Who ever designed the software had player retention as a high priority and its pretty obvious.
If you cant see that the APP consistently rewards some VERY BAD CALLS you are beyond reproach.
ANYONE Who has played live poker for more then 10 years can plainly see the APP is a Joke !

Agreed, so rigged broo. Which union do you play on btw? You play plo?

To be a consistent winner, then, should be easy

Yea right ! If you think losing 9 of 10 where u are 85% probable is real poker have fun.

Bet you cannot show last 50 hands where you were 85% favored and lost most of them let alone 90%.

Your post is riggie thread material.

Hmm, sorry man. Tell you what, how about you tell me your SN and club so I can play w/ you and see what you’re talking about?

Could be ANY club all the same on there.
If you think turn card being a scare card 70% of the time is normal ITS the app for you.

you dont understand how poker works and likely arent too good at it. please get out of this thread to make way for us that actually have technical issues they need help with

.

NSFW

.



.

NSFW

.

man, rigged af. Let me know what stakes you play so we can play a bunch of hands and take down these crooks once and for all

weeeewwwww...that is some collusion if I've ever seen it. Victims of collusion always run impossibly far below EV since your database software thinks your outs are live when they're really not. Sick winrate though.

Maybe I'm not understanding your point, but being "beyond reproach" is actually a compliment.

It means to be a person of integrity. But I thought you were attempting to make the the opposite point.

It's a shame this thread gets so much low quality commentary and focus.

As an impartial observer I have a couple assumptions:

1. Sites would benefit significantly in both short-term profit, and longer-term market share from attaining more equitable winrates.

2. Methods to make more equitable winrates are easily thought of, and can be made subtle enough to be practically undetectable from observational evidence.

3. These methods are not excessively difficult to implement and modify within software, are not verifiable to third parties, and do not require many people to know about their existence.


A simple and stupid example:
A site develops a hidden classification of players into two basic categories of regs and non-regs. Regs are identified by some simple function of winrate and volume, and classifications are updated in real time as people qualify / unqualify for 'reg' status.

1% of the time a reg is all in with a non-reg with equities closer than 80/20, the non-reg receives a random winning run-out with certainty.

The size of this AIEV gap overlaps with other explanations like collusion and multi-way pot tracking errors, and would take a large long-term collaborative effort from a group of regs to uncover. The effect is that fish lose money marginally slower, and come back to the site marginally more frequently. Larger groups of fish attract more regs, and the site grows over time.

This is a simple and stupid example. There are many other more intricate schemes that have a larger effect size while remaining undetectable. I have a hard time seeing how sites are NOT doing this.

Since you only brought very very stupid assumptions, here's a fact: If someone alters the deal in any way it can be statistically detected.

You would know but unfortunately you got kicked out of elementary school for being a hopeless case.

That's correct. You know what also is not excessively difficult? Detecting these 'methods'.

Lol, no. Collusion has no effect on an all-in EV graph at all.

I think it does. In an extreme case, say you're playing Omaha 4-handed and you get all in on the flop hu with e.g. top 2 vs baby fd. The tracker thinks that villain has 9/41 outs, but if villain stayed in because he knows that the dead cards contain none of his suit, in reality he has 9/33 outs. If those situations keep coming up over and over, it adds up.

Edit: obv I mean the hole card sharing type of collusion.

No. Whether the outs are in any villians hand or on the bottom of the deck are the same. Hero will hit his expected number of times, and it doesn't matter how the remainder is distributed. There is nothing that colluders can do to change the number of times that Hero's card comes out next off the deck.

It's only the same because of incomplete information. Let's say you have a baby FD and you know I have top 2 and I go all in. If I let you look at the bottom 8 cards of the deck, you have an advantage when making your decision to call or fold, correct? That advantage is at the cost of my EV, because you now have additional information that my tracker does not have. There is no difference to seeing the bottom 8 cards of the deck and your confederates telling you their folded hands.

If you disagree, I'll play you omaha HU and spot you 5bb/100 if I can have 8 dead cards every hand, with a side bet that you run significantly under tracker-reported AIEV over a statistically significant sample.

...Or let's say I can look at the bottom 39 cards (which means I know the turn and river in advance), which allows me to make near perfect decisions on every flop. Do you still think you won't run under tracker-reported AIEV?

You might want to try and understand what is being discussed, lest you make yourself look a little foolish.

And you could learn probability and basic math. You knowing what cards come next doesn't change the number of outs I have.

Yes, it does. If you are drawing to hearts and I know that all the hearts are dead, you have zero outs. DUCY?

I think you mean it doesn't change the number of outs you think you have, i.e. the probability from your point of view. If I am using that information in game, the probability from your point of view is not the true probability when we get all in.

Let's put it another way. We get a fresh deck of cards, and I give you fair odds (4.00) that you can name the suit of the card from the top of the deck. One caveat - you name the suit, and then I get to examine the bottom half of the deck before I choose whether to accept your bet. Would you play that game?

What do you think is being discussed?

Aha, you have discovered how probability works, by definition.

And you have not contradicted the fact I stated. Hero will see his outs come out per the expectation (in the long run) with or without colluders. It has no effect. The deal is not altered by colluders.

It's the same thing where novices sometimes argue that 9/47 to hit a flush after the flop is "only" if opponents don't hold any. Which is absolutely false. Them holding some or all of the outs are cases that add up to the 9/47 probability of hitting. If they hold none, then the probability is much greater than 9/47 (how much depends on how many opponent's cards we eliminate in the denominator). The long run result will always converge to 9/47.

This isn't the thread for me to go over the math in detail to prove what I've stated about outs and colluders if it isn't obvious to you yet.

[edit]
Your cute images don't change the fact that you are 100% wrong on this and don't understand card probability. Go to the Probability thread and start by reading the stickies.

Monkey pox is correct in his posts.