Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > > >

Discussion of Poker Sites General discussion of online poker sites.

View Poll Results: Is Online Poker Rigged?
Yes 3,444 34.94%
No 5,522 56.02%
Undecided 892 9.05%
Voters: 9858. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-11-2009, 03:26 PM   #6701
bookish
adept
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: England today, but LV next week!
Posts: 752
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by river.king View Post
I'm a bit confused, I understand odds of hitting one flop is 1 in 132,600, but hitting them back to back is the same odds, 1 in 132,600? That can't be right.
It is. Think of rolling a dice twice. The chances of getting the same number the second time as the first are 1 in 6. This is because it doesn't matter what the first number is. If you roll a 5 first, you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 5 second. Its similar to the odds of being dealt a pair in holdem, where your first card doesn't matter - its the second one that is important.

Now, if you specify the flop you want to see (say AdAcAh) BEFORE you look for pairs of identical flops - then you have the probability you suggest - but you aren't, you are looking for any identical flop.

[x] Can't believe I'm posting in this thread.
bookish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 03:27 PM   #6702
river.king
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 36
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
It is right.

The mistake you're making is that you are doing the calculation for one specific flop.

It doesn't matter what the flop, there are 1/132600 chances that the next flop will be the same. So you don't need to compute the probability for the first flop.

If it helps, think of tossing a coin twice to see if the second toss is the same as the first.

The possibilities are:

HH
HT
TH
TT

So, whatever the second coin there is a 50% chance that it is the same as the first. Not a 25% chance.
I think you just proved my point, there are 4 out comes to flipping the coin twice, so if its HH thats one in 4, or 25% not 50/50. My question realates to back to back occurances, not one occuance then another.
river.king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 03:30 PM   #6703
K13
banned
 
K13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 531
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

If its rigged its by a very small %.

I'm ITM ~25% every month so atleast its consistent with obvious downswings and upswings throught. But you need enough volume for that.

The standard deviation is small too.

When I see the complete losers stats, they are just consistently bad, so the sites can't be "helping" them that much.
K13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 03:32 PM   #6704
river.king
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 36
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post
Chance of a duplicate flop appearing in 10 hands is the same as:
1 - (Chance all 10 flops are different)

= 1 - [(132599*132598*132597*.....132591)/132600^9]
= 1 - (0.99966068)
= 1 in 2947
This makes a little more sense, however I'm not quite there. Thanks Pyro for the input.
river.king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 03:34 PM   #6705
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post

If you don't care about the order the cards are dealt, i.e. QJTddd is the same flop as TQJddd etc... then it almost impossible that you would *not* have seen the same flop within the space of 10 hands at some point in a 6k hand sample.
Ignoring the order of the cards we only have 132600/6 = 22100 possible flops.

The chance that 10 observed flops are different is:

[(22099 * 22098 * ..... 22091)/22100^9]
= 0.99796558132

Chance of a set of 10 hands containing a duplicated flop is 1 in 491.5

Chance of 600 sets of 10 hands not containing a duplicated flop is 490.5/491.5^600 = 30% (not incredibly unlikely as I posted above but fairly unlikely).
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 03:34 PM   #6706
river.king
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 36
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by K13 View Post
If its rigged its by a very small %.
See my post from before - "...why was my post moved to the Rigged debate? There is a difference between murder and manslaughter, there is also a difference between rigged and flawed. I never said Pokerstars was rigged."
river.king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 03:35 PM   #6707
meow_meow
veteran
 
meow_meow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,166
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by river.king View Post
I'm a bit confused, I understand odds of hitting one flop is 1 in 132,600, but hitting them back to back is the same odds, 1 in 132,600? That can't be right.
Yes - unless you set conditions for the first flop a priori.

It's the difference between "hey, I just got AA twice in a row, what are the odds on that?" and "what are the odds I'll get AA on my next two hands?"
meow_meow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 03:36 PM   #6708
river.king
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 36
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post
Ignoring the order of the cards.
Pyro, order is the key component here, if it wasn't I wouldn't have posted.
river.king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 03:36 PM   #6709
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by river.king View Post
I think you just proved my point, there are 4 out comes to flipping the coin twice, so if its HH thats one in 4, or 25% not 50/50. My question realates to back to back occurances, not one occuance then another.
You are still not thinking about it quite correctly.

The chances of observing HH or TT is 25% + 25% = 50%, and both of these are 'back to back'.
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 03:40 PM   #6710
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post
Your set of 6000 hands has 5991 sets of 10 hands (Hands 1-10, Hands 2-11, Hands 3-12.... ) but these aren't independent. We can take a gigantic underestimate and say that there are 600 sets of 10 independent hands. (Hands 1-10, Hands 11-20,...). Note that this is a big underestimate because, for example, you could have witnessed the same board on Hands 368 and 372 which are only four hands apart, but are treated as being in different groups of ten by this method.

On second thoughts we can probably ignore this factor, as the poster only mentioned that he had a database of 6000 hands, not 6000 hands that saw the flop... roughly the two factors may counteract each other.

The first number in my post of around 18% is probably not too bad a guess, it may even be a bit less, say 15%.
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 03:40 PM   #6711
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by river.king View Post
Pyro, order is the key component here, if it wasn't I wouldn't have posted.
Yep then see my first post, 18.5% is a good estimate of the likelihood of what you saw... nothing special I'm afraid
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 03:47 PM   #6712
river.king
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 36
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post
The chances of observing HH or TT is 25% + 25% = 50%, and both of these are 'back to back'.
Its only 50% after the first flip, I talking about it before the flip.

before
HH is 25%
TT is 25%
TH is 25%
HT is 25%

after
H = 50%
T = 50%

Last edited by river.king; 07-11-2009 at 03:55 PM.
river.king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 03:49 PM   #6713
wavegoodbye
veteran
 
wavegoodbye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,022
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

please remove the word proof from your title and then hit yourself with something hard
wavegoodbye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 03:51 PM   #6714
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by river.king View Post
before
HH is 25%
TT is 25%
TH is 25%
HT is 25%
Right, so the chance of seeing *either* HH *or* TT is 25%+25% = 50%.
If you see one of these two combinations you flipped the same side 'back to back'.
If you still don't get it then sorry there's nothing else I can really say
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 04:01 PM   #6715
river.king
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 36
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post
Right, so the chance of seeing *either* HH *or* TT is 25%+25% = 50%.
If you see one of these two combinations you flipped the same side 'back to back'.
If you still don't get it then sorry there's nothing else I can really say
what about TH or HT, those are also 50%?
river.king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 04:03 PM   #6716
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by river.king View Post
what about TH or HT, those are also 50%?
The chance of observing either TH or HT is 50% yep. Those are the results that we're not interested in as they are not 'back to back' identical flips.
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 04:09 PM   #6717
river.king
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 36
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post
The chance of observing either TH or HT is 50% yep. Those are the results that we're not interested in as they are not 'back to back' identical flips.
We might not be intersted in them but they are possabilities which are in the mix to screw up are back to back occurances. So we have to include them. Also its not either or (HH or TT) its specificlly HH.
river.king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 04:24 PM   #6718
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by river.king View Post
Also its not either or (HH or TT) its specificlly HH.
This is like saying you would only have posted if you observed JQTddd twice in ten hands, and that you wouldn't have posted if you observed, say, 567ccc twice in ten hands. There is nothing special about what the hand was, only the fact that you saw it twice.

Same thing here, HH or TT are both the 'same side of the coin twice'. What's so special about Heads?
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 04:42 PM   #6719
SwedishMedusa
journeyman
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 390
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by river.king View Post
We might not be intersted in them but they are possabilities which are in the mix to screw up are back to back occurances. So we have to include them. Also its not either or (HH or TT) its specificlly HH.
Pyro is right. Look at it this way: if you throw a die twice, you will have 36 possible outcomes, of which 6 (1-1, 2-2, 3-3 etc) are back to back occurrences. 6/36 = 1/6. I.e. there is a 1/6 chance something happens that will make you go "omg that result just happened back to back, what are the odds...?? I'll go post in the 'craps is rigged' thread!", not 1/36.
SwedishMedusa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 04:43 PM   #6720
river.king
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 36
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post
This is like saying you would only have posted if you observed JQTddd twice in ten hands, and that you wouldn't have posted if you observed, say, 567ccc twice in ten hands. There is nothing special about what the hand was, only the fact that you saw it twice.

Same thing here, HH or TT are both the 'same side of the coin twice'. What's so special about Heads?
Don't mean to appear stubborn but its like saying JQTddd is HH and 567ccc is TT, so thats why is specificlly has to be HH. I did not observe 567ccc, I only observed JQTddd.

Last edited by river.king; 07-11-2009 at 04:57 PM.
river.king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 05:01 PM   #6721
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by river.king View Post
Don't mean to appear stubborn but its like saying JQTddd is HH and 567ccc is TT, so thats why is specificlly has to be HH. I did not observe 567ccc, I only observed JQTddd.
I'm starting to think I'm being levelled but let's give this one last go.

Would you have posted a similar thread to the one you did post if you had observed 567ccc being flopped twice in quick succession? How about if you had observed Ah7c2s being dealt twice in succession?

If no, then fair enough, but I don't see why you think JQTddd is so special.

If yes, then what the flop actually was is irrelevant, only the fact that it was repeated matters.

Last edited by Pyromantha; 07-11-2009 at 05:07 PM.
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 05:22 PM   #6722
river.king
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 36
Re: Pseudo-proof Stars RNG has flaws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by river.king View Post
Don't mean to appear stubborn but its like saying JQTddd is HH and 567ccc is TT, so thats why is specificlly has to be HH. I did not observe 567ccc, I only observed JQTddd.
It's because they correlate with one another that makes them unique. Here is my thought process, as messed up as it might be.

If I witnessed in the dice example, say 4 4, I would ask what are the odds of rolling 4 4 in a row, not what are the odds of rolling either 1 1 in a row, or 2 2 in a row, or 3 3 in a row etc.. etc.., so what if I asked what are the odds of rolling 1 1 in a row, before the roll came out? It should still be the same odds as if rolling 4 4 in a row, before the roll came out.

Last edited by river.king; 07-11-2009 at 05:45 PM.
river.king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 05:52 PM   #6723
TeflonDawg
Pooh-Bah
 
TeflonDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: RetiredExtremelyDangerous
Posts: 5,667
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

This thread is so lol I can't stop coming back for a laugh!

Anyone else notice that the average rigtard post:

1) Is filled with incorrect grammar and spelling
2) Is poorly structured
3) Contains epic fail in logic and critical thinking skills
4) Always says something like I won at X site, but can't win at Y site?

#4 is especially hilarious b/c I've played at probably 5-10 different sites, and there's always some moron saying "this site rewards bad play f u (insert site name here)" at every single site!

It's amazing that some of you idiots still think UB and AP rigged their RNG when the scandal was player cheating.

Equally amazing is how some of you idiots think the RNG is rigged, but can't specify how exactly it's being rigged! If I play 1000 hands and profit $500 or play 1000 hands and lose $500, the site still makes the same amount of money off me in either scenario!
TeflonDawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 06:00 PM   #6724
river.king
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 36
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by TeflonDawg View Post
Equally amazing is how some of you idiots think the RNG is rigged
obv you haven't been following the math, nor have you read the previous posts "...why was my post moved to the Rigged debate? There is a difference between murder and manslaughter, there is also a difference between rigged and flawed. I never said it was rigged."
river.king is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2009, 06:20 PM   #6725
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by river.king View Post
obv you haven't been following the math, nor have you read the previous posts "...why was my post moved to the Rigged debate? There is a difference between murder and manslaughter, there is also a difference between rigged and flawed. I never said it was rigged."
I don't want to be unkind but you can't 'follow the math' either, as you fail to understand probability that would be taught to GCSE students (14-16 year olds).

Also, there is no difference between flawed and rigged as per the standard usage of those words. 'rigged' is anything that is not indistinguishable from purely random dealing. What is 'flawed' if not that?
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive