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 56.00%
Undecided 893 9.06%
Voters: 9860. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-27-2009, 05:33 PM   #3801
otatop
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: unstuckpolitics.com
Posts: 12,727
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by toltec444 View Post
I didnt missed that, I said exactly that few posts ago. The rig model does not intend to favor this or that player neither cares who wins the hand or not, what the rigged system cares is to keep the money more time in the table. This is how it works:

1. The rigged software makes the favorite hand win less frequent than it would be expected. But note (this is very important) the favorite hand stills wins most of it, indeed almost in the right frequency.
Do they do this at all stakes?
otatop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 05:45 PM   #3802
toltec444
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 496
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
Not to try to get into a factual debate with a seasoned riggedologist, but

Your point 1 would be very easy to detect via statistical analysis if it was happening. Plus someone who programmed it would have told by now (with specifics as to what they did).

In general, the fact that there are a ton of players who constantly lose a ton and some players who consistently win pretty much invalidates the rest of your theory that the rooms try to make everyone break about even.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/54...8/index59.html

is a thread filled with all sorts of graphs to show this.


You are abandoning the roots of your riggedology beliefs by trying to engage in a discussion involving facts, since the ones you present are flawed and easy to disprove. I highly suggest returning to the more vague and sexy comments like "The Russians are behind it"

After all, no one can disprove that.

I dont believe you made that comment (in negritus), the only explanation is that you didnt read my post that you are commenting. I will quote myself for you, : "That leads to the conclusion that even if that software is running the better player will win money in the long run and the bad player will lose."


So how can the fact that players are consistently winning and other are consistently losing invalidate my theory?
toltec444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 05:47 PM   #3803
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 toltec444 View Post
Obviously they cant make that, because if they did no one would be profit and it would be easy to know something was wrong, so they try to aproximate the equities the more they can in the direction of that ideal 50%.In the previous example lets say, making AA win 60% against 88.
"Lets say" whatever the hell we like then eh? Lets say the cards at Stars are randomly generated by a Leprechaun that lives in Negranus rectum. I haven't bothered to check that they aren't though.

Last edited by Bingo_Boy; 05-27-2009 at 05:49 PM. Reason: Just e-mailed him - he's denied it but I know the truth
Bingo_Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 05:56 PM   #3804
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,097
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by toltec444 View Post
I dont believe you made that comment (in negritus), the only explanation is that you didnt read my post that you are commenting. I will quote myself for you, : "That leads to the conclusion that even if that software is running the better player will win money in the long run and the bad player will lose."


So how can the fact that players are consistently winning and other are consistently losing invalidate my theory?
If your theory is that it is rigged so that winners still win as they normally do and losers lose as they normally do, and everything happens exactly as it would if it is not rigged except those that rig it say nothing about the rigging that does not change the game in any way except that it is rigged, then all I can say is that the Russians must be involved somehow.

Anyway, good luck with your future riggedology studies, you seem to be a natural.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 06:03 PM   #3805
DMoogle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DMoogle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northern VA, USA
Posts: 7,140
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

He's saying winners don't win as much as they should and losers don't lose as much as they should.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMoogle View Post
OK well that can still be disproven with the EV tools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMoogle View Post
OK well that can still be disproven with the EV tools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMoogle View Post
OK well that can still be disproven with the EV tools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMoogle View Post
OK well that can still be disproven with the EV tools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMoogle View Post
OK well that can still be disproven with the EV tools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMoogle View Post
OK well that can still be disproven with the EV tools.
DMoogle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 06:04 PM   #3806
otatop
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: unstuckpolitics.com
Posts: 12,727
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
If your theory is that it is rigged so that winners still win as they normally do and losers lose as they normally do, and everything happens exactly as it would if it is not rigged except those that rig it say nothing about the rigging that does not change the game in any way except that it is rigged, then all I can say is that the Russians must be involved somehow.

Anyway, good luck with your future riggedology studies, you seem to be a natural.
His theory is that winners win slightly less, and losers slightly less than normal.

How the sites determine this is unknown in his theory, but I would suggest Golden Accounts.
otatop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 06:30 PM   #3807
dbcooper279
old hand
 
dbcooper279's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Under 23ft of water
Posts: 1,678
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by PokErasmus View Post
Game # 2:
Account A (legitimate user account): hand 77
Account B (bot software account): hand AKs
Action: if all in
Flop, turn, river: 2,3,4,5,A
Account B won
[ ] Account B wins this hand
dbcooper279 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 06:32 PM   #3808
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 toltec444 View Post
1. The rigged software makes the favorite hand win less frequent than it would be expected. But note (this is very important) the favorite hand stills wins most of it, indeed almost in the right frequency.

That leads tothe conclusion that even if that software is running the better player will win money in the long run and the bad player will lose.

Note one important point, there is no sense in simply revert the equity of two hands playing HU. Theres no sense in making AA win 20% against 88. That would give no extra benefit for the poker room.

The ideal scenario for a poker room is that every hand played had 50% of equity, that would generate the maximum amount of rake possible.
Let's assume your general premise is true, that leveling out the equity leads to maximum profit by keeping the money circulating and thus all players' bankroll lasts longer, they play more hands, pay more rake. For the sake of argument we'll let that one go for a moment. I could argue this assumption isn't correct, since if no one can win you have no regulars, who pay most of the rake. I could also argue that losers losing faster and depositing more money more often might come out better. Or any other number of other permutations in this incredibly complex dynamic system of the money float on the site (which you think you understand). But as you suggest we'll say they just do it a little bit, making winners win a little less, and we'll assume your premise.

Further, let's say that to keep things not easily detectable, that the variance from expectation of a particular hand matchup type needs to be less than 1%, as you said, "almost in the right frequency". So if a particular pair-over-pair is supposed to win 81%, we'll only let it win 80.5%, so that even in a huge sample no one would be very suspicious. Moving the outcome much more than that would be a very obvious outlier statistically (exceeding 3-4SD) given a large enough sample, and the undetectable argument would fall apart. I'm giving you some leeway here, because even 0.5% shift is readily detectable if it is across the board and constant. It would be like a big sign saying "rigged".

Now, we also know that the average rake on a NL100 9-player table is about $.07/player/hand (using FT scale) and in an hour's time the average rake earned at NL100 is a little under $5 per constant player (you can calculate these yourself if you like). And let's assume that NL100 is the most common stakes played online across all cash games, or representative of a mean rake. Rake is capped as stakes go up, and FT never takes more than .33/player/hand at any stake NLHE 9-player table, since it is capped at $3.00 per hand. So we'll use .07 as our mean. So far we should be close enough to agree.

So from this foundation, please explain the math for how a half percent shift in equity across the board (all hands win 0.5% less than they should) is going to increase that rake by an amount that is meaningful to the site. Show us the business case for doing this. Keep in mind that the top two sites both probably make over $1 billion a year in rake. So to be meaningful and worth the risk of exposure, let's say that you have to increase that by at least 10%. I think anything less isn't worth considering in such a high margin business. If you as an owner are making $100 million a year now, would you risk losing it all plus jail for another $10 million? Highly doubtful, but to make it easy let's just go with at least a 10% increase necessary.

Now show me how it works. Show me the math. Show me how this small shift in equity is going to extend bankrolls and change player behavior enough to add 10% to the rake. Please explain this to me.

I'm guessing that you can't, because it is going to add up to a trivial amount of profit (if any at all) for the risk taken. That's why equity manipulation will always be detectable. To be worthwhile it will be visible.

Edit - by the way, what's your theory for how rigging tournaments (fixed fee up front) increases profits?

Last edited by spadebidder; 05-27-2009 at 06:43 PM.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 07:41 PM   #3809
DMoogle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DMoogle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northern VA, USA
Posts: 7,140
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

I think it's funny there hasn't been an interval longer than about a half an hour in between two consecutive posts in this thread since about 7:30AM today, then spadebidder makes that post which is probably in the top 1% best posts in this cumulation of threads (imo), and nobody makes a post until this one. And it's probably now around peak traffic times for 2+2.
DMoogle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 07:55 PM   #3810
toltec444
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 496
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
Let's assume your general premise is true, that leveling out the equity leads to maximum profit by keeping the money circulating and thus all players' bankroll lasts longer, they play more hands, pay more rake. For the sake of argument we'll let that one go for a moment. I could argue this assumption isn't correct, since if no one can win you have no regulars, who pay most of the rake. I could also argue that losers losing faster and depositing more money more often might come out better. Or any other number of other permutations in this incredibly complex dynamic system of the money float on the site (which you think you understand). But as you suggest we'll say they just do it a little bit, making winners win a little less, and we'll assume your premise.

Further, let's say that to keep things not easily detectable, that the variance from expectation of a particular hand matchup type needs to be less than 1%, as you said, "almost in the right frequency". So if a particular pair-over-pair is supposed to win 81%, we'll only let it win 80.5%, so that even in a huge sample no one would be very suspicious. Moving the outcome much more than that would be a very obvious outlier statistically (exceeding 3-4SD) given a large enough sample, and the undetectable argument would fall apart. I'm giving you some leeway here, because even 0.5% shift is readily detectable if it is across the board and constant. It would be like a big sign saying "rigged".

Now, we also know that the average rake on a NL100 9-player table is about $.07/player/hand (using FT scale) and in an hour's time the average rake earned at NL100 is a little under $5 per constant player (you can calculate these yourself if you like). And let's assume that NL100 is the most common stakes played online across all cash games, or representative of a mean rake. Rake is capped as stakes go up, and FT never takes more than .33/player/hand at any stake NLHE 9-player table, since it is capped at $3.00 per hand. So we'll use .07 as our mean. So far we should be close enough to agree.

So from this foundation, please explain the math for how a half percent shift in equity across the board (all hands win 0.5% less than they should) is going to increase that rake by an amount that is meaningful to the site. Show us the business case for doing this. Keep in mind that the top two sites both probably make over $1 billion a year in rake. So to be meaningful and worth the risk of exposure, let's say that you have to increase that by at least 10%. I think anything less isn't worth considering in such a high margin business. If you as an owner are making $100 million a year now, would you risk losing it all plus jail for another $10 million? Highly doubtful, but to make it easy let's just go with at least a 10% increase necessary.

Now show me how it works. Show me the math. Show me how this small shift in equity is going to extend bankrolls and change player behavior enough to add 10% to the rake. Please explain this to me.

I'm guessing that you can't, because it is going to add up to a trivial amount of profit (if any at all) for the risk taken. That's why equity manipulation will always be detectable. To be worthwhile it will be visible.

Edit - by the way, what's your theory for how rigging tournaments (fixed fee up front) increases profits?

I see you understood my rig theory quite well and your arguments against it are very good. I´m very curious about the math part you are asking for. I really dont know how big the margin of manipulation would be necessary to have a decent profit by doing it. Again, you are right, if the manipulation goes far from 0,5% 1% I think it would be easely detectable, if it kept being doing constantly in the same group of hands at any point of the round.

I would love if some math riggedologist could do these calculations for us, because that is a crucial point in the hole model I´m proposing.


Just one last thing, probably you didnt read my previous posts, and are not aware of one key point of my theory that adresses exactly these argumantation you made. (I have thought bout that too).

What I say is that one way it is possible to increase the margin of manipulation, turning lets say, AA vs PP not 81% but 75% or less is using multiple variable and mixing them up.

Explaining....

My rig software model is capable of chosing which hands it wants to manipulate the EV, which point of the round it want to manipulate it and when it want to manipulate it, all these three variable being independent.

So, the software can make huger changes in the EV of given hands for little period of time and then start making huge cahnges of another group of hands.

These changes can be set to be done from the PF play, from theflop play and from turn play on.

I believe if you can use all these variables and keep moving through them constantly the amounts of manipulation in the EV can be bigger, and still would be very hard to detect.
toltec444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 07:56 PM   #3811
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 think it's funny there hasn't been an interval longer than about a half an hour in between two consecutive posts in this thread since about 7:30AM today, then spadebidder makes that post which is probably in the top 1% best posts in this cumulation of threads (imo), and nobody makes a post until this one. And it's probably now around peak traffic times for 2+2.
They are furiously calculating riggedology math to figure it out.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 07:57 PM   #3812
toltec444
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 496
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
They are furiously calculating riggedology math to figure it out.

lol
toltec444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:00 PM   #3813
toltec444
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 496
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by toltec444 View Post
Here is how it works:

1 .Software manipulates the game making favorite hands to win less frequent then expected (but obviously winning close to the expected rate)

2 . The favorite hands that are manipulated can be any hands, from AA, AK to 53o, doesent matter, what matter is that the favorite hand win less frequent than expected.

3. The manipulation can be made at any point of the round: pre flop, flop or turn.

4 . The manipulation can be made at any point in the time.

5 . The objective of the manipulation is to make the money stay in the table generating rake more time than expected.


These kind of manipulation is virtually impossible to detectd through any statistical analisys, because you would have to know 1. wich hands are boing manipulated 2. In wich point of the round thay are being manipulated 3. in wich point of time thay are being manipulated.

Without that information you wouldnt be able to detect any statistical abnormality, simply because you would be looking for the wrong place.
Here is the original post sapdebidder.
toltec444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:00 PM   #3814
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 toltec444 View Post
My rig software model is capable of chosing which hands it wants to manipulate the EV, which point of the round it want to manipulate it and when it want to manipulate it, all these three variable being independent.
So cumulatively you come out with even less effect than if you do it across the board, by only skewing selected hand types instead of all of them. OK.

Quote:
So, the software can make huger changes in the EV of given hands for little period of time and then start making huge cahnges of another group of hands.
And the effect of that is exactly the same as doing a smaller change more often. OK.

Quote:
These changes can be set to be done from the PF play, from theflop play and from turn play on.
No. The cards don't matter unless a showdown occurs. So whether the rigged card(s) is given at any street makes no difference whatsoever if the objective is for the underdog to win slightly more often than it should. This one doesn't fly.

Keep working on it.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:02 PM   #3815
toltec444
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 496
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Im having great fun with this forum.
toltec444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:03 PM   #3816
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,097
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Spade,

What exactly is your counter point to "Russians are to blame" Mr. Smarty Pants.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:06 PM   #3817
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 Monteroy View Post
Spade,

What exactly is your counter point to "Russians are to blame" Mr. Smarty Pants.
When they start running a poker site, be afraid, be very afraid.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:07 PM   #3818
toltec444
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 496
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
So cumulatively you come out with even less effect than if you do it across the board, by only skewing selected hand types instead of all of them. OK.



And the effect of that is exactly the same as doing a smaller change more often. OK.



No. The cards don't matter unless a showdown occurs. So whether the rigged card(s) is given at any street makes no difference whatsoever if the objective is for the underdog to win slightly more often than it should. This one doesn't fly.

Keep working on it.


You are right, so the aplicability of my model rests on the math caculations you asked for. But its not over because if I get it right you dont know the answer to these calculations too.
toltec444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:12 PM   #3819
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 toltec444 View Post
You are right, so the aplicability of my model rests on the math caculations you asked for. But its not over because if I get it right you dont know the answer to these calculations too.
No, I've tried to come up with a model that works, and I can't. Sites can't manipulate hand equity in a profitable way without it being detectable. That's always been the problem with this particular theory.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:12 PM   #3820
DMoogle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DMoogle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northern VA, USA
Posts: 7,140
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by toltec444 View Post
You are right, so the aplicability of my model rests on the math caculations you asked for. But its not over because if I get it right you dont know the answer to these calculations too.
What do you mean?

FWIW if you prove something isn't right, then I'll be happy. If you find out that there isn't anything wrong, I'll also be happy.
DMoogle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:14 PM   #3821
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,097
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
When they start running a poker site, be afraid, be very afraid.
Maybe they will allow people to download songs for 8 cents each paid for from their account.

On a more literal note, that guy you are arguing with probably has worked on his creative theory for a long time. You know the type, lots of notes pasted on the walls type of guy.

He is totally engrossed in it and believes he has seen effectively the "Hand of God" through his discovery and anything you say he will somehow interpret as support for his life's work and he will reply with wacky stuff like

Quote:
Originally Posted by toltec444 View Post
You are right, so the aplicability of my model rests on the math caculations you asked for. But its not over because if I get it right you dont know the answer to these calculations too.
since you are now a partner in his mind.

I find your posts interesting as they provide a better idea of what type of statistical work can be done, but you will never be able to have a genuine conversation with that person ( I suspect you know that), and frankly guys like that can drain a lot of time once they think they have someone who supports their views (in their mind).

To be blunt, I would rather see a post in the probability area detailing the theory behind the data analysis you will be doing.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:22 PM   #3822
toltec444
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 496
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
Maybe they will allow people to download songs for 8 cents each paid for from their account.

On a more literal note, that guy you are arguing with probably has worked on his creative theory for a long time. You know the type, lots of notes pasted on the walls type of guy.

He is totally engrossed in it and believes he has seen effectively the "Hand of God" through his discovery and anything you say he will somehow interpret as support for his life's work and he will reply with wacky stuff like



since you are now a partner in his mind.

I find your posts interesting as they provide a better idea of what type of statistical work can be done, but you will never be able to have a genuine conversation with that person ( I suspect you know that), and frankly guys like that can drain a lot of time once they think they have someone who supports their views (in their mind).

To be blunt, I would rather see a post in the probability area detailing the theory behind the data analysis you will be doing.
Im saying I´m almost convinced my theory does not work, just would like to see the math showing it. I have no problem in throwing my theory away if I get what I think is a good argument that shows me it does not work. No problem in being wrong. Let it go. I´ve been learning to fold.

But, that doesnt mean that someday I come with an improved theory, and the fun goes on.


Dont take that as resigning, I still want to see the math showing the profit would be too low by changing 0,5% in the EV.
toltec444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:23 PM   #3823
dbcooper279
old hand
 
dbcooper279's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Under 23ft of water
Posts: 1,678
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by toltec444 View Post
I would love if some math riggedologist could do these calculations for us, because that is a crucial point in the hole model I´m proposing.
None have come forward, because those that know the math, know that your theory is bunk.
dbcooper279 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:35 PM   #3824
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 Monteroy View Post
To be blunt, I would rather see a post in the probability area detailing the theory behind the data analysis you will be doing.
I'm still working on the java code, and right now I only have a sample database of ~2 million hands to work from. IndianaV8 (who has the 1 billion hand database) is going to be unavailable for a week or two to run my code against the full database. He already put one of my programs in his public distribution on pokerftp.com but you can't get the full database for your own use unless you are a qualified (published) academic researcher, and I'm not. So I have to submit my runs to him.

I had to brush up some on my java coding and use of objects/classes since I don't write code for a living, and way back when I did so I used mostly procedural languages, but it's coming along.

The full database has a huge amount of PS and FT hands (well over half), and a smaller amount of 4 other sites. I don't know if Indiana is going to let me get results broken down by site, as even generically identified (site #) it will be pretty obvious by the counts which is which. He is being careful to obfuscate site and player identities when he allows others access to the data. But I've written my code to separate them, so we'll see if he allows it.

So far I have a very clean all-in analysis working for preflop all-ins, broken down to a fine grain of equity vs. wins. I fixed the problems in the preliminary run that was posted, which didn't account for ties properly, and had small equity errors (<1%) by using 169x169 hand types instead of full outcome enumeration of exact suited hands (1326x1326), which it does now. I also am tabulating a corresponding summary of the hand types in each bracket, which is interesting in itself but it allows a drill down on any anomolies too, to see if particular hand types come out to expectation.

I'm also working on extending it to handle all showdowns that include an all-in at any street, and possibly doing all showdowns regardless of bets (but that will take days to run against the database). We also have the ability to segregate the equity analysis by player histories or stakes, with whatever criteria are interesting.

All this applies only to NLHE, which is the only game I'm working on.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 08:35 PM   #3825
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,097
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by toltec444 View Post
Im saying I´m almost convinced my theory does not work, just would like to see the math showing it. I have no problem in throwing my theory away if I get what I think is a good argument that shows me it does not work. No problem in being wrong. Let it go. I´ve been learning to fold.
Realistically, once the entertainment value of chatting with you fades there is zero reason to make any effort to help you understand the flaws in your grand theory, even if you hint that you may be open to change.

Why? The reason is simple, at the core you utterly believe in everything you have created, and even in the face of an immense amount of proof otherwise all that will happen is...

Quote:
Originally Posted by toltec444 View Post
But, that doesnt mean that someday I come with an improved theory, and the fun goes on.
which is exactly why I am suggesting to spade that he smile, pat you on the head, bid you a fond farewell, and post some genuinely interesting stuff in the appropriate forum.


Quote:
Originally Posted by toltec444 View Post
Dont take that as resigning, I still want to see the math showing the profit would be too low by changing 0,5% in the EV.
Do it yourself then. If you cannot do it then just stick with funny conspiracy theories that require no real data. If you can sucker spade into wasting more time on you then good for you I suppose.

Anyway, you were a breath of fresh air for a while, but that time has passed.

All the best


Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
All this applies only to NLHE, which is the only game I'm working on.
Ugg, all this will do then is create a new "NL is fine, but Badugi is rigged" following...
Monteroy 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 12:50 AM.


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