I would like to thank this douche for bringing some spice to this thread (though a bit of a shame some of the nice shills got burned trying to help him). This was certainly a nice change of pace from all of the boring gimmick accounts.

The main character in the story will be called the douche since that will make him easy to identify and that is what he is.

A quick cliffnotes as it looks like this relatively interesting chapter in the thread is reaching an end.



- A random new poster screams about running bad which at first looks totally mundane.

- The calls for proof/HHs finally have someone willing to offer them, which he does (though naturally the Douche had no real idea how many hands he actually played)

- Silly prop bets are offered and some are made, and the douche demonstrates he has no working knowledge of statistics or tracking software. He claims that he will accept the statistical results if they show he is running relatively within expectation. Handsome Monteroy laughs at the time at the likelihood of that prospect.

- Spade does a good amount of work, shows the douche ran a bit bad, but well within reasonable expectations.

- Douche trumpets the results as proof of something it is not, and suddenly fancies himself a stats expert and demands that a different study be done.

- That is done, and shows he ran a bit better than expected.

- Douche ignores that result and re-defines the world based on partial facts of all of the above creating the "how can an OPR 99% guy run worse than 95% (even though it should be 1 in 18, not 1 in 20) in a tiny segment of hands within tourney play" belief structure.

- Math guys point out how he is butchering math, but douche persists with his flawed beliefs and declares some sort of moral victory several times. The antiquated word "pwned" is seen. Random riggies rush to his side in support.

- Douche declares a study which showed he ran pretty much within statistical expectation proves he ran outside of statistical expectation.

- Douche continues to lose and lose at the tables, likely a lot due to tilt, and perhaps some due to not being as good as he thinks, after his major single score in early February which accounted for more than half of his winnings.

- Since Feb 10th, douche has according to sharkscope lost nearly $5,000 in 334 tournaments (MTT and SnG) at an ROI of -47%. He also has reached his "career valley" in cash games having spewed a few thousand more over the past few months.

- Douche is now droning on about new studies, but will never get any more help from the nice shills. Conspiracy theories about this will form.

- Douche will hopefully continue to lose at his current rate and become an active riggie in this thread (will be nice to have one who actually plays for a change)

- Monteroy does a long winded cliff notes


Hope that helps.

All the best.

The problem with doing what you're talking about -- analyzing poker situations -- is that it's all but impossible to think of every situation, and even if you get most of them, to weight them properly. What will most likely happen is that you'll sit around and remember the situations that seem most "off" to you and then analyze them. If you've run bad in hitting your flush draws on the river, it will probably seem like it, and you'll include it. If you've run better than normal, you probably haven't noticed it and won't think to check it. That's just human nature.

And that doesn't begin to address how to weight everything. Is it worse to miss your flush draw early in the tournament with 25 BBs in the pot and 50 BBs left in your stack, or on the money bubble with 25 BBs in the pot and nothing left in your stack? You can probably think of arguments both ways. You can also throw your hands up and just say it's exactly the same, and if this were strictly about probabilities, these two situations would be the same. But this is about the possibility of rigging, and that complicates things quite a bit. Now you have to think about things like motives. Does it benefit the site more to rig it against you early or late? Does it depend on who you are? Your past results? Will they rig late flush draws against you this month and early ones next month? Will they rig them in your favor in "unimportant" situations to try to even things out?

What effect will all this tweaking have on card distribution? Will it be detectable in a single person's HH but look normal in a site-wide HH? Or vice versa, maybe? How difficult would it be to rig the deck in some way but still make the cards look like they're being dealt randomly?

Here's the truth: it is not possible to use a set of deterministic rules to perform operations on random numbers in a way that is undetectable. If any site is manipulating results, they are leaving a trail somewhere. It is possible that no one has yet looked in the right place for that trail, but if results are being manipulated, the trail is there.

Think about the easiest place to look for the trail: card distribution. If cards really are randomly distributed, not only should you be dealt each card in the deck an equal number of times, but each card in the deck should end up in each "slot" on the board an equal number of times. The 2 should be the middle card on the flop 1 in 52 times. So should the 9, and so should every other card in the deck. And that's just the beginning. The crooked site also has to worry about how often monotone flops come up, or flops with two clubs, or paired flops of each rank, or rainbow flops -- everything you can think of has to agree with expectation, simply because these things are so easy to check.

That doesn't leave much wiggle room to manipulate a deck. I don't think it's even possible to rig a deck in a way that both benefits the site and allows the card distribution to stay within expectation in every measurable way for an indefinite number of hands. There are just too many ways to measure the distributions. How many times has the flop had an A in the first position and a 7 in the third, and if your rigging plan gets that one right, did it also put the 3 in the middle the correct number of times? If we have a big enough database to test, we can check the frequency of every possible flop. There are 52*51*50=132600 possible flops, counting order. That's a lot of flops for a crooked site to keep track of, and if even one of these gets too far out of whack because of their rigging scheme, it will be detectable (given a big enough sample to test).

And we haven't even talked about turns and rivers. They have to conform, too.

I've written all this to emphasize the enormous complexity of the problem of rigging a deck without affecting the frequency distribution of the individual cards. I won't say it's impossible, but I haven't seen anyone come close to suggesting a way to do it.

I only read the first paragraph. Ill read the rest later. I agree that there are countless scenarios that could be analyzed, how many would it take before you question it? I'll let you guys come up with the scenarios. We can debate them on whether or not it is relevant. IF we agree, then run the test and see what happens.

The problem with the second test that spade ran, was that we compared my average equity in AIPF hands vs. BBs actually won. The problem is the size of the pots are weighted (so avg equity is worthless!!) When figuring the avg. equity for the number of hands won (the first test), the avg equity would suffice bc we were treating EACH HAND EQUALLY. When we start talking about the size of the pots, average equity doesnt mean squat bc each hand is weighted differently.

It tilts me when people with no knowledge of stats spew off about the second test. Even Spade will agree that the test is not relevant.

No, we absolutely did not. We compared the equity of every single individual hand to the winnings of that hand, and kept a +/- tally of BBs won or lost vs. the expected number in that hand. I did it. I know. And I did it using a valid method. What you suggest would be stupid.

You should abandon this argument now as it is totally wrong. No "average equity" was used for anything on that second test.

I have the spreadsheets that show this being done exactly as I describe. They are simple to reproduce by anyone.

The nloy way the second test would mean anything is if you figure my avg. equity in pots with the weight of the pot figured in. Being a winning player, it is all but a lock that my avg. equity grows when figuring it based on weighted pots.

nice edit

so judging by ur result of being 1.6% above the norm, how would that translate into SD? How many SD would that be?

And it would be even more accurate if you don't weight anything, but instead use the actual exact pot size for every single hand, times the equity you have in that hand, and compare that to the W/L. Then you get an exact answer that is 100% valid. That's why I did it exactly that way. That's how anybody with a brain does an EV analysis. Don't start spouting around how the methodology was wrong because you made this absurd assumption about it that was incorrect. The result is simple to reproduce. Do it.

...

It isn't 1.6 above any "norm" it is 1.6% above expectation. It isn't a normal distribution so there is no standard deviation. If you had a few hundred player's samples you could measure an empirical standard deviation for the actual distribution, but it isn't a "normal" or Gaussian distribution that you can use standard ratios on. We have no idea what those ratios are.

On the other hand, the hand counts in the first test, DO form a standard distribution because the results are randomly distributed and don't depend on nonrandom pot sizes.

then I can tell you exactly the reason why it camer out +cEV. I ran better in the 75%> bucket. An this is where most of the larger AIPF pots are played. Thats what I meant by biased data.

I believe I had the lowest number of hands played in the 75%> bracket, but had a similar BB wagered total as the other brackets?

OK, makes sense.

That's correct. The thing is that YOU played larger pots in the bucket where you happened to have better luck, and YOU played smaller pots in the buckets where you happened to have worse luck. That might be totally different for some other player, and you can't predict what equity bucket you will have better luck in.

right, but it still means it is baised data, thats all Im saying

It's valid for what it tells us. In the hand count your luck was worse than expected. In the BBs won your luck was better than expected. Which factor is more important to winning tournaments, winning more hands or winning more chips? We can't say for sure because it matters when they occur, but generally speaking more chips is better. And your tournament record bears that out. I'd say luck was on your side if I had to guess.

lol at luck bring n my side when i ran 1.6 sd off

See the next:

id rather win more pots... means im still in.

run a test dividing the hands according to which of us was the one all in

Thats not what happened at all is it?

No. You believe it is rigged because you have seen all of these suspicious "scenarios" whilst playing, right? The fact that you can't tell us what what these "scenarios" are shows that it is simply memory bias that everybody is susceptible to. If you want to use the "I can't really check it or trust them so I assume it is rigged" argument thats fine, but don't say you have seen the rigging but can't tell us what it is.

If you only think it's rigged because you're running bad and it's frustrating, why are you so sure you're not just, you know, running bad?

Pwnd

When Steve Nash misses a free throw, basketball is rigged and the game is dirty, imo.

Now you're having fun with me right? Or you do not get this?

I only said you guys can come up with the scenarios so I wouldnt be accussed of setting biased standards. I have lists of scenarios

how many different scenarios of running in the bottom 5% would it take before you start to question it?

lol @ rigtards who make up their rules as they go along

AMEC has to sing the "I'm very sorry" song. It's a rule.