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 06-25-2009, 10:09 PM   #5426
suzzer99
Save the Cheerleader, Save the World
 
suzzer99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: givin' 'em the business
Posts: 98,563
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

I keep trying to snap out of it, take a break, be optimistic, etc. But then I run bad my first 5 sets and am right back in hell. I mean what if you started running bad and it just never stopped? What if I have a 1 in a million bad run? Lol, what a scary thought.
suzzer99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 10:29 PM   #5427
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,056
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99 View Post
I keep trying to snap out of it, take a break, be optimistic, etc. But then I run bad my first 5 sets and am right back in hell. I mean what if you started running bad and it just never stopped? What if I have a 1 in a million bad run? Lol, what a scary thought.
Change the way you do sets then. Play a few less and concentrate more, or play some different games (if you are adept at them). When I had my KK cant beat anything day I opened up a ton more Omaha tables after a while where I was running hot as it put me in a better mind frame for the moment.

You have lost control of handling any bad run, even small ones now, so the best way to snap out of it is to make the runs even smaller and focus on just breaking the streak for 1 or 2 until you get your mojo back, even if you are doing slightly -EV plays to get there.

Think of it like a MTT guy who has not cashed for 15 or 20 tourneys and is very frustrated. If stalling and crawling his way to a single cash will break that mindset in his head then he should do it and get back on track.

Not really sure what other choice you want, in the end few will genuinely care how you do other then you so make whatever choice you feel is appropriate. If rationally recognizing and adjusting to fix your mental block is the choice you make then good luck with that.

If a belief that sinister forces are picking on you will make you feel better via rationalization then go for it and you can become a more proper contributor to this thread at least. Who knows, maybe in a couple months you will start to see the validity of the Russian Mafia Entropy Effect as well.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 10:59 PM   #5428
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
The only chance I see of ever moving this argument out of the embryonic stage is if someone somehow obtains a very large database of hands with hole cards revealed and performs a rigorous statistical analysis on it, then makes the analysis and the database public so that any and all can check it.

The same end could be accomplished without revealed hole cards, but the database would have to be truly, spectacularly, humongous.
I believe I'm going to get closer than I've seen anyone anywhere do so far. I'm not sure of your definition of humongous, but the database I'm working with is approaching a billion hands and growing. There are a number of things you can do without all the hole cards to show that the deal is randomly distributed, both preflop and at each street. I described some of them a few pages back in response to a post of yours. I'd be happy to share some of my work in progress with you if you would like to contribute suggestions and advice. Basically I'm just measuring the frequencies of everything I can think of that should be independent and normally distributed, and comparing the actuals vs expected using significance tests. Well, a little more than that, I think I've developed some very solid tests to satisy many of the more common rigged theories, particularly when it comes to community card manipulation. It's an ongoing project I'm doing just because I can and because it's interesting.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 11:03 PM   #5429
Arouet
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Arouet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,433
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleDeezie View Post
I cashed out early Monday morning then went to bed. Woke up, played poker later on that evening and was hit with a 150 BB downswing for the day. That's huge for me.
Are you playing limit? Because in nolimit, that's what: a buyin and a half? No biggee. I understand in limit that 100BB losses mean more though, but still doesn't seem extreme.
Arouet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 11:10 PM   #5430
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 Weevil99 View Post
...when this exchange took place, in March, it was very common to see claims about how easy it would be to prove rigging by a site. The usual accusation was that "rigtards" never brought any proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
The did not and still have not and indeed most of their beliefs would be very easy to test, which has always been one of my main complaints about their theories. If the sites were indeed pulling off a massive conspiracy they would at least do it in a way that would not be that easy to catch.
Yes, they would.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
You have a very odd sense of how things work at times. Spade is working on a massive hand history analysis that will analyze all sorts of scenarios. I am sure others have as well.
I'm not so sure others have, but I look forward to Spade's results. My interest has nothing to do with rigged theories, though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
But this isn't a natural phenomenon. It's a man-made activity that can be changed on a whim by human beings. What happened last month or year might have nothing to do with what happens this week or today. In other words, the experiment might not be repeatable even if the hypothesis is true. This isn't something that is following the laws of physics or chemistry or biology and will continue to follow those laws tomorrow and the next day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
You are ignoring a key component of humans, namely that with all of the humans changing the rigging on a whim with their coffee, one of them would have told by now. That is simple human behavior.
No, I'm trying to explain why a hypothesis about rigging might be verified in the analysis of one set of data and refuted in the next, no matter whether there was actual rigging or not. You're skipping away from that and are now claiming that they would be caught anyway because somebody would tell. Even though I happen to agree that it's extremely likely someone would have told by now, that's irrelevant.

If you're going to fall back on that, why bother asking for statistical evidence at all?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
Your odd mix of 90s trance and Orwellian controlled humans doing what they are told without no one ever finding out for years over hundreds of sites fails the real world common sense test even if you ignore all of the math.
That's so strange and far removed from anything I've ever said that I really have no response to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
I'm snipping that here because it's starting to get tiresome seeing the same trivial illustrations of simple probability and statistics. Please, just leap to the conclusion that I have somehow managed to wrest a horribly primitive yet sufficient understanding of math from some source or other. We can save a lot of time that way. If you get too deep for me, I'll let you know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
You are the one trying to make this into some grand philosophical, mystical debate when it really is only about basic human behavior and basic statistical analysis.
No, it's only about basic statistical analysis. Human behavior hasn't really entered into this thought experiment. I'm not sure why you think I want it to be a "grand philosophical, mystical debate." Maybe because I didn't use any math to describe statistical concepts? If you prefer equations we can do that, but it's not necessary and it's kind of awkward with ASCII.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
Massive conspiracies involving hundreds or thousands of people over the years for hundreds of poker rooms (many of which are now defunct) which has never been discovered either by a whistle blower or the immense amount of statistical studies and data available simply fails basic common sense. Come back from the ethereal plane for a minute and try to explain how this would not have happened yet if all of the sites were indeed rigged.
And now you've lost the thread completely. You're coming up with arguments that the sites are not rigged and you're utterly missing the fact that I am not arguing that they are.

My argument is only about the difficulty in statistically proving that they are or are not rigged. It has never been about anything else. All the mystical Orwellian ethereal plane stuff you're talking about is something you conjured up all by yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
Your thinking exercise may seem significant to you, but you could form the exact same deep thoughts about whether people can teleport. Reality is simpler - when I see someone teleport I will believe someone can teleport.

Or as the cliche goes - if pigs had wings they could fly.
If you say so.

Also, you didn't answer the followup question. Here it is again:

Quote:
Originally posted by Weevil99
Our hero replies:

-----------------------------------
Okay, I'm back. I've done as you asked and learned the basics of probability. I also brought a friend who believes he's doomswitched. The problem he's been having has that same low one in ten thousand probability.

You say this sort of thing happens three times a second. For the purpose of this discussion, let's pretend that number is accurate. In that case, I'm sure you'll agree that my finding one person who has had such a bad run is meaningless.

My question, then, is this: given the staggering number of players online and the number of hands dealt every day, about how many one-in-ten-thousand "doomswitched" people would I have to find in order to consider it significant and worthy of a thread on this forum?
-----------------------------------
Well, how many?
Weevil99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 11:17 PM   #5431
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 believe I'm going to get closer than I've seen anyone anywhere do so far.
I do, too. I'm looking forward to your results.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
I'm not sure of your definition of humongous, but the database I'm working with is approaching a billion hands and growing. There are a number of things you can do without all the hole cards to show that the deal is randomly distributed, both preflop and at each street. I described some of them a few pages back in response to a post of yours. I'd be happy to share some of my work in progress with you if you would like to contribute suggestions and advice. Basically I'm just measuring the frequencies of everything I can think of that should be independent and normally distributed, and comparing the actuals vs expected using significance tests. Well, a little more than that, I think I've developed some very solid tests to satisy many of the more common rigged theories, particularly when it comes to community card manipulation. It's an ongoing project I'm doing just because I can and because it's interesting.
I'd be happy to see anything you'd care to share. I'm interested in some of the more obscure ideas (card removal effects, e.g.). I saw a card frequency histogram you posted earlier, and it pretty much showed what I was expecting.
Weevil99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 11:53 PM   #5432
batair
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
batair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: idiocracy
Posts: 16,806
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVGambler View Post
I would say I am an agnostic weak-atheist.. who doesn't really know what the **** he believes.. but I need proof! You can't prove anything without truth and facts (the opposite being absurd and random). I believe online poker is not rigged. Most of all because I used to be a casino dealer and losers will say all kinds of stupid sht because they're losing. I believe that if online poker was truly rigged, it would have been proven by now (openly and to the public). And I'm not referring to the rare cases of super-user accounts (that sht happened but they were isolated incidents). Now I used to say that online poker was "action-rigged" like video poker machines and slot machines are. That was until I did some research on RNG hardware (and probabilities). Slot machines and most poker machines do not use RNG's. Their software is rigged. To hold a certain percentage for the house. This can be adjusted through the software programming (=rigging imo). I don't think however that that's the case for online poker. I think that servers yield so much volume (of hands) and players are seeing so many more (hands), that the ups and downs of variance are more available to the human eye. Therefore you recall what you see because of the frequency in which you see it. In other words, it's like asking a dealer what's the craziest thing he's ever seen in a casino. A dealer with 40 years of experience will have many more experiences to draw from than let's say a dealer who's only been dealing for a year or so. The dealer with 40 years experience will most likely have the crazier story to tell. I would also like to add that arguing about this matter is somewhat a waste of time. Like arguing about whether a God exists. It really can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in a manner that all can agree on equally. And why waste your time arguing? Make your point and move on. **** what people think. I come here to this thread to get a little laugh when I'm bored and throw in my 2 cents every once in a while to say what I think. Basically more to voice my opinion than to argue. Thanks for the entertainment though (I have learned a few things as well).

| /.
I pretty much agree and don't think OLP is rigged, i mean i suck and have been playing off the same deposit since 04 so how rigged could it be. But in the end i cant say for sure either way. As far as it's a waste of time debating or arguing if OLP is rigged, it probably is but wasting time is not so bad and sometimes it can be fun.
batair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 01:07 AM   #5433
suzzer99
Save the Cheerleader, Save the World
 
suzzer99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: givin' 'em the business
Posts: 98,563
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99 View Post
Also I just won $130 that last set. Time to quit for the month while I'm slightly ahead of my recent low. The thought of loading up another set to me right now is probably akin to the feeling a dog gets when it knows it's abusive master is just about to kick the **** of it.
10 breakeven or slight loser sets that all start out great then turn to ****. Then finally the big $130 winner. Yay things are turning around. Put off playing the next set for a few hours. Just played. 0 for 10. Total complete devastation. Totally card dead then lost every showdown. Only even saw one bubble, and that as shorty. Maybe 1 in 100 times I'll have a set like that.

This will never stop until I just quit for like a couple months. Then magically I will run good again.

Last edited by suzzer99; 06-26-2009 at 01:19 AM.
suzzer99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 01:17 AM   #5434
Rounding4Rent
journeyman
 
Rounding4Rent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 234
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Then magically I will run good again
key word
Rounding4Rent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 01:25 AM   #5435
batair
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
batair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: idiocracy
Posts: 16,806
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99 View Post
10 breakeven or slight loser sets that all start out great then turn to ****. Then finally the big $130 winner. Yay things are turning around. Put off playing the next set for a few hours. Just played. 0 for 10. Total complete devastation. Totally card dead then lost every showdown. Only even saw one bubble, and that as shorty. Maybe 1 in 100 times I'll have a set like that.

This will never stop until I just quit for like a couple months. Then magically I will run good again.
Try changing sites just to switch things up a little.
batair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 01:30 AM   #5436
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 suzzer99 View Post
This will never stop until I just quit for like a couple months. Then magically I will run good again.
It's not magic. Your thinking should be more clear. You're definitely not playing your best right now.
DMoogle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 01:59 AM   #5437
suzzer99
Save the Cheerleader, Save the World
 
suzzer99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: givin' 'em the business
Posts: 98,563
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Yeah I'm not thinking clear at all. But I don't know what else to do. I either have to make this work or get a job. And it's not like jobs are falling off trees right now. I swear all it takes is a couple good sets, maybe not followed by a 1 in 100 bad set to right my ship. But I just can't buy a break right now.
suzzer99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 02:29 AM   #5438
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 UncleDeezie View Post
This isn't anything scientific, it just may be extremely maddening coincidence.

I cashed out early Monday morning then went to bed. Woke up, played poker later on that evening and was hit with a 150 BB downswing for the day. That's huge for me. My biggest one day downswing for the last 6 months has only been around 70 BB's. So it seems strange to have this massive one day downswing RIGHT AFTER cashing out, especially since it's more than twice my largest one day downswing in recent play. The outdraws that were happening to me were sickening. If I had just eaten, there's no doubt I would have hurled on my monitor.
Rigged, IMO.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 02:34 AM   #5439
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 Monteroy View Post
Massive conspiracies involving hundreds or thousands of people over the years for hundreds of poker rooms (many of which are now defunct) which has never been discovered either by a whistle blower or the immense amount of statistical studies and data available simply fails basic common sense. Come back from the ethereal plane for a minute and try to explain how this would not have happened yet if all of the sites were indeed rigged.
This is actually the most convincing and easily understood refutation of the 'moon landings never happened' and similar grand conspiracy nonsense.

The idea that such a massive conspiracy which would have to have involved several hundreds if not thousands of people would not have come to light in the decades following is laughable.

And, not wishing to be unkind, I'd suggest that, generally, the loyalty of NASA scientists to their employer is likely to be significantly higher than that of poker room employees to theirs
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 05:19 AM   #5440
burden2
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 969
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Well I have won 13 straight sngs now on stars. I felt I should report that after saying how terrible I run there, despite making money there for some time (but again not as much as I should IMO). Been playing some pretty bad players and not exactly catching cards left and right but I did dodge 3 flush draws which shocked me. It's easy to feel it's not rigged after winning but I still remember those times where it seemed, for days, there was someone just conveniently placing whatever card my opponents needed in the exact right spot, like when someone got quad queens on me twice and a straight flush all in the span of about 20 minutes.

I am really looking forward to see your results qpw. I hope your methods are sound, just remember you need a random sample to start with but I am sure you already know that.
burden2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 06:19 AM   #5441
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 burden2 View Post
Well I have won 13 straight sngs now on stars.
13 first place finishes?

Screen name, please.
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 08:36 AM   #5442
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 Markusgc View Post
13 first place finishes?

Screen name, please.
lol, your a shill !!!
Username^^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 08:54 AM   #5443
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,056
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
No, I'm trying to explain why a hypothesis about rigging might be verified in the analysis of one set of data and refuted in the next, no matter whether there was actual rigging or not.
Sheesh. Again, it depends on the sample sizes, and seriously - what you define as a hypothesis of rigging being verified is basically not that. Your models are all hypothetical constructs or they are a single size of data (ie: your buddy) that in and by itself proves nothing, mainly because you build the beliefs based on cherry picking the data for weird outcomes (which are going to happen by chance within any set of data).

You have a completely flawed way of looking at how data analysis works, so it is difficult to answer your questions to your satisfaction because you create a world in your interpretation of stats that simply does not exist.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
You're skipping away from that and are now claiming that they would be caught anyway because somebody would tell. Even though I happen to agree that it's extremely likely someone would have told by now, that's irrelevant.
OK, most humans in this thread are working on the premise of "rigged or not?" for the online poker rooms when posting. With that in mind , the above is hardly irrelevant.

I have no idea what your deep thinking, mystical agenda here is any more, I guess it has nothing to actually do with whether online poker is rigged, but it is more of a spiritual journey on your part.

My claim is simple - even if one ignores the complete availability of data, if online poker was rigged, someone "in the know" what have told by now - which you agree with apparently. Thus, realistically online poker is not rigged.

The title of this thread is "The great "Poker is rigged debate." Meaning of Life stuff should probably be in the theology area or maybe BBV4Life.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
That's so strange and far removed from anything I've ever said that I really have no response to it.

No, it's only about basic statistical analysis. Human behavior hasn't really entered into this thought experiment. I'm not sure why you think I want it to be a "grand philosophical, mystical debate." Maybe because I didn't use any math to describe statistical concepts? If you prefer equations we can do that, but it's not necessary and it's kind of awkward with ASCII.

Well, when you adjust your "thought experiment" to be about the specific topic then we can probably relate a bit more in this thread.

The topic is whether online poker is rigged or not.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
And now you've lost the thread completely. You're coming up with arguments that the sites are not rigged and you're utterly missing the fact that I am not arguing that they are.

The topic of this thread is whether online poker is rigged or not. Most people are debating that very simple concept which is probably why they seem to be missing the mark with your "thought experiment," which it seems has nothing to do with the only real topic in this thread.

Construct your thoughts in a more clear way and post it in the stats forum where a bunch of crazed math geeks live that can answer your questions.

Here, we debate whether online poker is rigged, so most will assume when you post that you actually have an opinion on that topic. Is there a flaw in this logic?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
My argument is only about the difficulty in statistically proving that they are or are not rigged. It has never been about anything else. All the mystical Orwellian ethereal plane stuff you're talking about is something you conjured up all by yourself.
Fine, then take your thought experiment to the proper forum for it to be discussed.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
Also, you didn't answer the followup question. Here it is again:


Okay, I'm back. I've done as you asked and learned the basics of probability. I also brought a friend who believes he's doomswitched. The problem he's been having has that same low one in ten thousand probability.

You say this sort of thing happens three times a second. For the purpose of this discussion, let's pretend that number is accurate. In that case, I'm sure you'll agree that my finding one person who has had such a bad run is meaningless.

My question, then, is this: given the staggering number of players online and the number of hands dealt every day, about how many one-in-ten-thousand "doomswitched" people would I have to find in order to consider it significant and worthy of a thread on this forum?


Well, how many?
Go to the stats forum and ask specific steps you need to run this analysis.

Most responses you get in this thread will be, shockingly, about whether your question proves the sites are rigged. You know, because the topic of this thread is...

In that regard, as has been said to you many times before, you will need to define the specific conditions you are looking for before analyzing the data, and then test it on an adequate sample size of data.

You can use your friend's database if you like, but you cannot look at it, see a 10,000-1, and then say wow that is strange. That is not how statistical analysis works.

You can list ten 4 digit numbers in a row, any you like and I will easily find a pattern that is very rare. The trick is defining the patterns you are looking for before you look at the data.


If that did not answer your deep thought experiment then again I suggest you actually post your questions in the forums where it actually fits. While proper forum selection for a post is a mundane exercise compared to a thought experiment, it is quite a bit more effective in actually getting results.

All the best.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 09:56 AM   #5444
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

sick tarp indeed, weevil.
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 10:15 AM   #5445
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 Markusgc View Post
sick tarp indeed, weevil.
Yup.

Get a doctor for your tarp asap.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 10:15 AM   #5446
burden2
banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 969
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markusgc View Post
13 first place finishes?

Screen name, please.
HU matches
burden2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 01:38 PM   #5447
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 Monteroy View Post
Sheesh. Again, it depends on the sample sizes,
That's a commonly misunderstood topic on 2+2. Sample size is already incorporated into any proper analysis of data.

If I said, "FullPartyPoker is rigged! I just opened an account there last night and played 95 hands and I can tell you there is no way that's a fair site!!! It's either rigged against me or full of bugs!"

You (and everybody else reading it) would instantly say (or think), "LOLsamplesizeaments."

If I then replied, "Every single hand I got was 32," and I somehow proved it, you might ask me why the hell I kept playing after 4 or 5 hands, but you wouldn't be thinking that my sample size was too small any more. You'd be thinking that my sample size of 95 hands was so astronomically gigantic that it constituted irrefutable proof something was wrong with FullPartyPoker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
and seriously - what you define as a hypothesis of rigging being verified is basically not that. Your models are all hypothetical constructs or they are a single size of data (ie: your buddy) that in and by itself proves nothing, mainly because you build the beliefs based on cherry picking the data for weird outcomes (which are going to happen by chance within any set of data).

You have a completely flawed way of looking at how data analysis works, so it is difficult to answer your questions to your satisfaction because you create a world in your interpretation of stats that simply does not exist.
Okay, I think I'm gonna give up. It's clear we're not getting past this, and I don't spend enough time here to make it worth the effort.

It's back to lurking for me. Sorry for the interruption, folks.

As you were.
Weevil99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 02:09 PM   #5448
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 Weevil99 View Post
That's a commonly misunderstood topic on 2+2. Sample size is already incorporated into any proper analysis of data.

If I said, "FullPartyPoker is rigged! I just opened an account there last night and played 95 hands and I can tell you there is no way that's a fair site!!! It's either rigged against me or full of bugs!"

You (and everybody else reading it) would instantly say (or think), "LOLsamplesizeaments."

If I then replied, "Every single hand I got was 32," and I somehow proved it, you might ask me why the hell I kept playing after 4 or 5 hands, but you wouldn't be thinking that my sample size was too small any more. You'd be thinking that my sample size of 95 hands was so astronomically gigantic that it constituted irrefutable proof something was wrong with FullPartyPoker.
Yes, but you see there is an vast difference between being able to spot something that is absurdly wrong and knowing what is right.

I know nothing about golf but I could tell you your grip was wrong if you were holding the club by the lumpy bit at the end even though I've no idea what the proper grip is.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 02:22 PM   #5449
Rounding4Rent
journeyman
 
Rounding4Rent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 234
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

It's just funny laughing at all these suckers sticking up for online poker. You have no proof that it is a legit operation yet you defend it to the death, it's hilarious. QPW, my friend, you are the definition of a sucker.
Rounding4Rent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2009, 02:24 PM   #5450
Rounding4Rent
journeyman
 
Rounding4Rent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 234
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

p.s. keep grinding out those micro-stakes and soon you should be able to move up levels and blah blah blah maybe be rich in 10 years. wouldn't that be nice????? sucker.
Rounding4Rent 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 02:51 AM.


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