You're right. You can't use C(13,2) here so it's (13^2)^3. 4.8 million to one was right. Which takes almost 20 million hands played when 4-tabling, just to see this once, on average. Didn't happen.

its stuff like this that makes me suspicious... always Germans or Russians that pull this off so well...


Full Tilt Poker $1 + $0.10 Sit&Go (Sup Turbo) No Limit Hold'em Tournament - t40/t80 Blinds - 4 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

BB: t385 4.81 BBs
CO: t465 5.81 BBs
BTN: t380 4.75 BBs
Hero (SB): t570 7.12 BBs

Pre Flop: (t120) Hero is SB with A 9
CO calls t80, 1 fold, Hero raises to t570 all in, BB calls t305 all in, 1 fold

Flop: (t850) 6 8 2

Turn: (t850) 3

River: (t850) 3

Final Pot: t850
BB shows 8 T (two pair, Eights and Threes)
Hero shows A 9 (a pair of Threes)
BB wins t850


Yes I know this example is a Dollah Ballah SNG, but it happens in any level I play...

FYP.

One hand.

………………..,-~*’`¯lllllll`*~,
…………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,
………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,
……,-*lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllll.\
….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\
…..\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,
……\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,
…….\llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-\..*`*;..)
……..\,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.……………/
………|/…/…/~,……-~*,-~*`;……………./.\
……../…/…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*…\
…….|…/…/…/.*`…\………………………)….)¯`~,
…….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,…………/….|..)…`~-,
……/./…/…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,—……\…./…../..|………¯“`*~-
……(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………\
…….*-,…….`*-,…`~,..“.,,,-*……….|.,*…,*…|……\
……….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`…,-*….(`-,…

Just go kill a small animal and masturbate in the bushes to the girl youre stalking like everyone else does after a bad beat.

That hand makes you suspicious? Wow. I'm a rigtard and that hand is just poker. Preflop, A9h is 58% over 10 8d, and you're surprised the hand didn't "hold up'? Being suspicious of normal hands gives us rigtards a bad name.

Being all in on the flop against one opponent as a 10-1 or better favorite, and routinely being outdrawn on these hands for long long stretches - as if you're the 10-1 or better dog - that's when it's time to start getting suspicious. And move away from the big rigged sites to the smaller ones, if you like your money. The little guys can't afford to chase you away.

I don't want to be rude, but dude, that ship has sailed!

I was playing 3 tables earlier this evening and I got the same hand (AK+KA = same hand) at two tables 5 times in a little over 2 hours. It seemed like a lot which may be where riggie thinking comes from ...

If I played 169 hands at each table (about right for 2+ hours) then I should have gotten 3 of them. That is assuming table A + table B should get one match every 169 hands and the same with table A with table C, and B with C.

5 instead of 3 for such a small sample size seems within the realm of "normal"? (its a long time since I did stats at school)

However, once I started think about matched hands I found that I was perceiving matched hands which weren't in fact matched. When I saw a Kx off-suit where x is 2-7, of course I insta-fold, only really seeing the King with a rag that I don't pay attention to. Then seconds later I see Kx off-suit on another table I insta-fold that too thinking "fml, same damn hand" when in fact the "x" was different.

Your math is right for exactly 2 tables matching. The chance to have any 2 or all 3 of 3 tables match ranks on a given hand is solved just like the birthday problem. For just 3 tables we can take this shortcut:

1 - (169/169 * 168/169 * 167/169) = 1.7681454% or ~1/57

For 4 tables to have any two or more match would be:

1 - (169/169 * 168/169 * 167/169 * 166/169) = ~1/28


To your question about seeing 5 times in 169 hands instead of 3, the chance of seeing 5 or more is about 18%.

Using excel to solve the binomial cumulative distribution, use:
=BINOMDIST(164,169,1-.017681454,TRUE) = 18.1%

or use

=1 - BINOMDIST(4,169,.017681454,TRUE) = 18.1%

The second is perhaps more intuitive but they are identical. That one subtracts the chance of at most 4 matches, from 100%.

Thanks for the reply Spade ...

I didn't really consider the instance of 3 hands the same, because its 1 in ~28K ... insignificantly unlikely in a couple of hours play.

And I'd look up =BINOMDIST() if I hadn't had a few glasses of wine already

The 18% number is about what I would "instinctively" guess based on what little I do know about statistics. Basically, not gonna happen most of the time, but enough to still be "normal"

What is more important in the mind of the riggie is the perception. Soon after I stared, I got 27o in two hands, and immediately thought of the "4 hands" posts, so I started keeping count. And after a couple of hours I had 5 which kinda seemed like a lot (without thinking about the actual statistical probabilities). Add in the perceived matches like the Kx I mentioned .........

[Oh and this was "high-stakes" playchips ... not sure if that makes a difference in riggedness]

The remark was tongue in cheek. But, hey, your polite, humorous put-down was a refreshing change of pace. Keep up the good work with your thoughtful, measured responses. Maybe you can teach the shilltards some manners, if that's possible.

A very good morning to you, sir.

I hope you are enjoying the thread and look forward with great interest to your further contributions.

yours, etc..

A Shill

Russians own everything including FT, and germans are their friends. Why are you surprised then ?

lol

I don't know whether online poker is rigged or not. I have not seen evidence that proves either side beyond a reasonable doubt. The weight of the evidence that I have seen is that most sites are not rigged. However, this evidence is not conclusive or overwhelming persuasive.

I do admit that my worst fear about online poker is that it may be rigged on most sites; at least since the end of 2008 to early 2009. My reason for my fear is that I started playing online poker in 2005 and steadily won until the beginning of the second quarter of 2009. Since then I have struggled to break even after rake back. For about 1 million hands, the cards seem to be against me much more often than they before about April 1, 2009. This has been true on all the major US sites. So I settled on PS because I trust it more than the other sites. But my worst fear is that these sites have rigged their RNG to protect weaker players so that they don't have to replace them.

I don't know that this is true. I don't even think that it is likely. But I do fear it is possible.

If that's the case why are you struggling to break even?

The game has got considerably harder in the period you mention and a lot of people have gone from being winning players to losing or break-even.

Plenty of people examine 'the deal' and so far no one has shown that it's rigged.

im not surprised... i expected that outcome as soon as I saw the hand...

player rarely got involved in any hands previously then called off all chips with T8... thats all...

Ever thought of making a profile that says you're Russian? You never know, could win alot more...

I disagree with your last statement. I have yet to see a definitive study of hand histories showing either case. Spadewinner started on one, but seems to have stopped before meaningful completion. I agree that no one has shown that any site is rigged, but no one has shown that they are not rigged.

I don't think that the game has become that much harder since early 2009. It is tighter than before UIGEA, but I haven't seen that much change in the last year. I do keep stats on my all in luck and other luck stats and they are much worse for 2009 to date than before 2008. I do not know why.

And you would be right 42% of the time.

Amazing!

Too bad Montel doesn't have his show any more, you could have given that awful Sylvia Browne a run for her money!

This is the second level of Super Turbo (3 minute blinds). So you have, what, like five hands against villain?

Rock solid read there!

Pretty clever that he's using these super powers to crush $1 games instead of moving up to where he'd make some real money by becoming the next Isildur1. Guess he's being real careful not to draw attention to himself....

Too bad he never reckoned with your finely honed poker sense!

Please expand on what it would take to prove it is not rigged.

A complete audit of millions of hand histories; not just an examination of the RNG program which the site could change from time to time. I have never seen an audit of hand histories released to the public by the so-called RNG auditing firms. I have seen their Certificates of Audit or Randomness for RNG programs. Such certificates are evidence that the site is fair and random, but they are not conclusive proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nothing is, which is probably why they don't bother. A true rigged believer could always come up with something they didn't test for. Or they'd suggest that the rigged RNG was put in after the rig. Or that the rig is targeted to a handful of accounts - including their own, of course. Or, or, or...

Please explain what they would audit.

Seems like you are just throwing out the term "audit", but have no idea what they would actually check for. Also, for the record, it is a logical fallacy to ask to prove a negative.

An audit means an examination of the actual evidence for certain characteristics. In the case of online poker sites, an auditor would examine hand histories to check if the cards dealt to all players are random, if the flop reflects reality and if draws after the flop hit or miss according to the percentages that they should given the cards already dealt. Also, for all pre-flop all in hands, does the better hand win the proper percentage of the time. Such an audit could prove that the site's deal of the cards through its hands was fair and random and thus prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the site was not rigged.

Spadewinner had good evidence that the cards dealt to each player were fair and random and that the flop was fair and random, but did not include any info on what site the hand histories occurred. Also, I did see some stats on all in pre-flop that did not look fair and random, but they were removed because Spadewinner said that they were incomplete.

The evidence for either case is incomplete. I agree that no evidence will convince every one which is why I say beyond a reasonable doubt. But I am worried because such evidence has never been released. What I have seen so far is just Certificates of Audit with none of the supporting evidence. When a CPA releases and audit of a company, the audit includes supporting evidence for the auditor's statement of the financial status of the company.