Hilarious.

Right... but that's not what I was talking about.

I was talking about the occurrence of "variance"... People are calling it "variance" when a player starts losing after his first 100 games instead of "bad luck".

and that would be an accurate description of what it is genius... more than one term can be used to describe the same thing

This:

What Im saying is that the risk of a Superbot being caught is very low. We as users cant detect them because we dont have access to the identity of the players that are sitting in the table.

The only way that someone could know that Superbots exist is one of the involved companie person tell us about it. But why someone that is involved in a Superbot project and is benefiting from that project would tell us about it. That just dont make sense.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.......what?????? This is almost the EXACT OPPOSITE of what variance is.

Try flipping a coin 20 times. Do you think you'll get EXACTLY 10 heads and 10 tails? Probably not, due to VARIANCE.

However, if you flipped a coin 20,000 times, you'd be pretty damn close to even. You know why, because variance equals out over a large sample.

Before being so self righteous and arrogant, you should first KNOW what you're talking about.

Obviously the core program of all software is made by the same people, and they probably sell it very expensive. Or do you think that party poker makes his own software, than pokerstars makes his own software etc.

The superduperbot is even harder to catch since it has duper in it's name as well.


The odds of an insider who knows of the superbots telling among the hundreds of sites (many of which are closed by now) is considerably higher than an imaginary superbot existing based on nothing more than fantasy of "what if."

This of course ignores the very real possibility of it being caught, as well as the immense risk many of these huge sites would be taking by having the entire business be essentially a criminal enterprise.

Those are real world issues. Your superbot is pretty much a product of an active imagination.

Then again, maybe we are all in a fancy Matrix like fake world run by super bots.

Scary.

Especially if they are invisible as well

Are they invisible?


I think that these sites that directly compete with each other are not as casual about who they hire for software development as you believe.

I would highly doubt that anyone who helped program Pokerstars software would even be allowed to work on another sites software.

Your imagination needs to tag into the real world once in a while to make it more fun.

That is unless all of the sites are secretly working together.

That would make them supersites

or superdupersites

Are they invisible?

LOL!

Ive read this ten times now and have absolutely no idea what you can possibly think variance means.

If you took out all of the "ridiculous theories" posted here and the immature, arrogant (and mostly pointless) replies, there would probably be 8,000 less posts here. Sad.. and annoying. Nobody's "proving" anything imo. All these mentions of HH's (on both sides).. yet nobody has the balls to post their own!

THIS THREAD IS FULL OF VARIANCE.. but I doubt it will ever even out to a n y t h i n g !

Ever hear of Ramsey's Theorem?

lol

It doesn't really matter about the nature of the replies.

So long as they are there it means newcomers stumbling on the thread will appreciate that they cannot take what the rigtards say at face value.

If there were no replies, it would appear as if the rigging of on-line poker was an accepted fact.

Since a suitable sample size would be in the tens of thousands I really don't think that anyone posting them onto a forum thread would win any popularity contests.


Thanks for your valuable contribution to the thread, though.

There has been at least one proof with HHs. Spadebidder showed that on Stars board cards come out at expectation.

I realize that not everyone can post their hand histories. But if you're gonna keep requesting them every time a riggy makes a bogus claim, you should have posted your own at one point. Kinda like "Hey, you should post your HH's.. I did!" But instead, most of the people who regularly post replies to the riggies just say something smart ass to belittle them. Not a great way to build up confidence in your case or prove your point.

Calling people names in replies sometimes makes you look as stupid as them. And if you don't provide "real evidence" when you're asking for it all the time, it just adds to the problem. So I'd say that the nature of the replies does matter. If a newcomer comes to this thread and sees all the name calling going on and the way that you guys gang up on people, it's not going to change their opinion at all. And it won't make what you guys are saying look any more valid than what the riggies are saying. Proof and common sense (along with respect) will do that.

DMoogle, you brought up spadebidder and said he posted HH's as proof.. once. Yet there's over 8,000 posts! I wonder how many times HH's have been asked for by the "there's no way in hell it's rigged, you ******ed, mental-illness suffering, tinfoil hat wearing dumbass!" crew?? I'm not saying everyone on that side is guilty of this sht all of the time.. but it is "an apparent theme" to this thread. (And yes, I know the riggies do it, too)


| /.

From wikipedia

I'm a math noob, but is this saying that if we have everyone's graphs, there are going to be some parts which show people at either end of the variance spectrum? I'm probably completely misreading this but maybe when referring to something as complex as this you can just go straight to explaining why its relevant so we don't feel so stupid!




lol

Well, to be fair, and not to discourage anyone from posting their HHs, I assume that anyone willing to do this will upload the HHs to one of those file sharing sites and simply post a link!

LV: I don't think everyone just posting their entire HHs is what this thread needs. What is that going to accomplish? Are we all going to start analyzing each others HHs for kicks? If someone thinks theirs show a problem, that where the examination of HHs should start.

This thread is as much about critical thinking as anything else. It doesn't have to "get" anywhere - although I believe it has gotten somewhere. For every rigtard who religiously believes that their site is rigged, there are lurkers and even posters (Donko for example) for whom this thread has given a lot of food for thought. It's not about changing minds, its about forming the debate. It may be that this thread does end up revealing some cheating going on, who knows?

This thread is becoming a guidebook on how to approach thinking about riggedness. Maybe some enterprising person would go through the thread and assemble together the actual useful ones (I'm not volunteering, just sayin...)

You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension.

There is a generally accepted tenet of a civilised society that you are innocent until you are proven guilty.

There is no requirement for people to post HH's to prove that the sites are not rigged. That is the default assumption under the generally accepted rules of a just society.

As to calling 'tards names, that behaviour is actually reserved for that particular breed of 'tard who asks what appears to be a reasonable question and when you have gone to the (often considerable) trouble of answering it in a clear and understandable manner using probability maths or logic, responds by calling you a shill.

If you are unhappy with the way 'tards are treated, why don't you have a go at answering their questions and getting called a shill for your trouble?

If you still have the software installed, look in the program directory under full tilt / hand histories / username

Zip up everything and upload it somewhere. If you have them imported to pokertracker, just upload the db. If you have neither, email support@fulltiltpoker.net and ask for them to be emailed to you.

As a statistics expert, perhaps you could answer the following for me:

1) By paying special attention to all the hands where you exited tournaments, what feature do all these cherry picked hands have in common? How does this affect your findings?

2) If you had started running good, would you have even posted in this thread? If the answer is 'no', what impact does this have on the relevance of your findings?

3) I understand that you do not have hand histories (which we now look forward to seeing) but why have you posted mind numbingly huge paragraphs rather than posting the data you have manually tracked?

Thanks

He should just import in PT or HM and use any of the standard tools that display all-in equity, this should be enough. If he lost 85% so many times when being 80/20 favorite the allin vs actual graph would look ridicolous.

A picture's worth thousand words

Why would you care if a newcomer saw this thread?

It's fine to look at the graph, but how do we interpret it? What is ridiculous? Many people will have lines that don't converge. How do we figure out if the gap is reasonable or not?

Also: On the PT3 website there are some reports saved which I think are useful to this type of analysis: one shows how often you flop a set and shows the ratio for you. Do any of you have any useful reports that we can use to examine our own databases?

Question really is how far can we use PT3 in determining whether we're running according to expectation? Or getting a propper distribution of cards. After all, we're not all in every hand.

I wouldn't.

So the only argument we have to believe sites dont have superbots is that some good soul out there would have told us about it.

I think that ends the RNG riged discussion too, because if some kind of RNG manipulation existed that good soul would have told us about it.

Thinking better, we dont need to talk about none possible frauds in this world because if some fraud is happening that good soul wiould have told us about it, so we dont have to be concerned.

Monteroy....you live in paradise.