Two Plus Two Poker Forums The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read TwoPlusTwo.com

 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

03-26-2009, 03:23 PM   #951
dbcooper279
old hand

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Under 23ft of water
Posts: 1,678
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by stackerhound 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.
Assume spherical cow? Sorry OP, not here.

Comparing poker to coin flipping is as crazy as comparing checkers to chess.

OP, have you ever taken a stats course?

03-26-2009, 03:23 PM   #952
MicroBob
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 61,580
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 When the deviation is so gross from the expected random result you dont need to do it 100,000 times to figure it out.

In your coin-flipping exercise a 100k sample is unnecessarily large.

In determining one's "true" win-rate at poker a sample size that large is necessary.

Post some of your results and HH's in poker. First you can prove via the way that you play that you are indeed playing the kind of game that should yield winning results. Then you can post your hand-sample size and what your stats are, etc as well as what your win-rate is.

If you can prove that you truly are playing a style of poker that should yield long-term winning results and that the site is systematically hosing you over and over then you can at least begin to make the argument.

right now all you are saying is that "you can just tell" and that flipping a coin 100k times is somehow going to have the same kind of variance and standard deviation as someone's win-rate in poker over the course of 100k hands.

03-26-2009, 03:25 PM   #953
mrdurdenptp
veteran

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: \$100-\$100k-#SNE
Posts: 2,821
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by otatop 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.
I do I do

03-26-2009, 03:25 PM   #954
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sokrateez 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
dude, when you first showed up a week or so ago I knew you were dumb.

but just how special a brand of dumb you are is just starting to show up now.

you never did answer me whether or not you play live poker nearby. if you do, would you mind telling me the county and the species of running animals nearest to the tables?

 03-26-2009, 03:26 PM #955 MicroBob Carpal \'Tunnel     Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 61,580 Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy Basically, the OP and others need to stop doing their own version of math. There are people smarter than you and I who can teach you and instruct you on how the math works. If they are pretty damn smart at math I would personally tend to listen to them. Others evidently think their own invented version of the math is better. If you trust your own mathematical abilities enough to tell really really smart people who know their stuff that they are wrong then that's quite conceded of you and awfully impressive. I'm smart enough to at least know that I don't know everything and I should trust people smarter than me on certain issues.
 03-26-2009, 03:27 PM #956 mrdurdenptp veteran   Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: \$100-\$100k-#SNE Posts: 2,821 Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy another thing is. during the course of you 100k hands or your 500k hands. Your style will change and improve or get worse etc. You will pick up good habits or pick up bad habits. Also the players around you will change. So it is pretty pointless in general to even care about your stats. Just know that it is not rigged (not on stars). And that if you are playing solid poker you will win long term. How long? When you start winning you will know.
03-26-2009, 03:28 PM   #957
sokrateez
grinder

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 421
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MicroBob Basically, the OP and others need to stop doing their own version of math. There are people smarter than you and I who can teach you and instruct you on how the math works. If they are pretty damn smart at math I would personally tend to listen to them. Others evidently think their own invented version of the math is better. If you trust your own mathematical abilities enough to tell really really smart people who know their stuff that they are wrong then that's quite conceded of you and awfully impressive. I'm smart enough to at least know that I don't know everything and I should trust people smarter than me on certain issues.
judging by your posts that would include everyone on the planet, including most animals.

03-26-2009, 03:29 PM   #958
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by MicroBob right now all you are saying is that "you can just tell" and that flipping a coin 100k times is somehow going to have the same kind of variance and standard deviation as someone's win-rate in poker over the course of 100k hands.
what about the timing? doesn't that factor in there someplace too?

 03-26-2009, 03:33 PM #959 mao adept     Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Detroit. Posts: 986 Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy 300k hands this year. .35% AA, .41% KK, RIGGED FOR ACTION ! Sokarteez just upset he gets crushed in the NL10, and is almost breakeven at his NL200 live.
03-26-2009, 03:36 PM   #960
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mao Sokarteez just upset he gets crushed in the NL10, and is almost breakeven at his NL200 live.
sadly couple of HUGE holes in that theory...

1) in Florida all NL cash games are limited to a max table buy in of \$100 regardless of stakes.

2) in Florida the players at live tables (\$1/2NL for argument's sake) are worse than NL10 players online.

03-26-2009, 03:40 PM   #961
makeit3bets
old hand

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Rambling
Posts: 1,810
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Markusgc 2) Basically everywhere in the world the players at live tables (\$1/2NL for argument's sake) are worse than NL10 players online.
fyp but I don't mean to derail this excellent discussion

 03-26-2009, 03:40 PM #962 farf newbie     Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 17 Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy OP: So, with 52 cards in the deck, and 8.06 x 10^67 ways for all 52 cards to be dealt out, you are going to argue that 100K is too large of a sample to get an accurate account of whether or not an RnG is good? If you had one hundred thousand 100,000 hand samples that might be enough to settle the arguement one way or the other, but until someone takes the time to accumulate that many hands, and analysis them, and accepts that even after that many hands (which is still less than 1 trillion trillion trillionth of 1 percent of the total number of possibilities) deviation is still a probability, you are not going to get the proof you need to show that online poker is or is not rigged. As far as the deviation becoming too small to notice in your too large 100K hand sample, if that is what happens as the sample gets larger it means that the RnG is actually doing its job because the deviation is disappearing. If it remains as noticable, then there is a problem. You can argue that if you want, but you are basing your argument on a false premise, that there should be 0% deviation from the norm. That would only be the case in a perfect, non-random world. Taking a sample of under 100K hands and saying that because there is deviation, poker is rigged would be equivalent of taking a single lifeform from this planet and saying it is a proper representation of life on this planet. Lets hope you do not accidentally grab an amoeba. That being said, based on your argument, I would be happy to sit down and play with you live.
03-26-2009, 03:40 PM   #963
mao

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Detroit.
Posts: 986
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Markusgc sadly couple of HUGE holes in that theory... 1) in Florida all NL cash games are limited to a max table buy in of \$100 regardless of stakes. 2) in Florida the players at live tables (\$1/2NL for argument's sake) are worse than NL10 players online.
not quite as sad as suggesting timing and action are written into software rngs.

03-26-2009, 03:44 PM   #964
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by makeit3bets fyp but I don't mean to derail this excellent discussion
so the conspiracy widens...

03-26-2009, 03:45 PM   #965
stackerhound
stranger

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by otatop 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.No, it doesn't.
19,000 possible outcomes and the you get the exact same result after 10,000trials. But according to u there is no indication of a problem. Ok Ive got a 2 headed coin Id like to flip with u. Heads I win tails u lose. No u dont get to look and both sides of the coin before we start. Oh yea and u have to agree to flip it with me 100,000 times before u quit. Oh and before we start u have to put ur money in an offshore bank account to play. If there any allegations of cheating I get to investigate and decide the issue.

"No it doesnt" - theres a good argument.

 03-26-2009, 03:47 PM #966 Markusgc Carpal \'Tunnel     Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock! Posts: 8,788 Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy I'm taking a nap. I hope to be awoken for the DonkeyFlop vs Rek Heads Up match soon. in the meantime, I leave you with this to discuss:
03-26-2009, 03:49 PM   #967
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by stackerhound 19,000 possible outcomes and the you get the exact same result after 10,000trials. But according to u there is no indication of a problem. Ok Ive got a 2 headed coin Id like to flip with u. Heads I win tails u lose. No u dont get to look and both sides of the coin before we start. Oh yea and u have to agree to flip it with me 100,000 times before u quit. Oh and before we start u have to put ur money in an offshore bank account to play. If there any allegations of cheating I get to investigate and decide the issue.
sounds like a whole lot of smoke n' mirrors to me.

03-26-2009, 03:51 PM   #968
syncmaster
old hand

Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,588
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sokrateez anyone who has played enough live poker can tell the difference anyone who says there is no difference is either kidding themselves or doesnt play anywhere but online
Whats enough? Going by the 100k sample people are talking about, thats 4000 hours of live play.

Last edited by syncmaster; 03-26-2009 at 04:00 PM.

03-26-2009, 03:52 PM   #969
qpw
banned

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pulling the tails of rigtards
Posts: 4,019
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by sokrateez judging by your posts that would include everyone on the planet, including most animals.
Thus spaketh the poster boy for dumb.

03-26-2009, 04:01 PM   #970
otatop
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: unstuckpolitics.com
Posts: 12,727
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by stackerhound 19,000 possible outcomes and the you get the exact same result after 10,000trials.
Quote:
 But according to u there is no indication of a problem.
What?
Quote:
 Ok Ive got a 2 headed coin Id like to flip with u. Heads I win tails u lose. No u dont get to look and both sides of the coin before we start. Oh yea and u have to agree to flip it with me 100,000 times before u quit. Oh and before we start u have to put ur money in an offshore bank account to play. If there any allegations of cheating I get to investigate and decide the issue.
Brilliant argument here, and it's exactly the same as online poker, kudos.
Quote:
 "No it doesnt" - theres a good argument.
I'm not a statistics teacher, I'm not going to sit here and explain to you why your argument that bigger sample sizes "disguise" cheating is stupid.

03-26-2009, 04:10 PM   #971
stackerhound
stranger

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by farf OP: So, with 52 cards in the deck, and 8.06 x 10^67 ways for all 52 cards to be dealt out, you are going to argue that 100K is too large of a sample to get an accurate account of whether or not an RnG is good? If you had one hundred thousand 100,000 hand samples that might be enough to settle the arguement one way or the other, but until someone takes the time to accumulate that many hands, and analysis them, and accepts that even after that many hands (which is still less than 1 trillion trillion trillionth of 1 percent of the total number of possibilities) deviation is still a probability, you are not going to get the proof you need to show that online poker is or is not rigged. As far as the deviation becoming too small to notice in your too large 100K hand sample, if that is what happens as the sample gets larger it means that the RnG is actually doing its job because the deviation is disappearing. If it remains as noticable, then there is a problem. You can argue that if you want, but you are basing your argument on a false premise, that there should be 0% deviation from the norm. That would only be the case in a perfect, non-random world. Taking a sample of under 100K hands and saying that because there is deviation, poker is rigged would be equivalent of taking a single lifeform from this planet and saying it is a proper representation of life on this planet. Lets hope you do not accidentally grab an amoeba. That being said, based on your argument, I would be happy to sit down and play with you live.
Great job with the smoke and mirrors argument sir! Some deviation does not mean things are rigged. Cheating can be disquised and the best cheaters know this. If I got cheated 1 hand out of 100,000 - could I prove it to anyones satisfaction by statistical evidence alone. Obvioulsy not. The greater the sample size the easier to dilute the easier to decieve.

Hypothetical : I cheat you in live game by dealing off the bottom of the deck and win a \$5000 pot off you. You dont see it and I only do it once. You win the rest of the hands. You end up down only \$1000.00. Walk away never suspecting a thing. Just got unlucky.

But what if I deal off the bottom of the deck every hand and every hand u lose. So u start watching how I deal and u see Im dealing off the bottom. Im busted. You shoot me or never play with me again.

Now if i spread that dealing off the bottom over a much larger number of hands (sample) u are less likely to notice and I am more likely to make more money off you. I let u win sometimes and tell u see you just have to play 100,000 hands to see if I'm cheating.

Last edited by stackerhound; 03-26-2009 at 04:16 PM.

03-26-2009, 04:13 PM   #972
stackerhound
stranger

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by otatop What? Your reading comprehension is severely lacking.What?Brilliant argument here, and it's exactly the same as online poker, kudos. I'm not a statistics teacher, I'm not going to sit here and explain to you why your argument that bigger sample sizes "disguise" cheating is stupid.
"Im not a statistics teacher" : thats pretty obvious.

03-26-2009, 04:17 PM   #973
makeit3bets
old hand

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Rambling
Posts: 1,810
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by stackerhound Great job with the smoke and mirrors argument sir! Some deviation does not mean things are rigged. Cheating can be disquised and the best cheaters know this. If I got cheated 1 hand out of 100,000 - could I prove it to anyones satisfaction by statistical evidence alone. Obvioulsy not. The greater the sample size the easier to dilute the easier to decieve. Hypotherical : I cheat you in live game by dealing off the bottom of the deck and win a \$5000 pot off you. You dont see it and I only do it once. You win the rest of the hands. You end up down only \$1000.00. Walk away never suspecting a thing. Just got unlucky. But what if I deal off the bottom of the deck every hand and every hand u lose. So u start watching how I deal and u see Im dealing off the bottom. Im busted. You shoot me or never play with me again. Now if i spread that dealing off the bottom over a much larger number of hands (sample) u are less likely to notice and I am more likely to make more money off you. I let u win sometimes and tell u see you just have to play 100,000 hands to see if I'm cheating.
Hypothetical: You just learned the term "smoke and mirrors" and think you're cool for using it.

03-26-2009, 04:19 PM   #974
mao

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Detroit.
Posts: 986
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by stackerhound Im not a statistics teacher thats pretty obvious.
QFT !

03-26-2009, 04:20 PM   #975
otatop
Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: unstuckpolitics.com
Posts: 12,727
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
 Originally Posted by stackerhound The greater the sample size the easier to dilute the easier to decieve.
Keep telling yourself this.
Quote:
 Now if i spread that dealing off the bottom over a much larger number of hands (sample) u are less likely to notice and I am more likely to make more money off you. I let u win sometimes and tell u see you just have to play 100,000 hands to see if I'm cheating.
So where are the sites keeping the massive server farms they'd need to keep track of when to cheat each player? They'd have to keep track of who at a table was due for a cooler to make sure they didn't accidentally cheat somebody too often. But then they'd have to cheat more to pay for all those computers to keep track of the cheating...
Quote:
 Originally Posted by stackerhound "Im not a statistics teacher" : thats pretty obvious.
"thats pretty obvious" - theres a good argument.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Poker News & Discussion     News, Views, and Gossip     Poker Blogs and Goals     Poker Beats, Brags, and Variance     YouTube Podcasts & Twitch Streams     General Poker Discussion Online Poker Sites & Marketplaces     Online Poker Sites         Discussion of Poker Sites         Global Poker         BetOnline.ag         PokerStars: General discussion     Coaches & Schools         Seeking Coaching         Study Groups         General Coaching & Schools Discussion     Staking         Seeking Stakes         Selling Shares - Live         Selling Shares - Online         Staking Rails     Poker Software         General Software Discussion     General Marketplace     Transaction Feedback & Disputes Live Poker     Las Vegas Lifestyle     Venues & Communities     Tournament Events         WPT.com     Home Poker     Casino & Cardroom Poker Poker Strategy     Live No-Limit Hold’em Cash     Online No-Limit Hold’em Cash     No Limit Tournaments         Heads Up SNG and Spin and Gos     Mid-High Stakes MTT     Omaha         Omaha/8     Other Poker Games         Mid-High Stakes Limit         Micro-Small Stakes Limit         Stud     Psychology     Books and Publications     Poker Theory & GTO     Beginners and General Questions 2+2 Communities     Other Other Topics         OOTV     The Lounge: Discussion+Review     BBV4Life         omg omg omg     House of Blogs Sports and Games     Sporting Events         Single-Team Season Threads         Fantasy Sports     Sports Betting     Fantasy Sports         Sporting Events     Wrestling     Golf     Chess and Other Board Games         Backgammon Forum hosted by Bill Robertie.     Video Games         League of Legends         Hearthstone     Puzzles and Other Games Other Topics     Politics and Society     Business, Finance, and Investing     History     Health and Fitness     Travel     Science, Math, and Philosophy     Religion, God, and Theology     Laughs or Links!     Probability     Other Gambling Games     Computer and Technical Help Two Plus Two     About the Forums

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:08 PM.

 Contact Us - Two Plus Two Publishing LLC - Privacy Statement - Top