please explain? this guy works for stars huh?

magicrums is onto nothing.. watch out!

None of the "shills" have said anything like that, especially when it comes to collusion.

With all due respect, all I've seen from you amounts to little more than innuendo, false accusations, trolling and discussion of motives. Motives are of little use in this discussion: all they do is establish whether someone might have wanted to do something, they offer little more than that.


I don't know what this means: are you suggesting that someone at stars sat down and manually altered your handhistories? There's your standard air of paranoia here, but I don't get what you mean.

In any event, Josem is a security official at stars, if you think there is something wrong, you should ask him to look into it.

As otatop has said, no one has said all is kosher, nothing to see here, move along. Quite the opposite: every single one of the "shills" have encouraged riggies to really take a close look at their handhistories. To really analyze them, and not just sit with their gut instincts that something is wrong. Not one "shill" has said that there is no chance rigging is going on. What we have said, is that to date, there is not one shred of evidence that something like that is going on on the major sites. The "shills" have also gone into tremendous detail for how to review handhistories and how to approach this question in general. You haven't seen these arguments because you refuse apparently to even go back a few months to see what's been posted in this thread. In fact, if rigging is ever discovered I assure you it will be by someone like the "shills" here. The riggies don't seem to have any interest in real analysis. If it involves going beyond what they "notice" at the tables, they want nothing to do with it. Or, like AMEC, will interpret the results as evidence of rigging no matter what the actual math says.

Anyhow, I don't imagine you'll take any of this to heart. You've made clear what you want your role to be in this thread. But please don't fool yourself into thinking that you've contributed anything of substance so far. You may have substance in you, but you'll have to do better that what you've done to date.

2.0 SD off expectation over 400k hands is the same as 2.0 SD off expectation over 20k hands, or 200 billion hands. Sample size is already incorporated into SD calculations.

Yes.

I could ask, but snyde innuendos seem more appropriate for this thread.

OK.

Don't think it's rigged, but...

In limit O8B, how to I prove things aren't kosher?
How is it legitimately possible. Simple helps.

Recently installed omaha tracker, if that helps.

I have been losing to very low percentage hands too often. Always in jammed pots(I am jammin, usually).

Cognitive Bias song

math

If you know it happens too often, you know how often it should happen. Those might be relevant things to post, along with how big your sample is. Stars pre-sets the shuffle, so this is meaningless.

I stand corrected: here is a PM from Spade:

lol you guys are still letting this magicrun clown troll you?

somebody put this guy to sleep, already...geez

lolkwut?

if you work for stars i wouldnt want your advice on this matter..

Disagree, he's the bridge between facts and opinions/speculations....I wish every employee was as open as he....

Why not?

If he psses u off, you'll turn the doomswitch on him.

The first question is: are you losing as many hands as you think you are, or were you really as ahead as you thought you were? Omaha tracker has filters which allow you to get pretty specific in what hands you bring up. I'm assuming by "jammed" you mean capped betting (I'm not a limit player). You can filter for 4 bet rounds (I think by street). That'll give you a bird's eye view of your hands and you may be surprised by what you find.

Now, Josem, and Spadebidder are better at giving advice on how to go further in your analysis with reports and such. But I find that most people who come on here complaining about one trend or another, when they actually take a look at the hands (ZOMG I lost 10 80/20s in a row!) they realise they were overstating the trend. I'm just starting to get into Omaha, but as I understand it, there is a smaller equity spread among the playable hands. I suspect this makes it harder in real time to get a real good sense of just how much one is ahead.

well you see its kinda like having a judge on duty when a family member is on trial...i fully expect you to side with stars, also i never really said anything about stars being rigged.

lol no worries there m8 i get riverstared all the time

His advice stands on its own. Look at it skeptically if you will, but his arguments are out there to be analyzed. Discounting everything he says merely because he works for stars is ad hominem. Sure, take it with a grain of salt, I suppose, but if the advice is sound, then its sound.

well not knowing him personally i will have to say thats a matter of opinion. not saying hes not an honest guy, that said one could easily state he has his own agenda in the matter. but guys im done with this thread, you all win. it was merely a question about "russian" players on FTP doesnt even mean they are russians i assumed possibly bots as they never speak. maybe if wiki never came along this wouldn't have gone so deep. that being said to deny there are bots in online poker is like denying there is online poker at all.

Got the free version, not sure what I can filter.

Omaha is a game of the nuts, almost always. Having them and drawing to them.
After harassing/witnessing this thread for a month, I understand you won't take what I say at face value.

If you didn't track your hands for a week, and lost 80 out of 100 times with aces u pushed preflop.....don't you think you'de know? True, you might find out these aces got cracked only 60% of the time, and your perception was scewed....ya gonna feel better?

Yes. There is no way to deny, losing that much with aces would affect your play detrimentally. It would affect your play so badly, and shake your faith in online poker so much, you would seek answers...thankfully QPW was here to help.

You are missing my point. My point (which you recognize below I think) is that you can't take YOURSELF at face value. That people are terrible at pattern recognition over a large sample. They notice a couple things and often extrapolate. Like I said, most people who come through here claiming to have experienced X, when they actually go back and see that the situation was much different.

Well, I certainly would feel a bit better, if that was indeed what was going on. However, you've come up with a hypothetical that is unlikely. Again, the point is that you can't trust yourself. When you look at the actual data, the results are often very different from what you once thought.

No question that believing you are running worse than you are can be tilt-inducing. Which is why analyzing your HHs can be tilt-reducing.