Reality is reality. Players going broke chasing their losses in an unrealistic dream, I don't think, helps anybody in the long run.

A lot of us have been going back and forth with Negreanu in another thread for the past few days about perspective vs reality. This thread is starting to feel like deja vu.

In spirit I tend to agree with you but having seen it from the other side the past 10 months, it's hard to argue with the societal trends. It may not help anyone, but doesn't mean that's not the way people think these days.

I'm wondering if WPN hasn't changed a parameter in their algorithm. I have played these ($2 buy-ins) since the inception and have noticed a decent number of $8 and $12 games show up. Yesterday, I got 15 4's in a row. That is a
250-1 against probability! Today I started playing a few and have gotten 4 4's in a row. I think I'm done with these, unless someone can provide data that WPN isn't rigging this. BTW, every $10 buy-in I have played (7 of them) was a $20.

We have no way of knowing until thousands upon thousands of games are played

Well you play em. I'll wait until they include the prize in their hand histories, so we can verify that their algorithm is working as advertised. (They have "higher priority" items to take care of before they'll implement this trivial request.) Otherwise you can play a million and you won't know.

Interesting that on the 1st day of implementation a big prize hits in the $2's. I don't think one has hit since in any of the buy-ins. I will be happy to be corrected in this assertion.

At least 2 of the $5k's have gone off that I know of, perhaps more. But they were both early in the existence of these games.

nah I'm good, but you can search for OldManRiv3rs graphs

Which means you don't play them either?

Past history means nothing if the algorithm can be easily manipulated, which is what my original post postulated. As I said, things looked good for a while. Then they didn't.

I don't know what the odds are, that's more of a problem for Max Cut. But if normally a player will get the 2x spins 7 out of every 10 spins, I don't see it that out of line that occasionally someone is going to get it 15 out of 15 spins. What would be weird would be someone always getting 7 out of 10. Luck constantly runs hot and cold in small samples.

ive played 2500 mixed of 2's and 10's,plo and nlh.Ive played a $1000 and a couple 400's and a 200 or two.

My run would be similar to the 1975 Cincinnati Reds losing 15 straight.

And what is "Max Cut"?

Max Cut is a poster who knows a lot about stats. He's posted in this thread.

That might qualify you as a degen... but I'm not sure.

Good Call NH

Probability of hitting 15 2x jackpots in a row: 0.537% (or about 185:1 odds).

Probability of getting dealt AA in Hold'em: 0.452% (or 220:1 odds).

Naturally, being dealt AA might seem a lot more likely because we play a lot more total hands than total games.


Fixed.

Well I used .7 in my original calculation. Using .70518 one gets .530 % ~ 188 to 1.
We still need transparency though.

I should be more careful (I missed the 1 when punching .70518 into the calculator). Thanks for the even more accurate solution.

I agree having the ability for players to track multipliers is important (for both players and the site) and I hope they put it in either the hand history or tournament summary soon.

Sooooo....not rigged?

This is an article just out that claims that an analysis of jackpot games on the various sites that offer them, shows they have hurt cash games. On WPN we can see on PokerScout that there has been a dramatic drop in cash games since Jackpot games have been introduced. It isn't just the regular sitngos that Jackpot games are hurting.

http://www.pokerupdate.com/news/indu...raffic-totals/

For card shuffling/dealing, I would be very surprised if any rigging were to come to light. This is based on a combination of WPN's reputation, the relatively small financial incentive to do it, and how difficult it would be to do without relatively easy detection. For example, I can easily look up basic stats like how many times I'm dealt AA, so any rig would need to be quite sophisticated.

For Jackpot multipliers I would also be surprised, but based only on WPN's reputation and the damage it would receive if any rigging were to come to light. Once we have a means of tracking multipliers in our personal software (HM, PT, etc), I think it will be fairly easy to verify the low multipliers with some accuracy on reasonable samples (realistically playable and statistically significant). At the moment, I don't see an easy and reliable method for players to verify the higher multipliers. (I would consider combined player results as unreliable until there was some method to show the individual results are not tampered with).

It's a slow time of the year for online poker so kind of tough to just throw the blame of jackpot poker slowing down cash games but other formats of sngs have dried up hard on WPN for a few reasons that have been discussed in the past.

I've definitely noted fewer full-ring 25 NL games going. Before JP there used to be anywhere from 2 - 5 tables running. Now I see 1 or 2.

They were comparing this time this year to the same time last year so a seasonal difference shouldn't make a difference.

whats the tournament fees it is costing per tourney that you get in rakeback?