Quoted because it was completely ignored by OP, which means he's either a troll or an idiot.

ok
so show me the evidence., I understand the actual odds. the point I am making is is doe not compute on bovada, stop the troll chit. do the math yoru self see if it adds up. odds say Aa shoud beat all pairs 80% of the time, so u jstu beleiv it wil happen that way on every site

if u guys just want to believe all the odds will add up at every single site google planet poker. see how things went there

so u cant use poker tracker on bovada so if they are doing things to the deal no one can find out

I mean I am willing to bet on this. I laid out my criteria. Anyone who
Wants to step up let me know.

If you include hands with action post flop, then you can not measure how many draws truly completed.

As far as I know that is the only discrepancy in our terms. Hopefully you'll find a clue and we can continue.

I get your point. My original thing was when a player has a flush draw. I don't care where the flush draw happens. When I see the cards on a flush draw, they hit at least 50% of the time. I am not talking about hands that get folded. Obv there is no way to 100% know. All my origins l comment said was when a players has a flush draw it will hit that often. There is really no need to make a big deal about it. I told u I would track it. If u don't trust me then fine. No big deal

Try to keep track of your own bull****

I can't look away from this train wreck.

Ok gl guys. The monitor was right about this. Okay post results. Wish u all he best of luck calling people trolls, but don't complain about poker sites or whine at the table, that would be wrong.

jungmit, the same phenomenon happens in live poker (assuming you truly don't understand the "phenomenon" of showed-down hands being flushes more often than missed flushes). You may not have noticed it live since there are far fewer hands per hour in live poker.

You are saying that you only count the hands where you see the flush draw. When will this ever happen without the hand being allin? Obviously you can't count the hands where you only see the showdown of the hand with one player having a flush, because you would not count all the hands that folded because of a missed flush draw. Just accept the terms with the "allin" clause. If you are not accepting this, you basically admit that your initial assumption is wrong.

No that’s not quite what your original thing was. To remind you, here it is:

Note I bolded all-in hands. That is critical. Apparently you are basing your greater than 50% hit probability on hands where you see the result. Clearly if a player hits his flush he is unlikely to fold so if his opponent also stays in you will see the flush hit. But if the flush card doesn’t fall, the player will likely fold so you don’t see the hand. Therefore you are not taking a representative sample for you are missing most of the times a player folds because he did not hit.

By specifiying all-in hands, there are no folds, and if the site shows ALL the all-in results , with a decent size sample, the hit chance will be close to the theoretical 35% unless the site is fooling around, Several posters have tried to explain this to you but you refuse to acknowledge it.

EDIT: I see that Strongfold is essentially saying the same thing.