How many cards are there on the table after the turn in the game under discussion?

How many in your hand?

I think they are not accounting for any other players hole cards (which would cause an absolute furore).

I further think he's miscounted the outs in the first case (he really doesn't know an awful lot about poker ).

One of the games was heads up and they definitely don't take that into account anyway, as the percentages are always the same for a particular number of outs.

He may not mean 6 times it was cracked by another pocket pair, but this type of thread is always interesting. I've personally had many times where I've lost with aa vs 1 hand, allin preflop, 9 times on three occassions and was up to 1 out of 12 on one of those runs.. but whats funny is, its never, ever been the other way around. Winning with aa preflop allin even past 4 times..i'm not saying its rigged, but since you have the odds down pretty good.. you'd have to say its pretty strange...

I want to know how is it possible to miss the board routinely 80-85% of the time when playing tourneys/cash games with any two random cards? Thats not the odds as you know...

Monteroy's offered to help a few people, none of them seemed to have taken him up on it though. How many hands should they play, ignoring the fact that it violates the TOS everywhere and can be proven in a much easier, and legal way by looking at a winner's stats on different sites.

+1

Just to explain the hands, to help see if I've miscalculated, the first one I have A, 9, opponent has A, 5 and the board is 10, 9, 8, 6. Opponent has 4 cards, (the four 7s), for a tie. Opponent's chance of a tie is given as 10%, when I think it is 9.09%. NO POSSIBLE FLUSHES FOR EITHER PLAYER.

The second one, I have K, 10, both diamonds, and opponent has Qd, 9h. The board is Ad, 10s, Ks, 2d. So opponent has 3 cards to win, (the 3 non-diamond jacks, as the jack of diamonds gives me the flush.) The odds of opponent winning are given as 6%, when I work it out as 6.82%.

What is going on ??

1) If you know you are running bad it is no surprise to find that when you anlayse that sample of hands, you are running below equity. Thats not to say that the numbers aren't relevant but saying they're a bit low is hardly surprising on a biased sample. What are the numbers like on your whole database? Are you suggesting that the 50bb tables specifically could be "rigged"?

2) To paraphrase, you say that it is surprising how "bad" players are winning and "good" players are losing as if they are two separate events when they obviously are not. Again, your sample is based on a biased sample where you know the most statistically significant player in the database is a "good" losing player so the reults are unsurprising. What are the numbers like on your whole database? Are you suggesting that the 50bb tables specifically could be "rigged"?

3) Why do people use these equity buckets to describe their EV which can skew the results? Can't you do this more accurately with PT/HEM?

Not if they are trying to disprove the Doom Switch theory which seems to be the common underlying premise.

I go all in with QQ vs AK preflop, board comes xxxx ..... A !!!! COME ON !!! RIGGGGG

You've got me convinced.

I'm taking all my monies off the internets right this minute.

man if i got a penny for every time, i've lost 85/15 or better, after the flop...

this is one long thread. I'd like to introduce another thought.

Why is it exactly wrong to play on another players account, with their permission? Why would it matter to the poker room since everyone is equal?

You'd have 15p or more for every 100 qualifying hands. On average.

Now were are talking.. +1

I made an earlier post today that had to do with playing on another players account. makes sense a rigged players account being played on by a winning player to see the results over a few thousand hands... would be interesting results for sure...

haha, if only that was true...

I believe that its just that the random card generator puts out a higher percentage for players actually hitting some sort of monster draw.

The only ones that complain are usually those who lost to the turn or river card where the percentage of the favored player is higher here than the flop. But you have to admit, it can happen live as well.

Take a look at the actual percentage of hitting these sets on the turn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poker_hands

When on FTP, I notice a very high percentage of either a possible flush for some players (three hearts on the flop), two flush draws (2 hearts, 2 spades), two paired cards on the flop, or some sort of high card pattern (AKAKx, QJAKx, AAAKx, etc).

A common belief.

Indeed, one so common that you wonder why no one has ever produced any evidence.

After all, there are one hell of a lot of people playing one hell of a lot of hands so you'd have thought at least one would have noticed this, performed an HH analysis and reported his results here.

Perhaps, and it's just a crazy thought, but, perhaps, it's because the belief is based on an illusion.

Everyone isn't equal. Everyone plays a different style, and it's unfair to other players if a LAG starts playing on a TAG's account, and vice versa. It's the equivalent of having Tom Dwan show up to a TV taping in a perfect Howard Lederer costume. Obviously after about 10 hands everyone there would catch on that "Howard" had suddenly become either incredibly loose or was on a run of great hands, but at lower stakes people aren't likely to catch on as quickly.

This is also one reason why the whole "have a good player use a bad player's account" thing won't work out. If a bunch of regs have a riggie's account noted as bad, and have a few hundred hands on them that show they're loose and passive, a good player playing tighter and more aggressive will be more profitable (for example, not saying all riggies are loose passive or all good players are TAG), so really the results would be skewed in a way "disproving" doomswitching.

Can doomswitch believers clarify if they also believe in boomswitches/"golden" accounts (golden accounts being the idea that durrrr was chosen when he signed up to FTP to win millions and millions of dollars, because FTP...loves making millionaires?)? They're not necessarily related, but boomswitches are much easier to "disprove".

At a table half an hour ago and my clock (PST) on the bottom right. You can see how many of these patterns occur in only 5 minutes.

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/1316/91079139.png
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/4484/49284267.png
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/5159/86566607.png
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/8158/20583342.png
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/3264/11824940.png
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/1096/53394181.png

And more:

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/1197/71957485.png
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/4397/10967670.png
http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/5796/27991314.png
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/8026/68112714.png
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/918/97531811.png
http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/3970/82961552.png

You have the two sides of the coin wrong. One side says poker is rigged. One side asks for proof of that rigging.

Re: The demise of Gigabet

I just had a hand with apf raise, flop of 99Q, I had KQ, all the money got in, monkey named gigabet calls with 10 2 off, turn 10, river 10 = Cake is rigged.
$25 nl

How many should there have been in 5 minutes?

You win the thread. You've set a new bar for others to aspire to.

So you are saying there is definitive proof that there is no card manipulation after the RNG shuffle?
It seems there would need to be a database with all hands and all hole cards for all players for that to be definitive. If there is i would love to have one of my employees take a crack at that (have a couple on the bench right now). If there is at least ~10million hand sample (all hands and all hole cards) that should be enough.