fall-out thread

So how about "Official Zoo Poker Site Investigation Thread" ?

Yeah, well that's interesting but only partly relevant since we will pretty much never be at a table where all 9 players would open with any ace.
So yeah, that example has some interesting math but is also going to be pretty exaggerated.

In the real world though the idea that nobody would fold even just AA or AK makes a significant difference when 6 or 7 other players all folded. you can even include AQ and AJ among the hands that could be among the 'random' holdings of players who folded but just eliminating AA and AK from being possible changes the math somewhat.

As I mentioned before, I believe if it gets folded around to the blinds then the chances that the BB has AA goes from 1:220 all the way to 1:140 or something like that. I'm not sure of the exact number but it shoots up somewhat.
We can incorporate this same info for all the preflop all-ins with A8 vs. QQ or anything else if there was anybody else at the table who folded preflop.

Bobo - What exactly is being investigated at all?
I don't think there's any investigation taking place (certainly not like the UB or AP stuff).
Whether it's 2+2 sanctioned or not I think 'investigation' is a big misnomer here. It's a bunch of guys babbling about what they think might be this or that...with a little side entertainment of me babbling on about bunching effect and pokerEV graphs.

Otherwise, there is zero investigation of the RNG's taking place. Just the same old talk of "Hey, we should want the RNG's to be investigated!!"

"Zoo Data Analysis and Discussion"

How about something in the title that asks others to submit their databases?

"Looking for Poker Databases to Analyze and Discuss."

The only thing I don't like about this is it might discourage those without databases - we want data, but I don't want those who don't use PT to feel completely excluded from the conversation.

Anyway, I've got something together, you can all critique it once I have it up - I still have 30 minutes to edit it.

I'm going to ask Mike to move this thread now whenever he has time; I promise to do my editing quickly.

I'm sorry, you and I are just looking at this from two completely different perspectives is I misunderstood.
You're perhaps more focused on this RNG and auditing stuff and that doesn't hold a lot of interest to me but if cleaning up this thread somewhat and making it readable and also having a heavy anti-troll attitude in there is helpful then go for it.

I don't think that reposting everything from #142 on accomplishes very much though, do you?

I also still don't think there is anything serious about this about the poker sites' software being discussed or the RNG's or anything like that.

I see a bunch of people talking about how important it is for their to be auditing.
And I see others looking at results on all-in graphs and so forth and the discussion that they can potentially be skewed which pretty much has absolutely nothing to do with the sites' software but rather on how the games are played and I guess on the procedure used to determine all-in equity.

I have skimmed quite a few of the posts but the stuff that I've seen about the poker sites' software did not seem any more serious than any other discussions about it.

I mean, I'm going to entertain nolimit by playing some SNG's on Cake.
No way that's serious. It's stupid. I think it's pretty silly. But I might get around to doing it anyway.

If you wanted to have a SERIOUS discussion about poker sites' software then I would suggest completely starting over and actually having one. But I also don't think it's a good idea to have yet ANOTHER thread about this stuff.

Meh, maybe I'm on the wrong track, IDK. I just remember MT2R bringing up his concerns before, and then it never went anywhere. Now he brings it up again, and 1p0kerboy brings up his concerns. I'm not saying I'm a believer, but it wouldn't be bad to look into it further, or at least get all of these players to get their data together. However, given the nature of the first 100+ posts of this thread, I'm sure a lot of people are giving it a pass. I'm hoping to get some more people involved, and maybe put this issue to bed, either way, for once and for all. Yeah, I know that won't happen, but at least this could be a thread to point people to next time they ask "has there ever been an investigation by the players?".

maybe change 'poker databases' to 'large samples of hand histories'.

OK, Mike was kind enough to lock that other thread so I could move posts over. It's back in the Zoo, here. Pretty light in content and high in "entertainment" now, LOL.

I tried to move over only the posts with some decent discussion and leave the trolling behind. Hopefully I didn't leave anything important out or bring anything too crazy in.

What should people do who want their databases of HHs analyzed?

Should they simply download Poker EV and post the graphs?

Should they zip their HHs and post them online somewhere?

Is the goal of this thread to get as many people as possible to share their results?

I would think either of those would be good ideas, but perhaps those who analyze their databases more than I do (and should) can provide more insight.

As to the goal of this thread, well I guess that's up to everyone. It just seemed like for the first time in probably the last 100 "rigged" threads, there was at least a tiny bit of progress being made toward a good discussion, and I thought it might be better nurtured in a new thread, free of the goofy start that one got off to.

There have been attempts to collect data before; they never seem to get too far, but if someone's willing to gather them together and go through them, perhaps it will be different this time.

I apologize if its been said(didn't read the whole thread) but in consideration of the river card I'd like to see this study(poster hides and hopes for the best....):


I'd like to see a statistical study of winning hands as a function of strength(probability) going into the last card. This probably is more referable to limit but there is some transposition into no limit. If a player with 3 outs beats another player who has for example 42 outs the relative probability of this issue would be 14/1 . One who has access to the hand histories of all players could easily perform this operation(and fine tune it in fact) in order to gain a picture of not only the probabilities of starting hands but final dispositions and results irrespective of the starting hands. I know, I know, I'm taking dead bead on the Stars generator and don't apologize for it. They have the means and ability to perform this simple study which I would only perform on limit hold em initially.One could compare the expected distribution to the actual distribution.

To my knowledge they are aware of the epithet "riverstars" but have never presented any statistical study to refute the moniker. They fall back on the our RNG is examined, blah, blah, blah and that ends it. Agree with OP in that this is not the idea that "sites are rigged" but that they work with tools which have their own way of inter working. Slides into the woodwork tin foil hat in place........

If the bunching effect is mathematically significant over a large sample, which I believe it not to be, then there is really no discussion to be had. RNG reliability could not be reliably proven/disproven for games other than HU without knowing all hole cards. At the very least we would need a precise model that includes very specific player ranges, their tendencies vs specific opponents, recent metagame, and mental states during each and every hand whether they enter the pot or not.

Obviously this model would be based on a huge number of assumptions and after the monumental effort of creating and applying this model for tens of thousands of all-in hands we would most likely get a very similar final equity answer. In other words, we would need some proof for the statistical significance/insignificance of the bunching effect other than the obvious extreme examples that state a specific case before even thinking about looking at RNGs. Solid counter examples do exist for both sides and can't be ignored.

Also, a math guy should explain how small errors in single calculations effect the overall error of cumulative samples over a large number of trials. One percent error in each sample doesn't mean there's 100% error over 100 samples.

"1) It's possible that there are an equal amount of regs that are running well in all-in ev that you don't see as they don't post graphs to show how lucky they are or they run so well they move up"



Bingo,we have a winner.

Some thought on the issue.


I like how people keep making it "all about themselves". In effect, "I run so bad", "I am running X buyins under equity", "the site is rigged against me", "I run worse than poo", "I am sooo ****ing tired of runnin this bad", etc.

Poker is like this ever ongoing game. The people who sit at the table are only taking part in the game at this moment. For everybody to either run good, or everybody to run bad at the same time, now that would be rigged. That is simply impossible.

Now for all those who complain when they run bad, but actually forget to complain when they run good, I have some advice: stop thinking about how you run, and keep making good decisions.

I'm not saying PokerStars isn't rigged. I have no proof that it isn't, just as I have no proof that it is. I'm saying that when you're convinced its rigged, no matter what evidence is presented to you about the contrary, in your mind its rigged and nothing will change your opinion about it. This will obviously **** up your play.

Now Full Tilt: that's another story. I've never seen so many action turns and rivers in my life, in my admittedly and comparatively small cash game sample over there. No blanks would hit, only significant cards for people left in the hand. Am I saying its rigged? No, and my sample is verry small. Does it **** up my play? No, its poker. How I run is irrelevant. Unbelievable **** happens all the time. How I play every hand I'm in is of more relevance. I'm a grinder, not a whiner.

As long as I'm not the one hitting 2-outers, I'm playing fine, and I'll keep playing. That is all.

NoLimitLeagues,you see to have a habit of making claims,then when called out you cant back them up.You did the same thing in the other rigged thread when you made the statement about what FTP had said and i challenged you to produce the alleged statement.I knew you couldnt produce it because it didnt exist and i expect the same here.

To truly get a notion as to the site is rigged or not, we'd need like a 50 Million hand histories database at different stakes with all cards known. Where can we get this info?

Probably only from the sites that we already know are rigged lol.

In order to get a true randomization of the cards on each street it appears to me that the site would have to shuffle the cards at each street which it is possible to do with the present technology. y/n ?

lol, get over your hatred for me and quit trolling in this thread. why would you bring this up in this thread? do you have reading problems?

FTP showed in that example that they obviously dont have simple collusion filters that sharkscope uses or they would have caught the guy long before he tried to cash out. once he tried to cash out then they caught him. there are multiple reasons, imo, why FTP does this. i mistakingly thought a FTP rep specifically admitted to this (as did others), but they dont need to say it, its obvious by that account and a few others, what their policy is. i guess you are too dense to understand this.

please show me these other claims you are talking about with a PM, and go troll elsewhere. i wish i could have just PMd you this and not brought this up in this important thread but you are spreading lies about me and feel i need to defend myself publicly.

Repost from other thread:

It's plenty relevant. Doesn't anybody else see it?... Seriously? It's obvious, come on.

I understand the OP's point. He's basically saying, "if poker sites have proven (UB/AP - standard) to be dishonest with their customers and lacking integrity with their site (security, theft etc.), then how can we trust their word when they say 'the RNG is working just fine'?" It's a perfectly valid point. Would you believe what a con man says after he just duped you?

Honesty is the best policy in business. When they've shown themselves to be dishonest in the past, only a sucker would take their WORD and have no scepticism about their business practices and (in this case) software.

I too think that there must be studies done on a consistent basis by (different) neutral parties that functions the same way as an outside audit would.

He was suggesting the RNG could be flawed, but he wasn't suggesting it was done intentionally:

"Example: if the algorithym was programmed incorrectly in such a way (again, not necessarily with intent) that it was NOT biased towards a specific category of player everyone theoretically experiences the same malfunction and receives no benefit."

If it is done without intent, then why is it any more likely to happen at a dishonest site? That was my point.

I explained already why i brought it up.Because you just did the same thing when you stated, "I have done this numerous times in the past 3 months and the underdog has won 76% (150 hands), 78% (265 hands), 71% (176 hands), and 82% (224 hands)" and "the underdog wins 86% of the time on cakepoker" then when called out on it you had nothing.I dont hate you because i call you out when you run your mouth and BS.Id do the same to anyone.

lol learn to read, i explained why i believe that cake poker is rigged and actually brought data to back it up. unfortunately i didnt have the time to make the samples larger, yet. i brought it up so i could encourage others to look into it too, because it is very suspicious. so this is your example of my claims without any data to back it up?? wtf are you talking about? I posted data, I also zipped all my HHs and emailed them to others to analyze. i already explained the 85% comment, go back and re-read troll.

you have been harassing me ever since i said that i believe in the power of positive thinking. you are by far the most annoying troll in the history of 2p2, get a life and leave me alone.