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 03-26-2009, 03:02 PM   #926
sokrateez
grinder
 
sokrateez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 421
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Me A River View Post
Prove to me there's no such thing as unicorns.
really? i say prove the statistics of online poker are equal to live poker and you tell me to prove there is no such thing as unicorns?
sokrateez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:03 PM   #927
otatop
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: unstuckpolitics.com
Posts: 12,727
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by stackerhound View Post
Point 1 - the 100,000 hand argument - the more hands u watch the more the cheating can be diluted - the more diluted the less recognizable. That at does not mean it did not occur.
wat?

You obviously have a firm understanding of statistics.
otatop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:03 PM   #928
DJSHAD0W
grinder
 
DJSHAD0W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 572
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

OP, one of the faults in your thoughtprocess is that Poker <> flipping a coin.

Yes you don't need AA vs KK 100k times that's true, but to get enough of a sample of all the variations of possibilities / crossection of different game conditions and so on, you need a ton of hands. (not sure myself if it is 50k / 100k /300k.... but it sure a hell is not 1k
DJSHAD0W is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:05 PM   #929
otatop
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: unstuckpolitics.com
Posts: 12,727
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by sokrateez View Post
prove to me its not
Alex Scott already posted proof, and was immediately scoffed at by the OP.
otatop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:05 PM   #930
sokrateez
grinder
 
sokrateez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 421
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by otatop View Post
Ultimate Bet's cheating had nothing to do with what you're talking about, idiot.
actually it has everything to do with it. it proves that these sites will cheat.
sokrateez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:06 PM   #931
sokrateez
grinder
 
sokrateez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 421
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by sokrateez View Post
also what you are telling me is that the same companies who have already been caught cheating in outlandish ways would not key in a simple program in to their software to put out cards that would entice betting and therefore increase rake for the company?

this is far less trackable than them creating super users that can see others hole cards. and if it was ever brought up or investigated it could be taken out of the software all together
im still waiting for one of you guys to answer this
sokrateez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:08 PM   #932
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by sokrateez View Post
im still waiting for one of you guys to answer this
Do you know what "arguing from a false premise" means?

Please tell me when Stars or FTP have ever been caught cheating.

So, if I can find a single instance of a casino running a rigged game, that means all casinos are rigged, right?
Cry Me A River is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:09 PM   #933
Mitch Evans
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,633
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by sokrateez View Post
prove to me its not
It would be impossible to prove it's not rigged to a person that feels they can determine statistical anomalies in their head from memory. I don't really feel like getting into the whole psychological reasons as to why this is true, so I'll just leave it at that.
Mitch Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:10 PM   #934
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Markusgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

I'm have mixed emotions about being the first to bring this to the discussion

Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:10 PM   #935
otatop
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: unstuckpolitics.com
Posts: 12,727
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by sokrateez View Post
actually it has everything to do with it. it proves that these sites will cheat.
If you find out an off duty dealer at the Bellagio works with another dealer to see other players hole cards, do you assume that the Wynn stacks their decks?
otatop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:10 PM   #936
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by sokrateez View Post
really? i say prove the statistics of online poker are equal to live poker and you tell me to prove there is no such thing as unicorns?
That's not at all what you asked him to prove.
Cry Me A River is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:10 PM   #937
sokrateez
grinder
 
sokrateez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 421
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by otatop View Post
Alex Scott already posted proof, and was immediately scoffed at by the OP.
i wouldnt take that as undeniable proof. if a few of you guys can produce statistics for the hands that you played and they are on par with live poker stats then ill shut up
sokrateez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:12 PM   #938
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

I'm just going to stop posting now because I really, really want people like the OP and the other guy to keep playing poker and failing at critical thinking.

That and I have work to get done today...
Cry Me A River is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:13 PM   #939
sputum
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
sputum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Veni, vidi, badi beati
Posts: 6,432
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Late to the party but is OP saying 100k hands is too many to tell if cheating took place?
hahahahaha
if not
hahahaha
sputum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:14 PM   #940
sokrateez
grinder
 
sokrateez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 421
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Me A River View Post
That's not at all what you asked him to prove.
yes it is
sokrateez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:15 PM   #941
makeit3bets
old hand
 
makeit3bets's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Rambling
Posts: 1,810
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by sokrateez View Post
i wouldnt take that as undeniable proof. if a few of you guys can produce statistics for the hands that you played and they are on par with live poker stats then ill shut up
name some particular stats you want to see
makeit3bets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:16 PM   #942
stackerhound
stranger
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by MicroBob View Post
Just to be nice I will explain to you that the coin-flipping exercise is a very different thing from the poker-hand exercise. Different exercises will require different sample-sizes to produce meaningful results.

It is very possible for a winning player at poker to have a losing or break-even stretch for 10k+ hans for example. It is several magnitudes closer to impossible for random events to cause such a long losing streak in the coin-flipping exercise.

The variance involved with determining one's win-rate at poker is much longer partly because of the fact that you are playing only a fraction of the hands anyway and then there's even a smaller fraction of those that you take to showdown and/or actually try to win.

your coin-flipping analogy shows that you really don't know what you are talking about because it's not even close to being related to the hand-sample requirements to draw semi-decent conclusions wrt to a player's win-rate.
First, the coin flip is a simple example to prove a point. Another smoke and mirrors response. When the deviation is so gross from the expected random result you dont need to do it 100,000 times to figure it out.

Second, the deviation becomes less recogizable as the sample size grows. Break it up over a large number of hands and it becomes less recognizable. The potripper guy could probably gone unnoticed if he kept his stats a little closer to the distribution of other players. He was so far out there people had to wonder whats up. So he distributes his cheating in way that puts in around the other top players that are presumably not cheating and maybe noone finds out.

I said at the begining I dont know whether online poker software is written in a way to generate the most rake. Its certainly possible and easy to disquise. Especially when you get so called experts to argue you cant draw any conclusions untill you have a 100,000 hand sample. A lot of people in the online industry are threatened by that possibility and are quick to defend by insulting people that raise the issue.

Its an issue unlikely to go away when the medium delivering the cards can be programmed and reprogrammed to do anything you want it to - it could rob people blind for 1000 hands - then just rely on take for a million. Someone raises the issue then you hire a "expert" in probability to create your somke and mirrors defense.
stackerhound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:16 PM   #943
otatop
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: unstuckpolitics.com
Posts: 12,727
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by sokrateez View Post
i wouldnt take that as undeniable proof. if a few of you guys can produce statistics for the hands that you played and they are on par with live poker stats then ill shut up
There are at least 10 (really low estimate) people on this site with 1,000,000 hand + databases. I think at least one of them would have noticed if they were losing more often than they should have.
otatop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:17 PM   #944
Pilkain
old hand
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,774
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

I find it hilarious that OP brought up the AP/UB scandal considering that the cheating was discovered by people on 2+2 The whole point OP is that these poker sites are businesses that generate so much money they do not need to cheat. That is not to say it cant happen but you really shouldnt come to the one place that actively looks for cheating and exposes it when it is found and tell us its all corrupt.
Pilkain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:17 PM   #945
sokrateez
grinder
 
sokrateez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 421
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

why is it that all the the people in here that have all of the statistics from their hands wont produce them to prove me wrong.

if im wrong then i'm wrong, just prove it to me

or is it that i'm not wrong
sokrateez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:17 PM   #946
ak7062
adept
 
ak7062's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 925
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cry Me A River View Post
A lot of people also believe in Creationism, UFO abductions, and that Elvis is still alive.
Ok, I'm gonna troll this up a bit.

So you have empirical proof that UFO abductions are beyond possibility? (Which is impossible...)

This seems more interesting than the OP's idiocy. It doesn't seem fair to lump together something that is easily disproved - e.g. rigtard arguments through basic statistics - and something that is impossible to disprove because of an utter lack of empirical evidence in support of that argument - e.g. that UFOs / abductions do not exist.

Yes, it can be argued that the vast majority of supposed abductees are mentally deranged, but in reality, that speaks absolutely nothing to the actual existence of UFOs / UFO abductions. How could it? That is the equivalent of saying "Some religious folk are mentally deranged, therefore God does not exist." Frankly, none of us are in the know. As such, it is better to not simply repeat what cultural authorities tell us about the existence of such things.

The creationist analogy is much more appropriate as creationism has been widely disproved by empirical evidence.

Regarding the "Prove to me there's no such thing as unicorns" comment - The paleontological record has never been argued to be (and never will be) an all-encompassing record of plant/animal existence throughout all of history. Just as I couldn't prove that unicorns exist, you couldn't prove that they never did, and vice versa.

This is the inherent problem with this line of reasoning that everything cultural authorities (e.g. government, the scientific community, the media) tell us is true. Perhaps these things are [sometimes] likely true. But proven? Let's not get carried away.

This is not to be confused with OP's idiocy.

/End troll
ak7062 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:17 PM   #947
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by sokrateez View Post
yes it is
No, it isn't:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitch Evans View Post
Seriously, can you elaborate how you're smart enough to tell there's a difference when you have no saved hands to prove your hypothesis? That's pretty arrogant, no? I mean, are you just going from memory and determining there's a difference? Are you rainman? Definitely, definitely, definitely rigged. Definitely. I'm a good driver. Definitely rigged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sokrateez View Post
prove to me its not
We're supposed to trust you that you can tell online poker is rigged, but you can't even remember what you posted five minutes ago?




(Yes, I'm a sucker with no self control).
Cry Me A River is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:21 PM   #948
otatop
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: unstuckpolitics.com
Posts: 12,727
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by stackerhound View Post
First, the coin flip is a simple example to prove a point. Another smoke and mirrors response. When the deviation is so gross from the expected random result you dont need to do it 100,000 times to figure it out.
You do when there are thousands of possible outcomes. You could play 19,000 hands before having two with the same outcome, so obviously a sample of 10,000 hands is nowhere near enough.
Quote:
Second, the deviation becomes less recogizable as the sample size grows. Break it up over a large number of hands and it becomes less recognizable.
No, it doesn't.
otatop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:21 PM   #949
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Markusgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by stackerhound View Post
Its an issue unlikely to go away when the medium delivering the cards can be programmed and reprogrammed to do anything you want it to - it could rob people blind for 1000 hands - then just rely on take for a million. Someone raises the issue then you hire a "expert" in probability to create your somke and mirrors defense.
then just don't play internet poker. I won't drop pamphlets off at your house begging you to deposit.

and maybe don't post in the INTERNET POKER Forum while you're ignoring the whole phenomenon either.
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:22 PM   #950
mrdurdenptp
veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: $100-$100k-#SNE
Posts: 2,821
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

i think the people that say 100k are wrong. I think its more like 100k / table you play. So if you play 4 tables you need 400k.
mrdurdenptp 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 04:05 PM.


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