The great "Poker is rigged" debate - Collected threads edition
03-24-2010
, 05:32 PM
where is the EV line on the graph? Why would you leave that out? And why would you post this? I believe I told you not to disclose any of my info publicly unless it was a results of the study. All your graph shows is that I lost money in cashgames. That is personal info and I have contacted a lawyer.
03-24-2010
, 05:35 PM
03-24-2010
, 05:47 PM
03-24-2010
, 05:50 PM
Quote:
There are a couple guys here id like to have read this with an open mind. Spadebidder and Josem and a couple others. I am no there to start trouble i just dont like being attacked instantly as im sure no one does. But these are my thoughts so please read this with an open mind and DISCUSS it if youd like.
You've posted a lot of text, and I've got a little bit of a hangover this morning, so let me just cut to the key bits.
Quote:
I am making the assumption that everyone here agrees on the fact that
there is a skill element and not just chance.If that is a bad assumption
please let me know.
there is a skill element and not just chance.If that is a bad assumption
please let me know.
Quote:
I propose the following. If you agree that poker, specifically NLHE,
is a game with a skill component rather than chance only, then
HHs statistics alone is not enough to mine out possible
corruption. A game of chance alone I believe would have a different
approach to analyzing the data.
is a game with a skill component rather than chance only, then
HHs statistics alone is not enough to mine out possible
corruption. A game of chance alone I believe would have a different
approach to analyzing the data.
For example, the records of the hands were useful in proving that Pitbull Poker were dodgy. They were useful in proving the cheating at AP and UB.
I don't know if the original Planet Poker review needed hand histories - they just used the published algorithm of the site concerned I think.
There might also be insufficient evidence in the publicly available HHs for certain cheating detection. For example, there are currently a heap of people reviewing hand histories of 'stoxtrader' in the HSNL forum. I suspect that they'll find that there is insufficient evidence to prove collusion without the hole cards.
Quote:
So given this hypothesis I point to the Cigital study that shows that
of hands going to showdown, an equal amount of hands were won by the
best hand and an equal amount the best hand was folded before.
I will now make this assumption. This statistic is what is expected.
of hands going to showdown, an equal amount of hands were won by the
best hand and an equal amount the best hand was folded before.
I will now make this assumption. This statistic is what is expected.
~75% of hands were won without showdown.
Of the remaining ~25%, half were won by the best 5-card poker hand out of all the hands dealt in. The other half, the best 5-card poker hand (as measured at showdown) had previously folded.
Quote:
*(However my initial gut reaction is that
possibly there is no way to determine what the expectation of this is.
Can anyone confirm or deny that?
possibly there is no way to determine what the expectation of this is.
Can anyone confirm or deny that?
Quote:
I beleive for this and 1 other reason
the study might be flawed or at least inconclusive.
the study might be flawed or at least inconclusive.
If you have an experiment to test the colour of the sky, you don't need to mathematically prove anything. You just look at the sky and write down what colour it is.
The same thing is here. If you want to know how often players fold, you don't need to predict the outcome. You just look at the hand histories and figure out how often players fold. It's not rocket surgery
Quote:
1 they dont
examine the cards that didnt go to showdown and it is possible that
the best cards drove the players to make the choices that ended the hand
early.
examine the cards that didnt go to showdown and it is possible that
the best cards drove the players to make the choices that ended the hand
early.
Quote:
Therefore there is a hidden aspect of the luck element tucked
away in this 75% of no showdown hands. We cannot examine that. This is
where my partial tree theory comes in.
away in this 75% of no showdown hands. We cannot examine that. This is
where my partial tree theory comes in.
Can you please show us a hypothetical complete 'tree' for one hand?
Quote:
And 2 this statistic may change
when better/worse players or even just differnet players are the sample.
when better/worse players or even just differnet players are the sample.
Quote:
I still believe there is skill, I jsut dont think its quantifiable how
much is skill and how much is luck and would prefer to see a range
number here.)
much is skill and how much is luck and would prefer to see a range
number here.)
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...needed-393876/
Quote:
Now back accepting that skill does exist. Lets consider an example.
A skilled player gets a good hand against a skilled player. Lets say AA.
He gets a read and decides to fold. We now must remove this hand from
the analyzing of hand histories because it never made it to showdown.
A skilled player gets a good hand against a skilled player. Lets say AA.
He gets a read and decides to fold. We now must remove this hand from
the analyzing of hand histories because it never made it to showdown.
It wasn't removed from the Cigital survey; Such a hand isn't removed from anyone's surveys.
Quote:
So how can you present the statistics for how this particular hand
performed over a large sample if not all instances are available to
analyze?
performed over a large sample if not all instances are available to
analyze?
No one is excluding particular hand histories from their analysis. If they were, it'd be pretty flawed.
Quote:
The randomness of a softares deal is not limited to just
the hands that go to showdown, as we have seen this number can be
as low as 24%, and maybe even lower at times. So we are only seeing
24% plus 1 players hole cards as a representation of the overall deal.
Not 100% of the deal. I understand that you do not need 100% of hand
historis to study this. However of the X% of hand histories you do have,
how can you possibly analyze the WHOLE deal's ability to be random with
only 24% of players in a showdown + 1 players HCs? This is is what I call the partial tree.
the hands that go to showdown, as we have seen this number can be
as low as 24%, and maybe even lower at times. So we are only seeing
24% plus 1 players hole cards as a representation of the overall deal.
Not 100% of the deal. I understand that you do not need 100% of hand
historis to study this. However of the X% of hand histories you do have,
how can you possibly analyze the WHOLE deal's ability to be random with
only 24% of players in a showdown + 1 players HCs? This is is what I call the partial tree.
Sure, if you have a hand history that doesn't include hole cards, you obviously can't analyse hole cards.
Fortunately, if you play at PokerStars, they'll send you every single real money hand history you've ever played, including your hole cards. You can then perform whatever test you want on it.
On top of that, they can even provide an analysis of the distribution of your hole cards over the last month or so.
03-24-2010
, 05:52 PM
Quote:
Sure.
You've posted a lot of text, and I've got a little bit of a hangover this morning, so let me just cut to the key bits.
I think that's fair.
Well, it depends what time of 'corruption' you're looking for.
For example, the records of the hands were useful in proving that Pitbull Poker were dodgy. They were useful in proving the cheating at AP and UB.
I don't know if the original Planet Poker review needed hand histories - they just used the published algorithm of the site concerned I think.
There might also be insufficient evidence in the publicly available HHs for certain cheating detection. For example, there are currently a heap of people reviewing hand histories of 'stoxtrader' in the HSNL forum. I suspect that they'll find that there is insufficient evidence to prove collusion without the hole cards.
You have the statistics slightly wrong.
~75% of hands were won without showdown.
Of the remaining ~25%, half were won by the best 5-card poker hand out of all the hands dealt in. The other half, the best 5-card poker hand (as measured at showdown) had previously folded.
Well, I think it might be theoretically possible, but that would require predicting how players behave. If you could model player decisions, you'd be able to then predict the results of player decisions. I don't think it is computationally feasible at the moment, but I suspect it might be theoretically possible in many years time.
I don't think the study is flawed because it wasn't possible to mathematically predict the results. I don't think that's even close to being a reason to consider it flawed.
If you have an experiment to test the colour of the sky, you don't need to mathematically prove anything. You just look at the sky and write down what colour it is.
The same thing is here. If you want to know how often players fold, you don't need to predict the outcome. You just look at the hand histories and figure out how often players fold. It's not rocket surgery
But the survey did examine the cards that didn't go to showdown?
I still don't understand this partial tree theory stuff.
Can you please show us a hypothetical complete 'tree' for one hand?
Yep, probably it does.
I'd suggest you read the discussion about the survey:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...needed-393876/
Why?
It wasn't removed from the Cigital survey; Such a hand isn't removed from anyone's surveys.
But it is available to analyse.
No one is excluding particular hand histories from their analysis. If they were, it'd be pretty flawed.
Well, obviously you analyse what you have.
Sure, if you have a hand history that doesn't include hole cards, you obviously can't analyse hole cards.
Fortunately, if you play at PokerStars, they'll send you every single real money hand history you've ever played, including your hole cards. You can then perform whatever test you want on it.
On top of that, they can even provide an analysis of the distribution of your hole cards over the last month or so.
You've posted a lot of text, and I've got a little bit of a hangover this morning, so let me just cut to the key bits.
I think that's fair.
Well, it depends what time of 'corruption' you're looking for.
For example, the records of the hands were useful in proving that Pitbull Poker were dodgy. They were useful in proving the cheating at AP and UB.
I don't know if the original Planet Poker review needed hand histories - they just used the published algorithm of the site concerned I think.
There might also be insufficient evidence in the publicly available HHs for certain cheating detection. For example, there are currently a heap of people reviewing hand histories of 'stoxtrader' in the HSNL forum. I suspect that they'll find that there is insufficient evidence to prove collusion without the hole cards.
You have the statistics slightly wrong.
~75% of hands were won without showdown.
Of the remaining ~25%, half were won by the best 5-card poker hand out of all the hands dealt in. The other half, the best 5-card poker hand (as measured at showdown) had previously folded.
Well, I think it might be theoretically possible, but that would require predicting how players behave. If you could model player decisions, you'd be able to then predict the results of player decisions. I don't think it is computationally feasible at the moment, but I suspect it might be theoretically possible in many years time.
I don't think the study is flawed because it wasn't possible to mathematically predict the results. I don't think that's even close to being a reason to consider it flawed.
If you have an experiment to test the colour of the sky, you don't need to mathematically prove anything. You just look at the sky and write down what colour it is.
The same thing is here. If you want to know how often players fold, you don't need to predict the outcome. You just look at the hand histories and figure out how often players fold. It's not rocket surgery
But the survey did examine the cards that didn't go to showdown?
I still don't understand this partial tree theory stuff.
Can you please show us a hypothetical complete 'tree' for one hand?
Yep, probably it does.
I'd suggest you read the discussion about the survey:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...needed-393876/
Why?
It wasn't removed from the Cigital survey; Such a hand isn't removed from anyone's surveys.
But it is available to analyse.
No one is excluding particular hand histories from their analysis. If they were, it'd be pretty flawed.
Well, obviously you analyse what you have.
Sure, if you have a hand history that doesn't include hole cards, you obviously can't analyse hole cards.
Fortunately, if you play at PokerStars, they'll send you every single real money hand history you've ever played, including your hole cards. You can then perform whatever test you want on it.
On top of that, they can even provide an analysis of the distribution of your hole cards over the last month or so.
03-24-2010
, 06:06 PM
Thanks to Josem, you "special needs" kids will be getting the help you don't deserve. Nothing against you Josem, but **** these fools! They don't deserve to be better players. I hope they rot in variance hell!!! I hope their buy-ins are taken with the swiftness in which they come up with their ridiculous, unfounded claims. Rot rot rot, you bastards! 
Whoever said "Don't tap the tank" was a ****ing genius.
Whoever said "Don't tap the tank" was a ****ing genius.
03-24-2010
, 06:12 PM
Quote:
Sure.
You've posted a lot of text, and I've got a little bit of a hangover this morning, so let me just cut to the key bits.
I think that's fair.
Well, it depends what time of 'corruption' you're looking for.
For example, the records of the hands were useful in proving that Pitbull Poker were dodgy. They were useful in proving the cheating at AP and UB.
I don't know if the original Planet Poker review needed hand histories - they just used the published algorithm of the site concerned I think.
There might also be insufficient evidence in the publicly available HHs for certain cheating detection. For example, there are currently a heap of people reviewing hand histories of 'stoxtrader' in the HSNL forum. I suspect that they'll find that there is insufficient evidence to prove collusion without the hole cards.
Why would you agree that partial hand histories might deter detection of a single player as in this case, but not the site? The sites would have leaps more otions to hide things than stoxtrader with the access they have. I challenge that detection of collusion limitations are at BEST equal in scope of difficulty to detection of anythng that can be done in the software and servers.
You have the statistics slightly wrong.
~75% of hands were won without showdown.
Of the remaining ~25%, half were won by the best 5-card poker hand out of all the hands dealt in. The other half, the best 5-card poker hand (as measured at showdown) had previously folded.
Im pretty sure I am saying the right thing, the same thing as you, jsut a little differently and maybe unclearly. I udnerstand that the 75% is basically being thrown out and 25% is where the stats seperate. That is in fact part of the whole premise of what I said.
Well, I think it might be theoretically possible, but that would require predicting how players behave. If you could model player decisions, you'd be able to then predict the results of player decisions. I don't think it is computationally feasible at the moment, but I suspect it might be theoretically possible in many years time.
If you are saying that humans cannot code computers to detect these patterns then you MUST also be saying that stat tracking HUDs offer no advantage and neither do maual human hand history analysis when trying to get an edge on a player. If HUDs can do it, and humans can do it, the site software can do it.
I don't think the study is flawed because it wasn't possible to mathematically predict the results. I don't think that's even close to being a reason to consider it flawed.
So then is there a quanitfied expectation of what they should have found?Without the ability to formulate an expectation, then i htink flawed or irrelevant/random/anectdotel information is the only label you can put on these studies
If you have an experiment to test the colour of the sky, you don't need to mathematically prove anything. You just look at the sky and write down what colour it is.
I cant see what this was a direct response to as im posting but I dont think it fits into anythinig im saying. Its too simple of an analogy and what I believe is far more complex. I'll edit later
The same thing is here. If you want to know how often players fold, you don't need to predict the outcome. You just look at the hand histories and figure out how often players fold. It's not rocket surgery
But what if what they are folding is the proof of non randomness? Wed never know
But the survey did examine the cards that didn't go to showdown?
OK but they offered no analysis on these . And in the hands they did analyse they werent looking for rigging, they were looking for, apparently, just this one stat since thats all im seeing on it.
I still don't understand this partial tree theory stuff.
Can you please show us a hypothetical complete 'tree' for one hand?
I will try and make an illustrion of a tree and partial tree when I get some time. I am not fast with the arts.
Yep, probably it does.
I'd suggest you read the discussion about the survey:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...needed-393876/
Why?
It wasn't removed from the Cigital survey; Such a hand isn't removed from anyone's surveys.
But it is available to analyse.
No one is excluding particular hand histories from their analysis. If they were, it'd be pretty flawed.
Not on purpose no, by by the fact that you cannot follow another pesons branching of cards all the way up except "hero". Yes the occasional "villain" for 1 branch but its always someone differnet. See this is my problem here. People are acting as if say you get 9 differnet peoples hand histories from diffenet games, it is the same as getting the 9 hand histories of all the people in 1 game. I think this is bunk. This s what i mean by tree. A tree is 1 FULL game. The branches are each player(nodes) and the cards (leaves). You dont get the same data from just taking 1 player form 9 differne trees.
Well, obviously you analyse what you have.
Sure, if you have a hand history that doesn't include hole cards, you obviously can't analyse hole cards.
I repsonded to this by mistake in its own post. I said i mean everyones hole cards(full tree), not jsut 1 node/branch
Fortunately, if you play at PokerStars, they'll send you every single real money hand history you've ever played, including your hole cards. You can then perform whatever test you want on it.
On top of that, they can even provide an analysis of the distribution of your hole cards over the last month or so.
You've posted a lot of text, and I've got a little bit of a hangover this morning, so let me just cut to the key bits.
I think that's fair.
Well, it depends what time of 'corruption' you're looking for.
For example, the records of the hands were useful in proving that Pitbull Poker were dodgy. They were useful in proving the cheating at AP and UB.
I don't know if the original Planet Poker review needed hand histories - they just used the published algorithm of the site concerned I think.
There might also be insufficient evidence in the publicly available HHs for certain cheating detection. For example, there are currently a heap of people reviewing hand histories of 'stoxtrader' in the HSNL forum. I suspect that they'll find that there is insufficient evidence to prove collusion without the hole cards.
Why would you agree that partial hand histories might deter detection of a single player as in this case, but not the site? The sites would have leaps more otions to hide things than stoxtrader with the access they have. I challenge that detection of collusion limitations are at BEST equal in scope of difficulty to detection of anythng that can be done in the software and servers.
You have the statistics slightly wrong.
~75% of hands were won without showdown.
Of the remaining ~25%, half were won by the best 5-card poker hand out of all the hands dealt in. The other half, the best 5-card poker hand (as measured at showdown) had previously folded.
Im pretty sure I am saying the right thing, the same thing as you, jsut a little differently and maybe unclearly. I udnerstand that the 75% is basically being thrown out and 25% is where the stats seperate. That is in fact part of the whole premise of what I said.
Well, I think it might be theoretically possible, but that would require predicting how players behave. If you could model player decisions, you'd be able to then predict the results of player decisions. I don't think it is computationally feasible at the moment, but I suspect it might be theoretically possible in many years time.
If you are saying that humans cannot code computers to detect these patterns then you MUST also be saying that stat tracking HUDs offer no advantage and neither do maual human hand history analysis when trying to get an edge on a player. If HUDs can do it, and humans can do it, the site software can do it.
I don't think the study is flawed because it wasn't possible to mathematically predict the results. I don't think that's even close to being a reason to consider it flawed.
So then is there a quanitfied expectation of what they should have found?Without the ability to formulate an expectation, then i htink flawed or irrelevant/random/anectdotel information is the only label you can put on these studies
If you have an experiment to test the colour of the sky, you don't need to mathematically prove anything. You just look at the sky and write down what colour it is.
I cant see what this was a direct response to as im posting but I dont think it fits into anythinig im saying. Its too simple of an analogy and what I believe is far more complex. I'll edit later
The same thing is here. If you want to know how often players fold, you don't need to predict the outcome. You just look at the hand histories and figure out how often players fold. It's not rocket surgery
But what if what they are folding is the proof of non randomness? Wed never know
But the survey did examine the cards that didn't go to showdown?
OK but they offered no analysis on these . And in the hands they did analyse they werent looking for rigging, they were looking for, apparently, just this one stat since thats all im seeing on it.
I still don't understand this partial tree theory stuff.
Can you please show us a hypothetical complete 'tree' for one hand?
I will try and make an illustrion of a tree and partial tree when I get some time. I am not fast with the arts.
Yep, probably it does.
I'd suggest you read the discussion about the survey:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...needed-393876/
Why?
It wasn't removed from the Cigital survey; Such a hand isn't removed from anyone's surveys.
But it is available to analyse.
No one is excluding particular hand histories from their analysis. If they were, it'd be pretty flawed.
Not on purpose no, by by the fact that you cannot follow another pesons branching of cards all the way up except "hero". Yes the occasional "villain" for 1 branch but its always someone differnet. See this is my problem here. People are acting as if say you get 9 differnet peoples hand histories from diffenet games, it is the same as getting the 9 hand histories of all the people in 1 game. I think this is bunk. This s what i mean by tree. A tree is 1 FULL game. The branches are each player(nodes) and the cards (leaves). You dont get the same data from just taking 1 player form 9 differne trees.
Well, obviously you analyse what you have.
Sure, if you have a hand history that doesn't include hole cards, you obviously can't analyse hole cards.
I repsonded to this by mistake in its own post. I said i mean everyones hole cards(full tree), not jsut 1 node/branch
Fortunately, if you play at PokerStars, they'll send you every single real money hand history you've ever played, including your hole cards. You can then perform whatever test you want on it.
On top of that, they can even provide an analysis of the distribution of your hole cards over the last month or so.
To sum up, 1 full game and its 9 players and cards makes a full tree, the game(tree) the played hands(branch) cards(leaves). You cannot take 9 branches from 9 different trees and call its own tree. The branches should be from teh same tree. Hope this helps in understanding my tree theory.
Last edited by PikachuDemolisher; 03-24-2010 at 06:19 PM.
03-24-2010
, 06:30 PM
03-24-2010
, 06:34 PM
03-24-2010
, 06:35 PM
03-24-2010
, 06:41 PM
03-24-2010
, 06:42 PM
