Here's a quick summary for those new to the thread:

1. Somebody posts about an "imbalance" in their positional counts from HEM on PP FF.

2. Several other people also post that they too see a similar imbalance in their positional counts.

3. People confirm that their HEM is reporting properly (so it appears to be a real phenomenon).

4. People check other online poker sites and do not see the imbalance phenomenon (so it appears to be exclusively a PP phenomenon).

5. Somebody runs a statistical test on the data and finds that the chance that you would observe such an imbalance if positional assignments were "fully random" is 1 in a billion billion billion billion (so it appears that there is some "systematic bias" operating here).

6. One poster says whoa, hold your horses. Zoom is highly complex, filling tables and assigning seats is fluid, non-linear, complex, and imaginary, as the zoom pool is fluid, etc. So let's not jump to any conclusions!

7. Several people say whatever dude, the phenomenon definitely exists and it is almost certainly due to a systematic "bias" somewhere in PP's zoom algorithms. The fact that nobody knows exactly what the systematic bias is does not mean that it does not exist.

8-20. Endlessly cycle between 6 and 7.

21. TBD.

Um, you missed where I pointed out on the first page(100 posts per page) that the phenomenon is hitting Ignition/Bovada as well. Which is why I got involved. No one else is paying attention because tag line is Party Poker.

I've played a lot of zone on ignition and I have my positional hand amounts within 1%

Future - What are your stats on Bovada?

You did, but I haven't seen any evidence to come with the claim. Can you post your findings?

I'm also curious how you know that the fast fold software on many different sites has been derived from old Full Tilt software.

Folding quickly doesn't make it more likely that you're coming into the queue on a fresh table. It's equally likely that "your turn" comes when there's 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 players already assigned a position.

In a situation where the pool is small'ish I can see it being more likely that a faster folder is more likely to have arrived at the table earlier.
Think about it being a 12-player pool on just 2 tables. The guy who folds first is going to arrive at the next table first, right? That's all we are saying here.
And, if that's the case for a smaller pool, then it can also be slightly more likely at 18 and 24 players or an even larger pool.

Would be curious to learn if this is happening more during times when the player pool is smaller and see if there is any difference. Doubt that is easily achievable though.

I'm not exactly interested in dying on this specific hill and it isn't really that big a deal to me. I just thought it was an interesting theory and thought it was one of the more realistic hypotheticals tossed around in this thread. I do think something like that (an way of moving the players to the next hand that is accidentally biased) is a bit more realistic than Party intentionally setting it up so that better players get 10-15% more blinds than CO/BU. But I wouldn't completely put that past them either.

I noticed, but didn't comment because this thread is about Party Poker.

Party Poker is the site for which multiple people have posted that they are having the same issue, whereas you're the only person to have posted about Ignition/Bovada. Also, you've given no indication as to how large the discrepancy is for you. If it's enough to be concerned, you should probably start a separate thread about it.

That makes sense. I think you're right. I was thinking infinite tables and missed how fewer tables creates an effect.

Your patience is to be commended, Bobo. Don't know how you do it.

FutureInsights has to be trolling

Ignore FutureInsights' posts

Do not reply to FutureInsights' posts

If it was an artifact caused by populating tables in order from sb to btn, we would expect to see a bias across all positions for fast folders, with sb having the most and btn having the least hands - this would be very dependent on pool sizes too. There would be no reason (that I can think of) that it would affect specifically the CO, which appears the be what we are mostly seeing here.
Without knowing what the actual algorithm for seating is, I feel that one which simply moved players to the next open seat would be very biased against tight players going into early positions, at least in small player pools.

Good point. Many of the players with the issue are way down specifically in CO position but are pretty normally for button.
Could still be related to how they populate the next table though...with CO maybe being last to fill for some reason?
Perhaps it was done that way in an attempt to keep it random...but they didn't realize this might end up having skewed results.
It is really hard to say without knowing how they populate the future tables so we are basically just guessing and theorizing. But I do think the reason this is happening COULD be due to basically an accidental lack of randomization in the table populating.

Basically it. Only portion is random seating, which has no rhythm depending on your last seats. How they can possibly maintain server space and run program is to use random noise (so to speak).

Title is BU/CO though, so there is a discrepancy in the OPs seating.

Has anyone confirmed that this is not happening when single-tabling?

I do not know how the seating algo works, but a sane one would wait for 6 available players and assign them random seats, then spawn the table. However, IF the algo is set to fill CO last, then spawn the table, AND the other seats are randomly filled, then multi-tabling would cause fewer CO's for multitablers, as if they were already seated at a filling table it would not put them into the CO, but would send them to the next table where they would also not get the CO since they would be first there.

Thoughts?

been 5 long months... doubt affected people will get refunds

Has Party or a single site pro commented on this yet? I haven't followed this since May or so.

no, i hoped this thread would reach out to their teampros at least, no success

Do we know if this has been corrected or is it still happening?

Maybe try their discord, PP representatives seem to be active there.

5xSB in a row on the last table running after clicking "sit out next blinds". It was running 6-handed too.

Yes, LOL. We have that as well. I will just click sit out next hand instead. From streamers, I don't think they have the same situation on Poker Stars.

total ev losses due to bug: $3929.97
(580k hand sample at 100nl FF)

i started playing fastforward again due to the new promo, end of my session i try to sitout next BB and it puts me into the SB 8 ****ING TIMES IN A ROW.

im just done with this

Same on Ignition (there seems to be a transition of tables, then bam, ban, ban, etc).

I just pick sit out next hand.