He was not even saying it was rigged, he was just whining about losing money for the day. If you care that much about him losing money then give him a hug or send him replacement money.

Weren't you the riggie that had secret powerful imaginary friends that was going to do some study months ago with powerful information? How is that going - I assume that project is still a never ending work in progress...

All the best.

No, it's like rolling a million sided die and rolling exactly 454,321. It should never, ever, ever, happen, especially to a great player like me! (and i'm always a monster favorite when it's all in, it's just that the damn RNG doesn't understand this...

On a serious note, I once lost the following series of hands sequentially and am not good enough mathematically to figure out the odds against this happening. If you're in the mood to help a dimwit out, could you calculate them?

Five times in a row I am either top pocket pair vs underpair with no backdoor draws available to the underpair when all money goes in, or I have the underpair and hit the set on flop and money goes in vs overpair. All were on flop and assume no backdoor straights or flushes possible (not certain that's true, but keeps it simpler). I lost all five to two outers hitting turn or river. Then I play PLO omaha and very first all in hand is 99xx vs 973J on 973r board. Turn and River are Jacks (he also had 33, 77, and T8 as possible winning runner runner combinations, obviously).
These were six consecutive allin hands for me and nearly saw me chuck my laptop out the window. I don't think it was rigged, just that I must have crossed a voodoo witch sometime back without knowing it
No worries if it's too much of a bother...

I am telecommunication network planning boss at a smallish company, and I have a beautiful girlfriend, but even that says nothing about whatever you're trying to imply. I know you get turned on by trying to mess with some bums, but you missed the mark.

VIP grinder is someone who makes +-0 profit from games, that's not me.. as seen in the graph. VIP is just a bonus, and I don't even go for platinum if I am close some months, because it gives me virtually nothing. I'd just drop down as much in profit by pushing myself and the volume, as I would get from the added rakeback %, clever eh?

Every month I just play about same amount of hands, not focusing on VIP scheme at all.

Yes I was very naive and could not accept losing all in situations as 90% favourite back in the days, but I got over that long ago.

As I finally got the change to rant pokerstars VIP system (due to the fact that you think I'm ****ing stupid).. I think it sucks so ****ing bad, and the rakeback/VPP's are a joke, that's why I also play 50NL/100NL on different site, where I am winning much bigger than stars, which is 5-8 times tougher site.

So I am quite happy with how well I'm doing even on stars thank you. (for someone who was self learned 1 year of active play)

Also didn't hit a single milestone last promotion.. usually land 1 or 2, so that's semi tilting when you have potential 1500-3000$ winnings.

Please Monteroy don't ever stop posting in this thread.

If it has already happened, the chance of it is happening is 1. Because it is in the past and has already happened.

If you want to estimate the chance of something happening in the future, you need to clearly define:

a) what it is that you are calculating
and
b) the sample size that you are going to review

I was interested in figuring out the likelihood of these hands happening consecutively (as they did in the sense of being consecutive all in hands)...if I remember my math correctly I should do something like calculate the odds of a two outer coming in over two streets which I believe is 2/47 + 2/46 which is roughly .08 or 8%. I would then multiply .08 x .08 five times to get the chance of this happening 5 times in a row and then figure out the odds against the hand omaha hand occurring, convert that to a decimal and multiply it times the result of the first calculation. So .08 x .08 x .08 x .08 x .08 = .0000033
the omaha would be something like 15/45 x ? (this is the part that confuses me--if I'm even correct up to this point, which is only somewhat likely--as it has to come runner runner, so unlike the 2 outer, this time I multiply, but I'm unsure what to use a the numerator as it depends upon which card hits on the turn). I cheated and went to a hand calculator. He was 2.56% likely to win once the flop hit.
So, .0256 x .0000033 = .000000084 or .0000083% so about once in a million times (and i've played well over a couple million hands, so nothing crazy if this is correct)? I think what I'm actually demonstrating here is that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing, lol.
I actually quit playing on the site where this occurred right after it happened, but that was some time ago when I hadn't really done any thinking about whether RNGs might be rigged or not--I would have no problem going back to the site now, but spread my play across four sites and have no need to.

Sure, but what does "these hands" mean?

Like, there are a whole group of hands that are notable, not just those specifics. For example, why do you limit it to just a certain group of 1 or 2 outers, and not all 1 or 2 outers?

Basically because they happened to me in one session in consecutive all in situations. This is just a particularly difficult series of hands that I went through one summer a good number of years back and I've always wondered what the odds of a string of hands like that happening were.

Hmm - "dreamer/site promoter" - in who's posts have I seen those expressions used before?

BANHAMMER!

I think the point that Josem is trying to make is that although the odds you worked out may be correct for that particular series of events happening from that point, it is a pretty meaningless figure when cherry picked from a larger set of hands. I mean it isn't meaningless, but the thing you have calculated odds of 1 in a million for isn't actually 1 in a million to have happened to you given all the hands you played. This is what I posted in response to somebody with a similar question(but he was convinced it is rigged):

Absolutely. I'm more interested in the math itself, and in knowing what kind of a bad run I had there. I'm not particularly of the belief that anything was up with the RNG.

But I still go 'grrrr' when I hear the words, 'chili poker' lol.

I particularly like the way the following is worded, and it helps me better get a grip on how to look at the sequence I mention above;
'The event which you are actually calling "odds of four heads in a row OMG (1/2)^4" is in fact "odds of an arbitrary worst run of results within a string of coin tosses over some set of multiple coins"'

Sure, I think I understand your point. I don't think you understand mine


Imagine if instead of the hands you had above, you had AA v AA, and lost all of them.

They would be equally notable, wouldn't you think?


Then, assuming that such a run would be equally notable, and you could replace your example with my hypothetical hands, you see now that you're not even asking what the odds are of your specific hands - you're actually asking what the odds are of something notable happening. That depends entirely on what is notable, which is a huge group of hands - I've made some posts on my blog (and in this thread) about 'pattern recognition' and how this impacts on perceptions of bias/randomness/etc.

Such logic flies in the face of my determination to throw the computer through the window at times, lol. I do wonder at times why all the notable things that happen to me when I play poker seem to be negative (like the time i got knocked out of two tournaments on a site with my Aces full of Jacks losing to Quad jacks in both cases). It's probably memory bias. I do remember once winning 16 straight hands at a full nine seat table live, so I guess it's not all bad. Thanks for the patience with my questions

(and can you either link your blog or tell me what keyword other than Josem to use to find it?)

I'm pretty sure he is referring to the website listed in his user profile.

(apologies if that's wrong ! )

That may be true if you just played online your whole life. But when you've played live many years and then go online and get in the dead zone (especially after cashing out) that's a whole different story. Those years of live experience (at different casinos) is much more valuable to me than so called statistical checks that nobody can clearly explain. If it can be clearly explained show me where the link is.

The rigging is really obvious to me in Omaha High/Low 8 or better-- limit. I've went through incredible stretches of not seeing an Ace 2 or Ace 3 in my 4 card beginning hand. And the once in a blue moon when I do get them, nobody calls, or I lose, or I win a small pot. Those very long stretches in Omaha H/L limit without seeing A 2 or A 3 have never happened to me in the live game.

What makes you think that none of us have any experience playing live? Do you think we just are all shut ins who never play at casinos? Sure I have played a ton more online than live, but that's just because I can play online poker whenever the hell I want and play 1000+ hands an hour instead of driving to a casino to play 25 hands an hour if I'm lucky. When Stars was still in the US, I played more hands online in 3 hours than my friends played who put in 200 hours a month at a casino. If you extrapolate that over the course of a year, i could play more hands in a 36 hour period than they could by playing 2400(!!!!) hours of live poker.

So you are going against common riggie theory and saying they are rigging the games to have absolutely no action whatsoever?

There is plenty of action until the rare times I get A 2 or A 3 in Omaha H/L limit, then it stops all of the sudden.

How many times have you had A2? How many times would you expected to have A2? What is the significance of the difference?

Because you expect to win (because when you have Aces full of Jacks, you "should" win) and you only notice the things that are odd.

Think of the two different perspectives on each of those hands:

-You had Aces full of Jacks, your opponent had some crappy hand, you win.

*You don't think that this is notable at all.
*He doesn't think that this is notable at all.

-You had Aces full of Jacks, your opponent had quad jacks.
*You remember this, you feel it is a bad beat.
*He doesn't think this is notable ('cause when the board is JJJ and he has the J, there is basically always someone with a fullhouse)

The only time that the hand is notable is if there is a bad beat... and it is only notable to the loser, no one else.

This is what I had in mind: http://blog.michaeljosem.com/2009/08...cognition.html

the sublime subtlety of his posts makes it difficult to recognize him in anything less then, say, one post...

you are assuming I've played online all my life. You're wrong there. I started as a live player in San Jose at the Garden City (and later the Bay 101). In fact, I even played live a bit before that in Santa Cruz. I then played live again in Prague before ever playing a single online hand.

I once went 9 hours in a live game without winning a single hand or even being dealt a hand that would have won had I gone to showdown. Was this rigged? Another time I won over $1,600 dollars at 3-6 omaha hi-lo (limit) in about 9 hours live (starting with a single ten dollar rebuy--the one short rebuy allowed there at the time). Was this rigged? My point is that I saw a ton of strange things live because I played huge hours (once 52 hours straight) and I see the same online. Neither to me seems rigged; instead, it becomes clear that the more hands you play, the more crazy stuff you'll see in either venue (and you see more hands at a much faster pace online). I played over a decade live starting back in about 1989, to be clear.

And I have had no problems with cashing out, which i do on close to a weekly basis as I make a living playing poker.

It looks as if someone went for the nuclear option and pressed the OTBC button. I wonder if he will keep trying and if he does whether he will have the intelligence (and ability) to vary his technique so that he's not immediately obvious.

Mods did a good job killing this thread by ending Blatants life!

Good job mods & boobo I hope the ad sales help your 2+2 budget

If the only thing keeping this thread alive was a lunatic spamming it every day and adding literally nothing to the conversation, it deserved to die.