ITT: Global Poker Slips Up: BIG SECRET REVEALED! (CONFIRMED x3)
TL;DR - RTP applies to poker tables. (With 3x confirmation and direct confirmation)
Was browsing trustpilot when I came
I haven’t played online in forever so forgive my ignorance but is there a way to track winning players still? Is Sharkscope still a thing?
Seems to me if it is entirely luck based and not genuinely skill based, having consistent winners would be impossible. Not people who just binked one big score but a graph of steady consistent winning.
I think that would be the best way to determine luck vs skill in this situation.
It doesn't track cash games, and you aren't allowed to manually.
It does track tournament results; which I am a winner of; and I will be the first to tell you I didn't win those by playing well.
Most of those wins are based on an exploit I determined to be occurring during select moments of the tournament. Approximately 1 in 10 or so times you'll find yourself in a spot where it can be abused.
https://www.sharkscope.com/#Player-Statistics//networks/Global%20Poker/players/LucysFur
Above are my results.
To be absolutely clear; I assumed variance wasn't variance and that it was a behavior of the underlying system.
I then wrote down some spots I thought I could take advantage of the system behavior. I tested them. They worked.
Others will tell you it's variance. I wonder if they've seen me crack aces with 82o. You ever wonder why you have people complaining about users going all in with 82o hands and beating AA as if they are super users?
It's because of the system and they know the exploit.
The other users will tell you it's variance, but 100% success rate (when done when all criteria is met) goes beyond variance.
I think when I first mentioned the exploit you specifically told me off and stated it was variance; I'd not be surprised if you stated the same here and I even respect the opinion, but don't agree. Others told me to abuse it and keep winning, but I'm just not built like that. I want a fair game. I don't want to play fake poker. Regardless of money on line.
(I mostly play on an alt site now; and am pub stomping and see no evidence of the same type of underlying system - 50+bb per hour, but exceptionally soft site)
Until HH are allowed by GP; we can only speculate unless someone wants to break TOS.
So clarify, you think this is happening and players are being "equalized " or that it's not possible to apply RTP to poker in the first place.
I apologize for my ignorance, this is not my forte.
God damnit, I thought I was logged into my account and was on 100 posts per page but I wasn't. That's directed at L FUR
Their patent defines sweepstakes vs contest vs lotto.
They state they are applying RNG and RTP to all games.
This leads me to take them at face value that they are applying RTP to poker offerings.
The alternative is that they are running an illegal operation as per sweepstakes law, and as per their own admission in the patent. They clearly define that sweepstakes are chance based, not skill based. They then clearly define that a contest participant must use at least some skill. (Patent linked in earlier reply)
Poker is legally and federally ruled a skill game.
Therefore, without an RTP system, they're not running a sweepstakes, they are running a contest -> which would make them vulnerable to prosecution from the federal government.
By running some sort of 'equalizing' system they can ensure it stays a game of chance as opposed to a game of skill. They claim it's an RTP system. I'll take them at their word, but...it's also possible to be compliant without an RTP system, but rather some other 'equalizing' system that achieves a similar result of turning a skill game into a game of chance.
A lot of this is 'fine print' type information, and it can be hard to follow. This is where a lot of people get lost, because 99% of users skip the T&C. I happen to be the type of asshole to read them.
(I sent a list of corrections to T&C to support, because as time went on GP updated their T&C, but then didn't check to make sure references were also changed to reflect the changes. So they had phrases like "as per section 3.1 'blah blah blah', but section 3.1 was no longer section 'blah blah blah'. They had moved it to section 3.2 type corrections).
