You can look at some of the collusion investigative threads or better yet find the Stox soft play investigation and you will see statistical work done that you never thought possible.

In general riggies really underestimate what can be done with data, especially those who know how to properly study it. I will not pretend that is my area of expertise, but to be blunt it really is not yours either, even if you are enjoying believing you know how math works.

You can even contact a riggie who is an actual stats guy, his user ID is wykh, and he has spent years creating and studying various theories, and so far they all have fallen short, but you can see the quality of his work. You can ask him to help you in PM or bump one of his threads, but historically he ignores data like yours because it is pretty obvious you do not know what you are talking about.

Here are some of his threads, and look at the difference between his work and yours.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25...hould-1299786/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25...isive-1293249/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25...untry-1123425/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25...uency-1116343/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25...l-play-985031/

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/25...omaly-1007942/


Ranged between $1,000 and $5,000. If a place is cheating I want to know. As much as riggies think "shills support all rooms" that could not be further from the truth as there are rooms that I have very, very strong opinions about that are hardly positive based on how they conduct business (nothing to do with the RnG).


Enjoy all these threads, and perhaps you will start to appreciate why I regard you as an entertaining riggie, but so far you have not really done anything that others have not tried or said before, and they were a lot crazier about it than you are, though at least you seem to be enjoying the troll thing a bit.

Remember - never be specific with shills, they will crush you if you try to prove anything with actual verifiable data. Always be vague, and toss in some surprises like "I notice after I sit down the next person who sits always wins and the person who sits after always loses" or something like that and watch shills go nuts and watch riggies believe every word. Wait a couple days and make something up and watch and see and enjoy the reaction from both sides. Just because you are a riggie does not mean you cannot have fun at the expense of other riggies!

All the best.


P.s. Start working your theories away from the aces stuff and onto better material. Aces are literally the last place any site would do a rig since those hands get noticed, and you cannot escape that logic. Just pick some other less obvious hand like KJ (which you love calling raises with OOP preflop) and make up some numbers about that, and how the evil sites are trying to sneak in the rig on hands like that. Still imaginary but at least as a crime it makes more sense than screwing with AA hands. At least you are not a guy whining about Royal Flushes - that had to be one of the dumbest rig theory ever.

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

1,086,008 trials (Exhaustive)

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
Th 2s Ks Kc	23.20%	251,869	108
As Ah Js Qh	76.80%	834,031	108

ProPokerTools Omaha Hi Simulation

820 trials (Exhaustive)

board: K J J

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
Th 2s Ks Kc	86.10%	706	0
As Ah Js Qh	13.90%	114	0

How exciting!

Great you have finally realized that my calculations are right!

So as you can see, the sites can safely rig the **** out of the poker, because as you can see it will be very hard to catch them.

However, the pattern still follows it's theoretical prediction. That you win in the beginning and lose in the end. Also, for now I can refer to my previous experiences, and that I am still unlucky. I will keep gathering evidence, stay tuned.

You may well be a winning player, but so what? You are playing penny games. Other players here (some), myself included, play far higher stakes and win. Do you understand that the people giving you advice are beating or crushing far higher limit games? Do you understand how much tougher the games are once you get up to the serious stakes? At this time, I am learning to play plo (I still make a living at hu sitngos but I want to add other games to my arsenal). Over 35k hands so far, I'm a winning player at microstakes 6max--I am not even close to being a good player yet. I work with a coach and have put a ton of time into videos and I've got soooo far to go it's ridiculous. Stop pounding your chest and declaring your mastery of microstakes poker and realize your game has a long way to go before you will have any chance at anything but the most minute of stakes. Listening to others who have already trod that path would be a great first step.

And, please, antiriggies are far from biased. I would love to hear that Party poker is rigged, as it would give me a an easy way to understand the insane bad beats I've been receiving the last few weeks; it's much harder to admit that luck/random walk/variance is a mean, mean badass that will show you some truly crazy stuff given enough time. There is not one single riggie who knows how to do the statistical analysis to find a rig. Not one. So to say you won't give your database to someone here who has shown he knows how to do it because he's supposedly a biased anti-riggie is an excuse and nothing more. And you should be smart enough to know that.

Yeah I think I'll take a couple of weeks break, then the rig will be on my side lol.

So i challenge antiriggies/shills for a 3 riggie vs 3 shills match 6 max micro table

*News flash*: the people critisizing me have no clue what they are talking about. Maybe since you don't either is why they "appear" in your eyes to understand anything.


No all the accusations failed. Thus they have pointed out no flaws. Then you unintentionally lied at least. The only somewhat decent critisism is that I haven't proven the rig 100% since the sites can hide the rig, by rigging the game in a small sample.

Try to modify my used range vs a "tight range". Don't forget this is the micros anyway. You will find that the difference is negligible. Please don't tell me that people are ONLY playing pockets when I have AA since that is certainly not the selected hand range from players.

Yes what about all my other possible hand combinations? Well my experience is that whenever I just get anything good at all, the bs site delivers cards, preferably trap cards that are good for both me and opponent but still has me beaten. Well that's what's about all the other possible hand combinations. Maybe I should try to filter out a test for more hands as well.

None the less if someone lose all the time with AA over a sample of a billion AAs, your argument is going to be: "Look, you only included AA in your sample. What about all the other hand combinations, you didn't include those while testing the rig. Thus you have a flaw in your calculations and can't say that it's rigged" That's your reply right?

So according to your logics; if everytime you have KK someone has AA a billion times in a row, that's random, because the player chose to play his AA when you had KK and beat you all the time.

So if I face the range that most likely has me beaten when I have AA, but the range the opponent would possibly choose to play is wider, then that can be rigged as well.

Thanks for info, I'll check what the wykh guy did. So did you say you are a shill? That wouldn't surprise me to be honest

I have to check other hands as well.. E.g. Seems like every time I have flush = auto lose

It's 100% accurate.

You looked at your dataset to find unfortunate spots, saw you were unlucky with certain hands and spots and so you posted those. You don't post hands or spots in which you were lucky, or at least not 10% as often as you post unlucky spots.

Therefore the data is cherrypicked.

Even if you threw a suction cup dart at your screen -- thereby being randomly chosen -- and it hit an unlucky hand and you posted that, it's still cherrypicked because you would not post a lucky hand.

EVEN IF you were willing to post that lucky hand/spot data, you'd be dealing with lol samplesize.

The only way you can avoid that is to provide an entire database that provides sufficient sampling and unbiased selection of that data or a specific spot with enough sampling for a sane confidence interval.

Faen, your credibility is brought to it's knees by failing to grasp how your sampling methodology invalidates any conclusions you could possibly make about that data.

OK, show us the data. All of it.

You've said you would. An honest person would. An honest person would be DYING to expose the lie and here you are, proof on your hard drive, and you're thinking about it?

Let's go through the excuses (in chronological order).

First you didn't know what a database was, then you already posted it, then you couldn't tell the difference between posting some data and all data.

You were worried about revealing your identity, I pointed out I'd be willing to do the same.

You were too lazy to do it but spent far longer posting in this thread than it'd take to post your database.

You were concerned about where to host it. I offered you free hosting.

Then you promised to get it to us when the rig was turned back on. When the rig was turned back on (by your own admission), you didn't post your database but you did say, again, that you'd post your database soon.

Now you haven't posted it because we won't admit the rig even if it's there.

You have zero intention of posting your database because if you do, you'll be laughed off 2+2, and you know it. And that's important. It's important because being wrong and sincere is much, much better than being wrong and insincere. The latter is known as a "troll."

You're not an honest broker and it's obvious. You do not know what you are talking about and it's obvious you're aware that you do not know what you're talking about. If you believed your own story you'd have posted your data file within a day of my offer to host it.

You know so little about statistics you don't know what constitutes a valid sample size, how confirmation bias fits into your situation and why 2+2 couldn't surpress the finding of a rig in your dataset if it existed. You don't know how standard deviation plays into confidence in statistics for f***s sake.

As for denying a rig when it's demonstrated, we don't have some magical incantation for keeping unbiased mathematicians from pointing it out, or talking to the press, or talking to law enforcement.

Do you have any idea what such a find would mean for a professor looking for grant money, or to publish, or a grad student/PhD candidate looking for a thesis topic? And yet YOU, who is unfamiliar with what a database is, or how confidence intervals relate to statistics, know about multi-billion dollar RNG manipulation scams that tens of thousands of statistics PhD's and grad students haven't yet figured out?

What are the ****ing odds?

Three thoughts.

In general, no, because I've got no formal background in probability and you'd want that.

However, given the ham-handedness of your algorithm, I'd be more than capable of detecting something so obvious.

Having said that, you have no intention of posting your data set so the point is moot.

That's awesome. Very Randian. Thank you.

That's not awesome.

What you're openly encouraging and cultivating is articulate insincerity. There's a word for that; "trolling."

If this thread exists so riggies can't claim evidence is being suppressed, teaching someone how to be a marginally convincing fraud isn't such a far cry.

And if we've got mods teaching people how to troll, I think that's a pretty good reason to stop participating in that thread.

No disrespect intended. I started posting so that truly curious stumblers-upon this thread could see that the burden of proof is upon the claimant and, to date, riggies have failed to do that.

If there is establishment effort to obscure that fact, what's the point?

Well party poker is what I consider the most riggediculous site. So you should just xfer ur money to a better site. I think that was nice of me to give you that advice.

Okay so if there are such great players here, I would always be happy to get some advice. I'm not saying i'm the best player on these forums, I'm just saying that I'm not terrible and have profited money wise so far. So if anybody can help me be a better player I'd be happy to receive advice, thanks.

This is actually a great analogy.

Too bad you are too dim-witted to understand that you represent the religious people in that analogy.

best option is don't play because if you don't play you are the winner not the site

they get no rake and this they don't like

just watch the emails flood in offering you deposit bonus and all sorts of other rubbish

To the sincere riggies:

A rig is possible. A rig capable of appreciably profiting a poker site would be detectable with that detectability increasing with the tampering. Therefore I think a high-stakes rig is possible if you're content with running it a few times, netting a few hundred thousand, having the discipline to stop and a willingness to risk your entire income stream (way bigger than what you'd stand to gain by a rig) to achieve it.

It also follows that tamping with micro- and low-stakes would either be unprofitable or easily detectable.

I believe the community should be constantly examining data for strong evidence of a rig since there are few communities with a bigger incentive to keep the game on the up-and-up than us and if we don't police it, nobody will.

I also believe the community feels this way as a whole.

Keep seeking out evidence of a rig. Improve your familiarity with statistical techniques. Take classes.

To the insincere riggies:

You're worse than the people you're accusing.

How can you tell the difference between the sincere and the insincere riggies?

The sincere riggies won't hesitate to make falsifiable predictions.

It's that simple.

I'm out of this thread. glgl.

Why not just put pressure on the sites to prove it is not rigged because the proof is not there!

What have you got to lose?

Why don't you prove you have never raped anyone?

What have you got to lose?

Lol
Sick comeback

Not really - some of the shills use that stuff a lot, and it is not as impressive as it may seem. Just makes the person sound like a douche more than the tricky mastermind that tricks a riggie to "put the shoe on the opposite foot." Most riggies have long since learned to just ignore this routine, which is the correct response for them.



Your posts are interesting, and you have a lot of energy, but honestly you are going to burn out fast and just leave here frustrated, because you are playing the riggies all wrong.

You can scream logic and reason until you are literally blue in the face (which seems like it with some of your posts) and it will have zero impact on a single riggie, and to be honest everything you are saying has been said before.

I understand what this thread is - it is a place for riggies (generally weak and destitute players/degens) whining about their place in the world, and finding solace in their belief that it is the world's fault.

They need their faith, and I understand that, but they can become very boring, and part of this thread is the other side ("shills") who can have fun watching and messing with paranoid people.

Those rules never change, the thread never changes, so I try to encourage some to be creative to add a new dimension to the arguments, that's all.


This thread exists so the paranoid people who need to whine all the time have a contained place to whine. That's it. The thread amuses me at times (though lately it has been pretty dull), and I am hoping that the whining can be a little more interesting.

Seriously, who cares what they say about evil plots to suppress evidence? They make up that stuff as they go and often times they say the opposite of what other riggies say.


I am not a mod (but perhaps you are talking about someone else). Honestly, your approach to this thread cannot be sustained, the riggies will beat you simply by outlasting you. If you treated them as amusing sub-humans your whole outlook would change.


This thread is completely unimportant other than within this thread. Nobody stumbles here to learn what the burden of proof is, they either come here to whine or have fun reading the stories of the paranoid people who are whining.




The points of this thread is simple:

Paranoid riggies make up stuff they will never prove.
Shills make fun of the paranoid riggies.
Repeat.


If you take this thread at all seriously at all then enjoy your few days here before you vow never to return.


All the best.

I wasn't trying to prove anything wrong. My point was that you are talking down to people that appear to have a better understanding of probability than you do.

How am I lying by saying people have pointed out flaws? Even if I was incorrect and no one had, that doesn't make it a lie...but people have pointed out flaws. The fact that you don't agree that they are flaws doesn't change anything.

As for your use of ranges, the range you used wasn't that tight. But let's put that aside for a moment. Let's assume that your range is spot on, and that all of your calculations are correct. So now you believe you've proven that in one particular month, one particular hand combination is winning far less often for you than it should be. What about the hundreds of other possible hand combinations? This is another flaw in your "poker is rigged" conclusion that has been pointed out by multiple people.

Wait, what?

Do you understand what a hand range is? I'm guessing what you mean is random are the hands dealt to your opponents. What they choose to play with isn't random, and that's what we're talking about when we refer to hand ranges. Regardless of what your opponent is dealt randomly (or not so randomly if you believe it's rigged), your opponent is much more likely to have AA than 72 if they call any bets preflop, and when there wasn't much PF action and the flop comes 8-9-T, an opponent who raised you is much more likely to have QJ than AA. These should be pretty basic concepts, but I wasn't entirely convinced that you understood them, given your last paragraph.

Does anybody turn a profit at this game on here or are you all just big talkers

Should have a poker tourney shills v riggies but the shills would be able to see all cards

but i still think i have an edge

The main reason that people consider the game rigged imo is because the vast majority are losing players. If there was a reasonable amount of winning players there probably would not be as many people complaining about the game being rigged.

Not sure what I can say at this point other than LOL. Oh, and that I guess I'm pretty close to done trying to reason with you, as your replies to me are getting more ridiculous all the time.

So you're just making up new meanings for words now?

Gosh, what a concept! Better yet, just test them all rather than cherry picking.

Maybe you should stop assuming what my reply is going to be; equating <100 hands with a billion is beyond ridiculous. I mean, you really think that if you had a hand sample of a billion AA hands, that anyone would dismiss a large discrepancy? Really??

Um, no, of course not. Where the hell do you come up with this stuff? Maybe you should reread that portion of my post, because your reply makes almost no sense.

For humanities' sake I'm going to hope you're trolling and be done with you.

If such a lucky spot exist, I certainly could not identify one as such. Therefor again, it was randomly picked.

Hm well I think I'll post that dataset sooner or later.

Well you still haven't answered that question. Go on now, let's see how much you really understand when you critisize. All you can do is sit there and say that I'm wrong, trolling and full of flaws. But let's get straight down from accusations to simple logics. This is your great chance to actually prove that you're more than just talk:

I dare you to answer what significance STD has, which is unrelated to probability.

*Grabs popcorn*

I'm betting on later...

In statistics and probability theory, standard deviation (represented by the symbol sigma, σ) shows how much variation or dispersion exists from the average (mean), or expected value. A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean; high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values.

IHBT

Okay so I can see you have been reading quux post. So you are now accusing a new flaw? Then you have abondoned the previous flaw accusations and moved on to a new one. It is good to see that you are capable of doing some progress.

So just like everyone else, quux accusation is wrong as well. That is because it is not simply cherry picked. I checked the following hand values:

Top pairs, sets, over pairs, where I was extremly unlucky in all of them. Two pairs I lost 15.7% of them so I'd say I was unlucky, but it's difficult to compare with pokerstove hand ranges, since it depends on my hand range relative to the board, and I don't know how often I'm supposed to win with any random two pair. Thus I tested all that is easy to test. That which is easy to test is NOT cherry picked, it is randomly picked. I tested all that I know of which all randomly was unlucky. So if you have more ideas of tests go ahead and give me ideas. That would help me to prove the rig, thanks.

So since I figured out that I lost much more with top pairs and over pairs than I should, that covers all other hand combinations that have become valuable postflop.

So if the STD is e.g. large, then so what?