Let me see if I have this right now. Suppose you and another opponent are both allin with say KK vs QQ. Because no-one else was allin we can be almost certain that no other player was dealt exactly A-A, and so there is a slightly higher chance that an ace will appear on the board.

Obviously in that case the difference in chance of an ace appearing is very very miniscule (probably order of 10^-4?) The difference in actual equity (since aces don't affect either players hand much) is even more miniscule (say 10^-6 or 7?). The overall effect longterm on your EV will be even smaller still (since sometimes the tiny difference in equity will be helping you, and sometimes hindering you).

If that was the issue then I suspect no player in the world has anywhere near enough hands to see any difference in the equity calculation caused by card removal effect. Rough shot in the dark, you might be able to see some difference after 10^10 hands? This is what, something like the order of magnitude of all hands ever dealt on the largest sites?

Not sure if this is the same as you are saying, but if it is, then it is a ludicrous argument to use against equity calculators. I mean there are so many stronger problems with them as outlined in my earlier post that splitting hairs about something no-one would ever be able to detect is silly.

You usually can add the cards that are known and it will make allowances for those.

But not all equity calculations involve all-in situations.

I think that, on reflection, I probably overstated the impact of card removal effects here.

The fact that the calculations are not reliable, however, is indicative that it's hardly proof of any rigging.

I think it would be much more valuable to look at hand histories, and look for the effects that people are claiming here - "timing" or whatever. Spadebidder's on track to do this, I understand, and that's gotta be good for all concerned.

Edited my earlier post as I realised you were saying something different to what I first thought, but now I am confused again. All-in EV calc a priori only deals with all-in situation. Sklansky bucks doesn't, but only deals with hands that reach showdown so again, hands are revealed.

I think we are in agreement entirely, apart from my minor quibble about the card removal effects.

One point which I would like to emphasize as I really don't think the rigtards get it, is that the allin EV line getting further away from the actual winnings line is the expected result - it isn't proof that something is amiss. 'Eventually' the two lines will be 'arbitrarily far apart' for all players, for certain.

What ?

50% of players will run below expectation. This is true over arbitrarily large samples. So for sure there are 1000 with 20k hands below EV.

It's coming. I've been tweaking the significance tests and some other stuff but my code is almost ready to run on the billion hand history at pokerftp.com. I have three different types of analysis that will be run soon, one on preflop all-ins done to a fine granularity of equity buckets, one on board card distribution (which you've seen small samples of already showing the card removal effect), and one on board types distribution by street (to show there are no "action flops"). All of them will be broken down by site and by stakes.

I'm pretty sure it will be the most comprehensive hand history analysis ever done.

Yes but I meant that he would have to find 1000 such players himself who would certify that they had provided such hand histories.

It was a sarcastic response to his own hyperbolic statement.

lol, thanks for proving just how stupid you are. All this graph tells you is that you're generally running WELL in showdown pots and are getting killed in non showdown pots. You don't even understand the graphs you post.

You're running badly in some of your other graphs but nothing I haven't seen before. It's called variance. I doubt you have anything close to a true understanding of the concept.

Well yes, but there is no corroborating evidence let alone proof that this is happening and numerous logical reasons and corroborating evidence to indicate that it isn't.

And yet you continue to give them your money not becuase anything is rigged against you but becuase you play badly (no proof required remember).



To me you are without doubt the most annoying of the rigtards becuase you continue to rant about your (supposed) vastly superior knowledge of software as proof as to why you are right. When will you understand that it is the detectability and economic feasibilty that are the stumbling blocks and not software limitations. We get it, anything is possible, but this doesnt mean that it is happening and you capitalizing your sentances isn't going to change that.

Josem I agree most of these people are nuts. But I'm still curious if the code has been audited or if there's any outside evidence you can point to that the deck is shuffled pre-deal and never manipulated, other than taking Stars word on it.

This is exactly my main problem. For all of the genius programmers in here (and I'm not being sarcastic, you guys seem to be geniuses in your own right), has there ever once been a third party audit/test of Pokerstars or one of the other major poker sites? Without knowing this, all 325 pages of this thread are completely useless. Stars can feed any information they want, and as long as it's the right information then people will believe it.

To me, this thread is basically a religion debate. Everyone's citing "facts" based on absolutely no hard evidence.

-How do you know Pokerstars uses a hardware RNG? Has a reputable 3rd party seen it?

-How do you know OLP is/isn't rigged? Has there been a single massive analysis of hand histories yet?

This argument will NEVER end until the US legalizes OLP. Then, pokersites will be regulated and pretty much be 100% guaranteed to be on the up and up.

A true rigtard will never believe that the shuffle is kosher because it is impossible for them to have someone they trust observe every shuffle.

No matter how many audits are carried out and in how much detail they will simply say that the audited code and controls are bypassed.

As such there is really little difference between someone who idly wonders if 'the code has been audited' and a full blown rigtard because auditing the code doesn't mean anything unless you can guarantee that it is the audited code that is being run.

Trying to prove that oline poker is legitimate in this respect is like trying to prove that the Lizard People are not beaming ideas into your mind. No amount of evidence will mean anything. You have to rely on concerning yourself with whether of not you can observe any effects.

At the momemnt the answer is no.

If you are worried your only intelligent recourse is to learn a great deal about probability maths and computer programming and test large hand histories yourself.

That's assuming you trust the hand histories, of course.

I think you may be delusional and paranoid.

You cannot prove that OLP is legitimate to the satisfaction of a rigtard. EVER!

No matter what tests or audits they will still find ways to insinuate that these are not reliable.

You are delusional.

If the US ever legalises OLP then only the sites that locate in the US will be in any way more regulated that they are at the moment.

And then how do you suppose that the US goverment will be any better at regulating these sites with zero relevant experience than they were with regulating Enron or Lehman Brothers with over a century's such experience?

^^If I'm delusional and paranoid for wanting facts and evidence, then what are you for believing all this information without facts and evidence?

By your classification, I am not a "rigtard". If verified third party testing was done, my mind would 100% be at ease. The reason why I would be at ease is because it wouldn't make sense whatsoever to dupe the 3rd party testers and risk the chance of being caught. OLP is a CASH COW. Ginormous amounts of money are made every hour simply doing it 100% legit. There's no reason to risk that by running some kind of shady software. Now this argument could be made now, but with absolutely no testing being done, then that argument is nullified.

The facts are that despite mirrions of poker players watching the OLP sites like hawks there is no evidence that OLP is rigged.

From these facts I believe that there is an vanishingly small probability that OLP is rigged.

Seems very sensible to me.

Your position, based on the same (lack of) evidence is that you are 'concerned' and would like some 'third party' like some machina ex deus to verify that all is well.

You are paranoind because you have serious concerns without a single shred of credible evidence and you are delusional because you have some blind faith that a 'third party' could fathom out some truth about the riggedness of a site that isn't apparant from the scrutiny of mirrions of players.

Oh yes you are.

And a particularly stupid one because you have some daft belief that a PS that was up to no good would be unable to pull the wool over the eyes of some 'third party'.

They could show him all the software listings under the sun together with diagrammes and schematics of their entire operation but there is nothing in the world to say that they are running the software that he sees or that if they are at the time he visits they won't change it for a rigged version the moment his back is turned.

You write that with not the vaguest idea of just how idiotic you make yourself appear with your wholly inconsistant ideas.

You've explained very clearly why it would be absurd for an OLP site to rig the software, and the reasons you give are good.

Then you spoil it all by reitterating the idiotic belief that some third party is in some way less likely to be duped and can verify the operation of the site. There is just no sense whatsoever to that position.

Yes, because no company regulated in the US of A has ever committed fraud.

This debate will never end because there will always be stupid people who just can't accept they aren't as good as they think they are at poker.

Edit: Oh! And they see patterns with their mind!

that's why we need a RealDeal.

qpw, You remind of the bible-thumping priest who once chastised a little boy for eating a ham sandwich on a Friday while he was starving. Are you a bible-thumper in real life?

Call me crazy for wanting hard evidence. Yes, make me out to be a lunatic...lol You can try your marginalizing techniques all you want, but the reality is is that YOU are the one idiotic one for believing everything the major poker sites are feeding you.

I have an agnostic belief about this, if you will. I neither think that OLP poker is rigged or that it isn't rigged. I just don't know. That's why it would be nice for there to be some sort...hell, any sort...of hard, concrete evidence confirming that it is 100% legit. The only way I believe this could be done is with a massive analysis of hand histories from a massive amount of players.

This little argument can be dropped though because obviously your hardcore right wing, conservative stance on this won't budge, and my logical central stance on this won't budge either.

Have a nice day

Winning online = being good at poker lol

My mom can win online.

If regulated companies commit fraud, what's stopping unregulated ones?

no, she can't. all these people you are convinced are better than who beat you aren't long-term winners. are you under the impression that if you win one Sit n Go you're a "winning poker player?"
absolutely nothing. what's keeping Tim Horton's from making sure no one ever wins a decent prize when they roll up the rim? or Mr. Sub from putting cardboard in their cold cuts?

if you have some evidence, post it. otherwise your incessant whining is worthless, as it's not even entertaining.

Yes and yes, and the same for most other poker sites.

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/rng/

Cigital and BMM are about as reputable as they get. Obviously doesn't prove the game isn't rigged after the audits, but it answers your question.

Some are underway.

People will always think it's rigged no matter who regulates it.

Ain't that the truth!

That's pretty funny, after I stop cringing at the zenophobia. Mass markets do a hell of a lot better job of regulating anything than governments, and the U.S. isn't that good at it either.