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, 03:31 PM   #9301
YouCheckRaise
Pooh-Bah
 
YouCheckRaise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,453
Re: Betfair rigged.

He has a double gutshot, rigged? no.... you're just a dumbass shortstacking idiot
YouCheckRaise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 03:37 PM   #9302
pulsar220
adept
 
pulsar220's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Poker Stars.
Posts: 939
Re: Betfair rigged.

He had a good draw that can be completed over 33% of the times by the river, although I would not have played it like the villain, you lost and it wasn't even a bad beat, stop whining.
pulsar220 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 03:49 PM   #9303
AaronT
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 459
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by feldzpar View Post
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.
I'm fine with that (and always have been) with the adendum that no one claims that any game is rigged without solid, objective, testable, reasons to make such a claim.
AaronT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 04:02 PM   #9304
Rounding4Rent
journeyman
 
Rounding4Rent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 234
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
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.

So if I suspect my neighbor is a child-predator should I just avoid him and keep going about my day?
Rounding4Rent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 04:08 PM   #9305
AaronT
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 459
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounding4Rent View Post
So if I suspect my neighbor is a child-predator should I just avoid him and keep going about my day?
Are your suspions based on solid, objective, testible criteria, or because you're a paranoid freak? It matters.
AaronT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 04:16 PM   #9306
ROCKART
stranger
 
ROCKART's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 13
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arouet View Post
Thread is coming back to life.
no gratitude required

Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronT View Post
So is skepticalatbest the first to suggest that the play money tables (lol) are the most rigged of anything?

I have to admit, I've neverheard that one before.
you honestly dont see ANY advantage to rigging the play money games???

the willful ignorance by you zealots is overwhelming....




so what percentage of play money players (regular players) are like skepticals friend; i.e. a person that does not have the ability to deposit money onto an online poker site?

im guessing its very low.

what is more likely is that the majority of play money players are people who do not trust online poker sites, and just use play money as a way of playing without any sort of consequence. they think that the system is fake, and that, over the long run, it will not be profitable.

so lets just pretend for a second that online poker can be fixed and has artificial action, what would be the advantage?

you have a player who doesnt trust online poker sites, but starts with their 1000 in play money and turns it into 48,000,000 in 3 months. would that make the player MORE or LESS likely to deposit real money onto the site?
ROCKART is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 04:33 PM   #9307
Bobo Fett
Carpe Diem
 
Bobo Fett's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Canada, eh!
Posts: 52,394
Re: Betfair rigged.

In after merge.
Bobo Fett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 04:34 PM   #9308
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,099
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCKART View Post
no gratitude required



you honestly dont see ANY advantage to rigging the play money games???
Is it to make more fake rake?


Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCKART View Post
you have a player who doesnt trust online poker sites, but starts with their 1000 in play money and turns it into 48,000,000 in 3 months. would that make the player MORE or LESS likely to deposit real money onto the site?
Not sure, those fake millionaires tend to be a conservative bunch.


The fact that none of the normal riggedologists are offering you any support is not a good sign, since they support nearly any rigged theory at face value.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 05:06 PM   #9309
AaronT
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 459
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCKART View Post
you have a player who doesnt trust online poker sites, but starts with their 1000 in play money and turns it into 48,000,000 in 3 months. would that make the player MORE or LESS likely to deposit real money onto the site?
What of the 47,999 potential cash customers that were rigged against to lose their 1,000 pretend chips to give to this guy in the hopes that giving him all of these chips through unfair deals will make him into a real cash player?

Assuming no rake, it's still a zero sum game. (Given play rake it's a NEGATIVE sum game.) Rigging in one player's favor neccessarily means disadvantaging another player. If the purpose is to make the rigged play money player more likely to become a real money player then that would be offset by decreasing the likelihood of the ripped off player becoming a real money player. And there's no way apriori for the site to know which players would be more sensitive to this so they wouldn't know which one's to benifit and would have to do so randomly.

But sure, go on and believe that they've rigged the PLAY MONEY tables. Yeah.

Believe that they've rigged them in a subtle way that your brain, a type of analytic computing device (subject to all sorts of self-deception) can detect, but that a computer, a type of analytic computing device (not subject to all sorts of self-deception), cannot. Yeah.

Last edited by AaronT; 10-13-2009 at 05:13 PM.
AaronT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 05:24 PM   #9310
KingOfFelt
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
KingOfFelt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: West Coast
Posts: 7,233
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCKART View Post
no gratitude required



you honestly dont see ANY advantage to rigging the play money games???

the willful ignorance by you zealots is overwhelming....




so what percentage of play money players (regular players) are like skepticals friend; i.e. a person that does not have the ability to deposit money onto an online poker site?

im guessing its very low.

what is more likely is that the majority of play money players are people who do not trust online poker sites, and just use play money as a way of playing without any sort of consequence. they think that the system is fake, and that, over the long run, it will not be profitable.

so lets just pretend for a second that online poker can be fixed and has artificial action, what would be the advantage?

you have a player who doesnt trust online poker sites, but starts with their 1000 in play money and turns it into 48,000,000 in 3 months. would that make the player MORE or LESS likely to deposit real money onto the site?
As Aaron T. has already explained when one person wins at play money another loses. Did you think about that Rockart? Or does your theory involve superduper play money bots that are made to lose to play money players? I think the lizard people already have the patent for those though.
KingOfFelt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 05:41 PM   #9311
FiveStonez
centurion
 
FiveStonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 179
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Is there a God?

Insane people think so but can't prove it.


Is online poker rigged?

Insane people think so but can't prove it.
FiveStonez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 05:43 PM   #9312
Arouet
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Arouet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,433
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

I suppose if they wanted to rig play money they could without getting caught they could (since whose tracking play money hands?), but in addition to the comments above: what are they going to do: rig for more action hands? Aren't they ALL action hands in play money, regardless of the cards?
Arouet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 05:54 PM   #9313
DonkoTheClown
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 741
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfFelt View Post
As Aaron T. has already explained when one person wins at play money another loses. Did you think about that Rockart? Or does your theory involve superduper play money bots that are made to lose to play money players? I think the lizard people already have the patent for those though.
That would be the only explanation.
DonkoTheClown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 05:55 PM   #9314
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 smithcommajohn View Post
wow... 3.8 sds... that's well beyond the 99.9% threshold... very unlucky run with those pocket pairs, weevil99...
Yeah, I think I've detected a flaw in my secret plan to become a set-mining nit.
Weevil99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 06:02 PM   #9315
DonkoTheClown
adept
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 741
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
Is it to make more fake rake?




Not sure, those fake millionaires tend to be a conservative bunch.


The fact that none of the normal riggedologists are offering you any support is not a good sign, since they support nearly any rigged theory at face value.

Sure it is possible if the site you are talking about is Evil and Criminal. Until you can hire an investigative team to infiltrate, we will just have to decide on faith. Just like all of those people who lost their 401k's in the last scheme, just like all of those people who go to church and give 10% or more of their income to some minister fondling their son in the back room after choir practice. Spin the wheel and decide if you want to take the chance.
DonkoTheClown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 06:03 PM   #9316
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 Pyromantha View Post
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%
Sort of a general question here from a layman: I know there are a number of distributions that "look" sort of normal but aren't quite. Suppose it were somehow demonstrated that the probability of flopping a set follows one of these non-normal distribution (due to card removal effects or whatever). Could it really make a big enough difference that players ought to change the way they calculate odds? All we really do is get a rough estimate, anyway. What might be important to a mathematician, it seems to me, can safely be ignored by poker players since other factors in a hand probably overwhelm what I think would turn out to be small differences.

What I'm wondering is, should we really be bothered about whether the underlying distribution of things like this are truly normal?
Weevil99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 06:04 PM   #9317
AaronT
grinder
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 459
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown View Post
Sure it is possible if the site you are talking about is Evil and Criminal. Until you can hire an investigative team to infiltrate, we will just have to decide on faith.
Or we could go on the evidence... Just an idea.
AaronT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 06:06 PM   #9318
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,099
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonkoTheClown View Post
Sure it is possible if the site you are talking about is Evil and Criminal. Until you can hire an investigative team to infiltrate, we will just have to decide on faith. Just like all of those people who lost their 401k's in the last scheme, just like all of those people who go to church and give 10% or more of their income to some minister fondling their son in the back room after choir practice. Spin the wheel and decide if you want to take the chance.
Work on your game and you will run less bad.

Seriously.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 06:07 PM   #9319
Josem
human chemical weapon
 
Josem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Getting Trolled
Posts: 17,957
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Weevil,

You have filtered out from your calculations all the hands where there was no flop, right?
Josem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 06:09 PM   #9320
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 spadebidder View Post
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.
Well, it's interesting to me. It's an effect I never imagined when I first started learning this game a couple of years ago. No matter how miniscule the effect, it's there. Thanks for doing all this. Looking forward to what else you can tease out of this gigantic data base.
Weevil99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 06:17 PM   #9321
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 Josem View Post
Weevil,

You have filtered out from your calculations all the hands where there was no flop, right?
No, I've filtered out all hands in which I myself did not see a flop. There were plenty of times I folded pocket pairs pre-flop and other people saw a flop. Actually, there were LOTS of times, as all of these hands are from tournaments and most are from DoNs where it is frequently correct to fold pairs pre-flop.

Do you think this affects the sample in some way? I tried to think of how this might corrupt the sample, but since I had no knowledge of what cards were coming on the flop and since my pre-flop action had no effect on the flop, it seemed to me that this was a legitimate and representative subset of all those times when I was dealt a pocket pair. What this represents, I guess, is all those times I "tried" to flop a set.

I'm certainly open to correction, though. I've been wrong plenty of times when thinking about probability and statistics.
Weevil99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 06:21 PM   #9322
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
Well, it's interesting to me. It's an effect I never imagined when I first started learning this game a couple of years ago. No matter how miniscule the effect, it's there. Thanks for doing all this. Looking forward to what else you can tease out of this gigantic data base.
There's actually a lot of small biases since we only see flops, turns, and rivers when players choose to continue based on their holdings. For this reason, board cards are not totally random and do not have a purely normal distribution. But my findings are that they are close enough that nobody ever plays enough hands to take advantage of the removal effects. We're talking small fractions of a percent. If you apply a 0.3% skew (such as the removal effect of Aces vs. deuces hitting the board) then at enormous sample sizes that might be 20 standard deviations. But that's because it is not random, so you're making a false comparison, measuring variance from the mean of a random distribution, when this is actually a different distribution.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 06:21 PM   #9323
Josem
human chemical weapon
 
Josem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Getting Trolled
Posts: 17,957
re: The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weevil99 View Post
No, I've filtered out all hands in which I myself did not see a flop. There were plenty of times I folded pocket pairs pre-flop and other people saw a flop. Actually, there were LOTS of times, as all of these hands are from tournaments and most are from DoNs where it is frequently correct to fold pairs pre-flop.
I mean to ask whether you filtered out hands where you raised or put money into the pot preflop, but where everyone else folded and you didn't get to see a flop.

If I recall - and I may well be wrong - someone posted figures almost identical to yours months ago in this thread, and it was eventually deduced that it was because he was flopping sets as a percentage of all hands he was dealt in, not all hands where he actually saw a flop.
Josem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 06:25 PM   #9324
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 Josem View Post
I mean to ask whether you filtered out hands where you raised or put money into the pot preflop, but where everyone else folded and you didn't get to see a flop.

If I recall - and I may well be wrong - someone posted figures almost identical to yours months ago in this thread, and it was eventually deduced that it was because he was flopping sets as a percentage of all hands he was dealt in, not all hands where he actually saw a flop.
I suspect the same, as the ratio is about right. You can't filter out hands you folded preflop, instead you must filter IN all hands where you actually saw a flop (and had a pair).
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2009, 06:43 PM   #9325
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 AaronT View Post
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...
When I first started learning this game, I had a common conceptual problem shared by many beginners. When someone would count the outs after a flop for, say, a flush draw, they would say something like, "Okay, you have 9 outs so your probability of hitting on the turn is 9/47," and I would always think, "Wait a minute! What about everybody ELSE'S cards? There are 8 other people at the table and they each have two cards, so there are only 31 cards left in the deck, not 47."

But every reference I found used 9/47 no matter how many people were at the table. It finally penetrated into my brain that it wasn't the remaining cards in the deck we cared about. What we really wanted to know was the probability that, of all the unknown cards, one of the ones I needed happened to be sitting on top of the remaining deck. Since the unknown cards included everybody else's hole cards, then it really didn't matter how many people were at the table. There could be so many people at the table that the deck only had 2 or 3 cards left, and the probability would still be 9/47, just like always.

Spadebidder seems to have discovered that there is a real, though extremely small, card removal effect for high cards. But I'm having a hard time seeing how that's related to the number of people at the table.

Quote:
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.
Well, you're plenty qualified in my book.

Quote:
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.
For which I am thankful. I would rather have my errors pointed out to me than to go on making erroneous conclusions because of them.
Weevil99 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 01:46 PM.


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