I keep trying to snap out of it, take a break, be optimistic, etc. But then I run bad my first 5 sets and am right back in hell. I mean what if you started running bad and it just never stopped? What if I have a 1 in a million bad run? Lol, what a scary thought.

Change the way you do sets then. Play a few less and concentrate more, or play some different games (if you are adept at them). When I had my KK cant beat anything day I opened up a ton more Omaha tables after a while where I was running hot as it put me in a better mind frame for the moment.

You have lost control of handling any bad run, even small ones now, so the best way to snap out of it is to make the runs even smaller and focus on just breaking the streak for 1 or 2 until you get your mojo back, even if you are doing slightly -EV plays to get there.

Think of it like a MTT guy who has not cashed for 15 or 20 tourneys and is very frustrated. If stalling and crawling his way to a single cash will break that mindset in his head then he should do it and get back on track.

Not really sure what other choice you want, in the end few will genuinely care how you do other then you so make whatever choice you feel is appropriate. If rationally recognizing and adjusting to fix your mental block is the choice you make then good luck with that.

If a belief that sinister forces are picking on you will make you feel better via rationalization then go for it and you can become a more proper contributor to this thread at least. Who knows, maybe in a couple months you will start to see the validity of the Russian Mafia Entropy Effect as well.

I believe I'm going to get closer than I've seen anyone anywhere do so far. I'm not sure of your definition of humongous, but the database I'm working with is approaching a billion hands and growing. There are a number of things you can do without all the hole cards to show that the deal is randomly distributed, both preflop and at each street. I described some of them a few pages back in response to a post of yours. I'd be happy to share some of my work in progress with you if you would like to contribute suggestions and advice. Basically I'm just measuring the frequencies of everything I can think of that should be independent and normally distributed, and comparing the actuals vs expected using significance tests. Well, a little more than that, I think I've developed some very solid tests to satisy many of the more common rigged theories, particularly when it comes to community card manipulation. It's an ongoing project I'm doing just because I can and because it's interesting.

Are you playing limit? Because in nolimit, that's what: a buyin and a half? No biggee. I understand in limit that 100BB losses mean more though, but still doesn't seem extreme.

Yes, they would.


I'm not so sure others have, but I look forward to Spade's results. My interest has nothing to do with rigged theories, though.

No, I'm trying to explain why a hypothesis about rigging might be verified in the analysis of one set of data and refuted in the next, no matter whether there was actual rigging or not. You're skipping away from that and are now claiming that they would be caught anyway because somebody would tell. Even though I happen to agree that it's extremely likely someone would have told by now, that's irrelevant.

If you're going to fall back on that, why bother asking for statistical evidence at all?


That's so strange and far removed from anything I've ever said that I really have no response to it.


No, it's only about basic statistical analysis. Human behavior hasn't really entered into this thought experiment. I'm not sure why you think I want it to be a "grand philosophical, mystical debate." Maybe because I didn't use any math to describe statistical concepts? If you prefer equations we can do that, but it's not necessary and it's kind of awkward with ASCII.


And now you've lost the thread completely. You're coming up with arguments that the sites are not rigged and you're utterly missing the fact that I am not arguing that they are.

My argument is only about the difficulty in statistically proving that they are or are not rigged. It has never been about anything else. All the mystical Orwellian ethereal plane stuff you're talking about is something you conjured up all by yourself.

If you say so.

Also, you didn't answer the followup question. Here it is again:

Well, how many?

I do, too. I'm looking forward to your results.

I'd be happy to see anything you'd care to share. I'm interested in some of the more obscure ideas (card removal effects, e.g.). I saw a card frequency histogram you posted earlier, and it pretty much showed what I was expecting.

I pretty much agree and don't think OLP is rigged, i mean i suck and have been playing off the same deposit since 04 so how rigged could it be. But in the end i cant say for sure either way. As far as it's a waste of time debating or arguing if OLP is rigged, it probably is but wasting time is not so bad and sometimes it can be fun.

10 breakeven or slight loser sets that all start out great then turn to ****. Then finally the big $130 winner. Yay things are turning around. Put off playing the next set for a few hours. Just played. 0 for 10. Total complete devastation. Totally card dead then lost every showdown. Only even saw one bubble, and that as shorty. Maybe 1 in 100 times I'll have a set like that.

This will never stop until I just quit for like a couple months. Then magically I will run good again.

key word

Try changing sites just to switch things up a little.

It's not magic. Your thinking should be more clear. You're definitely not playing your best right now.

Yeah I'm not thinking clear at all. But I don't know what else to do. I either have to make this work or get a job. And it's not like jobs are falling off trees right now. I swear all it takes is a couple good sets, maybe not followed by a 1 in 100 bad set to right my ship. But I just can't buy a break right now.

Rigged, IMO.

This is actually the most convincing and easily understood refutation of the 'moon landings never happened' and similar grand conspiracy nonsense.

The idea that such a massive conspiracy which would have to have involved several hundreds if not thousands of people would not have come to light in the decades following is laughable.

And, not wishing to be unkind, I'd suggest that, generally, the loyalty of NASA scientists to their employer is likely to be significantly higher than that of poker room employees to theirs

Well I have won 13 straight sngs now on stars. I felt I should report that after saying how terrible I run there, despite making money there for some time (but again not as much as I should IMO). Been playing some pretty bad players and not exactly catching cards left and right but I did dodge 3 flush draws which shocked me. It's easy to feel it's not rigged after winning but I still remember those times where it seemed, for days, there was someone just conveniently placing whatever card my opponents needed in the exact right spot, like when someone got quad queens on me twice and a straight flush all in the span of about 20 minutes.

I am really looking forward to see your results qpw. I hope your methods are sound, just remember you need a random sample to start with but I am sure you already know that.

13 first place finishes?

Screen name, please.

lol, your a shill !!!

Sheesh. Again, it depends on the sample sizes, and seriously - what you define as a hypothesis of rigging being verified is basically not that. Your models are all hypothetical constructs or they are a single size of data (ie: your buddy) that in and by itself proves nothing, mainly because you build the beliefs based on cherry picking the data for weird outcomes (which are going to happen by chance within any set of data).

You have a completely flawed way of looking at how data analysis works, so it is difficult to answer your questions to your satisfaction because you create a world in your interpretation of stats that simply does not exist.



OK, most humans in this thread are working on the premise of "rigged or not?" for the online poker rooms when posting. With that in mind , the above is hardly irrelevant.

I have no idea what your deep thinking, mystical agenda here is any more, I guess it has nothing to actually do with whether online poker is rigged, but it is more of a spiritual journey on your part.

My claim is simple - even if one ignores the complete availability of data, if online poker was rigged, someone "in the know" what have told by now - which you agree with apparently. Thus, realistically online poker is not rigged.

The title of this thread is "The great "Poker is rigged debate." Meaning of Life stuff should probably be in the theology area or maybe BBV4Life.




Well, when you adjust your "thought experiment" to be about the specific topic then we can probably relate a bit more in this thread.

The topic is whether online poker is rigged or not.





The topic of this thread is whether online poker is rigged or not. Most people are debating that very simple concept which is probably why they seem to be missing the mark with your "thought experiment," which it seems has nothing to do with the only real topic in this thread.

Construct your thoughts in a more clear way and post it in the stats forum where a bunch of crazed math geeks live that can answer your questions.

Here, we debate whether online poker is rigged, so most will assume when you post that you actually have an opinion on that topic. Is there a flaw in this logic?



Fine, then take your thought experiment to the proper forum for it to be discussed.



Go to the stats forum and ask specific steps you need to run this analysis.

Most responses you get in this thread will be, shockingly, about whether your question proves the sites are rigged. You know, because the topic of this thread is...

In that regard, as has been said to you many times before, you will need to define the specific conditions you are looking for before analyzing the data, and then test it on an adequate sample size of data.

You can use your friend's database if you like, but you cannot look at it, see a 10,000-1, and then say wow that is strange. That is not how statistical analysis works.

You can list ten 4 digit numbers in a row, any you like and I will easily find a pattern that is very rare. The trick is defining the patterns you are looking for before you look at the data.


If that did not answer your deep thought experiment then again I suggest you actually post your questions in the forums where it actually fits. While proper forum selection for a post is a mundane exercise compared to a thought experiment, it is quite a bit more effective in actually getting results.

All the best.

sick tarp indeed, weevil.

Yup.

Get a doctor for your tarp asap.

HU matches

That's a commonly misunderstood topic on 2+2. Sample size is already incorporated into any proper analysis of data.

If I said, "FullPartyPoker is rigged! I just opened an account there last night and played 95 hands and I can tell you there is no way that's a fair site!!! It's either rigged against me or full of bugs!"

You (and everybody else reading it) would instantly say (or think), "LOLsamplesizeaments."

If I then replied, "Every single hand I got was 32," and I somehow proved it, you might ask me why the hell I kept playing after 4 or 5 hands, but you wouldn't be thinking that my sample size was too small any more. You'd be thinking that my sample size of 95 hands was so astronomically gigantic that it constituted irrefutable proof something was wrong with FullPartyPoker.

Okay, I think I'm gonna give up. It's clear we're not getting past this, and I don't spend enough time here to make it worth the effort.

It's back to lurking for me. Sorry for the interruption, folks.

As you were.

Yes, but you see there is an vast difference between being able to spot something that is absurdly wrong and knowing what is right.

I know nothing about golf but I could tell you your grip was wrong if you were holding the club by the lumpy bit at the end even though I've no idea what the proper grip is.

It's just funny laughing at all these suckers sticking up for online poker. You have no proof that it is a legit operation yet you defend it to the death, it's hilarious. QPW, my friend, you are the definition of a sucker.

p.s. keep grinding out those micro-stakes and soon you should be able to move up levels and blah blah blah maybe be rich in 10 years. wouldn't that be nice????? sucker.