Haven't spade done something like that already? I recall seeing something with those percentage distributions you have there.

this is quiet different
spade did it with large sample size of datamine hand.
with alot missing information.
and he only do the board texture. which is not related to any hole cards.
where my included at least 2 set of hole cards. with compete information.
and this give better idea
i can win 3/10 of PP vs AK ad won 3/10 of AK vs PP
the site will have result of coin flip been exactly coinflop.
but that is really suck for me on $$ part.
what spade did without min 2 set of hole card is meaningless and misleading.

oh come on man
it's a jk
i put the hrs and money in to play those donkfest allin shovel tournment.
i put the hrs in to get all the information sort it out and present it to you all.
i do not believe this is gonna proof anything as it may show rigged in 10k allin but when it up to 100k allin it may balance up. and show rigged again say 200k allin, then show non-rigged at 1 million allin. variance is a bitch.
but at least it's something.
better then coming to this thread, where everybody talk from their A-hole.
however, i don't see myself quite poker anytime soon. so it's just matter of time that i rearch a sample size where we can get a better idea.

Yes.

Is that an e.e. cummings poem?

Aside from pointing out that board cards are absolutely related to hole cards, I've also done a very large analysis of preflop all-ins with hole cards (millions of all-ins). Once you post yours we'll compare, as I'll have mine ready to publish too. Some early samples are already in this thread somewhere.

Edit: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=7464

I've refined the methodology some since then, and I'm working on an analysis of some small effects from player behavior. As I've mentioned before, even preflop all-in results are not 100% random at full ring after people fold selectively (but they are in heads-up games, obviously), but very very close. For an example of why they are not, see this:

http://www.spadebidder.com/statistic...-claim-part-2/

High unpaired cards tend to have a very slight equity boost against low-medium pairs in all-in hands, because of selective folding at full ring. But you need huge samples to quantify it.

I do want to commend you for trying to bring actual data to the table. You seem to have a level headed approach. However, why be so quick to judge whether Spadebidder's study is useful or not. Maybe ask some questions about it before condeming it.

Thanks, Arouet. About exactly my reaction. :-)

I should offer to renew my prop bet but don't want to deal with the flaming.

What's to deal with?

Just ignore it.

I'll be one to support signuptoday. If his all-in preflop study helps him (or anyone else) to see the truth, then more power to him.

A long time ago I did something similar on Bodog with their "Beginner Tournaments" which are quite similar to the DoN's. 10 players, 5 make the money. I remember the results were not so good, but interesting.

If I were to redo the study, I would modify it a bit, keeping track of what player is at risk of busting during each all-in.

He y what happend to FUPSMF ?wouldnt be nice to here a little more from him. Also,where is the address and phone number that was in his post?

Wat?

hi spadebidder
sorry that i jump conclusion too early.
i am definely looking forward to your studies.
my won't be publish for a while. since i use my own hand, it will take time to build up.
i definely bookmark your site and looking forward to more update.

you miss his post ? bottom of page 944

Ah, yes. The fantasist.

Vaguely amusing gimmick.

This was published in InsidePokerBusiness & written by John McNally

Just recently I was replying to a thread on a well known poker forum about a player who was getting his AA’s cracked by A3, A5, A9 etc and there followed the now almost inevitable comments about the Random Number Generator (RNG) being rigged and I started to think about the mythical ‘doom switch’ and what exactly would be needed to accomplish it. There have always been accusations about sites being rigged and dodgy random number generators, but unlike the obvious benefits of rigging online casino software to manipulate payouts there really is very little benefit to a poker site. After all, we make our cash from the rake.

Of course, the ideal is to have a room full of players who have the same bankroll and the same skill level so that the money just gets circulated around from player to player with the rake slowly eroding the total amount of cash. Sites don’t really want Sharks eating the fish and withdrawing the cash from the site/network. Something that the new structure of the Bodog Network is attempting to prevent with some changes and amendments to the standard, ‘traditional’ format of payments to skins on the network. Reward the sites that bring in the fish (depositors) and stop the Rakeback wars; A unique view on the situation but one that will bear close scrutiny as they build the network.

Anyway, back to the ‘Doom Switch’.

We've all been on the receiving end of really bad beats and we remember the bad beats but not the times we hit our runner-runner double gutshot to take down the huge pot. It’s simply human nature to remember losses rather than wins. If you win you are briefly elated and then you move on. If you lose you’re left with a painful reminder (your poker balance) hand after hand.

Bu then, we've all had it, you’re running great and then all of a sudden it's bad beat after bad beat. You start to question how things could suddenly have gotten that bad. You’re playing the same, your opponents are still there, and they can’t have changed (can they?)

A couple of things here; Are you REALLY that good a poker player that you consider yourself to be invincible, or was it a convergence of good cards, opponents of a lower skill level than you and a little bit of luck that put you on a winning streak? Take away any of these 3 components and your game won't look quite so good.Most arguments for poker being a game of skill conclude that poker is roughly 80% skill and 20% luck. AA vs any random hand is 85% to win, but against 4 random hands, AA will only hold up 55% of the time, so when you’re pushing ‘All-In’ with your aces you’re not as big a favorite as you may think. But of course you’re an incredibly skilled poker player who reads your opponents perfectly and makes all the right decisions aren’t you?

So, if you believe it’s not you, then it MUST be the system being rigged against you ….right?So, the theory is that there is a ‘Doom Switch’ which controls whether you win or lose. Deposit lots, and lose without cashing out and you’ll still get good cards because in the long run you’re a losing player. The more cash you win, the longer you play for and the more you grind (and rake). Deposit a little, win lots and then the poker room flicks the ‘Doom Switch’ on you which means you now no longer win a hand but your opponents hit miracle cards to beat your awesome power hands. “After all, how dare you be good enough to be able to cash out?”“You’re taking money out of the network and that’s just not right!”” The poker rooms don’t want to see winners do they?“There must be something in the system that controls if you win or lose to make the poker room more money. It’s got to be easy for them hasn’t it?”But, in order for the 'doom switch' to work the system would have to:-

a) Be able to calculate and keep track of your hands in order to manipulate the cards (but what happens if everyone at the table has been 'doom switched'?

Then who wins?

Or all but 1 player is supposed to be on a winning streak? Then who wins?

This would then assume that the system is working on a sliding scale and you have to be at some point on this scale. So following that logic, every time you sit at a table the system has to work out where you are in relation to everyone else on the scale in order to deal the cards in the right way.

It then has to assess how you play in order to give the right cards to you in order to get you to follow how the system wants you to play to get the desired result....(This is a little reminiscent of being under hypnosis and being told to perform certain actions on demand).

b) Then it has to know who is going to deposit again if they bust out because there’s no point 'doom switching' someone who is going to leave forever if he’s broke; so ideally the RNG now has to know your bank balance and your inclination to deposit. Our RNG would really need to understand your social and economic standing as well as your proclivity to gamble and to recover from damaging situations both in financial terms and the damage to your ego.

So the RNG needs to know your income, expenses and available funds for playing poker as well as your mood and how badly you will be affected by your losing streak. Are you going to say "To hell with it" or are you going to come back and try again? How much money does your mortgage cost? How much are your car payments? Has the downturn in the economic climate affected your income? The list goes on. …(This is starting to sound more and more like George Orwell’s 1984)

Now, in order to have this system run effectively all these calculations have to be done for every single player in every single hand, second by second. (This is becoming a very omnipotent system!?!)

But what about tournaments? Is the system allowing you to get so far in the tournament before turning the cards against you? What happens if you decide (of your own free will?) to go ‘All-In’ and you get callers who also go ‘All-In’?Where on the 'doom switch' level should the winner be?

Is it possible that the system could allow an incredibly bad player to win a huge tournament against much better opposition without it looking horrifically fixed?

It wouldn't have to be just 1 hand to accomplish this; it would have to be every single hand.

The conclusion of this is that the entire tournament would have to be mapped out in advance in order to know who is going to win, which means your choices are no longer your own and you're being manipulated by the system (Is it me or is this starting to sound like the Matrix?). So actually, you’re not playing poker, you’re trying to fight against the system which has pre-determined who’s going to win! So if this is the case, there’s no point playing poker and it’s already decided, so in theory you could just sit at a table and the system would do all the work for you. After all, it already knows if you’re going to win or lose, doesn’t it? Are you going to be ruled by a machine that controls your poker destiny?

Now obviously I've gone to the extreme with this analysis but if you follow the lines of argument all the way then this is the direction it leads.

I'm sure there's some things I've missed and some points that can be debated but in closing... if designers of software were able to build this sort of code into the RNG without it being blatantly obvious to even the most minimal of scrutiny (most sites do have their software independently audited by companies like PriceWaterhouse Coopers) then they should probably be working for NASA, FBI or someone! If on the other hand this is exactly what you’re doing, you’ve built the system exactly as I’ve described and I’ve just ruined your ingenious and carefully constructed plan then I’m sorry and I tip my hat to you! The Poker Matrix has you!

I hope this is not true because the way a business treats its staff can be a reflection of how it treats its customers. How in the world can you take care of your customers if you cant take care of your employees? I have seen this first hand working for the same company for 8 years. Luckily, our counseling staff is being treated better so our clients are getting much better help as a result.

Americans trust that their Gov't is looking into the best interests of Americans. I, as an American, have a hard time believing that another foriegn country is looking into my best interests as a customer. I feel if you live in Russia(Sov't Union) for example, I wouldn't expect a Soviet Union citizen to applaude regulation through the USA Gov't, but through his own country.

Yeah, they're gone. That's kinda shady since it doesn't show the post has been edited.

FWIW, I asked that the phone number/address be removed. Of course, PokerStars can and should be subject to all the discussion/criticism that you want, but providing the physical address and phone number details doesn't help anyone. It'd be really bad for some nutter to take that information and cause a security issue, and harassing the receptionist who answers the phone seems entirely inappropriate too.

If you want to contact PokerStars, their main address is on the website, or you can email them too.

why is his address and phone numbers dropped from his post?

Im an American. I disagree completly with this sentiment.

Also, just as a heads up, the Soviet Union....sort of doesnt exist.

Yea we wouldn't want any transparency would we?

I shouldn't even dignify this kind of stupidity with a response.

What are you talking about? Our address is on our website: