Juk

when Mikael_DH makes a new thread

Yea, and basically I never get to see these anymore since they started that thread months ago. I don't visit the thread, but I'm somewhat nostalgic about the ones we used to get randomly poping up in the zoo. I guess you could say I even miss them a bit

How long have you been playing poker? Also is that Blue Magic you and your boyfriend are smoking?

I agree with the crying wolf thing.

This is the first time in forever that I've seen a reference to the Sklansky hand groups.

Is that from HFAP? Or is there some other book about SNGs or at least no-limit with new groupings?

If it is from HFAP or the origninal hold'em poker books, using limit hand rankings to judge quality of starting hands in a low stakes NL SNG isn't quite as bad as the sample size, but up there.

I'm not going to comment on every post individually, I'm lumping them here. I double checked everything and re-ran everything for 2 hours, mostly because the statistics are "impossible". But everything is in line with PT, and there are no mistakes.

Any other comments besides "I think he made a mistake in calcuations" or possibly "think he is lieing" are invalid. For example : People who say "not big enough sample" or "running really bad" or "playing wrong" do not understand statistics. If I was "playing bad" with these statistics I'd have busted out, lost my house and car long ago.

As for your particular response, since you think I made a mistake or meant something different then what I stated.... I already gave parameters in the original post and follow ups. I don't have the stats in front of me, nor do I feel like going back and finding the OP since it makes no difference. I believe total was about flop maybe 15-18%????? Anyway a specific # of hands of those 15-18% are already paired. Around 4% of the 18%. Anyway, as stated previously, I did not filter. I took only final hand values, which includes the board pairing itself and my hands.

so again I reinterate. 31% of the time no pair. Of the 69% includes board pairing, hole cards are paired, or hit a better hand. Obviously the vast majority of the 31% are played short handed or HU or 6h + were checked on turn / river. Otherwise I would have been in the poor house a long time ago.

Yes but your expected number, 17.4%, is completely wrong because in your OP you wrote

Obviously if you include some hands opponents folded on the turn that is going to reduce the amount of pair or better hands you make, because you are only seeing six cards and 17.4% is the expected amount for seven cards.

Additionally the way you and your opponent play both affect the number of rivers that are seen where you hold a pair or better. If you always push if you have a pair or better on the turn, and check no-pair always then the hands that get to the river are extremely weighted against pairs (extreme example but you get the idea).

To be rigorous, look at unpaired hands that were all-in preflop. See how many make a pair or better by the river. Calculate how many should have based on how many of those unpaired hands were suited and how many unsuited, you will probably not be able to correct for straights unless you have a lot of time.

To be honest I suspect your stats are just totally made up, or you can't use PokerTracker properly, but on the off chance neither is the case the above will give you an unbiased statistic.

Regardless of playing styles or removal effects, I guarantee that he didn't have 50K Hold'em hands that saw the river and 31% of those did not make a pair or better. That is a mistake or a lie.

PJ222, I'll bet you $500 right now that you cannot provide a contiguous set of Hold'em hands to me for verification, which have that record (from a well-known poker site). I want all the hands to examine, not just the ones you say saw the river. I'll use my own methods to make sure the histories aren't tampered.

Edit : also, if you are playing games with words and saying "no pair" to mean literally no pair, when your chart clearly shows that you meant "no pair or BETTER" then that deception obviously doesn't count, even though it still wouldn't be close to 31%.

This has to be an amazing level. Someone smart enough to come up with this has to be smart enough to realize that it doesn't make sense at all.

On my list of things I hate most, your avatar is neck and neck with mosquitos and cancer.

Does PS really do that?

It is quite important to know the room you re going to get more head. Heads I mean.

It is a little yellow book with a gun on the front. "Hold'Em Poker" by David Sklansky. A 2+2 title

When the real stats guys get angry - watch out!

This guy completely believes everything he is saying. He just has no idea what he is talking about so while he thinks he is telling the truth the reality is that he is lying.

That's why he is so hostile (though on rare occasions that is also the reaction of a complete con artist as a means of distraction, but there is nothing really to gain here via a con).

There is a 0% chance he will take you up on your offer to analyze his hands. There is also a 0% chance the data he totally believes in is an accurate reflection of what he actually believes once it is analyzed in a proper manner.

Sorry, 0.0% - that sounds more official and takes into account removal effects and self selection bias and all the other things.

Lots of players lie to themselves and others out of habit when they run bad. We even saw that when that Moon guy lied to his wife about his hand on TV. He probably believed it when he said it at the time as well.

hate the message not the messenger

Can we get more stats and details on your findings here OP? I'm certain once your database is unveiled the poker community will see the error in originally mocking you.

OP, do you have some suggestions on how to take advantage of this information, maybe some links or something to be sure I go to a site with the best RNG?

Or a report. Do you have a special report I can purchase?

No way to authenticate without hand id's. I'm not willing to give my screen name. Nor do I trust your intentions, especially since you accuse me of deception. Nor do I believe you'd actually pay me $500. /wo hand id's there is no way for you to "authenticate" anything.

Pyromantha does have some insight into the 17% statistic, but fails to take into account that only approx 1/5 are played. 1/5 of those start as pairs which approximately wash. The same with suited connectors, one gappers, etc..... All baseline stats assume playing every hand. 100%, not 20%.

Can you at least tell us what site you experienced this with?

Okay then if we're just posting unauthenticated (read made up) stats, I'm even unluckier than you. I played 588,297 hands of Hold'em on a major site and got dealt 72o 588,297 times.

You can't accuse mine of being ridiculous because it is so close in likelihood to yours (both 0 to as many decimal places as you can type in your lifetime).

50000 hands seeing river.
Chance of handing making worse than 'one pair or better' after river = 17.4%

Mean = 8700
Variance = 8700*0.826 = 7186.2
Standard deviation = 84.77

You observed 31% no pairs = 15500
Differs from expected by (15500-8700)/84.77 = roughly 80 standard deviations away.

I would go and recheck your methodology.

I think FTP as he wrote this:

But Red Kings is another poker site?

I'd guess that he meant Pocket Kings (in fact I didn't even notice he hadn't said that until you pointed it out!).

Same story. Rigtard claims to have proof. Rigtard provides none. Reputable poster offers money if proof is provided. Rigtard backs down, makes weak excuses instead of trying to find a real solution.

It's a shame, we could've had the first ever case of proven rigging, but it was not to be.