Quote:
Originally Posted by JPFisher55
I respectfully disagree with you. Yes, 25K hands is too few to determine winning or losing. However, APCW use it to test hand distribution to players. APCW found that players in early position received better hands more often than players in late position in a statistically significant number of times. 25k hands is enough for this purpose.
IMO, AA and KK should win about 75% of the time when all in preflop. Even over 100 hands, their win rate all in preflop should be more than 54%; it was at other sites.
This is not proof positive that FTP has a skewed RNG, but it is credible evidence. In addition, FTP does not refer to or link to any Certificate of RNG on its site. Nor has FTP ever replied to this thread or other previous threads about APCW's audit.
I'll play elsewhere thank you.
I went to APCW org and didn't see the audit (I don't fancy signing up). The bit I put in bold is quite wrong, I can't tell if it is just the language you've used or the thought behind it.
Think of it this way: take a brand new deck of cards and a brand new shuffling machine. Shuffle and deal out one hand of Hold'em for example. On the very first deal I flop a Royal Flush, the odds being I think 649,740 to 1 against. Does this suggest the deck was set or the machine is biased in some way? Does it make any difference how many hands that deck is going to deal? Of course not, it is not credible evidence of any funny business, and neither is a run where aces lose far more often than they 'should' do long term, it is just variance.
I'm not suggesting you should change your policy of playing on Full Tilt but I think the reason you've stated that you avoid it is based on a fallacy, and a report that is likely to be biased in some way. One thing I'd be interested in seeing is how they decided early position players get dealt stronger hands. We all know people are more likely to stick to the stronger part of their distribution in early, and loosen up in late. Did they take a 25k hand sample where all players seated went to the river?
I think there are some pretty smart regulars on FT with large databases, if they haven't spotted wild statistical anomalies it's probably because there are none.