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 3,447 34.94%
No 5,523 55.99%
Undecided 895 9.07%
Voters: 9865. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-26-2009, 03:23 PM   #951
dbcooper279
old hand
 
dbcooper279's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Under 23ft of water
Posts: 1,678
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.
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?
dbcooper279 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:23 PM   #952
MicroBob
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
MicroBob's Avatar
 
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.
MicroBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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 View Post
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
mrdurdenptp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:25 PM   #954
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 sokrateez View Post
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?
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:26 PM   #955
MicroBob
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
MicroBob's Avatar
 
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.
MicroBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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.
mrdurdenptp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:28 PM   #957
sokrateez
grinder
 
sokrateez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, Fl.
Posts: 421
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by MicroBob View Post
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.
sokrateez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:29 PM   #958
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 MicroBob View Post
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?
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:33 PM   #959
mao
adept
 
mao's Avatar
 
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.
mao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:36 PM   #960
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 mao View Post
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.
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:40 PM   #961
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 Markusgc View Post
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
makeit3bets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:40 PM   #962
farf
newbie
 
farf's Avatar
 
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.
farf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:40 PM   #963
mao
adept
 
mao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Detroit.
Posts: 986
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markusgc View Post
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.
mao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:44 PM   #964
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 makeit3bets View Post
fyp but I don't mean to derail this excellent discussion
so the conspiracy widens...
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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 View Post
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.
stackerhound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:47 PM   #966
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 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:

Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 03:49 PM   #967
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
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.
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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 View Post
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.
syncmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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 View Post
judging by your posts that would include everyone on the planet, including most animals.
Thus spaketh the poster boy for dumb.
qpw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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 View Post
19,000 possible outcomes and the you get the exact same result after 10,000trials.
What? Your reading comprehension is severely lacking.
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.
otatop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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 View Post
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.
stackerhound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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 View Post
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.
stackerhound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 04:17 PM   #973
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 stackerhound View Post
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.
makeit3bets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 04:19 PM   #974
mao
adept
 
mao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Detroit.
Posts: 986
Re: 100,000 Poker Hand Fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by stackerhound View Post
Im not a statistics teacher thats pretty obvious.
QFT !
mao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 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 View Post
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 View Post
"Im not a statistics teacher" : thats pretty obvious.
"thats pretty obvious" - theres a good argument.
otatop 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 12:12 AM.


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