Yeah, thats what I meant--my volume is low compared to what it should be. I appreciate the replies. You guys are absolutely right. Although a 40BI downswing is something I'm definitely not prepared for. That's gotta be tough.

I do think I need to spend more time on mindset. Maybe I'll pick up that Jared Tendler(?) book. I was going back through some of those hands and I could see how badly I was playing just because I was tilted. It's like I was giving my money away to prove a point or something. Really, really bad.

I think I underestimated the variance of this game (or over estimated my skill). Probably both.

I could also see that when I got my money in bad it didn't affect me as much. I could say, "Oh that's just how the cards fell". But if someone rivered a straight, I was much more emotionally attached to that hand. Like it was mine and someone stole it.

I guess that's the entitlement someone else was talking about above. The mental aspect of this game is much tougher that I thought it would be.

40 BI downswing can happen for sure. I dropped 5 BIs HU 400PLO yesterday in about 40 minutes winning a single hand the entire run, against an aggro fish that usually gets spanked. I'm down a straight 13 Bis over the last 3 or 4 sessions in a private club. On one of the apps, I've been sun running the last week and hitting everything.

If you're playing good poker, variance will swing your way. If you improve your game, then the skill will get you long term profitable.

You have two things working in your favor:

1. You are willing to honestly assess the reasons why you aren't winning right now.
2. You are willing to improve your game.

You are already light-years ahead of the large majority of players.

As you know, handling the emotions that invariably arise from variance (both bad variance and even good variance) is one of the primary skills to be mastered in order to win consistently at poker. That one skill (or lack thereof) often determines who wins in the long run and who loses in the long run.

Well said.

Luck is the residue of design. - Branch Rickey

still a debating in this question? just see pt4s on all in adj and chips won on most players and you ll find out its a fair game

Are you referring to "all-in EV adj" and amount won and lost?

Mine are polar opposites

Poker is not so complex that it is above having to follow the laws of mathematics. That is absolutely ridiculous. About as ridiculous as "results-oriented thinking" being a bad thing. I understand the logic behind but you have to use results to learn from mistakes and when making decisions. In school, if you tried hard and always got F's would the teacher tell you to keep up the good work? Would you not want to pass the class? Would you not constantly try to find the reason why you keep getting the answers wrong despite the fact you put in the work and know the material?

First let's start with the sample size nonsense. Are you saying that mathmetics is fiction? Math is one of the few things in this world that is pure, that is based on fact, and not up to debate and is not a matter of opinion. The name of this forum is 2+2 after all. What I did was I wanted to know what it was like to play with a deck that I knew for 100% was not rigged. So I have a deck of cards, I verified all 52 cards were there and would test out some common scenarios. I encourage anyone to do the same if they want to test it themselves. One that I often dealt was KK vs A-7. I would then deal out a board, shuffle the deck but leaving the KK and A-7 and then dealing another board. What I found was mathematically accurate. The A-7 would win 2 or 3 times out of ten almost every time. That's why when you have a % it doesn't matter what the sample size is. I also did this with just dealing 6 hands face up and seeing how often AA vs KK or other coolers would happen. Again, the math was right on. I gave myself 66 and see how many flops I would make a set. It was close to 12 out of 100 everytime. That sample size thing is nonsense because when it comes to % it really doesn't matter. Sample size matters when it comes to experience, but not variance. That's completely wrong. If anyone doesn't believe me, just do it for yourself. Take a deck and give yourself some scenarios and deal them out. Shuffle and do it again. Then you can see what a non rigged deck is really like.

Carries on about mathematics not being fiction, then ignores mathematics. Um, OK.

BTW, I covered much of what you're saying with the coin flip example. If you're testing a simple event, you don't need a large sample size. Also, I don't think results-oriented thinking means what you think it means.

How did I ignore mathematics? A-7 (28%) vs KK (71%)
https://www.cardplayer.com/poker-too...r/texas-holdem

When dealt a pocket pair, chance of flopping a set = 12%

What does results-oriented thinking mean to you? I don't understand the vagueness of your response without providing any information. What you said was not to have this type of mindset which I think means that a person should focus on making the right decisions and not focus on results.

Really?? You think results oriented thinking is the way to go and you claim to believe in math?


It's pretty easy to see through HH if your results are as expected.d. surely someone that touts math understands this.

That's not a good way to learn anything. The set trial will average 11.8 out of 100 but it will be 18 or more 4.5% of the time and 6 or less 4.1% of the time. 100 trials is not enough to determine its rigged or not.

I calculated that using this.
https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT2KzfoEJf0

I have watched this documentary a couple of times and can't help but notice that 2+2 has changed. When I watched it, I was surprised to hear that 2+2 is where the UB superuser scandal was exposed. What I see now is, comments and accusations moved to threads they don't belong and where fewer people will see them, I received a warning about claiming an RNG was rigged and my comments were deleted.

Now I'm having to defend something as ridiculous as math not being results oriented?? Is this a joke? I'll assume it's a troll situation because obviously we all know that math is results oriented. 2+2 always = 4.

I never claimed 100 was enough to verify if a site is rigged. I was saying that the sample size argument is a flawed one because you don't need 100K or 1,000,000 hands like many claim when it comes to variance and running bad or good. I was talking purely on variance because that's what the topic was on.

I never said I knew anything about how to test if a site is rigged. I've asked multiple people on this site multiple times what are some filters to run and I've never received a response. I've asked if anyone else had a database so I could compare my stats with theirs and never got a response.

I only know than when:
1. the other player or players always has the nuts
2. they never make a bad call on the river
3. none of your bluffs work
4. results don't change regardless of how you play your hands
5. coolers are only happening to you and not randomly

those are red flags and should make anyone who experiences this to think twice about playing on a site or not. I fell for it with the people here are always saying that just needed to study more, needed more of a sample size, and to not be results oriented, and I kept thinking the math will work out, the math will work out. I should have gone with my gut after the first session I played on WPN back in October and never played there again.

Funny how these absolutes just "always" happen to you and not the rest of us. You sound tilted.

Results oriented thinking is the most important thing to consider when you are going through life. I used to be a golf instructor, I had a deal that if the player got a lesson from me and didn't improve, I would give them double their money back. I never had to pay a single person because golf is the same as math. The golf ball has to obey the laws of gravity and science. Put the club in the proper position and use the proper technique and the golf ball has to obey.

Do you eat at restaurants where the food and service are bad? Would you hire a financial advisor where you always lose money every year? Would you work out and eat right if it didn't give you results?

I understand the logic of it though and how it can be beneficial if it can be guaranteed that you are getting a fair random deal of cards. That's a big if and when you don't see the math work out, it's insane to keep trying and hoping things will change. That is the definition of insanity "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result"

Um, math is the key. Math =/= poker results. If you constantly get it in when the math says to get it in and var9ance slaps you....you acted correctly and, well, variance did variance stuff.

2+2=4 because there is not variance, its absolute. Getting your chips in when you're 98% favorite means you will lose twice out of every 100 hands over a large sample.

You should learn poker math, variance, and odds with aside helping of statistics. You conflating 2+2=4 to poker results is pretty telling of how little you understand the game.

who said it was just me? I don't think it's just me. I think it would be anyone. Never did I say it was only me. That's why I made my initial comment because I wanted to warn others who are considering play on WPN or currently play on WPN. You however want to make excuses for the crooked site that is robbing players and cheating them out of their money. That I don't understand.

I'm definately being trolled. 2+2=4 is not variance, correct. A deck of playing cards with 52 cards in a deck and a completely random shuffle and deal would be the same. I have spent more time in equilab and know the probabilities and the percentages very well. These hours of time spent with equilab and learning these and studying them is why it became very clear that I don't see these numbers on some of these online poker sites. I've gotten the money all in and lost 4 in a row to a 2 outer on the river. Being a 98% favorite and going 0 for 4 is not variance, it's being cheated.

I'm quite impressed with tour assertive claims while not knowing wtf you are talking about.

There is no variance in adding 2 numbers together. Do you know why? You have all the information. Now....if you are 3xpect3d to win a race 80% of the time, you know why it is a statistical probability vs an absolute??

Ju aas t let it go, you don't even understand golf. If you make perfect contact between clubhead and ball, do you know where it will land? No. Know why?? Variance. Wind, where it hits the ground, speed and angle it makes contact with the ground, etc... that is called......variance. when you play poker, there are all 52 cards in the deck. Since you do not know those exact details there is a variance as to where your ball will land. If someone hits the ball off the same tee position 100 times, do you think they all end up the same place?

You're over your head here. Its why your post/s would have been moved to the riggie thread. Your feelz and "always' happens scenarios are meaningless. Math, the very same math you do not understand, is what matters. The fact that you publicly state poker is a results oriented game shows how little you understand it.

Look up John von Neumann and learn GTO. You are trying to simplify very complicated math because you cannot understand it. Stop carrying on and screaming to the world you don't know wtf you're talking about. Poker has a lot of unknown variables. Your example of 2+2=4 is a simpleton way of looking at it. It's why you lose.

From the way you've worded that, I'm not sure if you understand results-oriented thinking, or have it backwards. Results-oriented thinking means you are focused on the results (thus, result-oriented) rather than the right decisions. This isn't a good mindset in poker.

As for your math question, I think it would be answered easiest by addressing another post of yours:

But by saying "you never claimed 100 was enough", you are confirming that sample size matters. You carried on and on about me rejecting mathematics by saying that sample size is an important factor. But here it seems the issue you have is that "you don't need 100K or 1,000,000 hands like many claim when it comes to variance and running bad or good" - I claimed no such thing. In fact, I provided an example where a sample size of 40 or less would be enough. So why you were ranting about me saying mathematics is fiction, I have no idea.

And yet, you've declared more than one site to be rigged. Can't test it, but you know that it is.

I had a look through some of your posts in this thread, and am having a hard time finding any requests for help on filters to run. You need to start with what it is you're trying to learn about your stats before anyone can answer this question for you. It would probably be best to ask in a thread for the tracking software you use, but someone here might be able to help.

But looking back at your posts, it seems to me that what you could use most is some help with your mindset. You go back and forth in this thread, from talking about rigged sites, to apologizing for your harsh words, and then you're 90% sure it's not rigged, then you're on the fence - and this is all in two months. Obviously you get some enjoyment from the game, but you don't seem to be able to handle the downswings too well, which I assume is why you chose your screen name. Until you find your way out of that, I don't think things will get better for you.

Once again you are wrong. The only post for which you have ever received a warning was not deleted. It was moved from the ACR thread to the correct thread for its content: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...ostcount=90440 - a result that is again simple to find if you know how to deduce facts from information provided.

Welcome my friend!

Dealing out cards from a physical deck is a great way to analyze things and test for riggedness of online games. I wish others would give it a try.

"Results-oriented thinking" and "sample size" seem to be buzzwords that people use to cover up rigged games. You see right through that.

You are a welcome breath of fresh air and I look forward to more of your posts.

Dude, you missed a spot here.

You forgot to take out the cards dealt to the other players. Sure, great concept for heads up, but doesn't work out in real play scenario.

So your mathematics is flawed beyond belief, and I don't think you would make it beyond geometry to algebra (much less linear and non linear equations).

Sorry for the multiple posts, mods can merge if like.

No, those are signs of not playing well against the pool. Studying gto concepts (based on nash equilibrium, a mathematics revolution), and creating reports in your database for the pool (handy on Ignition, we get all the hole cards, can pull up 3bets, what wins, etc for entire population), etc will better your play.

You play even worse than playing in a vacuum.

Is it your position that the people who have played literally millions of hands of online poker, and have made decent money doing so, were just lucky?

addendum: Dailygrind was just banned for racist and other disgusting posts in other Forums.

No, I said poker is not and should not be result oriented. Losing players are results based, to understand and overcome variance you need to make the correct decisions as often as possible.

Based on your posts/responses I don't expect you to understand and of what I'm saying. 2+2 moves baseless riggie claims to one place as to not clog up threads with stupidity and big bad feelz.

As I've said a gazillion times already, any legitimate rigging concern would earn its own thread in this Forum. This thread is basically for giggles and grins; much needed comic relief in these difficult times.

Not sure how I missed this gem - only noticed it now when I read a dewd's response.

Let me add to your surprise by telling you the moderation team is basically the same now as it was then.

Basically, nothing has changed. We don't allow people to clog up site threads with rigged theories and anecdotes. If someone has some substantial and credible evidence of a problem at a site, they should start a new thread so it gets the attention it deserved. Rigged theories and anecdotes belong here. It's worked well for us for many years - in addition to the Cereus scandal, many other problems like botting and cheating rings have also been exposed on 2+2. I expect that will continue to happen. In fact, there's an active thread right now about a possible problem with player position bias in Party Poker's Fast Forward games.

In spite of your silly beliefs, posts aren't moved here to hide them. This thread was created after everyone got tired of new threads about the same thing, and the same debates taking over site threads. Rigged accusations without proper evidence always go the same way in the end.

This does concern me, my general attitude towards rigged theories and the likes has always been ignore and focus on my personal results. By that I mean if I am beating the games with statistical significance then I continue playing and dont worry to much. if I am not then I need to review why and change if I can or if I cant stop playing.

If somehow it was proved that the site was rigged against me, and in fact instead of making x% roi I should in fairness be making x+2% roi does that mean I should now stop playing if I am still making better money then I can elsewhere?

If the site was rigged in my favour but I was losing, the fact that I should be losing more does not mean I should keep playing.

It basically comes down to only what returns am I getting. The concern however is that I make decisions based on what the results show. Eg if I calculate that I can make x% profit per game and thus can make £Y a week then I may decide that actually I can quit my day job as this is more then I make from my day job etc.

But then I get less buttons then I should or card distribution changes and I get worse then I should and now even though statistically significant data shows I can win at rate X because of this change I cant.

I have been winning on partypoker sample size is not enough to say how much I can make per game/week etc yet but is enough to say I am definitively beating the games.

I obviously cannot make a decision about quitting day job or etc, based on current data yet but am contemplating if once data set large enough going part time job instead. Current job is hurting my chances at degree as too long hours and constantly finding been asked/required to do more hours then I thought.

basically due to lots going on with covid I have been furloughed until a period weeks after my exams. but was planning on a big push in the summer on the poker after exams, to get the data set to decide if I quit job for part time work or not.

Should I be concerned about this and thus have to conclude my data set whilst statically significant at later point for actual income expectation is not reliable because they could rig the games somehow?

Yes. I suppose they could rig the games, somehow, sometime.

However, that's obviously not the only element to be taken into consideration. Do an Advanced Search for titles of threads with "should, pro", (without the inverted commas), in them and you'll find, for example, https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/5...ght=should+pro and https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/3...ght=should+pro, and have a read of them.