The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

[Hoooligan]

The new PS patch is very effective, outdrawn pretty much 7/7 huge pots so far with strong premiums (never to regs, just the idiots)

[TPTK27]

Originally Posted by Wiki

If you could show that you had flopped 6,500 sets and your opponent(s) had always folded that would be pretty decisive evidence of a rigged deal.

When you have HH's that show something like that be sure to let us know.

Where have I said they fold 100%? I don't even know why you come into this thread to be honest. I know deep down you understand (understand, not agree) what you read and the context, yet spin it deliberately to make me look silly (oh but you do that yourself- Wiki's reply )

I'm talking %, firstly we don't know how often you should get action, should it be 20% of the time, 40% etc.

The point is, from that small sample of 6,000 from 1,000,000 hands played, you wouldn't be able to prove anything either way and a drift or manipulation one way or another which could easily be down to variance would affect your win rate.

Think about sessions where you win a few buy ins, mostly sets getting action, big hands getting action and holding up.

If the RNG was then altered so that a recent winning player doesn't get the same % of action, you wouldn't be able to prove it, especially given the CC should miss the flop outright over half the time, plus different players have different ranges, the variables would make it impossible to identify any kind of rig, yet it could be happening and having big effects on your win rate.

AGAIN, I'm not saying it is happening like this, I'm just saying if it was, you couldn't prove it 'easily', as Darkus claims.

[Hoooligan]

Took me 25 mins to see the altered RNG in this patch.

There are loads of paired boards (8 8 x), and huge amount of times it gets hit by a player when 2-3 ppl in pot.

Second thing altered: one pair will improve to two pair very often on turn and river. (for the caller - usually worser person)

Watch out and repot back

[Wiki]

Originally Posted by TPTK27

Where have I said they fold 100%?

You said: "Pretty much everytime you try value betting a flopped set as the PFR your opponent folds."

OK, not every time but clearly pretty much (your words) every time.

The point is, from that small sample of 6,000 from 1,000,000 hands played, you wouldn't be able to prove anything either way and a drift or manipulation one way or another which could easily be down to variance would affect your win rate.

You see, this is where you almost complete lack of understanding of stats and probability maths makes it all but impossible to discuss this sensibly.

If you provide a set of 6000 HH's it is too small a sample size to prove anything (other than the most absurdly faulty deal).

Providing a set of 1e6 hands that contain 6000 instances of some particular scenario where the results are way, way, out of kilter IS enough to demonstrate rigging (assuming you are playing with reasonable players).

If the RNG was then altered so that a recent winning player doesn't get the same % of action, you wouldn't be able to prove it, especially given the CC should miss the flop outright over half the time, plus different players have different ranges, the variables would make it impossible to identify any kind of rig, yet it could be happening and having big effects on your win rate.

AGAIN, I'm not saying it is happening like this, I'm just saying if it was, you couldn't prove it 'easily', as Darkus claims.

Of course you could prove it.

You need to understand the simple logic that the only reason you don't think it can be proven is because you are completely clueless as to how to do it.

It's a pretty safe bet that you don't understand complex aerodynamics but that does not mean you keep telling people that aircraft can't fly.

And I'll bet that you're none too hot on particle physics but you don't keep telling everyone fusion is impossible.

Just apply the same logic to stats: You don't understand it so you don't understand what you can and cannot do with it.

[Wiki]

Originally Posted by Hoooligan

Took me 25 mins to see the altered RNG in this patch.

There are loads of paired boards (8 8 x), and huge amount of times it gets hit by a player when 2-3 ppl in pot.

Second thing altered: one pair will improve to two pair very often on turn and river. (for the caller - usually worser person)

Watch out and repot back

The mere fact that you claim to spot a rig in 25 minutes is enough to tell us that you have spotted absolutely nothing.

[otatop]

Originally Posted by Hoooligan

Took me 25 mins to see the altered RNG in this patch.

There are loads of paired boards (8 8 x), and huge amount of times it gets hit by a player when 2-3 ppl in pot.

Second thing altered: one pair will improve to two pair very often on turn and river. (for the caller - usually worser person)

Watch out and repot back

QUIT PLAYING ON STARS.

How dumb are you?

[TPTK27]

Originally Posted by Wiki

You said: "Pretty much everytime you try value betting a flopped set as the PFR your opponent folds."

OK, not every time but clearly pretty much (your words) every time.



You see, this is where you almost complete lack of understanding of stats and probability maths makes it all but impossible to discuss this sensibly.

If you provide a set of 6000 HH's it is too small a sample size to prove anything (other than the most absurdly faulty deal).

Providing a set of 1e6 hands that contain 6000 instances of some particular scenario where the results are way, way, out of kilter IS enough to demonstrate rigging (assuming you are playing with reasonable players).



Of course you could prove it.

You need to understand the simple logic that the only reason you don't think it can be proven is because you are completely clueless as to how to do it.

It's a pretty safe bet that you don't understand complex aerodynamics but that does not mean you keep telling people that aircraft can't fly.

And I'll bet that you're none too hot on particle physics but you don't keep telling everyone fusion is impossible.

Just apply the same logic to stats: You don't understand it so you don't understand what you can and cannot do with it.

All fine and well, hence the question in the first place.

Explain to me how from the 6,000 sample of flopped sets how you would determine if you're getting the right amount of action then.

We can both agree, if it was rigged to prevent a player getting action, it would affect his win rate. This is obvious.

But the question is, how do you prove you're not getting enough action- it's no good saying I'm clueless etc without actually pointing out how you would prove it to be rigged or not so easily?

Outline the procedure for me.

Your latter arguments are actually a line I was going to take in this thread. You said-

It's a pretty safe bet that you don't understand complex aerodynamics but that does not mean you keep telling people that aircraft can't fly.

Same goes for the fact that I don't need to be a mathemitician to know that if a deal was altered to reduce the % of times a certain player gets action on his flopped sets, that it would affect his win rate over that sample.

But, you seem to be the expert, so educate me on how from a 6,000 sample of 1,000,000 hands played, whethere you would dtermine a player is getting his fair share of action. Please, enlighten me on this topic and produce a reply that shows how easy this would be.

[Hoooligan]

haha, only larger pots won so far was blatant bluffs.. NICE PATCH STARS

[Hoooligan]

ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE

[Bingo_Boy]

Originally Posted by TPTK27

OK then, explain how you would detect the following scenario-

Your sets no longer get action.

Pretty much everytime you try value betting a flopped set as the PFR your opponent folds.

Where would you start, please go through the process you would use to find this incredibly blatant rig?

Bear in mind you get a PP 5% of the time, you flop a set 1/8, so with a million hands played, you would have like 6,250 flopped sets approx, so from 1,000,000 hands played, you would have just 6,250 hands that would have a massive impact on a player's win rate, where would you start in determining whether you where getting enough action or not on sets?

And even if you could, you only get 6,250 sets from 1,000,000 played hands, so it could all be fobbed off as 'variance' anyway.

Play another million son and get back to me

Firstly, most of the arguments in this thread are about complete morons claiming that they have seen the rigging whilst playing, whilst also claiming that the hand histories that record everything they've seen prove nothing. You don't need to know anything about poker, statistics, regulation or motives to understand that this is completely stupid so stop claiming you have detected the undetectable.

Fact

As far as your question is concerned, the rig you suggested would be altering the distribution of flop cards according to a set of rules based on your opponents cards. The cards that people see flops with are not random so by definition the flop cards will not be random if they are made to "match" villain when you miss your set and made to "miss" villain when you hit a set. Allowing for card removal, an analysis of flop cards would show a completely different distribution when you hit your set and when you miss it.

Fact

[batair]

Originally Posted by Hoooligan

ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE ITS THE DRAW PATCH BEWARE

Does this mean i should chase my draws or fold them?

[otatop]

Originally Posted by TPTK27

Same goes for the fact that I don't need to be a mathemitician to know that if a deal was altered to reduce the % of times a certain player gets action on his flopped sets, that it would affect his win rate over that sample.

So now your "theory" is so complex it involves sites specifically denying players action when they have good hands?

At what point are you just going to decide that all "bad" players are actually bots owned by the sites to steal money?

Originally Posted by Hoooligan

haha, only larger pots won so far was blatant bluffs.. NICE PATCH STARS

Get a blog. No one gives a **** about your retarded 2NL "beats".

Why don't you cash out your Stars roll and buy yourself a Happy Meal and shut the **** up.

[Wiki]

Originally Posted by TPTK27

All fine and well, hence the question in the first place.

Explain to me how from the 6,000 sample of flopped sets how you would determine if you're getting the right amount of action then.

We can both agree, if it was rigged to prevent a player getting action, it would affect his win rate. This is obvious.

But the question is, how do you prove you're not getting enough action- it's no good saying I'm clueless etc without actually pointing out how you would prove it to be rigged or not so easily?

Outline the procedure for me.

Your latter arguments are actually a line I was going to take in this thread. You said-

It's a pretty safe bet that you don't understand complex aerodynamics but that does not mean you keep telling people that aircraft can't fly.

Same goes for the fact that I don't need to be a mathemitician to know that if a deal was altered to reduce the % of times a certain player gets action on his flopped sets, that it would affect his win rate over that sample.

But, you seem to be the expert, so educate me on how from a 6,000 sample of 1,000,000 hands played, whethere you would dtermine a player is getting his fair share of action. Please, enlighten me on this topic and produce a reply that shows how easy this would be.

To explain very simply:

You can easily, from your 1e6 HH's, determine the median average and std deviation of the number of times you get action in any scenario that externally resembles yours.

Then you compare this with the number of times you get action with the cards you are considering.

You check to see how many std. dev's from the average your result is and this gives you a figure for the confidence you can have that the deal is rigged.

In your example you would be very confident.

[TPTK27]

Originally Posted by Wiki

To explain very simply:

You can easily, from your 1e6 HH's, determine the median average and std deviation of the number of times you get action in any scenario that externally resembles yours.

Then you compare this with the number of times you get action with the cards you are considering.

You check to see how many std. dev's from the average your result is and this gives you a figure for the confidence you can have that the deal is rigged.

In your example you would be very confident.

Ok thanks.

Do you appreciate you would have to play 1,000,000 hands to get a 6,000 flopped hand sample?

Also appreciate that there would be many more ways to rig it, this wouldn't be the only way to look at it.

Combining player's ranges differring, millions upon millions of hands, a complex understanding of stats and maths, do you appreciate this would be a difficult task.

Would this be as easy as Darkus states earlier in thread?

[Monteroy]

Originally Posted by otatop

So now your "theory" is so complex it involves sites specifically denying players action when they have good hands?

He added a new netork (Cake network) into the mix as well.

He has yet to do is demonstrate how much money (if any) the sites would make from these rigs.

Originally Posted by otatop

At what point are you just going to decide that all "bad" players are actually bots owned by the sites to steal money?

That's now how he works. He gets off on making theories more complex to the point of being meaningless. This option is simple and stupid, and that is why other riggies (who usually opt for this approach) cannot relate to him at all.

Originally Posted by otatop

Get a blog. No one gives a **** about your retarded 2NL "beats".

This is his blog. I did hurl him into the strategy forums but the thread got locked as he was getting laughed at by the regs there for his horrific play skill. He found his calling - grinding 2 NL, not winning a lot, but whining a lot.

Originally Posted by otatop

Why don't you cash out your Stars roll and buy yourself a Happy Meal and shut the **** up.

He gets off on whining, so he will keep doing it.


Riggies are kind of fun when you break them down and they do come in different flavors which is nice.