Why? Do you think it's OK it rig free play, but it's a big no-no to rig it when real cash is involved? Do you really think an organisation which manipulates hands on the free side won't do it on the paying side as well - when there is a heck of a lot more to be gained?

Hey, why not ask for 20 billion hands or maybe 100 zillion? On second thoughts, that sample won't be statistically accurate.

How about 100 billion zillion?

Why don't you provide us with an example? Please compile your report tonight and hand it into this thread tomorrow.

Stopped here. Fail. DUCY?

Also, this would take about 1 million years to converge. (obv made up number)

Isn't that a 'Bajillion' ?

"the fact is that either the "facts" OP is talking about are false, or the poker site is rigged."

Agree with this.

"I don't think OP says what his expected equity is for the 1000 all ins (he divides them by categories, but I don't think he gives the expected equity for all the hands)."

He sort of does when he says how many hands he should have won. This isn't exact, but if you add up his figures he's 106 pots short. I can't speculate further as to his actual cash results (ie big pot small pot bias) so I just assumed all the pots were the same.

EV: 553 pots
Won: 447 pots
Below EV = 106 pots = 212bi (NO!) <= this is where my error was
he's actually claiming to be 1.116 * 106BI below EV, or -118BI or so.

Rest of my maths for him are still correct. (i used 60% and 500 pots, but its about the same. you could run it again with .553 and 447 wins but it isn't going to make much difference)
Edit: 1.15038871899403E-11 ... there is a difference because of the 6 additional pots, but the differences between .553 and .500 are marginal. Using the same number with pure flips results in ~1.06E-11 and you will not notice much fluctuation based on the equity distribution of the pots unless it gets extreme (close to 0% or 100%) which simply isn't possible in hold'em.

Also, your numbers for 60% are wrong because you forgot that each pot is 1.2BI @ 60%, but it doesn't matter anymore obv.

"In other words, these probabilities mean that the "facts" OP is talking about are *impossible*.

Sample size is more than enough."

This.

Oh wow, it says ABSTRACT, this must be serious, not like the other conjecture out there!

Oooh, a major university! I wonder which one it is! Oh wait, it doesn't say anywhere. Why would an academic institution not want to add its name to a study?!


So from 10,000 9-man SnGs, they managed to pick out 57,000 hands? So they picked up on average 5.7 hands per tournament? Wtf?



But earlier, it said that the students were entered into, but did not play in the tournaments.


Wait, how's it gone from "their" study to "our" study? It couldn't be that this is a made up report written by a paranoid moron?

Conclusion:

How about a riggie provide any actual hand history database of any size. They all have unlimited emotion, bluster and hyperbole but none seem to have an actual database of hands aside from a few bad beat stories and stats they make up from memory.

Why don't you be one of the first riggies to provide your hand history database for actual analysis. Are riggies allergic to Holdem Manager as a tool or something?

But Monteroy, it's kind of difficult to provide your database for analysis, be shown how utterly wrong you are, yet remain in denial about your failings as a poker player. That takes a special type of crazy.

It's much easier to hide behind lame excuses and made up data and rest on your delusion that you are not a winning player because poker is rigged and that anyone who is is either lying or is given some type of preference by the sites.

I noticed this too. Doesn't make sense. Then again, I didn't really expect it to.

You underestimate the faith of riggies. A couple in the past have given their hands and they were analyzed and given the analysis and part of the fun was watching how the riggies would then mis-interpret the analysis and transform it into something they could believe in that showed a non rigged game was in fact rigged.

Most don't provide actual data because they are casual micro stakes players who cannot afford Holdem Manager or they are unable to figure out how to use a simple program to analyze their hands.

Honestly at this point I would be happy if a single riggie even posted their actual hands when they make a meaningless claim of 3 or 4 bad hands in a single tournament. That's only 3 or 4 hands they need to post yet they can't even do that.

I don't expect that riggie to directly answer my question about hand histories, since they never do that. That's just part of the fun of this thread, and I want to earn my 25 cents posting so I can re-new my Communist Party membership. A shill's work is never done.

Oh man, you get 25 cents? I'm going to request a raise.

god mode fishes
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

How do your all in hands only go to showdown 28.4%?

on poker stars



on full tilt

Have my data base if you want, I have 255k hands on ft and probs same on ps. Quite happy to let someone rid me of the niggling doubts I have about the fairness of online poker.

I imagine you will find some stats guys who will do it for you if you ask in a reasonable and professional manner.

You do need to be specific as to what you are concerned about. Even the little thing you posted has no context in terms of filtering.

They will look at it, likely show that everything is within statistical norm, and then (no offense) you will likely eventually still feel it is rigged anyway. That is how paranoia works.

Post your request in the probability forum with some specific questions/requests. Simply saying "I think I am doom switched" is way too vague and will be ignored.

Good luck if you do this seriously.

What tests do you want done on your data, and how much would you pay to have them done?

You may find someone to do it free, but I can make some suggestions on what tests to do and how to do them.

NOt really that bothered about it, I just read that monteroy saying that nobody ever produces a substantial data base. I am running 44 bb/100 below ev this last month over 1446 all in hands, so I guess I run like sh*it. Don't mind a flaming off the people in this thread but I do have a database to back up what I say unlike the other dude who just spouted off a few numbers and never answered a request for his HH. Surely all in pre flop hands are the best way to judge the randomness of a site as the odds pre are set in stone, clearly I am never going to have a database of 1mill+ all in hands so I would assume the old sample is to small argument will be thrown around.

It's been done many times. Here's one example in this thread, where a hand history with nearly 10K all-ins on Stars was analysed:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=16679

I am not saying you are wrong spadebidder, clearly you know your stuff when it comes to math.I just get tired of people saying riggies should do this and riggies should do that and when one of them actually goes through his database with the basic knowledge of hold em manager then they are told " yeah but those stats don't mean a lot". Can you see where people are getting confused if they are looking at say HEM and seeing they are running way below ev and they come in here and say that then they get told their data is not filtered correctly etc etc.

I do understand that some people are going to run bad and some people are going to run good. That's just how poker is, but shouldn't there be some run good days, weeks, months & some run bad days etc just to even out the variance? Clearly the all in ev figure has nothing to do with poker skill, so I am wondering how it can be so far off ev for some people constantly. If all in win % for some people never actually gets near to being what their EV all in % is supposed to be then does that make sng, mtt sng, and mtt's unbeatable for these players as you have to win these "flips" to make profit in these?

You seem like a decent enough person so I am giving you the relatively mild riggie treatment.

The reality is that these rooms are not choosing you to hurt in the games you are playing which I assume are fairly low stakes. They have nothing for or against you to make doing anything to YOU significant to them.

Are you running badly? Maybe, and if so that puts you in company of lots of players who lose, some because they are not as good as they think, some because they play for fun, and some because they are running badly for a short period of time.

You use Holdem Manager which is a good first step, but I suspect you do not know how to use it properly and are finding and creating beliefs based on actual data, but not a properly done analysis of the data. I work with guys who are Holdem Manager freaks (I am not pretending to be) and even they sometimes find "leaks" and stats that eventually turn out to be an incorrect usage of the data in terms of analysis.


You are looking for simple answers and for sympathy for your run bad. The former may exist if you have some significant leaks in your game. The latter will be minimal given the nature of this thread and of the game itself. Get a teddy bear if you need a hug or a stress ball if that helps.

If spade will not do the work for you (which is fair given how his past work has been received by riggies) then go to the probability forum and ask for help there or pay someone money to do the analysis for you.

The underlying paranoia will never be gone until you change your entire outlook on the game and that paranoia will cripple your game in the meantime.



It is very frustrating when you do not understand something (in this case a tool like Holdem Manager) and people tell you to do an analysis using it. You try, and can't really do what you want and then get mad at those who tell you what you did was not significant.

The solution - pay someone to teach you how to use Holdem Manager (there are coaches who do this) and do the analysis. That is how the market system works. If you can get a friend or someone else to do this for free for you , even better.

You show a lot of inexperience with how poker and general statistics work with this statement. I will leave it to spade to explain your flawed "bad runs should have a memory and even out" beliefs. What I will say is the way you regard results is very simplistic and if that also manifests in your game that very well can explain why you are not winning in the ways you suspect.

This is part of a staking application I looked at the other day.


i would like to ask you something..i played more than 40 turbo sit n gos...in 25 of them i lost when i was 75-25 favourite..do u believe online poker is rigged?at least tell me so i would play for fun and do not try to make some money..i used to be terrible player but now i follow harrington strategy and i cant find why i cant win


He read the book, he knows what the "rules" are and yet he cannot win. He doesn't get that he lacks the ability to apply the "rules" in the proper context and also when the "rules" do not apply.

This is very common with the "new donks" or as someone else called them the TAGfish.

The small pics from my HEM were all the hands I have in my DB, I am not after sympathy or even anyone to look at all my HH. I was just responding to the fact that you did ask for a "riggie" to produce a DB worth analysis so that's what I offered.

I do play smaller stakes and a high variance mtt sng i.e plenty of all ins late game. I will ignore your subtle hint of sarcasm as it made me smile. I never expected to get into some huge debate about this, I just posted my all in ev as a few others had done. I guess at least it shows that some poeple do run good and others run bad. It's just bad luck if your in the latter group.

I do not claim to know enough math to understand fully the mathematical meaning of variance, If you started talking standard deviations and the like then that would go clean over my head. I just look at it fairly basic, i.e if my hand was 80% to win then I should be winning 80 times out of 100 give or take. If this figure was miles off then I would have to question the reason for this. Like I said there is no skill involved in hands that are all in so asking me how my game is seems pointless.

Fine, we agree you are a riggie that uses Holdem Manager. Nice to see as a change of pace as I said before, but you still need to learn to use it properly to satisfy your needs.

Lots of the new donks understand basic push fold situations in the late game. Some even have charts in front of them of what to push with different effective stacks sizes in different positions.


There is an entire forum for people who run good and run bad to post their brags and beats. You can do some research to figure out which forum that is, and most players do realize that is part of the game (including you) so I agree there is not much point in debating something that is obvious (ie: at any given time some players run good and some run bad).

I am not mocking your math skills. What I am questioning is why you do not spend the time or a little money to invest in someone who can show you the answers to a lot of these questions. Otherwise you are left there as a riggie frustrated with thinking you are the unluckiest player ever and the games may be rigged against you as you say "here look at my out of context stats from a holdem manager data base that I am not sure what they really mean."

You proved you own Holdem Manager and you have played some poker hands. Congrats on that. Your next step is proving or disproving the beliefs you have about your game and the industry, and if you do that in a legitimate manner with a rational update later, then you will literally be one of the first riggies to do that. Good luck if you are up for that challenge.

Well, all this from posting the same snippet of HEM info that others had posted. When they were putting above ev figures in ITT I didn't see anyone jumping up and down telling them they were out of context. I just put the same figures up to show that not everyone runs good in all in situations.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply to my posts I do feel a little more enlightened than I did and if I do get the time then I may look into learning more of the math.

Others posted their little pictures while adding tongue in cheek comments about how various deities clearly favor them. They do not need to be told their stats are lacking context because they are in on the joke already (that they are showing fairly meaningless contextless bits of information).



I will not pretend to believe that you will ever actually do this, but the fact you are considering it as an option is a positive step. If you ever dig deeper into the math and the stats behind standard riggie claims, you may eventually find your self in on the jokes they always seem to miss. At that point you can apply for your shill royalty payments.