Quote:
Originally Posted by fizix87
Good post OP, you know your on to something when heroes like salesbeast are backing you up
Obv ur bein sarcy, but great book in your av.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssnyc
more complex math problems for OP to work on
No this one's actually pretty easy and I certainly don't need an equation for it ;p
Quote:
Originally Posted by kk405
regardless of the outcome of OP's idea, analysis, and or the help he might get in this thread, this is an interesting exercise... and I just hope some with strong statistical background and access to large sample sizes on Stars tourneys can help him out...leave the flaming for NVG
Thank you, this is actually what I'm after. A few pointers and get the ball rolling. Obviously the sample sizes is the factor that i envisage giving me the most trouble. Sure I can get all hands I have played, but that's not going to be enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogFace
I've played a ton of 4.4/180 tourneys and noticed the same phenomenon. Miracle cards seem to come for the big stacks way more often than they should. Maybe I've only noticed this because brutal suckouts are so much more memorable than standard outcomes, but it's definitely something I've noticed.
I think Stars has a clear incentive to rig the games. Faster bustousts = fewer tables running = fewer resources spent. More importantly, the faster they bust people out of the games, the more likely it is that those people will buy in for another tourney. Remember, Stars doesn't make a dime from non-rebuy tourneys once the entry fees are locked in. So the only way they can get more of your money when you're playing tourneys is if they get you off the tables as quickly as possible. I think that's why they flood us with turbos. More $$$ for them.
On the flipside, Stars is one of the top two brands in the online poker business. They have a reputation to uphold. If it came out that their site was rigged, business would plummet. So while I think it's easy to see how certain types of rigging would be profitable for them in the short term, I don't know that those considerations would outweigh the potential calamity of a cheating scandal. It might be in their best interest to keep the games legit even though they could make more money by rigging the deck.
Either way, I would be very interested in seeing the results of a study on this topic. I think the major factors you'd have to look at are the hand strength, the relative stack sizes, and maybe the ROI of the players involved. One of my other hunches is that Stars might weight the deck for losing players, allowing them to tread water on the site a little longer than they should.
Thank you for this reply, good to see some people actually put intelligent thought into their responses. You raise some very good points. I actually remember the very very first time I deposited on pokerstars years and years ago as a complete and utter donk who had never really played poker before. At the time they had a funky bonus deposit match thing but you couldnt cash out until you had hit a certain level of amount wagered... well I had an unbelievable run and made quite a bit of money, and this made me think I was a good player. It all went before I was able to cash it out, and therefore I redeposited to try and win again... which would have been exactly what they wanted right?
Yes they have a reputation to uphold and yes the consequences would be disastorous for them. This is a solid point and a solid argument as to why they wouldn't try and get up to anything dodgy. At the same time, corporations are scum who are only interested in making money. As I have previously said it is very possible for them to tweak RNGs or whatever other code very very slightly, so as to be undetectable by "audits" or what have you. Even if this only generated an additional 0.01% premium on rakes (by busting ppl so that they re-register), that would amount to a considerable sum over a period of time. I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS DEFINATELY HAPPENING. I'm saying it's a possibility that everyone should be aware of and not just dismiss with an assumption and absolutely zero actual knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by axioma
How is this not locked / deleted already?
Moron.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derbos
serious post:
bad bigstacks like to gamble because they can and bad shortstacks are more often too tight than too lose, thus more situations occur where the bigstack is behind and has to suck out.
A very good point for the argument against. You may well be right. But I think that it happens too much to be attributed to variance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlunderCity
We've all noticed it, big hands pitted against each other and the coinflips the shortstacks never seem to win in MTTs.
We just have different conclusions as to why we are noticing this.
I read these threads because they have entertainment value but there's never anything to learn from them. In the absence of any serious independent statistical study, no one is EVER coming up with a killer argument, just opinions (and some of them are quite hilarious).
Of course I can't take that against the posters who think online poker isn't rigged, it's not up to us to prove it isn't, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
But I think most of the replies are (again) abusing the spirit of the thread. OP's request for an independent study is in fact very reasonable but since it mentions online poker being rigged, he's immediately branded a rigtard.
It's dangerous when improbable things are instantly dismissed!
I don't think online poker is rigged because I choose not to believe it is rigged. But I can't prove that!! I live in the UK and I think general elections are not rigged. But I can't prove that either.
On the balance of probabilities, I choose to believe that online poker isn't rigged and that UK general elections are free and fair. This is a good enough test for me personally.
But from a regulatory point of view, this isn't good enough. Online poker is a product on display for the general public, all reasonable allegations should be seriously investigated and the ground tested.
Thanks for your post, especially your one liner regarding dismissal of improbable occurrences. This is exactly what tilts me about ppl, complete ignorance. I'm going to say it again - UB/Hamilton scandal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bef99hwk
Cuz that audit is ******ed...
it just shows that there are the right flushes, str8s, etc. But what bout the times ur 90%+ fav on flop and they runner a flush??? and that happens two mtts in a row? That doesn't explain anything bout rigged dynamics on certain inflection points.
Great point from someone who clearly understands what I'm talking about. I don't care that on Pokerstars you will hit your flush the correct ~35% of the time after the flop assuming you have 4 flush cards on the flop. This isn't the point. The last sentence here is key, rigged dynamics on certain inflection points.