Pretty sure his work on the UB/AP situation came before his employment with Stars, so even if we pretend that working for Stars means he is completely compromised in doing his work (which is a silly belief), the fact is he did a lot of work on his own that bettered the game for us all.

I would even say the investigation and subsequent discovery of the UB/AP scandals will have as much positive impact on the industry long term as the Moneymaker effect a few years ago, albeit in a different way.

As I said, he and others have done things that mattered. A random guy spewing a variation of a cashout curse theory or whatever (I never read his theory) that has been whined about many times before accomplishes nothing in and by itself in terms of industry change.

It certainly provides entertainment value in this thread, and that is what this thread is about which is perfectly fine, as everyone, even the deeply paranoid, should have the ability to speak their mind in the appropriate forum (just as others have a freedom to mock them as well ).

Even if it was as easy as pushing a "GO" button, it still would have to never be detected (which it would) and the people pushing the magic button would have to be killed before any of them said a word about it. It fails the common sense test for a business to operate in this manner.

P.S. You start winning again or something? Your posts seem to lack that "world is against me" incessant whine tone that they had for a while. If so, congrats on working it all out.

I agree that it's nigh on impossible to test things so thoroughly that any mischief on the part of the site or rogue elements in it is detected.

What I hope to achieve is something that will allow someone who just has a feeling that he's not getting his share of premium hands or that when he does get a premium hand he's not getting his share of impovements to see that this not what has actually happened - at least not beyond the boundaries of reasonable variation. (Or show that it has!).

Monteroy, qpw - I am proposing saying a very specific, not impossible way that you could satisfy there is no rigging bias toward likely categories of players to a reasonable person. It is not an impossible dataset to gather. My goal is not to satisfy all the rigtards, just myself. And it's really just scientific curiosity at this point, but I still think it's a worthy goal. I just need those datasets.

I agree he has been an invaluable resource and will continue to be. And a good guy and I'm very thankful for his work. Just don't hold anyone up as a watchdog of the company they are employed by. All I'm sayin'


I agree. But Ed Miller makes some good points that history is littered with individuals who chose greed over common sense or the best long term interests of their company. We are in this financial mess because Greenspan assumed individuals would always act in the best interest of their company.


Yes.

I'm not sure why then you quoted Monteroy's post. He was just saying Josem (among others) does a ton to ensure the games are fair. I think this is a safe assumption and doesn't need the label "consumer watchdog" to be true.

If it's so undetectable, how come you guys know about it?

This is actually a deeper insight than it appears at first glance (but I'm sure you realize it). It's totally impossible for something crooked to be noticed by players through casual observation yet be invisible to more formal HH analysis. The opposite is actually true. This notion defies common sense and makes those claiming such as part of their theories look just plain stupid. Meares and his aliases are top of this list with the "timing" and "patterns" theories that somehow avoid statistical detection.

I was taking a calculated risk that you would not find that offensive, since you take a fair amount of pride in your rather "direct" approach of taking rigtards to task. While I can see through your retoric to the soundness of your underlying arguments, its true that sometimes your colourful approach hides the forest for the trees. That said, you may be a jerk, but I agree with most of what you say nonetheless. A bit of diplomacy might avoid a few tangents here and there but hey, its the intraweb afterall!

To be quite honest, when I first came here I was absolutely appalled at how rude people were allowed to be. I use many forums and none of them put up with the rudeness that happens here. Plus this is the only site I know where people can make +1/qft/me too type posts and get away with it.

I think I've adopted an "if you can't beat them, join them" approach (although you'll notice that I'm quite selective about who I'm 'direct' with).

And I wasn't offended - if you start dishing something out you have to be prepared to take it lest you should suffer a very justified charge of double standards.

QFT

+1

interesting thread guys you might want to check:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...istics-396162/

Not only that, but somehow we're supposed to believe that's when he cashed onto and off of the sites without any supporting evidence. Why couldnt he just take a random graph and circle cashouts before he loses and deposits before he wins? We're supposed to believe random guy over the internet? Why?

I suppose also if he was indeed the shill for the Real Deal (is it confirmed that its him?) he could have played badly on purpose for those hands of the downswing, which may be the reason for his reluctance to share the HHs.

How do we "know" slot machines are rigged? (btw - they are if you didn't know)


uncomfirmed. and w t f lol.. you're thinking too hard.

So are you going to provide the HHs?

That's the best you can come up with, really?

I'll tell how we don't "know": gut instinct.

Confirmed earlier in the thread.

He didnt have to bother playing bad. Hell he didnt even have to play, earlier in this thread he claimed other hand history graphs as his own that clearly weren't. Just take a random graph, claim cashouts at the peaks, deposits at the valleys, done.

There's a pretty good chance he doesnt have the hand histories to share.

Because we know how they work:

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.c...t-machine2.htm

Many casinos come right out and say what the average payback of their slot machines are.

Pretty horrible example on your part Steven.

OK, its my first post and im a little lazy in not reading through the entire forum, BUT...

What are the odds of hitting a Royal Flush 3 times in 2 days on a well-publicised internet poker site?

I cant decide if i've just been lucky or the application just dishes out mega-hands to generate as much rake as possible... in which case its time to move...

Depends how many hands you played per day and if they were all hold'em, all omaha or something else. Certainly going to be extremely low regardless though.

If you played x hands of hold'em, the chances are:

(xC3) * (1/30940)^3 * (30939/30940)^x-3

By the power of Excel:

Number of hands probability of getting 3 royal flushes
3 3.37628E-14
30 1.36958E-10
300 1.4898E-07
3000 0.000137768
10000 0.004072215
100000 0.222140376

Then the probability starts to decrease (as you would expect to have hit more than 3 royal flushes).

The above assumes that you see a showdown with every hand you are dealt (or at least, every hand that could still possibly become a royal flush). Actual answer is unknowable as depends on game conditions.

Fair enough, and the regs around here that have the ability to answer your question should feel "a little lazy" and ignore your poorly veiled "online pokers is rogged" troll.

Lock and ban, plz!

FWIW I have about 140,000 or so hand history where I was running at or near expectation for the first 90,000 or so hands, with an immediate and rapid drop following my first cashout.

Within about 30,000 hands, on all-in hands alone, I dropped around 16 BI in equity. In addition I started running KK into AA many times (twice in one session IIRC). Obviously that aspect is quite a bit more subjective.

I have been told alternately a) This happens and is just variance b) I just suck and tilt. c) The things I am describing are impossible.

Tilt has definitely been a factor in my current swong, and I definitely started making some serious mistakes, but I think it is safe to say my experience in online Poker following my cashout has been markedly different than my experience prior to cashout.

I don't have a solid opinion one way or another whether online Poker is rigged. I'd be lying if I said my recent experiences haven't made me strongly consider the possibility. I'd also be lying if I said the "cashout curse" sounds as absurd to me now as it did six months ago.

I'd be more than happy to provide my hand history DB to whomever is offering to do this statistical analysis with one caveat: I don't want my hands being posted and mocked and held up as an example of tilted players blaming rigged sites for their losses. I am well aware that I tilted away a large number of buyins during my recent swong.

All I can say is that I have had an experience that at a glance seems to be in line with the "cashout curse," and I'm willing to submit my HH and documentation of when my cashout occurred. I doubt my experience alone settles anything one way or another, but at least it will be a set of data that can be analyzed rather than a bunch of random verbal pissing matches.

Finally, I don't want this post used as a straw man to prove that I'm some nut on a crusade to prove online Poker is rigged. Like I said, I know how easy it is to delude yourself so I don't really have an opinion. However, the whole UB thing wouldn't have come to light without the players themselves keeping an eye on the stats. I don't think it would be such a bad idea to do some grinding.

Hey, i thought it was a fair question, although not worded very well I admit.

Ive tried a few sites and this one in particular where i have played for a couple of years (note I havent named names) now seems to throw up more and more top-hands than anything else. I love online poker so its not a troll at all online sites - i just needed confirmation that this 'run' is highly unlikely and im wise to move my preference, altho I did like the gameplay and look/feel of this particular site...

Given those odds however, im more likely to be killed by a polar bear than hit 3x RF's in 2 days, so its onto a new site for me - on the 2+2 recommended list.

Is this clearer?

Question for those who think they suffer from a cashout curse: do you think cashing out affects your play at all? Ie: seeing a lower balance in your account may tilt you somewhat to try and "get back" to your previous amount?