no, i didn't catch that one...

he masks a lot of his ability by "playing the fool" a bit... but the cool thing is, it's not some hollywood act (as far as i can tell)... seems purely authentic...

and, yeah... like most seasoned pros, he takes beats with class...

i hope some day i'll get to play at the table with him and shake his hand...

I win at about 5ptbb/100 over 120k hands at micros and I can tell you right now I have ran about half the time below EV and half the time above EV during that time. Had downswings, upswings, B/E strecthes. There is no doomswitch pal

I agree there is no doomswitch. Ty for your contributions to this debate lol

The doomswitch is basically what your theory's describing.

Even though all-in hands only represent a few percent of most players' hands played, all-ins probably do account for over half their net chip win/loss, particularly in tournaments. But you would still be absolutely wrong with 20 random winners or 20 random losers.

Some winners will be over and under, and some losers will be over and under. I have no doubt that your statement could be true for over half of them in a given sample, but it will never be true for all 40 random players. You're overlooking the absolute mathematical fact that the total +/- EV of all players in the world is zero before rake. When somebody wins somebody loses. If you take all players on a poker site, the total +/- EV sum is zero. If you take all players hands for one tournament, the total +/- EV sum is zero. Period.

The only way your statement could ever be true is if all skill is removed from the game and everyone plays a no-fold 100% luck game. Then the winners will be the ones who run over EV, and the losers will always be the ones who run under EV. But when you add skill into the mix, you won't find 40 random players that make your statement true.

I could do the exercise but then you'd just say it was cherry picked players. Why don't you do it with your own PT database? Pick 20 winners and 20 losers at random and do the EV graphs on them. That will convince you much better than me doing it.

If you don't have enough hands, go spend 50 bucks at one of the datamining vendors and get a million hands to look at. Do some research.

.

Weren't you just saying there is one as PS and FTP rig winning players accounts and make them run below EV?

As I dont know anything for sure I am open to changing my opinion as the more I learn and think about the subject the more educated I become. With that said I dont think accounts are doomswitched. I simply believe that the RNG has been tweaked to decrease the value of being ahead and increase the value of being behind. Thats why some of us who are constantly getting it in ahead feel like we are doomswitched. I firmly believe that this measure dramaticly increases the ability to grow a database of playersa and has been implemented by the sites. Im currently trying to figure out the best way to prove this but Im admitedly behind someone like spadebidder who is very proficient with statistics. Its something Im gonna have to research in my spare time and evetually I will find a way to either prove my theory right or wrong.

I am also aware of the fact that I could be wrong and with that said I will continue to start my accusations with "I think" or "I believe"

I think that should be good enough for everyone

Half way to another convert coming over from the dark side.

The regular posters in this thread are actually providing a public service.

See I dont like you. I dont like the way you present your information. I dont like the little tatic you tried to use showing your tournament bounty. I dont like the way you dodge questions by sidetracking with graphs that are unimportant to the subject. The regular posters in this thread are pathetic. Not of all of them as maybe two actually talk to me in calm respectful mannner but for the most part its just a bunch of jerks who talk big behind a computer when you know you dont talk to people like that you dont know in person. If anything the regulars keep this from going anywhere with all the non sense kiddy games which I believe is their intention. To sidetrack any real uncovering of the truth. With that said me being objective to being right or wrong doesnt mean that Im softening up. It means that Im rational and logical and able to be wrong which is what it takes to truely progress.

You continue to taint your so called reputation with your arrogance.

But that's a false assumption that anyone can verify by putting the hand history numbers into the PokerStars client. Why would we work on demonstrably false assumptions? See below for the details.

Well, any consideration of "beats" needs to take into account how many hands were played.

I've just looked at the first video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXMUPjhTQSk

I've marked my comments by the timeline of the video:

0:00 - 0:32
-Hand #38611290873
-This hand was played on 2010/01/23 at 14:39:21 ET (as anyone can check from the HH number)
-The JJ is a 55% favourite to win*. This is like 22 v AK. Losing what is almost a coinflip isn't really much of a beat.
-It's in a $1.20 tournament.

0:33 - 2:31
-Hand #38617390911
-Played at 2010/01/23 16:36:17 ET
-QQ is a 72% favourite to win. The chances of losing that hand is slightly smaller than rolling a six-sided die, and getting a five or a six.
-It's in a $2.20 tournament
-I note that during this hand, he gets dealt JJ and shoves allin. Presumably it wasn't a beat?

2:32 - 3:11
-Hand #38673156961
-Played at 2010/01/24 17:26:41 ET
-On the flop, A5 is a 71% favourite. On the turn, this has dropped to being only a 68% favourite
-He puts the vast majority of his money in on the river with the worst hand, when every conceivable draw has hit: both the flushes and straight draws.
-It's a $2.75 tournament

3:12 - 3:47
-Hand #38635825284
-Played at 2010/01/24 0:24:13 ET
-QQ is a 55% favourite.
-Losing coinflips is not a "beat" imo.
-It's a $1.20 tournament

3:48 - 4:15
Something about OPR; not a hand.

4:16 - 6:00
-Hand #38687598744
-Played at 2010/01/24 23:47:50 ET
-Of the players who called the flop bet (including michf50), AK would win 65% of the time.
-If he's concerned about getting outdrawn by bad players, why would he limp preflop? That maximises the opportunity to do so.
-After the turn bets, AK would win around 88% of the time (ie, excluding michf50).
-He puts in the vast majority of his stack (around 920 chips) when he has the worst hand. People who put their money in behind shouldn't complain about bad beats, imo.

6:01 - 7.32
-Hand #38692076399
-Played at 2010/01/25 3:44:05 ET
-He's raises all-in to 7 big blinds; it seems entirely predictable for him to be called by a weak hand
-He's a 61% favourite. I guess that's slightly better than a coinflip, but 3:2 is not a huge edge
-A $4.40 tournament

7.33 - 8:17
-Hand #38797019069
-Played at 2010/01/27 5:41:58 ET
-A $4.40 tournament
-Pre-flop, in the three way spot, he's a 37% favourite
-After the flop betting he has a 8% chance of winning the hand
-After the turn betting he has a 5% chance of winning the hand
-It's not a "bad beat" if he's the underdog

8:18 -
-Hand #38895710328
-Played at 2010/01/29 3:48:02 ET
-A $3.40 tournament
-After the preflop betting, he is a 66% favourite
-After the flop betting, is a 84% favourite.
-His chances of losing from here are almost precisely the same chance as rolling a six-sided die, and getting a six.
-After the turn betting, he is a only a 77% chance to win the whole pot.
-Thus, 1 out of 4 times, he won't win the whole pot.
-In the commentary, he mistakenly says that a Ten will split the pot.


Also, on the issue of buy-in, it seems to me to be entirely natural for small stakes games to have weak players in them - and what do weak players do a lot? They put their money in behind. So, if you have lots of situations where players put their money in behind, there are lots more opportunities to outdraw the leading player.

So, we have 8 hands in that video. Of those 8 hands:
-Two of them were coinflips
-One he was just better than a coinflip
-Two genuine "bad beats"
-Two where he puts his money all-in behind
-One email where he was actually an underdog to win
I'd suggest that before he tries to blame external factors that he should take a good hard look at himself and his own play here.

*All pot odds calculations courtesy of www.pokervillain.com

Wow. I won't take time to answer your questions any more, you don't even recognize a joke with such a chip on your shoulder. If you would read the thread as has been suggested many times, you'd see it's a running joke.

Ok thats not really a doomswitch.


Not really. Because without evidence to back up what you believe your posts dont mean much more then the other hundred people before you claiming the same thing.

From five different dates. Great work Josem.

.

And what I think is that you can spot how off the rng is best at the micro stakes where players are getting it in behind more often thus exposing the handicap that the rng gives to hands that are behind. Its easier to beat 3/6 limit than it is .10/.20. I win all my money off good players that I can expose before a showdown. Once you're at a table with 70% players relying on luck it becomes almost impossible to win because the rng is handicapping the hands they are behind. I rarely getting beat by regs or good players. My losses come from losing to weak players that constantly get lucky as theyre trying to give money away.

And once again for anyone new to this thread. JOSEM WORKS FOR POKERSTARS. Do you think hes going to post any information that discredits Poker Stars. NO!

Im not down with the running jokes or kiddy games. I leave that to little girls on myspace

And some people wonder where the joke move up to where they respect your raises came from. Yes people its true, there are people that dumb.

The regs don't have anything to do with this thread going nowhere. No evidence is why it goes nowhere. And anyway this thread will never go anywhere it was designed that way. If evidence poker was rigged was put in this thread it would be moved out to its own thread.

Btw some of the regs you degrade helped with uncovering the UB/AP cheating stuff.

Move up to where the RNG respects your raises.

And other cheating as well.^^^

For someone who knows alot about math you sure lack alot of common sense. Not uncommon though.

My game doesnt matter. Its not about me. Its about what these sites are doing. Im not here for my personal gain. Im here because I believe the sites are screwing over the good players in general. And we need as many people to stand up for it as possible. Therefor I will pursue this unwavered by your childish remarks. Poker is not my main dream. I have other aspirations. If poker doesnt work out then Im happy to move on but I also believe that me and alot of other players arent being givin a fair shot to succeed to out potentials

Keep responding to my beliefs with sarcasim though. Its really classy and gives you alot of credit

How would you know? You are one of the bad players. The good players are murdering this game, making hundreds of thousands of dollars. They arent crying OMG Rigged!! because, well because they are good players and understand the games basics concepts. You are a sucky donkament player, get over yourself please, you arent important enough to even be conspired against.

Of course they are. They exist in a world untouchable by regulation and prosecution. It's like knowing there are no more police and the kids will just go into the store and take as much candy as they want. Rigging the outcomes keeps player levels up. FT would literally lose 30-40k players the second the deal was legit because the idiot that overplays weak aces and constantly is 30% in a big showdown will just get destroyed. The sites can't have this and due to the fact nobody can catch them or properly fine and imprison them they do it and will continue to do it as long as they can. What is laughable is how they lobby the US to legaize them. Which if it ever happens. (It won't) then you can forget it. The US government is not stupid. Bring those sites to the US and let us see the hardware boys. They you can say we are wrong because nobody has seen those machines. Source code doesn't count.

amen

I've said this once and this is the last time I will say it. You think the online poker sites are a law unto themselves right now?

Well most of the world think the U.S governement are a law unto themselves. They always have been. If anything online poker is more at risk of being crooked when an immoral government starts making money by taxing it. Your xenophobia is unbelievable

If that's the case for you, then go play 3/6 limit or higher.

You'll find it easier to win, you'll make lots of monies, and be rich from a very young age.

The thing is that I think that you know that this is not the case. It's like the guy who claims that Aces come too often. If that was true, then they could simply adapt their play style with this secret information, and make lots of money.

You see, if you - or anyone else - discovered something was amiss with the random shuffling, then you could simply use that information to win more. I suspect that deep down, you know the shuffle is random and fair, and that's why you keep playing and why you don't change your play style to match it.

QFT.