No, they have one entire game engine/servers including the RNG, that just talks to different skins/interfaces on the user side. Think of it as if PS modified their client software to have different logos and text on it, but left the underlying communication the same. That's how poker networks work.

Yeah, that's what I was saying, wasn't it?

The player-facing brands use one underlying system.

I guess I misunderstood what you meant, sorry.

All that would do would make you conclude that they must rig it in other ways than all ins if the data came out as ok. Then you would ask for something else, and if that was proven false you would say that only proves they rig it in a different way.

Eventually we get to superbots. Seems all riggedology theories eventually get there these days.

Hmm somebody said something. Well, you certainly have a high threshold for proof.

I like this theory as it means even more people are in on it who are not telling, and now they are not even working for the companies who are the evil corrupt enterprises any more. Cave getting more crowded.

So basically current riggedolody has moved from flush draws hitting too much to "somebody said something about some contracted outsiders who use some superbots"

or something.

Can't we just take that tiny final step and go with Lizard People. Lots would agree with this as it is far more fun.

I havent opened this thread in awile, thought id check it out. TKs dad the old_moose is great. A+

Are you drunk?

I feel the same frustration, Josem.

Let me be the first to say that a discussion about what kinds of analysis could/should be done is deserving of its own thread and not jammed up in this 640+ page monstrosity.

The most obvious analysis could be done on all-in preflop hands. This should also be the easiest to implement by programmers.

I'd love to see some analysis on flop textures, from the most dangerous to the most serene. Are there 2 of a suit? 3? How many cards to a straight? Is there a pair on the flop? Trips?

Then analysis beyond that on how the turn relates to the flop. Does it complete a possible straight? Flush? Pair the board? And then the same analysis on the river.

Even further could analyze the known hands that saw all these stages and their relationships to the flop (gut shot draw, trips, 2 pair, etc), turn, and river.

Beyond that a way to analyze the money (or tournament chips) involved at each stage to see if that has any correlation with anything.

I understand I'm being a bit vague, but I think these points are worthy of discussion and if PT3 or HEM could do these types of analysis, we'd be entering into territory of being able to postulate on the effective fairness of the deal.

all the same suit flops and paired flops seem to common . and the most comon action flop online especiaLLY FTP IS THE 3 CARD STRAIGHT WITH FLUS draw . I would love to see studys on these

+1

This filter would probably only really work for tournament hands, since most AIPFs in cash games are AA v. KK type hands that don't happen all that often.

If HEM can do it, it'd be best to also toss in some kind of stack size comparison to test the "big stacks win too much" and "short stacks win too much" hilariousness.

spadebidder's working on this, using a gigantic sample. It'd probably be easy enough to filter for in HEM/PT though, and cool to see what your own hands show.

http://www.tightpoker.com/news/ppa-s...ine-fraud-613/

Old but thought I'd "bump."

How often should they happen, and how often have you noticed them in your "study"? The last time someone said "You see monotone flops way too often online" I checked my PT3 database, and saw about 1% of the flops were montone. I suck at math, so I'm not sure how close that is to correct, but obviously since you've made such a bold statement you can help me out. You make this statement without posting even one hand history showing a 789 flop where two people got all in, one with TJ, the other with AQ at show down or something? If it's the "most comon" you should have dozens of these, since you noticed the pattern after all. Ohhhhhhhhh, so this is all just based on your memory. Quelle surprise.

Arouet,

To say the post is "is so rediculous its beyond comprehension" is pretty dumb.
First, the majority of people outside of the online poker community don't/wouldn't trust a poker site, located out of country (often with undisclosed ownership), with running a truely random game with their money. Even if all sites ran a 100% legit opperation (which is known not to be the case), It is intirely reasonable for someone thinking about getting into online gaming to question if the game is on the up and up. If the potential player searches for documentation of a sites legitimacy, and can't find it, it is a fault of the site and or its marketing team, not the potential customer.



You responded harshly (mentioning a known cheating poker site) to a poster with a join date of this year. A new player to online poker feels the need for some reassurance about the fairness of the games, and YOU blast him. do YOU think a person that is thinking about making a $200 deposit is going to PAY a 3rd party to analyze a HH database before making the deposit? do YOU think it is life fault that someone can't work PT3 or HEM like a Stratovarius? C'mon, you need to see a bit more sunshine.

All i got from his post was that if a site runs a 100% straight-up clean safe game, why don't they verify it with proof and use that as a sales tool to bring in new customers? I wonder that myself. Your response was silly and void of logic.

peetar69 if i owned a poker site i would show as much proff as possible to prove my site is 100 percent legit and i would most likely have more players then poker stars

So people in the UK wouldn't trust a poker site run in the USA? Could you clarify your xenophobia please.

Thats not the main point of his post.

It is one of them. I'm asking him about that point. Do you expect me to respond to every single part of every crappy post? At this point admittedly I'm just in this thread for entertainment value. If anything groundbreaking happens let me know.

The rigtards would just complain about how you made up your stats.

This is also difficult 'cause I imagine the big stacks and short stacks are not mirror images: think of a common situation where a short-stack pushes from early position. He's very often going to have a weak hand, and be pressured by the blinds.

By contrast, when he's called, the other player (presumably a bigger stack) has a stronger hand.

The solution is to compile the equity buckets that spadebidder is working on, and I think that very few players are going to have meaningful answers on their own data.

I don't think equity calculations are easy, but IMO, it should be possible in some form.
OK.

I remembered this document, produced by pokerstat:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...7dc4a7f?hl=en&

Perhaps that's a good start of the list of stuff to check using HM?

OK, super. This is testable so we should be able to do this.

9703rd

pokas is cartinly rigeed on Stars. today went all in and lost with AA. Who even knows the odds of that? Practically impossible. I'm switching to full tilt and if it happens again I quit forever.

Looks like it's way off. The probability of a monotone flop on any hand in which a flop occurs is (52/52)(12/51)(11/50), which is about 0.052 or 1 in 19.3. You should be seeing them about 5 times as often.

This seems unfair in the extreme to me. Had he posted a bunch of hand histories, he would have been ridiculed for thinking that a few hand histories out of billions proved anything. As it is, he's ridiculed for not posting them.

It may seem unfair but what he's really being ridiculed for is basing anything on other than rigorous analysis of many thousands of hands.

There are many reasons to suspect that OLP is not rigged but the main reason anyone with even the tiniest gobbet of intelligence knows that people coming here and voicing a belief that the site they play is rigged based on their simple observations is this:

If a site were rigging the deal to your disadvantage such that you could reliably detect the rigging without mathematical analysis of thousands of hands you would be losing at such a staggering rate that that alone would be the evidence of rigging.

I've said this several times but, of course, all the rigtards simply igore the point because they cannot possibly argue it. It really should be: "Oh, yes. [/thread]".

I trust that that's what you would have ridiculed him for, but otatop was ridiculing him for not posting hand histories. Of course, a few hand histories prove nothing about rigged deals and people are regularly ridiculed in this thread for posting them as if they do.

Can't have it both ways. Well...you can, but it's never fair when you do.