You are shilling for the shill that shilled!

Yes I do, probably better than most, and you have shown by your last two comments that you may not totally understand it. If they ran it 50 times (from your post) then the underdog with the 15% equity would be expected to win 7.5 times, not once as you stated. That would give him his expected 15% of the pot. I think what you may have been saying, is that he will win it twice in a row about 1 in 50 times that they run it twice, and thus win both halves of the pot. That isn't the same as what you actually said.

You said: "pokerfan should only win that pot about 1 time in 50."

That's an incorrect statement, but may have just been your choice of words, so I'll just say it's an imprecise statement. His expectation when he does "win that pot" once in 50, is to also get another 6.5 splits (avg) during that same 50 runs. That's 7.5 times that he wins if they run it 50 times, on average. It's 15 half pots that he wins if they "run it twice" 50 different times with these equities. So if by "1 time in 50" you meant they run it twice 50 times, you were off by 14 half pots. Whether those are the sum of half pot wins or the sum of whole pot wins is irrelevant. When you run it X times it is the total that matters, the whole point is to even out variance and get closer to true equity. His win approaches 15% as the number of runs gets larger, or as the number of different "run it X" hands gets larger with these holdings.

No matter how you split it up, his EV is always 15%, which was what I said originally in the post you responded to.

Well played to use semantics to try to wiggle yourself out. Sorry for my "imprecise statement". Seemed perfectly clear to me that I was referring to the whole pot (all the while just trying to make a joke), but to someone hell bent on being "right" and proving his superior intellect in an Internet battle of Semantics, I will do you a favor so you can sleep tonight (probably right after you stroke your underendowment that is the root of your Internet persona):

You're right, I'm wrong.

I'll ignore your insults and just say that I accept you probably knew what you were talking about, but chose to insult me and say that I didn't. My original statement was completely correct, the one you ridiculed. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your original post, and for my "math fail" comment.

I once thought poker stars was rigged because year after year I would lose. Once I started to make poker decisions based on mathmatics such as hand range vs. hand range I began to beat the games. As soon as realized how much variance was involved I tilted less. Many people make a living from online poker. 30 million dollars in winnings was confiscated by US goverment. I very much regret having said poker stars was rigged before.

You sound like the poster child for this thread. Why dont you post your screen names so we can look at your stats on official poker rankings or sharkscope? We could see how you lost in the early days and improved as time went by. I am sure that some people might think that you are a shill if you dont, so lets shut them up right now.

The shill tag gets tossed about very casually, so I doubt any screen name info will matter in that regard. Anyway, his progression seems fairly logical even if you are choosing to take a different route with your game.

I do know whenever I look up the stats of people whining at the table about it being rigged they tend to be quite horrid, and their play shows that. Again, a fairly logical finding.

Riggedologists really tend to be bad micro stakes players, or low stakes people who generally think they are better than they really are in terms of skill. This thread shows that as well.

Just play enough and all sorts of funny situations will occur. Enjoy a sampling. If a player can't accept that weird things happen once in a while (as they should) then they are doomed to play poorly as a result, which is why most riggedologists tend to be losing players.

Sorry they are not converted, well not too sorry :P


PokerStars Game #34073974868: Tournament #203040494, $10+$1 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level VIII (60/120) - 2009/10/15 15:25:56 ET
Table '203040494 351' 9-max Seat #8 is the button
Seat 1: 7carlison7 (3090 in chips)
Seat 2: BigBluff1989 (12528 in chips)
Seat 4: Potsdamer (8370 in chips)
Seat 5: Gamblow (1296 in chips)
Seat 6: JJEKKW (16773 in chips)
Seat 7: jeff29400 (5110 in chips)
Seat 8: TeamWispy (3032 in chips)
Seat 9: Monteroy (1825 in chips)
7carlison7: posts the ante 15
BigBluff1989: posts the ante 15
Potsdamer: posts the ante 15
Gamblow: posts the ante 15
JJEKKW: posts the ante 15
jeff29400: posts the ante 15
TeamWispy: posts the ante 15
Monteroy: posts the ante 15
Monteroy: posts small blind 60
7carlison7: posts big blind 120
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [Qc Qs]
BigBluff1989: folds
Potsdamer: raises 120 to 240
Gamblow: folds
Genital is connected
JJEKKW: calls 240
jeff29400: calls 240
TeamWispy: folds
Monteroy: raises 1570 to 1810 and is all-in
7carlison7: folds
Potsdamer: folds
JJEKKW: calls 1570
jeff29400: calls 1570
*** FLOP *** [Tc Ts 7h]
JJEKKW: bets 3420
jeff29400: calls 3285 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (135) returned to JJEKKW
*** TURN *** [Tc Ts 7h] [5h]
Monteroy said, "this aint good"
*** RIVER *** [Tc Ts 7h 5h] [Jc]
JJEKKW said, "thats nice"
JJEKKW said, "lol"
*** SHOW DOWN ***
JJEKKW: shows [Kc Ks] (two pair, Kings and Tens)
jeff29400: shows [Qh Qd] (two pair, Queens and Tens)
JJEKKW collected 6570 from side pot
Monteroy: shows [Qc Qs] (two pair, Queens and Tens)
JJEKKW collected 5910 from main pot


ealt to Monteroy [Jc Jd]
eeeyman: folds
Solo Anton: raises 3100 to 3300 and is all-in
Javieñ: calls 1090 and is all-in
Jaynock78: folds
Monteroy: calls 2215 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (885) returned to Solo Anton
*** FLOP *** [7s Jh Js]
*** TURN *** [7s Jh Js] [Kh]
Monteroy said, "heh"
Jaynock78 said, "wow"
*** RIVER *** [7s Jh Js Kh] [3d]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Monteroy: shows [Jc Jd] (four of a kind, Jacks)
Solo Anton: shows [7c 7d] (a full house, Sevens full of Jacks)
Monteroy collected 2650 from side pot
Javieñ: shows [Qh Ah] (a pair of Jacks)
Jaynock78 said, "vnh"
Monteroy collected 3370 from main pot

Imagine if river was the Th, it could have been like that cartoon we see posted once in a while


PokerStars Game #34045174650: Tournament #203790424, $10+$1 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level V (75/150) - 2009/10/14 20:28:58 ET
Table '203790424 1' 9-max Seat #9 is the button
Seat 1: kosta7621 (1510 in chips)
Seat 2: ferelurban (2085 in chips)
Seat 4: superno (3605 in chips)
Seat 6: sheeppeople (2545 in chips)
Seat 9: Monteroy (3755 in chips)
kosta7621: posts small blind 75
ferelurban: posts big blind 150
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [8d 8h]
superno: folds
sheeppeople: folds
Monteroy: raises 225 to 375
kosta7621: folds
ferelurban: calls 225
*** FLOP *** [2d 8s Kd]
ferelurban: bets 150
Monteroy: raises 150 to 300
ferelurban: raises 150 to 450
Monteroy: raises 150 to 600
ferelurban: raises 150 to 750
Monteroy: raises 150 to 900
ferelurban: raises 150 to 1050
Monteroy: raises 150 to 1200
ferelurban: raises 150 to 1350
Monteroy: raises 150 to 1500
ferelurban: raises 150 to 1650
Monteroy: raises 150 to 1800
ferelurban: calls 60 and is all-in
Uncalled bet (90) returned to Monteroy
*** TURN *** [2d 8s Kd] [Ac]
Monteroy said, "a 10 bet means trips"
*** RIVER *** [2d 8s Kd Ac] [Ad]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
ferelurban: shows [9h Kc] (two pair, Aces and Kings)
Monteroy: shows [8d 8h] (a full house, Eights full of Aces)
Monteroy collected 4245 from pot
Monteroy said, "for future reference"

QUAD JACKS? MONTEROY, YOU ARE RIGGED!!! LOL!
Nice sampling, although, I am not sure you meant to put the last one in, it was actually normal compared to what I see.

The other night, I busted in 21st with a King high flush against an Ace high flush, prize pool was over $18k and I had a good shot at the final table. I wanted to use the "R" word, but I didnt, I caught myself. I just whined instead...LOL!

I am going to have to retrain myself to stop thinking that way now that I have a lot less reason to do so...

You are starting to sound more reasonable. You seem to be grasping that poker has a lot of short term luck, and that random means that **** happens. If poker could be completely controlled by skillful play then it wouldn't be long until only the most skillful players were willing to gamble with each other and the game would die for the rest of us. Think about how few people in the world make money playing chess for example (a game with no luck). That's what poker would be.

It is easier to see. After taking in the information, your head starts to sort it all out. If you use logic and rationale, you have to realize that it is unlikely that a big poker site would want to or need to cheat its players. I am not going to say that it is impossible for a site to cheat its players, but the circumstances would have to be so specific for it to happen.

Rogged

Hey, I have an idea. Lets have a private tournament on Stars. Rigtards vs. Shills. You have to pick one or the other based on your posting history or how you voted in the poll. Since I came here a Rigtard and voted Rigtard, I will be on that team. We should come up with something in addition to money that can be won individually, like some horrible avatar that the losing team has to wear on their 2+2 account for a few months like "Owned By The Rigtards" or I Am Truly a Pathetic Rigtard. What do you guys think? LOL!

The last one shows what I see a ton of every day as well - bad players playing badly. Sometimes they win despite it, but way more often they lose, and they always lose in the long term. I could easily post dozens of silly hands that I win and lose vs this type of player every day.

That's the online world - there are no superbots or massive conspiracies afoot, just a variety of players of differing skills, and if you play in games where you have an edge you will simply win after enough volume. You can check my stats if you like. Boring, mundane, and less sexy than worrying about cashout curses or big stacks winning too much but it really is pretty simple.

I lost on the FT of an Omaha MTT today after 5 hours of surviving (barely at times) to an opponent mis-click. I lost in the $3 rebuy 2 hours in to the limp/call a 30 BB shove utg pre-flop trap play my opponent did with his Q2 suited (his was not a mis-click). One tried to give me his chips by accident, one because he did not know any better - they both failed today. Get over it, start a new tournament.

Larger volume of play (number of tables etc) helps. After a while it just becomes routine, and the funny things when they do happen add a bit of amusement win or lose.

I have seen this, but I dont have as much opportunity to multi table during the day because I work from home. I can keep one tournament going at my desk, so when I bust like that, it is a bit painful. There is a tendency to focus too much on it especially when the miracle card comes against you after working your way through 6 hours of perfect play. I do like getting 4 tables going (my max) so that you can gamble a little to build a couple of big stacks. I dont know how some of these guys get 10+ tables going, you have to change your style and not try to read as much. This would probably make being busted in very ugly ways ok because you have 5 other tables still alive.

I found it at http://rounding.wordpress.com/2008/0.../#comment-1226 and also pasted to http://www.pokerlistings.com/possibl...lt-poker-21428

these sites have considerable information about being scammed at full tilt.

Please forgive me, but this is the first time for me to try to get the attention of public services, which has the facility to warn the online poker players. The reason is quite urgent to warn the online poker players about the dangers of being cheated while playing for money on Internet poker sites. These sites are an invisible haven for criminal activities. The criminal activities at online poker sites, once opened up, will make the following late famous American and Canadian fraud cases of Bernard L. Madoff and Earl Jones, appear as just a small nursery rhyme.

Explanation in simple language:
Computers don’t pick cards by themselves, it takes man-made software to pick the cards. Therefore the software can be altered by the software tech, to deliver the cards, he or she wants. The systems to pick cards is called RNG (Random Number Generator).

Plus more: To move the cards from the RNG to the tables, require more man-made software. By hacking or programming into the software the following simple open “if” “then” “else” statement would make the on duty staff tech in control of cards and wealth. Also with the ability to program, or hack, the event can be camouflaged within the computer’s logs so it cannot be discovered.

STATEMENT;
{
$input-from-computer-tech-on-duty = /enter table number;
$input_from_F10_key = /enter what card is required to complete your hand;
if $card from RNG equals $inputfromF10key;
then “sent to the table at $input-from-computer-tech-on-duty;”
else “delete and draw another card from the RNG”;
}
END;

Following, another prime example of card tampering. By playing on site, your IP address is submitted to the server. If any slight problems arise between player and site. The site can blackball the player and just deliver the lower end cards to the player. After not receiving playable cards to play, the player is soon eliminated because of the increasing blinds. Below is somewhat of an illustration of this happening.

Background of games played;
Between two players, playing 10 separate 90 player’s tournaments for money from the same IP address, which is recorded by the popular poker site.
Total number of single cards received as “pocket cards” from the server during the 20 games of the tournaments = 2236 single cards.
Following in rank, is the percentage of each individual card received.
2 = 229 times 10.27% of the total
7 = 192 times 8.58% of the total
8 = 184 times 8.24% of the total
Q = 180 times 8.07% of the total
T = 174 times 7.78% of the total
K = 168 times 7.51% of the total
5 = 167 times 7.46% of the total
6 = 166 times 7.42% of the total
A = 165 times 7.37% of the total
3 = 163 times 7.28% of the total
4 = 161 times 7.20% of the total
J = 146 times 6.52% of the total
9 = 141 times 6.30% of the total

The average percentage is 100%/13 cards (1 suit) = 7.69%

Question, if the RNG is as random as advertised, then why not a more even percentage?

It my opinion Queens where received at a higher rate than considered normal, but Queens don’t beat Kings and Aces. In fact this could be a trap. The higher cards (Aces, Kings) where delivered to the accomplices or BOT of the tech at a workstation.

The on duty staff tech sitting at his or her workstation, can download a BOT (poker playing robot software) from the Internet, enter it into an on site poker game. And by sitting at the workstation, using a hand held device like a Blackberry, controlling the BOT. The tech can supply the cards to BOT, the BOT plays the hand, making several times more money than his or her salary each day.

Another options; By downloading 700 BOTs from the Internet, one could setup 100 tables with 7 BOTs per table, with two seats open for alive cash poker playing customers. By using “Cold Decks” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_deck) the two cash customers at each table, could be cleaned out in quick fashion.

As long as man-made software is used to make or deliver playing cards for poker games, there is a strong opportunity for workers within the site to change, hack or program the software to suit their own needs. This is done without public or company knowledge. Plus, this can also be done “out of sight.”

If an online poker player losses a poker pot or hand, will only consider having bad luck. And does not realize, the hand could have been manufactured back stage for the player. A perfect crime.

With the availability of OCR, (optical character recognition) which is the backbone for the BOTs. BOTs are becoming quite popular. There appears there is no real dangers , playing against BOTs. Some play real good and will even bluff. It would not be surprising to find in a 9 handed game, 7
are BOTs and 2 are real alive players.

The next step that is now in the making, software to be able to read your opponent’s pocket cards. The champion poker player today, is not from the old west saloon type days and a deck of Bee cards, but who can make the best software.

My question which I’m looking for an answer too. What are you doing or how are you protecting the poker public from these inevitable criminal activities within the online poker sites?
You can’t beat a real deck of cards and real players.

Sick sample size, I think you're on to something.

that's a lot of effort going into a level

I've seen some ******ed **** in this thread, but this stuff made my brain hurt it's so stupid. God help you if you're not leveling, because it would be amazing if you were capable of clothing yourself.

I stopped reading after the first couple of line because I knew if I went on it would make my eyes bleed.

The other day I posted my depressing set-flopping statistics. Shortly after that I played a brief, 45 minute session and managed to flop a couple of sets in the space of 240 hands. In one of them, I won 78 bbs. In the other one...


Poker Stars $0.05/$0.10 No Limit Hold'em - 5 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

CO: $10.35
BTN: $14.30
Hero (SB): $10.00
BB: $5.00
UTG: $8.60

Pre Flop: ($0.15) Hero is SB with 5 5
1 fold, CO calls $0.10, BTN raises to $0.20, Hero calls $0.15, BB raises to $0.60, CO calls $0.50, BTN calls $0.40, Hero calls $0.40

Flop: ($2.40) 2 5 9 (4 players)
Hero bets $1, BB folds, CO calls $1, BTN calls $1

Hit my set but it's a very dry flop. I toss out a small bet, hoping someone caught a piece of it and is willing to come along, maybe with a weird straight draw of some kind.

Turn: ($5.40) J (3 players)
Hero bets $2.50, CO calls $2.50, BTN folds

The turn didn't help any straight draws, but maybe one of my opponents is playing something like A9 or K9, which has now become 2nd pair. I decide on another half pot bet, hoping to look like I missed and am firing a 2nd barrel.

River: ($10.40) 8 (2 players)
Hero bets $5.90 all in, CO calls $5.90

CO came along with me on the turn bet, so I'm thinking overpair, 2 pair, top or 2nd pair, or just AK or something like that. A slow-played set over set is always a possibility, but it's too late to worry about that -- the pot's too big to let it go for fear of a bigger set. There are plenty of worse hands that can call me getting almost 3 to 1, so I get it all in.



Villain, who had just joined the table 5 hands prior to this one, now leaves the table, galloping off into the night, cackling wildly. I'm left sitting there, chin in hand, staring at the screen and thinking how much better it would have been if I could have managed to not flop that set.

I never really thought about this before. If the software is man-made, how can we ever trust it? Until the online poker sites conclusively show that their software is devinely created, I will not play another hand of online poker!


Also: I found at least two other sites where he's posted this back in September, so we shouldn't feel too special, he's making the rounds...

In B&M casinos you don't even have the computer involved.

Every card is picked directly by a (wo)man!

What sort of moran would ever play somewhere so obviously crooked?

JK