Full flush get caught rigging games? They all done?

This is why people claim it's rigged. Mostly likely u will not see it happen like that live.

No, most likely you won't remember it happening live because it'll take months of play to even have the chance to win 12 times in a row with AA then lose 4 in a row.

You realize how goofy a rig where you run hot then run cold is, especially if the idea is to sneakily even things out, right? If they were so clever, why wouldn't they just mix in the losses with the wins so super sharp dudes like yourself wouldn't notice?

If you haven't seen that kinda randomization at live poker you haven't played very many hours.

The reason why people claim it's rigged is because of the way the human brain works in trying to compare online poker to live poker.

I have played well over 100 sessions of live poker and if u can't live home games sngs I have played over 600 sessions and I have never seen anyone or talked to people I know that have won 12 times in a row with aces or lost 4 times in a row with them

jungmit, are you by any chance a Donald Trump voter?

I don't vote sorry. But would love to see trump get in. Politicians crap ping themselves

fair enough, I imagine you'd end up spoiling your voting slips anyway

and indeed the entirety of the civilised world.

/politarding

To be fair, he did offer up the theory that sites heavily rig O/8 games to result in more split pots than what should happen, ensuring that no one busts and they get to keep raking everyone longer. Which is a great way to steal money, given how widely spread O/8 is on US facing sites (I have no idea what the state of the game is for ROW sites, but in the U.S. you have to multi-site to get any kind of volume in PLO8, and Limit O8 is even less popular).

Here's the thing. You can test this. In fact, there's a test specifically designed to test whether the standard deviation is as expected (in the situation you keep proposing, the standard deviation would be higher than expected), even if the mean is as expected. It's called a χ^2 (chi-squared) test. Take your data, perform a χ^2 analysis, and voila! You can prove (or disprove) your theory.

I'm not sure it would be. The description sounds pretty random (normal distribution) to me. The fallacy most riggies operate under is that random means "regularly distributed" and it actually means almost the opposite. For an 80/20 you would not expect to see the loss spaced out once every 5 times or twice every 10 times, that would not be random at all. You would expect it to be much clumpier and messier. That's random.

True. I was just going off his implication (not just from that post, but also from previous ones) that it is more streaky than it should be, and that there is a rig involved making it so. Along with you, I probably think it's just a case (assuming he actually believes what he says) of just not understanding randomness.

There is nothing to prove or disprove. This is how online sites make it happen but the reason u can't find if it's rigged is cuz it will be exactly how is supposed to be over enough hands. The problem is it happens in huge streaks this is why it looks rigged and why it also could be. Most things live don't happen in streaks like this. But if u check I am 100% sure your aces win the amount of times it should. U will just win for long streaks with them then lose for long streaks.

^^^
solid gold

The test I proposed tests for this.
That's not what the test I proposed tests for.

Let's say every day for 3 weeks, you're involved in 20 coinflips, and we count how many we win every day. We're expected to win a mean of 10 each day, with a standard deviation of sqrt(5), or about 2.24. I just did a random simulation, and came up with the following:

11 11 11 11 8 13 12 9 12 12 7 10 8 8 6 12 12 14 14 10 13 (mean = 10.67, standard deviation = 2.67)

Now, let's say your rig is true. Then you might get some numbers like this (many more highs and lows caused by "streaks"):

16 4 15 3 18 5 17 5 18 3 1 2 19 3 16 16 17 6 17 4 5 (mean = 10.0, standard deviation = 6.87)

Notice how the means are both close to what they're expected to be (10.0), but the standard deviation of the second set is way higher than the expected value of 2.24? The chi-squared analysis can tell you if it's too high to be truly random. For example, I just stuck the above data into this calculator, and it tells me there's a 0.00000 probability that the above data could have resulted from a non-rigged RNG (it only goes to 5 decimal places).

Bobo's picture should just be the end of this thread, but
You do know there are other players on the sites you're on, and that the site will have to keep track of all of them (and all their interactions with each other) to make your rig possible, right? They absolutely do, streaks are how randomness works. You don't expect coinflips to show up as HTHTHTHTHTHTHT etc., do you? Oh ****, look kids! Another easily testable statement!!

Why don't you show us your long win and loss streaks with AA?

so this guy is now saying the deal is rigged to provide perfectly fair results over a long sample, but to present wins and losses for each player in streaks?

That seems totally worthwhile.

it doesn't matter what they say
in the jealous games people play
hey hey hey


-spinoza

No I don't expect it to be hththththt. But I also d onto expect it to be hhhbhttttttthhhhhhhhttttttttt

So once again why are winning players win rates so much smaller online.? U tell me the players are better I just don't beleive it. I seen guys play so badly the last 3 days it's laughable and I just know it's bad from what I know. I am not a gto guy but I know it's horrible. This hand once took place no lie. Game is 100 nl. I am in the bb. One guy limp sb fold I check it got QJ. Flop is QQJ. Flop checked. Turn 9 checked again . River T. I go all in for $100 get called by a straight. $2 in the pot and the guy calls $100 more. Many examples of things maybe not that bad but close to as bad. I just don't see the players playing any better

So now it's rigged because you have the nuts and someone calls you with a straight when the board is paired? And all your other examples are "not that bad"? Okey-dokey.

Also, care to explain how streaky games makes your win rate lower, if you're winning the same amount overall? HTHTHTHTHTHT has the same amount of heads as HHHHHHTTTTTT

Also, how does your example support your theory exactly? People winrates are lower when their opponents donk off their entire stacks to them? I mean, I'm no rocket scientist, but it sure seems to me like that would raise your winrate, not lower it.

You guys have to have figured out by now that you're never, ever going to change his mind, right? No amount of logic, reason, or common sense will penetrate his closed-minded focus on online poker being rigged. Once a riggie is in that mindset, they can see a rig in every hand they lose, and he's in that state permanently.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing anyone for arguing with someone who will never be swayed (or is just a troll) - I'm sure I've done it many times, including with him. But just don't do so with the thought that it will ever shift his thinking even an iota. It's not going to happen.

At least I got paid 5 bucks a post when I spoke to him until I essentially stopped paying attention to him. I have no idea why anyone still tries to have any kind of serious conversation with him, just ignore him and wait until new riggies come along. Whenever effort is used to explain stats to him, that person lost the debate - again.

If anyone thinks he is an intricate troll they can see him be the same outdated doddering geezer in the SWC thread where it is mildly entertaining to see the attempts of bitcoins being explained to him. Here are some of the highlights:



Good luck trying to explain to him how to do a statistical analysis...

I agree. I mean, Ive done it too, but after awhile, I do start to also question the rationality of people that keep engaging him over and over again TBH.

That is why I'm not a that much of a fan of democracy.