Assume spherical cow? Sorry OP, not here.

Comparing poker to coin flipping is as crazy as comparing checkers to chess.

OP, have you ever taken a stats course?

In your coin-flipping exercise a 100k sample is unnecessarily large.

In determining one's "true" win-rate at poker a sample size that large is necessary.

Post some of your results and HH's in poker. First you can prove via the way that you play that you are indeed playing the kind of game that should yield winning results. Then you can post your hand-sample size and what your stats are, etc as well as what your win-rate is.

If you can prove that you truly are playing a style of poker that should yield long-term winning results and that the site is systematically hosing you over and over then you can at least begin to make the argument.

right now all you are saying is that "you can just tell" and that flipping a coin 100k times is somehow going to have the same kind of variance and standard deviation as someone's win-rate in poker over the course of 100k hands.

I do I do

dude, when you first showed up a week or so ago I knew you were dumb.

but just how special a brand of dumb you are is just starting to show up now.

you never did answer me whether or not you play live poker nearby. if you do, would you mind telling me the county and the species of running animals nearest to the tables?

Basically, the OP and others need to stop doing their own version of math. There are people smarter than you and I who can teach you and instruct you on how the math works. If they are pretty damn smart at math I would personally tend to listen to them. Others evidently think their own invented version of the math is better.

If you trust your own mathematical abilities enough to tell really really smart people who know their stuff that they are wrong then that's quite conceded of you and awfully impressive. I'm smart enough to at least know that I don't know everything and I should trust people smarter than me on certain issues.

another thing is. during the course of you 100k hands or your 500k hands. Your style will change and improve or get worse etc. You will pick up good habits or pick up bad habits.

Also the players around you will change.

So it is pretty pointless in general to even care about your stats.

Just know that it is not rigged (not on stars). And that if you are playing solid poker you will win long term. How long? When you start winning you will know.

judging by your posts that would include everyone on the planet, including most animals.

what about the timing? doesn't that factor in there someplace too?

300k hands this year. .35% AA, .41% KK, RIGGED FOR ACTION !

Sokarteez just upset he gets crushed in the NL10, and is almost breakeven at his NL200 live.

sadly couple of HUGE holes in that theory...

1) in Florida all NL cash games are limited to a max table buy in of $100 regardless of stakes.

2) in Florida the players at live tables ($1/2NL for argument's sake) are worse than NL10 players online.

fyp but I don't mean to derail this excellent discussion

OP: So, with 52 cards in the deck, and 8.06 x 10^67 ways for all 52 cards to be dealt out, you are going to argue that 100K is too large of a sample to get an accurate account of whether or not an RnG is good? If you had one hundred thousand 100,000 hand samples that might be enough to settle the arguement one way or the other, but until someone takes the time to accumulate that many hands, and analysis them, and accepts that even after that many hands (which is still less than 1 trillion trillion trillionth of 1 percent of the total number of possibilities) deviation is still a probability, you are not going to get the proof you need to show that online poker is or is not rigged.

As far as the deviation becoming too small to notice in your too large 100K hand sample, if that is what happens as the sample gets larger it means that the RnG is actually doing its job because the deviation is disappearing. If it remains as noticable, then there is a problem.

You can argue that if you want, but you are basing your argument on a false premise, that there should be 0% deviation from the norm. That would only be the case in a perfect, non-random world.

Taking a sample of under 100K hands and saying that because there is deviation, poker is rigged would be equivalent of taking a single lifeform from this planet and saying it is a proper representation of life on this planet. Lets hope you do not accidentally grab an amoeba.

That being said, based on your argument, I would be happy to sit down and play with you live.

not quite as sad as suggesting timing and action are written into software rngs.

so the conspiracy widens...

19,000 possible outcomes and the you get the exact same result after 10,000trials. But according to u there is no indication of a problem. Ok Ive got a 2 headed coin Id like to flip with u. Heads I win tails u lose. No u dont get to look and both sides of the coin before we start. Oh yea and u have to agree to flip it with me 100,000 times before u quit. Oh and before we start u have to put ur money in an offshore bank account to play. If there any allegations of cheating I get to investigate and decide the issue.

"No it doesnt" - theres a good argument.

I'm taking a nap. I hope to be awoken for the DonkeyFlop vs Rek Heads Up match soon.

in the meantime, I leave you with this to discuss:

sounds like a whole lot of smoke n' mirrors to me.

Whats enough? Going by the 100k sample people are talking about, thats 4000 hours of live play.

Thus spaketh the poster boy for dumb.

What? Your reading comprehension is severely lacking. What? Brilliant argument here, and it's exactly the same as online poker, kudos. I'm not a statistics teacher, I'm not going to sit here and explain to you why your argument that bigger sample sizes "disguise" cheating is stupid.

Great job with the smoke and mirrors argument sir! Some deviation does not mean things are rigged. Cheating can be disquised and the best cheaters know this. If I got cheated 1 hand out of 100,000 - could I prove it to anyones satisfaction by statistical evidence alone. Obvioulsy not. The greater the sample size the easier to dilute the easier to decieve.

Hypothetical : I cheat you in live game by dealing off the bottom of the deck and win a $5000 pot off you. You dont see it and I only do it once. You win the rest of the hands. You end up down only $1000.00. Walk away never suspecting a thing. Just got unlucky.

But what if I deal off the bottom of the deck every hand and every hand u lose. So u start watching how I deal and u see Im dealing off the bottom. Im busted. You shoot me or never play with me again.

Now if i spread that dealing off the bottom over a much larger number of hands (sample) u are less likely to notice and I am more likely to make more money off you. I let u win sometimes and tell u see you just have to play 100,000 hands to see if I'm cheating.

"Im not a statistics teacher" : thats pretty obvious.

Hypothetical: You just learned the term "smoke and mirrors" and think you're cool for using it.

QFT !

Keep telling yourself this. So where are the sites keeping the massive server farms they'd need to keep track of when to cheat each player? They'd have to keep track of who at a table was due for a cooler to make sure they didn't accidentally cheat somebody too often. But then they'd have to cheat more to pay for all those computers to keep track of the cheating...
"thats pretty obvious" - theres a good argument.