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 3,445 34.94%
No 5,522 56.00%
Undecided 893 9.06%
Voters: 9860. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-13-2009, 12:21 AM   #9276
apefish
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
apefish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: gotta put this one on caesars
Posts: 14,625
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

thread seems rigged iyam
apefish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 04:40 AM   #9277
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronT View Post
I wish they were too, because it's obvious that every pokerroom I've been to has rigged in my favor
Have you noticed that the more work you do on your playing skills the more the rig the deal in your favour?
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 04:41 AM   #9278
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticalatbest View Post
You know I thought of the naysayer turds in this thread the other day. Kinda funny, as originally all I could think of was "what a bunch of pompous asshats" and cheerfully promptly forgot about them.
Hmmm, one of our rigtards has a shiny new gimmick account.

Is that you Smearsy?
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 06:06 AM   #9279
Weevil99
grinder
 
Weevil99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Waiting for an epiphany
Posts: 620
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
Good point. Card removal effects could skew the results somewhat. The new numbers (for pocket pairs 9 or smaller):

673 flops seen
58 sets or better
0.118 (unchanged, obviously)

That improved things quite a bit. Now I'm only getting 2.6 standard deviations below expectation. Actually, that almost looks like too much of an improvement. I wouldn't have expected card removal effects to be worth a full standard deviation, would you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronT View Post
I couldn't tell if the question was directed generally or at me in particular. But I don't think that:

A) There's enough information to answer the question. It depends on the particular game you're playing - big difference here between heads up/no-limit/high stakes vs low stakes/full ring/limit, the behavior of your opponents, and your play - or at least how your opponents perceive your play.

B) I'm qualified to answer the question even if there was enough information.
Oh. Well, you're as ignorant as I am, then. That's no good. When you jumped into a question addressed to Pyro, I figured you were a statistics guy, too.

A) If any of the things you mention here have this large of an effect, then every book on poker is very wrong about the odds. If the probability of flopping a set differs wildly from 11.8% depending on whether you're playing full ring or heads up, low stakes or high stakes, how your opponents behave, and your own table image...then I think you've uncovered some major new poker theory.

B) Yeah, I'm not, either, but I can speculate with the best of them, which is always fun until a mathematician comes in and poops the party. But that's actually what I was wanting, here.

To find the standard deviation for flopping a set, I used the formula:

SQRT(npq)

where

n = number of trials
p = probability of flopping a set
q = 1-p

Not being a mathematician, I had to find that formula on the internet. I already knew you could calculate it if you have all the data points (by finding the mean, individually finding the differences, etc.), but I was a little surprised that simply knowing the number of trials and the probability of success allowed one to calculate the standard deviation for a data set. There has to be an assumption about the shape of the data, here, and I'm guessing the assumption in this case is that the underlying distribution is normal.

My question is...okay, I can't really articulate a specific question. I'd just like to read some educated speculation about why narrowing the data from all pocket pairs to just 9s and under had such a big effect. Sample size issue? Something to do with an erroneous assumption about the distribution? Card removal effects? Just a random outlier in the universe of poker results?

And is it even that much of an anomaly? 3.7 and 2.6 standard deviations are pretty far out there, and so is the difference between them, but with the number of people who play poker, we should expect quite a few outliers like that and several that are much worse.

Also, it would be interesting to know if the set-flopping results in Indy's huge data base form a normal distribution or something else.

Last edited by Weevil99; 10-13-2009 at 06:11 AM.
Weevil99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 06:08 AM   #9280
realestate
adept
 
realestate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 926
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

how can somebody named moneymaker win a satellite and then the ME? see how online poker is rigged? all pokerstars' master plan. they probably rigged the live events too
realestate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 07:00 AM   #9281
lowroller22
journeyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 377
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

If it is rigged, its rigged in my favor so I dont mind
lowroller22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 10:19 AM   #9282
GaryLQ
centurion
 
GaryLQ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 134
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

As a newbie, dipping my toes into the online poker world for the first time, I would like to thank Ongame 'on the record' for rigging $5 turbo DON tables in my favour. This has helped build both my bankroll and my confidence.

I have no idea why Ongame have chosen to do such a thing, I certainly didn't ask, but I am very grateful all the same.

GaryLQ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 10:33 AM   #9283
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
To find the standard deviation for flopping a set, I used the formula:

SQRT(npq)

where

n = number of trials
p = probability of flopping a set
q = 1-p

Not being a mathematician, I had to find that formula on the internet. I already knew you could calculate it if you have all the data points (by finding the mean, individually finding the differences, etc.), but I was a little surprised that simply knowing the number of trials and the probability of success allowed one to calculate the standard deviation for a data set. There has to be an assumption about the shape of the data, here, and I'm guessing the assumption in this case is that the underlying distribution is normal.
This is an estimate of the standard deviation, usually called the standard error of the mean. It assumes the population distribution is normal, not the sample distribution.

When doing estimates like this you should use a confidence interval to see what your estimate actually means. I do it with a T test for small samples. Using that, a sample of over 120 will have the same confidence level as a Z (normal) distribution, which means that the 5% level is at 1.96 standard deviations. For smaller samples, this number is higher, and can be found in a t-test table.

The formula is
p = expected
q = 1 - expected
n = sample size
act = actual

(act - p) / sqrt[(p*q)/n]
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 12:02 PM   #9284
AaronT
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 459
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
Oh. Well, you're as ignorant as I am, then. That's no good. When you jumped into a question addressed to Pyro, I figured you were a statistics guy, too.
I am.

Quote:
A) If any of the things you mention here have this large of an effect, then every book on poker is very wrong about the odds. If the probability of flopping a set differs wildly from 11.8% depending on whether you're playing full ring or heads up, low stakes or high stakes, how your opponents behave, and your own table image...then I think you've uncovered some major new poker theory.
I'm saying those things do significantly impact card removal effects of broadway cards, yes. Just consider heads up vs. full ring. Think for a moment about how many hole cards ARE there heads up vs. a family pot into the flop full ring...

Quote:
B) Yeah, I'm not, either, but I can speculate with the best of them, which is always fun until a mathematician comes in and poops the party. But that's actually what I was wanting, here.
For full discloser my degrees are in computer science and economics. I'm close to a math degree as well (as well as physics.) So I can dabble in the maths. My lack of qualification in answering your question comes from the fact that your question was how STRONG the card removal effect should be. That's a poker question, not a math question.

I think maybe what suprised you about the standard deviation fall between the use of all pocket pairs and just 9's or below had more to do with the fact that the smaller sample size is going to reduce the number of standard deviations of its own accord EVEN IF THERE WAS NO CARD REMOVAL EFFECT. If some other pheonomon explains it the smaller sample size has it explaining it over a smaller "time frame" so it's less "bizzare."

My only intention in originally replying to you was to help point out to you some of you possible source of error.
AaronT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 12:21 PM   #9285
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

By definition the standard deviation is smaller for smaller sample sizes when the ratio of actual/expected is constant. It's proportional to the square root of the sample size. But you also have the known removal effect here where broadway cards will show up on the board less often than low cards. So when you checked just 9s or less, you not only took out the removal effect, you also reduced the sample size, both of which should drop the standard deviation.

If your first ratio of 105/1260 or .0833 remained exactly constant on a smaller sample of n=673 (we know it changed very slightly to .086), then the SD drops from 3.8 to 2.8 from the sample size alone, without even removing the broadway cards. So that's the biggest part of the difference. The removal effect is small.

Over 1% of samples are expected to exceed 3 SD in a perfectly normal population. About 5% of samples should exceed 2 SD. And in small samples the estimating error makes these even larger.

Edit - in full ring games the removal effect is somewhere around 2% fewer broadway cards hit the board than would be expected randomly, due to players seeing more flops when holding broadway cards. Typical is ((.077-.0755) / .077) or 1.9% less.

Last edited by spadebidder; 10-13-2009 at 12:48 PM.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 01:04 PM   #9286
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

One more comment on the set probability. Across all ranks, the probability is still 11.76%. The slope of the removal effect for the board crosses at 8s in very large samples of full ring that I've looked at, which hit at just about exactly that amount. Ace sets will still hit at around 11.5%, and deuces should hit at close to 12%. When looked at in the context of how often you see the flop with pair of deuces, say once in 440 hands, then this edge becomes .0026/440 or 1 / 169,000. So it is absolutely unexploitable and useless information in a real game, and really just interesting to know.

Saying this differs "wildly" from the calculated rate is kind of an overstatement. It doesn't differ enough to affect playing strategy at all.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 01:34 PM   #9287
Otompsett
old hand
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England
Posts: 1,658
Betfair rigged.

http://www.pokerhandreplays.com/view.php/id/932405

Spoiler:
Otompsett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 02:06 PM   #9288
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
Oh, mine is WAY better than that. Probably. If I didn't miscalculate. I'm getting 3.7 standard deviations below expected for flopping a set or better when I see a flop with pocket pairs. Here are the numbers I used:

1260 flops seen while holding a pocket pair
105 sets (or quads) flopped
0.118 probability of flopping a set or better

I know 105 is low, but I'm not sure if I calculated the standard deviation correctly so I don't really know how low. Care to check?
I will take 0.118 as correct, cba to check that.

Each hand where you have a pocket pair is then a binomial trial with p = 0.118 of flopping 'set or better', 0.882 of flopping 'worse than a set'.

The variance of a single trial of a binomial variable is p(1-p), in this case, 0.104076. The variance of 1260 trials is therefore 131.13, and the s.d. of 1260 trials is sqrt(131.13) = 11.45.

You expected to see 1260 * 0.118 = 148.68 successes, you saw 105, a difference of 43.68. 43.68/11.45 = 3.8, so it looks like you calculated things correctly!
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 02:12 PM   #9289
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
This is an estimate of the standard deviation, usually called the standard error of the mean. It assumes the population distribution is normal, not the sample distribution.
I think the s.d. of n trials of a binomial variable with probability p is *exactly* np(1-p), and no assumption is made about the distribution of n trials looking like a normal distribution. Variance is additive for any independent variables, regardless how they are distributed.

The only time normality is used is when we say something like "being 3.8 s.ds away from the mean implies that only x% of similarly sized samples would be further away"
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 02:23 PM   #9290
smithcommajohn
grinder
 
smithcommajohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: acceptance
Posts: 533
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

wow... 3.8 sds... that's well beyond the 99.9% threshold... very unlucky run with those pocket pairs, weevil99...
smithcommajohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 02:27 PM   #9291
smithcommajohn
grinder
 
smithcommajohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: acceptance
Posts: 533
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post
I think the s.d. of n trials of a binomial variable with probability p is *exactly* np(1-p), and no assumption is made about the distribution of n trials looking like a normal distribution. Variance is additive for any independent variables, regardless how they are distributed.

The only time normality is used is when we say something like "being 3.8 s.ds away from the mean implies that only x% of similarly sized samples would be further away"
Could you properly say the chances of this happening are less than 0.1%, or is there other information necessary before making such a statement?
smithcommajohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 02:29 PM   #9292
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyromantha View Post
I think the s.d. of n trials of a binomial variable with probability p is *exactly* np(1-p), and no assumption is made about the distribution of n trials looking like a normal distribution. Variance is additive for any independent variables, regardless how they are distributed.
I wasn't referring to the distribution of sample values in relation to the mean. I was referring to the distribution of the population being sampled (which is a random variable). I agree it is a binomial distribution rather than a normal distribution, since we're dealing with a discrete set and not a continous variable.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 02:52 PM   #9293
Pyromantha
veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,228
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by smithcommajohn View Post
Could you properly say the chances of this happening are less than 0.1%, or is there other information necessary before making such a statement?
Yes, the chances of a different sample of 1260 trials producing less "sets or better" than Weevil's is less than 0.1%.

You don't need any other information - trying to estimate the probability using the CLT gives a number so far below 0.1% that it is obvious that calculating the exact answer explicitly via the binomial theorem will give an answer below 0.1%

fwiw if the sample distribution were exactly normal the chance of seeing a result more than 3.8 s.ds below the mean is 0.000072, or 0.0072%
Pyromantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 02:55 PM   #9294
Cry Me A River
Orange is the new Green
 
Cry Me A River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 23,790
Re: Betfair rigged.

This will not end well.
Cry Me A River is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 02:55 PM   #9295
qpw
banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: Betfair rigged.

In before merge.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 03:04 PM   #9296
DonkJr
Pooh-Bah
 
DonkJr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,494
Re: Betfair rigged.

lol
DonkJr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 03:05 PM   #9297
pdj316
newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 23
Re: Betfair rigged.

I'm convinced. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
pdj316 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 03:06 PM   #9298
novahunterpa
Pooh-Bah
 
novahunterpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Triple Range Merging
Posts: 5,244
Re: Betfair rigged.

That's all the proof I need
novahunterpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 03:08 PM   #9299
IcyFlops
grinder
 
IcyFlops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Stone Mountain, GA
Posts: 570
Re: Betfair rigged.

You almost had him there.
IcyFlops is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 03:24 PM   #9300
feldzpar
adept
 
feldzpar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: BANNED
Posts: 985
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

GUESS WHO IS BACK

Spoiler:



Online poker could be rigged, but, then again, it might not be.

Who really cares anyways?

I am at the point of realization, if you want to play, play, if you think its rigged dont log on.

simple stuff ladies.
feldzpar 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 11:54 AM.


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