Yes you are correct. However it would not prove anything.

If there was a 1 or 2 % difference in what AA lost to KK over 1million hands (just for arguement) or 3 million hands, it would be dismissed as variance or not enough hands.

As I've said before, it is possibe to be done this way, did not say it was.

????? someone say something? See my name, an avatar and just hit the quote button. So easy to ignore someone here.

No interest at all.

No it wouldn't, because the numbers would be off by quite a few SDs if you changed the outcome of 10,000-60,000 hands.

My HU Experience is mostly from SNG's, I honestly wouldn't think you could learn much from me. I'm in for a friendly match at any time, we can also discuss the hands, one always learns by looking from another perspective.

My screennames are hardly a secret, just look at the threads I started (uhmm, my earlier ones are slightly embarrassing I admit). I am far from good and playing casually like two times a week, but I would easily find backers for any amount of money anyone would like to bet against myself making $10k in a year. In fact, I am nearly there that year.

The easiest way to make $10k is grinding 180s. Play the $8 and the $15, 10% roi isn't hard to achieve in them. That is like $1 per tourney, and you get in 100+ per day when you 15-table. Easy game for me and for Monte as well.

Yeh, that is cool. I believe that is possible to play friendly matches at pokerstars, we can talk about planning to play some games. Curious how you would play and your approach to HU. I guess you would have a pretty good post-flop game and I think I will have a better pre-flop game. I have no clue about 180s, and I think it is a really different game than HU. HU by itself is very dynamic and it fits my style. The advantage of HU hyper is that once you become good you can really make a lot of money. So lets say I am going to study hard and make a lot of progress the change I make 30K in one year becomes pretty big, and this can become even bigger once I keep on making progress. So it gives good expectations for the future. I do not know how this is with 180's?

If you are ready to steadily work at your game, analyze your opponents, and are mentally stable enough to take the swings, stick to HU, especially when you aim high.

If you are a lazy dumbtard like myself, and like to watch tv, post in riggie threads and on fb and chat on skype while you daddle around and make some easy money, 180s are the way to go.

And you can't even be bothered to post a link to your petition in the thread about software audits that already exists.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...-have-1412795/

As I said yesterday:

Didn't think that post would be too hard to understand, but I guess I expected too much. Buh-bye.

I wonder what the next alias will be.

Whether or not it would be dismissed is irrelevant, it would have zero predictable effect on the rake, zero effect on player retention, and an insignificant and non-noticeable effect on any player's winnings. Thus a site would have exactly zero motivation to rig AA hands to only win 98% as often as they should.

Rigs actually making the sites money has never been that important to riggies. Companies are evil so they just do bad things for the sake of doing bad things.



Will not matter as it seems at this point it will just get banned on sight/being reported, so it will not last too long.

At least he will have more time to dedicate to shagging and drinking, and he can also concentrate on increasing his wages to $3 a day with effort. He also will get to believe his banning is part of a massive conspiracy so he should be happy , while being quickly forgotten.

Onto the next batch of riggies!

That reminds me of the villains in that old Captain Planet cartoon. Their schemes were seldom financially motivated. Mostly they wanted to pollute the Earth just for the sake of polluting it.

I love you.
False. Very false. Let's assume all 4 cards are different suits. Then AA has a ~.8106 probability of winning vs. KK. Over 1 million hands, AA is expected to win ~810600 of them (+-50, but that won't matter for this calculation). 98% (i.e. a 2% difference) of that is 794338 hands. There is a 1 in 1.6x10^191 (that's 1 with 191 zeroes) chance of there being that big of a difference. For all intents and purposes, it's 100% impossible with a fair system.

(Edit: You'd have better odds of winning the U.S. powerball jackpot 23 times in a row)

Not that it really matters, but I think he meant a million hand sample total, with however many AA hands you have in there. So we expect to be dealt AA about 4525 times. And if our winning expectation is .81 then we should win 3665 of them. 98% of that is 3592. So we're under by 73, with a standard deviation of sqrt(4525*.81*.19)=26. So we're under by about 3 SDs, which isn't that rare.

The main point is that any skew that would actually be significant enough to make more rake for the site, would show an equally significant deviation measured in SD. This example isn't one that would change the rake, or that would be particularly noticeable by players. It would be meaningless and pointless for the site and irrelevant for players.

Ah, you might be right. In that case, over a million hands, if we're only concerned about AA vs. KK, you'll see AA vs. KK (anywhere on the table) about 1717 times. AA is expected to win 1392 times. 98% of that would be 1364 times. So only a difference of -28. That much of a difference would happen about 4.7% of the time. So yeah, no less common than AA losing vs. KK twice in a row.

So in other words, yes, I would write it off to "variance".

Since this is an old claim, here's an almost-two-year-old response to the same wrong-headed point:

wow......yes it does not change the rake....nothing does. What it does change is, a fish will win a few more times....play more ...that....THAT changes the profit for the site. A reg will be playing for quite sometime, whereas a fish, a rec player, what ever you want to call him will usually play until they either lose all their money or get tired of losing. Keep him in the game, just a little longer and the site makes more money. Is that so hard to understand?

Not at all, but what all the rigtards are too animal stupid to understand is that the degree to which the game would need to be rigged in order for the site to make any significant increase in profit by this method would be so enormous that the rig would easily yield to the most elementary of statistical analyses.

Far easier just to fractionally increase rake, reduce rakeback or delay or find excuses to deny people's cashouts. All techniques of which the less reputable sites have been guilty.

And you really believe this gibberish? You think that if a player plays some "more" hands (because he has some money left, LOL), the income goes through the roof?

Are you trying to be BBED's substitute? If so, well done....

(another moron to ignore, please please bring on some entertaining rigtards)

AA and KK were dealt with the same frequency last time I checked.

But what do I know, that e2cy guy clearly is quite a smart guy, and he posted lots of factual correct and relevant stuff, so I maybe missing something.

"Some men just want to watch the world burn."

I think the "reg" will be all-in with the KK vs. the "fish" with the AA just about as often as the reverse.

Bobo rules!

Obviously what is meant by "change the rake" is the same thing you're saying - more money being raked.

No, I'm pretty sure most people understand that for a rig to make more money for the site, that's how it would need to work. What people are saying is that for it to make an appreciable amount of extra money for the site, the rig would have to be significant enough to be detectable. That makes sense to me as well.

Very good point. Of course, you also get the people that limp with AA and get 3 callers, including me today in the BB with K3s, and go off when they lose the pot to a flush about how the site is rigged.

The SD will never fluctuate out of the norm. The full rng needs to be audited to stop sites from having the ability to redistribute the dealings at will, or at least the "possibility" and this possibility seems extremely high and probable.