If it's rigged in any form, it will show in the end, whether you analyze 100k hands or 100mil hands.

Its ****en bull**** and nothing else.

I like the intellectuals who drop into this thread.

Yes, they really raise the tone and, with their carefull crafted arguments, give us all something to ponder upon.

Very interesting statment

Just rewards bad play.

Playing well and getting sucked out as always.

QQ < A4
AK < A3
KK < KJ

So I go on tilt and start playing like the rest of the morons.

A9 > KK
K10 > AK
33 > AA

So lame. I guess I should be happy to win those hands.


Can't remember the last time I folded a flush draw on PS. Why would you?

Given the large variance of even a fair game, it may be impossible to statistically prove anything, ever. Am I due to hit a flush? Maybe, maybe not. But the sites can say that overall flushes come in at the right frequency, and the long run is long enough that by the time you can determine absolutely that you've been taken, you'll be dead. It's like the common poker problem of making a decision with incomplete information. With what I know and comparing my online win rate to live. I'm calling shenanigans.

Lol @ the concept of being due. The probability of hitting your flush doesn't change, whether you've hit your last 3 in a row or missed 8 out of the last 10.

I'd bet your live sample size is much smaller than your online sample size.

Maybe learn a little more maths?

Maths is the key to understanding, no doubt about it.

Unfortunately those with no grasp of probability maths never seem to see the logic in that.

Edit: Or, looking at it from a cold hard financial perspective, fortunately.

As dbcooper has already pointed out, this is flawed and the fact that you would think it shows that you don't have the necessary grasp on probability that it takes to make any sort of serious analysis.

Honestly im starting to think the "fairtards" are as bad as the rigtards.

im not sure what your beef is with bitterchris's statement, aisde from the fact that he said "due" and obv nothing is due because when youre dealing with independent events.

He has a fair point, though he's wrong and he articulated it poorly. His point was "if the deck is not fair and that fact is somehow working to my detriment, i would never discover it, because i would exhaust all my funds and have to stop playing long before i had a sample size large enough to dispositively demonstrate that my results were caused by running at expectation on an unfair deck rather than below it on a fair one"

The answer is that the point of conversion is pretty low. There are probably people who play enough hands in a week to determine basic card distribution stats within a low margin of error and a high degree of confidence.

as a side note, the consecutive times i could draw at a flush and miss it is not of any predictive value, but post factum,from the perspective of analyzing for fairness of the shuffle, yes, it means more that i missed 19 times in a row than 18, and yes, if i get to some particular number, wether it be 19 or 1900 or 19000 i can say with a high degree of confidence that the probablity of hitting a flush might be lower than a fair deck would suggest.

think of it this way, all other thi9ngs being equal, the 8th inning without a runner on base is no more or less likely, as an independent event, than the third inning without a runner on but as we go from the third to the fourth to the fifth to the sixth to the seventh, each of these independent events, when looked at as a group retrospectively, make it more likely that were playing in a game that will be a no hitter.

Well, you're contradicting yourself here, aren't you.

You can see exactly what the beef is because you've enumerated it yourself.

And why chose to quote my post?

dbcooper279 was the first to point out the faulty thinking wrt 'being due a flush'.

All I was saying is that if people would only spend some time learning and understanding even basic probability maths we would get a good deal fewer post from those concerned that the deal is rigged.

You are a Moron

From you, I'll take that as a complement.

probably not.

yeah, but i think it was irrelevant to the point of his post.

because i already ripped on him for not understanding limits and infinite trials. I wanted to spread the love around. (no ****)

The point of his post was inherently flawed. I'm not seeing the issue here.

Oh, I think you are:

There are two things fundamentally wrong with his post:

1) "Given the large variance of even a fair game, it may be impossible to statistically prove anything, ever."

2) " Am I due to hit a flush?"

I simply suggested that if he had a better understanding of probability maths he would not have made these two mistakes. I can't see what your beef is with that.

Who can prove to me that you are not a brain-in-a-vat with sensory inputs being fed to you by an evil genius's supercomputer?

Similarly, no one can ever prove that online poker is not rigged. We don't set out to prove negatives. In the absence of some sort of affirmative proof, the negative is assumed. Occam's razor and all that. That's how rational people function in life.

On a lighter note, I'm told that drinking some of this means that you too can be a true believer:



Have another glass.

Damnit, exposed!

Oops.

You weren't talking to me, were you?

Damnit, damnit, damnit!

1. That's right, it's one of the reasons why you'll never be able to "prove", in a traditional sense, that you're being cheated.

2. Wow, you're right again- how did you know? Continuing my line of thought, a way of showing this would to use a program like StatKing to track live and online results to the point where it is 95 or 99 percent confident your true winrate is accurate to within +/- a certain amount, and if the live and online winrates are significantly different then rigged=true

1. You certainly could. In a very large sample, there is an expectation that you will hit X flushes. Should your actual results fall +/- 3 standard deviations from the expectation, you might consider an unfair game.

2. Just because you make $x/hr live doesn't mean that if you don't make $x/hr online that online is rigged.

Chris, take a stats class. Your inability from grasping such simple concepts is making you look like a ******.

FWIW, if you truly believe online poker is rigged, why in the hell would you play, and then complain about it?

The most annoying ****en thing is the Ace happy boards on PS.

There's no way an ACE can come that ****en often. Every ****en Ace rag is atleast 50% against high PP.

In your mind, how often should and ace flop? What are the odds in your ideal world?