prekigeo - I like that idea too and it would be interesting to see.

It doesn't conclusively show that the bunching does or doesn't cancel out for all players (we all get QQ or AK as often as each other). But it does show that if it isn't perfect then the results will get warped.

But I do think that the other key element is to also show that some playing styles are more susceptible to skew (we all have a different range of hands and situations that we enter pre-flop and get all-in with).

i'm pretty sure that any sort of card removal/bunching effects are going to be pretty insignificant within a sample size that's less than tens of millions of hands.

I have done plenty of analysis while working at Stars using many of the same tools shown in this thread and other simulations myself. Using hand history data from various users, I have found nothing conclusive. Obviously I'm a shill and someone who used to work there, so I can't be trusted, but I do enjoy all these posts from people who have very limited understandings of statistics.

M2TR has posted interesting information, as I know he's not an idiot (when it comes to math, anyway), but as usual, he is not willing to actually do the work and present us with a real case to test against; he is simply happy enough to say "I showed you how to do it and I believe they are rigged, so go figure it out yourself."

Did you get to do the analysis seeing all of the players hole cards?

kyleb - I fully understand my extremely limited knowledge (if you could even call it knowledge) but I would be interested in your thoughts on my bunching effect theory to potentially explain unusual pokerEV results.

Its interesting watching this thread evolve from a simple conspiracy theory into an often vitriolic debate involving statistical probability. It is obvious from my post count that I rarely post here, however, I felt strangely compelled to weigh in on this debate. I am a frequent reader of these forums for the wealth of knowledge that exists here, although I object to the arrogant elitest attitudes that pervade these forums, hence , my reasons for rarely posting. Some of you will agree with me, and some of you will not.

Since this is a "discussion" thread, please bear in mind these are just random thoughts pertaining to the subject at hand. The relevant issue is the honesty of online poker. This will not be an easy egg to crack. The bottom line is that online poker is "corporation". These sites make big money and in todays world big money corporations are not synonymous with honesty. Just ask any ex-employee of Enron, or TYCO, etc. Everyday honest people get screwed out of their investments and retirement a little bit at a time by suits who claimed they cared about their employees and customers. Do I think online poker is rigged....? I dont know. I certainly dont think its impossible. Do I have proof in the form of a 500 million hand sample. Hell no. Will the sample size ever be big enough to make the math geeks happy? Probably not.

Is 2+2 even the right venue for such a discussion? Why would it be? Look around you. One would be hard pressed to find site that is more vested in the continued success of online poker than 2+2. Why else do the forum nazis and self-professed experts so vehemently deny the possibility of a rigged deck. Simply because an open investigation into the validity of online poker is not conducive to their well being. If one makes his or her living, or supplements their income, with online poker, why in the hell would they want to jeopardize it? They tell us to bring proof and some have, yet they try to poke holes in the veracity of the data. Why? You tell me.

Like it or not, 2+2 benefits from the success of online poker. The discussion here will always be slanted. Do I believe online poker is rigged...? Possibly. Will I continue to play? Sure. I win some and I lose some. Online poker is fun for all of us that take part in it. We dont want it to go away, we just want it to be fair.

Your argument has been tried before.
Continue that it was also right here that the very same 2+2'ers played a pivotal role in exposing the AP and UB scandals.
Not to mention that there is more criticism of all the sites combined that can even be measured.
People rip on FT, Stars, every other site ad nauseum.

Still think 2+2 isn't up for open-discussion and is only a shill for the sites?
If 2+2 really is trying to make all the online-sites look awesome (for whatever reason) then they are sure doing an absoultely horrific job of it.

Yes.

EDIT: I no longer have this information at my disposal, as when I quit PokerStars I obviously destroyed this information for security purposes.

MicroBob,

Did you see my suggestion of doing analysis on hand histories from 1-on-1 tables?

prek - I responded to that in post 226.

censorship. awesome.

at least change the title to pokerstars as that is what we are discussing here. or did they threaten to pull their advertising if you left their name in the title.

2+2 has now become pocket 5's. brilliant.

I don't frequent P5, so I don't understand. Please explain.

pocket fives bans users who criticize the sites relationship with ub and ap and censors a lot of stuff. i was saying that since stars is a sponsor of 2+2 they watered down this topic. bobo told me this was not the case and mason malmuth confirmed in ATF that 2+2 received no pressure from stars to alter this topic. i'm inclined to believe this is true so my 2 posts above were not accurate, mods you can delete them if you like.

completely OT reply.

Bobo, AWESOME thread. thanks!! i have just strapped in to read this thread in its entirety. i have actually just changed my dinner plans to read it.

ty sir

TY, but I don't deserve much credit...the first 130 or so posts come from allurit's thread, and there's a lot of good work being done by others. All I did was cook up an idea to try and start a new thread that might be more conducive to some rational discussion. I think it's working out pretty well so far, hopefully it continues.

Yeah thanks for this bobo. Gets tiring dealing with smart asses on the other threads.

Even if one goes with the belief that corporations are evil and that they put profit ahead of anything else, the fact remains that no one has really shown why "rigging" would be good for the bottom line when one takes into account the risk involved. Frankly, I am not even sure it would make much money at all, even using some of the more exotic theories people have.

Evil companies will do what they can to make as much money as possible, but organized theft from their customers is not always the best approach for a company that has a less sinister method to make consistent profits, especially since the cost if caught is severe.

Enron is not comparable. That was a few people who basically created a pyramid scheme which collapsed as all will. A comparable example would be suggesting that the Coca-Cola company really does not put as much product in their containers as they say they do, but they hope noone notices and it saves them money (ie: bottled/canned coke is rigged etc).

Would anyone think this is actually a smart idea for the Coca Cola company?



The problem is that most proof involves no actual data. Forget 50 million hands, usually it is just 5 hands at most and the rest are ones from memory.

No one who truly believes it is "rigged" has even taken the step halfway to prove their case with even say 250,000 hands. Those that suggest they will lead the charge to show proof tend to give up after a few days when they would have to actually work on it .

The "Rigged" crowd would be much better off spending that time and energy improving their game imo. But they don't do that either.

You can't possibly be serious can you? (thanks Granny)


Maybe we should lock up this thread ASAP. Rigging, pfft...no money to be made there.

The cost doesn't appear to be quite as severe as you may think. You may have been in a cave for the last year, but two sites have been PROVEN GUILTY of stealing millions from customers and you know what...they're still in business

The cost of fraud would only be severe if we had U.S regulation.

Ummm...comparable example? First of all, Coca Cola is regulated and has to adhere to strict standards. They are audited and inspected by independent agencies. It would cost them 10's of millions if they get caught trying to cheat the customers and their business and stock would go down the drains and people would be put in jail. These poker sites don't have to fear any of the backlash that U.S regulated firms would face.

You can't possibly be that naive? Exxon still has not fully paid for the Exxon Valdez polution and yet gets billions in subsidies every year... They fall under US regulation. (Whoever greases the wheels gets to do whatever they want in the US)

This post needs a lot more credit.

When dealing with such a questionable business I never expect to get 100% legitamacy.

I have not seen any blatant reasons to believe it may be rigged unbiased in favor of fish.

If someone was to ask me if I believe online poker is completely legit I would say no without hesitation.

Why do I still play ? Simple and it is the same with many people, if your still winning than who gives a **** how they skew the games.

PS sponsors 2+2? Nice, I had no idea. Thanks for the info.

I don't know anything about US federal law, but let's say if poker is legalised does the law require the online gaming industry to be regulated? FWIW (a lot, I'm sure), if it does become legal and it does get regulated (whether it's required by law, or not), it would most definitely inject adrenaline into the heart of online poker as we'd get a massive influx of players. Anybody know (roughly) the number of online poker players in the US?

I had a thought a couple of months ago that online poker might get easier in the next few years, and this would probably be how. Here's hoping.

Hi,


I am curious about one pattern on Pokerstars.

Does anyone have large samples on this pattern?



Check out how many times you get trips on the river when you are ahead. Compare to how many times you get trips on the river when you are behind.

Don't worry about whether you win the hand or not, just compare the percentages.

cheers fg7