Ah, so now you show your true colours as an unreconstructed ****** rigtard.

If someone writes a program to demonstrate that some aspect of rigging is not taking place you go completely ga-ga and pretend they are somone else.

A small clue for you my little dip****:

It's entirely possible that more than one person may write a version of any given program.

People with far more stupid names get replies.

Poor wording on my part. I should have either said "series of events" or defined event to mean something like the hypothetical flush draw situation described in earlier posts. Defined that way, we can come up with a situation with as low a probability as we like. (What's the probability of being dealt AA a million times in a row?)

With that in mind, how low of a probability must something have before it can be considered proof/evidence of rigging?

How do you check anyone's hand distributions other than your own?

Where would it show up? In hundreds of "IT'S RIGGED!!!!!" threads on poker forums?

Maybe I'm failing to see what's right in front of me. I've seen several people claim that it would be easy to prove, but I haven't seen anyone say exactly how to prove it. I understand that if you could get lots of players' hand histories (with their hole cards revealed, of course), you could do a convincing enough analysis. The problem is that the only people with access to all these hand histories are the very people accused of running rigged sites.

And this is why I don't think these threads will ever end, or even slow down. One side demands proof, the other side has no way of providing it. It's a stalemate, with neither side conceding the draw.

you know that sometimes there are words below what you can see on the screen, right? and that there is a way to "scroll" further down the page?

please look at Josem's posts again. especially the one where he offers to help anyone who is interested check their own databases.

LOL, classic!

Juk

I agree in a way...but that actually means that it would be easier for sites to stack the decks against better players and in favor of poor players (one of the most common accusations) since there are so many ways they could do it. They could sit around and think up as many ways as possible, and then spread them around .

Wait, I take that back -- it wouldn't be easier for them to stack the deck in that way; it would be considerably more complicated. It would just be easier for them to get away with it.

The point I've been trying to make is that you can't prove anything using only your own database. Let's flip the example and say that someone notices that he seems to hit his flush draws an awful lot. He checks his database of 100,000 hands and discovers that the probability he would hit that many flushes given the number of times he's flopped a flush draw is 0.0001315. He suspects that he's been boomswitched, at least when it comes to flush draws, and he comes to this forum and makes a thread saying FTP has been rigging the deck in his favor for months. He shows his numbers.

How do you respond?

wat

I'm pretty sure that would violate the TOS of every site on the Internet, but yeah, I would say that an investigation like that would carry a lot of weight with any fair-minded person on either side of the debate. This assumes, of course, that the validity of the investigation could somehow be verified to fair-minded people's satisfaction. I mean, if he proves it's a fair deal, the CTs (Conspiracy Theorists -- I can't bring myself to call anyone a tard for any reason) would most likely think the investigation was fake. If he proves it's rigged, the anti-CTs would think the same thing.

For any fair-minded person who trusted the investigation, though, I think it would be pretty persuasive.

I suggest learning the process and starting with your own database. Then maybe you can find a few others to analyze too. I'm sure there are a few rigtards who would send you theirs. After all, they always have huge hand history files full of proof. I couldn't imagine them not making the data available.

Let me try one more time. This is a hypothetical situation (not from my database or anyone else's -- I'm making it up as I go):

A player starts yet another "IT'S RIGGED" thread, but doesn't post any proof. You, Markusgc, reply in the thread asking for proof. He says that ever since he moved up in stakes, he has been losing to set over set way more than he ought to. He posts his numbers from PokerTracker.

You, Markusgc, analyze his numbers and conclude that there was only a 0.0001315 probability that he would have run into a bigger flopped set as many times as he did (taking his sample size into account, of course) in a fair game. Other people run the numbers and get the same answer, so there is no chance of a miscalculation.

What can you conclude from this and how do you respond to the OP?

Just wait, they have to wait for their supervisors to tell them how to handle this question...

Where's that little girl Qwp? He'll have a good answer for this one....

that's some weak-ass ****. if you don't know that then you're way worse off than I thought.

and I thought you were pretty bad off.

Like this:

Why the hell is someone who has such an execreble understanding of probability playing poker?

Do you not have the vaguest clue?

Let me give you a clue:

There are hundreds of millions of hands of poker played per day.

You think a p=0.0001315 event happening to you means you've been boomswitched.

So let's see; how often does a 1.3 in ten thousand event happen if there are (at a very conservative estimate) 100 million hands played with obviously at least two people in each?

About a quarter of a million times a day.

Or three times a second.

Now, go and learn at least the basics of probability before you come back here with your ridiculous theories.

That's how I'd respond.

Our hero replies:

-----------------------------------
Okay, I'm back. I've done as you asked and learned the basics of probability. I also brought a friend who believes he's doomswitched. The problem he's been having has that same low one in ten thousand probability.

You say this sort of thing happens three times a second. For the purpose of this discussion, let's pretend that number is accurate. In that case, I'm sure you'll agree that my finding one person who has had such a bad run is meaningless.

My question, then, is this: given the staggering number of players online and the number of hands dealt every day, about how many one-in-ten-thousand "doomswitched" people would I have to find in order to consider it significant and worthy of a thread on this forum?
-----------------------------------

Remember, this is just a thought experiment. I'm making these numbers up for the purpose of challenging a commonly held belief.

Yes of course its against TOS of all the sites but how else would a fair experiment be conducted.

The "anti rigtards" in these threads talk about how a massive database would be needed but I think a huge database will hide rigging the deal.

Maybe it would settle the argument for both sides if graphs, HH, player names were all provided in the evidence. For example here s my graphs for all 20 accounts first 5k hands all showing an +EV result. Here s my 20 graphs for 5k hands after cashout/bonus claim all showing -EV results. Not saying it would happen that way but I think it would go a long way to settle the argument.

Not everyone would be convinced of course but I would certainly like to see something like this done.

No, you do not speak for most people on this forum or even most online poker players. Hyperbole doesn't make the argument stronger, it makes you look silly and condescending.

Your implication that most large companies (not just poker sites) are run dishonestly even when that is clearly counter to their best interest is just absurd.

Your need to create a new gimmick account to make that post is telling.

How is this thread not dead yet?

Juk

People keep bumping it.

Juk

.