You forgot to put in you want sites to release all hole cards to the public.

Where did you find that picture of me? I AM BEING FRAMED!!!

I never understand that argument...

Obviously it is possible to figure out how often KK should be up against AA at a table with X players. If you make the kind of rigging you are suggesting it would be possible to notice that KK is up against AA more often than it should, no?


But if you can create a simulation software, that would be awesome. You could create different versions (of which at least one is unrigged and completely random/legitimate) and then have Spade and others do analysis of hand histories and try to figure which version is fishy.

You are this: Wrong.

You cannot rig the deal in any significant* way that cannot be detected by statistical analysis.

Even for a ****** this should be easy to understand.

1) You rig the deal so that something (X) happens more or less than it otherwise would.
2) Someone examines the results and shows, statistically, that (X) happens more or less than it should be happening.

3) 2+2 goes into meltdown and your site is damned forever more (see: AP/UB).

It really is that simple.


* Where 'significant' means that it affects the outcome to the extent that the most sensitive people realise that something is wrong.

Please don't!

Just take it in smaller dosages so that you dont O.D.

This thread is like a drug though...

It's not that. I can help out here by helping riggies focus their thoughts, but on the math and stats? I'm pretty hopeless. We need someone like Spade to be able to provide cogent explanations for all of this.

It's just a shame that riggies like this mumu fellow keep on ignoring what he writes and then posting the same misplaced ideas. I can understand his frustration. However this thread would be much poorer without his participation.

I propose a bet.

Create your simulator that rigs the cards and don't tell anyone the specifics of your algorithm. But you must first create a random deck of 52 cards and then deal a complete normal hand from that deck, to several players and to the full board. You need to use some known open source code for dealing the cards, and there are many available. Then we know you are starting with a normal shuffle and deal.

Then do whatever hole card swap you are going to do to that hand. I don't care if it comes from the potential next deal as you proposed, or however you want to do it, you decide. But change at least one player's hole cards (both cards), however you want. And change nothing else in that hand from what was dealt randomly.

Then generate 50,000 hands with at least 10% of them altered. Create text output for these hands that is formatted like either fulltilt or pokerstars, all you need is the deal and the showdown lines, and the new hand header. This is so that existing tools can be used to analyse the hands. You don't need any betting or folding. Get the format to work in a universal replayer as if it were a preflop all-in hand with everybody in, that should be pretty easy.

Then I will bet you $1000 that I can prove that the deal has been altered, and show specifically what is wrong. And I'll do it within a week. There's a couple other guys who post in probability that would take this action if you want more. I'd suggest you post your challenge there anyway.

Glad you're sticking around Spade!

I'll take some of that action.

I'll even give you 2 to 1.

Escrow mandatory.

I like the bet.

How do you evaluate the software though?

Just so that Mumu can't produce a set of unrigged HHs, claiming them to be from a rigged piece of software, and then winning the bet because no one could find any rigging?

It does matter how many HHs you show. The thing is, that's not the only thing that matters. The other thing that matters is what exactly you're testing. These two things have to be looked at together. One without the other is meaningless. Consider this:

Suppose I said I played a little bit on some site last night and I'm convinced it was rigged or buggy or something. Someone might ask how many hands I played. If I said I played about 15 or 20 hands, a lot of people would dismiss it. But if I added that I was dealt the exact same hand, 3c2h, every time, the same people who dismissed it would now agree that something was wrong.

But if I said I played those 15 or 20 hands and didn't once get dealt pocket Aces and that's why I think it's rigged, then everybody would dismiss my argument.

It should be clear that we can't just look at sample size to dismiss someone's argument. It should be equally clear that we can't just look at the probability of an event to make any kind of judgment about someone's argument. What we need is some number that considers both sample size and the probability of single instance of an event. If we had that, we should be able to use it to judge whether someone's argument really is valid and worth investigating.

As it turns out, there is such a number. It's called standard deviation. It's what Josem and others used to expose the cheating that went on at Absolute Poker a few years ago. They didn't have that many hand histories to work with, but they didn't need that many because what they discovered was something like being dealt the same hand many times in a row. I think Josem said that Potripper's performance was 15 standard deviations above the mean. That's about as close as you can get to ironclad proof that something was wrong.

The truth is, you don't need to find something that outrageous. Spadebidder has said that he would consider anything 4 standard deviations from the mean to be worthy of further investigation, and that sounds like a pretty fair cutoff. There is a better than 99.99% probability that whatever you observe will fall within 4 standard deviations, assuming a fair deal. If it falls outside that, it's worth further testing to see if the deal really is fair. If a site is rigged, further testing will not merely increase the sample size; it will also increase the number of standard deviations the sample departs from the mean, and this will get you closer to proving that it's rigged. If the site continues to rig its deal in the way you're testing for, your sample size will eventually be big enough to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it is rigged.

Somewhere between 6 and 7 standard deviations should be enough to convince almost anybody. The odds against seeing such a thing by chance are somewhere between 500 million to one and 400 billion to one.

tl;dr -- Sample size alone is meaningless. So is the probability of the event. Sample size and probability must be considered together to make a meaningful argument. You can use the standard deviation statistic to do this.

They also had the full hand histories during the AP scandal because someone internally at AP leaked the info on purpose or by accident. This is how they were able to figure out what was going on with Potripper, Greycat and whoever else was in on it. We dont know how long that was going on for. I believe that they may not have ever been able to prove something was going on so quickly without that information. Being that it was something like 15 standard deviations from the mean was also another reason why they caught on.

All that said, I now believe that Pstars is not rigged after believing for a long time that it was. But I would still like to see more transparency in the business. This is my money I am contributing to their business and my poker future.

wrong, refuted many times before

idiot

Maybe good hands come against other good hands "often" is because people are folding crap hands

Then make it realistic. Your claim is that you can alter hole cards to stimulate action. Have only the juiced player and one opponent get all in every hand, and no other cards need to be known except the board. And stimulating action means your alteration has to change the poker value of a hand, not something irrelevant like swapping all 7's for 8's and vice versa.

Your source code will also need to be escrowed when you provide the hands, in order to show whether my conclusion is right or not.

This is where I disagree. The hand in question, AQ vs T9, does have a 63-37 advantage for the AQ before we know anything else. That 37% equity for the T9 includes every possibility -- making a pair without the AQ pairing, making a straight, a flush, 3 of a kind, 2 pair, quads, everything. This is because we don't know what the next 5 cards are. But as soon as we see the flop, everything changes. Now we know that the Ace has paired, so that eliminates any possibility of winning with a pair. We also know that the T9 did not pair in the first 3 cards, so the probability of winning with 2 pair or trips in the next 2 cards is greatly reduced. The turn card further eliminates every winning possibility for the T9 except exactly one: a 7 must come on the river to complete his straight. Everything else that added up to that 37% equity is now impossible.

Looking strictly at the probabilities without regard to any betting, it seems to me that we are forced to conclude that the T9 now has a 9% probability of winning the hand. There is a 9% chance that the next card will be a 7. We know this because we now have more information about the hand. The preflop probabilities could, in a sense, be regarded as a first guess. While it's true that T9 will win 37% of the time against AQ, it is also true that any hand will win only 9% of the time with one card to come and 4 outs. This is true no matter when or how much money goes into the pot.

What I don't understand is how to interpret this. We can't ignore the information we gain as each new board card is peeled off. Each revealed card changes the hand. Obviously, if we were still betting we would make decisions based on each new piece of information. But whether we bet, check, call, raise, or fold, the next card has a 9% chance of being a 7.

The gambling literature is referring to equity calculations, which are just a way of keeping score, in a sense. I understand that, but I'm not really talking about equity. Honestly, I'm not sure what I'm talking about. I guess I'm just disputing the idea that only preflop probabilities should be considered merely because that's when the money went in. Hitting a 4 outer is still hitting a 4 outer, no matter when the money went in.

But I think you can agree it isn't relevant to gambling odds except when the money goes in. As for the other part, we'll have to disagree. My basic stance is that on an all-in preflop we should treat the board as if all 5 cards are exposed at once. If you close your eyes until the deal is done, that's what you get, and the outcome will still be the same. Opening your eyes doesn't affect the outcome. I understand that new information changes the probability under Bayes theorem. I'm saying it doesn't apply to this scenario, and it's an illogical approach (with all due respect to your intellect, sincerely).

The main point is that it doesn't matter on the order the cards come out once all the money is in. Whether the board came out the way it did, or if the "flop" came out J87 and AQ was almost drawing dead makes not one iota of difference to the fact that when all th emoney went in the T9 was 37% to win the hand.

If you can see why that is based on the two board textures A28J7 or 7J82A then we are making progress.

I've offered plenty. You've proven yourself incapable of reading.

Id like to tell you a story...

This story is entitled,The RNG is predictable and repititiously unrealistic

Heres how this story starts. Im 5 hours into a 5k person 6max tourney on Stars with 80 people left. Ive played pretty flawlessly never really getting any hands but stealing blinds and 3 bet stealing left and right. In 5 hours I had one all in and it was early in the tournament. Now I get moved to table and for a half hour I watch a guy go from 40k to 500k with 4 rediculous draw outs on people. Then this hand comes.

Table '286010555 101' 6-max Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: AndreiGorlo (273952 in chips)
Seat 2: pensivefun (180193 in chips)
Seat 3: RawInstincts (133032 in chips)
Seat 4: akula-zt (264512 in chips) is sitting out
Seat 5: <Dr. XYI> (507484 in chips)
Seat 6: LOUPGRIS66 (199770 in chips)
AndreiGorlo: posts the ante 500
pensivefun: posts the ante 500
RawInstincts: posts the ante 500
akula-zt: posts the ante 500
<Dr. XYI>: posts the ante 500
LOUPGRIS66: posts the ante 500
pensivefun: posts small blind 2500
RawInstincts: posts big blind 5000
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to RawInstincts [Qc Qh]
akula-zt: folds
<Dr. XYI>: raises 10000 to 15000
LOUPGRIS66: folds
AndreiGorlo: folds
pensivefun: folds

Now Im thinking to myself. This guy got it in last 3 hands preflop with 33,55, and A10(500k pot against KK). So lets just shove on him while hes in fifth gear which hes more than likely to snap call with a crazy wide range. Well brain thinks it and finger clicks.

RawInstincts: raises 117532 to 132532 and is all-in
<Dr. XYI>: calls 117532

Now as projected he snap calls and shows AQ. Now most players would be like sweet Im in great shape. Welllll when you play on Stars there are easily recognizeable situations where you know you are screwed and this is one of them. Big stack with one over card....Right then I pictured that hand play out before the cards were even dealt. Before the flop cam my shoulders had already shrunken and I had admitted defeat. Why? because over time the mind catches onto repitition of certain outcomes and this is one of the most common doomed situations on Stars. I know the ace is comming on turn or river and have no expectations of winning the hand. Once a big stack makes an incredibly loose snap over call late in a tournement you might aswell pack your bags because its too good to be true 90% of the time. And as no suprise this happens. The good thing is I already knew it was coming so when it did I felt no emotion and simply went on about my evening. This happens all day everyday on Stars and its because the RNG is rigged to give good players less of an edge.

*** FLOP *** [5s 8d 6s]
*** TURN *** [5s 8d 6s] [2c]
*** RIVER *** [5s 8d 6s 2c] [As]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
RawInstincts: shows [Qc Qh] (a pair of Queens)
<Dr. XYI>: shows [Qs Ac] (a pair of Aces)
<Dr. XYI> collected 270564 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 270564 | Rake 0
Board [5s 8d 6s 2c As]
Seat 1: AndreiGorlo (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 2: pensivefun (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 3: RawInstincts (big blind) showed [Qc Qh] and lost with a pair of Queens
Seat 4: akula-zt folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: <Dr. XYI> showed [Qs Ac] and won (270564) with a pair of Aces
Seat 6: LOUPGRIS66 folded before Flop (didn't bet)

That choice of adjectives wasn't restrictive. I read what you originally suggested. Just do that. Do exactly what you are describing, and the bet is still good. I can sell any amount of additional action you want. They will line up to take it.

Edit - nfuego is just goading you for fun, he is a smart guy and a winning player.

Your story has become tiresome.

I don't care what you've asked of me. I owe you nothing. If you didn't want to be ridiculed, you shouldn't have talked down to people when you first showed up on this board with your utter bullcrap.

And boy, let me think.... spend time with my wife or meet up with a rigtard spouting nonsense. Hmmm......