I am glad my prediction of a 0.0% chance of him providing the data was accurate. I admit I was not too concerned.

I am disappointed the same tired "my screen name is valuable" line of reasoning was given as an excuse, as if the data on another losing micro stakes player would matter to anyone.

I was hoping for something creative in that way, much like the middle hands theory was a new twist, but alas he proved to be mundane in the excuse category.

For what it is worth, that guy still pretty much believes in his data (well he wants to) and methodology even though it is no doubt extremely flawed, and by now he will never allow the data to be analyzed because of pride. He probably knows he screwed up somewhere or suspects it, but he will never admit it, which is quite a common pathology among riggedologists as well.

No, only a small portion of the outcome is affected by your decisions of what hands to see a flop and continue to the river. If you threw away all pocket pairs, the board will still pair or match one of your unpaired hole cards about 78% of the time. But you will also have pocket pairs some of the time too. It's completely impossible for you to have 31% of hands in a 50K sample played to the river, which don't result in a pair or better. There is no playing strategy you could use to deliberately accomplish this if you tried.

The removal effects due to player choices are much too small when looked at over large samples, to affect this very much. I've looked at those in much much larger samples.

PS - yes I can validate that the sample is legit and not cherry-picked, by simply looking at the card distribution. The sample is plenty large. You can obfuscate your player ID if you like, by just running a quick seach and replace on the files.

$500 easy money. Mutual agreement on an escrow person.

But of the remaining 22% of the time, sometimes you will have a flush or a straight.

Actually there is an easy way of calculating exactly how often an unpaired hand makes a pair or better. We already know that seven random cards make a hand of 'no pair' 17.4% of the time, as the OP said. His figure seems correct, see the list of 7-card stud probabilities here: http://poker.sportinglife.com/Strate...ry_55895.shtml.

Then we can say:

Chance of two random cards making a 'no pair' hand rank by the river = Proportion of unpaired hole cards * Chance of unpaired hole cards making a 'no pair' hand rank {call this x} + Proportion of paired hole cards * Chance of paired holecards making a 'no pair' hand rank {which is impossible, obviously}.

0.174 = [16/17 * x] + [1/17 * 0]
x = 0.174 * 17 / 16
x = 0.1849

So unpaired holecards make 'no pair' 18.49% of the time, or make pair or better 81.51% of the time, whichever you prefer.

Summary: Like you say, removing paired holecards makes almost no difference really, even if you never play a pair you still only expect to finish up with no pair 18.49%, assuming you play all unpaired hands to the river every time.

Yes. Even the flop alone pairs ~17% of the time, without even dealing the other two cards. And to illustrate the smallness of the card removal effect, the difference is less than half a percent for when you have a pocket pair and when you don't. Here's an excerpt from some of my pending research on card removal effects

-----

Scenario 1 - two players see a flop with one holding a pair and one holding a non-pair in other ranks. We calculate the probability of them seeing a paired flop (but not triplets):
10 ranks (40*3*44)*3
2 ranks (6*2*45)*3
1 rank, i.e. he flopped quads = (2*1*46)*3
(15840 + 1620 + 276) / (48*47*46) = 17.090656799% chance for paired flop.
As expected, when someone holds a pair the chance for a paired flop increases.

Scenario 2 - Two players hold non-pairs but they have one matching rank between them. This is equivalent to #1 and also has a 17.090656799% chance for paired flop

Scenario 3 – two players both holding pairs (in different ranks) see the flop. We calculate the probability of them seeing a paired flop (but not triplets):
11 ranks (44*3*44)*3
2 ranks, i.e. somebody hit quads = (4*1*46)*3
= (17424 + 552) / (48*47*46) = 17.321924144% chance for paired flop.
So as expected, the chance rises a bit more.

Scenario 4 – two players both holding non-pairs with no ranks in common see the flop. We calculate the probability of them seeing a paired flop (but not triplets):
9 ranks (36*3*44)*3
4 ranks (12*2*45)*3
= (14256 + 3240) / (48*47*46) = 16.859389454% chance for paired flop.
The chance for a paired flop goes down when no one holds a pocket pair.

Scenario 5 – two non-paired players hold the same ranks for both cards. This is surprisingly common at a 9-player table, and it’s similar to the birthday problem. We’ll calculate the frequency when we do the scenario weighting. This scenario is equivalent to #3 and also has a 17.321924144% chance for paired flop.

For completeness, then:

Scenario 6.

Both players hold a pocket pair of the same rank (so quads between them). We calculate the probability of a paired flop (not triplets)

12 ranks (48 * 3 * 44) * 3 / (48 * 47 * 46) = 18.3%

But anyway going back to PJ222's statistics, there are ways that the play could affect these statistics to almost any amount, and not because of card removal effects. We can call them 'hand removal' effects instead.

As an example, suppose that PJ222 jams all-in preflop if he holds any pair, always. If he doesn't hold a pair, he checks and calls any bet. On the flop and turn, he jams if he has improved to a pair or better, and checks and calls otherwise. With this 'strategy', his distribution of hands on the river is extremely weighted towards non-pair hands (because most of the time when you jam your opponent folds and no river is reached). You can make the statistics almost what you want by picking a ridiculous strategy. As another example, you can make your no pair percentage on the river 0% easily, by folding all unpaired hands preflop even if it's free to check, and doing whatever you like with pairs.

Obviously it seems very unlikely to me that anyone could have so poor a strategy that the hands they see the river with are weighted towards being weaker than average, but that is why I suggested getting rid of any possible bias in this area by only looking at hands that were all-in preflop where his holecards were not a pair.

I accidently deposited on AP last night(thought prepaid gift cards were nulled, tried every site to deposit, ended up w/ AP)...I have hand histories and lots of **** to talk...But I'm gonna do the forum a favor: Put on my dunce cap and shut up...

Nicely played.

Last time i deposited at AP, I was force fed a win in the first SnG I entered. I literally picked up like 20 playable hands in a row at one point. When I got HU, I was folding AT and KQ just because i knew I would get something better the next hand. Honestly AP would not let me lose this tourny, which I entered about 10 min after I deposited.

You sound like a junkie who goes to a dealer who he knows will rip him but he has to get his fix.

You have the pattern map chart known, so why not make a killing with your secret info.

Deposit as much as possible into sites, play the highest sit and go possible, win because you just deposited, play smart boomswitch poker like folding good hands because you know what will happen, cash out, repeat at other sites.

With all the sites and skins available you should be able to do dozens of 500 or 1000+ SnGs a week and make easily 30-100k in a week.

Why have you not done this and instead continue to play on sites and lose at the $1 tournaments you play in?

Correct. I left this one out of my scenarios for predicting card removal effects because the weighting of this case is so low, i.e. the event is rare enough to not affect the mean occurrence of paired flops.

Yes random person I don't know I believe you'd pay me $500 . $500 isn't worth having my screen names dragged through the mud. I still do play on other sites. I would do it for 10k on conditions of. Meeting you in person. Signing a binding contract.

Anyway. Poker databases /w hand histories are available. I suppose it's possible these are tampered with.....If anyone wants to spend $100 (full tilt data) or so to buy this info and send it to me. I know what to look for and will find other grinders who have numbers that are "statistically impossible" and frequent losers on the other end of the spectrum that run beyond 3 standard deviations.

I'm in for the rest of the $10k if Spadebidder can only afford $500.
Pretty sure you will get other takers anyway.

I'm not meeting you in person but if you can find someone we both trust as escrow on 2+2 then I'm up for it.

I can transfer the money to a mutually acceptable third person today for escrow.

Pick any mod on 2+2, or nominate someone else that is well known and reputable on here with 1500+ posts, and we each transfer them $500. You will then have 48 hours to provide me a download of all the original hand histories zipped up, including all hands you played during the time that these 50K rivers were seen. I then have 48 hours to prove that your statistic is grossly wrong, and we can agree on the magnitude of the error that qualifies.

Edit - I see Pyro's note, I'm sure we could come up with 10K if you want to increase the bet. I don't keep 10K in my poker accounts (I'm not a full time player).

p.s. the fact that you are even considering betting at evens that your 80 standard deviation from the mean result actually happened is quite laughable. Especially if you didn't get it double checked by someone who understands statistics.

But if you want to throw money away figure out the escrow and post the conditions in this thread so everyone can have a good laugh at your expense afterwards.

You cannot hide one lie by telling bigger and bigger lies. Martingaling does not work here either, we have seen that routine before (the guy making 25k challenges when it was later shown he played 1/2 cent poker comes to mind)

Still not sure why you think your user name - a losing micro stakes player- is that important, and nobody thinks you are a player that matters.

Pick better trash talk battles. You are fighting the 2 big stats guys who just care about the data. In contrast I could care less that you made up data and continue to lie, I just like making fun of your excuses and rationalizations. I'll never ask you to prove anything (since you cannot) or offer to prove anything for you ( since I don't care that you lie). These guys will stay on you for the math of it. Good luck with that fight.

Do you understand what mutually agreed upon escrow means?

Yes, it means he will escalate his excuses. Not a hard pattern to anticipate since that is what he has been doing this whole time.

Eventually he will give up and fade away, they always do. Props to him for a bit of staying power.

Hi,

Where do you live?

I thought the All Access gift cards went down...I was trying AP and UB b/c they take any garbage gift cards...Cake and Bodog both denied it....My luck, it went through while I was on the phone w/ all access trying to show them my card wasn't being accepted....

No deal. SIGNED BINDING CONTRACT = non negotiable.


Ok. I went through everything with a fine tooth comb here. Didn't want to, but I figure if I can get 10g's. It is worth the effort.

I was dealt pairs 6% of the time (slightly more then average). 22% of the hands that saw the flop with were pocket pairs. 37% of the time I had high card on the flop.

From the flop on it becomes complicated and a huge pain in the butt to compute. I folded 60% of the time. Of the remaining 40% are flush draws, straight draws a combination or me floating with a gut shot (planning to either outbluff or steal). I did not improve on the turn 75% of the time. Which is another "statistical anomoly" considering the board pairs itself or one of my cards over 30% of the time. Notice that it does not take into consideration for ANY straight or flush draws. I folded the turn 45% of the time. Of those remaining hands, I did not improve 52% of the time. Which will likely be within 1 SD...but still below expectation when you consider flush draws, straight draws, and gutshots.

I have to apologize for the no pair stat, it was not correct. It would take a lot of work to determine expectation (with all the draws) compared to actual results. But I can be persuaded to do that for 10k . I suppose I do owe an apology as I was blinded by rage. However, I did double checked everything else. Those stats are correct. The only stat that is near expectation is one pair made. All others included in my original post are well below expectation being statistical anomolies.

So anyway. Don't take this as a retraction . It was a mistake. The offer stands. I have many stats below 3 standard deviations and that is VERY easy to prove. Binding contract--signed...10k. Since there are so many ways one could try and get out of this deal. The contract would worded such that there is no wiggle room . Hard #'s beyond 99.9% or 3 SD's


Also....If someone is willing to send me data purchased that includes all hand histories from FT for last 6 months. For $1k. I will guarentee that I will find statistical anomolies for other grinders that go through cycles and will find statisitcal anomolies 3+ SD in a wide variety of categories and on perenial losing players who run good too often. I know what to look for. I wouldn't expect the $1k till after results are posted.

No it doesn't. Simply count how many rivers where you did not have a pair or better. Very simple. Expectation doesn't even matter, as you will find the actual to be very close to the theoretical calculation of ~17.4% where all boards were seen 100% of the time.

Your other ramblings in that post were nonsense, just a way to weasel out when challenged. At least you apologized.
But you never gave the real number, so once you do that, then apology accepted.

I'm going to renig any offers. I've been "reminded" that is not in my best interest to "prove" or "disprove" anything. My computer has been hacked into.....

I'm done posting on this topic. Believe me or don't. Anyone can purchase hand histories through a database, look at players with suspicious swings, and calculate it on their own.