Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > > >

Discussion of Poker Sites General discussion of online poker sites.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-06-2009, 05:41 PM   #26
Username^^
veteran
 
Username^^'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Reviewing hands in my dreams
Posts: 2,784
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

this analyzis makes no sence .. The hands are from variuos poker rooms, and its from cash games.
Username^^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2009, 07:55 PM   #27
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Username^^ View Post
this analyzis makes no sence .. The hands are from variuos poker rooms, and its from cash games.

The one I posted is from a single major poker site (I found out). Yes, it's cash games.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 01:24 AM   #28
dbcooper279
old hand
 
dbcooper279's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Under 23ft of water
Posts: 1,678
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowngod View Post
I looked at about 80,000 sng hands of my own a while back and found that my total all in equity was about 57%. Not bad, means I'm getting it in pretty wisely. When I looked at my results I found that I won........... 57% of the hands. So obviously I'm getting a fair deal.

Or am I.

I still felt like I wasn't winning at the rate I should have been.

So what I did next was break down the numbers by position from the bubble. (9 or 10 seated games) and all of a sudden the numbers weren't quite so clear. I ran pretty much at expectation for most of the spots, even a few points ahead early in the tourney and when it got heads up. However, ON THE BUBBLE I ran an astonishing 17 pts (51% equity vs 34% actually won) BELOW expectation. In other words, on all in hands on the bubble where I should have been winning half I was losing 2/3rds. Tough to make money in that scenario.

Obviously you can't draw any serious conclusions from this relatively small number of hands. But I think it illustrates that you can have skewed results without an obvious distortion of gross expectations.

Bottom line, if an online site wanted to "level the outcomes" they could "take a little here, give back a little there" in ways that would be very hard to detect but devastating to your bottom line.

When we consider these possibilities I sometimes wonder if we are asking the wrong question when we say "why would XYZ possibly put their huge profits at risk by messing with the deal"? Maybe a more apt question would be, "how could XYZ poker site possibly survive WITHOUT leveling the outcomes"? In my database (both omaha and nlhe) I see that roughly half the players are winners and half are losers. I find that very hard to believe.
How many of your 80k SNG hands were played on the bubble? My guess is your sample size isn't sufficient to be confident in any of these results.
dbcooper279 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 02:20 AM   #29
Clowngod
grinder
 
Clowngod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 400
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

Quote:
Originally Posted by dbcooper279 View Post
How many of your 80k SNG hands were played on the bubble? My guess is your sample size isn't sufficient to be confident in any of these results.
About 5000.

But of course, of these hands I was personally all in only about 800 times and of those times there was a showdown only about 300 times. So, yeah. Not a huge sample size.

On the other hand, if I flip a coin 300 times and it comes up heads 200 times, are you ever going to bet tails? I can't find the link to my confidence level calculator, but I'm guessing it's still a pretty grim outcome.
Clowngod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 07:56 AM   #30
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

I seriously doubt you had 300 all-ins exactly on the bubble (last non-paying spot) that were all favorites and you lost 200 of them. Saying the average equity was 57% is not the same as them all being favorites. A few 80-90% favorities in the set can bring up the average, and you might have had 200 underdogs in the set. You need to look at how many lost when they were the favorite, that were also exactly on the bubble. In 80,000 games I could find lots of subsets of 300 all-ins that lost more than expectation, but you said yourself that the total of all your games came out to expectation. By definition you are all-in to get eliminated in every single game that you didn't take first place, so there are a lot of subsets of 300 in there. Be careful how you define them.

Last edited by spadebidder; 05-07-2009 at 08:19 AM.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 08:03 AM   #31
roggles
old hand
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,745
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowngod View Post
In my database (both omaha and nlhe) I see that roughly half the players are winners and half are losers. I find that very hard to believe.
Does your database take away rake? Truly breakeven players who play a lot will lose tons.
roggles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 09:07 AM   #32
Clowngod
grinder
 
Clowngod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 400
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
I seriously doubt you had 300 all-ins exactly on the bubble (last non-paying spot) that were all favorites and you lost 200 of them. Saying the average equity was 57% is not the same as them all being favorites. A few 80-90% favorities in the set can bring up the average, and you might have had 200 underdogs in the set. You need to look at how many lost when they were the favorite, that were also exactly on the bubble. In 80,000 games I could find lots of subsets of 300 all-ins that lost more than expectation, but you said yourself that the total of all your games came out to expectation. By definition you are all-in to get eliminated in every single game that you didn't take first place, so there are a lot of subsets of 300 in there. Be careful how you define them.
My point here was not to suggest that my (limited) results "prove" that I was cheated. The OP offered data that he believed proved that the shuffles were unbiased. I was just illustrating that it ain't necessarily so.

FWIW, as I said in my OP, my EV on the bubble was NOT 57% but only 51%, and the distribution of equities was normal so the average EV was not higher as a result of a few outlier hands.

My point was this:

If you're going to try to "prove" a fair shuffle you can't just take a simple model (in OP's case, gross all in equities) and assume it applies to all sub situations. For example, the average temperature of the entire Earth remains pretty constant over 365 days. But obviously it is pretty variable when you look at specific places.

If you're going to test for "fairness" you have to test all sorts of hypothesis. Some of them might even be pretty wacky. Because the bottom line is it's easy to design a system of "rigging" a deal that is very difficult to detect unless you test specifically for that system.

I'm skeptical of people who claim they are being cheated when they have no evidence, but I'm also skeptical of people who claim that the deals are indisputably random when these types of analysis (eg. positional equity in sng's or pots size equities in cash games) haven't been done on a large scale.
Clowngod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 09:14 AM   #33
DMoogle
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
DMoogle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northern VA, USA
Posts: 7,140
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

This thread should be in the sticky so that it doesn't get lost and can be easily referenced back to, imo.
DMoogle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 09:21 AM   #34
Clowngod
grinder
 
Clowngod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 400
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

Quote:
Originally Posted by roggles View Post
Does your database take away rake? Truly breakeven players who play a lot will lose tons.
Poker Tracker calculates pot size as net of rake. And that is why it seems so remarkable to me. The actual figures are 55% losers and 45% winners.

355,000 total hands, $21,800 in total rake paid by 2487 distinct players.

I think that maybe what's going on here is we have some very tight games with a lot of blind stealing so not a lot of rake (obv) being paid which would generate less net losers that I would expect.

I'm curious what other's databases show. My stats are from 1/2 NLHE games on PS.
Clowngod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 09:31 AM   #35
Clowngod
grinder
 
Clowngod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 400
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowngod View Post
Poker Tracker calculates pot size as net of rake. And that is why it seems so remarkable to me. The actual figures are 55% losers and 45% winners.

355,000 total hands, $21,800 in total rake paid by 2487 distinct players.

I think that maybe what's going on here is we have some very tight games with a lot of blind stealing so not a lot of rake (obv) being paid which would generate less net losers that I would expect.

I'm curious what other's databases show. My stats are from 1/2 NLHE games on PS.
Whoops, my bad. There were only 43,000 distinct hands played (I don't play a lot of NLHE) , NOT 355,000. I was looking at the summary for all players which obviously duplicates hands by players at the same table.

Still, only about 50 cents per hand paid in rake, so pretty tight games.
Clowngod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2009, 10:44 AM   #36
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowngod View Post
The OP offered data that he believed proved that the shuffles were unbiased.
...
If you're going to try to "prove" a fair shuffle you can't just take a simple model (in OP's case, gross all in equities) and assume it applies to all sub situations. For example, the average temperature of the entire Earth remains pretty constant over 365 days. But obviously it is pretty variable when you look at specific places.

If you're going to test for "fairness" you have to test all sorts of hypothesis. Some of them might even be pretty wacky. Because the bottom line is it's easy to design a system of "rigging" a deal that is very difficult to detect unless you test specifically for that system.
You're absolutely right. I am the OP, and this was just a gross first pass and checking to see if the deal overall seems random, and it does. There's several people doing a lot more analysis, including me, now that we have some large databases to work with. More to come.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 09:06 AM   #37
Prav
newbie
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 23
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

I have a proof that pfai are rigged in Ongame.

Ongame network. SnG.

I analized pre-flop allins taking into account stack size of the opponents.
I recorded preflop equity and outcome of all-ins I seen at the SnG tables.
Short stack win recorded as 1.
Short stack loss recrded as 0.
Tie recorded as 0.5.
The cases shortstack vs 2 or more bigstacks recorded as well.
Equity taken from the poker client, or calculated using PokerStove.

RESULTS:

Tournaments: Double or Nothing SnG $22, $33 and Double or Nothing Turbo SnG $22, $33.
Time: from Nov 20th to Dec 18th, 2008.
Number of experiments: 1582 pfai
Average short stack equity 46.7%
Short stack win 42.4%.

Big stack wins more often than it should.
The standard deviation is 3.39*SIGMA.
PROBABILITY OF THE DEVIATION IS AS LITTLE AS 0.03%.

That proves that ongame software gives advantage to the bigstack,
making the shortstack leave the tournament earlier.
Thus the average time of a tournament shortens, players sign up to more
tournament, hence the site collects more rake. This practice is most lucrative in DoN SnGs there 6 players finish the tourney after small stack loses all-in on bubble.

You can check any ongame database and make sure.
Prav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 09:09 AM   #38
Prav
newbie
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 23
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

After leaving ongame scam site, I've been playing DoNs at Stars.
Here I found something strange as well.

I analyzed 1150 preflop allins. Big stack had average equity 53.1%, actually won in 54.5%.
Especially, big stack sucks out a small stack's pocket overpair too often. Like AK>AA, 55>TT, JTs>QQ, etc.
I recorded 93 such allins, big stack had average equity 16.7%, and won 27 allins (29%).
The standard deviation is as high as 3.2*sigma, the distance is short though.
On the other hand, I had 122 allins then short stack was dominated by pocket overpair (short stack ave. equity 16.4%). And short stack sucked out big stack in only 17.5 cases (0.5 is one split pot) - 16% as it is supposed to be.

Also I have a feeling that in post-flop all-ins big stack get their outs more often than short ones do.
And flush and straight draws close a little bit more often then they should, encouraging bad players.

The above makes me believe PokerStars is rigged. To prove it mathematecally, one have to analyze ten times more hands. I cannot do it manually. But I have hand histories of more than 2,500 tournaments I played (in .txt format). These can provide at least 25,000 all-in hands.

So, custom software needed to analyze big vs shortstack all-in luck, draw probability, etc.

Can anyone offer or refer to such sofware? Pls mail to ROONEY put "@" in between BK.RU
Prav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 09:26 AM   #39
Username^^
veteran
 
Username^^'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Reviewing hands in my dreams
Posts: 2,784
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

Interesting.
Username^^ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 10:17 AM   #40
Monteroy
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,100
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

It is sort of charming to see the difference between a properly conducted statistical analysis and one that uses a more creative interpretive approach.
Monteroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 10:31 AM   #41
River_Mitt
centurion
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 192
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
If you missed the updated data in another thread, here it is. This one is more granular, using 2% equity ranges. It also modified the algorithm used to determine when at least one player is all-in preflop, so the total number of all-ins shown went up slightly.


Number of hands parsed: 102,661,557
Total preflop all-in situations: 535,950 (Once per 191.55 hands).

[Preflop Equity %): #All-ins #Wins Win%

[0.00 - 0.02): 0 0 0.0%
[0.02 - 0.04): 0 0 0.0%
[0.04 - 0.06): 46 2 0.043%
[0.06 - 0.08): 10202 682 0.067%
[0.08 - 0.10): 2071 152 0.073%
[0.10 - 0.12): 1722 197 0.114%
[0.12 - 0.14): 9424 1274 0.135%
[0.14 - 0.16): 3858 608 0.158%
[0.16 - 0.18): 7436 1338 0.18%
[0.18 - 0.20): 93772 17905 0.191%
[0.20 - 0.22): 2168 516 0.238%
[0.22 - 0.24): 2325 547 0.235%
[0.24 - 0.26): 29000 7304 0.252%
[0.26 - 0.28): 26160 6815 0.261%
[0.28 - 0.30): 44814 13266 0.296%
[0.30 - 0.32): 40589 12854 0.317%
[0.32 - 0.34): 23314 7631 0.327%
[0.34 - 0.36): 22147 7530 0.34%
[0.36 - 0.38): 18191 6784 0.373%
[0.38 - 0.40): 18082 7091 0.392%
[0.40 - 0.42): 19580 8061 0.412%
[0.42 - 0.44): 47204 21103 0.447%
[0.44 - 0.46): 52790 24259 0.46%
[0.46 - 0.48): 38580 18403 0.477%
[0.48 - 0.50): 21610 10650 0.493%
[0.50 - 0.52): 23340 11825 0.507%
[0.52 - 0.54): 38566 20171 0.523%
[0.54 - 0.56): 52804 28537 0.54%
[0.56 - 0.58): 47203 26100 0.553%
[0.58 - 0.60): 19581 11520 0.588%
[0.60 - 0.62): 18082 10991 0.608%
[0.62 - 0.64): 18191 11407 0.627%
[0.64 - 0.66): 22147 14617 0.66%
[0.66 - 0.68): 23314 15683 0.673%
[0.68 - 0.70): 40589 27735 0.683%
[0.70 - 0.72): 44814 31548 0.704%
[0.72 - 0.74): 26160 19345 0.739%
[0.74 - 0.76): 29000 21696 0.748%
[0.76 - 0.78): 2325 1778 0.765%
[0.78 - 0.80): 2168 1652 0.762%
[0.80 - 0.82): 93772 75867 0.809%
[0.82 - 0.84): 7436 6098 0.82%
[0.84 - 0.86): 3858 3250 0.842%
[0.86 - 0.88): 9424 8150 0.865%
[0.88 - 0.90): 1722 1525 0.886%
[0.90 - 0.92): 2071 1919 0.927%
[0.92 - 0.94): 10202 9520 0.933%
[0.94 - 0.96): 46 44 0.957%
[0.96 - 0.98): 0 0 0.0%
[0.98 - 1.00): 0 0 0.0%

The distribution implies HU allins, yet on 102 million hands I would think there would be some multiway allins.
River_Mitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 11:59 AM   #42
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

Quote:
Originally Posted by River_Mitt View Post
The distribution implies HU allins, yet on 102 million hands I would think there would be some multiway allins.
You're correct. This particular run which Indiana did for me, filters for 2 players all-in preflop and one won (ties excluded), 6-handed cash tables only, all on one major poker site. It was more of a proof-of-concept for the hand analysis software he's been working on.

I have the code myself now and I'm working on some refinements to do a more complete analysis.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 12:18 PM   #43
fishm0nger
grinder
 
fishm0nger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 624
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monteroy View Post
It is sort of charming to see the difference between a properly conducted statistical analysis and one that uses a more creative interpretive approach.
You don't think 93 hands is a large enough sample size?
fishm0nger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 01:35 PM   #44
MyTurn2Raise
Drug Free MVP
 
MyTurn2Raise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Descalso, Jay, and the pitcher
Posts: 40,622
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

the fact that 40-50% and 50-60% don't line up on their total number clouds this analysis big time
MyTurn2Raise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 01:36 PM   #45
MyTurn2Raise
Drug Free MVP
 
MyTurn2Raise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Descalso, Jay, and the pitcher
Posts: 40,622
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

in addition, you have no null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis
there is no statistical test here

is this "[0.42 - 0.44): 47204 21103 0.447%" fair, unfair, other?
all you have is an eyeball test right now

Last edited by MyTurn2Raise; 05-08-2009 at 01:51 PM.
MyTurn2Raise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 01:41 PM   #46
Markusgc
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Markusgc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Noodles, Hockey & Punk Rock!
Posts: 8,788
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise View Post
all you have is an eyeball test right now
that's not true, he has a "feeling" too.
Markusgc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2009, 01:52 PM   #47
spadebidder
Actually Shows Proof
 
spadebidder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: This looks interesting.
Posts: 7,906
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markusgc View Post
that's not true, he has a "feeling" too.
1 day a mod and got an attitude already.

MyTurn2Raise - This was mostly a proof-of-concept for Indiana's database and analysis code, and I'm working on refining it now that he released the code. There are some things that need to be cleaned up on this test.
spadebidder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 02:59 AM   #48
Prav
newbie
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 23
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

Quote:
Originally Posted by spadebidder View Post
You're correct. This particular run which Indiana did for me, filters for 2 players all-in preflop and one won (ties excluded), 6-handed cash tables only, all on one major poker site. It was more of a proof-of-concept for the hand analysis software he's been working on.

I have the code myself now and I'm working on some refinements to do a more complete analysis.

If we assume that average equite is in the middle of each interval we get:

[0.34 - 0.36): 22147 7530 0.34%
average equity 0.35. Deviation 3.12*sigma.
[0.54 - 0.56): 52804 28537 0.54%
average equity 0.55. Deviation 4.42*sigma (!!!)
[0.44 - 0.46): 52790 24259 0.46%
average equity 0.45. Deviation 4.4*sigma (!!!)

I calculated only 3 intervals.
Are you saying this data proves all-ins are not rigged?


Moreover, I can say the data are sensless because you excluded ties.
Equity formula is (percentage of wins)+1/2*(percentage of ties). So, it's incorrect to count only wins and compare result with equity. Must count ties as well.
Prav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 03:32 AM   #49
Prav
newbie
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 23
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

following the previous post:
I tried to estimate ties influence.
It's obvious that ties will add to the wins number.

[0.28 - 0.30): 44814 13266 0.296%
ties add min 0.2% to the equity (in case of dominations up to +0.8%. PokerStove)
percentage if ties included: 29.6%+min 0.2%=29.8%
Average equity 0.29. Deviation minimum 3.74*sigma.

[0.30 - 0.32): 40589 12854 0.317%
ties add min 0.2% to the equity (in case of dominations up to +2.2%(!) like AKo vs ATs. PokerStove)
percentage if ties included: 31.67%+min 0.2%=31.87%
Average equity 0.29. Deviation min 3.78*sigma.
I took minimal figure for tie influence. But if we assume that actually ties add 0.4% i/o 0.2%, we get deviation 4.66*sigma. This makes the result impossible unless the site is rigged.


[0.44 - 0.46): 52790 24259 46%
ties add about 0.2% to the equity (PokerStove)
percentage if ties included: 0.45954+0.002=0.46154
Average equity 0.45. Deviation 5.33*sigma which is really impossible.


Now tell, is this statistics from PokerStars?
Suckouts like AK<Ax, AQ<Ax, etc. and lost 55/45 flips are often there.


Ironically, your "proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged" proved contrary.

Last edited by Prav; 05-09-2009 at 03:53 AM.
Prav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2009, 06:43 AM   #50
Dire
banned
 
Dire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: wasting less time
Posts: 8,581
Re: Proof that preflop all-ins are not rigged

This study is meaningless for proving all-ins are not rigged and I'm somewhat surprised nobody's pointed this out yet.

The typical rigging theory is that fish run good, at the expense of 'good' players. If you let a fish win his twenty percents 25% of the time, and you only let the 'good' player win 15% of the time and tweak the results of good player vs good player all ins as necessary for balancing, you still end up with the proper net run of 20% on the aggregate results with no visible oddities.

Basic example with three players: Fish, Tag1, Tag2:

Fish1 vs Tag1 in spot where Fish1 should win 20% but instead wins 30%

So current aggregate results so far in the format of expected | actual

20% | 30%
80% | 70%

Now Tag1 faces Tag2 in a spot where Tag1 should win 80% but instead instead wins 90%

20% | 20% (from 30%+10% / 2 = 20%)
80% | 80% (from 70%+90% / 2 = 80%)

And the data looks perfectly normal when just considering the aggregate.

Statistical analysis without segregation of data is 100% useless in basically any scenario. You need to split these numbers up based upon player type, player profitability, stack sizes, etc to really test anything. So, for instance, this basic example would be detectable by noticing a generally upward trend in the fish's all-in EV net run and a generally downward trend in the tags' graphs - assuming the imbalance between the tags was equally imbalanced. eg - tag1 gets his 80% as a 90% in equal proportion to the times he gets his 20% as a 10%. Other detection methods would include running the all-in equity segregated by player type.
Dire is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive