Of course it's important; it's important out of principle. It's why I think so much less of people who play at UB/AP.

principles , in the most countrys playing poker or offer poker or transfer money to and from a pokersite is crime. So in fact the sites are active in criminal activities...sure we can discuss if prohibition is the right way.

Here in germany you simple risk...but dont think it happens !!!

All winnings confiscated, a 6 digit fine and in the worst case jail.

How is the principle that stars still make commercials 24 hours / 6days the week for PLAYMONEY and accept than real money players...i bet they dont feel guilty if some day a poor guy have a problem.

Anyone should know what he do...for me poker WAS nice, but today
i prefer other legal games with a better profit.

ok so heres alittle tidbit from someone who to me is very reliable and never lies about such.

names will remain anonymous. but this person won a 750K gaurantee on fulltilt. obv the money cant be withdrawn all at once, but besides the fact he found himself in a heads up match with mike matusow. lost 30K to him in a hand that he lost quads to his higher quads. (i mean thats normal no biggie).

but on the even greater awkward side is this fact. his friend was in vegas at the time playing in a live game with him at the same time. believe what you want, but these people would not lie about such a random thing, and i have no reason to ramble about such remarks if not true.

he contacted fulltilt...they said there is no proof. obviously there isnt, too bad he didnt have a picture with him.

imo...bots definetly exist

The veracity of your story aside, or the implications of it, there is no question that bots exist and are commonly used. This is not in dispute.

Riza - that sounds like complete bollocks, but if it was true, have you considered someone else might be playing on Matusow's account?

Also - what is your friend's FTP name?

That's a relatively short list.

So, a random new poster gives a third hand vague accounting of something that happened to an unnamed friend.

Generally, this is the base of some fairly eye rolling lies. Of course you have a reason to lie, it's to offer non-proof proof of your agenda that your friend lost to a bot, or it's rigged, or you want pictures or something.

First of all, this would NEVER be considered anything remotely close to a "a little tidbit" (if it were true).

Second, you didn't mind throwing Mike Matusow's name out there when you could've just said a "particular FullTilt pro" (since obviously you have no proof and this could be considered slander). Why did you do that? Why don't you give us your real name and some contact info? Why didn't you (at least) say what your friend's name was? Is he a coward? Is he not seeking justice?

You do see where I'm going with all of this, right? You come on here and bash Mike Matusow with no proof whatsoever while you and your friend still remain anonymous. You guys sound like a bunch of lying pussies to me.

And I don't even really like Mike. But still..

Ok....It took some time but I have just finished reading the 737 pages of this thread and I will tell my conclusion in a little funny old story.The crew from the west side has known about that for ages. I am sure everyone remembers the chinese white lion story. When the chinese invaded asia all the white lions run to the west. So is there any luck involved? I believe not, the stats will soon shove it all.

I have considered it a waste of time posting complaints, but ever since I have been playing on Pokerstars, it seems that monster draws (flush draws + OESDs in this instance) just do not hit.

Of course, I don't expect them to hit everytime, so if you have some smart ass comment along those lines, **** off. You are one of those people who contradict others who bitch about rigged games, but have just as little a clue of what you are talking about as those who claim it is rigged.

Anyway, this is something that has been sitting in the back of my mind, on and off, for nearly the whole time I have been playing on Stars. I would like to wrap my mind around it finally.

But, in PT3, I filtered all games from .05/.1 FL to 3/6 FL 6-max and totaled to nearly 165,000 hands. Then, I filtered out the hands where I had a flush draw AND a straight draw on the flop and the total was 974 hands. Then I further filtered these hands to a straight OR a flush on the turn and it totaled to 211.

211/974 = 21.7% (23%)

Shouldn't a draw with 15 outs hit 31.9% (32%) of the time on the next street?

I looked this up because I was hoping that my stats would prove me wrong, that these draws DO hit like they are mathematically supposed to. I still am open to be proven wrong, but either it is true or I am not figuring something right or filtering PT3 right.

I realize there are other scenarios to look at, but this is the simplest one, so I thought I would start with this for right now. nearly every source of poker info says that variance should even out by somewhere around 100,000 hands, so it seems this is a large enough sample size. If anyone wants to help work through this so I can get it out of the back of my mind, feel free to chime in. As of now, it seems these draws do not hit like they are supposed to.

sample sizes FTL...

165k damn i play that in one day at least give me two days worth of hands.

I'm pretty sure if FullTilt heard that Mike Matusow's avatar was on a final table in the Sunday tourney and he was seen at the same time playing live in Vegas (without a laptop in hand), he'd lose his endorsement deal immediately. I know he's been pretty stupid before, but still...

fyi your sample size is not this


it is this
which is small.

I think:

²

wat

Hehe.

You need to account for hands that don't make it to the turn. If you bet and your opponent folds, right now that counts against you hitting with the way you calculated it.

This is a joke right? You even set yourself up to look like an aware poster, yet still fail at proving your point.

Thank you klairic for an only intelligent response, which is what I was looking for.

I realize when you post something looking for insight and perspective on what you may be missing, you open yourself up to morons looking for opportunities to take shots. Yes, Soepgroente, I meant 22% you ****ing jackass.

As far as, 947 being to small, this was also something I wondered. If 100,000 hand sample size was needed, in general, to even out variance or if it was needed in each case being analyzed - if that makes sense to anyone. If so, how can 100,000 hands depict an accurate picture of long term skill if certain parts of that sample size are skewed drastically within that sample?

Wow...overreact much? You can't see how your error was mildly amusing?

It can't, of course. I'm not sure where you got the idea that there was an exact number where every different possibility can be proved or disproved. If you're trying to test how often royal flush draws come in, you'll need a lot more hands than you will to test how often you are dealt pocket aces.

Some problems with your methodology

a) Does the straight filter only show OESD? Otherwise you need to remember that some of those hands are gutshots + Flush draws with 12 outs. If you can filter for OESD + FD only then do that, and you are correct with the 15 outs.

b) You need to do a further filter before this method will work at all. You need to find hands where you had a flush draw and a straight draw on the flop ***AND*** a turn card was dealt.

At the moment you are including some hands where you held a straight draw and a flush draw, bet and picked up the pot in the 974, but they have no chance of being included in the 211. Filter those hands out.

So many people have said this....

He has a binomial variable with p = 0.319 and n = 974.

The standard deviation is sqrt(np(1-p)) = 14.54
The expected value is np = 310.85
His observed result was 211.

This is (310.85 - 211) / 14.54 = 6.86 standard deviations away from the mean, which is extremely significant - a worse result occurs less than 10^-11 of the time, (using the normal approximation, which ought to be fine here as the data has low skew) i.e. thousands of times less likely than winning the lottery.

His 974 hand sample is MORE than enough to conclude that something is not right in the shuffle, if his methodology was right.

You do not need very many hands at all to test binomial statistics with p's relatively close to 0.5.