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 07-12-2009, 05:40 AM   #6751
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

I volunteered to write some code to do a test for one poster.

Although this is probably a futile exercise since true rigtards will find a million reasons to discount the test it may be of some interest to those of a less paranoid persuasion.

In the first instance the following data will be produced for a 40k HH sample:

The number of the following pocket cards dealt to hero:

AA
KK
QQ
JJ
TT
AKs
AK
AQs
AQ
KQs
KQ


Percentage of times A, K, Q, J appear on FTR Overall

Percentage of times A, K, Q, J appear to improve hero's hand creating a pair, three or four of a kind.

Unfortunately there is not so much that can be done with villian's hand since we only know his cards if he goes to showdown. However, provided the second two sets of data match and are according to expectations it's a reasonable indication that all's well.

I'm just waiting for the full dataset from jagnje then i'll post some results as soon as possible. Any sensible comments will be welcomed.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 05:52 AM   #6752
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

I made an excel spreadsheet to calculate these numbers, they are based on the first graph posted by the chap above.

Equity s.d per 2612 hands
0.51 626003.146
0.52 312813.6405
0.53 208333.4456
0.54 156030.3893
0.55 124597.9753
0.56 103600.6521
0.57 88565.99443
0.58 77257.74765
0.59 68433.50947
0.6 61347.80219
0.61 55526.19623
0.62 50652.37164
0.63 46507.30482
0.64 42934.51777
0.65 39819.22738
0.66 37075.31344
0.67 34636.88579
0.68 32452.66212
0.69 30482.12074
0.7 28692.80715
0.71 27058.40957
0.72 25557.35884
0.73 24171.79285
0.74 22886.7792

The poster observed a result 80k away from the mean if his equity was less than 0.57 on average this result is less than 1 s.d. from the mean and thoroughly uninteresting. Even if he was running at 63% which seems incredibly unlikely to me it is still only 2 s.d.s from the mean.

I doubt anyone runs at 0.57 equity for a sustained period. If we assume 0.55 is somewhere around the max sustainable in SNG, then the observed result is around two thirds of a s.d. away from the mean (i.e. about 25% of all players will run worse).

Sorry to break it to you but your data isn't even *surprising* let alone proof that you are doomswitched.
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 06:01 AM   #6753
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
Percentage of times A, K, Q, J appear on FTR Overall

Percentage of times A, K, Q, J appear to improve hero's hand creating a pair, three or four of a kind.
Why would you expect these two numbers to be similar? When hero holds A-A there are going to be significantly less {AKQJ} that can be dealt, as there are only 14 of them lying unknown somewhere, rather than 16 normally. Same thing for all of the hero's hands except TT (but that is not an interesting case since an {AKQJ} never improves him.

Actually I'm a bit confused what you are trying to do.
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 06:03 AM   #6754
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post
Why would you expect these two numbers to be similar? When hero holds A-A there are going to be significantly less {AKQJ} that can be dealt, as there are only 14 of them lying unknown somewhere, rather than 16 normally. Same thing for all of the hero's hands except TT (but that is not an interesting case since an {AKQJ} never improves him.
You are assuming a far too simplistic approach.

Obviously these factors will be taken into consideration.

Quote:
Actually I'm a bit confused what you are trying to do.
Evidently.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 06:06 AM   #6755
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post

Evidently.
Well, we can't give any constructive comments unless we know what the methodology you are using is, beyond saying 'this could work in theory'

edit - I did think about this a reasonable amount but I can't see any good way to make it work. Initially I thought we could just calculate the probability of KQ (say) improving to a pair of queens or better by showdown then comparing it to the poster's data for his hands where he has KQ. Sadly this doesn't work either - if the poster flops a pair of Ks or Qs he will tend to showdown, if he flops 8-5-2 he may fold on the flop, even if we would have made a pair by the river sometimes. Thus the set of hands reaching the river will be heavily weighted toward him having some piece, but how much depends on how lightly he peels.

You could treat each stage of the action entirely separately. i.e. Holding KQ, how often does the poster flop a pair or better compared to the expected value. Holding KQ without a pair on the flop, how often does he improve to a pair on the turn (ignore straights/flushes here they make the math beyond annoying).

Last edited by Pyromantha; 07-12-2009 at 06:11 AM.
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 06:12 AM   #6756
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post
Well, we can't give any constructive comments unless we know what the methodology you are using is, beyond saying 'this could work in theory'
Well, I've told you the methodology.

What you are questioning is the interpretation.

i.e. You assumed that once the counts had been made (e.g.) the number of times one or more aces appeared on the flop would be directly compared to the number of times that the same thing happened on the flop when the hero held AA.

This seems an odd assumption. Why assume that a stupid comparison will be made rather than one that makes sense?
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 06:17 AM   #6757
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post
You could treat each stage of the action entirely separately. i.e. Holding KQ, how often does the poster flop a pair or better compared to the expected value. Holding KQ without a pair on the flop, how often does he improve to a pair on the turn
That's it!

Obviously there are a lot of things that it would be nice to do but are impossible without knowing other hole cards.

Quote:
(ignore straights/flushes here they make the math beyond annoying).
You'll notice that I ommited straights and flushes from the improvement test list.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 06:21 AM   #6758
WeeFatShug
centurion
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 160
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Ahaymadoots
WeeFatShug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 06:22 AM   #6759
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
Well, I've told you the methodology.

What you are questioning is the interpretation.

i.e. You assumed that once the counts had been made (e.g.) the number of times one or more aces appeared on the flop would be directly compared to the number of times that the same thing happened on the flop when the hero held AA.

This seems an odd assumption. Why assume that a stupid comparison will be made rather than one that makes sense?
So let me see if I have understood this now:

We look at the set of all flops and see how often an Ace flopped.
We look at the set of all flops hero saw where he was dealt A-A, and see how often an Ace flopped.

We compare the ratio of the two and see if it is close to the expected value. We can calculate the ratio explicitly with elementary probability.

Is this better than just calculating the probability hero flops an Ace when he holds A-A explicitly, and comparing it to the observed data?
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 06:23 AM   #6760
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
That's it!

Obviously there are a lot of things that it would be nice to do but are impossible without knowing other hole cards.
Well this should work fine... looking forward to seeing the data.
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 06:31 AM   #6761
SooperFish24
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,028
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

When you create a public poll how do you check what people have voted?
SooperFish24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 06:32 AM   #6762
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post
Is this better than just calculating the probability hero flops an Ace when he holds A-A explicitly, and comparing it to the observed data?
The theoretical calcuation will obviously be sitting there with the observation but I think it better to observe the totals for the flop as well because it would show us if there is anything else untoward going on.

Actually I worded the original post about this rather badly because really the comparisons would all be to the theoretical expectations. The fact that two observations should match (after appropriate adjustment) is derivative and thus not of any great interest.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 06:33 AM   #6763
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
When you create a public poll how do you check what people have voted?
Either vote yourself or click 'view poll results'.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 06:37 AM   #6764
AllBlackDan
Pooh-Bah
 
AllBlackDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Moon
Posts: 5,656
Re: Question to Full Tilt Poker

Quote:
Originally Posted by sinner View Post
go kiss a crocodile
lol good 1!
AllBlackDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 07:03 AM   #6765
Melina Perez
grinder
 
Melina Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 694
Re: Question to Full Tilt Poker

LOL begging for your doomswitch to turn off. Just get good enough to beat the players and the doomswitch when its turned on, that way you don't lose long term and have no excuses.

Melina
Melina Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 07:07 AM   #6766
SooperFish24
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,028
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
Either vote yourself or click 'view poll results'.
Where do I click for View poll results?
SooperFish24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 07:08 AM   #6767
Prav
newbie
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 23
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

before the streak my average equity was more than 51%.
during the streak it was 49% something.

here's excel file with all the all-ins.
http://ifolder.ru/13070752

it's 1.49 s.d. for last 2600.
and 2 s.d. for last 560. it's been getting worse.

of course, it doesn't proof anything.
but i lost enough money. i don't want to lose more waiting until it becomes 3 s.d. i'm out of PS.

my feeling is PS takes some luck (0.5-1%) from winning players in favor of losing ones. implemented by a system of coefficients. the idea is to keep the fish playing (i.e. paying rake) as long as possible.

it's too difficult to trace. must analyze correlation between winnings and all-in luck.
Prav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 07:44 AM   #6768
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prav View Post
before the streak my average equity was more than 51%.
during the streak it was 49% something.

here's excel file with all the all-ins.
http://ifolder.ru/13070752
There were some #VALUE in the O column where you were certain to win or lose the hand - not sure if you see the same thing. I manually changed these to 0 and the corresponding N column to 1 or 0. Not sure why the formula didn't work on my version of Excel.

After I changed these I got 1.46 s.d. from the mean, not sure why that's different than your 1.49 s.d.

Is counting all hands as 0 for a loss and 1 for a win the same as calculating the variance per hand explicitly by using the actual pot-size and the possible gains or losses? It seems to me that if the pot-size is variable rather than fixed this ought to increase the variance markedly. edit. on second thoughts it appears to be definitely different. Is it possible for you to calculate these variances using the actual pot-size?

Last edited by Pyromantha; 07-12-2009 at 07:55 AM.
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 08:03 AM   #6769
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prav View Post

it's 1.49 s.d. for last 2600.
Certainly if you don't feel comfortable on a site then you should leave, but I'm surprised that a 1.49 s.d. from average result would lead you to believe something is amiss. After all, well over 10% of all players would run worse than this.

The 500 hand data doesn't seem relevant as it is a cherry-picked sample where you ran particularly badly.
Since you mention the last 2600, it would be interesting to analyse the complete sample assuming there are more than 2600 ?

Anyway it makes a nice change to converse with a riggedologist who actually understands statistics

Last edited by Pyromantha; 07-12-2009 at 08:10 AM.
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 08:41 AM   #6770
Bingo_Boy
old hand
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,872
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazyworkaholic View Post
Dear Full Tilt Poker,

why do you punish good players and reward the bad players on your System so much? I think this is really not fair and and really annoying! I know that we all live from bad players' money and they have to be kept. I agree that they have to be motivated to cash in more money after losing everything and therefore they cannot be exploited too fast. They should go broke while having fun. BUT honestly I think you are giving them a little bit too many suckouts lately. Of course this is good for you because by keeping an equilibrium between good players and bad ones you make the most money.
How can it be that I lose like every situation where I am 95% favorit on the turn and lose to any 2-outer? Why do I lose more than 50% of the situations where I am a HUGE favorit preflop (80%+?). Why does Ace-rag almost always beat the better Ace and why always on the river? All over the internet people are reporting the same.
I mean I really don't mind if your System is skewed a little bit in favor of the bad players if your profits and mine are somehow equally. The last couple of months you are going a little bit too far with the skewness.
Please don't put the doomswitch button on my account now.


Thank you for my upcoming upswing in advance.

Yours faithfully,
rake-paying customer
Dear Full Tilt player,

Please don't waste out time with this nonsense or we will have to increase our rake to cover the cost of replying.

The statistics that you have fabricated from your patchy memory regarding your all ins is almost certainly wrong and if you could use one of the many tools available to prove otherwise I will gladly investigate the hands in question.

Please stop implying that there are doomswitches or that we favour "bad" players in order to make more money. If you are not happy with our software or the assurances that we give you of the security and integrity of our games you are welcome to play elsewhere.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lazyworkaholic View Post
I don't have to improve because I am almost always a huge favourite when I get my chips in (at least 70% favourite). Like I said before losing against an all-in at the turn with 95% chance of winning happens to me way to often lately. And I don't think it's because of the variance. I am playing online poker for many years now and have been through many downswings. What happens lately is not normal in my opinion.

Btw. I only like basketballs.
You almost always get your money in as 70% favourite or better? Doesn't this mean you are either lying or you play bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jspirit88 View Post
You clueless European. You miss the obvious distinction between the site owners who make fantastic money and the employees who make peanuts. Is security vigilant enough to stop innovative employees from rigging the game? The UB rigging proves security is lax. Management is happy if employees make some extra on the side, they would then have to shell out less wages, No? Your argument has been repeated many times and is complete bunk.

Maybe the new UB owners were paying off debts by letting those former owner?/employee/consultants have a run at the tables? No?

The actual RNG software or hardware would not have to be changed but only bypassed.
WTF are you talking about? You continue to reference the UB scandal in relation to rigging the game in favour of bad players when they are completely unrelated. How is a software engineer going to benefit financially from rigging the game in favour of bad players? Stop clouding the issue with your rambling conspiracies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
When you create a public poll how do you check what people have voted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SooperFish24 View Post
Where do I click for View poll results?
Is it that difficult? If you can't work this out how can you expect to be taken seriously?

Last edited by Bingo_Boy; 07-12-2009 at 08:43 AM. Reason: ps: stop using maths to prove rigtards wrong. It won't be tolerated
Bingo_Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 10:43 AM   #6771
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by tk1133

We're playing in a Foriegn Country where your not allowed to be in, We have no rights, we can't seek any legal action in case of fraud, we have no proof of audits other then some random company slapping a stamp on it and saying it's "good," cannot prove it's legit, cannot prove we're playing against actual live players 100% of the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post
I'm not a lawyer but I believe that U.S. residents are allowed to visit the Channel Islands, Gibraltar, and the Isle of Man, and that they have legal rights just like anyone else
I'm also pretty sure there are occasionally players from those countries sitting at the same tables as those who believe the game is rigged. Does the riggedness engine work by country of residence now? And what about players living in countries that do regulate online gambling (quite a few EU countries)? This U.S.-centric worldview is pretty narrowminded.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 11:00 AM   #6772
DMoogle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DMoogle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northern VA, USA
Posts: 7,131
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

It's kind of funny that the same **** happens live. Lots of people complain about how "unlucky" they are in poker and blame the dealer, the gods, their life, etc.
DMoogle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 12:28 PM   #6773
Prav
newbie
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 23
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post
There were some #VALUE in the O column where you were certain to win or lose the hand - not sure if you see the same thing. I manually changed these to 0 and the corresponding N column to 1 or 0. Not sure why the formula didn't work on my version of Excel.

After I changed these I got 1.46 s.d. from the mean, not sure why that's different than your 1.49 s.d.

Is counting all hands as 0 for a loss and 1 for a win the same as calculating the variance per hand explicitly by using the actual pot-size and the possible gains or losses? It seems to me that if the pot-size is variable rather than fixed this ought to increase the variance markedly. edit. on second thoughts it appears to be definitely different. Is it possible for you to calculate these variances using the actual pot-size?
I excluded 1 and 0 allins as they don't have anything to do with luck.
Of course if you count them, you get less than 1.49.

I don't think pot size should be in the formula. For example, being a short stack on bubble, 400 chip pot is as important for you as would be 6000 pot (especially then you play DoN).

Last 560 allins it was even worse - 2 s.d. They took almost everything I won for 2 months.

Overall result: 6000+ allins, av. equity 49.34%, av. win 48.91%, 0.75 s.d.
To compensate this I have to win 52 flips in a row.

It's not the first streak. Every downstreak was steep, every upstreak flat. I gather upstreaks were not actually upstreak, rather normal play.
Anyway I don't trust the site so I've left.
Prav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 12:39 PM   #6774
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prav View Post
Overall result: 6000+ allins, av. equity 49.34%, av. win 48.91%, 0.75 s.d.
The overall result is all that matters, anything else is just cherry-picking.

Of course if you don't trust the site as a result of running 0.75 s.d below equity for 6000 hands then you should leave, but I respectfully submit that gambling may not be for you as 30% of the time or so you are going to encounter an even unluckier result (assuming all sites are perfectly fair)
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 12:53 PM   #6775
TeflonDawg
Pooh-Bah
 
TeflonDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: RetiredExtremelyDangerous
Posts: 5,665
Re: The great "Poker is rigged debate" - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by qpw View Post
I haven't a clue what you are trying to say in this post.
He's saying there are rigtards and then there are sensible people who just want an unbiased 3rd party to audit the sites so the rigtards can STFU and the sensible people have their reasonable concerns assuaged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lenasrokas View Post
you clueless american. site will make same amount of money off you if you will lose 500$ or you'll win 500$ (they profit from rake you pay), but if you lose 500$ and go busto you most likely will leave and no more rake from you my friend. if you win 500$ you might cash it all out and leave or most likely you'll stick around to win more 500$ and generate more rake, don't ya? isn't that human nature?

so basically they don't gain same amount of profit from you if you win 500$ or lose 500$ (in short run they do), but in long run they will maximize their profit by making good conditions for you and others to stick around as much as you can. and business is all about long run.
Petty insults aside, what's your point? Are you saying that they rig it so everyone breaks even? How do they decide who wins and who loses? How do they know if you're going to cash out if you win? How do they know you're not going to deposit again after going broke?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMoogle View Post
It's kind of funny that the same **** happens live. Lots of people complain about how "unlucky" they are in poker and blame the dealer, the gods, their life, etc.
I wish someone would just log 1 million live hands, put it into PT or something and compare it to 1 million online hands from each site.
TeflonDawg 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 03:39 PM.


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