The problem is that the anlysis is not done with all wholecards from the complete table. Simple all analysis that i saw so far proof nothing.

Believe in a random deck or in a rigged one. If todays poker is fair is
another think. Skill is to find an idiot that spend you money .

I cashed out a 5 digit ammount in the real golden years of onlinegambling and play only a few hours for fun in todays games.

Its no secret if noone deposit fresh money, poker die within a year.

Once you have a suitable sample you can check your own hole cards to ensure the two card distribution is within reasonable limits.

For any other analysis knowing the hole cards is irrelevant. You can see whether the distribution is correct on the basis of showdowns.

If you don't understand this, study probability maths until you do.

Until then you are wasting your time posting lame comments based on your poor understanding on here

I havent seen a multi million hand study completed. I know that Spadebidder is working on one for cash games. I am hoping someone does one for tournaments. Just saying that the human eye and mind are flawed doesnt get it. You are right, computers are much more powerful for logical studies, but your brain can tell you when something is just not right.

You guys keep saying that the reason the UB/AP scandal was caught was because there was cheating and it was detectable. This is correct, but it was only detectable because the morons who were cheating were not smart enough to keep their stats within reasonable range. Just because someone hasnt proven that there isnt some sort of rigging going on, doesnt mean that it isnt happening. If people are coming here claiming that they might be getting cheated doesnt necessarilly mean that they are. But dont you want to investigate? I would say only if you are not in on it or dont see how it is affecting you.

I am still hoping one of the geniuses does a multi million hand study on tournaments. I am concerned that something might be going on there.

I will say this. There are some smart guys here who I believe have a very good head on their shoulders for making good logical argument for the "Poker is not rigged" side. Everything that I have heard has been nothing but good logical argument though. It is all almost as circumstantial as what the rigged side is bringing into this thread. I will admit that the burden of proof should be on the rigged side. The problem with that is that proving something like this is going to take someone with some math skills. Not my forte in life.

FYP.

If these guys in on this were not so greedy, there is a point where they could have flown under the radar and made some money right? As I said in another post, these guys were ******s, like stupid common criminals getting caught over and over again. What would happen if someone who had much more intelligence decided to do something like this?

Another question is why are these superuser accounts even in existence? For monitoring purposes? You dont need to see the hands in realtime to catch someone cheating right?

Thanks, I think I meant to type it that way.

Donko, you should really know better. When figuring out if something is wrong depends on a sample size involving tens of thousands of hands, just how good could your brain be in figuring out if something is wrong?

You've been told to track your hands and for some reason you've refused. I know you've said that you can't get the program to work on your computer which is hard to imagine: It's not exactly a complex program that you need the newest computer for. You must know at least one other person who has a computer who would let you install it and import your programs and play around.

Will importing your hands completely answer the question for you? maybe not. But it will give you a better understanding of what is actually going on.

However, we've said this before to you and you've ignored it, and I have no reason not to think you'll ignore it again, so I'm probably jI'm just wasting bandwitdh typing this. But since I've already typed it up I suppose I'll post it.

Well, if something was different, then it'd be different. If you make up a hypothetical scenario and stipulate that it is undetectable, then obviously in the hypothetical scenario, it would be undetectable.

I think that this is a good reason to play at a large online poker site that is regulated by a proper western democratic country with independent courts and regulators. That way, the risk of anything bad happening is reduced, and you have an independent court system to seek redress.

I agree that the very existence of 'superuser' accounts is a flaw in the programming; fortunately, I work for a site that has never had superuser accounts, and when the software was being written (ie, 9 years ago, well before these scandals arose), the idea was discussed and rejected for this very reason.

Sure. If they played in a manner of being a fair winner that did not stand out they could make as much as they did.

In maybe 100 years.

I think their approach to the crime (grab as much as fast as possible) was a much better plan than your grind at 1-2 BB strategy and hope that for instance the entire software loophole does not get closed or discovered.


Let's see. Estimate how much they got away with (I don't know the figure but it is pretty substantial).

Now estimate how long it would take you, a non ******, to make that exact same amount playing quiet don't get caught poker. Let's even pretend there is a 0% chance your loophole (the superuser account itself) is not eventually closed (which is pretty far fetched assumption).

When the time comes that you made as much as they have, which will likely be in a generation or two, you come back and post in this thread how ******ed they were for not using your gameplan instead.


Cliff notes: Yes there are circumstances where stealing a little at a time is a better approach. Hint, this was not one of those times.


I suspect Josem can answer that. I would guess they were meant as a form of ironically protecting the users by being able to research issues like collusion in real time, but obviously the temptation to abuse them is quite high given the money that can be involved.

I would say it is a very valid reason for a player to avoid a site that does not explicitly state they do not have any such accounts.

Edit: I see he already did as I was posting.

My game plan would be to not do it at all. To get a job and live an honest life. These guys were obviously not honest people, but on top of that, they were stupid and were ex employees of a site. There is a certain threshold that guarantees that you will get caught. They blew right through it without a second thought. It is as stupid as a smash and grab caper in the middle of a crowded mall with security at every exit.

This is good to know.

Hi Arouet,
I have almost 100,000 hands saved and am going to import them into my friends computer. He just hasnt been around lately and I wanted to collect up a larger sample. I have looked at some very specific areas like, all in as a big favorite. The preliminary results show that I am running well below expectation. The problem with this is that I dont have enough of these samples to convince anyone, including myself that it isnt more than just variance. I guess I'll check back with you in a million or a billion hands...

I am shocked to hear that the "idea was discussed" at all. Was it like: "How can we cheat as much as possible? superusers? nah, lets make it a little more sophisticated.". I dont expect an answer.

And btw, superuser accounts is not a flaw in the programming. Not being able to see your own cards, or one card face down - that is a flaw in the programming....

Seriously, are you into this type of trick question nonsense on purpose or you doing more level stuff.

If you say the way they did the crime sucked compared to a different way, you can't say the answer actually is - haha fooled you, I choose an honest life instead.

Why did the chicken cross the road? Haha, it was a bridge instead. Got you.

They smash and grabbed because this was the proper time to commit a smash and grab if one was going to commit a crime. This was not the equivalent of a crowded mall with security watching at any time, it was more like a store where the owner goes away for a couple minutes and you have to decide what to do before he gets back (assuming you would commit a crime).

This is a silly debate, it is folly to think they should have tried doing this over years when that much was available with a quick operation before anything changed that could bring it to an end.

I hope you are doing a variation of your gimmick account doddering old man logic, because if this is your genuine logic - that says a lot.

don't expect an answer moofz ? From these guys? You'll get an answer, probably either rife with sarcasm, or just a few twisted facts. And donko, your point about the superusers at ub/ap is a valid one. [in my humble opinion] It brings to mind the breeders cup pick six betting scandal, from a few years back..Those guys had been stealing large amounts of money, and it was later an acknowledged fact, that they could have done so virtually endlessly, had their greed for the 'giant score' not drawn attention to them

Really? How easy is it to trace an IP address? These guys obviously did not think twice about getting caught because either they were too stupid think about that or the site was in on it.

What I am saying is that we only know about the scandals that were blatant enough to be uncovered. The fact that there has been some of this going on can lead you to be concerned about what else might be going on under the radar.

A few of these guys go so far to the other side to argue their point just for the sport of it or because they have a big stake in online poker because they work at one of the sites or make their living playing.

I do get some laughs out of the sarcasm part of it though because some of these guys are pretty funny. I dont take anything personally because they dont know the first thing about who they are talking to. Most of them would not have the balls to be sarcastic to my face, believe me when I tell you this. Only on the internet do I experience the kind of insults that could result in an instant bitch slap upside the face of the offensive mouth. Im Charlie Murphy ####

I'm assuming he's referring to AP and UB software even having the ability for anyone to see everyone's hole cards while the hands were bring played. There is no reason for any single person to have such access, and presumably networks with smarter people behind the scenes have realized this and not allowed for such an ability in the software.

And yes, the ability for any single person to see everyone's hole cards while play is ongoing is a flaw.

Couldn't you take those 100,000 hands and figure out how many standard deviations you are away from the norm? That would be a start, yes?

It's more than enough. You can check your starting hand distribution and the community cards. You should have 100K/169 of each generic starting hand type, plus or minus about 2 standard deviations for 95% of them. On this sample size 2 SD for each starting hand is 48, so you should have between 544 and 640 of each (for 95% of them anyway). You can also do a chi-square test on all the starting hand frequencies to make sure the distribution looks good. Then there are a variety of ways to check the community card distribution, which you can research. Then you can do a preflop all-in luck analysis (using PT or HEM). If all of those fall within the range they should, then you can't blame your winrate on the cards, as your card distribution will be in the same ranges as most other players.

Thanks for posting this, I will cut and paste this into a document that I can refer back to when we load my hand histories in.

I know you probably just posted this really quickly but this isn't the case right? Suited cards happen less often than offsuit and pairs less often than non-pairs.

You don't need to see everything going on when the output will show any flaws. If you buy two standard 6 sided dice and rolled them 100,000 times keeping track of what numbers they landed on, and every number showed up roughly the same number of times, would you make sure to inspect each side of each die between throws?
But how could he possibly do that? There's no software that could possibly do it, especially not with a built in report on standard deviations. Let him keep HEM and hawing until some genius unleashes that type of software on the world, perhaps even with a 15 day trial.
I think the second half of spade's sentence covered that.