no need to lock. Just merge into That Thread in IP. You know the one I mean.

As soon as OP said he was not going to change his mind even if presented with facts..... there is no positive outcome.

Lock or merge

So instead of checking for yourselves, your response is to lock the thread. Big surprise.

People are clongong on here for this as their income and to support families, so much so to the point of dillusion. No poker means homeless for some of these folks so unless you come up woth UB scandal breaking type of proof you’ll be outcast as a tin foil hatter. Even though what you say makes perfect sense.

I routinely play four-hour sessions. I'd be willing to take a tally, but here's what I think will happen:
1) the results will come out slightly lower than the expected number of occurrences, and you'll say "lol sample size"; or
2) the results will come out slightly higher than the expected number of occurrences and you'll say that it "proves" your point despite being shown the statistical analysis that with such a small sample size that kind of deviation from the mean would be expected to occur x% of the time (I don't know what x is because I haven't collected the sample yet).

For example, assuming about 35 hands per hour (which is what you suggested in another post), in four hours you'd expect about 7 suited flops (7.25 to be more precise), if every hand had a flop.* Let's say that hypothetically I tally 10. What does this prove? Not much, because even if the machine were completely random you'd expect to see 10 or more suited flops out of a sample of 140 hands about 19% of the time (this falls generally under the subject of the binomial distribution if you want to fact check). So this is actually more likely to happen than flipping a fair coin 10 times and getting 7 or more heads, yet I'm hoping that if you tallied 7 heads you wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the coin was unfair.

* But not every hand has a flop, so seeing 35 flops per hour in live poker is a....dubious claim.

If you actually mean a monochrome flop (there's no such thing as a "suited" flop) then I call bull****. 428 times in 3000 flops never happened even if it was rigged.

You're right. Nothing was served by pussyfooting around this claim.

Wouldn’t one way to increase variance be to increase coolers.

If one player was to flop a flush one in 80 hands and second player was to make a full house every 80 hands, just increase the amounts they make them together.
Therefor the end result would have the better players taking down more non contested pots by nature of skill, however the increased coolers would naturally increase variance. A win for everyone.

How is it a win for the site?

Not saying it isn't; just not following your thinking on that.

Isn't this a fairly easy question for anyone with a significant number of hand histories? If you expect to flop, say, top pair a +/- b% of the time over a million hands, and your numbers look meaningfully different from that, then it's clearly rigged. Otherwise, there's no evidence to support rigging?

Easy to prove any but the most convoluted rigged theories.

Easy to disprove any but the most convoluted rigged theories.

Easy to prove any one site is rigged, as proving one theory would suffice.

Impossible to disprove any one site is rigged, as disproving every possible theory would be necessary.

So yes, it should be relatively easy to prove, yet no one is able to do it. What does that tell us?

watch this video, the quality is terrible but u can see the how the action went. I believe this was a pretty sketchy hand at the least. tell me what u think about it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=judiBbWrzX8

There's no such thing as a single sketchy hand. How could there be?

Edit to add: Just watched the video. LOL. Love the "How many clubs are out there?" question, as if having 4 of a suit on the board is especially noteworthy. Anyway, if it happens "hand after hand after hand", I look forward to your statistical evidence, so you can blow this thing wide open.

He never answered this question.

I think it was a pretty standard poker hand, not sketchy in the least.

What do you call a flop where all 3 cards are of the same suit?

I would really appreciate if you would count the suited flops in some 4 hour sessions. It would be very interesting what you see. Now remember this must be low limit where many players chase. Thank you.

Are you saying that the shuffler *knows* whether it is being used for a low limit game? Or are you simply saying you will see more flops in low limit games? If it's the former, I'm done humoring you.

He said it in his response: monochrome. Even though it literally just means "one color," the usage in poker is that all the cards are the same color and the same shape. But that's just nit picking. It's not like there was no way of understanding what you meant by a suited flop. What other possible interpretation of that phrase could there have been?

With a four-color deck the term actually makes sense.

I did not put in a full four hours, but I think I've seen enough.

I tallied 55 flops over the course of 2 hours 27 minutes. That's just over 22 flops per hour; nowhere near the rate of 35 per hour you claimed.

I saw 2 monochrome flops in those 55 flops. That may seem low (to you), but actually you'd expect to see 2 or fewer 45% of the time in a sample of 55 if the calculated probability of a monochrome flop (p=0.05176) is correct. If your purported observed rate of 5 out of 35 (p=0.143) were real, you'd expect 2 or fewer out of a sample of 55 only 1.1% of the time. That doesn't prove your purported observed rate is wrong, but I know where my money is.

But here's the kicker. I didn't see any monochrome flops until the 49th flop. That's right. 48 in a row with zilch. The probability of that happening if the calculated probability is correct is about 7.8%. Better than a two-outer. The probability of that happening if your purported observed frequency reflects reality: 0.06%.

Monochrome When you say suited it's open to misinterpretation thinking maybe you just mean two of a suit. That's why the term monochrome is used.

Fair enough.

I will play an 8 hour session tomorrow and post the results.

Wait a second. I thought you already recorded 3000 flops (at an unbelievably high number of hands per hour btw). If that were true, what would be served by sampling another couple hundred?

I get it. Before I got dragged into this if you'd asked me how often a monochrome flop occurs I'd have guessed a lot higher without calculating it. It sticks in your memory, causing you to overestimate how often it happens (like a plane crash).

I played 4/8 Holdem for 6.25 hours today.

I observed 257 hands with flops. That is about 40 hands per hour.

There were 18 flops with all cards of the same suit - what I call a suited flop.

I realize this is a very small sample. I will play again in a few days and post the results.

Those results are totally normal. The expectation for 257 flops is 13.3 +/- a standard deviation of 3.55. So you were 1.3 SDs high on this sample, which is supposed to happen about 10% of the time.

However, we actually expect monochrome flops to happen slightly over expectation because players tend to see flops when they hold suited hands. This slightly increases the chance to see a monochrome flop in the other suits. For the same reason, we also expect to see slightly more paired flops than the random expectation.

Where is this magical place where they are dealing 40+ hands/hr live? That is inconsistent with a game in which people chase, meaning you'd be going all the way to the river more frequently.

Fortune Poker in Renton, WA. You are correct that some hands didn't go to the river. That is irrelevant because I was only tracking flops.

Understand. I'll keep tracking for a month or so. Thank you for your incite.

They also allow both blinds to run the cards to the river for a possible high hand with no more betting. The hand is over quickly.