A higher level of confidence can be had now. A fact-less based self-anointed authority of online poker and sweepstakes has deemed it okay for everyone.

Mmmm, yes. I'd love to see the paperwork iTech provided to an unrelated 3rd party that was paid for by the company seeking certification. Surely neither party would have asked for any privacy clauses in the contract. In fact, maybe they should put a button on their tool bar so any random person could investigate the findings of all privately agreed upon contracts. This would even let the companies know what the best rates are that competitors were able to attain.

In reality, I think it would be private information between iTech and a company paying them for any work. What the paying company does with the results is their business, but I would think that there is zero chance iTech is sending certifications out to any random moo-moo that asks to see one of their client's report. With that said, VGW should make the certification public. That is pretty much the industry standard and there is no reason to not show it. It should not come in conflict with the sweepstakes aspect since there is no deposit made on the site.

My guess is, the paperwork he 'received' will remain private like the deep 30 random hand analysis, answers to any questions, or background information that would allude to the slightest bit of credibility.

To put it in perspective, he provided as much proof/verification of the certification as he did for any of the asinine claims made prior, zero. At some point in time, mountains of facts cloud over even the sunniest delusions of grandeur. Certainly don't take his word for it, or even mine, plenty of people and their contact info has been provided where you can get all your answers. Unlike other networks, VGW is public. They have to provide an open channel of communication with existing and potentially future shareholders. It is a big part of what made the anti-Global bantering so humorous.

What I have learned through this whole exercise is that the RNG/shufflers are plug-ins to the software. The 'reputable' ones are all public domain and free for anyone to analyze.

Mersenne Twister by Matsumoto and Nishimura (MT19937).
RANLUX by Luscher.
L'Ecuyer's Combined Multiple Recursive Generator.
L'Ecuyer's Tausworthe generator.
Ziff's Implementation of the gfsr4 generator.


Global uses one of the most popular ones and the shuffler is the Mersenne Twister based on the largest prime number found at the time 2^19937-1. Matsumoto and Nishimura toyed with it to circumvent flaws, hence the 'Twister' in the title. That was the 24th Mersenne prime. Currently, they are at the 49th, I believe, which is 2^74,207,281-1 or a mere 22,338,618 numbers long. That is all contrived from the formula of 2^P-1=Mersenne Prime Number. There is a cash award for every MP found, the next one will be the 50th MP number. There is software available to seek out the next MP...

https://www.mersenne.org/download/

In the event you have no life and are an auto-masochist, enjoy what is referred to as a 'brief' explanation of the 24th MP.

http://www.pnas.org/content/68/10/2319.full.pdf

Incredible! PTS1 admits he was wrong. I never thought you would be honorable enough to admit it, but there ya go.

Great thread! A+

Most of his admitting he was wrong was in the form of telling me how wrong he believed I was during the debate, which certainly fit hand in hand with the perfectly timed email for his debate exit strategy.

Does this email even exist? Maybe. He certainly has not been one to provide actual evidence of anything in the past as others have mentioned, and while a manufactured email of this nature would help with his exit strategy, if it does indeed exist then as others have said - he should share all the details and break it down as to what in there provided him with his epiphany. It had to be a pretty quick analysis, given he talked about it immediately after claiming to have received it, so Geoff must have been very short and sweet in the information provided. Well done Geoff!

He wants to provide valuable information to the poker community - this seems an ideal way to do so, and if he provides all the email details, and it is of actual value, then congrats to him on that, despite his past silly every all-in is 50/50 theory he clung to for too long, and also separate from the worse hands win too much initial theory he proposed with his unverified 30 hand database analysis.

I encourage him to move forwards, rather than look backwards, and provide all of the details that were emailed to him from Geoff (including the emails he sent to get the reply), along with his detailed thoughts on what within the email changed his mind and why. You know, for the better of the online poker industry.

lol this PTS1 guy has to be trolling.

"Don't worry guys, they sent ME an email providing only ME with proof they are legit. Look at how ****ing awesome I am, and now everyone can play poker on global poker thanks to ME"

How do you even type that without crying at how sad it is.

First you say in YOUR analysis of some bull**** 30 hands that global poker is definitely not on the up and up, and if they are using RNG then it is programmed wrong. Do you even know what you are saying? Have you ever looked at any algorithms? Have you ever tried to implement them in any sort of programming capacity whether it be command line or a full blown piece of software? You cannot even begin to judge if it is working correctly or not.

It is extremely hard to make simple software that is used as a plugin for others to use on their own custom built software, much less building a piece of software that uses such complex math you couldn't even understand because from what I gather you would probably fail a college course of Intro to Math.

And stop acting like you somehow saved everyone that plays their from some form of apocalypse.

You 10000% are the mormon episode from south park lol

a dewd you have a freaky habit of nailing it every time.

Maybe he'll surprise us. Or, maybe he's busy helping goldensquid flip coins now as the 100 straight heads or tails has proven more time consuming to demonstrate than squid initially thought it would.

When a guy leads off this whole debacle with his "team" analyzing 30 hands he is either a troll or an incredibly disturbed person. I imagine PMS as the fat World of Warcraft guy in South Park.

was in a 20$ 6max sng....down to heads up, im at lets say 5200 chips, he has 800 left...very bad player

EVERY time he would shove, counted 9 times straight, he would have a card I held, but a much worse kicker

a4 vs a10
k2 vs k10
qj vs j3

etc etc

all 9 times the guy hit his hand on the flop...talk about variance lol

Eventually I shoved with ak suited, naturally he called pre with 26 off and flopped quads 2's

psychic...

Well, the odds of this happening are definitely less than 100 heads in a row with a coin, however the odds it actually happened are probably about the same . Perhaps he did win 10 all-ins in a row (including the quads hand) heads up, so long as he did not double up in chips on several of those prior all-ins when he was at a chip disadvantage. Not quite sure how that could happen, but perhaps Geoff can email you with the possibilities.

All the best.

I guess I am confused how there could be 9 hands.

1. 5200 vs 800
2. 4400 vs 1600
3. 2800 vs 3200
4. 0 vs 6000 (no hand, game over)

From my math it would be 3 hands tops with those starting stacks if he won every hand. Maybe there were some folds or some other stuff in the middle.

1. 5995 vs 50
2. 5990 vs 100
3. 5980 vs 200
4. 5960 vs 400
5. 5920 vs 800
6. 5840 vs 1600
7. 2800 vs 3200
8. 0 vs 6000 (no hand, game over)

Or maybe he had around 50 chips. But even then it is still 7 hands not 9.

I play the SNGs myself, and I see the same stuff (not to this extreme) but maybe some of the details are a bit fuzzy and its not quite as insane as nine hands in a row.

With that said, I have no doubt you had him dominated for several hands in a row and he still found a way to win. HU... its heartless

Im not crying rig or anything haha, dont jump on me

And the 9 hands were not in order either...he never once raised EXCEPT for his 9 all ins, he would win a flip...id whittle his stack down to half again, then he randomly jams while I hold k10 suited or something vs his k2 off, and he would hit gold, all 9 times lol

Was just weird as he never raised, played VERY tight (fold to min raise etc) yet jam garbage and get there 100% of the time

Cherry on top was the 62off call and flopping quads lol

Nah, that did not happen as you claim. You probably lost 2-4 all ins, some you were dominating, and that's it. The math behind the one you suggest is pretty much nearly impossible, but obviously you were just exxagerventing. Has nothing to do with this thread, so in future post that stuff in this forum

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/54...rags-variance/

and you will get the sympathy you crave, along with some valuable advice like when to fold rivers. You posted there once in a similar vent style, so you know how it works.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/54...04/?highlight=

All the best.

Oh right I just wanted to post random nonsense on a forum I have 10ish posts on for fame and attention. But your totally right, its impossible to keep track of several hands from an hour ago playing 1 table and keeping notes on players.

Ill go back to making up and exaggerating ufo stories now I guess.


Not sure why anyone could say "nah that didnt happen" when all you see are threads and people calling riggies morons because, "its mathematically possible"

But I guess im just making it up...lol

Nah, you did it to vent after losing a tournament.

It is not impossible, but the odds that you lost 9 dominating hands (assuming 70%ish equity each) in a row is by itself is over 1 in 50,000 and that does not include the even greater odds that 9 all-ins in a row will feature you having a dominating hand. The mix of those is in winning Powerball territory, so for now I will opt to believe that you did not waste your winning Powerball odds in a small buy in sit and go, and rather you are just stretching the reality of what actually happened.

Cool, and if you take some time to keep your exxagerations within reason then you may get people to believe them.


Because it didn't.

What you claimed happened to you is certainly mathematically possible, just like winning the Powerball is, but the odds you are exaggerating are considerably higher than it actually happening the way you suggest.


Well, technically you probably believe what you are saying, so in theory you are not "making it up," so much as you are not remembering reality correctly.

In the end this is not a big deal, as I said you are just exaggerventing after probably a couple bad beats to lose heads up. That's very standard in this industry for many players.

All the best.

I never claimed they were in a row at all.

This was over a 30minute heads up match, of which I started with a huge chip lead, he would win a flop, id get him back down to 1-2bbs, he would shove and hit,
repeat 9 times.

Was I venting? sure...I cashed in second so im not overly sauced like you assume...was just weird how the guy played, and never shove any other times.

But the 9 hands WERE NOT one after another, his only shoves in a 30ish min heads up match, called each one, smiled as I noticed I was way ahead, then Id see the flop... such as life

The 62 off vs my AKs shove (he had just won one of these flips, and had 400 more chips than me) was hilarious....variance right?

If I run into this player again ill take a screen shot of my notes on him...marked many of the hands down.
Just to give you a tiny chubby

I was not saying they happened 9 hands in a row, just that they were the 9 all-ins in a row as you claimed. As I said, its 50,000-1+ for him to win that if it happened, and the odds are even more extreme that 9 all-ins in a row would feature the same player having a dominating hand. That is winning Powerball territory, even before the extra crazy result of you losing all of them.



I believe the 62 hand happened, and probably a couple other unlucky all-ins, but your story as originally told did not happen.

You will never in your career face a single player and have 10 all-ins in a row (not necessarily 10 hands in a row) where you have a dominating hand every time and lose every one of them. Probably nobody has had this happen in the history of poker, so odds it happened to you in that sit and go are not too likely .

Better luck in future ones. Vent smarter!

All the best.

Gotcha, then my misunderstanding then. I thought you were saying in a row when you said "9 times straight". But I think what you are saying the 9 times he went all in straight this took place. I for sure find that much more believable. Yeah it seems that how it goes sometimes. And for what it is worth, I didn't take you as "just venting after a tourney loss" it was more of a "this is kind of crazy right?" sort of thing. I just was confused by the details of it all.

Actually 10 times in a row including the 62 hand, and I will toss the question to the stats guys to see what are the odds of this situation even happening (before the 50,000-1+ odds of him losing every hand which is separate.

Maybe in the theme of this thread it is a coin flip .

Losing 10 straight dominating hands is something like 1 in 400,000 (varies a bit based on the specific hands).

That's just the odds of losing straight (the 1 in 50,000 was for 9 in a row at 70/30).

There is an extra component involved. Ten hands that are all-in in a row have to have the same player have a dominating hand as he claimed to have happened. Ignore the outcomes of the hands for that, but the odds of that are pretty slim, though no idea how one would calculate those odds (because it depends on the ranges of hands each player plays), but I tossed the question here

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25.../#post52432108

and we will see if it can be answered.

Yeah I understood what you meant, was just commenting on the 50,000-1+ bit. The other component is less obvious and more interesting

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...83&postcount=3

A nice breakdown which would accurately breakdown what this person claimed happened.

Essentially the odds (with generous ranges for shoving and calling) that he would have a dominating hand 10 times in a row is just under 1 in 4 billion. That does not even factor in the actual results of the hands.

Add to that that he also has to lose all 10 of them (about 1 in 250,000 give or take), while magically not having this heads up sit and go end on any of them, and safe to say that the odds of exxagerventing are 100%.

It will theoretically happen before 100 flips of a coin land heads in a row, at least it has that going for it...

So, there's a chance!

Yeah, and I did say he probably was in winning Powerball territory with his claim. Seems that I underestimated his bad luck as winning Powerball is a mere 1 in 292 million event. What he said would happen is much, much harder to accomplish!

Cute how you completely glossed over the several posts of me saying "these hands were not in a row"

Small wiener syndrome.