Well, yeah. But the real question is, just how delicious ARE ice cream sandwiches?

Not sure if this has been linked before: Audit of Full Tilt Poker by The Association of Players, Casinos & Webmasters (http://www.apcw.org/).

According to them, pocket Aces and pocket Kings only hold up 46% of the time heads-up in cash games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1AukHYq86w


(Audit starts around 03:45)

They also say this about their own "audit" (in the comments area below the video)

1) We did the best we could. If it wasn't good enough, then you play the 2 million hands, you analize them, and you put yourself on the line to report the findings.

2) We never said the site is rigged. We reported what we had, stated that we knew many would disagree, and encourgaed people to judge for themselves.

3) If we're incorrect, so be it. Even the damn New York Times has printed retractions.

Yea I'm done with that. These people are morons and have no mathematical background at all. They make no effort to prove anything other than to say they did something and put out some numbers, they should make their data public if they want to be taken seriously. The problem with that is it would be torn to pieces right away and they would lose their advertisements/credibility.

LOL at calling this an "audit".

And you guys selectively choose to point out when you think things are "rigged". No one would come out and say baseball was rigged if the Red Sox were swept by the Mariners. That's pretty unlikely, probably more so than losing AA v XX aipf, but no one comes out "OOH MLB IS RIGGED!"

For all of you citing one hand as an example, learn to understand that 80% is not 100% please.

Full report is on their website:

I have alot more sympathy for the OP than I do for the posters who have more experience and are supporting the concept of semi-rigged sites in order to generate rake. Its nonsense. If they wanted to generate more rake they would just raise the rake. Do you think developing secret doomswitch software that gives money to morons is easier than bumping up the rake?

OP, the short answer is you play a lot of hands online in a much shorter timeframe.
Not only do you get more bad beats per hour, but you also have less time to cool down from the normal reaction of OMFG two outer BS &^%*@#! So it can just feel "more rigged." Also, playing live you can actually look at the idiot that just two-outed you, and you can tell that he exists and he is truly an idiot, and it somehow makes me feel better. Online , your paranoid side can run wild if you let it.

Really, the only cure is to get PT and log all your hands. What you will inevitably find is that the swings in online poker are brutal but within the anticipated norms. If you did play for a statistically significant # of hands on FT and the stats either on card distribution or all in +/- were screwed up, we'd love to hear about it. But the long run is very long, and your probably going to find what everyone else has: the bad runs burn in your memory much deeper than the good ones.

Even PokerStove runs 1.7 million hands to get the results.

Yeah 23,245 hands is absolutely laughable and their explanation of finding some backwards way to extrapolate to 200,000 hands is even more laughable. I am literally trained as an auditor. If a small sample size doesn't yield a result within a reasonable range, that means you have to expand your sample size. Especially in situations like this where you're dealing with a very real percentage probability that the underdog hand can win. It's not like a financial statement audit where everything is pretty much right or wrong. It's one thing if an inventory count shows an error. It's another thing entirely if a 25% probability comes through a few more times than what you would expect in a tiny sample. I'd also find it really funny if on one of my audits we found something we thought was an error, and instead of digging deeper into it, we just decided to issue an adverse opinion on the financial statements of a company.

Seriously, for those of us who have played hundreds of thousands of hands, how ridiculously different is every sample of 23k hands? Results can be all over the place. Any one of us could probably do a better job of evaluating statistical results than this absolute joke of an "audit team" put together. The PokerEV program alone has more credibility.

Nice to see there are irresponsible people fueling the "poker is rigged/FTP is rigged" fire though. So absolutely pathetic.

Grunch
It's called inter-life karma. Check to see if any really evil people died on the day you were born imo

[ ] very
[ ] meh
[ ] 99
[ ] .01
[ ] bastard

I completed your ballot.

I flipped a coin 2 times, it landed heads 1 time and tails 1 time.

I flipped it 100 times and it landed heads 50 times and tails 50 times.

If I flipped it a million times it would land heads about 500,000 times and tails about 500,000 times.


I therefore believe that 2 flips and 100 flips represent an acceptable gauge for the audits I conducted on coin flipping.

Every time. 100% over 15,000 hands. How likely is that? Give me a break.

Are you an affiliate?

How delicious are ice cream sandwiches over the course of 15,000 hands? 100% obv.

For the sake of humoring you and responding to your dumb assertion that 99 is good on Full Tilt. Here are the percentages of the time I have won with:

JJ: 56.04% (dealt 712 times)
TT: 46.15% (dealt 676 times)
99: 36.39% (dealt 687 times)
88: 31.81% (dealt 723 times)
77: 29.74% (dealt 743 times)

over 155,437 hands this year alone

(Also note that on average a pocket pair gets dealt 1 in 221 hands, meaning over my sample size I should get each one on average of 703 times here. The numbers above average out to 708. Pretty reasonable to me, just in case you felt like digging a little deeper.)

Well would ya look at that....a gradually decreasing percentage of winning as the hands get weaker. Shocking!

VPIP is between 93% and 95% for all five hands.

Even if some of those numbers were out of order a little bit over a sample size 10x what yours was, it still wouldn't prove anything unusual. I'd say it puts to rest any obvious issue with the 99 hand though. Unless of course FTP is just rigging it so you win with that hand. Maybe you should stop open raising to 20 x bb with it? You might not win as often with it if you didn't overvalue it so much. Sheeeesh.

or that.

rigged? maybe maybe not

but FTs RNG is anything but truly random. go play PLO on FT for an extended period, and then switch to pokerstars. one of these things is not like the other. i can't believe the pathetic sarcasm and jokes these threads get after the whole UB/AP thing.

It's only rigged for my customers. Don't miss your chance to jump on the gimmick bandwagon!

"The Only Poker Affiliate That Rigs Sites and Pays You in Ice Cream Sandwiches!"
IceCreamSammichGuy

Really? So you're unable to see the difference between the UB and AP threads and ones like these? Hint: those threads offered actual evidence.

Do you have anything to contribute to this discussion other than "OMG it's so rigged just play for a while on two sites and you'll see a huge difference OMG rigged". Do you have some numbers to back up your assertion? If you have such a problem with the posts in this thread do you have some kind of logical refutation of the statistics provided here?

You express disdain at people's posts after the AP and UB scandals...yet it's posts like yours and OP's that are the actual problem. Posts that claim sites are rigged with no valid proof to back it up just feed a cynical and negative attitude that make it less likely for someone to be believed when they have a legitimate concern with real evidence. Have you ever heard of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?

Please stop.

Actually, the APCW audit offers proof that FTP RNG program is not random. Also, FTP does not offer any certficate of audit for its RNG on its website.

Just random stuff from way earlier.

You said something like 500 million hands to lose with AA 6 times vs a PP.

You claimed the odds of your opponent having a PP when you have AA is 16:1 against. This is incorrect. The odds of each opponent having a PP may be, but the odds of one person at the table having one are closer to even money. So every 400 hands or so you're playing AA vs PP... not every 32,000. And of course, you could get AA vs 22 6 hands in a row! Your statistical analysis was wrong in a LOT of ways... it's not nearly as unlikely as you'd like to believe.

Wrong.

But anyway, can I interest you in some ice cream sammiches?