Ok, well, here's a good experiment. Why don't you tell us now what you suspect is going on and by how much certain stats are off. Then get your pokertracker fixed and we can see how accurate you are.

Does the ps deal shuffle cards between streets, or is the deal determined in entirety from the get go?

early stages of turbo takedown sats, (too many?) amazing showdowns:

i.e.

5d6d vs. 44 shove. 44 flps set. it might at this point be more likely than true odds that 5d6d catches a runner runner flush.

44 vs. 77 shove. 77 is winning on flp. it might at this point be more likely than true odds that 44 catches his two outer for a dominating set on the turn or river.

in general redraws might be picked up more often on turn.

kk vs. aq. aq flping a broadway draw more likely than true odds. Then completion of the gutshot more likely than true odds.

it is this kind of thing.

With all due respect, that doesn't tell us anything. What are the true odds. If you don't know the true odds then you can't possibly be seeing a pattern that deviates from it. How far off from the true odds do you think things are happening? And if you're just looking at how often 44 comes against 77 then for sure you're going to have too small a sample size. Give us some real stats here.

44 vs. 77 can reasonably be assumed to encompass pkt pair vs pkt pair showdowns in general of course. Is real stats synonymous with hand history?

anyway, I put 44 vs 77 on an 8d Jh Qc flp in poker stove. the equity is 10.556% to 89.444%. Is this what you want? should I then say well in similar showdowns pstflp between pkt pairs i think i observe results that deviate considerably from these equity values?

Can't possibly? So even if I didn't know true odds no devation could possibly induce certainty? That is an extreme statement which is false. All I need to say is if 44 always caught the set, then I would be seeing a pattern. Of course it doesn't and it would be an insane non random deal, but you get my point.

I don't know what you think you've observed. I don't know what "considerably" means to you. My suggestion is that you tell us what you think is off, and the manner of it. Then we can measure that assessment up to your actual HHs once you put them into PT and see if you were accurate. So far, all we really know from you is that you think something is off. Are you saying that you've noticed that a higher pocket pair that is still ahead on the turn, then loses considerably more than 10.5% of the time? Approximately how many times have you seen this situation come up? Approximately how many times do you recall the higher pocket pair winning vs. losing?

You are the one who has suggested you have noticed that things are off. Several of us have suggested that this is a pretty hard thing to do without comprehensive data analysis. I'm asking you to set out for us exactly what you think is off. Then we can test it.

It's also ok to just admit if you don't really have a clear picture of what is off, and that its really your gut instinct you've been relying on. Then I'll say fair enough, we won't put you on the spot, and you can then still import your hands into PT and really try and see if things are off.

I get the point you think you're making, but again, with all due respect, you are off. You know at the very least that a pocket pair should not, over a decent sample, catch a set every time. If you saw it happen 10 times in a row, you'd be able to say something is fishy. You know enough about what the odds are to say that its way off.

As you have pointed out, however, in practice its not that simple. As you haven't seen something as insane as that, we need to deal with what you have seen. I am suggesting that if you don't know the actual odds, then you can't draw a reasonable conclusion about whether you are meeting those odds or not.

Have you determined how off things have to be in order for an experienced card player (regardless of skill, as skill has nothing to do with this) to reasonably suspect that something is off? We do know that theoretically there is a point. There has to be a point actually. So if you don't know the precise level of deviation before the mind can become justifiably suspicious, then how do you know that someone is wrong to suspect it without extensive analysis?

If I can get pt to work, and then get some experience with it, perhaps I will track some hands. I think the anti-rig person simply 'knows' by means of common sense that rigged deals are highly unlikely on account of sensible reasoning. Why on earth would a site risk itself like that and for what purpose? Fair enough. But suggesting that the mind cannot detect non-random devations without analysis seems silly to me.

I didn't say it is impossible - I'm sure there are some people who actually can. But they are few and far between. And certainly we shouldn't be expected to just take your word for it when so many have come through here making statements such as yours that something is off, and never providing a scrap of evidence. When evidence has been presented, the patterns they thought were there, were not actually there, or at least not anywhere near the levels they thought they were. In your case, there is a very simple test: tell us precisely what you think is off, then check it. So far you have not provided us with any specific observation of a pattern you have noticed.

Well that and using software to review hands. Of course you can detect variations, but there's very little chance of accurately spotting something like AA losing to any other hand too often, just because you need to see it happen ~100 times for your numbers to be somewhat accurate, which could take tens of thousands of hands to happen.

If you can remember the outcome of 100 hands out of thousands, you have an excellent memory. If not, you're just like pretty much everybody else.

To those who don't know, an opponent had an earpiece, and people observing hole cards from an infrared camera that could actually see through players' cards to determine what they had would tell him how to play his cards. An amazing story indeed.

Going with that I can tell you that you demonstrate in your posts a very common form of behavior of a novice poker player who has a bit of poker knowledge from reading some books or watching some on tv and playing a bit.

Do you want to continue with your never ending riggie based chat on the holy grail of pattern recognition to satisfy some inner demons? If so, continue with what you are doing. The shills will explain to you over and over again how your thinking process is flawed in terms of logic and rational thinking (and they are correct). They will politely make suggestions you will never carry out or directly agree to consider. You will continue to ask different angles of the same flawed questions. Repeat. Repeat some more.

That lets you become riggie number #1000 or so in this thread having basically the same conversation of all those before you.

Your other option if you want to take it is to get some advice on actually becoming a better poker player. The whole chat you are having to date will do nothing in that regard, so if this is your actual goal and you want to take poker seriously feel free to PM me the following information (I will not reveal it):

User names on the rooms you play
The games you play and volume per week (online and live)
The software tools if any you use
The poker related resources you use


Send as well what your goals are in terms of being a poker player and I will respond to you with a very simple check list of things you need to do to get you on a path to where you want to be, and be warned - the list will not allow for any time to be paranoid about rigged conspiracies. The rest will then be up to you whether you put in the work required to get you there.

Your choice.

keep asking them questions cobb you are wearing them down i can tell.

Link? Because I don't buy that one bit. See through the cards

More patterns [that aren't there]

Was there something in what I said that you would care to dispute?

A water softly flowing over granite wears a path.

And it'll take just about the same amount of time.

Responding to: "people observing hole cards from an infrared camera that could actually see through players' cards to determine what they had"
Yes, because as everyone knows, playing cards are transparent to infra-red light.

NOT!

It s not that I actually flop 2 pair. it s how often I WOULD have flopped 2 pair had I actually played the hands. One could easily regret laying down so many hands and get tempted to play more hands. Yes I have a hand tracker(HEM).However, the site I play at doesnt store hands on your HD. you need a seperate hand grabber. which I now have. I ll definitely see what I can do

No. It s not lazy. You need a seperate Hand grabber on this site(which needs to be purchased).I have this now. also you need to set things up properly by posting at the HEM forum. done. I m not lazy.

Insane donk,
you shall not lough out loud to what william shakespeare.. pardon, Wiki, writes

Oh, good grief!

Have you never heard of 'results oriented thinking'?

The fact that what you seem to believe is so out of the ordinary happens all the time is why people imprecate such thinking.