually the best part about AMEC is that he is a longterm winning player. Yet he still believes that the sites rig the rngs in favor of newer players. He went on absolute monkey tilt earlier this week after taking some sort of bad beat.

I am glad he is here now because I was sad when he got banned from pwnage.

Fair enough. Pretty unusual a long term winner not being able to deal with beats and instead clinging to theories about site riggage though.

Actually it wasn't anything other than my usual monthly blowup but when I was not allowed to make a post with "RNG" in the title or any post questioning integrity of sites, that really turned it into a fullblown case of absolute monkey tilt.

Whenever I feel up to it Ill post an article on my beliefs and theories. Ive posted it on several websites over the years but it always seems to find a way to get deleted.

In short, until I write a full article, I believe (no tangible proof) that the RNG favors newer and weaker players at the micro and low limits. I cannot speak for the mid-higher limits because I do not play them near enough to make an assumption. I believe that the sites operate under one rule: MAX PLAYERS FOR MAX TIME = MAX RAKE.

I also believe that certain players receive assistance fromt he RNG and that certain players get screwed by the RNG based on a few variables. The list of variables bascially consists of what effect that variable does for the site in the long run. Remember MAX PLAYERS FOR MAX TIME = MAX RAKE. Some of these variables include:
1. Cashing out after a big score- Any money taken out of the "circle of life" does not get raked. Bad for the site.
2. Chat abuse- Those who berate others in chat may receive a negative deal from the RNG. If a player gets abused in chat, he/she may really get offended and consequently never return bc of it. I believe those who consistantly abuse chat could be subjuect to an unfair deal
3. Excitement of a big score- We've all heard the phrase "anyone can get lucky and win one tournament". I see on a daily basis that one guy who cannot lose a pot no matter what the cards are. I have been that guy before, but only in my early days of tournaments.
4. The degenerative buttons- I believe the way the hands play out add a valueable dimension of drama for the sites. ie... always picking up a draw on the turn, suckout then re suckouts, etc. Gambling can be an addiction and the way a lot of these hands play out can really fuel that fire.
5. Volume- Once youve been established as a regular or just a recreational regular, the site can reasonably assume that they will make xxx.xx off of you in a given time frame, whether you win or lose, they make the same mount. Those players who may be dabbling, may see an increase in luck/drama hands/etc. Anything to reel them in.
6. Deposit fequency- those who do not deposit frequently after busting receive special assistance when their account is getting low.

These are just a few of the aspects I will talk about.


Let me state one thing... I believe that the better players will win the money in the long run. However, I do not believe that the better players win as much or as often as they should. The longer it takes the better player to win, the longer it takes the lesser player to lose... this equals more rake for the house, a lot more.

[spoonitnow]

Dear FTR Admins,

Please ban this dumb bastard.

Thanks,
spoonitnow

[boost]

everyone have their tin foil hats? I think this guy is for cereal!

[dranger7070]

That pic is amazing.

[Jack Sawyer]

It gets better, ordered another round
It's, about, to go, down

http://www.youtube.com/v/nG8o_9RliwU..._US&fs=1&rel=0

[boost]

how have I never seen that music video? Crazy..

[givememyleg]

In short, until I write a full article, I believe (no tangible proof) that the RNG favors newer and weaker players at the micro and low limits.

We found a new religion!

[Ash256]

OP is extremely retarded

[Micro2Macro]

[givememyleg]

after OPs last reply it's fairly clear we have a troll on our hands. since this is rilla's jungle i won't lock but i vote +1 for lock/ban/public hanging.

[dranger7070]

oflz at m2m s post

[hlester25]

This is 100% the response I expected. I dont really care if you ban me or not, I havent broken any rules and I have legitimate points about my own personal experiences in micro-low stakes (cash and MTTs) on about every site you can possibly name that has been in existance in the last 8 years.

I am thinking of offering a prop bet to anyone interested since there is no chance online poker is manipulated.

I get 1000 to 1 odds. Ill ship you up to $10 on Stars right now and if anything breaks over the next ten years that PROVES online poker on Stars was indeed manipulated in any way, shape, or form you send me $10,000 back.

[givememyleg]

This is 100% the response I expected. I dont really care if you ban me or not, I havent broken any rules and I have legitimate points about my own personal experiences in micro-low stakes (cash and MTTs) on about every site you can possibly name that has been in existance in the last 8 years.

I am thinking of offering a prop bet to anyone interested since there is no chance online poker is manipulated.

I get 1000 to 1 odds. Ill ship you up to $10 on Stars right now and if anything breaks over the next ten years that PROVES online poker on Stars was indeed manipulated in any way, shape, or form you send me $10,000 back.

ya a ban really isn't in order, but what kind of a response did you expect? you came to a POKER FORUM where many people MAKE THEIR LIVING from online poker and you claimed that it is rigged WITH NO EVIDENCE. what reaction would you expect going to an atheist forum and preaching the gospel? he would get lol'd out of existence. it's the same thing here.

present some evidence for your ridiculous claims or expect nothing more than a at best.

oh, also, lol @ your bet.

[surviva316]

I am thinking of offering a prop bet to anyone interested since there is no chance online poker is manipulated.

I get 1000 to 1 odds. Ill ship you up to $10 on Stars right now and if anything breaks over the next ten years that PROVES online poker on Stars was indeed manipulated in any way, shape, or form you send me $10,000 back.

deal. surviva316 on stars

[Jason]

I get 1000 to 1 odds.

Sounds like you're not very confident in yourself or your argument ... like everyone else

[Miffed22001]

good, they will never catch my superuser account then

youve never been a superuser BBJ virgin

[hlester25]

if an audit is not a big deal then how come Stars tried to duck me when I asked when the last audit was? How come it took so many emails to finally get the answer I wanted to a question that was crystal clear? hat's what I dont understand.

[givememyleg]

who cares, i'd like to hear more about your awesome theory of the rng.