I don't think focusing on the couple of small outliers right now is very useful, until we revise the code to fix the few things mentioned already. It's also wrong to assume that each of the ranges should fall at the midpoint, it's very likely that the discrete hand matchups possible in some of these ranges never hit the lower or upper half of the arbitrary ranges we used. It isn't a continuum. All this will be resolved.

Would using smaller ranges help? Like ranges for every 2-5% instead of 10%?

Bull****.

So Monteroy, your point is that because this event was 'only' somewhere between 97.2 and 99.99% unlikely, it doesn't matter to you because it's only one event. It's kind of funny, I wrote this in the thread that this one sources well before I said a single word in this thread:

Go figure.

Given a few days to think about this, I think I came up with a better way to help you understand how backwards your 'argument' is. Consider it this way: If your argument was legitimate then the corollary would also naturally be legitimate. So I could say of 100 samples where everything was within 98%: well everything falls within 98% likely, but you have 100 samples so there's actually a 87% chance that at least one of these is an outlier - but we're not sure which one - so this shows absolutely nothing and may even be indicative of deal manipulation since we're not seeing that expected outlier here!

Not only is your argument terrible and an attempt to basically refute all of statistics, but you would try to argue that you could trust fewer samples more than a large number of samples since there's a greater conditional probability of outliers in more samples - that's just such incredibly backwards and illogical thinking.

Here's a link to a thread I started elsewhere that might be relevant to this conversation.

Or not.

In any case there seem to be some astute minds here and I'd like to get their thoughts on the subject in case they missed that OP.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ferrerid=40160

Who is "we"?

I gave you the link before to the research thread.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...h-beta-452536/

Monteroy is very good at the job he is paid to do. I have rarely seen someone spread as much disimformation as he does about this particular subject.

If someone posts" Hey this happened to me". Monteroy posts "Prove it"

If that someone then posts "here are the numbers 123xyz" Monteroy posts "Oh thats far too small a sample size, and besides its obvious you have an agenda, get some tinfoil because mysterious forces BLAH BLAH"

Monteroy, no one has said "Mysterious Forces" but you. I would imagine however that you know those "Mysterious Forces" much better than any of us, because thats who signs your paycheck.

It only takes a couple of days of variance spikes to ruin any solid players bankroll. It is in the unregulated sites best interest to earn money anyway they can. Companies like Enron, World Com, and Bernie Maddoff's investment firm duped everyone for years, all the time under the scrutiny of Wall Street.

If anyone here is Naive it is Monteroy and anyone else who wont even consider the possibility that people can get cheated by an offshore, unregulated, gambling site.

Additionally, from a glance, any large statistical database should and will appear "Normal". Its only when you show the statistical outcomes vs online outcomes of hands "Big Stack vs Small stack within 5% or less of the bubble in a tournament" do you all of a sudden see a large disparity in the online outcomes vs statistical.

Its amazing that when examined under these conditions the "Big Stack" runs 5%-20% better than should.

BTW "True" Variance can only account for so much. For example the chance to lose a 70/30 favorite hand 10 times in a row within 5% of the bubble of a tourney is

.0000059049% or 6 times in 100,000

20 times in a row 4 in 10,000,000,000

Depends.

If you say you had a sandwich for lunch I will accept that is true whether it is or is not, since it is reasonable to believe and there is no rational reason for you to lie about that.

If you claim you are the victim of 1 in a multi trillion luck then yeah I will ask you to prove it.

Go figure.

You can try to insult me all you like, the reality is all you have done thus far is tell "a whopper" without showing any of the real meat.

Actually, if someone (like you) says "here are the numbers" I simply ask for the database that includes those numbers. Generally that results in people like you hurling insults and making all sorts of emotional outbursts.

Bluster is fun, but we still have no actual database from you (some have even offered to analyze it).

Where's the beef?




Bleh, after a Wendy's and Burger King reference I am unable to come up with a good McDonalds one. Oh well.

Spooky beliefs about my secret employers (already made it clear that it is the Lizard People sheesh) will still not distract from the fact that you have yet to provide any actual data other then your made up bad beat stories.

Why?



Woo, wacky economic conspiracies using all of the good ones!

Know what Enron, World Com, Maddoff and the evil poker sites have in common?

None care as much about you as you think.

Oh, and if you utilized proper bankroll management you would not have lost it all.


Odds are your troubles were caused by your lack of bankroll management (coupled with perhaps not being as good as you think) as opposed to a massive conspiracy against you.

Again, you just are not that important. Sorry.


Woo, wacky rigged beliefs, my favorite kind. The "sure it all looks normal, but the HIDDEN TRUTH is that it is not." Maybe it is just "curved data" like that guy has suggested in the huge thread...

Tell you what, since you know the secret truth about pattern mapping of big stacks and small stacks why not adjust your game to take that into consideration and profit.


Again, I will go with the belief that the odds that you are not telling the truth (whether you actually believe what you are saying or not) is greater then 1 in 2.5 billion.


All the best.

I have taken plenty of statistics classes. It is very easy to dissolve or erode statistical information in large hand databases. They [poker sites] rely on this so the variance argument holds. It doesn't. Its those runs that are on the orders of 10 mil to one that make ya think twice about ever putting money online again.

Nuff said right here. I set mined from pocket pairs one night for a few hours. I cought 4 sets. I had to open about 7 tables for this mind you. So, how many do you think I won? They were all allins, and I lost everyone of them.

Rigged. I got way to many more examples, so many that my arm would fall off if I tried typing it all.

I will come right out and say this. Those sites make no mistake about it, its in the fine print. Its for entertainment only, meaning its not a real representation of the game. What they will come around and say is, "its fair play for everyone". Okay, so then what?

Its obvious its a money pit. Ya know, they setup automated accounts, pay people to play higher stakes and chat. Its all rigged so they make a hefty amount of cash. Anyway, I cant prove this.

But I will say this, if I was an owner or operative of an online gaming site...YOU BET YOUR ASS ID LOOT it.

Who wouldn't...yall foolin if ya say no.

Monteroy I have already witnessed what you say and do when people provide Actual Hard Evidence. You mock it, malign it, be little it, or say something both demeaning and or insulting, but your so biased that you never once consider it.

I do not believe all internet poker sites are Rigged, quite the contrary, But things are just not adding up statistics wise at Full Tilt. Personally I will not deposit any money at a non regulated site again.

BTW the OP's statistics do not prove that all all ins are not rigged, other than the site where this was taken, which seems to run close to card percentages, on its cash side, and even then there are a few discrepancies that others have pointed out.

There needs to be more data from tournament bubble play from non regulated sites.

Then it should be easy or you to show a link to this happening.

Keep in mind that hard evidence is actual verifiable data, not merely an unstable person claiming their aces or AK lose too much or that short stacks win or lose too much.


Some people choose to not play at Tilt because of their weird, uneven policy with regard to rakeback. You chose not to play there because they persecute you on bubbles in tourneys in your mind.

People have the right to make whatever choice they want, whether it is or a logical reason or one that is a tad more creative. Both (as seen above) can lead to the same decision at times.

Congrats on making the correct choice for yourself based on your beliefs.


Safe to say this proves a point that I have said often in these threads that in the end no amount of actual real hard data will convince some riggedologists that the game and deal is fair even if that is what the data indicates.


Thanks for the chat. Good luck with the bankroll management in future.

even if you experienced a 10 million to 1 "run" I think they're due probably every week or so on a big site.
really? that's proof enough for you? you're easily satisfied. one can only hope your girl is too.
Rigged. I got way to many more examples, so many that my arm would fall off if I tried typing it all.
so typing two examples would make your arm fall off?
It's obvious you have a small penis and ejaculate prematurely. Anyway, I can't prove this, but apparently that doesn't matter when throwing around accusations.
so you're a lying scumbag, who would've guessed it?

and for the record, I work at a business where there is lots of cash around I could pocket, but I don't, for two equally important reasons: I don't want to be fired/prosecuted and I have a conscience. Apparently you don't have either or you would understand why people/ businesses choose not to steal.

Are you just a troll? Your comment there is just way too ironic to be legitimate.

This thread already shows a number of unusual discrepancies in the data, and the thread this one links to has some even bigger and stranger discrepancies. The implications are still unclear, but it's pretty much the opposite of some huge "actual hard data" proving the sites' fairness.

shhh...i think i hear something. ... nope... nm musta been house settling.

Troll, shill, Lizard Person. You can call me whatever name you like as a personal attack if it makes you feel better, though of course the issue itself remains.

If you or anyone else can provide definitive proof that the sites are rigged then I will be the first to congratulate you.

Until then how about a nice simple yes or no (which you tend to avoid answering directly)

Dire, do you believe everything Pocket Flush has said at face value? Yes or no?

And are you in full agreement with that other guys "fine print" beliefs?


You are a much longer term and hard core riggedologist then them, I am sure they would appreciate your support.

its in the fine print. its for entertainment purposes only. its not real poker. fair play for everyone until you hit a table with a pro or a money pit.

in order to do that, you'd need to go behind the scenes and see what they are doing without them knowing your watching. everything from bot accounts, to superuser accounts, etc goes on. i believe rigging of the deck can be done at a clicks notice also. its just to easy, and its human nature. they are screwing us. and laughing all the way to germany.

Yes, yes, super secret missions would be required, no question about that.

I am just trying to ensure that Dire fully supports your efforts and beliefs since as a fellow riggedologist you are the company he keeps.

perhaps you should make an inquiry of some sort...

your just a genius ya know. you want a ****in award?

I'd settle for your quiet resignation from the Rigtard Local 101.

I'm not insulting you. I'm asking if you're a troll. If you're not familiar with the term, it generally refers to a person who makes disingenuous remarks to elicit reactions from others.

If there was ever any evidence of deal manipulation, I'm almost certain you would not accept it. There are some guys that would never believe the sites are legitimate since their AA got cracked 3 times in a row once! But there are also guys, like yourself, that believe the sites could do no wrong - even going out of your way to try to defend them when you had no clue what the statistics were showing. At least Josem makes money defending the sites. You are no better than Pocket Flush - just on the other end of the spectrum.

Ok, I will stipulate I am a troll and/or a shill for whatever site you prefer, since that seems to be a very important issue to you. Tell me the details and I will say "yup, that's me." You can even quote this and print it for your manifesto if you like while saying "SEE he admits it!!!."

Great, now that we got that out of the way how about answering the direct yes or no question I asked before that you somehow avoided answering:


Dire, do you believe everything Pocket Flush has said at face value? Yes or no?

And are you in full agreement with that other guys "fine print" beliefs?

You are a much longer term and hard core riggedologist then them, I am sure they would appreciate your support.