Wiki, you might want to edit that to remove the irony.

I've done my best.

It is, of course, impossible to exactly quote the mess made by TT5 because if you try to do so Jelsoft parses the end quote marker that you use as if it's the missing end quote marker that TT5 deleted.

As it is I've removed an 'E' form the 'QUOTE' in his quoted post so that it looks as close as possible to what he posted.

It goes without saying that as individual users of a site, with access to only our own hand histories, we cannot prove or disprove anything about the site as whole regarding rigging.

What we can do is to examine our statistics for different sites and formats of the game to see if we see anything that gives us reasonable cause for concern. We don't need to prove anything to give us a reason to stop using a site, because we have nothing to lose by taking our custom elsewhere.

As I have shown higher up ITT, I am showing a statistical probability of 5 -10% for a couple of sites and now I choose to only play freerolls there. If the stats recover I might consider putting money in there again, but I am not in any hurry. This is not paranoid or irrational, just common sense.

Well, you could if you had a sufficient sample size.

For any given level of anomaly, the more hands you have available the greater the confidence you can have in saying something is amiss.

If, for example, you could show that your AA got beaten 100 times in a row (non-cherry picked, of course) it would be a pretty fair bet that foul play was involved. For 1000 time it would be all but a dead cert.

Not really.

Either your results do show reasonable grounds for thinking you are not getting fair cards or they don't.

Of course, your are quite entitled to take a result that others would ascribe to variance and treat it as suspicious if you wish.

Why don't you leave this thread behind for now then and post all of your thoughts and concerns in the probability forum and see what the stats geeks have to say

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25/probability/

If you will not do that explain why you will avoid discussing your statistics in the stats forum.


Also, research the work done on the Stoxpoker softplay/ multi account issue and you will see a ton of very impressive work done analyzing data where the person doing the analysis did not get to see the hole cards for a bulk the hands involved.

Your ability to do a statistical analysis is limited and you are assuming that nobody else can do an analysis that you are currently incapable of implementing, so your assumption that it cannot be done in general is flawed. You cannot do it, I cannot do it, many others cannot do it, but plenty can do everything you cannot and more.


You can certainly do that if that is part of your poker experience. Hard core grinders analyze their data all the time to find leaks in their games that have developed and a very interesting thread on such a topic can be found here

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78...-drift-410738/

Your examinations are more external than internal - you look for forces at work that are against you instead of looking at how you are responsible for your results, so when you find something like all in pre-flops are unlucky you end it there and the massive leaks you likely still have remain.



Your foundation is paranoia, but you are making choices that make your poker experience more comfortable and that is a correct thing to do even if it has you playing freerolls out of fear of all in luck being bad on a site for unknown reasons.

If you genuinely thought your beliefs were statistically valid and sound then you would post them in the probability forum for analysis and discussion, but you will likely never do that. Your place is in the rigged thread with your beliefs. You are a riggie.

All the best.

I am more than happy to post results in the stats forum, and indeed have done so in the past, both at 2p2 and other sites. In fact if it means getting away from you and wiki's condescending tone I think I will do just that in future.

Excellent - I look forward to reading the discussion you have there in the near future, and please post a link to your post when you do it (which I will assume to be very shortly).

By the way, your whole approach to life mirrors in how you play poker, which is why you feel compelled to say things like the above to people just as you say

where your game choices are made based on external forces.

You always blame others for your situations, so you may want to post in the psychology forum as well.

Also, if you do not want to talk to myself or other posters then simply put us on ignore, or claim to and make a huffy "I put you on ignore because you are useless meanies" style statement to make yourself feel better, whichever works best.

Good luck with your post in the stats forum if and when you do it, and if you do (which I still doubt) then do not leave out the parts where you talk about choosing where to play based on your results of all in luck to see what they say about that. I will remind you about it once in a while if you do not post there.

All the best.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25.../#post24164772

Congrats. Now try starting a new thread instead of adding your post to an unrelated thread. You can post the exact same post, just go to that forum and click the new thread button.

Good luck.

It depends what you discover and what your sample size is. Even if you cant prove anything, you could certainly raise concerns that others could investigate if you carry out a scientific test but the clowns on here rarely substantiate or quantify their claims.

If you have nothing to lose I would suggest you aren't putting enough thought into where you play your poker. If paranoia is affecting your play then it may be a good idea to move sites but it would be best to overcome your paranoia if it has no basis and is causing you to leave what may be the best site for you.

Assuming your calculations are correct I maintain my belief that your "5-10%" figure doesn't really mean what you think it does in terms of how unlucky you are and is not justification for quitting a site on suspicion of rigging. I will gladly apologise for questioning you if the concensus in the stats forum says otherwise.

Ah crap. I thought your question was serious. Wish I had my time back now.

Someone ought to get on checking Max Scherzer's feet immediately

(actually he's got one blue and one brown eye...)

/nit

You know there are sites you can go to and see that people win at this game right?

Yeah right !!

*making "ok" symbol w/ left hand*

I guess there's sites that show people lose at the game too huh?

....pfft

Errrrrr, yes actually, the same sites that show people win. It's really not that difficult to look up. (Clue google poker tracking).

For clarification, in proving it is not rigged, do you mean to say that you are proving that it is random? Or are those different?

No. I am not 'proving' it is not rigged. That can't be done. But yes, it is looking at whether the cards are random (iid in statistical terms).

That is, you can (for instance) think that the flush card comes too often. So you can test it. Your null hypothesis is that with one card left, the flush card should come in 21% of the time (or whatever it is). You can then see whether you can reject the null hypothesis with the data you have gathered. You can either say "At a 5% level, we can reject the hypothesis that the flush card comes in as often as it is supposed to" or you can say "we cannot reject the hypothesis that the flush card comes in as often as it is supposed to (at the 5% level).

That's it. Those are the statements statistical tests allow.

Note: other tests could/may be done in different ways...but the end statements are similar.

NOT IN THE EYES OF THE DREAMERS. AND YOU CERTAINLY DONT WANT TO HEAR A B.S. RESPONSE FROM ONE OF THE MANY SITE PROMOTERS ON HERE.

Proof!!! Wheres the proof!!?? All this statistical variance, logic, probability stuff is confusing enough. Then you go and make up words? Google? What is this "google" stuff ? What is it and what does it even have to do w/ statistical variance of a logical reasoning of probable implications in the presence of rational thinking when applied to numeric evaluations of RNG operating systems and such like that?

What internets are you on anyway...geez

28,321 posts in this thread and we still don't even know for sure if online poker's rogged or not?!?! C'mon!

I used Google and found Online Poker Code Crack...worth the purchase?!?!?!??!!?

I'm starting to see patterns in your use of capitals that would lead me to believe you are rigged to convince us you are stupid.

Please post something intelligent to prove me wrong

Please at least read posts and quotes in context. The question was where are the sites that show there are losers. My response was not that difficult to understand, but as you seem hard of thinking, I'll make it easier, the same sites that track winners also track losers. Doh.

P.S. Sorry if you were being sarcastic, it worked

DOH!! I was hoping for a good 5-10 replies...lol



[edit] Someone put up a good spoiler for me please?

AA

lol...story of my life!!

It's ironic too , speaking of spoilers. As you posted, the infamous Greenstein suck out on Dwan (j-9 v. A-A) was happening on PAD. Funny stuff.