you hit the nail on the head.

"people get nicer starting hands" is the only point you got from my essay? really?

Possibly, but I would not be surprised if SpadeBidder hasn't got something up his sleeve.

Anyway, that in no way implies it happens.

I could be a lot richer if I robbed banks but I don't.

No, really, I don't.

[ ] Has read this entire 600+ page thread

Isn't the real problem of asserting either they ARE or ARE NOT rigging hands that we have absolutely no way to prove either? Without seeing ALL the dealt cards, we can't really run any serious studies on the odds of certain events occurring.

Many people say that with literally millions of hands in players' PT3, why hasn't anyone come up with proof? How could they? First off, PT3 doesn't have a "Run analysis for rigged cards" checkbox or have some kind of report that will show you proof. I have/had (btw, don't trust Carbonite) only 7-8 thousand hands in mine and saw some small anomalies in hole cards dealt, but dismissed it to sample size. That's about all you can really tell without doing some VERY tedious work, which I did.

I went through every tournament I had played on FTP and found every single hand where I was all-in preflop vs. one opponent. I wasn't checking to see if I won or lost the hand in particular, but rather to see if the conspiracy theory of "Big stacks are favored in tournaments to end them sooner" held any water whatsoever. Sometimes I was the big stack, sometimes the short stack. Sometimes I won as the favorite, sometimes as the dog, etc.

My limited database only provided me with 159 hands that provided the situation mentioned. Again, sample size is clearly a problem. I took the odds of each hand winning say:

AdKh (43%) vs. QcQs (57%)

Say the AK was the short stack and the QQ the big stack and the end result was that the QQ held up and won the hand. The expected result (over time) for QQ is +57% (of the pot), but the actual result was +100% (of the pot). The expected result of AK (over time) is +43% (of the pot), but the actual result was 0% (of the pot).

So, effectively, the QQ (big stack, in this case) exceeded its expected result by (100-57) +43% (of the pot) and the AK (small stack, in this case) fell short of its expected result by (0-43) -43% (of the pot). These numbers +43, -43 should mirror each other nearly always except in situations involving a high probability of a split pot.

Each hand will obviously show a very high variance from its expected value since you clearly can't win 57% of the pot, it's either 100% or 0%. But, over time, we should see the difference of the expected result and actual result balance out to 0%.

My results were interesting. Right out of the gate the results were showing a bias towards the big stack. After about 30 hands it leveled back to about 0%, but then it swung higher and higher towards the big stack and never came back.

Final result over 159 hands: Big stack's result was over +650% when it should gravitate to 0%. The results are not even close to conclusive, but they clearly don't support the negative (bias towards the short stack). After losing my PT3 database, I've been unable to add to the study or perform any other studies. I'm not even sure what other kinds of studies can be done with so little information actually being given to us.

If someone could devise a simpler way to compile this information through PT3, I'm sure a large-scale study could be done with some of the databases the hardcore players have. Until then, I'm afraid we're in the dark.

So rather than responding to the perfectly valid point that several people have made (that this is easy to prove and yet you havent bothered), you ask me to read the whole, tedius, badly written, illogical nonsense? I tried, believe me.

As you say your sample is too small to be conclusive but at least you are doing some kind of analysis. Cant you e-mail FTP for full hand history, filter results (2 players see flop, preflop raise all in etc) then produce EV graph?

Will spadebidder be proving / killing this theory as part of his analysis?

I'm not saying they are trying to deal with accuracy odds-wise, I was just saying that the accuracy the online deck could easily be 2-4% off either way compared to a B&M deck because of the software writing, and it probably is off at least to some extent, hopefully less than 1% though.

In fact a deck dealt using properly written software will, provided it isn't rigged, be far better randomised than one shuffled by even the very best of dealers no matter how many safeguards are applied.

Yes, there is rocksolid evidence against the starting hands being rigged, in a lot of cases players data actually made that case that the starting hands were rigged for "non-action" as the number of times they were dealt AA was less than the total number of hands in the sample (millions, btw) divided by 221

This guy obviously has a vendetta against online poker and doesn't have a clue to go about proving that online poker is rigged.

Sweet dude.

Just statin' the facts, ma'am.

I'm just saying that I never looked at it that way and that I agree with you, miss.

Amazing how many trust companys that run criminal activities.

Poker is beatable but definetely its funny that the games are far away from the same on different sides. Quads via FH 5 times more here and there, set over set 3 times more.

If you can handle rigged games and beat them play, if you loose leave.

Cheating, criminal activities are common today and a fair shuffle sure.....

The part about quads vs. a full house happening 5 times more often than in live play is completely false, it happens near the same amount, If you took every live Quads vs. FH and every online Quads vs. FH I am confident the number would be near close to each other, the part about set over set happening more online is also false, I mass multitable and rarely see it, to be exact, I see it about 1 percent of the time that I flop a set, which is about the right % of the time that it is supposed to be happening, I think.

About 6 months ago there was a chap who posted some cherry-picked allin stats in the thread that were about 1.5 standard deviations below expected. He even had a (correct) spreadsheet to back up his claims!

Yes I love stats and graphs that show the game is actually rigged for nonaction rather than rigged for action, it makes me lol.

You keep posting in this thread with the same falsities. Which B&M casino are you shilling for?

None , i reduced my play a few month after the US Ban. Reason was that RB and Bonus offers was poorer any new month and my small winnings make it not longer worth to play 60-90 hours / month. Since 1.09.09 i stopped poker..its crime here now..and i have no fun to pay a 6 digit fine for a few small
winnings.

There are a few legal games here that give me a better hourly rate.

Rigtard-a-ments
lololololololololololololololololol
of course it's rigged , rigged so the idiots loose !!!!!!
lolololololollololololololololololol

Are you from either Washington State or Kentucky?

Germany is my guess

i dont get why im always on a downswing before clearing a bonus or cashing out.

Do you tell the site when you're planning to cash out so they can flip your doomswitch?

BINGO BINGO BINGO,you notice the same guys here at the drop of a dime ready to defend online poker.Anytime or day,Always asking for proof and hand histories,like they would believe anybody.They are surely getting paid or their nuts with no life..I check this site every few months and its the same nuts still going at it..GET A LIFE AND QUIT TRYING TO GET YOUR NIEGHBORS SCREWED PLAYING ONLINE POKER.. THIS FROM A POKER ROOM MANAGER!

The shills are painfully obvious. They're why these threads are so entertaining. They go against all logic to defend their cash cow. If we are to believe them, we are supposed to ignore the fact that none of these internet poker sites are regulated by anybody.

The lack of regulation shouldn't be a concern however. We would be ******ed, or rig-tarded, to think that a lack of oversight would lead to players getting cheated.

lol.

I guess I'm one of the nuts with no life (if no life means over-30, desk job, married with two kids which give plenty of time to check 2+2). Why do people have so much trouble understanding that this thread is basically silly entertainment? Most of the time, it's been lulling lately although may be picking up now.

But this thread is also about critical thinking, which is also why I enjoy it. I think it is helping the rigtards to think about how to approach this question of whether a particular site is rigged. There is a lot of filler, but also some really interesting stuff out there on stats, variance, etc.

It's harmless fun and a good distraction at work!