NFuego, as much as I may be disagreeing with you here, I am being polite and not offensive or insulting towards you. I don't see any reason for you to choose to ignore me.

I genuinely thought that stating YOUR OPINION as fact, whether you're 51% sure of it, or 99.9% sure, is not a very clever or adult way to act, that's all.

I don't see that as being pedantic, I'm just trying to be reasonable.

Your continually posting nonsense and your continual whining and moaning is offensive. And not just to NFuego.

That's because you have a weird outlook.

If everyone always qualified everything they said to make it pedantically correct all communication would cease.

No you're not you're just trying to be an annoying arsehole.

And you are making a really good job of it.

If you could find others who wanted to be really annoying arseholes you could make a good living coaching.

.................................................. ...........

Yes its random......


*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Hero [Ad As]

Hero: raises 5916 to 7116 and is all-in
g0nnzz0: calls 3789 and is all-in

g0nnzz0: shows [4c Ah]

*** FLOP *** [3d 9h Ks]

*** TURN *** [3d 9h Ks] [2c]
*** RIVER *** [3d 9h Ks 2c] [5d]
*** SHOW DOWN ***
g0nnzz0: shows [4c Ah] (a straight, Ace to Five)
Hero: shows [Ad As] (a pair of Aces)

Yes, it is. That's why hands that are 92% to win only win 92% of the time. If it was 100%, the game would indeed be rigged. 8% of the time, A4 should win that hand... that that's exactly what happens.

True.

Probably.

Thanks for showing us one example of a random deal.

If doesn't actually prove it's random, though.

P.S. Please don't bother posting examples of all the others.

Consider two boards:

As Ks Qs Js Ts

Kh 9c 8d 2h 4s

These have exactly the same chance of occurring and will appear with equal frequency. That's what random is. The first one just happens to have more significance in poker rules. The cards don't know the rules.

I sense some riggie headasplode here.

Why would you rig something which is inherently profitable when played straight up? Maybe you make a little more in the short term but you lose long term if you get caught.

Why rig it to make people who cash out lose? Makes no sense if they are still playing it is good for you if they are not playing (after cashing out) you can't make them lose.

I have loses that feel like set ups. Online and live. Just because it feels that way doesn't mean it is true. I actually lose more money calling when I know I shouldn't. I'd say most people shouting about it all being rigged just conveniently forget about all the times they just made dumb moves.


This quote from The Untouchables is probably not even relevant...

Malone: OK, pal, why the mahaska? Why are you carrying the gun?
Ness: I'm a treasury officer.
Malone: Alright. Just remember what we talked about now.
[Malone walks away]
Ness: Hey, wait a minute! What the hell kind of policemen you got in this god damn city? You just turned your back on an armed man.
Malone: You're a treasury officer.
Ness: How do you know that? I just told you that.
Malone: Who would claim to be that who was not? Hmm?

Wrong? Ridiculously high?

What are the actual percentages?
What should they be?
What is the significance of the difference?

You don't know the answer to any of these questions, do you?

If there is anything on that blog which verifiable or meaningful feel free to quote it here.

How often do you predict correctly and incorrectly? Recognising the card that will help the underdog win and noticing when it does isn't a skill you know.

How often should you have won? How often did you win? What makes this discrepancy incredulous?

QFT.
It isn't a "prediction" either.

What was the name of that other rigtard that loved using the word "****en" as if it was an actual word, and is that name banned?

Its rigged and I don't care what anyone says to the contrary.

Plain and simple, you see things online that you don't see live. When I play live in a tournament there might be 2 bad beats all day, but online there are guaranteed at least 5 bad beats per 1 table sng. The thing I see all the time online is when two people go all in and the person behind makes runner runner straight to win the hand. That happens ALL THE TIME. Hero goes all in with 10-10 and villain calls with AJ, flop comes 10-K-blank, blank and then 99% of the time the Q comes on the river.

Its not enough to lose, but the rigged site always makes sure to give you a great hand on the way out. Can't tell you how many times I've made a set only to lose to a straight. today it went one better, I made the straight and my opponent made a full house.

That's why the absolute highest limit I'll play online is a $50 sng, and I've only done that once. I prefer to stay at the $20 level because at least then when you inevitably get screwed you only lost $20.

I can't believe all the people that play online for high stakes...that's crazy imo.

You must not play any large WSOP tournaments. The bad beats and coolers I have witnessed and experienced would boggle your mind.

Yea, this stuff never happens live:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OYwPGMaqMc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvflmlnIpdw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7loj2AhBMM4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbEz-SxVWUc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90cY4dfdy50
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfaJ0b5-WX0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvqdrZHNP9M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4eBY46L4AE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb3MwuGxEqo

You can find the rest yourself. Google is your friend.

I know it happens, but I've never seen it happen live with the frequency it happens online. And I understand you see more hands online, but even still, the ridiculous amount of all in lead changes and bad beats is way out of proportion to what I've witnessed online.

But its not just that there are a lot of bad beats, its the similar way in which they seem to be happening. I'm talking about the frequency with which one player will take the lead on the flop and then the other player will make a straight with either runner runner or just a river card. It happens seemingly all the time online.

Your distrust and related emotion makes bad beats more noticeable and memorable online. Live, you forget them and don't build up a mental tally to confirm your belief like you do when playing online. Emotion is the strongest memory anchor humans have.

how do you know that hands that are 92% favorite to win actually win 92% of time?
where is the proof?


what if there is no chance of getting caught.
when i say no chance, i'm mean no chance.
1. no software, and you need software to do this with decent sample size.
i'll make is sample for you
without software, you can't proof or disproof dick.

He posted his EV graph a few posts ago, FFS. What the hell are you talking about, "no software"? HEM or PT3 and a reasonable amount of HHs can prove or disprove 92% favorites winning or losing more than they should.

Just because you say "No one can prove it" doesn't make it true.

Well, duh, the more hands you see per hour, equals more bad beats per hour. I think you need to play some large live MTT and experience it first hand.

Nonetheless, I think dick may well be true.

See the graph I posted which included all in EV. It's not proof, but it's evidence over a 700k hand + sample size. Far more evidence than any riggie has ever presented.

Well, fortunately there's plenty of software available. The graph I presented, for example, came from that commonly used software. That doesn't make your commentary any more true however, it would simply take longer to show wrongdoing without the software.

Man if I got a penny for everytime I heard online poker is rigged......

Yeah, I agree.

I may be starting to become biased, 19 losing days out of your last 25 will do that to you, but I've been becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the low limit 50BB games on Stars.

Yes, I'm seeing suited rags turn into flushes in my sleep and I feel like I'm being raised by limpers way more often than possible when I flop top pair or better from the BB, but I'm not going to just start posting random hands where I got it all in as a massive favorite and lost. I don't want to make accusations or even use the "r" word. I'm not a computer whiz or super math genius, I just want to present the patterns forming in my database and hopefully someone can interpret them and tell me that it's not as alarming as it seems.

My history
I've been playing for about 4 years somewhat seriously (but not a hardcore grinder) and have been about a 2.5 PTBB/100 winner over several 100K hands from NL25-NL100. Not a superstar, but I consider it respectable.

I've played almost exclusively at the 50BB tables since they've opened because the play is horrid (a pair = the nuts), but after 70,858 hands I'm a 0.55 BB/100 loser. Just about an informative sample size, but I don't think I've forgotten how to play all of a sudden.

Why I might be biased
I'm currently on a 37 50BB stack downswing. I've lost more than 60% of over 50 sessions (usually 500-800 hands) played this month. Yet, I'm starting every session with a fresh mind set and don't believe my play is suffering. Although, I do normally feel sick now whenever I'm dealt a premium hand and the highest VP$IP at the table (usually sitting on 4 stacks) also has been dealt 2 cards.

I find myself staring at the screen and mumbling to myself after sessions way more often than is mentally healthy lately, so maybe I'm just losing it and reading too much into things.

EV
I know it's not a perfect measure, maybe not even a good one. It might even be worse because it doesn't count the pots I get out flopped or turned before getting my last cent in, but none the less it's one of the few visible measures I have.

852 BB -EV this month, 1006 BB -EV in all - not the worst I've ever run so I know a bit about variance. And I've ended at least 150+ BB -EV each of the last 5 weeks.

Broken down into %'s when I get the $$$ in...
5-9% - 11% over 63AI
10-19% - 14% over 132AI
20-29% - 23% over 118AI
30-39% - 34% over 101AI
40-49% - 44% over 192AI
50-59% - 50% over 163AI
60-69% - 63% over 154AI
70-79% - 70% over 179AI
80-89% - 85% over 188AI
90-95% - 91% over 66AI
Nothing that looks terrible individually, but strangely almost everything on the lower end. Frustrating for sure, even if nothing to get too worked up about.

If this were it, I'd leave it as.....I run bad, life will get better eventually, but......

The most disturbing
While the above could just be a bad run of luck, the following patterns alarm me the most.

The other regs at 50BB
There are 12 players in my database with 850+ hands, your standard regs with standard reg stats (includes a few rat holers though - wish I could filter them out, but don't know how). Yeah, I know reg doesn't mean good, but they should be better than the fish, right? Yet, only 1 of the top 12 regs is in profit. (If I dig further, there's 1 winner in the next 4 before I see a couple more in about the 700h range.)

We're all just running bad at the same time?

The "fish"
Players with 45%+ VP$IP with 75 or more hands (there are 85 total) are running +1.74 BB/100.

So maybe we're all just running bad and they're all running good? This is really the most concerning to me.

The winners
I filtered for just ANYBODY winning 2+ BB/100 with 100+ hands and these were the average stats......

24/14 w/ 32% WTSD. Seems like someone who calls a little too often and has a bit of trouble folding their hand, but this is what constitutes a winner at low limit 50BB.

Stars response
Just because I'll try anything to break a losing streak, and because it worked in the past (twice my losing streak ended right after I e-mailed them) I questioned Stars about these games (really I just begged them to stop......and please give me a bonus).

While I didn't expect much, the reply was very disappointing, and maybe even bordering incompetent? Besides sending me to a couple of links on their own website verifying their RNG, they directed me to an independent study.

The alarming thing was that the study was done over only 100K hands in 2003!!! Alarming why? Because....
A) It had nothing to with 50BB games....or anything that has happened since Chris Moneymaker won the WSOP ME. It's like saying I can prove the Florida Marlins are the best team in baseball because they won the WS in 2003.
B) It sets a benchmark of proof at 100K hands. Are they saying that I've successfully proven something if I run bad for another 30K hands?

I'm of the belief that it would be almost impossible to prove anything for sure one way or the other because you can't see what hands your opponents are not showing down. So how can you really tell how often 2 suited rags hit the board? Sure you can tell how often certain flops/turns/rivers occur, but you can't say for certain how often hole cards connect if you can't see them.

But I do have concerns about why a site may be encouraged to fiddle with games (max rake in low limit games, difficulty in redepositing after busting, ability to procure a US license with probable regulation passing in the near future).

So, should I be alarmed by anything above or am I just not happy about running bad?

Indeed. Variance simulator

It can be a bitch, especially in a game where people fold less. Have you checked them on PTR? You have a decent amount of hands on them, but you probably have >10% of their total. Not saying that it doesn't seem weird, but your sample for them isn't really enough to draw any conclusions from. Again, the sample is waaaay too small, and is that winrate the average of 85 different players? If it's the average the 45%+ VPIP players only need to be up what, about 2 buyins total? You could have one or two fish who built up 4 or 5 buyins on a table canceling out 80 other fish who were slight losers. It's what constitutes a winner...over ~100 hands. If you check the winningest 45%+ VPIP player on PTR, I'd be amazed if they were a winner lifetime, and I'd bet they're probably a -5bb/100 player or worse. Do you think they have a different RNG for each game? Well, unless they've changed the RNG since 2003, the results from then are still valid. If the Florida Marlins never aged, fatigued, got traded, etc. then it'd be the same deal. RNGs don't get old or trade away numbers. I think that Cigital study was just certifying randomness, which takes far fewer hands than determining winrates or things like that.

So, as far as determining winners and losers, you're looking only at your own database, where you have a massive 850+ hand sample size on these players?

If only there was some way you could determine a player's win rate over a much larger (ie; non-trivial) sample size...