You cannot even win a debate with yourself.

As I said, you appear to know nothing about statistical analysis.

You hope it makes pretty sense to you?

I would have thought it would behove you to at the very least make sure it made sense to you before subjecting the rest of us to it.

As it is, I'm afraid it makes no sense whatsoever.

Are you suggesting that we take all the examples of hands that people think indicate the deal is rigged and analyse them to see if they follow the expected, fair, distribution.

Because I think I can be pretty sure that they won't.

DUCY?

You are the one that is trying to win.

I´m just trying to think and talk.

Multi-task less.

For God's sake don't do that whilst trying to chew gum.

What I´m suggesting is that a poker room could change the win rate of just a population of hands. For example, they could change the EV of 56s in big pots PF all in AND 75o EV in big PF all in AND the EV of AQo in big pots PF all ins.

That means that only those hands in that particular situation (big pots all in PF) will have their EV altered.

Of course I´m using these hands as an example, the key point of my argumnet is that in these hipothetical situation you would never detect those rigged hands running a billion hands analisys that would include all other hands that are not rigged. You would indeed acomplish the opossite result you were looking for, the rigged hands would be disguised by the non rigged ones.


Another exmple: lets say you go all in PF with AA and for simplicity this hand has 50% EV, so you expect to win 50% at SD.

Lets say you play 100 times this hand all in pre flop, you go to your Pokertracker database and its there, you won 50% of the times, everything seems right. But then, you make a different anaçlisys, and you discover that 100% of the times you played a big pot (200BB or more PF) you lost, but the overall EV in your database was not out of the expected because all those small pots you won took the stats to the right EV.

If your EV is 50% you should´ve won 50% of the big pots all pre flops ith your AA.


Got it now?

I think it was posited by whatever rigtard (TK?) put it forward that superbots are bots that know everyone's hole cards.

That is to be distinguished from the superduperbots of which the only known, confirmed example is this guy:



No one knows just how powerful these superduperbots are, but please be ever watchful and report any further sightings.

If you look closely you will notice thi is not a superduperbot, its a disguised liztak!!!!!

But only a lizard people expert could see that.

By God, he's right!

He is lizard people.

a big "S" on their shirt, ldo.

A 16 year-old at McDonalds could do excel at this position between drive-thru orders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7w64fbqYQY

I play Full Tilt (FT), so all my comments are based on that experience.

First, most players at small stakes are losers, for three reasons. Of course, it is hard to beat the rake. Second, there are a lot of players who won't fold a hand, so you will see more suckouts, which tends to reduce the value of good play and increase variance. Third, a combination of a better level of players than you would expect, and sniping by short-stackers makes it tough to beat. Be sure that you take notes on who the donkeys are, and use some kind of player statistics.

HOWEVER, there ARE winners at each level, so if you adjust your play to the level you are working, a really good player will win.

As far as the tables being rigged, I think that most players have the experience of having a real good run, and thinking because you are winning that you are a good player, and then having an equally bad run and losing all that equity. I see it in over half of the player equity charts I see, and I look at them every day. If you went to a casino one night and rolled good dice, and the following night they went cold and you lost it all, would you blame the dice? Would you be looking around for Danny Ocean?

As poker players, we get an exaggerated opinion of how important our skill is. Skill only counts for a small margin. If you estimate that you have an average 60% advantage on all your shoves, and if you consider a series of 6 shoves, Take 40% to the sixth power, and you will find that you're going to lose those six shoves in a row every so often. Pro players who feed their families on-line have losing days, and even losing streaks.

Bottom line to me is this: There ARE consistent winning players on Full Tilt. One of them is a good friend of mine, so they ARE real people. If you are not winning, look to the mirror first before you imagine evil programs in the FT computer designed to beat you.

I see AA vs AA too often, and it makes me suspicious. However, I'm never going to know if FT is skewing the odds to create more showdowns, so all I can do is adapt my game to what I see. I've seen quads vs. quads in live play, and every one-outer suckout there is, so only the insiders will ever know for sure.

For those of you who are convinced it's crooked, FT offers a 500K play chip tournament every night that allows a good player to win $2 by finishing in the top 18, which is not hard for a good player to do about 50% of the time. Win 50 of those, and you can have FT ship you a check for $100, without any risk on your part.

Your second observation is not a contributory reason for others (i.e. those who will fold a hand) to be losers.

paging Mikeal_DH
what about a pretty decent ok good above average poker player? what could they expect?

lol.....very good!!!


I think I explained myself better in the other post.

Ahead...

So simply put, are you saying that hands could be rigged enough to manipulate the bottom line enough to be profitable for the online site, yet still be within the range of statistical norm?

He is trying very hard to create a master theory out of thin air that would meet these conditions, but his keeps falling short in large part because he has no idea how basic statistical analysis or human behavior works.


I only half joke when I suggest Lizard People as an alternative, because it meets all the same conditions of a wacky rigged theory without having the drawbacks of it being so easily proven false. One can always adapt Lizard People for any counterpoint

People inside would tell:

His theory: Requires hundreds/thousands to never tell, even those out of their jobs.

Lizard People: They do not tell because the Lizard people use their mind control to prevent it from being told.


Why would a company risk it all for minimal gain:

His theory: People/companies are greedy without any concern of any consequence even if severe and completely not worth the risk

Lizard people: No problem, they cannot be caught and if someone discovers them they simply erase their memory



Wouldn't it get caught anyway via statistical means:

His theory: I know nothing of math but I think superbots wouldn't be caught, right? I mean just change a few hands, who notices?

Lizard People: They make sure it would never be caught, if so no problem - poof mind control.


Lizard People are definitely the way to go between these two choices.

Why wouldnt this show up in expected value of dollars (not hands) won being off over a large sample? If everyone in this forum collected their AA hands, this is easily detectable.

Pretty decent ok good above average poker players will bubble out every time, and after losing 4 or 5 500K play chip tourneys, they will come here and write about how play chip poker is rigged too.

So just avoid the hero calls once it's down to 22 players, OK?

PokerStars Professional dress code:

Thats a good answer. So the analysis has to take into account not just the frequency the hand won but the amount of money won by the hand.

Is it possible do make such analisys (taking into account the money won?)

I think it should also note whether the user likes pickles or not, which everyone knows is the only defense against our Lizard Overlords.

lizards dont like pickles? really?