what kind of verifiable evidence are you looking for? is there even a standard guideline on what is rigged and what's normal?
i'm not saying it's rigged, but i do notice alot of statis are off the chat between winning players (sample size is100K+ hand) and me (breakeven). sample size is 360K+ hands
ie. three of a kind.
i won around 70% with 3 of a kind. while alot of winning player are winning 3 of kind 85%+
just this alone, the difference is enough to turn me from 1bb winner into a 10bb+ winner.
and there is alot more injustice. (Fullhouse, AA...etc)
sample put, i am not sure if i am just unluck or i getting nail by the RNG.
if you want evidence, maybe first let people like me know what is consider rigged then what is not rigged.
,
edit to add: i don't think online poker is rigged. because that 360k+ hand is split between 2 site, and on both site my 3 of a kind happen to only win 70%

Please explain how often 3-of-a-kind is supposed to win, and why, and what would constitute "[stats] off the [chart]".

Are you quite sure those are the only two possibilities?

Yeah I am not following what he is trying to say entirely either (though English is not his first language it seems).

I would think that some winning percentage stats (even if they are sort of meaningless) would vary from player to player based on how they played.

Bad players who always use poor bet sizing will likely win far fewer made hands if they always bet way too small. Flop a set and bet $1 into $100 pots (as an exaggeration) and all sorts of thin draws and runner runner draws will correctly call and beat you when you could have and should have won the pot with a better bet size.

Thus, I am not quite sure how "my sets won x% of the time" as a stat means much unless it was when the money went all in and one can see how often they held vs how often they should have held.

spadebidder
i am comparing to winning players that i have over 100k hand. most of them range between 82%-90% so when my 3 of a kind win 70%, i thought that is a bit too low, specailly over 360k hand sample size.
of course there are other leaks, i'm only playing micro, and learning stuff. but my biggest leak is when i'm run bad, i start doubting the RNG. thereful stop examing the situation, which cost me not playing my A game.
i could actually increase my winrate alot if i can see a big proof that i no longer need to doubt the RNG.
for example
just out of blue, every hand i enter the pot, it felt like villians play like he got AA (of course that is not possible)
instead of making correct decision, i just decided to call down, because i want to see if have it AA or what.
the fact that villians show me AA 9 times in 5 minute., it hard not to blame the RNG for my stubborn and payoff the villian when i already knew he has AA.
so i'm stupid but come on man, AA 9 time in 5 minute.

Monteroy
what you say is correct, but it shouldn't be a big gap in win %, with increase in sample size, the win % gap should decrease.
for example
AA vs KK is 80% chance to win.
with small simple size, the win % can be different for varies players depend on playing style. some can win it at 90%, some win it at 60%...etc
but when sample size increase bigger sample size. the win % for AA vs KK should also came pretty close to 80%. some win it at 82% some win it at 75%.
do you understand what i'm trying to say?
you guess it right, english is not my first language.

edit to add:
100 AA vs KK can have alot of different win% for different players.
but
10 000 AA vs KK, regardless the playing styles, all players should have AA won around 80% +/- few %.
hope this illuslate better.

You are quoting a preflop all-in equity vs a single opponent (actually averages 82%) and wrongly extrapolating that to all hands for all playing styles. Comparing something against other players' results says nothing whatsoever about the deal. My AA win% is 93% in cash and 90% in tournaments. That tells me nothing about the fairness of the deal. I guarantee you there are many other players who win <70% with AA because they slowplay too much, particularly at microstakes where they might get five callers. That also says nothing about the deal.

You didn't answer my two original questions.

Let's accept your original premise that when you have AA against KK you should win over 80% of the time, and if you don't something is fishy. We'll assume you also mean that no one else is in the hand to the flop.

If you have played 100,000 hands, the average frequency of you having AA and being against a KK, is roughly 1/5500 hands. You will have AA 6/1326 and at a full table you will be up against a KK about 4% of those times, so 1/5500.

So with 100,000 hands played, you are likely to have been in this situation 100K/5500 or 18 times. With that small a sample size, the variance is huge. 59% of the time the player will have won over 80% of those hands (and 41% of the time less). But 21% of the time the player will have won less than 75% of the hands, and 9% of the time he will have won less than 70% of the hands, and 3% of the time he will have won less than 65% of the hands. This is a binomial distribution.

So a result of winning less than 70% with AA vs KK is not at all unusual. Evev if we take the sample up to say, a half million hands played (and 1/5500 is AA vs KK), 5% of the time a player will have won under 75% of those hands.

This is one of the main reasons to follow this thread. I you Spadebidder!

I can see why the standard micro stakes riggedologist will get frustrated by this reality because they will accurately say that their sample sizes will never be enough to prove whatever their hunch of the day is.

Of course that is not how proof actually works. If they have a theory then it should apply to everyone's database. That is unless they start thinking that they are being specifically targeted in the freeroll or $2 games they play, at which point the whole exercise becomes a bit pointless since there is no way to disprove paranoia of that kind. it is akin to Lizard People.

Your billion hand study when shown will be interesting because it will likely smash many of the common riggedology beliefs, and what will be left are the mystical superbots, Lizard People or "they hate my account" style beliefs which can never be dis-proven because they are made up fantasies.

If I owned a site, thought like a criminal and was willing to act on my compromised ethics, I would want to improve the bottom line. I would want to try and be smart about it so I wouldnt get caught. I think that it would be easiest for someone like this to do it in the micro to low stakes tournaments and sng's because there is a very large and uneducated population there most of which who are not using tracking software. Once this is successful, they could start moving up the stakes. I have some thoughts on how this might be accomplished:

A site could speed up tournaments by intervening with programming that would bust people more quickly. They would do this to increase tournament rake since this would equal more tournaments played per session. Most players, when they bust out early, will get into another tournament or more instead of just shutting their computer down for the day. If you made time to play, you want to play. So why not stuff as many tournaments into a players window of time? More tournament fee money made by the site per player session = more profits at the bottom line especially if the player re deposits every time the online bankroll goes busto.

To get a little more detailed about this, the programming could deal out more big hands to make the clashes more exciting and to also help speed the player to the next tournament fee. They could also do this so that players get hooked. Poker players are gamblers, some with more control over their impulses and compulsions than others. Players who are susceptible to compulsive types of behaviors would be most susceptible to depositing more often in a continuous cycle. You would do this in tournaments and sng's that low and micro stakes players believe are longer structured/non turbo tournaments so that they feel like they are getting more play for their money. The site will rack up more in fees, maybe two, three, four or more times what they would normally get from these players if they didnt deploy this rig. The players could still be winning players, but they would have paid more tournament fees because they busted more often than they would have if the programming wasnt in place.

As a result of the adjustments, more bad beats are going to show up in critical situations. A player may get AA, KK, QQ in 5 minutes with no callers, but when he or she is all in with a dominant hand, instead of being 80/20, maybe they are 50/50, 40/60 or whatever it would take to shorten the tournament timeline. Also, when a low stakes player whines to the site about how they are on the receiving end of more bad beats than they should normally see, the numbers will show that AA, KK, QQ, Etc. are within a reasonable range so it will be shrugged off to variance and riggedology. I dont see how running the numbers is going to prove that there is a problem unless you are willing to run numbers of situations where you go bust incrementally during a tournament or when you are all in. Your all in report could look in perfect balance by using the method earlier in this paragraph.

The question is, how could you run the numbers on this? Who would even have a huge enough tournament sample to detect this? Finding enough of these scenarios to run the numbers seems pretty impossible. This is another reason why it would be easier to hide this kind of scam. I think this is where I start to get lost...

I know you are a troll using a new routine, but since a lot of what you are saying is what others generally believe in I will respond - not to you (as I know its all a troll gimmick joke to you) but to the issues.


You did not say what you would actually do. Again, I realize this is all a gimmick thing for you, but this is the flawed approach many riggedologists use - namely they create worlds of crime and intrigue without properly defining how they would actually work without getting caught. They also ignore common sense.

Simply saying "I steal cheap tourneys because a lot of donks are there" is not actually proof that it is a practical approach to crime.




Or they can just run tournaments with faster blinds and call them turbos or hyper turbos. This way they accomplish the same thing without risking their entire business hoping nobody catches them or nobody who is in on it "tells."

Stars also runs tournaments with deep stacks and slow blinds for those that want to play longer.

It has nothing to do with rushing people so they play more, it has to do with providing the customers what they want. Some want action, some want a lot of play.





This would get caught if true and would destroy their business. This is why they run turbos and hyper turbos and regular tournaments and slow structure tournaments. People can choose what they want to play. Hands being dealt out in a non random way would be easily caught by the stats freaks, plus someone inside would have told by now.

No logic or common sense to this theory (again, I know it's a troll theory to you, but it is a common riggedologist belief).




This would get caught if true and would destroy their business. This is why they run turbos and hyper turbos and regular tournaments and slow structure tournaments. People can choose what they want to play. Hands being dealt out in a non random way would be easily caught by the stats freaks, plus someone inside would have told by now.

No logic or common sense to this theory (again, I know it's a troll theory to you, but it is a common riggedologist belief).




This is you just doing your troll "how can I get people to chat as much as possible about this while tossing random questions in the air" approach you use all the time.

If others want to actively debate you on this that is their loss since you are just a troll, but hopefully some genuine riggedologists will think maybe once or twice about some of the points made here.

That is unless I am doing all of this as my own trolling angle vs people like you and riggedologists. Maybe you should comment deeply on that Donko.

All the best.

There are three presumptions in this sentence, and fortunately, there seems to be a strong 'anti-correlation' between them: ie, people who own online poker sites tend to be smart and ethical people.

That would be hard to determine for most people without some investigation. I would say that you are mostly right though. We have seen some problems with unethical owners in the past. These scenarios came to light right here in the 2 2 pages.

As we saw in the superuser scandals, the employees are the last to know. In the case of an online site that wants to rig, I am sure they could contain knowledge of the programming to a very small group of persons. You will only catch the sites or the people who are being stupid and blatant about their scam.

No one that I know of has done a study on tournaments in critical all in situations so how does a rigtard or recovering rigtard know that there arent any angles being worked that are undetectable? You would need a huge sample size right?Just curious about why people are so sure that things are not getting squeezed a bit for acceleration purposes. I am not talking about offering turbos on the list of tournaments available, I am talking about speeding all tournaments up, turbo or not to help the tournament fee bottom line. If a player is getting AA a couple of times a tournament in non critical situations and then goes busto late in the tournament, it is just chalked up to variance. If it happened every time like that, then sure, you could catch the site.

Anyway, I am not a Troll, I am a recovering rigtard...

There are unethical owners in most industries.

Very true. And it is not fair to think that all sites are running unethical operations just because a handful have been caught in the past.

Donko if you are not a troll then why do you keep on ignoring what people are saying and keep coming back to the same tired arguments. While you may not keep detailed stats do you question that there are many users out there who have massive databases and many stat nits out there? If you accept that there are do you find it strange that none have come forward?

Why do you also keep ignoring that the sites can basically alter the average time length of tournaments at will by altering the structure.

You also know that Spadebidder is doing a massive study and has found nothing wrong, he has promised to publish it soon.

And while it is true that some small sites are suspect, they are easy to avoid.

You seem like a smart guy. You should be better than this. Just take a step back from any paranoia and use logic.

Of course you are a troll, you have openly admitted that is why you post these types of posts, which are identical to how you did your troll posts under various user names in the past.

I don't mind that you keep trying to troll, I just wish you would use some new approaches that's all.

Riggedologists who take your made up theory seriously never bother to calculate how much money any of their made up concepts would even make the site (easy to do, estimate how much time is saved, how many new entries will likely be purchased etc).

Take that estimated earnings and compare it to the costs involed (the inside people who have to commit these crimes) and the substantial risks involved of getting caught (either from statistical analysis or a whistle blower).

Some real stats guys have done this with some of the cash game riggedologist concepts and even though we actually came up with far better rigged methods than most riggedologist ones the numbers still did not work out to make sense for RnG rigging.

Pretty sure freerolls and $3 tournaments being tweaked will generate even worse results from a cost /benefit analysis.

Anyway, do with this as you like. I am putting you on ignore now Donko. Others can play your troll game if they wish. Try to do something other than the naive question approach when trolling as that is kind of boring.

All the best.


It's because he is a troll.

great thread.

I always used to ask myself the same Q and i also moved over to FT, but the main factor is that you play MANY more hands online than you ever will live in turn making you think you get more and more bad beat.
LEading on from that this is because you seem to remember the unlucky hands rather than your lucky hands making your brain think your the one getting done over.
think about it why do they need to rig it?

If the name fits, I will wear it like a halloween mask. What is tired is this thread. No one has provided proof in either direction. You have just rationalized in discussion to a place where you are comfortable. I know that feeling uneasy about being robbed is not pleasant. It is not good for your game either, so you probably dont want to let the possibilities creep into your subcontious and damage your game. Good for you.

I know Spade is working on something, that I am looking forward to. I want to see some hard evidence of a fair game. That will shut me up about cash games at least.

what was it?
why 3 of kind should win 80%+ ?
i answer it.
i say i don't know
i got 80%+ because i check all winning players that i have over 100k hand on. and all of them seem to win 80%+.
this is how i got 80%+

the moral of the story is, i don't know my math.

one thing i don't understand?
when preflop equity 80/20 it doesn't mean hand will win 80% of time?
i though it have preflop equity 80% because it will be the best hand 80% of time?
say 100 000 AA (only AA), if you never fold AA, and always slow playe and take AA to showdown. and say in a HU match.
should AA won 92% of time as math suggest it?
i'm not talking about money won or lose. but i'm talking about best hand %.

It means you will win a showdown 80% of the time (in the long run), not 80% of hands. Besides, you can only know preflop equity for hands where you had a showdown. Also, many hands have multiple players seeing the flop, so equity against one opponent is not relevant there, like your AA vs KK if anyone else saw the flop and had opportunity to decide to proceed or not based on how they improved.

You can only really do a valid equity test on preflop all-in hands, where you know all hole cards and a showdown is guaranteed.

Hi Arouet,
Seriously, I think I am torn between the common sense that you guys provide here and the stupid stuff I have been seeing for the longest stretch of time. Maybe it is boiling to the surface. I think I am left with mixed thoughts and feelings about everything. Time to take a break.

I am playing well, final tabling live tournaments. (I know its a different game live) I get online, it is the same thing, I can use the same concepts, making reads based on patterns, bet sizing, past history, playing small ball, sensing weakness and stealing pots, controlling the table and the action, then at some point, it is inevitable after a couple of nasty beats, I will need to gamble, I get my chips in good and the programming drops the miracle card on me to bust me out deep or near the bubble. Coin flips dont go well for me in these situations either. I think that I am finding it hard to believe that I could run this bad for this long. That is when the rigtard sickness starts to creep back in...I hate it...I cant play well with this roaming around in my bloodstream and it is putting me on permanent troll tilt. LOL

So there you go...no more hiding behind the ugly Troll mask.

I am BadMonkey619 on FT and UhOh_It'sJoe on Stars. If you have a minute and want to go to Officialpokerrankings.com, you can see that I know how to win tournaments, it has just been really nasty lately. My ROI has plummetted into the negative on one site and is shrinking on the other. I have friends railbirding some of these tournaments when I get deep and they are even saying that I am getting caught with some real BS boards and rivers. If I am able to make good choices, build a workable stack and get deep, get my chips in with the lead in a lot of cases, At some point I would assume that I would stop getting unlucky. I guess maybe that is just gamblers fallacy though, I guess you can continue to get unlucky forever I guess...maybe this is purgatory...I dont know...

No, gambler's fallacy doesn't mean that. You can't get unlucky forever. Results will approach expected probabilities in the long run as a proportion of trials, just not in absolute numbers. So however many extra hands you lost are gone forever and the cards have no memory to "even out". But future hands are still expected to approach the probability mean as trials increase.

I got the last weeks hand histories like you suggested but it only shows from the 28th to the 31st. I went through the tournaments that were on there and none had the one that is in question, i know this because i remember the name of the other player i was talking to in chat. So what now?