Official Poker Site Data Analysis and Discussion Thread

[iplay27off]

Originally Posted by MicroBob

iplay27 - exactly how many beats SHOULD you be taking?
If you don't know the answer to this then you can't know that you take more than that.

Considering what I call beats(3 or less outers) would mean I SHOULD be taking beats 5% of the time when those situations come up, not 65% of the time.

[gfire3245]

[QUOTE/]1p0kerboy;5369532
But even though that's a 700k+ sample it's obviously nowhere big enough to be meaningful,[/QUOTE]

so, your saying if you were to any deal any hand and the non favorite won
10 times in a row, that would mean nothing?

[MyTurn2Raise]

yep... the majority of my evidence is essentially what 1p0kerboy put up
do that for the 'grinding regulars' and you see a sick pattern

I started to test my own results doing monte carlos of all my allins-- assign a random number and compare it to whether it is below or above the equity pct my hand had when the money went in-- my actual results would be in the bottom 2% of 10,000 monte carlos I ran (possible-yes, likely-no)
I found similar things looking at other high volume grinders

[MyTurn2Raise]

Originally Posted by NoLimitLeagues

they did hire a reputable firm dumbass. gl getting out of the trailer park.

no... they did not

and they only covered the RNG, instead of having an exhaustive look at everything

bring a big 4 firm in

let the players datamine

let's see some full transparency

what are they hiding?

[1p0kerboy]

so, your saying if you were to any deal any hand and the non favorite won
10 times in a row, that would mean nothing?

You tell me.

There's a <1% chance (0.38% to be exact) that my sample was going to be as bad as it is this year.

Am I just really, really unlucky or are the results being manipulated somehow?

[gfire3245]

Originally Posted by 1p0kerboy

You tell me.

There's a <1% chance (0.38% to be exact) that my sample was going to be as bad as it is this year.

Am I just really, really unlucky or are the results being manipulated somehow?

I totally think its not "random". Have you ever been like, i cannot win this, or lose this, and proceed to lose or win?

[iplay27off]

lol I found someone who runs like me.....but these idiots talk about "luck" all thread long.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...d.php?t=230387

[MicroBob]

1p0kerboy - Another option:
Or is your methodology for analyzing this all messed up?

The fact that you haven't even considered this as a possibility and just assume that the way you have gone about this HAS to be correct is quite telling I think.
Similar to the 'rigged' whiners who absolutely KNOW that they are playing 'correct poker' yet Stars makes them lose anyway. They completely dismiss the fact that they might not be winners...because they just KNOW that they play correctly and that it's their opponents who play incorrectly.

I find it very likely that you have not gone through this whole analysis process correctly yet you assume that you have done everything right and thus Stars must be putting you in the bottom 1% on the all-in equity thing.

[iplay27off]

Originally Posted by MicroBob

1p0kerboy - Another option:
Or is your methodology for analyzing this all messed up?

The fact that you haven't even considered this as a possibility and just assume that the way you have gone about this HAS to be correct is quite telling I think.
Similar to the 'rigged' whiners who absolutely KNOW that they are playing 'correct poker' yet Stars makes them lose anyway. They completely dismiss the fact that they might not be winners...because they just KNOW that they play correctly and that it's their opponents who play incorrectly.

I find it very likely that you have not gone through this whole analysis process correctly yet you assume that you have done everything right and thus Stars must be putting you in the bottom 1% on the all-in equity thing.

Bob has all the answers, he always does.

[MicroBob]

1p0kerboy - Just clicked the link.
OH WOW!! You aren't even looking at all-in pre-flop situations but rather your overall all-in equity on any hands.
I'm now even more convinced that you are reaching your conclusions incorrectly.

Whatever. I believe that you still play at Stars for whatever reason which I think is pretty odd if you truly suspect that Stars might be placing you in the bottom 1% to have a chance of winning after you get all your chips in.

[1p0kerboy]

Originally Posted by MicroBob

1p0kerboy - Another option:
Or is your methodology for analyzing this all messed up?

The fact that you haven't even considered this as a possibility and just assume that the way you have gone about this HAS to be correct is quite telling I think.
Similar to the 'rigged' whiners who absolutely KNOW that they are playing 'correct poker' yet Stars makes them lose anyway. They completely dismiss the fact that they might not be winners...because they just KNOW that they play correctly and that it's their opponents who play incorrectly.

I find it very likely that you have not gone through this whole analysis process correctly yet you assume that you have done everything right and thus Stars must be putting you in the bottom 1% on the all-in equity thing.

Bob

Usually you're pretty good at analyzing and interpreting people's posts, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.

I repeated several times that I'm not saying 'Stars is rigged' and you failed to acknowledge that and immediately implied that I said that. Sigh.

You also failed to realize that the main point of my posts were the previous results of not just mine but also several other Stars players. And what brought the topic of us discussing it in the first place was not the sample I posted in the thread, but both samples of which I no longer have due to a crashed hard drive and the results of other players.

Similar to the 'rigged' whiners who absolutely KNOW that they are playing 'correct poker' yet Stars makes them lose anyway. They completely dismiss the fact that they might not be winners...because they just KNOW that they play correctly and that it's their opponents who play incorrectly.

Once again I'm disappointed in your analytical ability because this is not only ridiculous far from what I said, it's not even close to the point I'm trying to make.

I'm a pretty decent winner at PokerStars so I'm definitely not whining. I play 'correct' in many spots but I'm convinced that I have leaks and plenty of room for improvement. So this isn't even like that at all.

I run way worse than I'm supposed to in 'all-in' situations. That's pretty obvious. These simulations don't take into account how well you played or didn't play because that doesn't matter. They take the percent of the pot that you are supposed to win based on your actual chances and then compare that number to what you actually won. It doesn't matter if you're getting your money in good or bad.

So I actually think you should look into how this all works before you make yourself a key part of this thread.

I just got to thinking that maybe you don't know how to interpret the PokerEV graphs? I posted only the luck tab and those aren't my actual winnings/loses. I'm not really sure what you know/don't know as far as reading those things but it's pretty obvious that you're doing something wrong.

Whatever. I believe that you still play at Stars for whatever reason which I think is pretty odd if you truly suspect that Stars might be placing you in the bottom 1% to have a chance of winning after you get all your chips in.

I'm making money at Stars. I like their VIP program. I like their customer service. I like their software.

I think I'm getting an honest game but I'm not entirely sure.

I don't necessarily think that Stars put me in the bottom 1%. But it's certainly possible.

What catches my attention are the number of regs that run in the bottom x%. That's the point I'm trying to stress here. So please stop spinning what I'm saying into other things.

[1p0kerboy]

Originally Posted by MicroBob

7fold - 1p0kerboy believes he has stumbled upon the actual 'proof' of the site being set up against him.
It's all quite exciting really.

Where did I say I had actual proof of the site being set up against me?

You definitely have some comprehension issues or are an idiot. One or the other.

[1p0kerboy]

Originally Posted by 1p0kerboy

You tell me.

There's a <1% chance (0.38% to be exact) that my sample was going to be as bad as it is this year.

Am I just really, really unlucky or are the results being manipulated somehow?

The point of this post was basically to say that even if results were being manipulated somehow, it could never be proven because there are going to be people who run in the bottom % over every sample.

Maybe Bob read more into this and that's where he's coming up with all of his weird stuff he's been posting.

[fozzy71]

Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise

i've posted some stuff before

here's something easy

go through your hands and just do ev calcs on the regulars
even with numerous hands being v each other, what happens in the other hands (regulars v non-regs) is enough to show up

you can start there and just dig to see how odd some of the things are

I'm basically saying that PStars is programming in things that will help the fish last longer

cue all the PStars shills to tell me how full of crap I am, etc
bunch of sell-outs

I didnt bother to read all the back and forth after this post, but.. with respect to running ev calcs on 'regs' from your DB, it can never be even close to accurate, unless you have all the HHs with all the hole cards known.

Originally Posted by Phil153

Only for hands you've played vs them, and only on supported sites that show mucked cards. If you try to run it on datamined hands it won't be accurate at all, since most of the hand grabbers don't show mucked cards.

That probably varies by site and hand grabber (I know that some show mucked cards).

[1p0kerboy]

fozzy

Stars doesn't allow datamined hands so that wouldn't be an issue.

In all of the other hand histories all of the hole cards would be known.