I asked for a specific rig theory you believe is at play with you, and you have yet to provide one, so until you do there is really not much to debate, since you seem unwilling to believe the LOLobvious that games have changed in a decade, and you seem to believe you are at the top of your game and it is up to date. Obviously the games have changed, and your game is likely deeply outdated, however if we pretend your beliefs are real then you should have some explanation, perhaps in the form of a rig, that sheds light on why you can no longer crush 2NL. The only rig theory tossed around so far about your situation was jungmit's "even out the games/help the donks" theory, but given the AK/KQ hand you posted that would mean you are one of the donks the sites are trying to help with a rig. I assume that is not a rig you want to believe in, since that puts you in the 2NL donk category, so provide a specific theory that better suits what you want to believe in.

All the best.

What is impossible? The only way to what? You just can determine what?

Your post reads like a bunch of incomplete thoughts strung together.

Lets say we both flip a coin 10 times and I win all of them, you cant say its rigged or not just by the outcome, I could be just super lucky.
You have to examine the coin to make a proof.

On a statistical event you cant make a absolute statement or fix statement.
Every outcome is possible they just have a different probably.
Just because you have a certain outcome you will be never able to say something is wrong or not, you just can say how likely it is.

And that is just a simple yes or no event.
You have 8*10^67 possibilities to arrange a deck of 52 cards.
And also tons of possibilities to rig it.
It is not just impossible because of the fact that its random but also because its so complex that a evaluation itself and a approximation would be not realizable.

Just looking at the outcome will never answer the question.
If its not rigged you will never be able to provide a proof this way.
If its rigged you will never be able to provide a proof this way.
The system itself is base on uncertainty and way to complex.

I cannot even imagine being around you in real life and experiencing your stupidity. Sharing oxygen in the same room probably lowers my IQ by 10 points. Which is like 30% of the total in your case.

Although your babble is not always easy to translate to English, it appears you are going with a variant of the "impossible to prove things" though structure, and that is a very generous use of the word thought. Of course all this does is show that you have no ability to understand or prove anything, but that is hardly the case for others.

Here is a thread which used some detailed stats work in a way you probably think is impossible, which proved something that you would probably think is impossible to prove.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...-tl-dr-757267/

Here are a few of the highlights.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...09&postcount=2


Take a good read through that (as if that will ever happen) and then look again at your outlook on things


Gee, I wonder which person has more credibility...


If you ever decide to propose a specific theory as to how the room is rigged against you at 2NL (great game to rig obviously...) feel free to post it. Appears you never will, but the option is always available, as that is what this thread is about.

All the best.

So show an example of actual hands that is so unlikely that it would lead a reasonable person who understands the math, to think the deal was rigged.

Many wagers have been made in the history of this thread for just one person to show such evidence, and it has never yet happened. I'm sure you could get considerable action on such a wager, if you think you have it.

Your premise above is just wrong. Statistics can "prove" things just as well as physical direct evidence can, and it is often more reliable (e.g. eyewitnesses). Very few things in the universe are 100% certain. You get to a level of certainty that most reasonable people can base rational decisions on and that's about it.

Using your coin flip example, we know that in every 1000 flips, we are likely to see at least one streak of 10 heads. But if it happens more than expected, our evidence that something might not be random gets stronger and stronger the more we see it. A single series of ten heads is not really statistical data at all, it's an anecdote. So you just need to see it happen more to increase your confidence in a decision (i.e. rigged coin or not).

By the way thats not how you calculate confidence level.

Population mean = sample mean ± sample error

sample error = z * variance over sqrt(samplesize)

z is Normal-Distribution(z) = 1 - confidence
So z = Invert-Normal-Distribution (1-confidence)

In case you assume a normal Distribution.

My point is that you will still be left with a probability not an absolute value.
you wont have a 100% confidence in the real world.
I you put in 100%, z is going to diverge which leave you with two options,
either you have a infinite large sample to compensate or you will have infinite large error-bars.

Which leads us to my argument to put this topic to sleep once and for all, we would need someone with a sample of infinite or at least close to infinite amount of hands, what is already impossible.
And on top of that we would need someone who could evaluate this sample according to every possible way of manipulation, which is also impossible.

Seems you are the binary man...

Any chance you can bring your innate stats wisdom and you unique ability to convey your thoughts to the actual stats forum here? It would be genuinely amusing to see someone like you interact with a bunch of guys who actually know what they are talking about in this area, although if NewOldGuy plays along (with a 0% chance of getting you to understand anything regardless of how well it is explained) that could be a refreshing read as well. Also, better luck in those 2NL games.

All the best.

Absolutely false.

I have a major in Math and Physics I know how to calculate stuff.
Believe it or not.
But also I think this is irrelevant on this subject.
I also dont see why you take it so personal, it is just a open discussion here.
I am not here just for the sake of having a argument/fight.
Also the topic is an argument that will never be completely solved, just by its nature.
It is always going to be a blurry subject.
Also because you cant for sure differentiate between coincidence and systematic by just looking at results.

That's a lie. You wouldn't be as incredibly dumb as you are now.

You would need to, to make a statement "look guys there is no way this is rigged/not rigged."

Also it would be super hard to evaluate, you can not just exam EV.
You would have to evaluate distribution of starting hands, board structures etc.

If only software existed that allowed a person to do some types of statistical analysis...

Better luck in the 2NL games. You seem to have fun using vaguespeak for no real purpose, so keep at it if that is what makes you happy. If you ever decide to have an actual riggie theory feel free to share, but odds are that it has been said before. For someone claiming to have multiple degrees in math and science you sure are allergic to being specific.

Any thoughts on the jungmit "even out" rig which in your case would mean the site is rigging it in your favor?

All the best.

If only there was a field of math that let us examine the fairness of such infinitely large numbers.

Oh well, a man can dream.

Guess you are not aware of the complexity of the issue.
If you would have to deal out every combination that is possible in a simple deck of cards it would take you longer then the existence of humankind.

There are 52! approx 8*10^67 ways to arrange a deck.
Lets say you get a sample with 10^10 Shuffles (100.000.000.000, yes its 100 billion hands) which no one will ever reach in our lifetime.
There are still at least 8*10^57 combinations you didnt get.
All of those would get a value of 0 and the other ones that you already have would have to go from 1 over 8*10^67 up to minimum 1 over 10^10, because the appeared at least in 1 out of 100 Billion, so you got a ration for their commonness in your sample.
Which is roughly 10^57, a ten with 57 zeros, times above their theoretical probability.

Luckily, we don't need to know the order of all 52 cards in the deck to calculate probabilities. In fact, I'd imagine most people do these calculations based off just 7 cards, sometimes even fewer!

Winamax is the ****tiest poker simulation i have ever tried so i completely believe you. Skill is not relevant on this site. You can work your ass off, collect as much data as possible, have varies reads on your opponents, develop different strategies vs different opponents, put hours and hours of work into it, and in the end all of that is completely irelevant, you will only be a rake whore unless you grind 20 hours a day like Djorkaeff.

52! over (7!*(52-7)!) then ?
Binomial distribution with n=52 and k=7

133.784.560 combinations.

Lets take headsup k = 9 (5 Card Board, Villain and Hero each 2 Holecards sums up to 9).

3.679.075.400 combinations.

Lets go 6max (12 Holecards + 5 Board) k=17

21.945.588.357.420 combinations.

Just from the top of my head, feel free to double check i might be wrong.

You really should bring that special take on statistics to the stats forum and educate those that do not claim to have 2 degrees while providing unverified, cherry picked single hands from memory as evidence of a vague belief system. You can potentially change all forms of math as we know it.

Shame you and jungmit are not trolls, as either would be a solid routine, but both of your posting histories (in non troll forums and threads) show you are what you present yourselves to be.

All the best.

What's your point, DCP?

Going back to your coin example - if you flip 100 heads in a row, I don't need to examine the coin, even though there's a very, very, very, very tiny possibility that it's random chance. I can make a very confident assumption that the coin is biased.

I'm not sure what your motivation is, but most people who pull out the "there's no point trying to prove it, we can't be 100% certain" card are those who don't have the data to prove their claims/theories/speculations.

His point appears (since he speaks in such an unclear manner) to be that one needs an infinite amount of hands to prove anything, and since nobody has an infinite amount of hands that nothing can be proven. He also with not a hint of irony posted about a single hand where he had AK one time and that hand demonstrates how the games have changed. So in some cases a sample of 1 is adequate when it suits his needs, otherwise the requirement is infinite.

Perhaps he will explain it more, but his ability to communicate in English is severely limited, but that might be because his English degree was his third degree he earned, just before winning Wimbledon, so it got the least amount of his attention.

Hard to explain.
Its not a topic that should be taken to serious.

1.

It doesn't really change your situation either way, If rigged or not.
If you just have bad luck and run like its rigged or if its actually rigged makes not real difference, it is what it is you know.
It doesn't change the outcome for you if you just label it.

2.

Also to prove or to disproof is kind of silly, if they would rig their decks and had a team of competent people behind it there would be noway to prove it just by analyzing the hands.
It would be a impossible task and way to time consuming anyway, if you deal with a team of experts that would rig the deck on a high level like they would be able to.
And even if you would be able to find some inconsistency somehow, you would still have to deal with the simple argumentation by variance.

It will lead nowhere and will never change anything anyway.
It is always going to be just on the level of speculation.
And you will have to deal with the cards you are getting dealt anyway.

Just get one of those team of experts to talk. Why would a member of the Lock Poker rig team care any more what Lock Poker thinks? Also, any change in the distribution of the deal would be detected fairly quickly. People use a similar approach to identify bots accurately. Since you believe none of this is actually possible (despite many examples of it happening already), one can only assume that you did not learn any actual math during the years you got your supposed math degree. Your posts seem to back that hypothesis.

One thing you can feel safe knowing...


Nobody takes you seriously.


All the best.

Actually, if a site were rigging the deal, it would be very serious, and important to find out.

Please, explain to me how the deck could be rigged in a way that was significant enough to be worthwhile, yet be undetectable.

Now you might be getting somewhere.

No, if you had evidence of a problem over a significant enough sample size, you wouldn't have to deal with "argumentation by variance".

If there was actual evidence presented of rigging? Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet would disagree - that wasn't rigging, but the principle of being able to prove wrongdoing from hand histories is pretty much the same.

As long as people like you come here and speculate without any data to back up your suppositions, yes, it will. Or to put it another way, until there is some actual rigging going on, all it can be is speculation, as you can't prove something that isn't happening.

Cliffs for your entire post: I have no evidence of my speculations, and now my claim that nothing can be proven has been shot down, so I'm just going to hand wave it all away by saying that nothing would change, so who cares?"

What evidence wpils prove a rig tho? How many hands do we need to prove a rig? If someone proves something over 200k hands is that sufficient enough? 100k, 500k? Let's have a number and let's have some type of baseline to co.pare something too. Then we can check to see if we see some inconsistencies over that number of hands? Any of u willing to throw some numbers out ?