What you posted there is a bit hard to understand, as it is gibberishy.

However, if you are contending that it is possible for 72o to beat AA all-in pre-flop 80 or more times out of 100 (or choose any 20% dog to win 80+ times in 100) then that says a lot about your understanding of math and shows why you have zero credibility about this topic.

I would suggest you play with this odds calculator some, before you make further claims

http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

put 0.2 as the odds of success, 100 as the number of trials, and then fiddle with how many successes to see the odds. Obviously, you will not bother, because that type of simple testing is not be what people like you do. Hint, the odds that a 20% dog wins even 45 or more times out of 100 is well, well over 1 in a million. For it to be 80 or more times the odds would be far greater than a person winning the Powerball lottery multiple times in a row, so no this will never happen, despite you believing it to be possible.

Anyway, I guess at this point all I can suggest is you have better luck in what you continue to believe to be coin flips .

All the best.

The 7,2 could win 100 times out of 100 and it would not mean it was rigged. You have no idea how gambling odds work. The word you are looking for is probability but each hand is independent of the last. Just like in roulette the table could come up black for an entire day and it still be completely fair. Your heads up theory is meaningless

PRICELESS.

If a random sweepstakes, then yes AA vs 7/2 off cuold be a 50/50 draw with no further human interaction. The logic behind assigning the poker game as being a sweepstakes doesn't make sense. Like it was mentioned, you could bet on black and win 5 times in a row on a roulette wheel and it be completely legit, but over a thousand, hundred thousand, and a million spins or more....the ratio settles in closer and closer to a 50/50. That is why the supposed 30 hand analysis was comedic. Aside from not showing them as taking place in a very short continuous period of time, it is far too small of a sample to determine odds or probability.

I've asked several times, and no one has even approached an explanation, how I could have had a full house, 7/4, on the river and did not win the pot. Clearly it beats A/K, but I was timed out and did not receive the pot. Based on the idea of a pre-selected winner, then I am owed the pot since a sweepstakes requires no participation other then an entry. I entered the supposed sweepstakes, clearly had the best hand, and timed out losing the pot. How could that be?

How is software able to determine who will be in the hand at showdown and what actions may occur prior to that, that would alter decision making? The fact that a player decides to continue or not is mere proof that there is no pre-selection.

The company itself is sweepstakes based. Enter a contest, no fee, on FB and win $weeps Cash by guessing the odds of AA winning vs QQ. After they collect all the correct answers, they randomly pick their winners. Guess correct for chance to win some of our fancy $weepsCash. Three winners will be randomly chosen from the correct answers. That is a sweepstakes. Now look at the lobby for a tournament, there is a GTD amount of $XXX $weepsCash, a worthless currency every place in the galaxy except for Global Poker's website. Now open a lobby to almost every other poker network you are familiar with and there is a GTD purse of $XXX, something that has a defined legal value everywhere. That is the difference.

Nice to see Global Poker acknowledge the missing content on its Rules and/or T&C pages, though it should have been there from the start...better late than never. Since they gave the name of the firm that did the certification, simple enough to call them and ask if it really happened if someone still believes things to be to the contrary.

Calling currency by a different name does not make it not currency.

No, but having zero value outside of a limited control environment does.

So stupid it's beyond parody.

So you are saying there is no way 7,2 can beat AA 100 times in a row?

Yeah so you just happened to have a certified RNG and just never knew it. That's funny. Even if that were somehow true it just goes to show how poorly this entire company is managed. Keep up the great work Global!

People like you were screaming about how they needed a certified RnG. Apparently they have one. That make you happy? Of course not, nothing will (as predicted), which is why companies place minimal value on people like you in the end.


If you say that can happen, then you also have to say that the same person winning the Powerball lottery every week for the rest of his life, then coming back from the dead and winning it every week for a few more lifetimes is also possible.

If this is actually your belief, then anything else you say will be correctly dismissed as a joke.

If AA beat 27o 100 times in a row that would also pretty much prove it was rigged. The odds of it happening 96 or more times out of a 100 sample is already over 1 in 300,000.


Apparently the dumbest rig ever has the proper supporters.


All the best.

So you are saying it can't happen?

I am saying it will happen right after the same person wins the Powerball lottery every week for a lifetime of decades. At that time you can get back to me and say "I told you so," but until then you will be properly dismissed as a joke (as is already happening), and that will linger to all of your posts about anything. Well done.

All the best.

The probability of it happening is outside the realm of extreme possibility. So yes. You could run out flops every second for the rest of your life and it will never happen.

Yes because you will win 100% on the monies when the fold and 50% on it when they call

is it as high as grams number

Preach on..

Yea and anything higher than 3(3^n) is just unreasonable to attempt.

This thread has had some amazing twists and turns, but I feel like this should be the pinnacle. Really, how are we going to top this?

I nominate for post of the year.

Tested...not every hand is a coing flip...
Feel free to paypal me any or all of the $350 i lost at .02/.04 testing this.

Lol did you not see where they took the argument to the stats forum and the likely scenario was losing -500 BB or + 500. How many hands did you play?

Ooooopsss...Figured on the .01% chance that the "genius" was onto something I was willing to burn $350 to be able to make unlimited money for a while. I open shoved, called a shoved, reshoved on an open, or shoved on a preflop call for over 1k called hands(still not a ton). It was extremely interesting to see people's calling range depending how many bigs i was shoving for knowing that I was shoving every hand(was doing tests at 10 bigs all the way to 200). I never played with over 200 bigs at a table.

The guy who thinks it is possible for AA to lose to 72 100 times in a row in a fair poker game did not understand the details of some research in the stats forum. Guess that was a statistical certainty.

Sad ending for the couple of everything is a coin flip champions. One vanished and the other probably cannot count how many fingers he has. One would start to wonder if the site hired these guys to be this bad...

All the best.

Ending? I am Still here. You don't think 7,2 can beat AA 100 times in a row? Your the math genius so explain that one. If I have AA and lose to 7,2 twice do I automatically win the next 8? What if that person has lost 8 times with 7,2 who wins? Does it destroy reality?

I gave you a link to a calculator that shows you the odds of something happening x times in a series of events (you can pick how many).

It seems you do not quite know how basic statistics work, so here is a simple example:

What are the odds of 72o beating AA 4 hands in a row? Lets pick AcAs vs 7h2d to give the 72 the best chance (ie it can make flushes in either suit).

using a poker odds calculator

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-tool...r/texas-holdem

the 72 has a 12.4% chance to win each time.

Now, if it wins a hand, what are the odds it will win the next hand? 12.4%

That seems to be where you get stuck, because you look and say - see, it can win again, just do the same thing over and over for 100 times and its 12.4% each time!

Well, the problem is that is not how it works, so to even have it win 4 times in a row what you do is multiple the odds of each hand so you do

0.124 * 0.124 *0.124 *0.124 which = 0.000236 or about 1 in 4200 for that to happen.

You can confirm that here

http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

by putting .124 in for success of trial, 4 as the number of trials and 4 successes


Now, if we change the 4 trial size to 100 the odds are so extreme that the calculator cannot even display it, but seriously it would be like you winning the Powerball lottery every week for a long time.


All of this of course assumes a fair game is being dealt (which you have not suggested is incorrect), so you are continue to suggest that an event that has never, nor will ever happen, for any human for all of time is possible. It is not. You simply have no idea how statistics work.

Of course explaining this to you will have no impact for that reason, but your complete lack of understanding these basic concepts is proof that nothing you say should be taken seriously. Simply put, you have no idea what you are talking about. 100% on that.

All the best.