dat 6 still havent won pot

So let's get this straight: You guys claim that PokerStars is rigged to increase rake, and, to try to prove this, you provide a series of videos based on the thesis that there are lots of 'action hands' to increase betting?

I'd back off the girlfriend jokes i dont think he likes em.

Good lord... He even argues on what's a winning player when the FACT is the dude IS a winning player!

I feel sorry for your girlfriend/wife if you even have one that is.

People who have a gut feeling pokerstars is rigged, check out this guys videos. There's over 50 of them

www.youtube.com/pokerman1978

bigjames881: perhaps you could answer this at your convenience? I want to understand what you are claiming.

And perhaps you could answer this. It's a billion dollar a year ONLINE company that is located on an island where certain gaming laws and restrictions are very soft. Can you be sure that they're 100% honest when there is that much money involved?

Heh, I think someone posted somewhere about their beliefs in God. Shouldn't you run there and set them straight. Not as if you are actually playing poker =)

It took the guy 3000 games to get back to even according to sharkscope and then he won a 180 man $4 tournament.

Again, we disagree on what is a "winning player."



Woo, I just made fun of a non-shill shill and a real shill. That is shilltastic.

Off to play, try it some time ladies.

All the best.

Have you ever been to the Isle Of Man? I have and it's not the ****** wild west like you're making out

I dont need to go anywhere this is a religious thread.

Doesn't matter dude. The fact is laws and restrictions are light where they are located. A billion dollar a year online corporation set up shop there for those very reasons. Is that not suspicious? Use your head.

:crickets:

You did it right. One way to evaluate it is alongside all the other hand combinations. Your 72o in this sample is ~2.5 standard deviations from the mean. There are 936 different possible offsuit hands with 72o being one of them. Out of those we would expect about 1.5% or 14 of those hand types to be greater than 2.5 standard deviations from the mean in any given sample. This is because 2.5 standard deviations covers about 98.5% of a normal distribution and the remaining tails will be greater than 2.5 standard deviations from the mean. So if you have 14 or less offsuit hands that hit either less than 3 times or more than 16 times in that sample, it's right where it should be. A distribution has to have tails (outliers). If it didn't then that wouldn't be normal either.

EDIT: note that we're approximating a binomial with a normal distribution. That's ok with this many hands, the error is very small.

You can also look into the chi square test for checking the normalness of the distribution of counts of all your offsuit hands.

Another way to evaluate it would be to look at many trials each containing 1052 hands, and average the frequency of the 72o (or any hand) appearing across multiple trials. Using the 0.4% number you calculated, that means about one series of every 250 series would have 2 or less 72o. Or whatever offsuit hand you look at.

That help?

Wrong. They set up shop on the Isle of Man because of a 0% corporate tax rate and the removal of rules barring companies from accepting casino and poker bets from America.

Yeah, those are just some of the reasons they set up shop there. The other reasons are the ones I've already listed. If you don't believe that, you sir are not very smart.

Faith.

No, it's not at all simple.

It involves a great deal of data processing and subsequent analysis.

The first thing I'd do would be to check that I was getting the correct distribution of pocket cards.

The second thing would be to home in on which particular type of hand I felt was failing to be as profitable as I expected it to be and analyse the cardfall of the community cards to ensure that they had effectively the same distribution as they have in other circumstances.

That would at least give me an idea as to whether my concerns were based in reality or just the result of selective memory.

Evidence?

I didn't think so.

Just another blowhard libeling a site for no reason other than their own inadequacy.

Funny I just took an IQ test a week ago and I scored quite high

Did you join 2+2 just to slander online pokers reputation?

Secondly what's you screenname and what sites do you play at? How many hands have you logged? I need HH's as well.. I need to see what you base your accusations on.

I want to see proof!! If you don't have any proof I would stop spreading baseless lies about online poker sites, who provide a service to hundreds of thousands of players. I would also stop questioning other peoples intelligence when they probably have an IQ about 45 -50 points above your own

Maybe that post was directed at me.

I am not convinced that it is evidence of rigging but it makes me want to find out more information about the videos and how they were made.

I also just wanted to get some type of feedback from others on these videos but the feedback has seemed somewhat limited.

I'm done wasting my time with idiots who think that an ONLINE billion dollar a year corporation is honest just because they say so. That's why most countries are in a depression right now, because most citizens just sit back and accept what their government says/does.

A great example of an online billion dollar a year corporation is paypal. They swore that they were 100% honest, yet they've been sued and taken to court by ENDLESS people, business, companies etc. And the majority of the time when they are taken to court, they settle. You see what's going on here? They were (still are) freezing people's money in their accounts and giving them no explanation at all just to build up interest to increase their profits when they ALREADY are makes a **** load of money to begin with.

So if you believe that a billion dollar poker site that operates where the gaming laws/restrictions are soft is 100% honest, I feel sorry for you.

Good night.

Hey bigjames881 ^^ a couple of posts above. Please provide me evidence of online poker being rigged

Yeah, in tournaments with fixed rake. Also, the people from twoplustwo are in on it.




Riggies and riggie wannabes - would these be a good start for a video series? These are only a few of the hands from some rebuys I played today. If I included sit and go and other MTT hands I could probably pile in several dozens of beats per day.

What do you think? Can I be a riggie leader?

PokerStars Game #39707494084: Tournament #284010646, $10+$1 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level XII (500/1000) - 2010/02/13 18:12:37 ET
> Table '284010646 147' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
> Seat 1: nemi 15 (8970 in chips)
> Seat 2: pgjah (7375 in chips)
> Seat 3: phiIter (23562 in chips)
> Seat 4: smoerre_bvb (13088 in chips)
> Seat 5: THEACEKK (51504 in chips)
> Seat 6: MBconnect (34820 in chips)
> Seat 7: stt2000 (25790 in chips)
> Seat 8: Monteroy (12200 in chips)
> Seat 9: CriznutZ (19865 in chips)
> nemi 15: posts the ante 100
> pgjah: posts the ante 100
> phiIter: posts the ante 100
> smoerre_bvb: posts the ante 100
> THEACEKK: posts the ante 100
> MBconnect: posts the ante 100
> stt2000: posts the ante 100
> Monteroy: posts the ante 100
> CriznutZ: posts the ante 100
> THEACEKK: posts small blind 500
> MBconnect: posts big blind 1000
> *** HOLE CARDS ***
> Dealt to Monteroy [Ac Ah]
> stt2000: folds
> Monteroy: raises 2000 to 3000
> CriznutZ: folds
> nemi 15: folds
> pgjah: folds
> phiIter: folds
> smoerre_bvb: raises 9988 to 12988 and is all-in
> THEACEKK: folds
> MBconnect: folds
> Monteroy: calls 9100 and is all-in
> Uncalled bet (888) returned to smoerre_bvb
> *** FLOP *** [8c 5c Ks]
> *** TURN *** [8c 5c Ks] [Kh]
> *** RIVER *** [8c 5c Ks Kh] [2d]
> *** SHOW DOWN ***
> Monteroy: shows [Ac Ah] (two pair, Aces and Kings)
> smoerre_bvb: shows [Ad Kc] (three of a kind, Kings)
> smoerre_bvb collected 26600 from pot
> smoerre_bvb said, "sry"



Let's get it in good during the rebuy period

PokerStars Game #39708595804: Tournament #284010756, $5.00+$0.50 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level III (25/50) - 2010/02/13 18:35:16 ET
Table '284010756 5' 9-max Seat #4 is the button
Seat 1: tzilla (3005 in chips)
Seat 2: Shafster1327 (1355 in chips)
Seat 3: IMETOH (3555 in chips)
Seat 4: FishHunterNL (3160 in chips)
Seat 5: Monteroy (2985 in chips)
Seat 6: dicidyer (5340 in chips)
Seat 7: parisrn366 (5365 in chips)
Seat 8: Maverick462 (3780 in chips)
Seat 9: buitre 77 (3125 in chips)
Monteroy: posts small blind 25
dicidyer: posts big blind 50
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [Kh Kd]
parisrn366: folds
Maverick462: folds
buitre 77: folds
tzilla: folds
Shafster1327: calls 50
IMETOH: folds
FishHunterNL: folds
Monteroy: raises 2935 to 2985 and is all-in
dicidyer: calls 2935
Shafster1327: folds
*** FLOP *** [9c Ks 2c]
*** TURN *** [9c Ks 2c] [Js]
*** RIVER *** [9c Ks 2c Js] [Qh]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Monteroy: shows [Kh Kd] (three of a kind, Kings)
dicidyer: shows [Th Td] (a straight, Nine to King)
dicidyer collected 6020 from pot
Monteroy re-buys and receives 3000 chips for $10.00


Hmm, that did not work, let's try getting it in less good but still good

PokerStars Game #39708684377: Tournament #284010756, $5.00+$0.50 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level III (25/50) - 2010/02/13 18:37:09 ET
Table '284010756 5' 9-max Seat #6 is the button
Seat 1: tzilla (3005 in chips)
Seat 3: IMETOH (3555 in chips)
Seat 4: FishHunterNL (3160 in chips)
Seat 5: Monteroy (3000 in chips)
Seat 6: dicidyer (9780 in chips)
Seat 7: parisrn366 (5315 in chips)
Seat 8: Maverick462 (3780 in chips)
Seat 9: buitre 77 (3075 in chips)
parisrn366: posts small blind 25
Maverick462: posts big blind 50
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [Ks As]
buitre 77: folds
wildman22222 is connected
wildman22222 re-buys and receives 1500 chips for $5.00
tzilla: calls 50
IMETOH has timed out
IMETOH: folds
IMETOH is sitting out
FishHunterNL: folds
Monteroy: raises 2950 to 3000 and is all-in
dicidyer: folds
parisrn366: folds
IMETOH has returned
Maverick462: folds
tzilla: calls 2950
*** FLOP *** [6s 9s 7d]
*** TURN *** [6s 9s 7d] [8c]
*** RIVER *** [6s 9s 7d 8c] [5d]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
tzilla: shows [Jd Qd] (a straight, Five to Nine)
Monteroy: shows [Ks As] (a straight, Five to Nine)
tzilla collected 3038 from pot
Monteroy collected 3037 from pot

Shrug - better I guess, I know - let's get it in bad!


PokerStars Game #39708944597: Tournament #284010756, $5.00+$0.50 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level III (25/50) - 2010/02/13 18:42:45 ET
Table '284010756 5' 9-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: tzilla (2918 in chips)
Seat 2: wildman22222 (3125 in chips)
Seat 3: IMETOH (2555 in chips)
Seat 4: FishHunterNL (3160 in chips)
Seat 5: Monteroy (3037 in chips)
Seat 6: dicidyer (9330 in chips)
Seat 7: parisrn366 (6965 in chips)
Seat 8: Maverick462 (3655 in chips)
Seat 9: buitre 77 (2925 in chips)
wildman22222: posts small blind 25
IMETOH: posts big blind 50
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [7h 7s]
FishHunterNL: folds
Monteroy: raises 2987 to 3037 and is all-in
dicidyer: folds
parisrn366: raises 3928 to 6965 and is all-in
Maverick462: folds
buitre 77: folds
tzilla: calls 2918 and is all-in
wildman22222: folds
IMETOH: folds
Uncalled bet (3928) returned to parisrn366
*** FLOP *** [7d 8d 3s]
*** TURN *** [7d 8d 3s] [7c]
*** RIVER *** [7d 8d 3s 7c] [Qc]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
Monteroy: shows [7h 7s] (four of a kind, Sevens)
parisrn366: shows [9d 9h] (two pair, Nines and Sevens)
Monteroy collected 238 from side pot
tzilla: shows [Kc Ac] (a pair of Sevens)
Monteroy collected 8829 from main pot
tzilla re-buys and receives 3000 chips for $10.00


Well, there we go!


Sad part is I could post a better "OMGRIGGZORS" tale with my selected hand histories every day than all of these silly riggies could combined.

Ooh, 44 I can get it in bad with that hand in this rebuy as I type this

PokerStars Game #39709468642: Tournament #284010756, $5.00+$0.50 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (50/100) - 2010/02/13 18:54:09 ET
Table '284010756 5' 9-max Seat #3 is the button
Seat 1: tzilla (9000 in chips)
Seat 2: wildman22222 (2805 in chips)
Seat 3: IMETOH (4758 in chips)
Seat 4: FishHunterNL (2615 in chips)
Seat 5: Monteroy (8917 in chips)
Seat 6: 22magoo (1500 in chips) is sitting out
Seat 7: parisrn366 (2275 in chips)
Seat 8: Maverick462 (7020 in chips)
Seat 9: buitre 77 (3000 in chips)
FishHunterNL: posts small blind 50
Monteroy: posts big blind 100
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Monteroy [4c 4d]
22magoo: folds
parisrn366: folds
Maverick462: folds
buitre 77: folds
tzilla: folds
wildman22222: folds
IMETOH: folds
FishHunterNL: folds
Uncalled bet (50) returned to Monteroy
Monteroy collected 100 from pot
Monteroy: doesn't show hand

Bah, seems everyone has caught on with the rigging. SOme of them probably folded aces and kings.

Oh well, maybe I will get 2 7 o next hand and since I have the biggest stack at the table I cannot lose...

Hi bigjames881,

I note that you didn't answer my question. I don't understand why. It wasn't particularly controversial. I was just trying to understand if you are saying that PokerStars "rigs" the shuffle to generate more rake by creating action hands. Is this the case or not?

Well, it depends what you mean by "sure".

On the balance of probabilities, I'm pretty confident that the poker games offered by PokerStars are legitimate - that is, after all, part of my job. In addition, I'm pretty confident that the online poker games that I play in at other sites are shuffled fairly. If I didn't think that, I wouldn't play in those games.

No one says you shouldn't ask any questions. This is not a case of "rigtards" vs "shuffle is random" believers. We're all on the same side here as players: we all want fair and honest games of poker.

Ive been waiting now 5 days for them to send me all my hand histories. They are probably editing them.

Yeah, that does, I think. So, essentially what you're saying is that the low number of 73o observations is insignificant by itself because it could simply be part of the tail of a normal distribution of all non-suited non-pairs.

I'm only counting 78, though, since I'm not counting KhQc and KsQh as different.

1142 hands now, here's how the non-suited non-pairs stack up in how many have occurred:

2: 1
3: 0
4: 1
5: 6
6: 2
7: 7
8: 6
9: 10
10: 11
11: 6
12: 9
13: 8
14: 4
15: 6
16: 0
17: 0
18: 1

Given that I expect 1.5% to be outside the 2.5SD, that's 1.17.

After using CritBinom(1142,(24/2652),0.015) I ascertained that the lower limit of 2.5SD is now 4 and the upper limit CritBinom(1142,(24/2652),0.985) is 18.

I have only one group that exceeds this (the 73o). So I expected 1.17 and got 1.

In short, my numbers support what is expected for that test.

Am I getting this, spadebidder?