Is your chart adjusted for rake? Actual should be less than expected if you don't make the adjustment.

The posts you mention are a typical rigtard way of doing statistics. Here is how they function:

The rigtard plays a bunch of hands and notices that he has done badly in one particular area.

In this case it is set over sets, in another it might be losing to an ace coming on the flop when he has K-K, in yet another it might be losing to a flush card coming on the river.

The rigtard then analyses his data, if he is capable of doing so, and finds that indeed he did lost to set over set more often than he should. Aha, proof of rigging, he thinks.

Perhaps if the rigtard had analysed how often he wins with Ax against KK, or hits a flush, he would have concluded it was rigged in his favor, but of course that is not the goal of this person.

In any case this is totally *NOT* how statistics is done. Effectively they are collecting the data first, then constructing a hypothesis that fits the data. If they had lost to a bunch of flushes that would have been their hypothesis. The hypothesis is guaranteed to fit the data pretty well, otherwise a different hypothesis would have been chosen. Additionally there is a tendency to cherry-pick, i.e. the rigtard in question lost a staggering number of set over set hands in May, but didn't lose many at all or even won several in April, but chooses to only analyse May's data (presumably the Poker site singled him out for special treatment in May).

The way statistics is actually done is to come up with a hypothesis and then collect the data.

i.e. the Rigtard should say 'Online Poker is rigged. Set over set hits way too often', *then* go and collect some pre-determined amount of data and see if it matches his hypothesis.

It's fine to use 'data that has already occurred' as long as you haven't analysed it in any way before picking a hypothesis. In other words you could say 'set over set happens way too often on a site', then go analyse a large unbiased hand sample if you have one, but not okay to say 'man I lost a lot of set over sets this month, they happen way too often on a site'.

Let me give a concrete example. Make a computer simulation to roll a 6-sided dice a million times. If you can't be bothered (I couldn't either), it still works as a thought experiment.

See which number came up the most often in the million rolls. *THEN* make a hypothesis that says 'the dice was rigged, *number* comes up too often'. If the data is pretty evenly spread you can pick a different hypothesis that does fit the data, like 'there are too many 'pairs' of consecutive identical rolls', '4s follow 6s way too often'. What do you think the chances are you can't find *some* hypothesis of rigging that the data will back up, even if the data was indeed purely random? Do you see the difference between doing this, and making the hypothesis first then rolling the dice a million times?

He has no idea how those charts work or what they even mean. He is not even a true riggedologist, he just likes to whine. All the time. All this does is give him a reason to whine so he does. He usually tosses in the "see it's rigged" just so it fits better in this thread when all his posts ever consist of is whining about what he believes to be bad beats.

The only other option (ie: if he genuinely believes it is rigged) is that Stars is targeting specifically him to rig their games in the $1-3 tournaments he plays.

He is certainly a typical immature, undisciplined player who cries a lot, but his posts are not of the genuine paranoid mentality of most riggedologists. He is a faker basically :P



See, this guy follows the commandments a whole lot better. He is the real deal.

Fakers suck.

They're tournament dollars so no rake.

I'm curious which way the 'big hand that was skewing the data' went. If it was in the posters favor then that is classic cherry-picking. If not then credit to him, but he should still have left it in (and the data still says nothing one way or the other).

Since you actually have the data, you *can* analyse it to see how unlucky you were. Here's how to do it since the chart is almost meaningless.

Calculate the variance of each all-in hand.

Add up the variances to calculate the 'variance of all hands combined' (Variances are additive so this is okay, assuming each trial is independent which it certainly should be if the site is non-rigged).

Take the square root of this number to see what the standard deviation of your 'number of chips won in allin pots' is.

Divide 1.3*10^6 (the current position of your red line), by the standard deviation to see how many standard deviations away from the mean your results were.

This is a good way of doing it as it is not skewed by the presence of huge pots (they increase the variance by a lot at the same time as leading to large swings in the red line)

< 1 standard deviation below mean = not particularly unlucky. 19% of the time you will be unluckier than this

2 s.d below mean = rather unlucky.
3 s.d below mean = very unlucky.
4+ s.d below mean = start thinking site might be rigged against you. Perform the same trial again over your next set of hands to see if it was just a freak occurence.

Is there a program that does all that, its a lot of hands to calculate.
I understand what you are saying.

Once you have the data in Excel you can just use a simple formula to calculate the EV of each hand and then the variance of each hand.

Getting the data into Excel is way beyond me (assuming you don't want to enter 16k hands manually). Maybe some programmer can figure out a way to do it.

I wonder if there might be a way to cheat and come up with a good estimate like follows:

Assume that all the hands are independent, identically distributed random variables by

a) Adding up the size of all the pots that were all-in, and dividing by the number of pots. This gives you an average 'size' of pot.

b) Divide the current position of your green line by the total size of all-in pots. This gives you your average 'edge' in each pot. Divide this number by two and add 50% to get your average 'equity'.
Examples: green line at +5k, total potsize 50k, average edge = 0.1, average equity = 0.55. Check that this is correct: 0.55*50k = 27.5k chips won, 0.45*50k = 22.5k chips lost, difference = 5k - hurray it works.

Now you have two stats: average size of pot and average equity in each pot.

Rather than worry about each individual hand, assume they are all identically distributed in this fashion.

Let average pot size = P, average equity = E.

Then EV of each 'hand' = PE - P(1-E)
= P(2E-1)

Then variance of each 'hand' =

[P-P(2E-1)]^2 * E + [-P-P(2E-1)]^2 * (1-E)

Multiply that by the number of hands in your sample, to get the sample variance. Sqrt to get the sample s.d. Compare size of sample s.d. to size of red line.

Would need someone who knows more Statistics than me to confirm that this is estimate is reasonable - I don't see why it wouldn't be.

I will happily do the calculations for you if you can find the 'total size of all-in pots' from your data somehow.

Need to rant...it amazes me how like an A always comes on AJ vs QQ and **** on ftp on all ins...it's so ridic you can almost resteal any A, be up against premium pair with 3 outs, and it's an ez hit most of the time. 2nd, online sites are the joke in 3 outing you the first hand, then u have like 5bbs and jam the very next hand, flop 15 outs, and miss against something that hasn't even paired itself...actualy I stand corrected, i had 21 outs, and missed them all...really fair RNG program just because I'm short and HAVE to bust after I lost the crucial 3 out bad beat.

I don't know what you're talking about. It seems like you are trying to impress people by talking over their head. I'm not a mathematician. When I say that a truly random number generator is theoretically impossible I am quoting my college stats professor and another mathematician named John Von Neuman. If you know more on the subject than people who write mathematical statistics books and invent computers than good for you- you win.

I guess Stars must be bigger then Tilt since the same whines about Stars involve KK and not QQ.

The players who complain from each site seem pretty much equal in terms of emotional control, general awareness, and writing technique, so it certainly must be the sites themselves that causes these massive differences.

Fold KK on Stars, and QQ on Tilt. Thanks, u HAVE really helped explain... actualy this.


Nah, you win since you can see the patterns.

And for what it is worth, he will not impress anyone talking over your head.

All the best.

Go to pokerftp.com. Download the sample database and software. Create your analysis, and then submit it to run on the billion hand database. You can identify strong vs. weak players using whatever criteria you use to define them, there are many players in the database with tens or hundreds of thousands of hands to clarify their strong or weak grouping. The software will let you index them and then do whatever statistical tests on them you like. You'll need to be able to write java code for your tests.

You can export it from PT into a format that works in Excel.

I would like to poll some of the true RNG faithfull here. How many of you think I am full BS when i tell you these are all of my pre-flop all-ins today from pokerstars:

ME VILLAIN EQUITY RESULT
A4s A5s 43 tie
A9 A2 68 win
A3 K8 60 lose
A7 22o 48 lose
A8s 23s 64 lose
66o AA 20 lose
88o KK 20 lose
J10 K3 46 lose
A9 A8 68 lose
KQ A6 43 lose
AJ KK 29 lose
QQ 66o 80 lose
AJ 97o 63 lose
A9 A3 68 lose
A4 J10 55 lose
KK Kjo 90 lose
KJ K10 74 lose
1010o AQ 57 lose

I only left out cases where the short stack had less than 3 BB.

This is the kind of stuff that happens when I sit down to play online poker. This day was a little worse than average and I won't even say anything about the BS that happened post flop. I have days like this all the time but never any days as good as this is bad. This is why I have doubts about online poker.

These are all HU btw

3-outers preflop win 30% of the time, as expected. It just seems like more due to selective memory.

They were talking about software pseudo-random number generators. True RNGs exist today and are used by all poker sites. If your professor said that in the past 10 years, he was wrong.

You are simply wrong, there are a multitude of truly random number generators in existence, one of which I mentioned in my post.

Your comment about Von Neumann is also incorrect, all he said was that it was impossible for an arithmetic process to produce truly random numbers (and hardware RNGs do not rely on arithmetic processes, and practical ones were first created 40+ years after Von Neumann died).

"Any one who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin. For, as has been pointed out several times, there is no such thing as a random number– there are only methods to produce random numbers, and a strict arithmetic procedure of course is not such a method."

See that he's talking about 'arithmetic methods' only? That is an exact quote unless wikipedia is ****ing me again.

Not sure what your comment about your college stats professor means, unless he is an expert on random numbers I would say there is a good chance I know more than him. If he thinks that generating truly random numbers is impossible then I am certain that I do, in any case it is an irrelevant appeal to authority - the Intel RNG can be used to produce truly random numbers as you could find yourself with a little research.

Well I know they can be made to be approximately random so really it's just a technical point. Neumann did say that computers could not do it. Maybe he was wrong for all I know but he did say that. I'm not going to try to dig up where I found though and I will concede the point that poker websites are able, if they so desired, to produce a random shuffle (and if not precisely random then good enough).

Which of the above statements is true?

You can't leave out any if you want to do a statistical analysis. All-in is all-in, period. The point is that once the money is in preflop, no decisions can be made and the hand goes to the showdown with only the random deal of the board determining the outcome. The short stack is totally irrelevant and you must include them.

Unless you omitted quite a few such hands, I say the record above is not accurate. Calling BS.

There is no such thing as approximately random. RNGs used today are truly random, period, with no qualification on that statement.

You seem like a smart guy pyro. Do you think my string of 16 straight all-in preflop losses today are legit or BS that I am conjuring up to "make my case"?

Yes, he did say that and no, he was not wrong.

In physical systems we say that something can be random to all intents and purposes because (neatly skipping quanum effects) the chaos involved makes then non deterministic determined by any toolwe can deploy to examine them.

Because a (correctly functioning) computer is a wholly deterministic device (excluding any attached hardware RNG it cannot possibly generate anything could be called a true random number.

I agree that the posters results are likely BS, but why could you not decide in advance to do an analysis of 'pots that were all-in for more than 4 BBs per player'?

A reason a riggedologist might want to do so, is that he reasons 'the poker sites only bother rigging the large pots against me. they don't care about the small pots'. This seems like a testable hypothesis.

Like I said it was a rant, but yeah, 3 outer win 30% of the time, when they flat pre and u fold postflop....I'm specifically talking bout Ax vs premium pair. It's like a gift if it holds. It's std for me anyway to have pair against 3 outer pre, and it goes to 12+ on the flop, so not like it really matters. Doubt missing a 21 outer specifically after taking a 3 out beat is real, and it's all too common to flop big draw as a shorty right after u lose big pot.

It's hard to say, burden2.

One would have to assign you some 'a priori' chance of bull****ting, and then work out what the chance of you bull****ting is given that you say this data is correct, using Bayes' theorem (see mathematics of poker or a stats book).

I have to say with no offence intended, that they seem rather unlikely to me.

Sure, but here we don't know if they were left out because he won them, and we also don't know how much of his sample they represent.