Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > > >

Discussion of Poker Sites General discussion of online poker sites.

View Poll Results: Is Online Poker Rigged?
Yes 3,444 34.94%
No 5,522 56.02%
Undecided 892 9.05%
Voters: 9858. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-21-2009, 01:34 PM   #876
rooster16
stranger
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1
Re: Is Full Tilt rigged?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RockstarPoker View Post
post number 1 to whine that poker is rigged
yes i think FTP is very rigged!!!
rooster16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2009, 05:21 PM   #877
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Markusgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: Is Full Tilt rigged?

A+ 1st poast imo.

I will look forward to your career with great interest.
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2009, 07:53 PM   #878
AaronT
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 459
Re: Is Full Tilt rigged?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rooster16 View Post
yes i think FTP is very rigged!!!
I presume "very" rigged and the "!!!" mean that you think the magnitude of rigging is high for some definition of rigging and some definition of high. I'll further presume that we are defining "rigging" as non-random deals and that the "high" refers to the frequency of non-random deals.

Therefore I am taking your statement to mean that there is a high frequency of non-random deals.

If I have interpritted your (very unrefined) statement properly then CONGRATS! You have a hypothesis that is trival to test. A high frequency of non-random deals would show up on even a small sample size ("small" sample being scaled to "very" rigged).

So, perform the proper statistical analysis and then post. Until then don't post because it reveals too much about you.
AaronT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2009, 08:29 AM   #879
guinead1ck
newbie
 
guinead1ck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 33
Re: Is Full Tilt rigged?

SO RIGGED, be careful
guinead1ck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2009, 09:02 AM   #880
SooperFish24
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,028
Re: Is Full Tilt rigged?

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
I seem to see you in all of them too, but on the rigged side.

Speaking for myself, and probably representative of others, here's why I like to watch the rigged threads:

1. Often they are amusing and entertaining.
2. The theories are are usually easy to shoot down.
3. I play on sites that I consider to be fair and honest, and I'm smart enough to weigh the evidence and make an informed choice. When people say my sites are rigged they are questioning my intelligence. I'm only a break-even player online so far and I'm confident that is reflective of my skill level and not of unfairness.
4. Maybe I can help some rigtards see the folly of their ideas so they can enjoy the game without suspicion.
5. I like to participate and to write, and I post in many other topics too.
6. If there is ever any real evidence I'd like to know it and to help evaluate it. I don't want to play on rigged sites either.
How high do you play Spacebidder.
SooperFish24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2009, 09:56 AM   #881
Gregvenezia
old hand
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,334
Re: Is Full Tilt rigged?

is fulltilt rigged?


No.
Gregvenezia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2009, 10:26 AM   #882
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Markusgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: Is Full Tilt rigged?

Quote:
Originally Posted by guinead1ck View Post
SO RIGGED, be careful
ban-worthy bump imo
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 01:29 PM   #883
stackerhound
stranger
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12
100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Ive read posts on Online Poker forums stating you need 100,000 poker hands as a representative sample to draw any concrete conclusions about any particular issue in online poker - a generalization rather than qoute any source. Most of you have read the argument. This is spouted so often and takin for granted that it stuns me. Its a farce!

Suppose your standing on corner and someone offers to pay you .75 c every time a quarter turns up heads and u pay him .25 c everytime it turns up tails. You think great - even odds the coin will hit heads and I'm getting paid 3 to 1 eveytime it hits heads. Looks like a regular quarter, shines like a regular quarter, rolls like a regular quarter. The gentlemen flips the quarter 100 times and each time it comes up tails. You say to the gentlemen there is something wrong with that quarter and he says no ur just having a bad run - its variance u need to keep playing you will run good soon. So you do it another 100 times - same result. When you complain he says you need to do it at least 100,000 times before you can conclude there is something wrong. Are you going to keep playing that game 100,000 times?

Now just supply different players: Guy on the Street Corner = Poker Site in a Foreign Country; Quarter = Poker Software Program generating poker hands. Its the same scam except the program can be changed as often as the site decides to make the scam less detectable and the variance from the expected norm less detectable.

First point is you don't need to repeat an event 100,000 times to determine the event is not random. Results can be so scewed in a much smaller sample that the same conclusion can be reached.

Second point is computers are programmed - they do what they are told - they are not random. Their random number generators can be programmed in a way that will make the results difficult to predict but that does not make them random. They can also be reprogrammed to remove any particular anomaly long before it is detected by and unsuspecting user.

I can not say whether online poker dealing is intentionly scewed in a way that generates the most rake for the site. However, there are alot of players that consistantly point to the fact they see a lot more action hands in online games than live games.

I can say the 100,000 hand argument is absurd
stackerhound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 01:39 PM   #884
ak7062
adept
 
ak7062's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 925
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

I'm convinced.

Now somebody can post that absurdly long Wikipedia article.
ak7062 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 01:45 PM   #885
Mitch Evans
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,633
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

OP cliff notes:

AK beats AQ, and you don't need 100k trials to prove that. Ergo... pokersites are rigged.
Mitch Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 01:45 PM   #886
WVHillbilly
centurion
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 110
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

The word is skewed rigtard.
WVHillbilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 01:46 PM   #887
dlk9s
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
dlk9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Correct, as usual.
Posts: 22,491
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by stackerhound View Post
Poker Site in a Foreign Country
Foreign to you.

Quote:
I can not say whether online poker dealing is intentionly scewed in a way that generates the most rake for the site. However, there are alot of players that consistantly point to the fact they see a lot more action hands in online games than live games.
[IMG]http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/4659/******prize.jpg[/IMG]
dlk9s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 01:53 PM   #888
Backspin20
old hand
 
Backspin20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of Boomswich, NJ
Posts: 1,856
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

The problem with your theory is Lots of people have PT databases with one MIrron hands or more in them. The number of times Aces (for example) are delt/cracked/hold up are all in line with statistics figures. The truth is things happen like they should IN THE LONG RUN.
Backspin20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 01:55 PM   #889
sokrateez
grinder
 
sokrateez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 421
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

anyone who has played enough live poker can tell the difference

anyone who says there is no difference is either kidding themselves or doesnt play anywhere but online
sokrateez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 01:58 PM   #890
Rek
HUZA 2008
 
Rek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Posts: 10,034
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Another loser, same old rigtard garbage.
Rek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 02:02 PM   #891
Cry Me A River
Orange is the new Green
 
Cry Me A River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 23,790
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Wow, there really IS one born every minute...

Quote:
Originally Posted by stackerhound View Post
Second point is computers are programmed - they do what they are told - they are not random. Their random number generators can be programmed in a way that will make the results difficult to predict but that does not make them random. They can also be reprogrammed to remove any particular anomaly long before it is detected by and unsuspecting user.
See, now, this is the part where we know you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Entropy source

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/rng/
http://www.fulltiltpoker.com/random-number-generator

Quote:
I can not say whether online poker dealing is intentionly scewed in a way that generates the most rake for the site. However, there are alot of players that consistantly point to the fact they see a lot more action hands in online games than live games.
A lot of people also believe in Creationism, UFO abductions, and that Elvis is still alive.

And that would be the same people we laugh at in threads like this: Most absurd poker "thinking" you have heard in a live game?

The whole reason I play poker is to take money away from people dumber than I am. So I would give any credit to anything these people say because...?

Quote:
I can say the 100,000 hand argument is absurd
I'm thinking of something else that's absurd. Can you guess what it is?
Cry Me A River is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 02:03 PM   #892
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Well, well, well, I wonder who has made themselves a shiny new gimmick account.

OP, the reason that you need vastly more samples to determine anything about poker hands compared to tossing a coin is that: Poker Is Much More Complicated.

You obviously don't understand even the first thing about probability but surely even the most numb-skulled rigtard must appreciate that there at only two possible outcomes for a good toss of a coin compared to a very large number of a hand of poker.

It is the number of possible outcomes that determines the number of samples you need to come up with some statement with a given confidence factor.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 02:04 PM   #893
Tweed _Man
old hand
 
Tweed _Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,814
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Lose AK vs QQ heads up 100 times in a row (on a street corner?) and then your point will be valid.
Tweed _Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 02:05 PM   #894
dbcooper279
old hand
 
dbcooper279's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Under 23ft of water
Posts: 1,678
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Coin flipping: only two possibilities
Trends appear relatively soon

Poker; 169 starting hands and a 19600 flops
Trends take thousands of hands to develop
dbcooper279 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 02:05 PM   #895
stackerhound
stranger
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

My theory is the 100,000 hand argument is a fallacy. Period. Discrepancies can be determined with much smaller sample.

As far as things being rigged - i dont know. I havent seen a good argument against it. The Ultimate Bet scandal may have gone totally undetected if the superuser would have used a little more discretion in ripping people off or the employee had not replied to a hand request that showed all hole cards played instead of the requesters.

Anyway it wasn't my point - I just kept reading this 100,000 hand nonsense - and kept thinking that absurd.
stackerhound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 02:11 PM   #896
sokrateez
grinder
 
sokrateez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 421
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

seriously you guys that think there is no difference and there is no cheating are a bunch of sheep who believe anything whatever site tells you that they are doing.
sokrateez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 02:11 PM   #897
dbcooper279
old hand
 
dbcooper279's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Under 23ft of water
Posts: 1,678
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Certainly 100 hands isn't enough, and neither is 1000.

10k isn't worth analyzing, as you will only expect about 45 of each PP by that point.

100k provides 452 of each PP. Definitely analyzable.

50k might be acceptable, but you'll have to put up with more statistical error.
dbcooper279 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 02:12 PM   #898
PokerStars Development
adept
 
PokerStars Development's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Account no longer in use
Posts: 760
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by stackerhound View Post
When you complain he says you need to do it at least 100,000 times before you can conclude there is something wrong. Are you going to keep playing that game 100,000 times?
Nope. I'm going to get somebody I trust to verify that the quarter being used is unbiased, and that the game is fair. Thankfully, in the case of online poker, that's already been done for you.

http://www.cigital.com/

http://www.gov.im/gambling/
PokerStars Development is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 02:13 PM   #899
dbcooper279
old hand
 
dbcooper279's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Under 23ft of water
Posts: 1,678
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by sokrateez View Post
seriously you guys that think there is no difference and there is no cheating are a bunch of sheep who believe anything whatever site tells you that they are doing.
Bring the proof oh great one.
dbcooper279 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 02:19 PM   #900
stackerhound
stranger
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbcooper279 View Post
Certainly 100 hands isn't enough, and neither is 1000.

10k isn't worth analyzing, as you will only expect about 45 of each PP by that point.

100k provides 452 of each PP. Definitely analyzable.

50k might be acceptable, but you'll have to put up with more statistical error.
So let me see does that mean if you cheated for 1000 hands and then not cheated for the next 999,000,000 hands then no cheating occurred? According to ur PT stats it doesnt look like it.
stackerhound is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive