I was too lazy to read the OP, but is this just a rigged post in disguise?

Juk

Now why couldn't I have put it that succinctly?

God, you're an idiot!

OMG I cant believe Im repsonding to this one - glad u trust them. I myself prefer to trust the Kanawnake ( sp?) gaming comission - lol.

If you compared the sample (1k cheating + 999mil not cheating) to another sample (999,001,000 not cheating), you would notice a small difference, which would be unable to be accounted for by statistical error.

However if you did flip a coin 100,000 times approx. .0005% of the time one side would have 5000 more outcomes than the other. Meaning heads would be way ahead 1 in 10,000 trials. Not sure if the data being off by more than 2 standard deviations is what he meant or if I explained myself well. This does not mean it is rigged or anything of the sort. It just means that some people will run better than others and some much worse. However in the grand scheme of it all it will come up fairly even most of the time.

I CRY SHILL

In all seriousness, if poker sites are rigged, then ty to them for rigging it in my favor. All I ever say to rigtards, and all I ever feel the need to say.

OK, give us all a laugh.

Which rigtard are you?

OP: without googling, what is the prob of getting exactly 50 heads and 50 tails in 100 flips of a fair coin?

You'd be surprised at the results.

no, i'm just not naive

Hes an idiot - lets see there has alreadly been online cheating proven - Ultiimate Bet etc. You call him an idiot. Gee I wonder who the real idiot is!

Actually, naive is exactly what you are.

You see other rigtards who don't understand probability and when they show their ignorance you look at them, scratch your head and then initiate a 'monkey see, monkey do' post.

But you're still good for amusement value.

Clue: There's more than one.

On this thread 'sokrateez' is one and I suspect that you are in the habit of refering to the other by the use of the perpendicular pronoun.

Just to be nice I will explain to you that the coin-flipping exercise is a very different thing from the poker-hand exercise. Different exercises will require different sample-sizes to produce meaningful results.

It is very possible for a winning player at poker to have a losing or break-even stretch for 10k+ hans for example. It is several magnitudes closer to impossible for random events to cause such a long losing streak in the coin-flipping exercise.

The variance involved with determining one's win-rate at poker is much longer partly because of the fact that you are playing only a fraction of the hands anyway and then there's even a smaller fraction of those that you take to showdown and/or actually try to win.

your coin-flipping analogy shows that you really don't know what you are talking about because it's not even close to being related to the hand-sample requirements to draw semi-decent conclusions wrt to a player's win-rate.

Maybe so, however there's enough of us that have winrates over hundreds of thousands or millions of hands. That fact tends to make us think it's on the level... that, and that pesky little fact that everything falls within statistical mean. So, how many hands do you have in your database?

i couldnt tell you how many hands i have played. i play for fun and am not that serious about it. im at least smart enough to tell there is a difference.

i wouldnt even go as far to say it happens on all sites, however, on FT and UB there is no question

I find it interesting people who argue by hurling insults rather than good solid logic. Someone who establishes his point by labeling someone a "rigtard" who doesnt understand probability.

Avoids the point by creating irrelevant issues to misdirect the discussion - the smoke and mirrors defense.

Point 1 - the 100,000 hand argument - the more hands u watch the more the cheating can be diluted - the more diluted the less recognizable. That at does not mean it did not occur.

Seriously, can you elaborate how you're smart enough to tell there's a difference when you have no saved hands to prove your hypothesis? That's pretty arrogant, no? I mean, are you just going from memory and determining there's a difference? Are you rainman? Definitely, definitely, definitely rigged. Definitely. I'm a good driver. Definitely rigged.

also what you are telling me is that the same companies who have already been caught cheating in outlandish ways would not key in a simple program in to their software to put out cards that would entice betting and therefore increase rake for the company?

this is far less trackable than them creating super users that can see others hole cards. and if it was ever brought up or investigated it could be taken out of the software all together

I dont know about you guys, but I definitely believe a guy who plays for fun more than many, many people with million hand databases that show little to no statistical anomalies in the long term. You're all shills anyway.

prove to me its not

No you're not. Nobody short of Rain Man is. That's why statistical analysis of large sample sizes are required. The human brain is very, very good at finding patterns. Even where there are none. That's why anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron. That's why scientific studies use double blind tests. (Well that and a lot of people tend to just be full of ****).

Confirmation Bias

Why are you playing on sites you think are rigged?

Prove to me there's no such thing as unicorns.

It's simple. He's played a few hundred hours (maybe) of live poker, and has a huuuuge 10k hand sample.
It's not very well disguised.
Ultimate Bet's cheating had nothing to do with what you're talking about, idiot.

Are you into Homeopathy?