How to tell a fair poker RNG from a suspicious one: a practical 2026 checklist

In online poker you can’t watch a dealer shuffle, so trust depends on evidence: licensing, independent testing, and behaviour you can verify from the outside. A good Random Number Generator (RNG) is not “lucky” or “unlucky” — it is consistently unpredictable, properly implemented, and controlled so neither the operator nor the player client can influence the deal. This checklist focuses on what a normal player can realistically check in 2026, and how to interpret the results without falling into common variance traps.

Start with proof that the shuffle is independently tested

In regulated markets, the baseline expectation is that game software is tested against technical standards and the testing process is documented. For example, Great Britain licensees must comply with the UK Gambling Commission’s Remote gambling and software technical standards (RTS) and follow its testing strategy for remote products and updates. That framework matters because it pushes operators towards independent verification rather than “trust us” statements.

Your first practical step is to look for a current RNG certificate or test report issued by an independent test house that is recognised in gambling jurisdictions. Well-known examples include eCOGRA (which offers RNG certification as a service) and iTech Labs (which lists RNG testing and certification as part of its work). A credible operator should show who tested the RNG, what was tested (RNG component, game build/version), and when the certification was issued.

Don’t stop at a logo. Certificates can be copied, outdated, or only apply to a different product. Check whether the document names the exact product, RNG module, and version, and whether there is a way to validate it via the test house itself (a certificate number, a public verification page, or a direct link from the auditor). If the operator refuses to share any certification details, treat it as a serious trust gap.

What a “real” certificate usually contains (and what it should not avoid)

Look for scope and identifiers. A useful report typically states what items were under test, which standards were used, and whether the tested build complied. If it is a generic marketing PDF with no dates, no version strings, and no reference to a standard or methodology, it doesn’t help you.

Look for independence signals. Test houses describe their certification process and RNG testing as a standalone service; eCOGRA explains RNG certification as a defined offering, and iTech Labs publicly describes RNG certification work. That kind of transparency is not proof by itself, but it’s a better starting point than an unnamed “internal audit”.

Be wary of certificate mismatch. If a poker room claims a licence in one jurisdiction but the certificate refers to a different entity, a different company name, or a different product type, you may be looking at paperwork that was never meant to cover the poker RNG you are using.

Check licensing, testing cadence, and change control (not just branding)

A fair RNG story usually sits inside a compliance system: licensing obligations, technical standards, and a repeatable process for testing changes. The UK Gambling Commission publishes RTS guidance and a testing strategy that covers timing and procedures for testing remote gambling products, including how updates are handled. Even if you are not playing in Great Britain, this gives you a benchmark for what “grown-up” change control looks like.

Practically, you want three things to line up: (1) a real licence you can identify, (2) a testing approach that includes RNG and security, and (3) a change process that does not let the operator quietly swap the RNG module without oversight. If a room pushes frequent “client updates” but never updates certification dates or version references, that mismatch is worth noting.

Also watch for how the poker client is distributed and updated. A reputable operator will be comfortable stating the current software version, the date of release, and what changed (especially if it affects game logic). When everything is vague — “improved stability”, “minor fixes” — yet your gameplay experience changes sharply, it’s reasonable to become sceptical.

Quick external checks you can do in under 10 minutes

Confirm the regulator and the licence holder name match what’s on the cashier terms, the footer, and the responsible gambling page. A common red flag is inconsistent legal entities across pages, or a licence claim with no traceable licence number or register entry.

Cross-check the testing company claims against the auditor’s own public presence. If the operator says “tested by iTech Labs”, iTech Labs publicly offers RNG certification; if the operator says “eCOGRA certified”, eCOGRA publicly describes RNG certification services. When the claimed auditor is hard to find, newly created, or has no clear history, treat the claim cautiously.

Check for clear statements about technical standards and testing. The UKGC RTS guidance and testing strategy show that regulators expect structured testing and procedures, not ad-hoc assurances. If an operator refuses to discuss any standards at all, you’re not getting the level of transparency typical of regulated environments.

Use hand histories to look for behavioural red flags (without misreading variance)

Hand histories can’t “prove” fairness on their own, but they can highlight patterns that don’t make sense operationally. Think of this as triage: you’re checking whether the room behaves like a stable, professionally run poker service, not trying to win a courtroom case with a spreadsheet.

Start with what you can measure cleanly: frequency of disconnects at critical moments, repeated client freezes when you are all-in, or unusual delays that correlate with big pots. Network issues happen, but if problems consistently occur in high-impact situations and never in small pots, document it.

Next, check whether the room allows you to export complete hand histories and whether histories match what you saw at the table. Missing hands, truncated actions, or histories that change after the fact should be treated seriously. Good rooms may redact opponent hole cards outside showdown, but they should not “lose” actions or alter timestamps.

Practical hand-history checks that are realistic for ordinary players

Sample size discipline: don’t overreact to a few thousand hands. Short-term streaks are normal in poker, and “impossible” runs happen naturally. If you want to look at distribution (suits, ranks, flop textures), do it over a large sample and focus on obvious anomalies, not minor deviations.

Compare across stakes and formats: if you play two formats on the same room, do the odd behaviours only happen in one place (for example, only in fast-fold games, or only in a specific tournament series)? If yes, it may point to a software issue, a feature bug, or a configuration problem rather than a global RNG flaw — still important, but a different diagnosis.

Track operational consistency: payouts, bonus releases, tournament guarantees, late registration timing, and support responses. Suspicious RNG stories often come packaged with broader operational sloppiness. A room that cannot keep tournament lobbies accurate or cannot explain rule disputes clearly is also less likely to run tight technical controls behind the scenes.