Just to give you an absurdly easy example, it would show up if you did a basic check of patterns over various numbers of tosses.

You know, you check for distribution of patterns over 2 tosses and you get.

HH 50%
TT 50%

Whereas you would expect something more like:

HH 25%
HT 25%
TH 25%
TT 25%

(Of course, 50 throws is an absurdly small sample size.)

Oh, and if your next suggestion is that the tosses are noted one coin after the next, turn and turn about, that still won't work because you'll end up with:

HT 100%

(Or, TH 100%, of course.)

Yeah, I do get it, any anomaly SHOULD show up, when investigating results together, but it could infact be cancelled out by the results from the other independent event. That is why you should investigate independent results separately. The coin analogy was an exaggerated example.

So, (exaggerated example again,) if aces should win against kings 80% of the time and on one site they win 100% and on the other site they win 60%, these two sets of results will effectively cancel each other out.

It doesn't even need to be as extreme or specific as that. Suppose you say that aces should beat kings anywhere between 77-83% of the time, (using a calculated margin of error for your sample size.) They win 83% on one site, but only 71% on the other, however overall this comes out at 77%, which again appears reasonable.

These are just exaggerated examples, not taken from anywhere, just trying to further show why any results from separate poker sites should be analyzed independently.

As unlikely as it is that results could 'cancel each other out,' it could easily happen by coincidence and lead to something important being missed.

And also, as I have demonstrated, completely invalid.

Again, completely invalid.

If you're suggesting the poker sites are doing this deliberately then you are saying that they would each have to, by some unbelievable coincidence, choose to do the exact opposite of each other down to the last percentage point of whatever shenanigans they employed. What would be the motivation? It's completely brain dead to suggest that anyone would do that.

And if you are suggesting that this is happening accidentally then you are even further into cloud cuckoo land.

No it could not easily happen. In fact the odds of it happening would be astronomical considering the amount of HH's.

Purely academic, but it's much more likely that some effects would coincide and amplify, instead of cancel out and conceal. Don't all rigged sites have the same goal, to level the playing field so the best hand wins a little less than it should and the money circulates longer, increasing rake? I thought that was the whole point. But I might not be up on the current strategy. It could be big stacks targeted this year, or new depositors, or cash outs. Or flush draws.

I think it's been noted that the 'tards can't actually agree on how the sites are rigging the deal. Particularly those who go for the 'action' rig. Some think they rig for more, others for less.

However, the idea that two sites would chose the opposite strategies and happen to engineer it using exactly matching but inverted strategies is just way beyond daft.

How would the odds be astronomical ?

Using one of the examples I invented, say overpairs are supposed to beat underpairs, 80% of the time, in all-in situations. (Don't know if that's correct, feel free to use the correct percentage if you know it.)

You have a million such hands and you know that accounting for a margin of error, anything between 77-83% is still realistic.

One site has fair dealing, but the results you investigate happen to be a bit high and overpairs win 83% of the time. Still within your reasonable margins of error though.

The other site has unfair dealing and overpairs only win 71% of the time. However, when you are looking at the results together, you see overpairs win 77% of the time, which is again within your reasonable margins of error.

These are exaggerated examples, but I can't see why the odds of similar happening would be 'astronomical.' As I showed, they results don't need to cancel each other out exactly at all, (I agree the odds of that would be astronomical,) they merely need to fall within certain boundaries.

I don't remember much of the statistics I studied at uni, but I'm pretty sure I remember that independent sets of results should be analyzed independently, for the reasons I outlined above in the coin analogy.

I agree. If sites are rigging, then they are doing so to keep their existing customers because attracting new customers is much more difficult than in the past.

However, IMO if the sites are rigging, then they would rig the turn and river; not the hole cards or flop. The sites would not want big pots because the losers would run out of money faster. They would want smaller pots with the most players winning the same amount of time.

So the fact that this month I have had set under set 4 times and K high flush v A high flush twice is not the result of any rigging but bad luck. OTOH, if sites were to rig, then flush draws would hit a bit more than they should.

So, Spadebidder, your examination of the turn and river are important. I hope that someday you can finish your work.

Just a quick example.

Two sites, site G and site H. Site G has a fair RNG, site H has a flawed RNG.

You are analyzing a particular event, which should happen 80% of the time, (A, A beating K, K all-in or whatever you want.)

You work out that your margin for error for your sample size means anything between 78-82% is reasonable.

On site G, the event happens 82% of the time, which is reasonable.

On site H, the event happens 74% of the time, which is way below reasonable and would indicate flaws with the RNG.

However, anyone who has merged the two independent sets of results from each site together, would see the event happening 78% of the time, which they believe to be reasonable.

Is this sort of thing not the very reason that you need to investigate independently ? You don't even need to opposite results to cancel out unfairness in both sites, one site could be fair and infact conceal the unfairness of the other site.

Is what I have suggested not a possibility Spadebidder ? Presumably you yourself agree that different sites' results have to be analyzed independently as that's what you have indeed done.

For a test like the one you describe, with the outcomes you describe, yes. But why would anyone ever mix them in the first place? I never would have thought of doing that.

I don't read this thread as much as I used to, so I'm not familiar with you at all. I assume you're fairly new, at least to this thread, but you seem like a decent guy so I'll let you in on a well-known secret: Wiki is a troll. An intelligent, educated, and well-spoken troll, but a troll, nonetheless. Don't let him bother you.

You might want to reconsider that. Bots can be much, much better than their makers.

Maybe better poker players because they don't tire or tilt, but they can't play better poker than their program. So if the programmer isn't a good player how can his bots be good players. Recently, a bot ring was found on PS. Turns out I had played 5 of them. But I was ahead of them all when I played them. Which is significant considering that the last year has not been good for me.

Absolutely.

You wouldn't mix them.

A few people here were suggesting it wouldn't matter, but I was pointing out that it would and the results of each site should be analyzed individually.

Can anyone explain why it feels like every time I get JJ, QQ, KK, an A flops.

My last post to you because this thread has managed to turn into a freak sideshow even for this thread. Maybe the mods will create a Wiki/Fated Containment thread so the those two clone trolls can enjoy each other forever.

Until such time, any chance of having a discussion (whether serious or silly) that does not have 20 posts from those two guys slam in between responses is impossible.

Still. I offer you to consider the following.

You are going about it completely backwards in determining why you are no longer winning. Your game is by far the most significant issue (how you play it and which games you play).

Bots and collusion are always issues and one should be vigilant about it as best as possible but for some reason you do not care a bit about those threats.

Your biggest fear is that the rooms are "somehow rigged" using a turn/river low pot size rig or something. I don't even care which rig you are proposing while trying to distance yourself from the riggie culture, but wasting a split second of your paranoia on this instead of legitimate threats is laughable. Wasting your time on this instead of your game means you deserve to never win again.


As someone who also plays a lot it is downright sad to watch you try to explain these irrational fears which are crippling your ability to make the changes you need to win again.

For any of your beliefs to even be possible they would need a ton of people "in on it" that are rigging it for apparently no real reason against any player and would make no real added money from this, all the while risking their entire business if any of the huge amount of people "in on it" ever told the truth.

This is while their artificially created data also had to evade any detection from stats freaks like spade and others as well as competitors (think Tilt or Stars would mind showing the world the other is rigged and taking a huge amount of their business).

Time for you to decide if you are ready to play a game in 2010 that can win (which likely you may need help discovering) or whether you want these idiotic fears to grow in terms of the importance they have on your poker mind.

Read this thread and you will find people you will become if you choose the latter.

Good luck.

we know, oooh my god,
do we know,



but carry on

business is booming

and that is cool

ps ftd
play some poker for gawwds sake

Full Tilt added more Rush Poker levels. That game is a license to print money for the site. It's the best "rigged" game ever invented, why would they even dream of cheating? Nothing they could do dishonestly could come anywhere close for generating more rake. The consumers win and the site wins. Kind of how markets work.

kind of
absolutely as is
but there may be
and will be
others who care to............

Cognitive bias
Memory Bias
Confirmation bias


If only there were some way to measure these things objectively...

well,
stats wise,
you have JJ, you are going to see something you may not like,
QQ+
you aint

but when did stats ever enter into this