Your example shows clearly that you can detect non-randomness even in a meaningless string of cards that has nothing to do with how poker is played, if you do the right test. But in poker it becomes much easier, because the game isn't played that way. It has naturally occurring subsets and divisions of the cards according to the rules of the game, and only a fairly small set of rigging rules would make any sense for a site to attempt. Obviously it would do them no good to just switch all 6's with 7's and vice versa.

A rigging scheme must have a ruleset that somehow affects the poker value of hands or boards or their combinations, which dramatically reduces the universe of interesting things an analysis would need to look for. I could make a list of less than 10 general test plans that could be run on hand histories to rule out any rigging to a very high level of confidence. It's only when one of those has interesting results that you have to develop more specific tests to drill down.

that's what I thought, but it seems things have changed more than once with him, so I wanted to make sure.

Yes, that's true. Just wanted to put forward a simple example that shows Mumu why he's wrong. Wonder if he'll reply...

Seriously, you guys have enough experience with guys like Mumu (whether he is fake or genuine). What exactly are you expecting? He will never yield his beliefs because to do so would mean he is a failure as a player, and he is not prepared to make that step and then work on his game.

I have barely read his theories, but adding on clearly all the basic math errors (I trust real stats guys better in that area) along with the requirement that hundreds of people are in on his fantasy conspiracy makes this a case where nothing anyone says will snap him out of it.

Assuming he is genuine (does not matter if he is not actually), he is a full blown riggie, and he needs it to be rigged, just like die hard conspiracy guys need the government to be behind 9/11 or whatever as that gives them a purpose in life.

Seriously, try once or twice with these guys and once you see they are deep in their delusions let them be, otherwise they will drain all of your energy.

I play against these guys every day and while I am mean to them here, at the tables it is something quite different. Today a simple chat with a guy who had all sorts of rigged theories (will not list them all but this portion was some 4 flush on board thing) went like this


DanDida: np
DanDida: this is always here after last update
DanDida: flush with 1 card
DanDida: this tourney...i like it. got 2nd here once
Monteroy: yeah , you do well in tournaments dont you?
DanDida: sometimes yes.
DanDida: but it's poker
Monteroy: good stuff, have fun
DanDida: ty gl
DanDida: i can say that i do good in mtt
Monteroy: ok
DanDida: all i win in mtt i loose in cash
DanDida: don't know why
Monteroy: seems like you are on top of it
Monteroy: keep it up
DanDida: i know this tourney
DanDida: ty gl


Feel free to sharkscope him to see what "winning" in MTTs means. This guy has played a ton of volume and still plays worse than someone who does not know what the cards mean, yet he has very powerful beliefs as to how the sites are rigged and indeed he does "adjust " for it. He thinks he wins when he loses a ton, and his losses are mainly because of how the site is rigged.

Seriously my fellow shills, you are wasting way too much time trying to educate and convert people who cannot be taught, and you will not even get any satisfaction from trying to educate them (just look at the frustration level in the past couple of days).

Give up on the hopeless riggies and gimmicks. What I would find interesting is for some of the real stats guys to explain how they would try to rig a system if asked as that would give a much better insight as to how a room would actually cheat if they chose to do that.

[QUOTE=Monteroy;17135030]Seriously, you guys have enough experience with guys like Mumu (whether he is fake or genuine). What exactly are you expecting? He will never yield his beliefs because to do so would mean he is a failure as a player, and he is not prepared to make that step and then work on his game.

I have barely read his theories, but adding on clearly all the basic math errors (I trust real stats guys better in that area) along with the requirement that hundreds of people are in on his fantasy conspiracy makes this a case where nothing anyone says will snap him out of it.

Assuming he is genuine (does not matter if he is not actually), he is a full blown riggie, and he needs it to be rigged, just like die hard conspiracy guys need the government to be behind 9/11 or whatever as that gives them a purpose in life.

Seriously, try once or twice with these guys and once you see they are deep in their delusions let them be, otherwise they will drain all of your energy.

I play against these guys every day and while I am mean to them here, at the tables it is something quite different. Today a simple chat with a guy who had all sorts of rigged theories (will not list them all but this portion was some 4 flush on board thing) went like this


DanDida: np
DanDida: this is always here after last update
DanDida: flush with 1 card
DanDida: this tourney...i like it. got 2nd here once
Monteroy: yeah , you do well in tournaments dont you?
DanDida: sometimes yes.
DanDida: but it's poker
Monteroy: good stuff, have fun
DanDida: ty gl
DanDida: i can say that i do good in mtt
Monteroy: ok
DanDida: all i win in mtt i loose in cash
DanDida: don't know why
Monteroy: seems like you are on top of it
Monteroy: keep it up
DanDida: i know this tourney
DanDida: ty gl


Feel free to sharkscope him to see what "winning" in MTTs means. This guy has played a ton of volume and still plays worse than someone who does not know what the cards mean, yet he has very powerful beliefs as to how the sites are rigged and indeed he does "adjust " for it. He thinks he wins when he loses a ton, and his losses are mainly because of how the site is rigged.

Seriously my fellow shills, you are wasting way too much time trying to educate and convert people who cannot be taught, and you will not even get any satisfaction from trying to educate them (just look at the frustration level in the past couple of days).

Give up on the hopeless riggies and gimmicks. What I would find interesting is for some of the real stats guys to explain how they would try to rig a system if asked as that would give a much better insight as to how a room would actually cheat if they chose to do that.[/QUOTEI think its time to bring in Steven Hawkings.QPW need not aply he wont know who that is.

After reading this post replying to qpw using the word "rigtard", all I kept thinking about was qpw having a rigtard baby that was born arguing that the birth never happened and that FTP and Pokerstars were teamed in a giant conspiracy involving his creation.

That was actually pretty funny.

No sequence can be proven to be amiss. So, that statement has no value.


You would be mistaken to think that it proved something was wrong. It would be an expected result.


True randomness will, sometimes, create, as perceived by most humans, non-random characteristics. Which is why I have said that manipulated sequences could more certainly pass tests; Because you would use a great RNG and yet these types of characteristics could be avoided for the length of the test.

This quote is in regards to a '6' following a '7' after 23 times in a row.
Wouldn't you feel silly if you found out that this string was random and you were being leveled ?

You can calculate the chances of a '6' following a '7' 23 times in a row and PROVE to yourself that this outcome is EXPECTED.

The Truth shall set you free.

yeah, one time in 10^22 spade looks stupid. The rest of the time you do (donkman). I'll go with the odds on that.

donkman you seem to treat anything that is nonzero as being about 50/50 in your statements. You completely ignored the three posts that followed your last post in this thread and continue to live in your own little world. You're a special case though, and I give you credit for at least coming at it from a different angle.

The point wasn't that you could prove anything with that small trial, which was an example to illustrate the concept. The point Shane was making was that if that pattern is repeated consistently, you can prove it is not random, or to a very high confidence proportional to the square root of the sample size. My statement was entirely correct in that context.

Most normal people will accept something in a 99% confidence interval to be effective proof, especially when multiple data sets can be tested.



Wrong. An individual statistical anomaly over a smallish sample of hands may be expected. Fortunately we have the ability to dissect it much further with further testing. If, say, we discovered an anomaly that was about one in a trillion to occur, it would be anything but expected.

You would say the same thing about a 2 followed by a 1.

If you have a million things that are each a million to one, it becomes common. But the real point is not that it would be uncommon, and look stupid, but rather that it is expected.

Only if continued testing of the same statistical anomaly continued to yield the same results.

Your use of the word "expected" is laughable.

I would like to discuss how the word "expected" should be defined. And then perhaps other words I could use for certain concepts I am trying to convey.


Back to the 7 followed by a 6 for 23 times in a row at 10^22.( or 23 ???)

A 5 followed by a blank(x) and then a 6 for 23 times in a row would fall into the same category. And if we go so far as to include being able to find sequences with up to 4 blanks, such as 7xxxx6 for 23 times in a row, my calculations are that it would be "expected" to happen every 10 years at the current rate of online poker playing.

If we add 8xxxxx3, again 23 times in a row, then it would be "expected" to happen 10 times a year !

I could be off, I didn't double check my calcs, but I feel good enough to throw it out here now. What do you think ?

I think if something is going to be properly analyzed it needs to not be cherrypicked and be testable on a going forward basis.

I think you're also testing your hypothesis incorrectly. What you should do with the series I gave is make your observation and hypothesis. Then go out and gather NEW data to confirm your hypothesis. Getting back to your one in a million thing then (from a previous recent post), you'll on average find one of those 'one in a million things' in your dataset. OK. Now go get more data to actually test your hypothesis. The odds of that happening? ta-da---one in a million. If you do find that (say 8xxxxx3) in that second test (not the one where your first observed it), I'll believe you. If not...well, you won't.

the point.







your head.

+1...exactly what I was trying to say (in a post after NF's.)

Are you sure about that?

Humans tattle.

If all of these sites were rigged they would have to be rigged by humans (or Lizard People).

Humans tattle. All the time.

You like analyzing humans - no tattling so far over all these years and sites. Do the math.

Just say superbots, that's what you are semi proposing, and pretend humans had nothing to do with it, the sites just created them themselves.

BTW, my example is doing EXACTLY what your example was trying to do--that is remove some occurrences from one area and put them in another area. So it's hilarious that you're claiming one creates a pattern, but the other doesn't.

It's just sad that your well-earned avatar is the same as NFuego's...makes things confusing a bit.

you don't know which card came on the turn and which on the river???

Bah, it's been evident for a while you don't know what you're talking about. Done wasting time. Been fun though. Sort of. About as hard as taking candy from babies.

Just to humor you...So what? Even if what you're trying to say is true, so????

Hey! look over there! cheese!

That's what the example did...if you interpret it correctly.

Sorry to keep destroying your arguments.

But anyway, please keep nitpicking the example, and missing the whole point. It's funny when people do it. Yeah, but...but...it's not exactly correct because of ...ummm...well, ... you'd have to do this...and so they're different!

All while missing what the example is illustrating. Hint: when I use numbers, I realize I am no longer talking about a complicated poker example. I tried to simplify it for you. Don't get lost in the simplifications--understand the example and how it applies to your argument, if you actually want to learn (as you claimed to in the thread in the other forum)