I completely agree with this, till we have some definable evidence going one way or another its all a matter of opinion. These hands happen over and over, the other thing you have to take into consideration is who you are constantly beat to AKA ILLUSIVE i know he has deposited waaay more money then me and inturn hits more pots with little to nothing on the flop. I have ran many tables against him to see the most unbelievable runner runner hands in massive pots he dont belong in. But till i can download a HH i cant prove anything, i actually have him and THATSRIGHT tagged as dont go against no matter how good i look on the flop cause for some reason i cant win big pots against them.

At the higher limits the rake cost (when called) will be so trivial that even if you are called 50%+ of the time you will still make money in like a printing press.

Yes, when in the small blind you will only steal the big blind, but you also will have hands where someone raises before you, then you shove and they fold so you will win even more than 1.5BBs.

Point is, it is a printing press for money long term. If every hand is a "coin flip" then there is no cost to being called, and in the long term the variance will be minimal. Again, use that calculator I provided and put in 10,000 flips and see the odds of even being 200 off (and of course you could be off in your favor).

If nothing else it seems you at least abandoned that betting 100BB to win 1.5 BB mistake statement you made earlier, even if you still do not get the simple model this represents in terms of making money (if your rig is valid).


Exactly!! Essentially you are getting paid rake to experience pure 50/50 coin flips! This is a casino's dream game, and you have the chance to be the casino!




Again, the math changes at different levels. At higher levels the rake paid (when called) has a much lower effect. Let's use 200NL as an example with a capped rake of $3

You play 10,000 hands where you shove 100BB

- 70% of the time you are not called (likely will be higher, but lets go with this), and you make on average on a six handed table (1.5+1.5+1.5+1.5+1.0 (when the sb)+0.5 (when the BB))/6 BBs per try which is 1.25BBs each.

1.25BBs x 7,000 = 8,750 BBs = $17,500

On the 3,000 hands you are called you are expected to win and lose exactly half of them (so that is a $0 EV situation) and you will pay $1.50 in rake each time, and that will be offset a bit by the extra blinds in the pot as well, so lets say you pay $1.25 in rake each time

3,000 x $1.25 = $3,750


You also will pick up dead money as you go when people raise and then fold pre-flop when you shove (or when called by someone else). Lets just toss in $500 for this dead money for 10,000 hands, though it likely will be much higher

The total made is then $17,500 + $500 - $3,750 (rake paid) = $13,250 earned per 10,000 hands, or about 6,600 BBs per 10,000 hands.

No idea if Global has any rakeback or incentives like FPPs/Starcoins, but if they do you can add those in as well, and every bit counts when milking a system.

Now is 66BBs/100 a great rate at 200NL with basically no risk? I think most people would say yes!!

Let's use your numbers and say it is 100 hours work to make $13,250, well that works out to about $130+ an hour. Think you can find people to push an all-in button over and over for $130 an hour? Hell, you can pay someone $30 an hour and you make $100 an hour! Even more hell, some people would likely do it for $3 an hour...

Edit to add: If the rake is $5 then this will cost about $1 more per hand when called so reduce the earnings by $3,000 in that case, and now you are only making $100+ an hour, and it lowers your BB/100 rate to a horrid 40-50...

Best part is I used conservative numbers in this, but you are still stuck on the "amount wagered" without understanding how it works. Back in the days it was standard to clear a $100 blackjack bonus with $4,000 wagered. The math was simple, you were expected to lose $35-40ish then get the $100 at the end, and long term that is what happened. "Wagering $4,000" did not mean anything other than being part of the math.


Cha ching - a money making machine this would be!

Heh, who cares. Seriously, you don't get bankroll management then if an orbit of coin flip results are going to be a problem. If you were around in the casino bonus whoring days I guess you would not do the bonuses because what happens if you lose 3 of your first 4 hands? Quality...

The goal is to be LONG term in the flips, and again the flips have 0EV to them, so as long as you have the proper bankroll the short term results of flips does not matter, just like when my team was doing casino bonuses in the day. We did not bet half our bankroll per hand, we bet the appropriate amount based on the bankroll.

Again, the model is simple

- Have a bankroll for 10,000 all-ins (and no, you do not need 1,000,000 BBs for this, though you probably think so with your flawed approach)

- Get paid with blinds and dead money for pushing the all-in button over and over, and the higher the limit the lower the cost in terms of rake when called.



Again, it all comes down to bankroll, and if your silly beliefs were actually true (which you could easily demonstrate at lower limits) then you would have absolutely zero problem getting investors needed to fund it at the higher buy ins where it would be most profitable.


Dumbest rig ever...


All the best.

Monteory. Are you actually suggesting you want to be Player A in the example i gave? Because it appears that is what you are saying.

This statement was not a mistake, your interpretation was the mistake. Every time you shove 100BB you only only guaranteed to win 1.5BB if everyone folds. If called, by one or more opponents, you are never more than 50% to win. So you are indeed betting (risking) 100BB to win 1.5BB.

No, he's not. He's saying, if your theory were accurate, he would gladly be either player over the course of 10K hands. It doesn't matter. Remember he's not talking about playing 15 hands nor a massive 30 hand sample, he's talking a full 10K hands.

The model put forth completely dispelled this theory of yours. So maybe you do not have the understanding to calculate this statistical model.

Player A won 66.5% of the flips long term, yet managed to lose just over $100,000 in this 10,000 hand session. Short term variance has a dramatic affect on result. Player A could never overcome the short term variance he experienced in the first 15 hands played with Player B.

Do you have a problem understanding this?

No, you're not. The problem with this strategy in an honest deal is when you get called, you will have a random hand vs. an opponent with a strong range and you will be a significant underdog.

In your scenario, you're always 50/50 when called. So you will lose half and win half over time, which is a wash. What he's really risking is the rake only, since over large samples he's not truly losing 100bb half the time and winning 100bb half the time, he's losing 100bb half the time and winning (100bb-rake) the other half.

The model I provided shows differently, so maybe you had trouble with your statistical calculations. Re-check your numbers or go take some statistic classes.

So, if I read this correctly, you are asserting that the extreme variance of a random 15 hand sample can't be overcome by the larger scale 10K hand sample?

Correct. Short term variances can have dramatic impacts. Over the course of the 15 hands in this model, Player B built a 10 to 1 chip advantage over Player A. Player A has to win 4 consecutive flips in a roll in order to overcome the chip advantage of Player B. If not, he gets stacked by Player B every time.

As hands progress, he has to win more and more flips in a row to overcome the chip disadvantage.

While this model is simple to illustrate this point, understand and once a player over the course of 10,000 hands experiences short term variance where they become more than a 10 to 1 advantage; the opposing play must then experience a short term variance of their own winning 4 flips in a row to overcome the disadvantage. At 8 to 1, it is just 3 flip in a row.

Says the guy who started his whole theory based on a 30 hand sample. I hope I don't accidentally sign up for the statistic classes you took.

Maybe I'm having trouble keeping up with your dynamically changing models. Which one should I be looking at today?

Christ on a cracker. First, a player is never going to win (or lose) anywhere near 1995 out of 3000 coin flips. Anyone who's taken even just an intro stats class should be able to figure that out. <Edit: I see the point you were making about stack sizes. I assumed we're not doing this every hand, and certainly not getting called by the same opponent every time.> Second, and more importantly, the word "variance" has an actual statistical meaning, and it's not that hard to compute for Monteroy's model. I did it just out of curiosity to see how viable the strategy is.

Start by computing the EV & variance associated with one shove.

Let's take a 100NL table, which btw has a $3 max rake on Global. Blinds are $0.50/$1. Let p represent the probability of the blinds folding. There are three possible outcomes:

Blinds fold, with probability p: +$1.5
We're called & win, with probability 0.5*(1-p): +$98.5
We're called & lose, with probability 0.5*(1-p): -$100

The mean (EV) of this gamble is 2.25p - 0.75.

Variance is the average squared distance (squared number of dollars) from the mean. The calculations get messy, but it works out (rounded) to 9702.8 - 9694.4p - 8.4p^2. Basically, as the probability of getting folds increases, this number decreases from ~10000 to 0.

The mean & variance of our results when we do it 10,000 times are simply these formulas multiplied by 10,000. Since 10,000 is a pretty large number, the central limit theorem tells us that our results will follow a normal distribution using that mean & variance. Standard deviation is more commonly used for normal distributions; to get that, take the square root of the variance.

Here are the results for a few values of p:

p=0.5: Mean = +$3750, SD = $6967, P(lose money) = 0.30
p=0.6: Mean = +$6000, SD = $6231, P(lose money) = 0.17
p=0.7: Mean = +$8250, SD = $5397, P(lose money) = 0.06
p=0.8: Mean = +$10500, SD = $4407, P(lose money) = 0.01

It's not quite as obviously bulletproof as I thought it would be, but it's clearly a good bet to take if you're sufficiently bankrolled. You could also improve on the approach by doing it less frequently to increase p, only shove A-rag so that you have a blocker, have a team of bankrolled people doing it to increase the # of trials, etc.

This will be my only substantive contribution to the discussion; any further posts will be more animated gifs

You have made this statement before and continue to make it. There were 30 hands in the original 500 sample size that could be examined. That data was not used as a basis to support any of the positions I have put forth here.

I have clearly stated there is not enough data to draw any conclusions on statistical data. Yes we have analyzed more data with similar results; however, this data only represents 5% of the hands we could analyze and can no way be reflective of a true statistical analysis. The data is incomplete. Knowing that without the hole cards, we can never get an accurate depiction of what is going on through hand analysis.

So yes, the data of 30 hands we could analyze from a database of 500 hands did show some significant anomalies, but I am not ascertaining in any way that this data is proof of something.

But I have yet to hear of anyone else who has done anything more than what we have in terms of hand analysis.

Dude, you seriously need to hire a new team of actuaries...

I did not even go into this or other ways to really extract max value from this, because there really is no need given how LOLdumb this whole theory is, but if somehow this dumbest rig ever existed it would be very easy to work out the best levels to do it and the best approach, no different than the countless bonuses done in the day with similar math.


Cliffs:

- Hey PTS1 - do you want to get paid a buck every time we flip a fair coin for $100, we can do as many flips as you like.

- PTS1 "No, and you don't understand variance"


Dumbest rig ever...


All the best.

Sorry Jay for any confusion. I put the model constraints in so everyone was clear. While the theory works for true coin flips with equal bets each time, it does not apply to the poker game where stack sizes are determined by the short term variation.

Monteory was making an argument for shoving every hand in a poker game and saying my theory was flawed because I would not do it on stream, but he has no understanding on how the short term impacts on results.

You are correct, that high (66.5%) would not likely happen, but lowering it made the losses of Player A greater. And the point was to show how just a small sample can dramatically effect results even though you are winning coin flips long term.

This guy is the most determined troll I've ever met.

He is genuine. His form of paranoia is pretty common, though having such a gaping hole in a riggie belief is pretty rare. Most usually go for the whine about 1 or 2 bad hands approach and ask people to prove it is not rigged.



Feel free to explain further what this means (consult your team if need be), because I am curious how a pure 0EV wager actually has any positive or negative value associated with it in terms of expected results.

Who cares if the flip is for 200BBs, 100BBs 5BBs 90BBs other than what is the cost of rake and how often you get called (to determine how much dead money you steal when not called). EVery time you are called heads up, no matter the stacks, it is basically 0 EV (not including any dead money added and rake paid)



Whether you do it on stream or not has no impact on how LOLbad and flawed your theory is. The stream was an obvious suggestion when you and others say it is "impossible to track hands" at that site. Do a stream for a few hours and record it. There you go - tracked hands.

As to your theory in general - as I said feel free to post it in the stats forum here and see what they say about it

Here is the link again to that forum, what is stopping you from posting there if you believe your theory is valid?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25/probability/

So, yes or no - would you take the offer of getting paid $1 for each $100 coin flip where you can pick the number of flips (as high as you like) or would you, and your team of actuaries, refuse it due to a fear of variance?

Dumbest rig ever...

All the best.

So where does it say Global Poker is a sweepstakes? That is the assumption that several have made here. In no way is Global a sweepstakes and PS would not enter the US market since they signed an agreement to voluntarily stay out of it. You are claiming that Global is sweepstakes and the winner is predetermined., completely illogical in every sense.

Global Poker offers sweepstakes contests on their FB page, as stated in the Rules. Where does it state that the poker on Global is a sweepstakes?

Let all that go as if it doesn't exist, just explain how software can be programmed to determine a winner in a game of poker prior to the hands being dealt.

Monteory; it is obvious this is beyond you comprehension. You designed a model to fit your argument, but the model did not at all fit the control group. I gave you a model to fit the control group, but you could not make the proper calculations to determine the outcome. You can keep your trolls up, but you have been shown you do not have the qualifications to speak on statistical matters. And it is clear you do not have to capacity to learn.

This is not a debate about statistics in this thread. I showed everyone where your theory is seriously flawed concerning 'all in every hand is 0EV'. In the example provided, the all-in player losses in excess of $100,000 playing $100NL. Are you still wanting to say it is 0EV to shove every hand? BTW, you want to be the player who shoved all in every hand before you realized he lost $100k. Shows how much you know!

Have your people run the numbers on this model for you since you have a hard time believing me.

You're not accounting for the fact that we will win the blinds with an open raise in the SB with some frequency.

You might want to update that nonsense with more accurate figures.

Well, then post it in the stats forum as I suggest, I will post my theory and we will see what they say there. For some reason you continue to avoid doing this, I wonder why...


I created a system to fit your overall rig theory. Your "control group" of 30 hands is completely meaningless

You certainly did not involve proper statistics in any way, shape or form with that statement, so I agree when you indicate that this is not a debate about statistics from your perspective.

Pure coin flips are 0 EV no matter how many times they are done. Amusing that you dispute this.

I know that getting paid to do pure coin flips is +EV. Apparently you and your team disagree.

If you are talking about your 30 hand sample or some impossible scenario (if your 50 50 theory is valid) of long term losing - there is no point, though it is clear you cannot understand why.

Dumbest rig ever...

All the best.

Monterey just keep shifting your position as you are doing. You can not answer any direct questions. Your analysis is wrong and flawed. Now you are talking about coin flips that have not relationship to this discussion. So just keep shifting because I am ignoring all of your unrelated nonsense and I hope everyone knows now to ignore it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here is a direct question....

How can a software program determine a winner PRIOR to the start of the play, in any kind of game, when there are a series of human interactions that may or may not include more than two participants continuing until the end?

You said every hand is 50/50, I just happen to use the common phrase "coin flip" to describe that. Pretend every time I said coin flip I instead said 50/50 so it better fits the strict semantics of your LOLbad belief.

Dumbest rig ever...

All the best

No you said that you could rack up winnings by shoving every hand and I needed to do it or else my theory was flawed. Now you have been shown to have a very flawed understanding of statistical modeling and you are trying to change your story


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk