Saying AMEC's results are unlucky but normal seems a bit understated. I think running worse than roughly 95% of all players is running HORRIBLY, not simply unlucky. I mean, at what point can we call his sample abnormal? The point is, we never can. For all his hands, the results are just one blip on a larger curve where we can simply say, "someone has to run that bad". So even if he was -5 SD, he's still normal, just more unlucky.

I think the point AMEC should be taking from this is, he was absolutely justified in thinking he was running like crap, because he was. His one sample (even if it had 10 billion hands) can never prove anything except for how lucky or unlucky he was.

Am I right or wrong here, spadebidder?

im just saying its possible just like we never landed on moon.
If the stats add up then they are rigging some other way let me think a minute

I think everyone saw that coming too.

Nice try, buddy, we all know you're a billionaire math whiz who has no problem showing that other sites are valid while secretly rigging your own site!

It all makes sense now!

Excellent point. I guess we will go ahead and assume that everything is fully legitimate in the online poker world like so many other multi-million dollars industries we read about.

Or you could analyze hand histories yourself.

That's exactly what I said, nicely done.

Want me to say again?

I don't agree that this is very noteworthy at all. Your example of -5SD would be extremely abnormal, and would mean that only 1 person in 3.3 million (with this sample size) ran worse. There aren't 3.3 million players who have over 370K hands played on Stars, and it would be a freak thing worthy of scrutiny. But at 1 in 18, there are many regular players with the same minor bad luck.

A normal curve doesn't have to be unconstrained for the tails to go out forever, they don't. There are only so many poker players.

I might be one of those bottom 5.5 percenters in all-in luck, and I'd never know because this level of offset isn't noticeable. You wouldn't know either unless you check. You are saying that over the course of 371,000 hands, over 3 years and 2000 hours of play, that you would know if you lost an extra 77 all-in hands more than expectation. That's 2 extra lost hands a month. No, that would not be perceived. By any human.

The bottom line is that this had very little effect on his actual winrate. He has been over and under all-in expectation over the course of this hand history, and it just looks like noise against the win line. His perception was not justified or accurate. I won't post his other information here without permission, but it shows this clearly.

Edit: on your note about not proving anything with even 10 billion hands. Checking someone's all-in luck is only a small part of checking the randomness of the deal. That wasn't the objective here. Incidentally I also looked at his hole card distributions and flop distributions, and they were all normal. And there are many other things you can check.

How naive can all of you be? If you study corporate business (not just poker) historically the more successfull (in terms of finances) a coproration is, the more likely corruption exists. Greed eventually corrupts big organizations which generate high revenues. It is simply "gamblers logic" which suggest that the sites must be legitimate. Rememeber, these sites are not regulated by any accredited oganization with "real teeth." They can do whatever they want. Lastly, they have already proven corruption in a few cases and if you recall, they could've got away with it if it wasn't for greed.

snake's back

Well, greed and that other thing...I forget the word sometimes...

Oh yeah, evidence.

Enron was proven to be corrupt as ****, but I don't suspect my power company of being corrupt because the bills they send me make sense as to my power usage. I don't just completely ignore what they give me and shout "Show me your audits that PROVE you meter power correctly!" because that would make me a jackass.

All I know is that he thought he was running like crap. Running worse than 95% of people (assuming everyone played the same number of hands) seems to support this, no?

If not, exactly how poorly must one run before it would fit your idea of discernible?

This one sample proves it alllllllaaaaahhhhhh.......




Just kiddin

Nevermind, cant even see it, oh well

unclearly rigged

What pun ????

that is just meanless ever
- lack of sample size
- too much information missing
- with large sample size, 99.9% of people would not know where to begin.

Water sucks. It really, really sucks. Water sucks...




Welcome home, snake.

Just wondering, did they disclose exactly which third party audited the RNG, and if so, has any investigations been done as to the legitimacy of said party?

Basically, I am hoping it is not a KGC type organization, because we all know how legitimate they are

http://www.pokerstars.com/poker/rng/

A RNG is random, the question is do they run the RNG the whole time .

Its relative easy.

1. Do you win its not important ...you are able to outplay the system rigged or not

2. Do you loose...you are not able to outplay the system

3. You are break even...is it worth to spend the time with poker ( fun , entertainment ) ?

For me its 3 and only worth to play a few hours / month for fun

Make that legit first