IndianaV8 has the database from his datamining and collection of over a billion hands. I just asked him for this particular query. He is doing others on request as he has time, in another thread. You may have some good ideas for him. He also did the big analysis of flop card distributions that you probably have seen, showing low cards flop more often because players tend to see the flop when holding high cards.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...h-beta-452536/

He's also releasing the data to qualified researchers.

I dunno. I’m working on about 10 “new theories,” from a Backer Strategy to a Modified ICM Model to a Rebuy Strategy Model to Bayesian Hand Reading.

Getting actual data might screw things up.

WOW WHAT A RETARDED COMMENT...

Bucketfoot..you're really retarded...I bet your mum was rigged!!! LOL

Playing SnGs at PokerStars I noticed that bigger stack has some equity advantage over short stack.
The reason to rig software this way is making tournament time shorter, so players sign up to more tournaments and pay more rake.

I recorded 1150 preflop allins. Big stack had average equity 53.1%, actually won in 54.5%.
Especially, big stack sucks out a small stack's pocket overpair too often. Like AK>AA, 55>TT, JTs>QQ, etc.
I recorded 93 such allins, big stack had average equity 16.7%, and won 27 allins (29%).
The standard deviation is as high as 3.2*sigma, the distance is short though.
On the other hand, I seen 122 allins then short stack was dominated by pocket overpair (short stack ave. equity 16.4%). And short stack sucked out big stack in only 17.5 cases (0.5 is one split pot) - 16% as it is supposed to be.

Also I have a feeling that in post-flop all-ins big stack get their outs more often than short ones do.
And flush and straight draws close a little bit more often then they should, encouraging bad players.

The above makes me believe PokerStars is rigged. To prove it mathematecally, one have to analyze ten times more hands. I cannot do it manually. But I have hand histories of more than 2,500 tournaments I played (in .txt format). These can provide at least 25,000 all-in hands.

So, custom software needed to analyze big vs shortstack all-in luck, draw probability, etc.

Can anyone offer or refer to such sofware? Pls mail to ROONEY put "@" in between BK.RU

Wow omg you just proved it with math!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow, just WOW!

http://pokerftp.com/index_files/general.htm

also discussed here

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...h-beta-452536/

lol

I once caught the pokerstars RNG second dealing it's accomplice an ace after performing a dodgy overhand shuffle and a clearly fake cut.

While i firmly believe ps to be rigged after playing 500,000+ hands on their site there is no need to expand on what so many others have already pointed out.There are an excessive amount of mathematically improbable beats on that site. Period.What does surprise me is the arguments from the people who feel its not rigged.Saying things like "why would they risk getting caught they already make enough money" .I find this argument comical.ITS NEVER ENOUGH.That is the most absurd defense of a position as i have ever heard.When have you ever known any corrupt buisiness to not try to bleed every possible nickle from what ever scam they are running?Was it enough for enron?Was it enough for Madoff?Was it enough for any of the hundreds of corrupt wall street execs?OF COURSE NOT.

The other point everyone seems to be overlooking is how exactly ps makes their money.Yes they make money from the rake which everyone seems to believe is their main source of profit.Its not.The money contained in their players accounts is the big money maker for them.Do you believe they take your deposit and put it in a shoebox waiting until you request a cashout?OF COURSE NOT.That money(in the hundreds of millions,if not billions)is put into various interest bearing accounts and other investments that bring them MUCH more revinue than rake.Im shocked no one has posted anything about this angle yet.Hopefully someone with better knowledge of world economics than me(which is not much) can elaborate more on what type of things a corporation with that kind of liquid capitol might do with said funds.My guess is it would dwarf annually what they bring in from rake.

So is it in their best interests to have players cashing out more frequently than they are depositing?OF COURSE NOT.Dont you think they would want to keep the cashouts to a minimum?How to do this?Maybe have their rng even out the winning players as to minimize cashouts,thereby keeping their bottom line(the money in players accounts)more stable.

Think of them almost like an insurance company,with deposits being premiums and cashouts being a policy payout.Have you ever known an insurance company who didnt do everything in their power to not have to pay off a policy? I havent.Its a shame because i feel stars interface and game selection are by far the best online but i will never again use the site.

Some people just suck and can't win at poker - YOU MIGHT BE ONE...

You probably believe the BAKER bakes bread so you have food for your family....JACK ASS he bakes bread to sell and make money to feed his own family. The more profit he makes, the better his family eats. If he rips you off, you buy your bread elsewhere and his family suffers. He makes a quality product at a reasonable price...and you BOTH WIN. It's so ***** simple it's ridiculous.

STAY IN SCHOOL!!!

So let's examine that premise, shall we.

For a baseline we'll use Party Poker, a public company who reports 2008 poker revenue of $274 million. This is poker only, and does not include investment or other earnings. So it basically represents rake. Then looking at PokerScout, we see the average cash player volume on Poker Stars is ~23K as a constant 24/7 average, with Party Poker only being 4,250, or a factor of 5.4x. If we assume their mix of cash and tourney players is similar, we can estimate Poker Stars 2008 poker revenue at $1.48 Billion for 2008. From other gossip in the air I think that's a reasonable estimate for their poker revenue, not counting other sources of income.

So Poker Stars made somewhere around $1.5 Billion in rake in 2008.

So, let's see if they can make "much more revenue than rake" from investing player funds (assuming they are even allowed to do so under the laws of all the jurisdictions that regulate them, which includes most of the UK members).

Right now on a peak Friday night, Poker Stars lobby shows 147K players. I don't even know if that includes play money, so just for fun we'll say it doesn't. And let's multiply that by 5 to get a ballpark total active players, giving us 735,000 members. And we'll pull a number out of the air and say the average player has $200 on deposit. I happen to know the average excluding the few high rollers is less than that, but this is just a fun exercise. So now we have $147 million in player funds on deposit. Then let's add in 50 high rollers who have a cool million each on deposit, and round up some more just for giggles and say they have a nice round $200 million on deposit. That's generous.

So, we have $1.5 Billion in rake on one hand, and on the other hand we have $200 million to invest and try to make 750% annual return on it, while still keeping the required liquid reserves for player transactions. More likely they might make 5% floating their $200 million, or 1/150 of the rake money.

Turns out your premise is pretty damn ridiculous, wouldn't you say? You can argue with my numbers, make the average deposit $1000, for example but you can never come remotely close to making it work out.

I wonder if your riggedness evidence is any better.

So now we have $147 million in player funds on deposit. Then let's add in 50 high rollers who have a cool million each on deposit, and round up some more just for giggles and say they have a nice round $200 million on deposit. That's generous.

Of course you forgot to factor in all the redeposits from players dating back to the start of the site into your "nice round number".You were probably too busy wringing your hands and licking your lips in anticipation of seeing your reply post cutting me to shreds while sitting in your parents basement. Your "nice round number" becomes much larger when you do that. Doesnt it? Sooooo bitter..........

I probably have children older than you, and they play in my basement. So you think money put into the site just circulates there forever? People do make withdrawals. There is some average amount per player on deposit that is relatively constant. I used $200 based on some real data about the online poker business, then I added in $50 million extra for high rollers since Poker Stars does have a few (but nowhere near what Full Tilt has). Plug in $2000 per player and try the same exercise, and the earnings on the float will never come close to the rake.

Also take a look at the licensee requirements at the Isle Of Man Government site, where Poker Stars is located. Trust funds to cover player obligations are regulated pretty strictly. They are allowed to earn some interest on it, but they can't do much more.

Also take a look at the licensee requirements at the Isle Of Man Government site, where Poker Stars is located. Trust funds to cover player obligations are regulated pretty strictly. They are allowed to earn some interest on it, but they can't do much more.
I like how you post a nasty sarcastic reply to someone and then go do your research on the fly and edit your original posts as if you didnt spend 2 hours of your life scouring the internet for tidbits of information. Just to try to win a posting forum argument. Do you feel better about yourself now? Shouldnt you be camping out in the movie theater parking lot waiting to buy your STAR TREK tickets? All your friends are waiting for you. Stop wasting your time with me, you have much more important things to do. Dont forget your Klingon costume.


LIVE LONG AND PROSPER