I was just hoping to see a little entertaining riggie vs stats guys violence which is why I tried to hurl a riggie at them. I did like their reply, but I am disappointed (though not surprised) that the riggie quickly retreated and came back here to the paranoid thread where his weird trolling/personality disorder routine has a better home.

I was hoping he went through at least a couple iterations of his "can I ask a few more questions?" routine first, but looks like even he realizes they would simply be ignored and attention whores hate that reaction. Instead we get the long manifestos here again. I challenge the riggie to cross post that in that probability forum and have the stats guys analyze it for him.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25...e-size-918943/

I offer it as one last attempt to get some riggies to go there and debate the stats guys.



I would like to point out that I defended myself by saying I wanted a pay raise and suggesting perhaps some of us were communists. I then encouraged deeper paranoid fantasies to be discussed about riggies, poker sites, communists, Lizard People. Basically the grand unification riggie theorem (GURT).

I challenge you to go into greater detail about what you think is "blaintantly" (named after Blain I assume) obvious, since you are being fairly vague. Our overlords want to know how we should fight back but we need details first.

All the best.



Edit to add:

For what it is worth in the glory days of casino whoring many of us who were doing it at the time would post everywhere how rigged and corrupt the industry was to keep others from joining in

Just because you wasted the time to write alot of gibberish does not mean that others will feel the need to waste as much in response.

Wot 'e said.

I didn't write a lot of gibberish, that's simply not true.

Go post your long post in the probability forum and see what they say and you got answers there so go post some replies. They seem willing to work with you.

Why have you not posted again in your thread in the probability forum?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25...e-size-918943/

Easy link in case you forgot there is that forum again.

Have fun (though I know you will likely never post there again).

Rofl you write alot of gibberish! even after i translate your posts it still gibberish for me

btw when i'm reading english it's very rare i need to used translation but with you, i need to do it

LOL that FTP abandoned his thread after posting the OP.

Of course he did. What can he possibly say there without getting ignored or a fairly dismissive response with dry instructions. Here he can play his troll/ADD games all he likes and get the emotional feedback he craves. He can't get that with guys who post replies like

Hard to come back with "I have a sample size of 4 and here are my theories as to why a site wants people to lose faster" to that post.

He will likely never post in that thread or forum again, because his routines will not do anything there but get replies like this and then get ignored. He is smart enough to know that he fits in better here for his emotional needs, so good for him in that regard.

Thanks for the opportunity to make another 25 cents posting a reply my fellow comrade.

Hey! How do you get 25c for replying to a shill? I only get 15 cents for that. I get the full 25 only when replying to a riggie! I need a better manager!

Of course, it may not seem like gibberish to you.

It's just gibberish to almost everyone else.

Why are you still posting here and not in the probability forum?

The questions you ask are related to probability.

Until you have that down pat you cannot make any credible statements about any possibility of riggedness.

I asked my question, it got answered.

Simple.

Not sure what else you expect me to post, or how that's considered 'abandoning my thread.'

We're all ears mate, if you're going to jump on the bandwagon and accuse someone of writing gibberish, then let's hear why you think it's gibberish ?

I've explained a few post aback why at least one part of what you wrote is childish nonsense.

There's little point in anyone responding to your puerile requests for clarification on this or that because you just ignore anything that nails your pathetic posturing.

All right, no follow-up questions, no thank yous. I guess you're off to collect your 200 hands and we'll hear from you in a bit...

I do hope you're going to use tracking software for this and not be doing it manually.

I was thinking more like 10,000 hands, since nobody's made any better suggestions.

Pretty sure I've got 200 hands already.

Heh.

He probably had no idea what some of the suggestions even meant. He will never do that analysis or any real analysis, so his best course of action at this point is just being a weird riggie/troll and starting a random "ipoker is evil though I still play there" thread every month or so.

When he asks about what data or sample sizes he needs in future we can always just show that link, so I suspect that form of trolling has been cut off for now, so we will see more semantics debates like "I am not posting gibberish" instead of specifics like sample size requirements which pretty much trap him. He probably thinks 200 hands means 200 hands total instead of 200 hands of the pair vs pair situation for instance. Will he post it there? No way. Will he post that here? Sure, because he will get the reaction he needs here.

The probability forum is not for him, he is way out of his league there, and he realized it within a minute once he saw the replies. He belongs here with his fellow riggies and the shills who get paid to make fun of them.

I am glad I managed to get a riggie (especially a really weird riggie) to post there, but I am not surprised to see it did not stick. Shame, as I would have received a shill posting bonus if he had followed up.

If you would engage in dialogue in the other thread you would learn something. He was specifically referring to 200 of some particular all-in matchup type. Like 200 80/20 all-ins or 200 55/45 all-ins. And with that, you can do a very reliable confidence interval for the expected outcomes, which will tell you that X% of the time your result should be between Y and Z wins. But again I'm not going to teach you that here.

200 was a number for hands all-in before the river that go to showdown vs a single villain.

Good luck getting 10,000 of such hands ...


.

That shouldn't take toooooo long to accumulate then. 6 months to a year maybe.

It'll be interesting to see the results.

I've done little bits of confidence intervals before, so shouldn't be too difficult to pick up again.

I can't write a better answer

Of course, if you are tracking this manually, your odds of doing it accurately are pretty close to 0, I would think.

You could do it this way, and take an average equity for the set of all-ins, but it isn't nearly as accurate as using a set of similar matchups (like all that are close to 80/20 or all that are close to 55/45). The reason is that the standard deviation is not the same for different values of P, and using an average gets less and less accurate the bigger the range you group together. So it's best to use some buckets with small ranges, like maybe every 10%.

Here's a good example from the time when I was willing to help riggies with this stuff:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=16617

Why do you think that ?

You have cherry picked your hands, even though you may feel that you haven't.

If you ran really badly in the super turbos would you have said "thats too many hands to analyse so i wont do it" or would you have been in here complaining?

If you ran well in the 6 max games at the start of your analysis would you have been in here after 4 80/20 wins saying "I started a test and everything is OK"? No. You would have played and played until you found something you didn't like the look of and then come here whining, perhaps with my doomswitch comment which you claim you would never use.

I'm sure you have the best of intentions but to an observer you clearly are cherrypicking even if you have convinced yourself you have not.

You lied. You got caught out. Don't embarrass yourself further.

Do you think that using phrases like "defend themselves", "admission of guilt", "simply a fact", "blatently obvious" and "playing pretend" make your lies more believable?

You can defend yourself all you want but it is simply a fact that you beat your wife and it is blatently obvious that your playing pretend is an admission of guilt.

For someone accusing others of using "jazzed up English" (fings spelt propper) your post above is an awful lot of waffle.