lol, it aint twoplustwo without these noob threads.

Your betsizing is absolutely terrible and might be one reason for your losses.

Not in proving that the sites "set up hands" to draw in action. There is no way to prove such a "theory". Also, like I said before, the average player does not have such resources to prove the numbers are off in other areas.

Maybe they do. but they dont have anything to do with the theory of 'timing'. those hand histories were not analyzed to dictate whether or not the random number generator was actually "random". they were analyzed to show that online poker is a game of skill.

its 5:30 AM here btw.. but here is one

There was no good point.

You were saying that a whole lot of things are theoretically possible. That's an offensive abuse of the word 'possible'.

You claim - without evidence, mind you - that systematic cheating is possible. It's possible in any meaningful sense of the word, because if it were happening, it would be reflected in the results.

You muppets are saying at the same time that such rigging changes results, but also that the results are not changed. How can such an idiotic thing possibly be taken seriously?

It's even more offensive for you to claim that your points are not responded to, when you've failed to address my proof of how you can avoid playing at a "rigged" site.
Because the results of a computer program are stored eternally, and can be checked by anyone.

The results are clear and available.
Yes, and they have.

Each major site publishes the results of such audits on their website.
LOL, wtf. Not only are you conjuring up hypothetical frauds that have no evidence to support the fact that such frauds are happening, but now your conjuring up bizarre hypothetical coverup schemes to hide the hypothetical frauds.
It's nonsensical to talk about the financial cost of such rigging when you haven't even established that such rigging is happening.

It's nonsensical to claim that sites set up hands to draw in action, while your rigtard brothers claim that sites favour fishes to keep them in play longer.

If a poker site makes money by keeping people in play longer, then it's self-evident that a poker site would actually be hurt by "set up hands". Your point of view is arguing internally contradictory - it claims that sites try to keep people "alive" for as long as possible, while also claiming that they do stuff that runs contrary to that.
No, you're just wrong again.

Spadebidder has posted here - multiple times - the results of his surveys that show results conform to expectation.

I don't accept that the mathematics behind these 'equity calculators' are accurate - as proven by the results posted in this thread.

The equity calculators are based on the false assumption that the flop, turn and river are unbiased random selections. They're not. For example, it is very unlikely that people fold AA, and when someone has AA, there is more likely to be an all-in situation.

In those all-in situations, then, you can't assume that the remaining cards are random - there will be (and there are) less aces come on the flop, turn and river as a result.

Further, you have failed to provide the actual hand histories - you've posted a graph that is based upon false assumptions.

R4R,

Since we've already had this discussion in this thread about the card bunching effect that causes the flaw in such results, can you please just save us all the time and just re-read it?

JOSEM, DO YOU STILL WORK FOR POKERSTARS?

My pleasure, gentlemen. Been a while since I've had a new one to merge.

IF villain is calling there wiht A8 then betsizing is really irrelevant along with a lot of other topics discussed here.

Not sure what you're screaming about, but if you look in his profile you'll see that yes, he still does.

Rather than posting the same flawed information, how about you actually address the points raised?

Obviously he's implying that Josem's been bought off by PS.

It always makes me laugh when new people show up, Josem says something that in some way discredits them or asks for evidence, and they respond by acting like he's a shill who just can't see the patterns they see.

Those graphs are meaningless

* They are a collection pre-selected to show bad luck, rather than a random sample of graphs drawn from all players. Obviously some players (close to 50% one would assume), are running below EV.

* The people who post them seem to believe that the lines are supposed to converge, whereas in fact the 'average distance' between the EV line and the actual winnings line grows proportionally to sqrt(number of hands).

You can easily verify this by flipping a coin a lot, counting a Head as +1, and a tail as -1. The EV line for this flip is just zero always, now draw your actual results graph by flipping. Note that the two lines don't 'converge' or anything like that.

* If you want a better measure of how lucky or unlucky you are, calculate what % equity you had in all-in pots, then calculate what % of the total value of the pots you actually won. These two numbers will probably come close to converging over time.

* Josem suggested that card removal effects play a part. This is true but I expect the effect is negligible, since sometimes the card removal effects will make your equity higher than assuming Uniform Distribution, and sometimes lower, tending to balance out to some extent, and in any case the difference in a single hand is very low.

* There is a non-zero chance the calculations behind the graphs are wrong, or don't correctly take into account multi-way pots.

I'm confused what you are saying here. Are you saying that when a player is all-in with A-A, the EV calculator assumes that there are four aces still in the deck?

How could any remotely competent programmer make such an egregious mistake?

No that isn't what he's saying.

What he's saying is that equity calculators don't make any allowance for the cards people are likely to play.

e.g.

If you ask an equity calculator for your hand equity post flop the only cards it will not use are yours and the table cards (assuming you haven't told it the cards that other players are holding).

In fact, if you had AA and there are three other players still in it is extremely unlikely that there are 2 aces, 4 kings, 4 queens and 4 jacks available to be dealt on the turn and river.