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

[Mitch Evans]

OP cliff notes:

AK beats AQ, and you don't need 100k trials to prove that. Ergo... pokersites are rigged.

[WVHillbilly]

The word is skewed rigtard.

[dlk9s]

Originally Posted by stackerhound

Poker Site in a Foreign Country

Foreign to you.

I can not say whether online poker dealing is intentionly scewed in a way that generates the most rake for the site. However, there are alot of players that consistantly point to the fact they see a lot more action hands in online games than live games.

[Backspin20]

The problem with your theory is Lots of people have PT databases with one MIrron hands or more in them. The number of times Aces (for example) are delt/cracked/hold up are all in line with statistics figures. The truth is things happen like they should IN THE LONG RUN.

[sokrateez]

anyone who has played enough live poker can tell the difference

anyone who says there is no difference is either kidding themselves or doesnt play anywhere but online

[Rek]

Another loser, same old rigtard garbage.

[Cry Me A River]

Wow, there really IS one born every minute...

Originally Posted by stackerhound

Second point is computers are programmed - they do what they are told - they are not random. Their random number generators can be programmed in a way that will make the results difficult to predict but that does not make them random. They can also be reprogrammed to remove any particular anomaly long before it is detected by and unsuspecting user.

See, now, this is the part where we know you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Entropy source

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/rng/
http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/random-number-generator

I can not say whether online poker dealing is intentionly scewed in a way that generates the most rake for the site. However, there are alot of players that consistantly point to the fact they see a lot more action hands in online games than live games.

A lot of people also believe in Creationism, UFO abductions, and that Elvis is still alive.

And that would be the same people we laugh at in threads like this: Most absurd poker "thinking" you have heard in a live game?

The whole reason I play poker is to take money away from people dumber than I am. So I would give any credit to anything these people say because...?

I can say the 100,000 hand argument is absurd

I'm thinking of something else that's absurd. Can you guess what it is?

[qpw]

Well, well, well, I wonder who has made themselves a shiny new gimmick account.

OP, the reason that you need vastly more samples to determine anything about poker hands compared to tossing a coin is that: Poker Is Much More Complicated.

You obviously don't understand even the first thing about probability but surely even the most numb-skulled rigtard must appreciate that there at only two possible outcomes for a good toss of a coin compared to a very large number of a hand of poker.

It is the number of possible outcomes that determines the number of samples you need to come up with some statement with a given confidence factor.

[Tweed _Man]

Lose AK vs QQ heads up 100 times in a row (on a street corner?) and then your point will be valid.

[dbcooper279]

Coin flipping: only two possibilities
Trends appear relatively soon

Poker; 169 starting hands and a 19600 flops
Trends take thousands of hands to develop

[stackerhound]

My theory is the 100,000 hand argument is a fallacy. Period. Discrepancies can be determined with much smaller sample.

As far as things being rigged - i dont know. I havent seen a good argument against it. The Ultimate Bet scandal may have gone totally undetected if the superuser would have used a little more discretion in ripping people off or the employee had not replied to a hand request that showed all hole cards played instead of the requesters.

Anyway it wasn't my point - I just kept reading this 100,000 hand nonsense - and kept thinking that absurd.

[sokrateez]

seriously you guys that think there is no difference and there is no cheating are a bunch of sheep who believe anything whatever site tells you that they are doing.

[dbcooper279]

Certainly 100 hands isn't enough, and neither is 1000.

10k isn't worth analyzing, as you will only expect about 45 of each PP by that point.

100k provides 452 of each PP. Definitely analyzable.

50k might be acceptable, but you'll have to put up with more statistical error.

[PokerStars Development]

Originally Posted by stackerhound

When you complain he says you need to do it at least 100,000 times before you can conclude there is something wrong. Are you going to keep playing that game 100,000 times?

Nope. I'm going to get somebody I trust to verify that the quarter being used is unbiased, and that the game is fair. Thankfully, in the case of online poker, that's already been done for you.

http://www.cigital.com/

http://www.gov.im/gambling/

[dbcooper279]

Originally Posted by sokrateez

seriously you guys that think there is no difference and there is no cheating are a bunch of sheep who believe anything whatever site tells you that they are doing.

Bring the proof oh great one.