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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

and it's not like we have much of a choice to play elsewhere MB... I'm willing to tolerate a little manipulation compared to the rest of the market

I'd believe it would be same elsewhere.

I'm not sure... after UIGEA, the choice was FTP or PStars for available games at my limit
looking at the bot farms on FTP, I chose Stars

IOW, complain, whine and moan, but continue to play somewhere you think is cheating you. Makes perfect sense.

I would think the preponderance of evidence would mean anyone that believes an online gambling site is on the up and up is the 'downie'

Evidence? Where?

what software does this?
It's not Poker Tracker...I don't think there is one that will tell you expected value...but if there is please let me know!

Um, yeah. MT2R, I know you're well-respected as a player, and you seemed a nice enough guy when I met you in Vegas, but posts like these make me scratch my head a bit. While I'm not convinced every site is definitely on the up and up, lacking evidence otherwise, I believe I'm getting a fair shake. Am I the 'downie'?

I would say "Yes. The default should be that it is all rigged, and they have to go out of their way to prove otherwise."

Given the lack of transparency from Poker Stars and some curious data, there is no way I would believe I'm getting a fair shake.

Where is this 'curious data' and other evidence you keep talking about?

I already said it and told how to look yourself

So the evidence is out here but you won't point us to it? Please help someone I can't see it.

I still don't have my hand histories from Stars but a Game Security Specialist sent me a PM and said he is going to get them for me. If anybody would be willing to examine my stats for me I'll gladly provide my HH's via email. I myself am not statistically adept enough to know how to do this and come out with the damning evidence that surely lies in my stats.

MicroBob and BoboFett,

I still can't get over your attitude here. Given what happened with UB and AP and the central role that 2+2 and our 'internet detectives' played in uncovering the cheating there, 2+2 has become the defacto 'independent 3rd party audit' for the online poker world. It is clear these sites are not going to police themselves so it is our job to do it for them. All the OP is asking is that we perform such an audit of PokerStars.

I'm fully willing to accept that my claims may be false. But you should be also willing to accept that perhaps I am correct. If even a 1% chance that I am correct exists, the examination needs to take place. Given the corruption we have found at other sites and the fact that Stars is the largest site in the industry with millions and millions of dollars in 2+2 deposits, the only mistake to be made is blindly trusting them.

OK, I'll have to agree to disagree with you on this point, but I understand where you're coming from. We're actually not all that far apart, in some ways. You are sceptical of all the sites, but you make money and you don't find them so rigged that you won't play. I continue to make money playing as well, so I tend to give the benefit of the doubt until I see something I think is questionable. Also, being a limit bonus whore, I'd probably notice if I was getting screwed out of a bonus before I spotted a super user.

Did you read the whole post? You may have dozed off at the half-way point; I'll admit it was a little tl; dr. You're talking about the first type of "rigged sceptic" I described.

I can't get over your interpretation of my attitude. Why do you think I'm unwilling to accept that you could be correct? I just ask for some kind of evidence.

My assumption, with yours being about the 20th "poker is rigged" thread this week, was that you were trolling. For the moment, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt again, and assume you're serious. What do you propose to do? I'm not sure what kind of positive response you thought you would get when you start with something like "Stars is rigged, let's prove it", but here we are. So, any ideas?

Do you know this?
I don't think you do.
I think you THINK you know how to calculate what the chance of such a sample is but I don't think you are considering everything including such things as effect of card-removal, etc.

If the results you end up getting show that it's THAT unlikely for it to happen then you either really ARE that unlucky, the site really IS setting it up against you, or there really IS a flaw in your calculations.

The fact that you fail to acknowledge the 3rd possibility DOES make you similar to the rigged-conspiracy types. I said it was SIMILAR to them.
They fail to acknowledge that their play could be inferior. The reason they lose all the time isn't the cards...it's on their end.
Here you fail to acknowledge that maybe you are coming to some faulty conclusions with your data. You think it's the cards that have put you in the bottom 1% or perhaps the site somehow did that...but it's still possible the problem could be on your end in something you are missing with all this poker EV stuff.



And I got to thinking that YOU are the one who doesn't know how to interpret them.
Seriously.
I don't really know for sure. But the first thing I would think of if my results were that far from normal would be, "Am I absolutely positive I am interpreting this stuff correctly? This just doesn't seem right so I'm guessing the problem is with me."
You don't seem to be doing that at all.

I had a guy write to me about winning 4 out of 6 times with AA over a 3k hand sample...yet he was losing money with his AA.
How can this be possible?
He was really thrown by this and had no idea what was happening or why the site would rig it like that against him.

He failed to analyze the data properly and didn't think that if he is too aggressive with AA and only wins $4 at a pop with it (or just gets unlucky and nobody will pay him off with anything) then he's going to be in trouble when he does get his AA cracked because very few times will you lose the absolute minimum with AA. Usually you're going to pay somebody off and if they happen to catch a set you're frequently going to get stacked.

He just couldn't see how such an aberration could exist within a HUGE 3k hand sample and why AA was such a big loser for him. He declared that it was mathematically impossible for that to happen really.
He was wrong.

Obviously we have a more complicated situation with pokerboy's graph thing.
But similar to my example...just because you THINK that something is mathematically unrealistic and you're pretty sure you are looking at this correctly doesn't make it so.

My mistake. Stars did send the HH's to me w/in 48 hours. I've got them and will try and find somebody to help me analyze them and poast results ITT

Start by posting a graph please

I don't claim to be an expert. But when pokerEV says "This is your all-in equity and the chances of that happening are X" I simply don't believe them.
Seriously.
I think their methodology may be flawed.

I just downloaded the program and looked through a couple hands.
One hand that stood out was 3-handed to the flop but only 2 of us got it all-in.
I am pretty sure that the pokerEV program counted the folded player's hand as being two random and unknown cards for the equity calculations and this simply isn't realistic. We know SOMETHING about his hand and about our true chances just from his actions already...being that he entered preflop and then folded to the action on the flop.

Here's the hand:

TAG player UTG opens for 3xBB with ??
Maniac player in MP calls with 84s.
I call with TT on the button.

Flop is 883.

TAG bets a little more than half-pot.
Maniac min-raises.
I put maniac on pretty much any two cards (including flush draw or A3 perhaps) and would like to get it heads-up or just take it down now. So I shove. Bad idea.
TAG folds.
Maniac calls of course.

Here I still have a chance to catch a T.
If I do then of course he still has a 1 in 44 chance to catch the case 9 to beat me.

But is that really the case?
I would argue that he certainly does NOT have a 1 in 44 chance of catching the case 8.
It's more like 1 in 42. There is almost zero chance that UTG's folded cards actually contained a 8 (yeah, theoretically it's possible...but if he had an 8 he's sure as heck going to call more often than not).
So in the situations where the 8 and T come on the turn or river or in reverse order the odds of that happening are actually slightly higher than the pokerEV calculator would give credit for.
My chances of winning the hand are actually slightly less than what the EV calculator would tell me. The effect of card-removal played a small difference here and over time I believe that an add up.

Also worth noting that UTG's range preflop would potentially contain some T's in there such as ATs, TT (so I'm drawing completely dead) or JTs. Probably wasn't a T in his hand but it sure is more likely that he had a T than a 5 for example...and almost zero chance he had the case 8.


Another example...this one hypothetical:
4 players get to the flop with AJ, AK, QQ and AA.
The flop comes Q74.
The QQ and AA guys get it all-in while the AK and AJ fold on the flop. Here is a situation where I am drawing completely dead since no aces are remaining for me to hit...yet we don't know this because we will never see the folded cards. And the pokerEV calculator would put my chances of winning at 8%.
And if it's a huge hand and pot then that 8% equity it gives me credit for when I really SHOULD HAVE 0% equity can be somewhat significant I think.
It can definitely add up over the course of a 750k hand sample.

Then there are all the hands where you might get AK vs. 77 after it's folded around to you in the blinds.
Via the effect of card removal we can guess that the chances of an A or K being in the remaining pack of cards might be slightly higher. We know this is slightly higher because all the hands before us folded pre-flop.
A significant percentage of the hands containing an A in them would have entered the pot preflop. We can pretty much guess that not a single player who folded had AA, AK or AQ. There is probably a slightly higher chance that the AK will beat the 77 I believe because there is a slightly greater chance that an A or K are left in the remaining pack based on the knowledge that nobody else felt their cards were worth playing.

Instead of 45% or so maybe the AK is closer to 46 or 47% or so.
I really don't know and anything we tried to come up with for the true effect of card-removal assuming typical TAG's playing in all the other seats would still not yield accurate results.
But I do know that a player who folds his hand preflop was slightly less likely to have an A or a K for his mucked cards and slightly more likely to have a 7.

Do we think that AK seems to beat 77 in the all-in races slightly more than it should? Well, something like this could very well be why.

We assume that the folded cards preflop are random for purposes of determining all-in chances. But we know for damn sure that AA or KK wasn't folded preflop (unless by accident) so I think even in something like this we are getting skewed results.