yeah man i think ur like so totally righte its sick lol i mean like the other day i got dealt JK and i shoved and some guy called me isntantly with kk i mean how sick is tht kk is such a rare hand so i think its suspsicious wen someone gets it JUST when i shove i dont think its fair at all and i withdrew all my money and went to ultimate bet because tis fairer there

the similarity's of this thread and rgt are amazing

but bluesbassman is messing things up

IDK it just happened twice to me and it just seems so odd that you end up losing it all getting rivered espeically when you're AHEAD.. I still play because only place I can play PLo8.. but maybe next time ill control it when I go up.

There is no way this is not a level.

The point of the exchange you quoted was to demonstrate how difficult it would be for a single suspicious player to prove anything at all, no matter how statistically unlikely his experience had been. qpw responded as expected and missed the point entirely. Markusgc responded more cautiously and sidestepped the question completely.

See, I had this whole series of questions and answers in mind which would have gradually drawn qpw and Markusgc into either a logical inconsistency or a direct contradiction of a particular thing they had been repeatedly saying in that thread. Unfortunately, I think they both sensed that something was up because they both stopped responding when I posted my followup, and those two never, ever miss an opportunity to berate and belittle anyone they refer to as "rigtard."

Anyway, I didn't pursue it when they refused to play and forgot all about it until you dug it up and quoted it.

Oh, and you're wrong, by the way: qpw was not correct in his response, but that was irrelevant so I didn't mention it in my followup.

Scott Matusow would end this thread! Lmfao
Lets post his live video everyday for the next three months of him playing online and let the Rigatards have some glory.
Scott Matusow is the greatest online player ever! lmfao

What part of Game Over don't you shills understand? I suggest you put your mentally and elthically challenged pea brains together and try to come up with a cognizant answer.

Monteboy. Are you getting your ass kicked so bad that you have to make up a post and put my name on it? You're such a dumbass you aren't even sharp enough to copy my writing style. LMAO!

I'll leave you mental and emotional lightweights with a piece of advice which will serve you well.

"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"

You call poker sites cheating thieves with no evidence then call others ethically challenged. If you're not sure how calling someone a cheat without evidence is unethical. You should try saying that to the house or dealer in the next live game you play and see how it goes over.

Not sure why you think what you said was all that tricky. If someone claimed that a completely near impossible thing happened to them I would ask for their proof.

Then a couple things can happen

1) They do not have any data, but they say they know what they saw (or variations of that), then they call people shills.

2) They have data that can be verified and provide it


In about 100% of the cases it ends up being number 1, and there have been many offers by people like spade to analyze people's data when they make some sort of claim like you suggest if they cannot do the math themselves. Many have even posted how they can do the testing as well. None have taken advantage of this that actually proves anything of substance.

Your "what if" scenario has never happened so all it is is another "what if" and nothing more.

What if aliens came and destroyed the world tomorrow? Well, we would all die. What does that actually prove?


You can play along if you like. The best thing you can do is show an actual case in this thread where a single person making a really extreme claim has any data to actually back it beyond their beliefs and proclamations.

If I have a major logical inconsistency feel free to point it out as well, but be sure to show an actual example of your what if scenario, otherwise it is purely in the realm of the theoretical, like the alien example. If you or anyone else can prove in a verifiable way that the software is rigged, I will believe it.

Now show some proof


Not quite sure what post you are talking about. Looking over your posting history you seem to like insulting people with words you google and you really like the word shill. That makes you a rather mundane riggedologist following the commandments and not much more. Congrats on your accomplishment in that regard.

Is anything online involving money not rigged in some way?

Nope. No laws, No rules.

Hello K13,

I see you still have not admitted that your false claims about the frequency of Aces coming on the flop, were, in fact, false.

Why haven't you admitted that yet?

This is a thought experiment. In the originally quoted post, I asked qpw and Markusgc how they would respond if...

Suppose they do have the data, although I'm not sure how it could be verified. If it were UB hand histories, for example, I guess they could politely ask UB to supply you with their HH and see if that worked.

But let's assume they've provided this data, that you've somehow verified its validity, and that you've verified their calculation that what it shows had a probability of .0001315 of occurring.

How do you respond?

The set over set example I'm using is something I pulled out of thin air, not something out of my or anyone else's HH. I made that clear in the original post months ago. But this is a thought experiment. Let's pretend it's real and that the probability is as quoted.

How do you respond? Also, what would your private reaction be? I didn't ask that one before, but it's an interesting question.

so you admit it's rigged then!

Assuming that this happened, then the next step is deciding whether a 1 in 8000 event proves something. Realistically given the number of hands dealt I think it is safe to say that it does not, as many 8000-1 situations will occur every day, especially if you allow people to define their own scenarios after they experience and observe the data.

The key will be to create a theory and test it without using the cherry picked historical data.

The odds of someone guessing a correct number between 1 and 10,000 three times in a row is nearly impossible (1 trillion to 1), however if after seeing the numbers of

8,734
974
5,317

one can say how amazing it is that those 3 numbers were chosen as the odds were 1 in a trillion that it would happen. Even though a 1 in a trillion event just took place, it actually proves nothing. Do the test again and if you get those same numbers then you have something fairly significant as evidence that something is wrong.

So if someone takes their 100,000 hands and finds some things that are very lucky or unlucky among all the ways of analyzing the hands, I would suggest that is nothing special. Maybe flush draws hit a lot, maybe not enough. Maybe sets hit a lot, maybe not enough. You can create an unlimited number of ways to analyze data, but if you selectively choose how you analyze data in hindsight you have not really proven anything.

Unless, you then apply a similar test on future data and show that the same thing happens again and again when it should not. At that point you are onto something.




Test it again with unbiased data that has not already been studied to find where the luck quirks took place. Define your conditions and then gather the data, not the other way around. If your set over set theory is valid then it should appear again and again, so do more testing to show this is the case.

I can tell you the winning numbers of the lottery all the time the day after the draw. That does not prove it is rigged. Most of your "what if" scenarios sort of fall in this approach.

That make sense? If you see a logic error here feel free to point it out (as that was part of your plan I believe).

Elaborating some on what Monteroy said:

Nearly everyone with a hand history can find numerous examples of 8000:1 events in their history, and worse. That isn't statistical testing, it is cherry picking. As has already been mentioned, you define the tests first then examine the data. For poker hands, there is a pretty clear set of standard tests for expected card distributions that can be performed on a hand history. You can test the hole card distribution which has a known expectation of 1/1326 for every possible hand. You can test hole card types, which are 1/169. You can test each card that appears in your hole cards for 1/52. Then use standard distribution models to test the statistical significance of the frequencies you find. Then move to the flop and test for various types, test each card in each position, etc etc etc. I have a list of about 20 tests for flops alone. Then turn distributions and the combinations they form, then river distributions and the combinations they form. And for every frequency test, do a significance test for a desired confidence interval. Then you look at opponent matchups with a suitable list of tests (such as preflop all-ins being a very common test set).

It isn't hard to test a hand history to see if its distribution is a valid random sample of all possible outcomes. It also isn't much harder to test opponent matchups and whether they fit the expected outcome distribution, but you are of course limited to the hands that went to showdown (the cards you know about).

Then you get into examining various removal effects and whether they make sense and can be explained by a fair deal. That gets trickier and is one of the things I'm researching. One fairly well-known example is the effect that causes the board cards to be very slightly weighted to low cards over high cards, caused by the tendency of players to see flops when they hold high cards. But it is very consistent and you can account for it and measure it, and you can determine that it is consistent with a fair deal.

I didn't mean to sidestep the question, I just thought qpw answered you better than I would have. But it was a good one, so I'll give you my take...
first, I wouldn't present my findings the way you suggest. I would find out how often it happened, percentage-wise, as in "out of the X times you flopped a set, you lost at showdown to a higher flopped set Y times, or Z%" Then I'd compare it to an agreed-upon figure for the situation (a quick look says 1.044%, but it seems to vary a little - for now, let's assume that's correct.)

Next, I would want to check over my own database and at least one other in the same way to compare results.

If I found a substantial deviation (such as the Potripper graph) then I'd be a little worried.

I'd be surprised if the figures were very different from average and would expect them to speak for themselves without much further commentary from me.

So, Mr. Weevil, sir, I've fallen into your trap. What's next? You tell me what statements I'm contradicting with this reply? Or are there more questions to come?

And for the record, I'd be willing to send my HH's to a couple of folks to do such a study, as I'm sure there are others who could finish much faster than me.
What's your goal in posting here in the INTERNET POKER FORUM? Are you crusading for the sake of converts? 'Cause you've chosen a very tough place to recruit. Perhaps you'd have better luck in BBV or Beginner's Questions.
really? You're offering that advice to others? really?

Yes, and it's a tawdry little trick, isn't it?

Used by idiots to impress fools.

The hope is that it means either the person using it gets the last word or their respondant ignores jibe and has the last word making them look petty, obsessive, whatever.

All it really does is make the person trying to use the trick look as if they have run out of legitimate arguments.

Actually I find it quite fun that the rigtards, as well as being mathematically inept, are also, frequently, illiterate.

I said earlier, as a result of reading one of sick123's posts that the age of unintentional irony is not dead.

Thanks for the confirmation, sick.

Not really.

It's as easy for someone to come here and claim enormous maths knowledge as it is to come and threaten to beat the crap out of someone.

It's not as if you need a vast knowledge of maths - just some probability theory and some stats.

I would find it odd to discover that any intelligent person with the requisite maths skills was a confirmed rigtard because I would expect, if they thought that a site was rigged against them, they would immediately prove it rather than just whine about it.

No word yet from bluesbassman on his concerns or the maths he's used to address them.

rigged

Nope. As you say later, you were intending to 'develop' the point later.

I simply responded to your question.

You are the one who fails to get the real point: that one on 10k events happen very, very frequently.

If you are going to form an impression that a site is rigged on the basis of such an event then your impression is going to be wrong. Simple as that.

A 1/10k event is not grounds to even start to form such impressions.

The tactic you are trying here is invalid. It's like saying: "I've got a theory that people with beards are dishonest because I was burgled by someone with a beard." and then asking how many other people you would need to find who had been burgled by men with beards to prove your hypothesis.


It would have done nothing of the kind. It would simply have confirmed that you don't even understand the simplest basics of statistical investigation.

Actually, I never read your last response on that thread. Believe it or not, I don't hang on your every word and the throughput on this forum does mean that threads get missed from time to time.

qpw, your double/triple posting tilts me. You know how to use the multi-quote feature, don't you?

Why the **** is poker table ratings banned and not poker tracker or HEM? ******ed...

Yes but if I used that the posts would be (even more) absurdly long.

This multiple posting is a result of being in a different time zone to most of the other posters with whom discussions are being held.

How do you think I feel when I fire up the computer and find seven or eight responses to yesterdays posts, half of which I want to answer?

bluesbassman (who is non religious i think) is messing up my theory and apparently LVGamblers, that riggedfolk equal theists and atheists equal not rigged or don't know if it's rigged.

so far i have

the devil = OLP sites

the devils demon helpers = shills

Angles = ? Barney Frank

God = ? US. regulation.