Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > > >

Discussion of Poker Sites General discussion of online poker sites.

View Poll Results: Is Online Poker Rigged?
Yes 3,445 34.94%
No 5,522 56.01%
Undecided 892 9.05%
Voters: 9859. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-03-2009, 01:47 AM   #3026
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeaceFr0g View Post
How are they viewing folded hands? Because of what we previously discussed, no sample size is big enough if they don't include folded hands in the equation.
I don't agree with that last statement. Nobody has all hole cards but the poker sites (and Cigital in that case, but those aren't public). The databases I speak of have only the cards that went to showdown, plus the community cards, plus the hole cards of the player gathering the data in some cases. However, with a large enough sample of hands that include 2 or more player's hole cards, you end up with enough hole cards to do some very useful analysis, including many queries that would show skew in the randomness of the deal.

Sure, there are some things you can't analyse with this kind of sample. But you don't have to see hole cards to prove that the community cards are random, or to prove that all-ins win at the expected rates. Both of those things have been analysed already in some large samples without any sign of rigging. And there's a lot more you can tell with this kind of samples.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 04:23 AM   #3027
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk1133 View Post
spade what poker site do you work for again?
tk1133, which court is hearing a child molesting case against you again?
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 09:06 AM   #3028
BitterChris
adept
 
BitterChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bittertown, USA
Posts: 831
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

zOMG - it's RIGGED!!!!

... but in my favor, to the tune of +.16BB/all-in hand.





Regardless, I'm still not convinced, since this is pretty much the only thing that can be analyzed statistically and excludes other aspects of rigging, such as cold-decks, hole-card readers, board-card predictors, and other forms of cheating such as collusion or bots. Also, since I play tournaments almost exclusively online (to minimize the chances of collusion) whenever it really counts I can never seem to win a pot, such as on the money or FT bubble, or the hand that would put me among the chipleaders.

Although my local poker room has an automated shuffler that seems to deal out big pairs more often than is called for (shudder), I'd rather play there and make decent money.

- Bitterness is joy with a bad attitude
BitterChris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 09:10 AM   #3029
BitterChris
adept
 
BitterChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bittertown, USA
Posts: 831
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

For some reason the images arent coming out above and I get a javascript error when I try to edit, so here they are...

http://yfrog.com/06bbgraphj

http://yfrog.com/06tgraphj
BitterChris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 09:12 AM   #3030
Weevil99
grinder
 
Weevil99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Waiting for an epiphany
Posts: 620
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
I don't agree with that last statement. Nobody has all hole cards but the poker sites (and Cigital in that case, but those aren't public). The databases I speak of have only the cards that went to showdown, plus the community cards, plus the hole cards of the player gathering the data in some cases. However, with a large enough sample of hands that include 2 or more player's hole cards, you end up with enough hole cards to do some very useful analysis, including many queries that would show skew in the randomness of the deal.

Sure, there are some things you can't analyse with this kind of sample. But you don't have to see hole cards to prove that the community cards are random, or to prove that all-ins win at the expected rates. Both of those things have been analysed already in some large samples without any sign of rigging. And there's a lot more you can tell with this kind of samples.
I'm not sure the bolded statement can be made with confidence at the moment. I'm assuming you're referring to IndianaV8's analysis of pre-flop all-ins posted in his research thread. Here are the frequencies of that analysis (quoted from your earlier post)

Quote:
Preflop Equity %.....#All-ins...#Wins...%
0 - 10.....................13675 1026 8%
10 - 20................124839 25435 20%
20 - 30................. 72605 21361 29%
30 - 40................. 77187 28437 37%
40 - 50................111568 51068 46%
50 - 60............... 113428 61430 54%
60 - 70................. 77187 48750 63%
70 - 80................. 72605 51244 71%
80 - 90................ 124839 99404 80%
90 - 100................ 13675 12649 92%
A cursory glance at this seems to support one of the more popular rigged theories, namely that the underdog in a hand wins more often than he should. The results in all of the underdog ranges are at or near the top of the range. None is in the bottom half of the range. Without knowing anything else about poker, we would expect the averages to be in the middle of the ranges, not at the top. We'd also expect some to be in the bottom half and some in the top.

Your explanation for this:

Quote:
Notice all but the end ranges are near the middle of their range. To see why those are not in the middle, all we have to do is look at what matchups occur in those ranges.

Pair vs. same high card (dominated) is always pretty close to 92/8. That's why the 0-10% range wins 8% and the 90-100% range wins 92%. There aren't any other matchup types in that range.

Now look at the 10-20% range and the 70-80% ranges. Pair vs. pair matchups are always between 82/18 and 80/20 And pair vs. lower suited connector is always around 77/23. What else can happen in this range? Not much, so that puts us at around the 80% mark and 20% mark.
If a 77/23 matchup is more or less the only thing we can expect in the 20-30% range, shouldn't we expect the result to be close to 23 rather than 29, which is near the very top of the range?

Also, in the 10-20% range, pair vs. pair is not the only common matchup we can expect. Pair vs. two undercards is also not rare (at least at the microstakes, where we can assume most of the hands in this database occur), and that matchup is 84/16, almost exactly in the middle of the range. But the result for the underdog in this range 20%, the top of the range.

I think the problem here is that the ranges are too big. We can only speculate about the matchups in those ranges, and that's not very scientific. Reducing the ranges to, say, 2% spreads instead of the current 10% spreads would eliminate most or all of the bias in the sample.

Another approach might be to sort by hand category rather than equity ranges. Then you'd have something like pair vs. underpair, pair vs. two overcards, pair vs. card of its rank and one undercard, etc. You might even investigate things like pair vs. A + one undercard.

As it stands, though, the study doesn't really tell us all that much. There's too much information hidden in the wide ranges.
Weevil99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 09:18 AM   #3031
Username^^
veteran
 
Username^^'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Reviewing hands in my dreams
Posts: 2,784
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

true ...
Username^^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 12:26 PM   #3032
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
I think the problem here is that the ranges are too big. We can only speculate about the matchups in those ranges, and that's not very scientific. Reducing the ranges to, say, 2% spreads instead of the current 10% spreads would eliminate most or all of the bias in the sample.

Another approach might be to sort by hand category rather than equity ranges.
You made some good points.

I'm asking for another run split by 2% ranges, if I can get him to do it. I think at that granularity we can easily fill in the hand categories based on the equity (and do so more carefully).

Thanks
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 12:35 PM   #3033
Adrager
stranger
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by okiehustler View Post
Bad beats are part of the game. I understand that. But after absorbing more than my fair share on Poker Stars I switched to Full Tilt six months ago. The first few months were much better over on Full Tilt.

Now Full Tilt is worse than Poker Stars ever was. The past month has been brutal. Tonight I've had pocket aces six times. All six times I lost to someone with a lower pocket pair.

I can't tell you how many times (at least 100 times the past thee weeks) where someone needs one card, especially two or three hours into a tournament, and they hit when odds are 90 to 95% in my favor.

You tell yourself that's poker until it happens time after time after time.

I enjoy playing poker online but I'm about ready to give it up. There doesn't seem to be a site to where it plays out like a casino. You see bad beats in a casino but NOTHING like Full Tilt and Poker Stars back when I played over on that site.

Curious as to others observations. Is there a site that's on the up and up or is it time to retire from online poker where you start to get the feeling the deck literally is stacked against you?
sorry but happens to me too..
Adrager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 12:38 PM   #3034
papajoey21
newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

always the same answer
papajoey21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 12:48 PM   #3035
papajoey21
newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

You are 100% correct Okiehustler,I wish everyone for once would stop the name calling and insults,if you cant have any input on a positive note keep quite.Lets throw this out there,doesn't the fact that there are concerns being raised by thousands of people about online poker being rigged say something.I have never seen any blogs from people saying boy do they cheat you at the Rio,or boy do they cheat you at Bally's.Just the fact that people are complaining in the numbers that are out there says something.

papajoey21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 01:02 PM   #3036
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by papajoey21 View Post
Lets throw this out there,doesn't the fact that there are concerns being raised by thousands of people about online poker being rigged say something.
Yes.

It says that there are thousands of poor poker players with equally poor maths who do not want to take responsibility for their own poor play and instead like to delude themselves that on-line poker is rigged against them.

Rather than simply stop using a service that they believe is cheating them they continue to do so and post brainless whines on poker forums.

Quote:
Just the fact that people are complaining in the numbers that are out there says something.
Indeed, it says that there are thousands of poor poker players with

Oh, never mind.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 01:23 PM   #3037
Bingo_Boy
old hand
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,872
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by papajoey21 View Post
I have never seen any blogs from people saying boy do they cheat you at the Rio,or boy do they cheat you at Bally's.Just the fact that people are complaining in the numbers that are out there says something.
People are more likely to be losing players online and will usually have played more hands and had more completely normal runs of bad luck which they cant deal with. Its also much easier to convince yourself that a faceless overseas online company would rip you off, even though being cheated live in one way or another seems much more likely
Bingo_Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 01:38 PM   #3038
otatop
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: unstuckpolitics.com
Posts: 12,727
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Ten million smokers can't be wrong!
otatop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 02:40 PM   #3039
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by otatop View Post
Ten million smokers can't be wrong!
Nor can many millions of lemmings.

No, wait ...
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 03:35 PM   #3040
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99
I think the problem here is that the ranges are too big. We can only speculate about the matchups in those ranges, and that's not very scientific. Reducing the ranges to, say, 2% spreads instead of the current 10% spreads would eliminate most or all of the bias in the sample.

Another approach might be to sort by hand category rather than equity ranges.
You made some good points.

I'm asking for another run split by 2% ranges, if I can get him to do it. I think at that granularity we can easily fill in the hand categories based on the equity (and do so more carefully).

Thanks
Number of hands parsed: 102,661,557
Total preflop all-in situations: 535,950 (Once per 191.55 hands).

[Preflop Equity %): #All-ins #Wins Win%
[0.00 - 0.02): 0 0 0.0%
[0.02 - 0.04): 0 0 0.0%
[0.04 - 0.06): 46 2 0.043%
[0.06 - 0.08): 10202 682 0.067%
[0.08 - 0.10): 2071 152 0.073%
[0.10 - 0.12): 1722 197 0.114%
[0.12 - 0.14): 9424 1274 0.135%
[0.14 - 0.16): 3858 608 0.158%
[0.16 - 0.18): 7436 1338 0.18%
[0.18 - 0.20): 93772 17905 0.191%
[0.20 - 0.22): 2168 516 0.238%
[0.22 - 0.24): 2325 547 0.235%
[0.24 - 0.26): 29000 7304 0.252%
[0.26 - 0.28): 26160 6815 0.261%
[0.28 - 0.30): 44814 13266 0.296%
[0.30 - 0.32): 40589 12854 0.317%
[0.32 - 0.34): 23314 7631 0.327%
[0.34 - 0.36): 22147 7530 0.34%
[0.36 - 0.38): 18191 6784 0.373%
[0.38 - 0.40): 18082 7091 0.392%
[0.40 - 0.42): 19580 8061 0.412%
[0.42 - 0.44): 47204 21103 0.447%
[0.44 - 0.46): 52790 24259 0.46%
[0.46 - 0.48): 38580 18403 0.477%
[0.48 - 0.50): 21610 10650 0.493%
[0.50 - 0.52): 23340 11825 0.507%
[0.52 - 0.54): 38566 20171 0.523%
[0.54 - 0.56): 52804 28537 0.54%
[0.56 - 0.58): 47203 26100 0.553%
[0.58 - 0.60): 19581 11520 0.588%
[0.60 - 0.62): 18082 10991 0.608%
[0.62 - 0.64): 18191 11407 0.627%
[0.64 - 0.66): 22147 14617 0.66%
[0.66 - 0.68): 23314 15683 0.673%
[0.68 - 0.70): 40589 27735 0.683%
[0.70 - 0.72): 44814 31548 0.704%
[0.72 - 0.74): 26160 19345 0.739%
[0.74 - 0.76): 29000 21696 0.748%
[0.76 - 0.78): 2325 1778 0.765%
[0.78 - 0.80): 2168 1652 0.762%
[0.80 - 0.82): 93772 75867 0.809%
[0.82 - 0.84): 7436 6098 0.82%
[0.84 - 0.86): 3858 3250 0.842%
[0.86 - 0.88): 9424 8150 0.865%
[0.88 - 0.90): 1722 1525 0.886%
[0.90 - 0.92): 2071 1919 0.927%
[0.92 - 0.94): 10202 9520 0.933%
[0.94 - 0.96): 46 44 0.957%
[0.96 - 0.98): 0 0 0.0%
[0.98 - 1.00): 0 0 0.0%

Weevil - here it is. I marked the three paired ranges that are just slightly outside the expectation. And this is 50 ranges this time.

This one modified the algorithm to determine when at least one player is all-in preflop, so the total number of all-ins shown went up slightly.

So we have three ranges slightly off from expectation:

1. Of 2017 90/10 - 92/8 all-ins, the favorite won roughly 1.7% more than expected (from midpoint).

2. Of 2168 78/22 - 80/20 all-ins, the underdog won roughly 2.8% more than expected (from midpoint).

3. Of 47,204 56/44 - 58/42 all-ins, the underdog won roughly 1.7% more than expected (from midpoint).

I'll have to look at the likelihood of these outcomes, but with the small sample (due to narrow range) I think they are quite likely. I think it's pretty impressive that all the others are inside the ranges.

Last edited by spadebidder; 05-03-2009 at 04:05 PM.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 04:15 PM   #3041
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Markusgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by papajoey21 View Post
You are 100% correct Okiehustler
lol @ agreeing with guy who posted like 2x several months ago. Already establishing yourself as clever fellow who's opinion should be carefully considered.
Quote:
I have never seen any blogs from people saying boy do they cheat you at the Rio,or boy do they cheat you at Bally's
that's 'cause those folks don't know how to use a computer, which is of course why they play live. but believe me, they're bitching about how there's no way they could be that unlucky at B&M cardrooms too. I think they just blame unlucky chairs and witchcraft.
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 04:20 PM   #3042
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Some binomial calculations for the three anomalies:

1. The chance for a 92/8 favorite to win at least 1919 of 2071 trials (92.7%), is 14.2%.

2. The chance for a 78/22 underdog to win at least 516 of 2168 trials (23.8%), is 2.4%.

3. The chance for a 56/44 underdog to win at least 21103 of 47204 trials (44.7%) is ~1%.

These are interesting. Weevil?
I've asked Indiana to drill down on these ranges.

Last edited by spadebidder; 05-03-2009 at 04:31 PM.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 04:33 PM   #3043
DMoogle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DMoogle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northern VA, USA
Posts: 7,132
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
Some binomial calculations for the three anomalies:

1. The chance for a 92/8 favorite to win at least 1919 of 2071 trials, is 14.2%.

2. The chance for a 78/22 underdog to win at least 516 of 2168 trials, is 2.4%.

3. The chance for a 56/44 underdog to win at least 21103 of 47204 trials is ~1%.

These are interesting. Weevil?
I have not taken any statistics courses (my understanding of it is limited to the poker books I've read), so I might be looking at this the wrong way, particularly my second point.

But if I'm correct, there are two (well, three if you count "rigged") explanations for this: (1) The 2% range of equity situations is still two wide and is showing its discrepancies by including too many hands towards the top/bottom ends. (2) If you look at it as one piece of a bigger picture, just like you should look at individual poker hands ("Zomg he hit his one out on the river when we were all-in on the turn.") As you can see, the majority of the hands are within their ranges, and as sample size increases, all should converge to be within those ranges.
DMoogle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 04:34 PM   #3044
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Markusgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
These are interesting.
I think the word you're looking for is "nerdy."
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 04:36 PM   #3045
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMoogle View Post
I have not taken any statistics courses (my understanding of it is limited to the poker books I've read), so I might be looking at this the wrong way, particularly my second point.

But if I'm correct, there are two (well, three if you count "rigged") explanations for this: (1) The 2% range of equity situations is still two wide and is showing its discrepancies by including too many hands towards the top/bottom ends. (2) If you look at it as one piece of a bigger picture, just like you should look at individual poker hands ("Zomg he hit his one out on the river when we were all-in on the turn.") As you can see, the majority of the hands are within their ranges, and as sample size increases, all should converge to be within those ranges.
I agree, and just two 1% or 2% "hits" on this one set of samples isn't all that surprising. I'm more impressed that the other 47 ranges are inside expectation.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 06:40 PM   #3046
Weevil99
grinder
 
Weevil99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Waiting for an epiphany
Posts: 620
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
Number of hands parsed: 102,661,557
Total preflop all-in situations: 535,950 (Once per 191.55 hands).

[Preflop Equity %): #All-ins #Wins Win%
[0.00 - 0.02): 0 0 0.0%
[0.02 - 0.04): 0 0 0.0%
[0.04 - 0.06): 46 2 0.043%
[0.06 - 0.08): 10202 682 0.067%
[0.08 - 0.10): 2071 152 0.073%
[0.10 - 0.12): 1722 197 0.114%
[0.12 - 0.14): 9424 1274 0.135%
[0.14 - 0.16): 3858 608 0.158%
[0.16 - 0.18): 7436 1338 0.18%
[0.18 - 0.20): 93772 17905 0.191%
[0.20 - 0.22): 2168 516 0.238%
[0.22 - 0.24): 2325 547 0.235%
[0.24 - 0.26): 29000 7304 0.252%
[0.26 - 0.28): 26160 6815 0.261%
[0.28 - 0.30): 44814 13266 0.296%
[0.30 - 0.32): 40589 12854 0.317%
[0.32 - 0.34): 23314 7631 0.327%
[0.34 - 0.36): 22147 7530 0.34%
[0.36 - 0.38): 18191 6784 0.373%
[0.38 - 0.40): 18082 7091 0.392%
[0.40 - 0.42): 19580 8061 0.412%
[0.42 - 0.44): 47204 21103 0.447%
[0.44 - 0.46): 52790 24259 0.46%
[0.46 - 0.48): 38580 18403 0.477%
[0.48 - 0.50): 21610 10650 0.493%
[0.50 - 0.52): 23340 11825 0.507%
[0.52 - 0.54): 38566 20171 0.523%
[0.54 - 0.56): 52804 28537 0.54%
[0.56 - 0.58): 47203 26100 0.553%
[0.58 - 0.60): 19581 11520 0.588%
[0.60 - 0.62): 18082 10991 0.608%
[0.62 - 0.64): 18191 11407 0.627%
[0.64 - 0.66): 22147 14617 0.66%
[0.66 - 0.68): 23314 15683 0.673%
[0.68 - 0.70): 40589 27735 0.683%
[0.70 - 0.72): 44814 31548 0.704%
[0.72 - 0.74): 26160 19345 0.739%
[0.74 - 0.76): 29000 21696 0.748%
[0.76 - 0.78): 2325 1778 0.765%
[0.78 - 0.80): 2168 1652 0.762%
[0.80 - 0.82): 93772 75867 0.809%
[0.82 - 0.84): 7436 6098 0.82%
[0.84 - 0.86): 3858 3250 0.842%
[0.86 - 0.88): 9424 8150 0.865%
[0.88 - 0.90): 1722 1525 0.886%
[0.90 - 0.92): 2071 1919 0.927%
[0.92 - 0.94): 10202 9520 0.933%
[0.94 - 0.96): 46 44 0.957%
[0.96 - 0.98): 0 0 0.0%
[0.98 - 1.00): 0 0 0.0%

Weevil - here it is. I marked the three paired ranges that are just slightly outside the expectation. And this is 50 ranges this time.

This one modified the algorithm to determine when at least one player is all-in preflop, so the total number of all-ins shown went up slightly.

So we have three ranges slightly off from expectation:

1. Of 2017 90/10 - 92/8 all-ins, the favorite won roughly 1.7% more than expected (from midpoint).

2. Of 2168 78/22 - 80/20 all-ins, the underdog won roughly 2.8% more than expected (from midpoint).

3. Of 47,204 56/44 - 58/42 all-ins, the underdog won roughly 1.7% more than expected (from midpoint).

I'll have to look at the likelihood of these outcomes, but with the small sample (due to narrow range) I think they are quite likely. I think it's pretty impressive that all the others are inside the ranges.
The results do look remarkably close to their ranges. The few that are slightly out of whack don't raise any flags with me since in a collection of 50 independent data points, I would expect a few outliers. It would be more surprising if we didn't have a couple of oddballs.

One interesting pattern I noticed was that the underdog in each range is more likely to have a result above the midpoint of the range than below it. Ignoring the first three ranges (the first two have zero occurrences and the third has a sample size of 46 -- not big enough to consider), there are 22 ranges. In 15 of the 22 ranges, the underdog scores above the midpoint.

This isn't a big red flag or anything; it's just interesting. If I were the one doing the analysis, I might take a quick look at it, but I wouldn't spend much energy on it.

All in all, I would say the results from this more finely grained analysis should be pretty reassuring to anyone with a fair mind. I haven't done the math, but just casually browsing through the numbers, nothing looks out of line to me.

Well done, spade and Indiana!
Weevil99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 07:00 PM   #3047
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
One interesting pattern I noticed was that the underdog in each range is more likely to have a result above the midpoint of the range than below it. Ignoring the first three ranges (the first two have zero occurrences and the third has a sample size of 46 -- not big enough to consider), there are 22 ranges. In 15 of the 22 ranges, the underdog scores above the midpoint.
I may try to figure out the matchup types that can fall in each range, and since they are discrete that could explain some of it. There are surely some equity amounts that never occur if you look at a fine enough granularity, or put another way if we used 0.5% equity groups instead of 2%, I have a hunch some more of them (besides the extreme ones) would have zero hands in them. But overall, I agree this is a pretty unremarkable distribution that doesn't show anything to be alarmed about.

And there is no doubt whatsoever that a skew of this tiny amount would never be detected by observation alone, such as we hear in this forum all the time. It also would not alter the site's profit as it isn't enough to affect player behavior (pot size) or win rates or survival times.

Last edited by spadebidder; 05-03-2009 at 07:20 PM.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 07:53 PM   #3048
Username^^
veteran
 
Username^^'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Reviewing hands in my dreams
Posts: 2,784
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

omg .. was running so good in 22, in top20 most of the time, than i get this AK mp, i raise got reraised. I think for a while and decide to call. Flop Axx 2 clubs, i check he shoves i call. He had QQ .. Q on the river. Ok, no big deal its only 1/3rd of my stack. Few hands later i get QQ, a small stack shoves, i reraise all in everyone folds, he has 77 good i thought, i have him dominated .. But **** manages to turn the seven .. WTF ?? Ok never mind, its only 200 people left till money and i am still in top600. 4 hands later i get KK in sb then i told to my friend look this is my last hand. Early pos raise, i reraised he shoved and i called. Ofcourse, he has an overpair. So, from being in top20 to going out in less than 30 hands. Not bad ..
Username^^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 08:38 PM   #3049
Username^^
veteran
 
Username^^'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Reviewing hands in my dreams
Posts: 2,784
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by edfurlong View Post
Good story!
It is .. I am still lol . But i am kind of got used to it.
Username^^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2009, 09:40 PM   #3050
senjitsu
banned
 
senjitsu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: λαγχάν
Posts: 3,058
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

just curious what are the 46 hands in the 4%-6% range... 3 way all ins?
senjitsu is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive