I don't know if you are being sarcastic, but regardless of all of the whining, this hand is clearly not played terribly.

On all-in's, all information IS known. With two people all-in preflop, there are 4 cards known and 48 cards unknown. That's exactly 1,712,304 combinations for how the board will run out. It's EXACTLY known how many of those combinations you will win and how many the other guy will win.

Once you know that exact probability, let's say you run 100 hands with the same exact probability. The math changes a bit because probability is usually slightly different each time, but that doesn't really change the concept. Out of those 100 hands with probability of, say, 60% that you win, it is mathematically PROVEN that the distribution approaches the normal distribution.

If you flipped a coin 100 times, you would not expect expect exactly 50 heads. The chance of that happening is only 8% ((100 chose 50)*(0.5)^50*(0.5)^50 if you want the gory details). This 8% is a mathematical fact with the binomial distribution. But how likely is, say, being worse than 60 heads? Well, it's a mathematical fact that the distribution of the number of heads approaches the normal distribution.

The formula for the standard deviation is somewhat arbitrary. The variance is the sum of (x-mean)^2/n and the SD is the square root. Why not the absolute value instead of the square? It is arbitrary, but the important thing is that the standard deviation, as defined, is part of the definition of the normal distribution. It is a mathematical fact that the binomial distribution approaches the normal distribution, with the same standard deviation. The binomial distribution gives the same result without using standard deviation at all, it is just more complicated math.

If you need more convincing, start with very simple bernoulli trials. Then work your way up to a binomial distribution for two coin flips. 50% of two coin flips will be 1 heads, 25% 2 heads and 25% 2 tails. For 3 coin flips, H=0 is 1/8, H=1 and H=2 is 3/8 and H=3 is 1/8. You can go through the trouble of using the Excel formula =IF(RAND()>0.5, 1, 0), which will be a coin flip. Paste that in three different cells and sum them up. If you keep pressing F9 and recording how many are "heads" each time, it will approach these values. Again, these are mathematical facts.

The numbers get more complex as the number of trials goes up, such as my example with 380 all-ins. But the concept remains the same. Actually do the Excel formula trial with coin flips to see it in action if you need more convincing.

Yeah, I agree, a bad beat if there ever was one. Funny thing is, if you have 87% equity, you will lose 13% of those hands.

I'm delighted to see PP66 inflicting his idiocy in here.

That SD post was awesome in its lunacy.

Thanks!

I was being sarcastic / provoking him.

He gets provoked/agitated when you are being genuinely helpful. No need for sarcasm.

Oh look, another 888 screwover! But I guess it's all just 'variance', right?

I'm starting to think this 'variance' only applies one way.

Can't wait to be on Stars.

[Rigged HH deleted. MH]

Probably, but as you've been told many times before, it's impossible to tell from a bunch of individual hand histories.

But I expect that your posting of them in this thread will end soon - either by you finally getting the hint, or us dealing with it.

He is celebrating several weeks of being excited about moving to Stars when that would take minutes to accomplish. Guys life skills are on par with his poker skills. We should have an under/over of how long after he finally moves that he posts whines about Stars, I would say it would be well under 2 weeks.

Well, how could you tell without even knowing what that is?

Aaaaah right, that doesn't bother you.

I don't think online poker is "rigged" because that would imply that it is stacked for one specific person to win. However, I don't think the cards are truly random, either. For cash games in particular, it is to the poker site's benefit to have as many players in a hand as possible, and I have seen a lot of hands with 4 or even 5 players having pocket pairs, and it seems like almost every hand where someone has QQ, there is another player with AK. I also see way more suited flops on-line (flush chasers are an online specialty) than in real poker. So no, I don't think it's rigged, and I don't think it is tilted in any way. I think everyone benefits from the "randomness" of the cards.

Weeks are an inappropriate measurement imo. I'll say 20 showdowns.

What now, is it not rigged or not random?

Isn't it possible that you think so because pocket pairs and AK are the hands that go to showdown the most? Did that reflect in your observations?

Look, lots of people come and make similar statements. Whenever someone seriously looked at their databases or whenever ptr-hands were checked, noone could find such things. Reality is that humans are really bad in observing events like that, because human memory is biased. One under-estimates the number of no-action hands when a c-bet on the flop wins the pot, and over-estimates the number of showdown (action) -hands. Additionally it's AK and pocket pairs that go to showdown the most, right?

Are you totally free of any bias in your memory and did factor in the effect of the different distributions of folding- and go-to-showdown hands before you came to that conclusion? Because if not, you shouldn't necessarily think your observations are correct.

You don't think it's truly random and you also don't think it's rigged . What part of not truly random would you consider honest . Would not truly random then be in fact rigged?

Probably because there's less money at stake online and there are no 'live tells' so the donks are more likely to call down with - or overplay - any pair.

You certainly don't get to see every QQ, you only see those who got into a huge pot, or at least got to showdown. No surprise the bigger the pot, the stronger the other hand(s) are.

How many 2-suited and 3-suited flops should occur, and what are the actual frequencies?

"Rigged" to me means that it is set up for one specific person to win. I don't think that is the case. Although there was one site a few years ago where it was found that the people who ran the site could see all the cards when the game was being played, so that was certainly not good.

The cards not being truly "random" is totally different than it being rigged.

Fewer than he's seen. More than a live game.

If only there were a way to test this theory...

I'm starting to wonder why the riggiots never have a healthy sense of curiosity about what's at the end of that "one way."

Oranges and Apples are different , but dang if I can tell them apart .

First, the term "rigged" in the context of this thread means "hands are not dealt randomly". Just to make sure we talk about the same thing.

So you are sure your observations and your memory are unbiased? What about you just check the number of say suited flops compared to what was to be expected to be sure? The human brain greatly sucks in recognizing randomness and correctly assessing frequencies from memory, that is fact i'm afraid.

There is a lot of reasons why one could think "this happens to often" or "that doesn't happen live that often than online", but you only come to a single conclusion, why is that?
Online being rigged without thousands of mathematical thinking players capable of statistics finding any evidence is actually the least likely explanation. Or what would you think is the reason that the many poker playing math-nerds can not confirm your observations?

fyp

At least I stick with one opinion on the status of the online deal . preteen is basically debating with himself. P.S. Baobhan - I never stated that it would be easy to win heaps with a fair draw , I just think the rig takes the fun out of it. Do you always feel the need to put words in someones mouth that are not true , does that make you feel better ? Merry Christmas to all on here and here's hoping online poker becomes regulated in real Countries by real Lawmakers. My wish is all sites using off shore regulators change to USA regulation ( not indian reserves )or be procecuted and closed..

What do you think about the guy who was just in this thread claiming NJ sites are rigged?

Very delusional..