I think you may need to learn the difference between questioning someone's integrity and questioning their intelligence.

Otatop weren't you the guy who said that because I was running below EV on my PFAI's it must just prove that I am a weak player? It kind of gave the game away regarding your knowledge of statistics.

I actually said the opposite, that if you're running below EV it means you're still playing well and not just tilting and getting money in bad.

English language comprehension problems, wykh?

So you still don't understand what an EV graph of PFAI shows then. Running below/above EV has absolutely nothing to do with playing good/bad, or your choice of when you get your money in. It is purely a test of the randomness/luck of the RNG as you see it.

Wrong!

He clearly does.

Maybe you'll get it in a minute.

Quite.

So the fact that the EV shows you were unlucky tends to indicate that although you did not win as much as you might have liked it wasn't down to bad play.

Which is exactly what otatop said.

Really, it's no good knowing what something such as EV represents if you cannot use that fact logically see what some particular value might imply.

This is what you actually posted...not quite what you said above. In fact more like the opposite, but equally wrong regarding the statistics.

Wykh, you stormed off from your probability thread in a hissy fit, declaring that it was useless providing actual data, when you had received a number of posts analyzing your data, and finding your methodology and conclusions flawed. Please don't complain about a lack of serious discussion. You need to develop a thicker skin when being criticized. Maybe you will actually come to a better understanding of your problem.

The hands that spadebidder analyzed came from http://www.pokerftp.com

If you have serious concerns about the validity of the hands or spadebidders analysis you can apply to use their database. Otherwise STFU with your insinuations.

ROFLMAO.

I think the decisions he's referring to are those relating to coming here and whining on the basis of such a small sample, rather than those relating to play which we can hardly deduce from that graph.

Those posts both say the same thing. Not verbatim, of course, but they're nowhere near opposites. It's true that your EV line will always be higher then your real winning line when you lose unless you get the money in drawing dead, but typically the bigger the gap, the better your odds to win, which means you're playing better than your opponents. Feel free to correct me instead of just saying "you're wrong" repeatedly.

lol everyone that doesnt agree with u is dumb or a riggtard. im sorry mate but u are a sad **** and need to get a life.

I don't know what to say, other than that this is completely wrong for PFAI analysis.

You said before that my graph was damning as to my ability to continue making good decisions in the face of losing while ahead. In your second post you said if you're running below EV it means you're still playing well and not just tilting and getting money in bad. You think these two sentences say the same thing?

Regarding my thread in the probability forum I did get some good responses, which I acknowldeged and took on board in good spirit. It was a perfectly good discussion until a couple of posters went off on an agenda to just discredit me and the analysis and managed to somehow equate my question posed (How many SD's left of the mean before you can cry foul?) to an assertion that I had somehow proved poker is rigged, which I never claimed.

You could try to like, explain why it's wrong in words. Yes? I guess damning wasn't the best word choice, since looking into it it's usually used in a negative way, but I meant it to mean solid or irrefutable evidence. My real problem there I guess was trying to combine saying it's not damning evidence sites are rigged while saying it was evidence you weren't playing bad (which yes, is "wrong" but you can't seem to explain why).

And then you ran off like a baby. No-offence.

Really, though, you've got to get a thicker skin. And your belief that there is some kind of agenda to get your personally is just wacky. People on these forums have strong opinions and don't hesitate to given them to whatever stranger pops by. That's what's going on there. And really, most of the comments were hardly harsh, and hardly an overeaction to your posts.

In short: suck it up and quit complaining about how mean certain people are. There are some pretty smart and savvy posters around (including some of the people you consider mean) and you might actually find a resolution to your question if you stick it through.

He actually lingered there a while with his fancy graphs trying to have a discussion with multiple stats guys who were basically telling him he had many flaws in his approach and results. The real problem came when he claimed to have lost KK 10 times in a row and Pyro questioned the validity of that claim and I simply asked him to provide the hand histories of just those 10 hands (which with his OPR and time stamps of the hands would be reasonable to see if they were likely 10 in a row).

Obviously those HHs never were produced, so now he is back here where frankly he does actually belong.

By the way, if anyone would do a 2-3 day cliff notes once in a while that would be useful especially when the thread is multiple repetitions of riggies and Wiki calling each other ******s, as it is hard to pick out any fun new rigged theory amid that noise.

I can only say what a PFAI graph is, which is a measure of the extent to which your actual wins agree with your expected probabilities. There is no skill element in this because the chips are going in preflop. Once the all-in is called matters are outside the control of the players.

I could say many other things which it is not, but it would be a long list.

I am not quite sure why you say I abandoned the other thread in a hissing fit. There were no more replies coming in regarding the stats. The reason I have chosen to post my data elsewhere in future is simply due to the fact that I can have an intelligent debate elsewhere without the shills and abuse I get here, so its a no-brainer.

Did you actually lose with KK ten times in a row? Or did you just make that up? If it is not made up, why not post the hand histories?

I haven't read the other thread so feel free to correct me, but if you won't provide HH's of an example you referenced (10 KK hands) then how can you be suprised when you are insulted?

You mean other sites where they just agree with you rather than making you look foolish by asking pertinent questions? Perhaps you could share with us the fruits of these "proper discussions"? Or was it just a bunch of morons saying "+1", "spot on" and "yeah, I hand this one hand...".

I don't believe that any casino, on line or B&M, benefits from lack of action. Action brings in the players. Action at the craps table creates a buzz at the table games. Action tables and action poker players create waiting lists and table changes to get to the action, on line and b&m. I disagree that action (or action hands) are bad for an on-line site.

Josem poses a logical puzzle that comes to the opposite conclusion. I think that logically, his answer makes sense, but that he holds too many assumptions constant in his example. Once these assumptions are no longer constant, I believe his logic puzzle fails. (For example, a site that has good action may draw 4x's the players than one without action, thereby increasing its rake even if it loses 1 player to an action hand).

Basically, his argument is that it is better for a site to churn its players than to have large money transfers between players which result in little rake and the possibility of either the winning player leaving or the losing player not buying back in. At the extreme, his argument is logical. But he states that he has PROVEN action hands do not benefit a site. I don't think he has proven anything. And, I think I have shown the flaw in his logical puzzle by showing that that FT benefits from a pot size of $60.00 to maximize its rake per hand. (Note: I am not arguing FT creates action hands to make a pot $60.00)

Ultimately, the answer is probably more complex and falls in the middle of our two "proofs"- there is probably a "point" at which a site, casino or poker room probably can balance the action and the churn to maximize its moneymaking.

To that end, to take it out of the theoretical, I challenged him to use his clout at PS to prove his theory. I suggested some parameters of a search that I believe would be relatively easy to come up with real numbers. I would agree to any parameters of a search to prove his theory. But given his ability to get us cold hard math, I challenge him to prove his theory or logical puzzle with evidence. Sound familiar! To that end, I offer him a dinner at his choosing.

Your argument that I should look at how B&M's rig cash games is meaningless. First of all, every B&M casino I play in with a poker room has a no capped game. The min-max for B&M and on line is almost exactly the same (except for the variety that on-line offers) for 1/2, 2/5 5/10 nlh, so I don't know what limits you are referring to; unless you are referring to limit games that were in vogue before the poker boom. Your B&M analogy is as useless as Truth's suggestion that we look at the YouTube videos for proof of rigging. But thanks for the suggestion to look at antidotal evidence rather than actual numbers. When you go to the B&M's, you must not have an adequate sample size, be seeing 3x the hands or its variance.

Pretty much. Certainly Pokerisrigged dot com will have a wide array of views.

http://www.pokerisrigged.com/showthr...?t=4574&page=8

Posts as Kalfred. See post #76.

Yeah, I'm sure that you will get a wide variety of views that will address all points and counterpoints on a site with that name.

And for anyone who has followed this thread for a while the responder "RNGkillmenow" is AMEC0404