You left out the most important filter, which is that you or the opponent are all-in preflop with no other preflop callers. Without that filter, if you are simply counting all hands that saw a showdown then the result means nothing.

I am sure he filtered for all-ins preflop, since he refers to it as a "race." He certainly would not make that simple mistake, and assuming he is claiming he went 31-169 in a 200 sequential trial of all-in preflops as an actual favorite ( I used .54 for the math I did on that website) then he should be able to line up an immense amount of prop bet action about whether he can prove it, and while other riggies will unconditionally support him, we will see if any of them will put their money where they beliefs are with his data.

I actually think he believes himself, and as well he has made a fairly healthy error in how he did the math, but lets see how he replies and how he will avoid providing his data before we make any rash judgments.

I never used a filter, I went through all the data manually, starting from my most recent hand and working down.

Well, I hope you will understand if the odds that you made some math errors are slightly better than the odds that what you say happened (which is greater than 1 in the number of atoms in a human body), especially since your last important study about players you thought were colluding you did not even bother to spell many of them correctly and you never responded to the sharkscope data I provided that refuted those claims as well (guess you forgot or moved onto other theories).

No matter, just say the site and date range and the user name and we can get to the bottom of this using much more reliable mathematical tools.

You want to do that, right? I see you have not posted your data details as a new thread in the stats forum, and NVG and even this forum, and I would be curious why you have not yet done that when you can change this entire industry as we know it as long as your data is what you claim it to be at this time. Odd that you do not seem to be blasting this information everywhere when it is that important (if what you say is true), and instead you just post it in this riggie thread.

Also, clarify that you are talking about all-in preflop hands vs a single opponent as well.


All the best.

One last interesting facts for you..

I have 92888 hands in my Holdem manager, I shared this by 221 to work out I should have on average 420 hands of each pocket pair. 5464 in total.

So I went through every hand and counted them!!! Painstaking task number 2.

I done it by counting each pocket pair in turn, scrolling down with the down arrow key by hand counting them In multiples of 50. Here are the results for each hand.

22 - 383
33 - 376
44 - 369
55 - 374
66 - 349
77 - 365
88 - 379
99 - 360
1010 - 351
jj - 366
qq - 372
kk - 380
aa - 344

For a grand total off 4768, 696 below what was expected. Now I don't know If this is an acceptable discrepancy or not with a sample size of 92888 hands? but I know one thing, there is no way that all 13 pocket pairs could all be below the expected 420.

I came on this forum in good faith with the very intention of changing the whole industry, and believe me, that is what I will do, I am very close to doing it, you will see.

But I made one mistake, I attempted to use this forum to gather momentum for my cause, but responses I got made me realise this forum is part of the evil, so I shut up shop.

Believe me, I will be back to rub your noses in it when the **** hits the fan

I take it you will not make your HH data available for study then, even though it would take 1-2 emails to Stars and then a simple forwarding it to the appropriate people to do the work. That's fine as that was completely expected.

If everything you say is true then you can completely change the industry as we know it by tomorrow, yet you do not seem to want to follow through on your beliefs, which might lead one to question how secure you are with your interpretation of your actual data.

I did predict you would back away when presented with very easy ways to present your data (if the data is true), so I guess one of us was able to make a prediction and see it proven within this thread!

Maybe your next made up theory will be interesting, the collusion and unluckiest human to ever exist for all of time ones seemed to have fizzled, and even other riggies seemed to not give much support (and they usually support all riggie beliefs, so that aint a good sign for you). Perhaps the third one you make up will be it, just keep at it!

All the best.

I've never laughed that hard over a post ITT until I read this:

You've absolutely won this thread.



This one comes close as well. LOL at considering this a mistake, but not you not just simply clicking on the holecards report, not applying appropriate filters, or trying to 'gather momentum for your cause' in a riggie thread (esp the zoo riggie thread).



Please keep it coming.

Whether manually or using software, you used several filters.

Post the screen shots of the relevant Holdem Manager data.

You know ... you don't have to do that. You can just filter for what you are looking for.

It is much more accurate ... and only takes like 10 seconds ...... rather than taking days.

First: dude, just use filters. It makes no sense why you're not doing so.

Second: are these just hands that you were allin on pre-flop (you didn't specify)? Because if someone pushes allin with 22 every time on the flop, then they should expect to lose 90% of hands that go to showdown against someone that started with two over cards.

You counted these by hand, and somehow we're the dumb ones.

AllInJim, please provide all your hand histories. Both statistics would be considered proof of the deal not being random.

QFMFT

AllInJim, do you seriously say you went 13 times through 92,888 hands to count the number of pocket pairs, counting them "in turn"? Respect man, that's what i call the dedication needed to change a whole industry.

Please, can you check the numbers? I think you might have slightly miscounted at some point.

The number of pocket pairs definitely seems wrong. Interestingly the number of each pair roughly corresponds, looking like the distribution you would typically expect if 370 or so was the expected number.

The simplest error that could have occurred is that your total number of hand is incorrect, for example if you wrongly excluded 10000 cash game hands. So we need to be sure that something like this hasn't happened.

Can you list the steps that you took (from starting the hem application) to obtain each of your numbers ?

1. Calculate normal number of pocket pairs for a given number of hands
2. Fabricate numbers way below
3. Post bull****

No, you won't. There is no way that someone who cant even use filters in HM would be able to prove anything. Mathematicians tried to do it and they failed. You will be just laughed at and your theories will vanish as all of these did in the past.

It is what it is, and there is nothing you can do about. You can, however, continue playing on the site you believe is scamming you. The funny thing is that you probably will.

Yo, that guy is desperate for attention. First he came up with "Full Tilt manipulates my HHs hours after I logged out", then with "if a two-tabling villain has XX on one table, then the next flop on the other table brings a X". Then came "if a zoom-pro needs a card, he does something with his mouse and rigs the rng", followed by "some players on ftp win 84% of their all ins in my 2-year-study, and they all vanished after I reported them".

Now it's "I manually evaluated 92k hands in a few hours, and I get too less pocket pairs and lose too often against two overs when all in with them, but won't share my hand histories".

Sure bud..

My point also still stands that a true test of "riggieness" is stating a Hypothesis BEFORE, say, 10,000 hands or so and then doing a test on that hypothesis, and only that hypothesis, afterward. The hypothesis could be, say, how many times you get AA in this 10,000 hands. If it's only 5% likely you could have gotten AA that few times, then you have something, but you have to state that you will ONLY test AA BEFORE the 10,000 hands.

After all, you can get a p-value of 5% 1 in 20 times by luck. So if you looked at, say, all PP's then it's quite likely 1 in 13 will have a p-value less than 5. You have to do the test on only one, saying which one before you do the hands. Looking afterwards, it's too easy to find some facet of the hand history which is on the bottom end of likelihood.

I admit I did not know he had told a couple other extreme made up stories when I replied, I just remembered the Full Tilt high stakes player collusion nonsense, and had I known he did a couple other random trolltales I would have passed on replying. Still, I had fun playing along and I got to show off some powerful google based math skills.

Does not matter if a riggie is real or not as long as their theories are fun to debate, since even the most weird ones will have some riggies believe and/or support them anyway.

I haven't read any of this thread so forgive me if this was covered, which I assume it was; but why would a site that makes millions of $ in rake regardless of who wins want to rig it so that certain players win/lose? I usually find its the bad/mediocre players that claim the sites to be rigged in a desperate way to make an excuse for them not being able to win

That's pretty much the size of it. The theory for rigging goes like this: "the cards come out better for the worse players so that they will keep playing and the regs will keep depositing anyway, because they made the '+ev play' and they would start winning eventually, but they don't." Two crucial issues are a lot of poker has nothing to do with the cards and that a reg getting less than true odds would easily be found out.

There is an "equalization" theory which finds some way it could be rigged without somehow being found out mathematically. If you're good, then you would get bad cards against donks and good cards against other regs, so it would equal out. But this makes no sense because what about the other regs then? Those other regs would get bad cards against both you and donks, and it would be found out.

There may be some other variety of that theory where the riggieness depends on pot size. That's actually mathematically possible, unlike the other equalization theory, but it could be found out as well. Just filter for certain pot sizes. Aaa will lose to 22 20% of the time and under this theory, all 20% would go to the do I raising when they have more money in the pot. It still makes little sense, but whatever.

But then how will the riggies manage to move the goalposts and "interpret" their data?

You know..... I had to do that. To get accurate results

You think holdem manager is on your side? Mug.