The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition
I've created two similar tests but they are more rigorous in testing wins vs. expectation and the distribution of the community cards than what is described. I've had to work through some of the issues mentioned by 2p2member. I'm still perfecting the code but once I have something ready to publish then various ways to slice and dice the data will be easy. I've already added a comparison by stakes and I plan to do one by stack sizes too.
When I win it feels rigged.
When I lose it feels rigged.
My guess is it's rigged
When I lose it feels rigged.
My guess is it's rigged
Thanks for clearing that up, your past posts were a bit vague.
Wow, your evidence and thought process are overwhelming. Well done sir.
I'm still working on the code and the testing. We only recently got 600 million hands in a ready state to run reports on (in a special database that is a manageable size and runs fast).
To give you an idea of the scale and the logistical issues to analyse a sample of this size, checking for and analysing only 2-way preflop all-in hands (which happen at about 1/135 at full ring cash) takes a decent personal computer about 24 hours per ~200 million hands, or three days continuous 100% CPU computer time to do the whole thing. I even had to set up special cooling apparatus for my computer to do it. Obviously I do my troubleshooting on smaller sets, but it takes many hours of computer time. So before doing the full run I need to be sure it is correct. And that's just one of the analyses I'm working on. And I have a real job too that won't let me work on fun poker stuff all the time.
I'll have something in the next few weeks.
To give you an idea of the scale and the logistical issues to analyse a sample of this size, checking for and analysing only 2-way preflop all-in hands (which happen at about 1/135 at full ring cash) takes a decent personal computer about 24 hours per ~200 million hands, or three days continuous 100% CPU computer time to do the whole thing. I even had to set up special cooling apparatus for my computer to do it. Obviously I do my troubleshooting on smaller sets, but it takes many hours of computer time. So before doing the full run I need to be sure it is correct. And that's just one of the analyses I'm working on. And I have a real job too that won't let me work on fun poker stuff all the time.
I'll have something in the next few weeks.
Unfortunately when you do publish your results which will undoubtedly show everything is kosher, the rigtards will start to question your credibility and find new baseless arguments as to why online poker is rigged. Such is life.
Thank you for doing this. You're doing the poker community a great service.
Unfortunately when you do publish your results which will undoubtedly show everything is kosher, the rigtards will start to question your credibility and find new baseless arguments as to why online poker is rigged. Such is life.
Unfortunately when you do publish your results which will undoubtedly show everything is kosher, the rigtards will start to question your credibility and find new baseless arguments as to why online poker is rigged. Such is life.
Here's a teaser that people can chew on. Full results won't be posted in this thread - I'll probably have to put it on a web site where I can use full pages - but here's a small sample of around 1 million hands just to show some of the stuff I'm working on.
First the all-in study. Even in this small sample notice it's a normal distribution (technically it isn't but I'm using the word generically). The standard deviations of the bins here are from a T-test using
( (act - p) / Math.sqrt( ((p*q)-(T/4.0)) / n ));
The 5% confidence level is 1.96 (just like a Z distribution) for all bins with at least 120 hands in them, slightly larger with fewer hands.
Code:
PREFLOP HEADS-UP ALL-IN ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Site #0, 9 to 10 players, NL Hold'em, all stakes combined Using 25 equity bins. Number of hands analysed: 1116569 Preflop heads-up all-ins: 7500 (Once per 149 hands). FAVORITE'S Preflop equity ExpW% ExpT%/2 TotExp Hands ActW% ActT%/2 TotAct StdDev [0.98 - 1.00] . . . 0 . . . [0.96 - 0.98] . . . 0 . . . [0.94 - 0.96] 93.37% 0.71% 94.08% 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% [0.92 - 0.94] 92.39% 0.67% 93.05% 182 95.05% 0.27% 95.33% 1.24 [0.90 - 0.92] 90.69% 0.66% 91.36% 25 92.00% 0.00% 92.00% 0.12 [0.88 - 0.90] 88.04% 0.57% 88.60% 16 93.75% 0.00% 93.75% 0.66 [0.86 - 0.88] 86.76% 0.49% 87.25% 149 82.55% 0.34% 82.89% -1.62 [0.84 - 0.86] 84.68% 0.28% 84.96% 52 90.38% 0.00% 90.38% 1.10 [0.82 - 0.84] 82.31% 0.30% 82.61% 251 80.88% 0.80% 81.67% -0.39 [0.80 - 0.82] 81.08% 0.23% 81.31% 1448 82.94% 0.28% 83.22% 1.87 [0.78 - 0.80] 79.00% 0.20% 79.20% 53 79.25% 0.00% 79.25% 0.01 [0.76 - 0.78] 76.04% 0.63% 76.66% 14 85.71% 0.00% 85.71% 0.81 [0.74 - 0.76] 72.74% 1.95% 74.70% 359 72.14% 3.62% 75.77% 0.48 [0.72 - 0.74] 71.02% 2.01% 73.03% 396 69.70% 4.17% 73.86% 0.38 [0.70 - 0.72] 70.10% 0.99% 71.09% 525 68.95% 1.43% 70.38% -0.36 [0.68 - 0.70] 67.82% 1.30% 69.12% 533 66.79% 2.35% 69.14% 0.01 [0.66 - 0.68] 66.32% 0.94% 67.26% 290 63.79% 0.86% 64.66% -0.96 [0.64 - 0.66] 64.41% 0.68% 65.09% 273 67.77% 0.73% 68.50% 1.19 [0.62 - 0.64] 62.30% 0.64% 62.94% 192 63.54% 0.78% 64.32% 0.40 [0.60 - 0.62] 60.18% 0.76% 60.94% 190 57.37% 1.32% 58.68% -0.64 [0.58 - 0.60] 58.52% 0.60% 59.12% 142 55.63% 1.06% 56.69% -0.59 [0.56 - 0.58] 56.49% 0.36% 56.85% 688 56.40% 0.65% 57.05% 0.10 [0.54 - 0.56] 54.58% 0.29% 54.87% 564 50.00% 0.62% 50.62% -2.03 * [0.52 - 0.54] 42.98% 10.06% 53.04% 583 41.51% 10.03% 51.54% -0.81 [0.50 - 0.52] 29.32% 21.41% 50.74% 327 30.89% 20.18% 51.07% 0.16 [ ALL ] 66.35% 2.41% 68.76% 7253 65.97% 2.74% 68.72% -0.08 * With 22 valid bins, expected deviations > 5% signif = 1.10. Observed = 1 Chi-Sq for Fav = 6.01 w/ 22 DF. Crit nums (.10 .05 .01) 30.81 33.92 40.29 UNDERDOG'S Preflop equity ExpW% ExpT%/2 TotExp Hands ActW% ActT%/2 TotAct StdDev [0.48 - 0.50] 27.85% 21.41% 49.26% 327 28.75% 20.18% 48.93% -0.16 [0.46 - 0.48] 36.90% 10.06% 46.96% 583 38.42% 10.03% 48.46% 0.81 [0.44 - 0.46] 44.84% 0.29% 45.13% 564 48.76% 0.62% 49.38% 2.03 * [0.42 - 0.44] 42.78% 0.36% 43.15% 688 42.30% 0.65% 42.95% -0.10 [0.40 - 0.42] 40.28% 0.60% 40.88% 142 42.25% 1.06% 43.31% 0.59 [0.38 - 0.40] 38.30% 0.76% 39.06% 190 40.00% 1.32% 41.32% 0.64 [0.36 - 0.38] 36.43% 0.64% 37.06% 192 34.90% 0.78% 35.68% -0.40 [0.34 - 0.36] 34.24% 0.68% 34.91% 273 30.77% 0.73% 31.50% -1.19 [0.32 - 0.34] 31.80% 0.94% 32.74% 290 34.48% 0.86% 35.34% 0.96 [0.30 - 0.32] 29.58% 1.30% 30.88% 533 28.52% 2.35% 30.86% -0.01 [0.28 - 0.30] 27.91% 0.99% 28.91% 525 28.19% 1.43% 29.62% 0.36 [0.26 - 0.28] 24.96% 2.01% 26.97% 396 21.97% 4.17% 26.14% -0.38 [0.24 - 0.26] 23.35% 1.95% 25.30% 359 20.61% 3.62% 24.23% -0.48 [0.22 - 0.24] 22.71% 0.63% 23.34% 14 14.29% 0.00% 14.29% -0.81 [0.20 - 0.22] 20.60% 0.20% 20.80% 53 20.75% 0.00% 20.75% -0.01 [0.18 - 0.20] 18.46% 0.23% 18.69% 1448 16.51% 0.28% 16.78% -1.87 [0.16 - 0.18] 17.10% 0.30% 17.39% 251 17.53% 0.80% 18.33% 0.39 [0.14 - 0.16] 14.76% 0.28% 15.04% 52 9.62% 0.00% 9.62% -1.10 [0.12 - 0.14] 12.26% 0.49% 12.75% 149 16.78% 0.34% 17.11% 1.62 [0.10 - 0.12] 10.83% 0.57% 11.40% 16 6.25% 0.00% 6.25% -0.66 [0.08 - 0.10] 7.98% 0.66% 8.64% 25 8.00% 0.00% 8.00% -0.12 [0.06 - 0.08] 6.28% 0.67% 6.95% 182 4.40% 0.27% 4.67% -1.24 [0.04 - 0.06] 5.21% 0.71% 5.92% 1 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% [0.02 - 0.04] . . . 0 . . . [0.00 - 0.02] . . . 0 . . . [ ALL ] 28.83% 2.41% 31.24% 7253 28.54% 2.74% 31.28% 0.08 * With 22 valid bins, expected deviations > 5% signif = 1.10. Observed = 1 Chi-Sq for Dog = 13.35 w/ 21 DF. Crit nums (.10 .05 .01) 29.62 32.67 38.93 NO FAVORITE HANDS Preflop equity ExpW% ExpT%/2 TotExp Hands ActW% ActT%/2 TotAct StdDev [half of 5050] 5.81% 47.10% 50.00% 247 6.48% 46.76% 50.00% NA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and here's some of the community card study. Check out all the action flops going on there.
Code:
BOARD CARD ANALYSIS Site #0, 9 to 10 players, NL Hold'em cash Number of hands analysed: 1000214 Flops seen: 601129 (60.1%) Turns seen: 382497 (38.2%) Rivers seen: 287232 (28.7%) ----------------------------------------------------------- [ FLOP TYPE ] Expected Actual StdDev Example [ Rainbow ] 39.765% 39.803% 0.78 2d-6s-Th [ Two-suited ] 55.059% 55.044% -0.30 9d-3c-Qc [ Single-suited ] 5.176% 5.153% -1.06 7s-4s-5s [ -check suit types ] 100.000% 100.000% [ Paired flop ] 16.941% 16.980% 1.03 Ks-5c-5h [ Triplet flop ] 0.235% 0.236% 0.08 Jh-Js-Jd [ Unpaired flop ] 82.824% 82.785% -1.03 9d-3c-Qc [ -check match types ] 100.000% 100.000% [ Pair & connector ] 2.824% 2.850% 1.57 Ks-Qs-Qc [ Pair & 1-gap ] 2.606% 2.617% 0.68 Ks-Jd-Js [ Pair & 2-gap+ ] 11.511% 11.513% 0.05 Ks-5c-5h [ Triplets ] 0.235% 0.236% 0.08 Jh-Js-Jd [ 3-Straight ] 3.475% 3.448% -1.49 Qs-Jd-Kc [ Connector & 1-gap ] 6.950% 6.916% -1.33 3h-Ad-4h [ Connector & 2-gap+ ] 26.932% 26.960% 0.62 Tc-9h-Ks [ KA2 double connector ] 0.290% 0.282% -1.41 2h-Ac-Kd * [ Double gutshot ] 3.186% 3.199% 0.78 As-3d-Qh [ Other 1-gaps ] 21.430% 21.412% -0.45 6c-8h-Qc [ No cnct no 1-gp no pr] 20.561% 20.568% 0.18 9d-3c-Qc [ -check connect types ] 100.000% 100.000% * Broadway card flops like AKx should normally be slightly low due to the known card removal effect of more flops being seen when players hold high cards. --Selected combo types-- [ 3-Straight-Flush ] 0.217% 0.209% -1.76 8s-7s-6s [ Unpaired rainbow ] 31.059% 31.057% -0.04 2d-6s-Th [ Paired rainbow ] 8.471% 8.511% 1.43 Ks-5c-5h [ Paired two-suited ] 8.471% 8.469% -0.05 Ks-Qs-Qc [ (more to come) ] [ TURN & RIVER ] Expected Actual Example [ Turn pairs the board ] 15.212% 15.172% 9d-3c-Qc-3s [ River prs the board ] 16.903% 16.965% 9c-7s-Kd-2s-7h [ Turns 4-str board ] [ Turns 3-flush board ] [ Turns 4-flush board ] [ Rivers 3-str board ] [ Rivers 4-str board ] [ Rivers 3-flush board ] (work in progress) [ Rivers 4-flush board ] [ Double-paired board ] [ Trips on full board ] [ Any Pr on full board ] [ No pair by turn ] [ No pair by river ] -----------------------------------------------------------
Again, this is a small sample, so it isn't proof of anything and shouldn't be used as such.
I was just about to suggest this.
well obviously not complaining about this....lol but last night i played in a 45 person Sit N Go and once I got heads up, I had a run at the end where in 4 consecutive hands I had: KK,KK,AA,KK .....seemed a lil fishy to me lol but hey i ended up winning the whole thing so no complaints here
well obviously not complaining about this....lol but last night i played in a 45 person Sit N Go and once I got heads up, I had a run at the end where in 4 consecutive hands I had: KK,KK,AA,KK .....seemed a lil fishy to me lol but hey i ended up winning the whole thing so no complaints here
The fact that something that has just a small chance to happen, and subsequently does happen, itself suggests that the shuffle is truly random.
How can you expect something to be random, yet not sometimes give surprising results? By its very nature, something that is random should be unpredictable, as you (fortunately) discovered.
It makes no sense to suggest that predictable outcomes (in this case, nicely spaced big hands) are a part of any random process.
Just look at the history on this moron's posts. Nearly all of them are just comments like this with no logic, analysis, etc. A few more meaningless hand histories and he'll be K13.
Grandpa: Are we there yet?
Homer: No
Grandpa: Are we there yet?
Homer: No
Grandpa: Are we there yet?
Homer: No
Grandpa: ........Where are we going?
Homer: No
Grandpa: Are we there yet?
Homer: No
Grandpa: Are we there yet?
Homer: No
Grandpa: ........Where are we going?
Spadebidder, appreciate all the work you are doing for this and was just wondering if you are going to make the code you have written public at all?
I'm on the not likely rigged side but would still like to go over the code being used if possible, just to be able to see that the results are coming from the data and not the algorithms. Would feel a lot more comfortable being able to use the results as a definitive proof to show people that question the validity of online gaming if I'm 100% certain the results aren't massaged.
As a matter of qualifications, I have a degree in science majoring in programming, maths and stats and a degree in commerce majoring in risk management, stocks/options and hedging from the ANU in australia.
If you're not willing to open up the source you are using I can certainly understand that but I hope that's not the case
I'm on the not likely rigged side but would still like to go over the code being used if possible, just to be able to see that the results are coming from the data and not the algorithms. Would feel a lot more comfortable being able to use the results as a definitive proof to show people that question the validity of online gaming if I'm 100% certain the results aren't massaged.
As a matter of qualifications, I have a degree in science majoring in programming, maths and stats and a degree in commerce majoring in risk management, stocks/options and hedging from the ANU in australia.
If you're not willing to open up the source you are using I can certainly understand that but I hope that's not the case
Yes, the source code will be public and available on pokerftp.com. And a subset of the hand database is already there.
I look forward to the upload, and hey post 100 is actually about something worthwhile
Spadebidder,
Some comments:
1.
I think the description "more rigorous" is kinda arbitrary on your part. I still prefer the method suggested by me. It's far simpler, more robust, and leaves little room for questions.
2.
Ok
3.
I'm curious as to where you plan to publish this stuff...In any case, the skeleton of EXPERIMENT was first developed by optimus, as far as I know. optimus is another screen name of mine. Since we're talking publications (!), then, for the sake of academic integrity/honesty, you will need to acknowledge that.
Some comments:
1.
2.
3.
I'm curious as to where you plan to publish this stuff...In any case, the skeleton of EXPERIMENT was first developed by optimus, as far as I know. optimus is another screen name of mine. Since we're talking publications (!), then, for the sake of academic integrity/honesty, you will need to acknowledge that.
I'm not doing it for them. (and thanks for the compliment)
Here's a teaser that people can chew on. Full results won't be posted in this thread - I'll probably have to put it on a web site where I can use full pages - but here's a small sample of around 1 million hands just to show some of the stuff I'm working on.
First the all-in study. Even in this small sample notice it's a normal distribution (technically it isn't but I'm using the word generically). The standard deviations of the bins here are from a T-test using
( (act - p) / Math.sqrt( ((p*q)-(T/4.0)) / n ));
The 5% confidence level is 1.96 (just like a Z distribution) for all bins with at least 120 hands in them, slightly larger with fewer hands.
and here's some of the community card study. Check out all the action flops going on there.
I know these are hard to read properly on here since you have to scroll the code window horizontally. That's one reason my complete results will probably be posted on pokerftp.com. There's a lot more stuff than just these two tables.
Again, this is a small sample, so it isn't proof of anything and shouldn't be used as such.
Here's a teaser that people can chew on. Full results won't be posted in this thread - I'll probably have to put it on a web site where I can use full pages - but here's a small sample of around 1 million hands just to show some of the stuff I'm working on.
First the all-in study. Even in this small sample notice it's a normal distribution (technically it isn't but I'm using the word generically). The standard deviations of the bins here are from a T-test using
( (act - p) / Math.sqrt( ((p*q)-(T/4.0)) / n ));
The 5% confidence level is 1.96 (just like a Z distribution) for all bins with at least 120 hands in them, slightly larger with fewer hands.
Code:
PREFLOP HEADS-UP ALL-IN ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Site #0, 9 to 10 players, NL Hold'em, all stakes combined Using 25 equity bins. Number of hands analysed: 1116569 Preflop heads-up all-ins: 7500 (Once per 149 hands). FAVORITE'S Preflop equity ExpW% ExpT%/2 TotExp Hands ActW% ActT%/2 TotAct StdDev [0.98 - 1.00] . . . 0 . . . [0.96 - 0.98] . . . 0 . . . [0.94 - 0.96] 93.37% 0.71% 94.08% 1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% [0.92 - 0.94] 92.39% 0.67% 93.05% 182 95.05% 0.27% 95.33% 1.24 [0.90 - 0.92] 90.69% 0.66% 91.36% 25 92.00% 0.00% 92.00% 0.12 [0.88 - 0.90] 88.04% 0.57% 88.60% 16 93.75% 0.00% 93.75% 0.66 [0.86 - 0.88] 86.76% 0.49% 87.25% 149 82.55% 0.34% 82.89% -1.62 [0.84 - 0.86] 84.68% 0.28% 84.96% 52 90.38% 0.00% 90.38% 1.10 [0.82 - 0.84] 82.31% 0.30% 82.61% 251 80.88% 0.80% 81.67% -0.39 [0.80 - 0.82] 81.08% 0.23% 81.31% 1448 82.94% 0.28% 83.22% 1.87 [0.78 - 0.80] 79.00% 0.20% 79.20% 53 79.25% 0.00% 79.25% 0.01 [0.76 - 0.78] 76.04% 0.63% 76.66% 14 85.71% 0.00% 85.71% 0.81 [0.74 - 0.76] 72.74% 1.95% 74.70% 359 72.14% 3.62% 75.77% 0.48 [0.72 - 0.74] 71.02% 2.01% 73.03% 396 69.70% 4.17% 73.86% 0.38 [0.70 - 0.72] 70.10% 0.99% 71.09% 525 68.95% 1.43% 70.38% -0.36 [0.68 - 0.70] 67.82% 1.30% 69.12% 533 66.79% 2.35% 69.14% 0.01 [0.66 - 0.68] 66.32% 0.94% 67.26% 290 63.79% 0.86% 64.66% -0.96 [0.64 - 0.66] 64.41% 0.68% 65.09% 273 67.77% 0.73% 68.50% 1.19 [0.62 - 0.64] 62.30% 0.64% 62.94% 192 63.54% 0.78% 64.32% 0.40 [0.60 - 0.62] 60.18% 0.76% 60.94% 190 57.37% 1.32% 58.68% -0.64 [0.58 - 0.60] 58.52% 0.60% 59.12% 142 55.63% 1.06% 56.69% -0.59 [0.56 - 0.58] 56.49% 0.36% 56.85% 688 56.40% 0.65% 57.05% 0.10 [0.54 - 0.56] 54.58% 0.29% 54.87% 564 50.00% 0.62% 50.62% -2.03 * [0.52 - 0.54] 42.98% 10.06% 53.04% 583 41.51% 10.03% 51.54% -0.81 [0.50 - 0.52] 29.32% 21.41% 50.74% 327 30.89% 20.18% 51.07% 0.16 [ ALL ] 66.35% 2.41% 68.76% 7253 65.97% 2.74% 68.72% -0.08 * With 22 valid bins, expected deviations > 5% signif = 1.10. Observed = 1 Chi-Sq for Fav = 6.01 w/ 22 DF. Crit nums (.10 .05 .01) 30.81 33.92 40.29 UNDERDOG'S Preflop equity ExpW% ExpT%/2 TotExp Hands ActW% ActT%/2 TotAct StdDev [0.48 - 0.50] 27.85% 21.41% 49.26% 327 28.75% 20.18% 48.93% -0.16 [0.46 - 0.48] 36.90% 10.06% 46.96% 583 38.42% 10.03% 48.46% 0.81 [0.44 - 0.46] 44.84% 0.29% 45.13% 564 48.76% 0.62% 49.38% 2.03 * [0.42 - 0.44] 42.78% 0.36% 43.15% 688 42.30% 0.65% 42.95% -0.10 [0.40 - 0.42] 40.28% 0.60% 40.88% 142 42.25% 1.06% 43.31% 0.59 [0.38 - 0.40] 38.30% 0.76% 39.06% 190 40.00% 1.32% 41.32% 0.64 [0.36 - 0.38] 36.43% 0.64% 37.06% 192 34.90% 0.78% 35.68% -0.40 [0.34 - 0.36] 34.24% 0.68% 34.91% 273 30.77% 0.73% 31.50% -1.19 [0.32 - 0.34] 31.80% 0.94% 32.74% 290 34.48% 0.86% 35.34% 0.96 [0.30 - 0.32] 29.58% 1.30% 30.88% 533 28.52% 2.35% 30.86% -0.01 [0.28 - 0.30] 27.91% 0.99% 28.91% 525 28.19% 1.43% 29.62% 0.36 [0.26 - 0.28] 24.96% 2.01% 26.97% 396 21.97% 4.17% 26.14% -0.38 [0.24 - 0.26] 23.35% 1.95% 25.30% 359 20.61% 3.62% 24.23% -0.48 [0.22 - 0.24] 22.71% 0.63% 23.34% 14 14.29% 0.00% 14.29% -0.81 [0.20 - 0.22] 20.60% 0.20% 20.80% 53 20.75% 0.00% 20.75% -0.01 [0.18 - 0.20] 18.46% 0.23% 18.69% 1448 16.51% 0.28% 16.78% -1.87 [0.16 - 0.18] 17.10% 0.30% 17.39% 251 17.53% 0.80% 18.33% 0.39 [0.14 - 0.16] 14.76% 0.28% 15.04% 52 9.62% 0.00% 9.62% -1.10 [0.12 - 0.14] 12.26% 0.49% 12.75% 149 16.78% 0.34% 17.11% 1.62 [0.10 - 0.12] 10.83% 0.57% 11.40% 16 6.25% 0.00% 6.25% -0.66 [0.08 - 0.10] 7.98% 0.66% 8.64% 25 8.00% 0.00% 8.00% -0.12 [0.06 - 0.08] 6.28% 0.67% 6.95% 182 4.40% 0.27% 4.67% -1.24 [0.04 - 0.06] 5.21% 0.71% 5.92% 1 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% [0.02 - 0.04] . . . 0 . . . [0.00 - 0.02] . . . 0 . . . [ ALL ] 28.83% 2.41% 31.24% 7253 28.54% 2.74% 31.28% 0.08 * With 22 valid bins, expected deviations > 5% signif = 1.10. Observed = 1 Chi-Sq for Dog = 13.35 w/ 21 DF. Crit nums (.10 .05 .01) 29.62 32.67 38.93 NO FAVORITE HANDS Preflop equity ExpW% ExpT%/2 TotExp Hands ActW% ActT%/2 TotAct StdDev [half of 5050] 5.81% 47.10% 50.00% 247 6.48% 46.76% 50.00% NA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and here's some of the community card study. Check out all the action flops going on there.
Code:
BOARD CARD ANALYSIS Site #0, 9 to 10 players, NL Hold'em cash Number of hands analysed: 1000214 Flops seen: 601129 (60.1%) Turns seen: 382497 (38.2%) Rivers seen: 287232 (28.7%) ----------------------------------------------------------- [ FLOP TYPE ] Expected Actual StdDev Example [ Rainbow ] 39.765% 39.803% 0.78 2d-6s-Th [ Two-suited ] 55.059% 55.044% -0.30 9d-3c-Qc [ Single-suited ] 5.176% 5.153% -1.06 7s-4s-5s [ -check suit types ] 100.000% 100.000% [ Paired flop ] 16.941% 16.980% 1.03 Ks-5c-5h [ Triplet flop ] 0.235% 0.236% 0.08 Jh-Js-Jd [ Unpaired flop ] 82.824% 82.785% -1.03 9d-3c-Qc [ -check match types ] 100.000% 100.000% [ Pair & connector ] 2.824% 2.850% 1.57 Ks-Qs-Qc [ Pair & 1-gap ] 2.606% 2.617% 0.68 Ks-Jd-Js [ Pair & 2-gap+ ] 11.511% 11.513% 0.05 Ks-5c-5h [ Triplets ] 0.235% 0.236% 0.08 Jh-Js-Jd [ 3-Straight ] 3.475% 3.448% -1.49 Qs-Jd-Kc [ Connector & 1-gap ] 6.950% 6.916% -1.33 3h-Ad-4h [ Connector & 2-gap+ ] 26.932% 26.960% 0.62 Tc-9h-Ks [ KA2 double connector ] 0.290% 0.282% -1.41 2h-Ac-Kd * [ Double gutshot ] 3.186% 3.199% 0.78 As-3d-Qh [ Other 1-gaps ] 21.430% 21.412% -0.45 6c-8h-Qc [ No cnct no 1-gp no pr] 20.561% 20.568% 0.18 9d-3c-Qc [ -check connect types ] 100.000% 100.000% * Broadway card flops like AKx should normally be slightly low due to the known card removal effect of more flops being seen when players hold high cards. --Selected combo types-- [ 3-Straight-Flush ] 0.217% 0.209% -1.76 8s-7s-6s [ Unpaired rainbow ] 31.059% 31.057% -0.04 2d-6s-Th [ Paired rainbow ] 8.471% 8.511% 1.43 Ks-5c-5h [ Paired two-suited ] 8.471% 8.469% -0.05 Ks-Qs-Qc [ (more to come) ] [ TURN & RIVER ] Expected Actual Example [ Turn pairs the board ] 15.212% 15.172% 9d-3c-Qc-3s [ River prs the board ] 16.903% 16.965% 9c-7s-Kd-2s-7h [ Turns 4-str board ] [ Turns 3-flush board ] [ Turns 4-flush board ] [ Rivers 3-str board ] [ Rivers 4-str board ] [ Rivers 3-flush board ] (work in progress) [ Rivers 4-flush board ] [ Double-paired board ] [ Trips on full board ] [ Any Pr on full board ] [ No pair by turn ] [ No pair by river ] -----------------------------------------------------------
Again, this is a small sample, so it isn't proof of anything and shouldn't be used as such.
5. Your bin sizes is too large for my taste.
6. I think it's much more interesting to look at FLOP equities (that you chose to consider PRE-FLOP is probably the reason why your bin sizes are kinda large).
7. If you consider flop equities, it'll be interesting to consider permutations of community cards (something I described in an earlier post)
He's publishing it on a website, not in an academic journal.
2p2, Im a little curious why we would look at flop equities on hands that were all in pre-flop?
Wouldnt it be better to look at hands that went all in on the flop for your experiment?
Wouldnt it be better to look at hands that went all in on the flop for your experiment?
4. You're calculating equities wrong.
5. Your bin sizes is too large for my taste.
6. I think it's much more interesting to look at FLOP equities (that you chose to consider PRE-FLOP is probably the reason why your bin sizes are kinda large).
7. If you consider flop equities, it'll be interesting to consider permutations of community cards (something I described in an earlier post)
5. Your bin sizes is too large for my taste.
6. I think it's much more interesting to look at FLOP equities (that you chose to consider PRE-FLOP is probably the reason why your bin sizes are kinda large).
7. If you consider flop equities, it'll be interesting to consider permutations of community cards (something I described in an earlier post)
5. This is a sample, I vary them from 2 to 200 to evaluate them in various way. I'm not really interested in "your taste" or your tone but if you have constructive suggestions they would be welcome.
6. Analysing flop-to-showdown is an entirely different kind of test, and can't be used to test the distribution of the deal since player decisions come into play. Flop equity (or turn) has no relevance to this analysis.
2p2: what's with the 'tude dude? I'm sure there is room for discussion among you stats guys for the best formulas to use and I'm sure that's a valuable debate and I'm sure we would all welcome your contribution here. But I'm not sure why you're flaming Spade. It also seems likely that he could have come up with very similar forumlas to yourself independantly, as I imagine there are certain standard ways to do these types of calculations.
Also, as far as I know, you should be able to have access to the same hand histories as Spadebidder, and you can run your own calculations. I'm sure getting some different perspectives will be useful as well.
This ain't a contest and there's no prize, so just relax a bit! I mean this in a friendly way. I do look forward to seeing what the two of you drum up!
Also, as far as I know, you should be able to have access to the same hand histories as Spadebidder, and you can run your own calculations. I'm sure getting some different perspectives will be useful as well.
This ain't a contest and there's no prize, so just relax a bit! I mean this in a friendly way. I do look forward to seeing what the two of you drum up!
also if you're going to tell somebody they're calculating something wrong.... perhaps it would be a good idea to tell them what is wrong about it? That way your post is actually constructive and not just a flame.
Very cool, got to love full openness....can't see how there will be able to be any doubt about the results once everyone can verify the code. Hell, can even compile it and then test against their own database and compare the results against HEM to totally verify the validity of it.
Originally Posted by 2p2member
4. You're calculating equities wrong.
4. You're calculating equities wrong.
4. No, you are mistaken, these are precisely correct. The possible wins and ties are enumerated for all possible boards for each hand. They aren't "calculated" numbers, they are actual ratios from full enumeration. These are the same numbers you would get from Poker Stove.
Code:
equity win tie pots won pots tied Hand 0: 94.081% 93.37% 00.71% 1598785 12160.00 { AcAs } Hand 1: 05.919% 05.21% 00.71% 89199 12160.00 { Ah9s }
[0.94 - 0.96] 93.37% 0.71% 94.08%
[0.04 - 0.06] 5.21% 0.71% 5.92%
All the bins are exact enumerations like that. They are just the actual counts shown as percentages. Also, the display is rounded for compactness, but the code is all using double precision numbers for everything (64-bit IEEE 754 floating point).
First time post but I wanted to see if there is any research out there to make an informed decision.
Is Full Tilt rigged for action?
I have been playing on Full Tilt regularly for about a year now. I will confess that my on-line poker play is much worse than my live play. I am a winning 2/5 no limit player. In the local live tournament scene I generally make the final table at the deep stack tournaments. My on-line play is more sporatic. Usually when I start a tournament online, I want to leave my office before it is finished. I also use to check the stats of all the other players but no longer do. Also, I generally play too low of limits and make alot more moves than I ever would playing live. Overall, I am a losing tournament player online but I have won seats to atlantis tourni (pokerstars), a seat to the world series and I cashed last year in the main event of the wsop. So dont just write this off as bitching of a losing on-line player....
What I am questioning is some of the things I see over and over again that I consider highly suspicious.
PLO - I have been playing PLO cash for the last few months. I keep seeing 3 of a kind on the board (flop, turn and river). Generally, with the action, the winning player is counterfeited by the OP when the third card (say 10) hits the board giving the player with the pocket pair the winning full house. The counterfeited player normally had aces or kings up. I counted 44 trips on the board in a 6 hour period, playing two or three tables.
In both PLO and NL, the turn card hits everyone in the hand. Everyone - it puts up the flush, two pair open ended straight draw.... I see this happen repeatedly (play a micro limit rebuy tournament and just keep pushing all in so you get to see all the cards) on-line but generally only see it once an hour in live action.
NL Tournament - when players are all in, the number of times the winner goes runner runner for a flush or a straight after being significantly behind on the flop.
Has anyone ever mathmatically compared the number of times these type of events occur on a particular site to compare to the relative probability? Is there any studies of the different sites variances?
Is Full Tilt rigged for action?
I have been playing on Full Tilt regularly for about a year now. I will confess that my on-line poker play is much worse than my live play. I am a winning 2/5 no limit player. In the local live tournament scene I generally make the final table at the deep stack tournaments. My on-line play is more sporatic. Usually when I start a tournament online, I want to leave my office before it is finished. I also use to check the stats of all the other players but no longer do. Also, I generally play too low of limits and make alot more moves than I ever would playing live. Overall, I am a losing tournament player online but I have won seats to atlantis tourni (pokerstars), a seat to the world series and I cashed last year in the main event of the wsop. So dont just write this off as bitching of a losing on-line player....
What I am questioning is some of the things I see over and over again that I consider highly suspicious.
PLO - I have been playing PLO cash for the last few months. I keep seeing 3 of a kind on the board (flop, turn and river). Generally, with the action, the winning player is counterfeited by the OP when the third card (say 10) hits the board giving the player with the pocket pair the winning full house. The counterfeited player normally had aces or kings up. I counted 44 trips on the board in a 6 hour period, playing two or three tables.
In both PLO and NL, the turn card hits everyone in the hand. Everyone - it puts up the flush, two pair open ended straight draw.... I see this happen repeatedly (play a micro limit rebuy tournament and just keep pushing all in so you get to see all the cards) on-line but generally only see it once an hour in live action.
NL Tournament - when players are all in, the number of times the winner goes runner runner for a flush or a straight after being significantly behind on the flop.
Has anyone ever mathmatically compared the number of times these type of events occur on a particular site to compare to the relative probability? Is there any studies of the different sites variances?
First time post but I wanted to see if there is any research out there to make an informed decision.
Is Full Tilt rigged for action?
I have been playing on Full Tilt regularly for about a year now. I will confess that my on-line poker play is much worse than my live play. I am a winning 2/5 no limit player. In the local live tournament scene I generally make the final table at the deep stack tournaments. My on-line play is more sporatic. Usually when I start a tournament online, I want to leave my office before it is finished. I also use to check the stats of all the other players but no longer do. Also, I generally play too low of limits and make alot more moves than I ever would playing live. Overall, I am a losing tournament player online but I have won seats to atlantis tourni (pokerstars), a seat to the world series and I cashed last year in the main event of the wsop. So dont just write this off as bitching of a losing on-line player....
What I am questioning is some of the things I see over and over again that I consider highly suspicious.
PLO - I have been playing PLO cash for the last few months. I keep seeing 3 of a kind on the board (flop, turn and river). Generally, with the action, the winning player is counterfeited by the OP when the third card (say 10) hits the board giving the player with the pocket pair the winning full house. The counterfeited player normally had aces or kings up. I counted 44 trips on the board in a 6 hour period, playing two or three tables.
In both PLO and NL, the turn card hits everyone in the hand. Everyone - it puts up the flush, two pair open ended straight draw.... I see this happen repeatedly (play a micro limit rebuy tournament and just keep pushing all in so you get to see all the cards) on-line but generally only see it once an hour in live action.
NL Tournament - when players are all in, the number of times the winner goes runner runner for a flush or a straight after being significantly behind on the flop.
Has anyone ever mathmatically compared the number of times these type of events occur on a particular site to compare to the relative probability? Is there any studies of the different sites variances?
Is Full Tilt rigged for action?
I have been playing on Full Tilt regularly for about a year now. I will confess that my on-line poker play is much worse than my live play. I am a winning 2/5 no limit player. In the local live tournament scene I generally make the final table at the deep stack tournaments. My on-line play is more sporatic. Usually when I start a tournament online, I want to leave my office before it is finished. I also use to check the stats of all the other players but no longer do. Also, I generally play too low of limits and make alot more moves than I ever would playing live. Overall, I am a losing tournament player online but I have won seats to atlantis tourni (pokerstars), a seat to the world series and I cashed last year in the main event of the wsop. So dont just write this off as bitching of a losing on-line player....
What I am questioning is some of the things I see over and over again that I consider highly suspicious.
PLO - I have been playing PLO cash for the last few months. I keep seeing 3 of a kind on the board (flop, turn and river). Generally, with the action, the winning player is counterfeited by the OP when the third card (say 10) hits the board giving the player with the pocket pair the winning full house. The counterfeited player normally had aces or kings up. I counted 44 trips on the board in a 6 hour period, playing two or three tables.
In both PLO and NL, the turn card hits everyone in the hand. Everyone - it puts up the flush, two pair open ended straight draw.... I see this happen repeatedly (play a micro limit rebuy tournament and just keep pushing all in so you get to see all the cards) on-line but generally only see it once an hour in live action.
NL Tournament - when players are all in, the number of times the winner goes runner runner for a flush or a straight after being significantly behind on the flop.
Has anyone ever mathmatically compared the number of times these type of events occur on a particular site to compare to the relative probability? Is there any studies of the different sites variances?
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE