That's exactly what I was wondering. If these hands are REALLY consecutive, I would have a problem too.

I have decided to help out with the analysis.

I am writing a program to tease out hole cards only. The great thing is that it doesn't matter what poker game you are playing.

What do you guys thing would be a good sample size?

why?

do you seriously feel that there is a problem with hole card distribution?

a simple search on google will find whaqt you are looking for. no need for a program.

Oh. OK so that's done.

Hmmm. Then it either it's completely fair or it is being manipulated. Yeah, I see the problem.

I am a database developer and I do some statistical analysis. But this problem is way too complex for me. However, I am willing to donate some of my time if anyone has a plan of action.

At the very least we could design a methodology to test other sites in the future.

LOL...What is the percentage for flopping a boat /flush? how about on the river? u all so niave i laugh.... eg..AK vs AK the rake feed the 0.004% hitting on river lol.. the KKvs AA set up U CANNOT PLAY A MATH GAME ON THE NET AS NOT RANDOM BUT DETERMINED.{LOOK INTO THAT} OPEN YOUR EYES.

Yes i have a big sample size and i have looked at every time all in and to the felt the results would make harrington cry....i have analyliesd every hand im in front and then lost over the last 2 years......im in tears.....i have even graphed this my self and although i make a bit over this i should of made a million...and more..does this info stand up to normall poker odds and outs NO. WHY IS THIS..

Can someone direct me to the thread with the all in heads up stats that was up a few days ago? The OP contended that his cards did not win the statistically "correct" amount of times.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/54...-graph-318261/

Thanks - this isn't exactly the one I was looking for. My guy was comparing heads up situations in SNG's and the discussion went a little further than "zomg rigged" It was more like: As a 65% favorite heads up he was only winning 40% through several thousand sng's

iirc, the analysis was flawed.

I have been keeping careful notes on my hands for the last month and tagging all hands where my money is all in at any point. My goal is to quantify true %'s.

I've thought about this and I think the best thing we can do for analysis is take a large random sample of hands in which our money is all in.

Let me say this before I say anything further...since I have been keeping track, I have been sucked out at an unsustainable rate...yet I am ahead in profits for the period.

If anyone would like to send me HH's for analysis, please pm me. I am going to take a bunch of AI hands and categorize them.

Good Thread
Is Dire still collecting HH ?
I don't have that many but am willing to send mine if it will help get prove the validity or riggedness of online poker

So far what is the verdict ?

Since I hit Supernova in early July my all-in luck is a complete joke (on the bad side), in any form of game I play, whether it be SNG's or cash, 6-max, heads-up, whatever. My bankroll would be twice as much as it is now if it were not due to all-in luck (or the riggedness).
My hand histories are available to anyone if they want them.

i think your all-in luck results are coming from flawed data.

I think you don't know what you are talking about. All-in luck is easy to compute. HEM does it for you; it has a bug with sidepots but thats a very small factor. A lot of my all-in losses are from heads-up cash anyways which HEM will compute all-in luck perfectly. I was doing it myself in an Excel spreadsheet before I used HEM, and their results matched up pretty much exactly.

Anyways, I am quitting poker for awhile after today's ridiculous session. Every day my all-in luck gets worse and worse, its no longer worth playing when I can't win even when I play well. It has been like this since July.

I just can't play when I don't trust the site. If it is rigged then I'm making a smart decision; if it isn't then I am still doing myself a favor because the idea it is will always be lurking in my mind.

Full Tilt Poker, $24 + $2 NL Hold'em Sit n' Go, 15/30 Blinds, 9 Players
LeggoPoker.com - Hand History Converter

Hero (UTG+1): 1,470
UTG+2: 1,455
MP1: 1,455
MP2: 1,845
CO: 1,365
BTN: 1,305
SB: 1,605
BB: 1,500
UTG: 1,500

Pre-Flop: (45) A A dealt to Hero (UTG+1)
UTG folds, Hero raises to 105, 6 folds, BB calls 75

Flop: (225) 7 2 4 (2 Players)
BB bets 225, Hero raises to 1,365 and is All-In, BB calls 1,140

Turn: (2,955) 5 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

River: (2,955) 7 (2 Players - 1 is All-In)

Results: 2,955 Pot
Hero showed A A (two pair, Aces and Sevens) and LOST (-1,470 NET)
BB showed K 7 (three of a kind, Sevens) and WON 2,955 (+1,485 NET)

88%/12%... standard on Fulltilt. I don't even remember the last time I've won a allin preflop with QQ+.

well, this hand history certainly confirms that the rig is on!! i have never seen a beat like that.

Beats, Brags, and Variance

Did you even read the OP?

I am now 90 short buyins (20BB) below equity shortstacking on stars. This is the worst run I have had in 3 million hands of shortstacking on at least 6 different sites.

Has anyone legitimately looked into this?

yeah and it's the all-in luck measurement as it relates to card-removal effects

I don't think anyone's "proven" it with data yet but it seems to be the most plausible explanation

ie - can anyone post a graph from HEM with at least 150k hands where you're running ABOVE equity re: all-in luck?

didn't think so

lol @ anyone trying to blame ridiculous amounts of minus all-in luck for 6max or HU games on card removal effects (especially HU lololol). Give me a break. The reason no one with over 150K hands can post a positive all-in luck graph is because those people are regulars and aren't allowed to have good luck on Stars. I should have quit when I said I would. I tried playing again today but the same old crap, another 1 1/2 buy-ins down in all-in EV in 1361 hands.

90 buy-ins in how many hands ?

54k

IF the data shows that people are below equity on stars and at normal equity on other sites, then the ONLY explanation besides it being rigged is that there is an error in how the program calculates equity on stars specifically.

i'm sure i will start a war here, but i can't believe YOU are asking this. i have lost any respect i had for you. you are nothing but a kook.

I've probably played close to 6 million hands of online poker in my life.

The only accusation I've ever made of a site being rigged was WPEX - which I was right about because people were colluding there.

I still haven't said I think it's rigged. My results are unusual and I think it warrants being looked into in a scientific manner. That is all.

I would have chalked it up to being a terrible run on pokerstars if it wasn't for this thread.