yes i think FTP is very rigged!!!

A+ 1st poast imo.

I will look forward to your career with great interest.

I presume "very" rigged and the "!!!" mean that you think the magnitude of rigging is high for some definition of rigging and some definition of high. I'll further presume that we are defining "rigging" as non-random deals and that the "high" refers to the frequency of non-random deals.

Therefore I am taking your statement to mean that there is a high frequency of non-random deals.

If I have interpritted your (very unrefined) statement properly then CONGRATS! You have a hypothesis that is trival to test. A high frequency of non-random deals would show up on even a small sample size ("small" sample being scaled to "very" rigged).

So, perform the proper statistical analysis and then post. Until then don't post because it reveals too much about you.

SO RIGGED, be careful

How high do you play Spacebidder.

is fulltilt rigged?


No.

ban-worthy bump imo

Ive read posts on Online Poker forums stating you need 100,000 poker hands as a representative sample to draw any concrete conclusions about any particular issue in online poker - a generalization rather than qoute any source. Most of you have read the argument. This is spouted so often and takin for granted that it stuns me. Its a farce!

Suppose your standing on corner and someone offers to pay you .75 c every time a quarter turns up heads and u pay him .25 c everytime it turns up tails. You think great - even odds the coin will hit heads and I'm getting paid 3 to 1 eveytime it hits heads. Looks like a regular quarter, shines like a regular quarter, rolls like a regular quarter. The gentlemen flips the quarter 100 times and each time it comes up tails. You say to the gentlemen there is something wrong with that quarter and he says no ur just having a bad run - its variance u need to keep playing you will run good soon. So you do it another 100 times - same result. When you complain he says you need to do it at least 100,000 times before you can conclude there is something wrong. Are you going to keep playing that game 100,000 times?

Now just supply different players: Guy on the Street Corner = Poker Site in a Foreign Country; Quarter = Poker Software Program generating poker hands. Its the same scam except the program can be changed as often as the site decides to make the scam less detectable and the variance from the expected norm less detectable.

First point is you don't need to repeat an event 100,000 times to determine the event is not random. Results can be so scewed in a much smaller sample that the same conclusion can be reached.

Second point is computers are programmed - they do what they are told - they are not random. Their random number generators can be programmed in a way that will make the results difficult to predict but that does not make them random. They can also be reprogrammed to remove any particular anomaly long before it is detected by and unsuspecting user.

I can not say whether online poker dealing is intentionly scewed in a way that generates the most rake for the site. However, there are alot of players that consistantly point to the fact they see a lot more action hands in online games than live games.

I can say the 100,000 hand argument is absurd

I'm convinced.

Now somebody can post that absurdly long Wikipedia article.

OP cliff notes:

AK beats AQ, and you don't need 100k trials to prove that. Ergo... pokersites are rigged.

The word is skewed rigtard.

Foreign to you.

[IMG]http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/4659/******prize.jpg[/IMG]

The problem with your theory is Lots of people have PT databases with one MIrron hands or more in them. The number of times Aces (for example) are delt/cracked/hold up are all in line with statistics figures. The truth is things happen like they should IN THE LONG RUN.

anyone who has played enough live poker can tell the difference

anyone who says there is no difference is either kidding themselves or doesnt play anywhere but online

Another loser, same old rigtard garbage.

Wow, there really IS one born every minute...

See, now, this is the part where we know you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Entropy source

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/rng/
http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/random-number-generator

A lot of people also believe in Creationism, UFO abductions, and that Elvis is still alive.

And that would be the same people we laugh at in threads like this: Most absurd poker "thinking" you have heard in a live game?

The whole reason I play poker is to take money away from people dumber than I am. So I would give any credit to anything these people say because...?

I'm thinking of something else that's absurd. Can you guess what it is?

Well, well, well, I wonder who has made themselves a shiny new gimmick account.

OP, the reason that you need vastly more samples to determine anything about poker hands compared to tossing a coin is that: Poker Is Much More Complicated.

You obviously don't understand even the first thing about probability but surely even the most numb-skulled rigtard must appreciate that there at only two possible outcomes for a good toss of a coin compared to a very large number of a hand of poker.

It is the number of possible outcomes that determines the number of samples you need to come up with some statement with a given confidence factor.

Lose AK vs QQ heads up 100 times in a row (on a street corner?) and then your point will be valid.

Coin flipping: only two possibilities
Trends appear relatively soon

Poker; 169 starting hands and a 19600 flops
Trends take thousands of hands to develop

My theory is the 100,000 hand argument is a fallacy. Period. Discrepancies can be determined with much smaller sample.

As far as things being rigged - i dont know. I havent seen a good argument against it. The Ultimate Bet scandal may have gone totally undetected if the superuser would have used a little more discretion in ripping people off or the employee had not replied to a hand request that showed all hole cards played instead of the requesters.

Anyway it wasn't my point - I just kept reading this 100,000 hand nonsense - and kept thinking that absurd.

seriously you guys that think there is no difference and there is no cheating are a bunch of sheep who believe anything whatever site tells you that they are doing.

Certainly 100 hands isn't enough, and neither is 1000.

10k isn't worth analyzing, as you will only expect about 45 of each PP by that point.

100k provides 452 of each PP. Definitely analyzable.

50k might be acceptable, but you'll have to put up with more statistical error.

Nope. I'm going to get somebody I trust to verify that the quarter being used is unbiased, and that the game is fair. Thankfully, in the case of online poker, that's already been done for you.

http://www.cigital.com/

http://www.gov.im/gambling/

Bring the proof oh great one.

So let me see does that mean if you cheated for 1000 hands and then not cheated for the next 999,000,000 hands then no cheating occurred? According to ur PT stats it doesnt look like it.