Why do you think guys like this are trolling? This is standard paranoia, along with the ironic naive approach riggies take toward believing anything they read that supports what they want to see. Pointing out "minor" flaws like this guy assuming 55,000 hands is the same as 55,000 showdowns will have no effect on his beliefs.
This guy wrote stuff like the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPFisher55
The real problem is that no one does any analysis except for all in results. So if a site does not rig all in hands, then its rig cannot have been detected yet. Also, without knowing all the hole cards, IMO, no one has the evidence to test for many potential rigs.
Right now, I occassionaly play 2NL (1 table FR) and $1 SNG at Cake Poker. I have been doing so off and on for 3 month. I have played about 7,000 hands of cash and maybe 20 SNG's. I have experienced many more real odd bad beats like 2 outers, flopping a nut straight only to have the turn and river tie my hand, flopping TP, but losing to two undercards that make 2 pair by the river, not to mention flopping nut flush, but losing to a flopped 2 pair, than I ever did in 2005 when I started playing online poker at the same levels in the same manner. These bad beats occur so often that the game is no longer much fun. I even win more as an underdog than I did in 2005. I am convinced that something is wrong and my experience at PS in 2010-11 was similar.
so he has faith in what he saw with his eyes playing one table of 2NL once in a while (the sites favorite game to rig because of all the money that rig will do...)
The study he clings to got this breakdown done in the other thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by VBAces
OP - you want some answers about what is wrong with the study. I'll give you a few. I did not read the whole thing because it is just too damned long and there are enough errors at the beginning. So I only looked at the beginning where he was evaluating hole cards.
A) He shows a graph indicating that he got fewer aces than anything else. B) And a graph that shows fewer pairs of aces than any other pair. C) And a graph showing a correlation between power rankings of suited connectors and the frequency of those connectors occurring in his sample.
So, in each case I took the numbers he provided, and conducted a chi-squared analysis on them, to determine if they differed from a uniform distribution. In all cases the results were not statistically significant, and not even close. In other words, the fluctuations in frequency of individual cards are consistent with them being randomly and uniformly selected; the fluctuations in pocket pairs are consistent with them being randomly and uniformly selected; the fluctuations in the suited connectors are consistent with them being randomly and uniformly selected.
If the suited connectors are statistically equal, then any correlation between the frequency of occurrence and anything else is purely coincidental, and is likely due to the small sample size. Note that for the correlation, the sample size is actually 12 - not the 50,000+ hands because the correlation is simply based on the 12 values found for suited connectors as they correspond to the 12 values of power rankings. I don't think you will find many actual scientists getting overly excited about a correlation based on 12 cases.
I did not go any further for a number of reasons. First, the bulk of what happens in the vast majority of hands is determined by the preflop action. Second, his further assertions are going to be much harder to define (how do you define cooler, etc.). Third, everything after that is also going to be based on considerably smaller sample sizes - all hands see the preflop cards; only a portion of those see a flop; only a portion of those the turn; and fewer still see a river - and even fewer get to showdown. Fourth, everything that goes on after the deal is highly dependent upon how people play the hand.
and that will do nothing to change the mind of this riggie or others who want to believe that study, because it tells them what they want to hear. You mention chi-squared and they think it is a dance or salad dressing. They cannot see chi-squared, but they can see the suckouts at 2NL. That is the riggie way in the end. They are for the most part simple creatures who do not troll, they just tell the world what their feelings and concerns are, and will latch to anything that validates them in their mind.
Last edited by Bobo Fett; 10-03-2018 at 05:03 PM.
Reason: Fixed quote attribution.
