Like you, I am not an expert in stats, so I have to work at it to really understand what these guys are saying, What I aim to do, at the very least, is understand the gist of what their saying, even if I'm probably not comfortable with the nitty gritty.

If I'm reading them right, several of these guys have responded to your specific point there. If you are following rules, they will be detectable on a significant sample. It's not as simple as just saying I'm going to make one change in hand A, and then fix it in hand B. Changing hand A will affect the natural distribution in one way. "fixing" it in hand B, may fix one aspect of the distribution, but will cause a brand new distributional change in another manner, that will have to be fixed down the road too? Doing this over and over will cause the natural distribution to be all out of whack.

Remember also, that unless all these hands are heads up against the same person, you're always playing different people, and their distributions will have to look ok too.

The only way around this, as Spade has pointed out, is if you applied the swaps in a random manner, but as noted, that will not accomplish any rigging goals.

Hope this helps, someone please correct me if I've misstated something,

This pretty much sums up the whole thread. Somebody who understands the situation explains it clearly to somebody who doesn't and they do the equivalent of "la la la, i'm not listening".

You say that it cannot be "tested with a single players hand history" and yet you have mentally tested with your own hand history whilst playing haven't you? Thats how you have come up with your theory?

It has been explained by many people in simple terms that if you manipulate a random deal in any non random way it will show up if the hand histories are analysed in the correct way. You need explain exactly what you have seen happening so that it can be checked for and if you have hand histories to prove that it has at least happened to you it would help.

Everybody understands what you are proposing so please stop pretending they don't.

You have proposed that AA and KK are dealt at the correct frequency but are swapped so that they run into each other more often than they should. You know statistically how often you should run into KK when you have AA so you can easily check if this is happening because AA vs KK will usually goto showdown. Are you going to show this happening with your hand histories or is this nonsense? Note that you have suddenly gone quiet on this idea and moved onto something else now that it has been explained as nonsense. You can appreciate how this makes your ideas seem spurious, hypothetical ranting rather than based on actual experience.

You have proposed that turn and river cards are swapped so that draw completing river cards which may never have been chased and seen appear on the turn instead. This would mean that flush draws (for example) will hit more often on the turn and the suit distribution will be skewed when flop and turn cards are analysed. Cancelling it out with a similar situation where the FD hits on the river instead would surely cancel out the action you just created. Cancelling it out by making an 'extra' flush draw hit when somebody has a full house would create too many flush vs FH confrontations which could be detected. It is impossible to physically show you that this theory wouldn't work unless you explicitly state exactly what rules are being implemented. The fact that you do not know what these rules are is an indication that this theory is just your imagination running away with you rather than actual experience. Are you going to show this happening with your hand histories or explain exactly what rules are being implemented?

Holy **** dude! Don't you know some of the guys you are talking to here have asked the same questions you have and done analysis that puts yours to shame? Over huge samples? Look at spadebidder's study, for example. How many hours do you think he put into it? Others have been less public with their analysis.

A skeptical approach is just that: you have a hypothesis, you test it, you draw conclusion. You have a hypothesis, this is the discussion around it. You are getting tons of serious answers about what may be wrong with your hypotheisis. You seem to be dealing with this on an emotional, and not scientific, level. Stop being so wedded to your theory. Or better yet, go out and test it, and report back.

Too many instances to point out. You're full of crap.

QFT

I again urge you nice shills to convert to the dark side, it really is much more relaxing, in fact you often times get benefits like turning mad, crazed xenophobes into babbling stalkers


Again maam, join me in the Sunday Million each week or the $55+ tournaments I play pretty much daily. Still do not see what implying I play at a different level than anyone can check within 1 minute proves other than you are an obsessed stalker (who loses at micro stakes).

Prove to me you actually even play tournaments above $1. Come on already - you are American, be proud of your "accomplishments."


Add a comment like this once every 2 weeks and angry guys filled like hate like the above will be mad forever


For the dumber gimmick/maybe genuine dumb riggies go with a slightly different approach. Mention riggie commandments and use more silly sarcasm.


Commandment 3: Thou shalt hurl personal attacks



Commandment 4: Thou shalt assume



Commandment 5: Thou shalt have no time to test thy theories


Commandment 1: Thou shalt ask others to prove it false


Commandment 7: Thou shalt believe anything is possible with software




Heh. This is what you guys are talking to for so long? Jesus.





MUHAHA!

Seriously, come over to the dark side, it is more fun and efficient. You nice riggies are crazier than the riggies!

Nope. But it's a lot quicker than "person of limited intellectual capacity who refuses to debate and just ignores any posts that are inconvenient to him"

How about you get a grip of probability maths and stop wasting everyone's time?
You are a lying liar who tells lies*.

That paragraph can be easily refuted in the last couple of pages so why you want to so clearly demonstrate that you are a liar and thus reduce any credibility you had to zilch is unclear.


* Yes, I 'borrowed' that from Josem.

All I've seen from you is childish 4th grade name calling... and "explaining" what other people said... when all you use is other peoples material, this is called plagiarism. So what if you simply changed a few words around to make it sound original... And at the end of the day I bet you have zero clue whether what you're essentially copying and pasting makes sense, holds up in "mathematical court", or if it's completely fabricated. All you know is you agree with so and so, so you're going to swing from his scrotum while trying to make yourself sound as smart as the people you are stealing your intellectual material from.

QPW and I differ in that I would never consider stealing your intellectual material, so it is indeed quite safe.

Take that as a compliment if you wish.

All the best.

Why don't you understand this is utter rubbish?

Lets suppose your rule is to swap flush making river cards to the turn to generate action. Lets also suppose you can counteract this by swapping somewhere else to ensure that suit distribution of suits is correct on the overal deal and up to the turn.

The fact remains that somebody is turning too many flush draws and somebody is losing to too many turned flush draws which can be checked with hand histories.

The swapping rules would also have to be dynamic to account for the changing styles of play. When people with the brilliant rigtard pattern mapping brain like yours intuitively realises that flush draws "always" hit on the turn they will start chasing them more often and betting harder on flops to stop others chasing them. This will affect the number of turn and river cards seen and surely influence the swaps available.

This is all hypothetical nonsense just like your posts of course but we are still waiting for you to show us what you have witnessed so that we can test for it.

Bingo, not surprising that he completely ignored your last post, which was the most specific and constructive yet (at least in the past several hours). And you wonder why the rest of us don't bother...

As far as calling ******s ******s, as I've said before, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

Take that any way you like.

Your inane gibberish is getting ever more desperate and ever more hilarious by the minute.

Clue: How much of the material in this thread do you think is original research?

It's all been gone over time and time again both by myself and others.

Explaining something in different and simpler terms to those who can't grasp a concept is not plagiarism.

You can call me names all you want... I could care less what you think of me.. I'm just trying to save you the life long heart ache of having to look your ******ed kid in the face everyday regretting those times you thought calling some people on the internet ******s cool. Now, I sincerely hope this doesn't happen to you, but karma is a bitch.

So please, continue calling me, or anyone else that doesn't agree with you, ******s... You're clearly lacking in self esteem so if it makes you feel better, by all means...

The Difference between them and you: They actually understand what they are talking about, whereas you simply resort to acting like a 4th grader when asked something you don't really know the answer to, after having copy pasted things other people have said in the hopes it makes you look more intelligent than you really are.

Spade: It's like this, this and this.
"tard": I see, but what if this?
Spade: Then it's like this, that and this.


QPW: It's like this, this and this because that's what spade said.
"tard": But what about this?
OPW: Umm.. I am out of my league and cannot answer.... UR A TARD!

I love spam... just not internet spam

While QP won't dispute that he sometimes acts like a fourth grader, you could do worse than seek out his more substantive replies ITT.

If I were inclined to, I would.. but I have no inclination to take him or anything he says seriously since he cannot converse on an adult level without flaming and name calling.

Seems fair.

Suppose I said I had flipped a coin a thousand times and had come up with 500 heads and 500 tails. It's a little unusual to have a sample fit so perfectly with probability theory, but it's ovbiously within expectation, so we have no reason to suspect anything. But if you discovered that the first 500 flips were heads and the rest were tails, you'd know something was wrong.

Or you might discover that the flips perfectly followed the pattern: HTHTHT... This, too, would indicate that the flips were not random. Maybe the flips looked like this: HH TTT HHH TT, and continued that way throughout. Again, a non-random pattern.

These are exaggerations of the effects you create when you manipulate a random sequence according to some set of rules you've devised. The manipulation inevitably creates non-random characteristics in the sequence, and these characteristics can be discovered through proper testing (given a sufficiently large sample). In other words, it's not just the totals we can test for.

Whether anyone is actually testing for any particular thing is a different question, and it can wait. First, let's establish something: do you believe it is possible to manipulate a random sequence, using any set of rules you can devise, and produce a new sequence which cannot be shown to be non-random? Ignore, for the moment, how hard it might be to test for or how many bajillions of hands it might take to detect the non-randomness. Let's first find where we agree or disagree on the theory behind it all.

That's evident.

And if you did you did care less you wouldn't keep up this inane chittering whining about name calling.

The more idiotic riggies have been known as rigtards since long before I came here.

If you don't like the name, get a clue.

No you're not. You're just trash talking and having a good old whine.

I was going to anyway.

If you ever do get a clue you'll notice that not everyone who has concerns is labeled a rigtard, by me or anyone else who uses the expression.

Only those who behave in a ******ed manner.

I love the way you try to take the moral high ground on the insults front before doing exactly that which you complain of when others do.

More standard 'tard practice, of course.

Except that isn't what actually happens.

What actually happens is:

'tard: I can rig the deal so that no one will be able to detect it.
QPW: You can't devise a system of rigging that is undetectable for this reason: <reason>.
'tard:
'tard:
<some time elapse>
'tard: I can rig the deal so that no one will be able to detect it.
QPW: Why do you keep acting like a ****** and ignoring explanations!


You see, if you had even the slightest modicum of sense, you would see that when I said that if you rig the deal to have some effect then by definition there must be an effect to detect, you would also see that that statement would only need further explanation to a mental midget.

Without any "proof". I just called 2 hands 100% perfectly...

Me: JJ (all in push pre flop)
Him: AQ (limps in, then calls)

Flop brings nothing... Me "Here comes the Q" and sure enough.


Next hand in a completely different tournament...

Me: QQ (push all in pre flop, 1 caller. limpers fold)
Him: K3s

Me: Here comes a flush

Flop: 2 hearts... flop last heart.

I'm getting so good at predicting the "rng" it ain't funny.. Too bad I can't see everyone's hole cards before I bet.

Yeah yeah, I know.. no proof again but it's still quite annoying when you know what's going to beat you before the cards are even dealt.

FWIW posts like these are why people are insulting you.

You post nonsense like this and then get all antsy when you're called a 'tard.

Clue: You DID NOT know what cards were coming. You just made a guess which happened to be correct.

In saying all of this, do you not have the slightest bit of sense to realize when I have taken into consideration what others (spade for example since he seems to be the only one who can actually explain most things and what to look for and since I've pretty much been talking one on one with him in this thread) have explained to me, as well as what to look for etc etc?

You might like to go back through and actually read my posts before simply trying to label me.

Lastly, whether or not you call me names has no emotional bearing on me whatsoever.. it's just annoying having to scroll through all the **** you spout off when I'm actually looking for someone who has replied in an intellectual manner. But hey, if hiding behind your computer screen and calling people names is what you're all about, then by all means... just know that by attempting to flame and belittle people who may or may not understand things a certain way, but are asking and doing so pretty respectively (while having to combat you idiotic trolls at the same time) so that they may learn... you effectively make yourself look like a complete jack ass.

Just fold your big pocket pairs and push when you have K3, AQ, 27 or whatever. This way you're the one that hit's the river and will win every hand. Problem solved

It's called bait.