Yeah this is what I'm saying. Pokerstars is either

A. Perfectly random and fair.
B. Rigged.
C. Not perfectly random and will never match expectations.

My vote is C. Certain hands just don't work on stars. SC's run well below expectations, Aces run well above expectation. That's what I've seen from my analysis on my own cards.

It's pretty simple...any time you enter a flop, see how your equity decreases or increases on the flop. Do it only for hands you are VPIP.

I am sure you will find the same thing I find.

If this is true, PS will tend to favor the worse player, or at least the player that ignores the true odds.

That is not what I'm talking about and can be explained by other factors.

Please! Everyone! Stay away from WPEX. Trust me on this.

Please post another possibility. I'd love to hear it.

Please to be posting your "analysis on [your] own cards".

sorry for my harsh reply. you are a real player and i KNOW you have the common sense to not continue playing if you thought it was rigged.

i'll chalk it up as a tilt post.

wot?

Since you're a shortstacker you must be having lots of pre-flop all-ins. Do you know the number of your all-ins in this 54k hand sample ?

So you are down an average of 1.67BB/100 in your downswing. Don't feel bad, I am down 2.41BB/100 in my last 65,333 hands due to all-in luck. So I have to win at a rate of 2.41BB/100 (Big Bets) just to get to a level playing field. Wow, the more I keep looking at this and doing calculations the worse I realize it is. I am not a heavy volume player so these are all the cash game hands I've played since early July (when I achieved Supernova and did not use my two WSOP Main Event entries). I was playing some SNG's in the last few months as well - I may try jukofyork's SNG Luck analyzer tool from the Software forum to check my luck in those. The losses I've taken due to all-in luck in cash games is 80% of my bankroll.

Ahh so I moved down to 1/2NL this morning. Same crap. Only played 319 hands, lost all 3 all-ins with equity of 19.5, 52.5, 44.5, and on some hands played to the river I got runner-runner flushed after I flopped a set and some idiot hit a gutshot on the river after calling my flop check raise and betting out on the turn when I had an overpair. Kill me please.

c'mon dog. take this post to bbv where it belongs please. this is not a badbeat thread. your sample size is a joke, the three losses are well within a SD, not to mention this same scenario happens to all of us 5 times a day.

Obviously.

I'm talking about ALL sites - can anyone produce HEM all in luck graph from ANY site over at least a 150k sample where they run above average?

I'm not on here all the time but I still haven't seen one and I think therein could possibly be the answer.

this

This would work fine if you knew all the folded hole cards and if HEM figured those dead cards into the luck graph. Then it would be a true test of whether a site is fair.

The trouble is we don't know the folded hole cards. That means we have to guess something about them. All the luck graph calculators, like HEM, assume that the folded cards are uniformly random. That makes the deck stub uniformly random too. This is the basis for the luck calculation.

But it's founded on a false assumption. The folded cards are NOT random. People fold aces less than deuces. So we shouldn't expect the luck graph to converge to the same thing it would with a random deck.

There is still the interesting pattern that winning 2+2 posters tend to underperform their EV computed from a random deck. That means the villains are overperforming their EV. It's not clear this is actually true, since 2+2 posters who underperform are more likely to mention it. But if it is true, then here is the hypothesis:

Hypothesis: Villains tend to play different cards preflop than heroes; specifically, they tend to hold cards that are over-represented in the deck stub -- like an ace -- when a hero and a villain choose to go all-in together. Thus, they tend to hit their outs more often than they would with a random deck stub.

-pyg

I thought someone did some analysis based on card removal effects. It was really interesting. Hm.

Anyway, PokerStars has the ability to generate all the hand histories for a given player and all of the villains that he was involved with. It would be as simple as picking a user and running one of these luck tests against all of these cards to get an "accurate" result. However, this causes a lot of problems for obvious reasons - you would need to get the privacy release from all the players involved in pots with hero, which is basically impossible.

It could be done where a group of players set up bots at a play money table and just follow some drone-like shovefest where it's sanctioned by PokerStars, but I suspect they wouldn't go for that since they have nothing to gain - they can only lose by allowing this type of project.

Is this really true, are there no people with 150K hands on PokerStars and a positive all-in luck graph?

Yes that one post of mine was made out of frustration and probably didn't belong in this thread. However my 65k hands sample size of running -2.41BB/100 due to all-in luck is not a small sample size. I see you did not comment on that post. Interestingly enough since this weekend my all-in luck has actually been positive, but again over a small sample size.

The whole hole card removal theory doesn't really work for 6-max cash games (and obviously HU cash, duh). I can understand it making sense for 9/10 man SNGs where it is normal practice to shove any two cards in the small blind when its folded to you and you have less than 10BB's and the BB will call with any ace. But for 6-max cash games, there are less hole cards since there are less players at the table, and if two people are getting it in preflop then its usually with hands JJ+/AK. The card removal effect in this case would slightly favor AK if its going against QQ or JJ since its clear no one else has AA/KK. That's a very marginal effect though. In cash games the all-ins are usually more complicated than just simple pocket pair vs. ace-rag hands. For example you'll see all-ins on the flop such as KJhh vs TT on a QhAhTc board where card removal effects have no effect whatsoever.

That's impossible to know since I've only seen a few all-in luck graphs over those sample sizes and usually they are from people complaining about running bad. I would be curious to see the all-in luck graphs for a bunch of cash game regulars at stakes 1/2NL and above..

I don't know, but here is what would be interesting. Collect all-in luck graphs from players on multiple sites, as many as possible. Study all the graphs.

If the graphs from one site stand out as different, maybe because they all show negative luck while graphs from the other sites have some mix of negative and positive, then we need to look more at that ONE SUSPICIOUS SITE.

If the graphs from all the sites look roughly similar, even if they all show negative all-in luck, then it is safe to say that this is just the NATURE OF POKER. (And the selection bias of people who make all-in luck graphs vs those who don't.)

Given the data we've seen so far, I have my money on the second option.

-pyg

i can. i posted it once before a long time ago. its from full tilt.

From my experience with STARS you're the only sane person here...Well maybe besides myself...

The hands seem to be juiced for action and passing around rake...

Or to say...Criminal unregulated activity...

I'm not one of these "omgitsrigged" dudes but I stumbled on a passage of an interview from a PP guy in german language which left me with a slightly strange feeling. I'm gonna translate this passage to let you know what he is talking about.

He is talking about a balanced ecosystem. "We are looking foward to optimize this in the long term. We know that the professional players, well, need these loose tables to have an attractive game. OTOH the less skilled players also need good experience. These people can't be exploited too fast, otherwise they don't gain much out of the game and will never come back."

Dire, any update on the site comparative analysis you were undertaking? I've only lurked in this thread, but I'm very interested in the outcome of your analysis.

I can appreciate this thread but I know many of the its not rigged conspricy donks cant appreciate it.