proof or gtfo

exactly

you have exaccury disease, where ur heads looks exaccury like ur butt

I mean do you bother to think? I live in Ohio like you. I'm not aware of there being any real way an American resident can work for one of these poker sites. I guess I could be wrong but I mean seriously, think about it. I even gave you my screen name. It's pretty transparent on my end.

At the same time Josem is open about his working for Stars, a site that has rules preventing employees from playing on their site. Monteroy actually plays on Stars so if he's an employee he must be some kind of super secret type of employee.

Then comes the basic point that there are numerous sites out there. Did they all band together to rig the games the same way and cover it all up the same way? I mean run off with whatever crazy thoughts you want to, but you're seeing monsters under the bed.

I know my wife tells me that all the time.

EDIT: why don't you just come back when you're not so intoxicated and we can resume these discussions

I wonder if there would be any relevance to money won vs. std. deviations graph. for all players.

I feel the exact same way when it comes to your claims.

well I have one shread of proof. Through 360K hands I run worse than 95% of anyone with that sample. I will find a way to see what that percentage is when you do this in terms of BB's won instead of # of pots won. Then, when I play another 360K hands in 6 months and run 95% worse, then what? Not much, i know, but what about three times ina row 6 months after that? How many times repeated would it take to raise an eyebrow in here?

Oh, and I have ALOT of online professional friends. None of which think it is rigged, but all agree that if it was rigged, they would not be surprised in the slightest. They all have large sample sizes, probably much larger than mine. It probably wouldnt be too hard for me to get access to all of their hands. What if they all run worse than 95% of people? What if we start to see a trend of winning players running really really bad.

PS- Where is KRostsonernef? He has my hands too

Oh, and yeah, I think Im going to learn this HEM thing once and for all.

I have another idea for aprop bet, and ohhhh I guarentee its gonna get some action...

...and how does that prove anything?

OK, Im good at math and ****, but let me get this straight... if we take my next 10K AIPF hands and I run exactly the same as my 10K AIPF hands already analized, that means 1 out of 324 people run that bad with that sample? Is that correct?

And then after another 10K, if I ran the same, 1 out of 5832 would run that bad over that sample?

Is that right?

What if the 2nd 10K hand sample, only 1 out of 9 people run that bad. Then when looking at both samples it would be 1 out of 162?

How high would the denominator have to be before a red flag goes up?

Well, I'll defer to the better stats people on that. I came up with those numbers, but your situation has to be discounted slightly because first of all, we're dealing with what is in essence a cherrypicked sample. The odds that your next sample of the same number of all ins is as bad as your first is simply 1 in 18. That sample has no memory of the previous sample.

However, if you said right now I'm going to play 10k more all in hands, end sample, then another 10k all in hands, end sample, then another and we know exactly what we're looking for going in. Then yes over your next 3 samples of that many hands It should be 1 in 5832.

The reason it has to be done this way, is because any of us can go back and find something in our games that has happened which we'd consider rare. Say I flopped a royal flush yesterday.... well, that doesn't change my odds of flopping another one. I can't just pick yesterday as my starting point for the sample in hopes that if my next one comes sooner than later, I've somehow found a crazy statistical anomaly.

And to answer your question.... this is why we need to continuously test. I mean there are thousands of tournament players out there. If something happens to you that is one in 400 and we're testing for it going in, I guess a red flag kind of goes up, but we'd clearly need more testing to verify it. With thousands of players out there, it has to happen to somebody and that somebody could be you. But if 1 in 400 becomes 1 in 6000, then 1 in 100,000, of course a red flag is going to go up and we're going to need to really dig into this stuff.

It probably still makes more sense to just look at the samples as a whole though. For example, I'm pretty sure that if we just looked at 1 million hands together we'd get more statistical certainty than we would arbitrarily choosing our sample sizes. There should be no difference between hand #10,000 and hand #10,001.

this is why I wanted to use every single hand I had ever played.

seriously, how high does that denominator on that fraction have to get before you wonder?

and as long as you set an unbiased preset condition and you always use your entire sample size, then the results are always legit. This is a fact of statistics.

That's the way to do it. Whatever the test is, form a hypothesis, and THEN begin testing it. If you go about that the right way I'm totally on board with you. But if the situation you're describing would end up working, it's naturally going to kick out multiple standard deviations from the norm and the red flag will be staring us in the face. If you were 0.8% off over 50,000 all in hands, I'm pretty sure we have well more than 2 SD. I don't off the top of my head know how to do the calc but I'm pretty confident in saying that.

Important that whatever is being tested, the results don't have outside influences. You can test all in luck. You can test hole card distribution. You can test how often an ace flops when you see a flop with KK. But something like testing how often your opponent has TT when you have AA isn't so easy, because those hands are often not going to show down.

OK

Here is the BB comparison.

First, the original hand analysis:

And here's the new part, using the same hands as above.

Now don't ask me another thing and gtfo.

.

This was the last post I saw from him ...

Patience ...

lol spade I love the edit reason, so sick

can u explain how u got those numbers? under W/L and BB Exp?

b c I cant see how I can have 49.3% equity and be expected to be positive in BBs. That would defy math

not if you get it in better in the bigger pots (which would be logical if you're a good player)

this is why I was talking about breaking down the brackets by size of the pot (in BBs) instead of equity. Then we compare the results that way. Like how I ran in 10 BBs pots... 20 BB pots... etc etc.

I mean your results dont really mean anything here. It could mean I get it in better in the big pots adn that is biased data.

Maybe we misscommunicated

u gotta break it down by size of the pot, not equity.

am i wrong here> I just cant see where u got those numbers from is all. i may very well be missing something here.

it would have the same effect would it not? The larger pots are obviously weighted more. Whether it's broken down in buckets directly or not the overall total remains the same.