The chances of getting SB or BB at a 6 person table is 1/3. The chances of getting a 1-in-3 chance 5 times in a row is 1-in-243. So that really isn't a big deal.

But the chances of so many winning players randomly getting 50k hands in the CO but getting 57k hands in the SB and BB if it was truly a random distribution is probably closer to 1 in a billion I think. It really shouldn't happen or be realistic at THAT big a difference between CO and blinds for even one player much less multiple people with similar experiences.

So Party needs to answer for why this is happening. Is it how the hands are logged that is causing an error? Is it only happening for winning players? Or are they really doing this intentionally? What is causing this?

It's orders upon orders of magnitude worse than 1 in a billion. It's so improbable that it's equivalent to being impossible for practical purposes. To use an actual example from the thread.

Let's just do the 5-handed one with 560404 hands. The normal approximation of the binomial distribution for n = 560404 and p = .2 has a mean of 560404*.2 = 112080 and a standard deviation of sqrt(560404*.2*.8) = 299. The observed number of COs was 105,089.

This deviation represents (112080-105089)/299 = 23.38 standard deviations from the mean. According to Wolfram Alpha that's less than 10^-100. I don't know exactly because it rounds down to 0. For comparison the probability of winning the mega millions jackpot is 1/302,575,351 = 3.3*10^-9. The probability of getting <= 105089 COs in 560404 5-handed hands is less than the probability of winning the mega millions lottery 10 times in a row.

Without knowing the details of all of the math you provided, I agree that 1 in a Billion for something like this happening for 10 or 15 randomly selected winning players is probably a mega-conservative estimate.

It is pretty ludicrous and incomprehensible for just ONE player to have that kind of a difference after 200k or 500k hands etc...assuming the statistics and data collection are all correct and there isn't a glitch in there or some other explanation.
Rolling a truly random 6-sided die 350k times should almost never result in 60k of one number and 50k of another. That just doesn't happen.

At its face, this really appears like it isn't an accident and that Party is intentionally making the games tougher for better players. But I'm hopeful that such conspiracy-type ideas will be proven incorrect.
If Party would address this then that would certainly help.

You seem to think you have some special problem, and its winning players only. Losing players have posted similar stats, and it happens on other sites.

Looking for a fight with Party? Suggest you take it to them. Otherwise, I see no difference between software programs, either doing 20k hands per month, 40k hands per month, or greater.

You want some reimbursement? Well, complaining here won't get it done.

https://clips.twitch.tv/embed?clip=I...rent=twitch.tv

Saw this happen on a stream not long ago. I've never seen or experienced anything remotely similar on another site.

At this point it may just be better to instantly sit out after getting dealt a CO or Button instead of clicking "Sit out next BB".

Players are literally being cheated. Whether it's intentional or not Party has a responsibility to offer fair games. The players getting less COs than they should be getting are being stolen from. Doesn't matter if they're winners or losers.

When there is an actual legitimate case of games being "rigged" online it should be taken seriously, and as many people should be made aware of it as possible so they don't get cheated too. Party deserves to lose customers/money over this unless they reimburse the affected players.

Maybe other sites have this problem too, but this thread is about Party. I'd like to see evidence that it happens on other sites anyway. It is yet to be shown.

Wanna say again too that complaining about a few BBs/SBs in a row is silly and doesn't belong in this thread. Even if the software tries to weight it so you're less likely to get the same position several times in a row it's something that should happen a lot. It's a non-issue.

I don't think I have any kind of special problem at all. I don't even play on party.
I'm curious and concerned about this situation. Getting that many more blinds than CO just doesn't make sense and Party should provide answers for what is going on.

If this happens on other sites as well I would be curious to see. Link? I don't think anyone has mentioned that before but I admit to having skimmed parts of the thread so potentially missed it. Maybe there are some answers in regards to the data collection or something else is involved that is causing this.

I'm kind of surprised anyone would argue that this isn't a significant issue and I wonder about their knowledge of the game to conclude that this somehow isn't potentially a big deal. I do hope it turns out not to be a bug deal in the end once we/somebody finally figured out why this is happening.

If so many players get too few CO:s (winning and losing players), then someone must get too many CO:s, or am I mistaken? Who is it that get all those extra CO:s?
Is it players that play only one table that get them? I mean, it must somehow even up, right?

Interesting that Party has not responded, compared to the button-bug in iPokers Twister Tournaments, that was fixed very fast when someone pointed it out (first player that regged for the 3-handed SnGo got the button, it was not random, a pure programming error/lazyness).

Seems they already know and are fixing it, as far as I read in this thread. One might get some bit of fewer blinds elsewhere.

Anything ever happen about this? I saw they are offering an extra 10% cashback now. Is that for taking everyone's CO and BTN or?

no, the 10% extra is just a shift from 1200 point requirement to 600 points for a month. rakeback is still capped at 40%. I sincerely hope party will come with a solution to pay back regs, potentially with a large deposit bonus without any time restrictions for clearing (or just a direct compensation which is totally fair in this case). They should care about their customers, i have left the site in the meantime until the compensation has been paid out

only to have a bug that allowed anyone who downloaded the client fresh, every day, to play in the same pool with the casuals and actually print money.

https://www.partypoker.com/en/loyalty/cashback Not sure about that. Says 50% now.

I've just been told Party has "pushed back" fixing the bug (despite it being brought to their attention for months now) and there's no concrete date it'll be fixed. You would think this would be their number one priority...

So does this mean they have confirmed there is a bug with players being dealt the blinds significantly more frequently AND they are letting it continue anyway?

I mean, their game is essentially "broken" and it shouldn't be continuing. If this was a regular cash game and it had a glitch that just skipped over somebody's button and it would randomly take different players occasionally straight from CO into the blinds I'm pretty sure they would be forced to fix it right away.

Isn't Party trying to skew their players numbers to far more recs than regs? Recs won't notice and probably won't play enough for the broken software to affect them unduly, so I can understand their not prioritising the fix, as bad a decision as that is. Plus they probably don't have many actual players in their staff who can fully understand why it's such a bad decision.

It might be something that should be reported to the GC, to attempt to get them to put pressure on Party to fix the error asap. An alternative would be to ask GC to force them to add an explanatory "Warning!" screen as players join the game, thinking it's a normal and fair game, until the fix is complete.

Theoretically, the recs are the ones getting the extra CO and BU hands in the first place. Somebody has to. You cant have EVERYONE get too many hands in the blinds. It has to balance out and SOMEBODY has to benefit. One assumes it is new players and rec players.

Um, no it doesn't. Who knows that exactly everyone in the pool is evened out here? Methinks everyone has less, because it generates more rake.

Trying to think through it. If they are all 6 player tables I don't know how it would be possible for ALL players to have more blinds? In every single hand there are 2 players in the blinds and 4 players not in the blinds. How can every single player in the pool pay more blinds without somebody else getting more BU or UTG or whatever?

Yes. Consistent on other platforms, has nothing to do with winning or losing. In a session of around anywhere's from 500 to 1800 hands, its either less CO or less BU (not always both, only rarely).

These are not static tables. Anonymous pools show this more clearly. Each table is created anew, with no reflection from previous position. You don't move from utg to HJ to CO to BU in orderly fashion. So each table is new.

Otherwise, one would not have multiple SBs in a row. Think about it.

Not sure - there seems to be two or three people that claim to have information about this; I've yet to see Party post any confirmation.

To be clear, I'm not saying they're wrong, but I don't believe an actual source has ever been confirmed.

I'm trying to make sense of this. If one were to take a sample of full 6-player tables, every position must be dealt equally - there's no way around that. What is it you're suggesting?

isnt the fact that they dont give any public statement enough?
games still running how long is this gonna go on for is the real question

Right. 10k hands of 6max means there are 10k total buttons dealt out and 10k big blinds. If somebody is getting too many BB then some other players have to be getting too many buttons. Somebody is getting the button every time these other players have to take the BB too frequently.

You can't just have everyone get too many big blinds because then you would have hands with nobody on the button.

Math here.

Let's say you are player A, and I am plsyer F (being six hands in the normal ring game fast fold).

Player A is small blind, and Player F is BU (the other letters are in between, using the English alphabet here for demostration).

All Players get the BB, all Players get the SB, all players get the BU, all Players get the CO.

All players always get the BB and SB. Some players don't get the CO and BU.

Logic question from an IQ test - if All players always get BB and SB, and some players don't get CO and BU, does this mean some players always get CO and BU when cycling through tables? The answer is no.

Because, I player F, don't cycle through SB, BB, UTG, HJ, CO, BU as in normal cash game. I start at BU for our example. Next hand is HJ, next hand is utg, next hand Sb, next hand is SB, next hand is BB, next hand is CO, next hand is CO.

From start of a 300+ hand session: BB, BTN, BTN, BTN, BTN, MP, BB EP, MP, SB, CO, etc.

The shifts are random. However, over your 10k hand sample of fast fold, there is no guarantee that if you have EP 6 times as player A, I get BU as player F 6 times.

I get BB 6 times, BU 5 times on average say. During those 6 cycles, Player D gets the same, and Player A. However, we have 130 players in the pool. So it is easy for all players to get BB 6 times and BU 5 times, while still maintaining full tables.

In my example above, where I got many BUs in a row, and several SBs in a row (guess it is catch up), we have 64 BU, 70 CO, 56 MP, 58 EP, 68 BB, and 76 SB.

In an 1800+ sample, we have 345 BU, 296 CO, 316 MP, 261 EP, 329 BB, and 339 SB. over that sample, you should see more stabilization, but again, random.

Notice as I stated earlier, I usually get either less CO or less BU, rarely both, but it happens.

For a bigger sample: !1k+ hands:

1982 BU, 1908 CO, 1837 MP, 1759 EP, 1993 BB, 1952 SB. (really don't want to do entire 2 year database).

In my case, there are more BBs and SBs than BUs and COs. However, there are less EPs and MPs, because those positions provide the least action. This does not look that random to me, more of a rake generation mechanism (we have a lot of people defending the blinds when by theory they should not).

But, that does not bring the BU and CO to levels of BB and SB.

No. The question I answered was "So does this mean they have confirmed there is a bug with players being dealt the blinds significantly more frequently AND they are letting it continue anyway?".

Rather than try to ask you about some unclear parts of your very long and convoluted example, I'll try to keep it simple.

60,000 hands are dealt, with 6 players dealt in to every hand. There will be 60,000 hands dealt to each position. No math is going to get you around that. If some people are getting less than 10,000 in the CO, others must be getting more.

Now if some of those hands are only 2, 3, 4, or 5-handed, that changes things. I'm not sure if that's what you were getting at; it's something we've discussed previously.