Im not scooper but.. How about something that acts and plays like live cards and is not influenced by aggression or the size of someones stack. Or hands that are not generated to bust players of tourneys on or near the bubble, or on or near the FT bubble. For example The same size/type tourney on Full Tilt takes half as long to play as one of Poker Stars. How is this possible, when in LIVE play similar size/type tourneys last a similar amount of time.

How about this. in 60+k hands my stats look very normal and my 2009 ROI was around 78% for 1200+ tourneys. I Was currently ranked this month at this particular site, but in a span of 48 hours on this particular site I lost 45 tourneys on or near the bubble all in pre flop. 5 of the hands happened within 20 secs of each other as I was multi tabling, in all 45 tourneys I was the favorite preflop 40 out of 45 hands. ROI drops from 78% to -3% in 48hours and in a span of 2500 hands.

The 5 hands were I was a dog was 10/10 vs j/j, K/K vs A/A, A/J vs A/Q, A/Q vs A/K and A/K vs 2/2. of the 20 I was a favorite in I had K/K busted 8 times calling a 3 bet from players who had me covered but had less that 33% chance to win. K/J K/7 A/4 4/4 A/10 3/3 8/8 A/K, A/A got busted 3 times. Q/9 j/7 and 9/8. A/k got busted 10 times to weaker aces. All of these were ME calling a 3 bet.

So I do some research with my HEM A/K wins about 20% calling a 3bet to lesser hands... in 60k hands. k/k wins about 40% calling a 3bet in 60k hands. and A/A wins about 50% calling a 3bet. In almost all the cases I was the Short Stack and within 5 of the Bubble. Now if you can explain this, or explain why aggressive big stack play influences the cards, then my hats off to you.

Again anyone who plays knows how this works, whether your a winning player or not, the only people who seem totally oblivious to this are Solid Affiliated players or websites who have unusual success playing online or have a financial reason to side with these sites. Whats even funnier is that most of the online players who succeed because they are super affiliates or referers, are almost universally horrible Live.

I understand variance but this something that is statistically impossible anywhere but in online poker, yet you read about something like this happening to someone every day. If for some reason you are not affiliated in any way with any site and are a super winning player who has never seen this kind of variance more power to you, your extremely LUCKY.

THAT^^^^ lucky no..Shills yes.Ref pocket flush.

Oh look, more "proof" that consists of someone just saying "zomg I lose too much with AK".

Neat.

Specifically how would one prove to you that "online plays like live"

Please be very specific. You are being extremely vague.

Please provide specific examples of similar Tilt and Stars tourneys as well. Realize that even minor changes in things like blind levels (amounts and time) can make a big difference with regard to length of tournaments.



Umm. Huh? Exactly what do you want to be proven, and how would it be proven? You want proof that it is impossible for someone to drop from a 78% ROI to -3% over a very small sample size?

You kind of ramble a lot, but exactly what do you want to be proven here? If you have a large database of hands, why not ask if one of the stats people can analyze it for you after you better define the problem.

I am not sure what winning 50% calling a 3bet means exactly. Did you raise get re raised and then call. Did you reraise and get called.. Were these all ins? Is this limit or something, where more players were involved in the hand?

I you want data explained you need to do a proper statistical analysis on it, not just a bad beat whine session.

Ask one of the stats guys here how you can properly analyze your database if you like, once you have better defined your conditions.

What exactly do you want proven here? This seems some sort of secret truth about the masons or in this case affiliates.

If we prove to you that an affiliate can win at live poker would that then prove that online poker is not rigged? Is that what you are asking? Strange, but then I am still learning how the riggedologist mind works.



People have similar creative theories about all sorts of things. People assume impossibilities because they do not really understand how statistics work and they let their emotions dominate their judgement. Kind of like your whole post.

Still, if you have a very specific "impossibility" that you can document please show the specific data (note, data is not you simply saying stuff from memory, we need the real thing).

You claim to have the data, just share it as actual data.

#1 Bad beat whining would be a few times busted from the bubble on a Bad Beat. Being Bludgeoned to death over and over and over when you are on the bubble or near the bubble where you either make 216+ or nothing calling an all in 3bet with A/K, A/A, or K/K, and losing to inferior hands 75% of the time in 2500 hands while being Short Stacked is not Variance nor do I need a lecture on reading statistics on my HEM. I had won 17,000 online in the last 3 months with a profit of 4000 bucks, until One 48 hours span erased that.

My game is fundamentally sound, I know how to play, when to make my moves, how to read players, and I make the right play 95% of the time. Its not making a mistake thats my problem. Its when you run solid for months, become an Ironman at Iron level, and then in One 48 hour span you get Brutalized by calling all in 3bets (ya know raise, re raise all in, call.. since you obviously did not READ what I typed) with superior hands.

As far as posting my proof, I could give a **** if you or anyone believes me, because anything I post will marginalized by someone like you who has a financial stake to patronize whatever I show. Additionally while supporting my post with the exact hands wont "Prove" anything enough to the point where it will be a "potripper" type bombshell.

Just understand this, I was open minded about this until this last weekend. I spent the last 6 month working on my game investing in training and pluging my leaks to make sure that I was playing at my very best.

It paid off, I turned 500 into 17,000 (w/4000 profit) mostly winning 216 satilites and 1 second place on the midnight madness. it all went poof in 48 hours (-1500 I had mailed to me). All of this ofcouse happened when I cashed out O.o

So if you would please get off your high and mighty horse and stop patronizing people and start actually thinking about whats being posted, and consider the possibility that maybe some of these sites choose to make a bit of extra money by running folks bad for just a bit, enough to destroy a bankroll, but not enough to change statistcs in a large sample size. and that I was only able to truly find out where I was getting screwed was because of HEM and looking at my preflop hands and how they performed in various situations. The glaring annomoly ofcourse was me calling the 3 bet. Thats where the "Leak" was. Thats where this Site was tampering with the statistics to crush my bankroll.

In those 2500 hands my BBS went from 60.05 ave (61k hands) to -80bbs (for just that 2500). When I removed all the hands where I called a 3bet that I was leading in before calling all in that I lost, It jumped to a 308 bbs.

This entire post made absolutely no sense at all to anyone but you.

I'm pretty sure this must be the problem then.

ban

I was having sex with girls

tl;dr

Sooper, one thing puzzles me. If you get this information, that seems so important for you, what use are you going to make of it.

I mean, if he were to answer: Yes, Full Tilt, NL100, Traffic cop, what good would that do you?

Would you quiet down and stop your spamming? Where are you heading with this?

This proves that some players lack discipline and proper bankroll management, and are probably not as good as they think they might be.

I you have actual hand history data to back your claims then make it available otherwise your tall tale is merely a standard stretching of the truth that many do even when they think they are actually being honest.

You may think you do not need a lecture on basic statistics, that does not mean you are accurate.

The odds of you losing as a 3-1+ favorite 75% of the time over thousands of hands is basically impossible, so either

1) Something impossible happened

2) You are making up the data

One of these options has a much greater chance of being correct, and given your emotional makeup...

If you have the database to prove what you say, then make it available for analysis. Otherwise no one will believe you or obvious reasons.


This is proof that you are definitely not as good as you think you might be. Top players know they need to always work on their game as the game itself is constantly changing.

You seem to think you are perfect. That is a huge leak.



This is proof that you have no actual proof. If you had actual real evidence you would show it as much and loudly as possible since it would , you know, prove what you have said.

As is, all you have done is standard angry conspiracy guy ramblings. Proof you can bluster. Congrats.

This is proof that you thought the game was fair when you ran good, and that it is rigged when you started losing. This works hand in hand with the thinking you are better then you are thing by the way.



This is proof that you do not know how a site makes money. It makes money whether you win or lose via something called rake. The site did not get your bankroll when you spewed it, other players did (if you want to go to the really thick tin foil "they were in on it as well" routine then go for it).

How you do overall is irrelevant to the poker room's earning stream, so they have zero reason to make you run bad. Reality is you are not that important, no one is.

Sorry to break that news to you.


Make your database available for others to analyze. How hard is that? They will have hand history numbers so they can be confirmed by the site as well.

Since you think you have all the evidence you need, just share it.

Otherwise all you have done is proven you are paranoid and unstable, and ironically that was a theory that needed much less evidence to confirm.

By the way, this is why Scooper does not answer the question. He is smarter then you and adheres to the riggedologist way off trying to avoid any question directly. Learn from him, as he is better at being a riggedologist then you.


All the best.

Am i right to assume that all of your statistics are just made up like this one?

You were open minded until you started running bad.

I prefer to keep my Poker account name unknown for many reasons which I wont share with you at this point in time. I never said my game was perfect, I said it was solid, which it is, and it specifically did not require analysing for this particular statistic.

K/K calling an all in 3bet when lower chip stack count on or within bubble +5 vs all hands in a 61,000+ sample is 40% winner. This has nothing to do with play style, or anything other than clicking CALL (since thats all you can do when reraise all in) after a reraise.

A/K calling an all in 3bet when lower chip stack count on the bubble or within bubble +5 vs all other non paired A/x hands is a 20% winner in a 61,000+ sample.

Now thats really not what killed my bankroll, it was an increase in catching these in a 2500 hand sample while maintaining this totally unrealistic non winning percentage. These are tourney specific hands as I dont play cash games, and I am not commenting on the cash game side of it.

Like I said these are specific and have no bearing on play style. I am certainly no riggologist but givin the situation its painfully obvious to those who have seen this kind of impossible run that something is rotten in denmark.

I also find it amusing that you personally attack me or my game instead of considering the possibility that this is not normal.

Data would be nice. The 61K is irrelevant to your point and is not the sample size. The sample size is the number of KK hands you had, and the number of AA hands you had, and then you need the number of players who saw the showdown each time this happened and what those players held each time (or the computed average equity of your KK and AA hands against all players in the pot at the time the money went in) and who won and what the winner's equity was when the money went in.

The clustering is also pretty much irrelevant by itself since it is cherry picked from a larger population with known results, but it can be analysed in that context to see if it is an anomaly.

With only the data you provided, lots of scenarios can be imagined that are not statistical anomalies, and no conclusions are possible.

If you want it analysed properly, just provide the hands of all showdown players for every hand you held KK and every hand you held AA (whether you were all-in or not), and the board cards. With 61K total hands, there should only be a few hundred of those at most. If you like you can just extract and zip up the raw hand histories for every hand you held KK or AA and PM me, and I'll give you an email to send it to. I'll be happy to do a proper analysis for you.

Wassup guys. Just thought I'd look in again to see what's new. Nothing eh? Oh well, take care and see you in another week or so.

pokerstars more like jokerstars!

I was wondering the exact same thing. It's typical crap from the same people.
How can we have a "rational" discussion if this is how you guys treat people? This is why your called shills. What qualifies you to deem somebody a bad player? What drives you to have the same protocal for every situation that deals w/ online poker possibly bein rigged? It's like a broken record...So are you a "Poker Pyschologist"? What qualifies you to classify certain people as bad players and irrational? Probably b/c you don't play....

I dont know about stars but full tilt is rigged.

Perhaps you'd like to go and have a discussion somewhere else.

Ooops, sorry, you can't can you because RealDeal are paying you to shill here.

By the way, how much are they paying you? We're all interested to know.

So do you work for a poker software developing company that contracts online poker sites? If things get out of hands with the customers, they might have to drop your contract and sign with somebody new...How much money do you save by shilling here either way? If you guys are getting paid in any way to shill here, I would terminate any business relationship with you. Rather THAN have you ridicule and belittle people for no justifiable reason...

Oh, I never ridicule and belittle people for no justifiable reason.

As is quite obvious to anyone with two or more brain cells when they observe me ridiculing you.

(Clue: You get ridiculed because you are ridiculous.)

maybe Bobo can post his chart about this again.
I'm sure he'll add it to his vast collection of data for later analysis and report his findings promptly.

My guess is he'll establish a direct connection between the Incas, Lee Harvey Oswald, 9/11, Lee Jones, Howard Lederer and QPW's playing habits/profession.

what's been posted besides several bad beat stories, unfounded accusations and otherwise senseless ramblings that many skid row bums would prefer not to have credited to them?
a "bit" means a small amount. a bankroll shouldn't be destroyed by losing a small amount.
why don't you share this data with us - or even a third party - to see if your conclusions are correct, or at least not total bull ****.
why did they want to crush YOUR bankroll? did the some site's CEO find you in bed with their son? and doesn't that go against the standard rigtard theory which states sites rig the game so people DON'T go broke?
2500 hands huh? Sick sample size. Also, wtf are these "BBS" stats? Something like BB/100? That's a fairly worthless way to gauge anything in a tournament.

But thanks for taking the time to show us exactly how deluded you are and what lengths you'll go to in order to avoid taking responsibility for your personal failures.

Damnit.

I knew someone would make the connection eventually.

only if you give away the location of your paystub in that medieval church in rural Luxembourg. but even if you did, it would be hard to outsmart the Mullet Men who protect the spawn of Louis Pasteur and Nessie and the devious booby traps in the basement.

I think you'll be ok, but just in case I suggest you deflect further investigation by calling people who want the truth "shills" or something equally hurtful.

OMG