Pokerstars Tournament Allin Dealing is Inaccurate

[Utah]

I simply dont trust the Pokerstars tournament dealing. I have tracked my allins and the results are simply unrealistic. The odds of my results are something like .0005 chance given the sample size of around 150. And, I didnt even start tracking until the results felt funny after several months.

These were simply preflop allin battles. It has nothing to do with how each player plays his hand. I calculated the odds of each individual hand and then entered them into a statistical matrix that calculated the percentage.

My results show a clear bias in the distribution of Pokerstar cards in allin deal. I shared the results with Pokerstar and they said my sample size was too small. I explained to them that my results account for the sample size (i.e. if you flip a coin 15 times and the results are all heads it indicates a bias with a result of .00003). They did not even understand basic statistics. I verified my results with a math and statistics expert.

Am I missing something obvious here?

btw - my return per SNG even with the awful allin results is around 20%

[RPatterson]

Whenever pokerstars hesitatates to deal the turn/river a draw-out always occurs. It looks kind of rigged to me.

[BradleyT]

It'd be interesting for posters here to go watch some SnG's and record the results. All you'd have to do is open up notepad and record the hand #.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I simply dont trust the Pokerstars tournament dealing. I have tracked my allins and the results are simply unrealistic. The odds of my results are something like .0005 chance given the sample size of around 150.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh my god, did you see what just happened at my table? I got dealt Kh Jd, the flop came 7s 9h Qc! Do you realize what the odds of that are? That's like 1 in 300 million! It's sooo rigged!

eastbay

[RPatterson]

If you had like, 30 sample hands, where that all happened in a row. Then it would be comparable to what he is saying. As it is, your just showing your lameness.

Also, create your own jokes. We've all seen that a billion times.

[AtlBrvs4Life]

We've also seen posts about poker sites being rigged a billion times.

[RPatterson]

Why bother responding to it then? Is your innane "wow these cards came up this hand online poker is rigged" line you guys spew adding to the discussion? And do you guys think the outcome of 1 hand has to do with a sample showing statistical irregularities?

[zephyr]

The instant that you stop being paranoid about the cards being rigged will be the instant that your game improves. Spend your time fixing leaks in your game, and use your math and statistics expert to help you with some of the finer intricacies of the game.

If you absolutely need to prove to yourself that the cards aren't rigged then do a truly scientific investigation where emotions and selective reporting are not factors. Go talk to a researcher at a local university, I'm sure he/she would be more than willing to help you design a truly scientific investigation.

Best of Luck,

Zephyr

[RPatterson]

I guess him tracking his hands isn't scientific enough? It's obviously clouded by emotion if it shows a statistical anamoly.

[durron597]

150 hands, eh? That small, eh? So which of these 20 coinflip patterns would you say is more likely:

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HTHHTTTHTHHTHHTTTHTH

If you say the second one, you should quit poker now. That or take a break to learn some math.

[zephyr]

No him tracking his hands wasn't scientific enough in the 18th century, and definetly isn't scientific enough now. Perhaps your friend would like to give some details on his results besides just claiming that the site is rigged.

[Zaebos]

what i don't understand is why anyone would think that poker stars or party or really any place would need to rig it up.

[RPatterson]

I wonder which type of pattern is more likely? Which one would make you wonder if the coin was even?

[RPatterson]

Durron so you think it is as likely for me to flip a coin 20 times and wind up with heads 20 times, as it is to wind up with 10 of each? If so, read your math books again.

[Jsb]

dude, that is not even close to what he said, that was not his point, at least not the way i read it. i think his point was that any specific pattern is just as likely as any other specific pattern. another way of putting it is that your chances of getting exactly AhKhQhJhTh on any one given hand are absolutely equal to your chances of getting exactly 2d4s5c9hQs
any given hand or coin flip or whatever is completely independent of the hand or coinflip that came before it. just because you flip heads ten times in a row doesn't change the fact that you have a 50% chance of flipping heads the 11th time.

[ethan]

neither specific pattern's more likely, clearly. On the other hand 10H+10T is much more likely than 20H in 20 coin flips, which is probably a better analogy than the specific pattern.

And no, online poker's not rigged, and 150 hands is too small a sample to show otherwise.

[RPatterson]

Then I have to ask what specific coinflipping patterns have to do with poker all-in sample statistics.

[byronkincaid]

There are some posters who deserve a great deal of respect. I haven't read any of Utah's stuff for a while but he definately used to be one of them. Perhaps people shouldn't be so quick to slag him off.

[RPatterson]

Everyone on this forum knows that anyone who looks at statistical all-in data is clearly a moron looking for excuses why they suck.

[mackthefork]

I did a survey of my all ins last time i was running bad, everything was fine except for the situations where I had an overpair to the flop and villian had top pair top kicker, I should have won 80% of them I won 45% over a sample size of 50. I have won much more than my fair share of these situations recently to make up for it, the deal is fair I'm confident of it.

Regards ML

[Grivan]

The problem is the chance of whatever happened in his samples is 100%. What he needs to do to make a convincing test is come up with a hypothesis FIRST and then test it. Also he needs to test it to the point of statistical accuracy he desires.

[Phill S]

[ QUOTE ]
What he needs to do to make a convincing test is come up with a hypothesis FIRST and then test it. Also he needs to test it to the point of statistical accuracy he desires.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, im sure from my A-Level Chemistry days, you make a hypothesis then try to dis-prove it.

i think the most logical argument for it not being rigged is how much sits like stars, party, paradise and ultimatebet make per day.

i read somewhere party makes 4 MILLION dollars a day. now stars cant be too far from that. frankly, why do you think they need to fix the game. they take a rake, and as such results of a hand are irrelivant. however the one truth is that if they were found to be cheating, they would go bust, no one would play there, and all that fat revenue is consigned to languish in one of the other big operators.

now the only argument that can be made for online games being rigged is that the shuffle isnt random. now this is in fact true. a computer cant come up with a random number, but what it can do is create pseudo randomisation using an outside source. this is usually something like the time clock of the server in milliseconds, the proccessor response time and such. its not random, however it is as close to random as you can get, and the only way you can get round these security methods is by knowing what makes the game pseudo random, then come up with the apparent patters in the deal.

this is of course as close to impossible as you will get.

now this may not hold true in the smaller sites. i play the big ones because i trust them. as far as faceless corporations go, you know that they wont screw you over when your not looking because they know that players will simply migrate to the next site.

Phill

[Utah]

Well little man,

I didnt say it was rigged and I dont believe it is. I am simply saying the deal was inaccurate. I also provided evidence to support it.

I having been playing online since the 90s and have logged many thousands of hours. I didnt go on, get my ass kicked and complained that the site was rigged. I am still a winning player in the SNGs.

Try and say something useful next time.

[Utah]

This is a not a game leak question or a paranoid question. This is pure statistics and they dont lie. Also, this is an allin preflop situation, so all the play is gone in the game. Its now pure probability and the results show a bias.

I did use the stats for other purposes as well. I measured who pushed in and who had the advantage. I was the one who pushed in in most cases and I have about a 2 to 3 advantage in being favored and I have an overall advantage of about 60% to 40%.

[Utah]

I can email you the file if you like. It is scientific enough and its accurate, calculated on a hand by hand bases, with no allin hands skipped.

Again, I didnt claim the site was rigged. I simply said the allin deal shows a clear bias. Big difference.

[Utah]

umm.....you might want to check your smartass response. I didnt measure a pattern, I measured a result. e.g., how many times the coin should land tails over the course of the trial.

So, in you example the number of tails in the second line is in the statistical norm while the number of tails in the first line is next to impossible.

[Utah]

"And no, online poker's not rigged, and 150 hands is too small a sample to show otherwise"

Please tell me how. Maybe I am missing something, but statistical math as I read it tells me otherwise. So, if you flipped a coin 150 times and it was heads everytime would you say the sample was too small to show a bias?

[Utah]

I agree with your analysis. Intuitively, I dont believe the sites are rigged. However, I have hard evidence that the allin deal in biased that simply cant be explained away by - "oh, those sites would never be rigged".

I need to refute it by showing my analysis is flawed somehow. However, I dont see how.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
If you had like, 30 sample hands, where that all happened in a row. Then it would be comparable to what he is saying. As it is, your just showing your lameness.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, no it wouldn't.

[ QUOTE ]

Also, create your own jokes. We've all seen that a billion times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unlike the original post, which was completely original and unlame.

eastbay

[Hood]

[ QUOTE ]
I simply dont trust the Pokerstars tournament dealing. I have tracked my allins and the results are simply unrealistic. The odds of my results are something like .0005 chance given the sample size of around 150. And, I didnt even start tracking until the results felt funny after several months.

These were simply preflop allin battles. It has nothing to do with how each player plays his hand. I calculated the odds of each individual hand and then entered them into a statistical matrix that calculated the percentage.

My results show a clear bias in the distribution of Pokerstar cards in allin deal. I shared the results with Pokerstar and they said my sample size was too small. I explained to them that my results account for the sample size (i.e. if you flip a coin 15 times and the results are all heads it indicates a bias with a result of .00003).


[/ QUOTE ]

So does that mean this would occur every 33,000 times? With so many players and games going on, I'd like this would be quite a frequent occurence.


I find it funny contacting the support with this... I'd just love to get a response like:

"Thanks for pointing this out, found the bug in this line:

Card = Deck(x)

I think that should read:
Card = Deck(x+1)

Heads up deal should now be unbias. If you could test this out and get back to us, that would be great.

Best regards,
PokerStars Software Development Team."

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Well little man,

I didnt say it was rigged and I dont believe it is. I am simply saying the deal was inaccurate. I also provided evidence to support it.


[/ QUOTE ]

No, you didn't. You made an assertion and followed it by several more. Provide complete histories along with your analysis. Then someone might be bothered to show you why you are wrong. But I wouldn't count on it.

eastbay

PS Using the word "accurate" in this context shows you have no clue. Have a nice day.

[TeeVeeDude]

Yeah, you're right... it's specifically rigged against YOU, personally. So you should just quit now.

[TeeVeeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
So, in you example the number of tails in the second line is in the statistical norm while the number of tails in the first line is next to impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

This just shows your ignorance of statistics. The first line is not "next to impossible," it is nearly inevitable given enough time. In millions of coinflips, you WILL eventually get a string of 20 Heads in a row.

[Utah]

I contacted support so they could tell me why my analysis was incorrect. I was sure that I was doing something wrong as my bias is that the sites are accurate - otherwise I would not have logged 1000s of hours over 6 years and I wouldnt be up so much money. However, they did nothing to show that my analysis was wrong. Neither has anyone in this post. I am looking for a mathematical or logical reason for why I am wrong.

[Utah]

"Unlike the original post, which was completely original and unlame."

Show me another post from a winning player with 1000s of hours of play who provided a basis for his assertion that the deal was bias.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
However, they did nothing to show that my analysis was wrong. Neither has anyone in this post. I am looking for a mathematical or logical reason for why I am wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then show some freakin' evidence.

eastbay

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
"Unlike the original post, which was completely original and unlame."

Show me another post from a winning player with 1000s of hours of play who provided a basis for his assertion that the deal was bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another? I'm still waiting for one. Stating it is so and saying it was checked by an expert is not evidence. It's an assertion.

eastbay

[Utah]

um....I showed the summary data in this post and I offered to email my results to anyone who wanted to see them.

[Utah]

You have zero clue what you are talking about. No point in arguing.

[The once and future king]

150 hands = too small a sample.

Your stastics cant lie, as they are irrelevant.

Not a flame just stating the facts mam.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
um....I showed the summary data in this post and I offered to email my results to anyone who wanted to see them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only 150 hands. Post them, or post the link to them if you already did.

eastbay

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]
150 hands = too small a sample.

Your stastics cant lie, as they are irrelevant.

Not a flame just stating the facts mam.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the results are skewed enough the sample size required to prove bias doens't need to be massive. If you flipped a coin 150 times and got heads 150 times you could assume with near 100% certainty that it was 2-headed.

[slogger]

Yes, but I think everyone is missing somethign else about this argument. Utah did not claim to lose every time he was supposed to win (that would be interesting, if supported with evidence), just more often than he was supposed to.

If you flipped a coin 150 times and it came up heads 100 times, you might have questions about the process by which the coin was being flipped, or whether it was fair, but it would not be a large enough sample to declare with any certainty that the coin was unfair.

The fact is, the sample size is still too small.

Not to mention that 150 hands would be easy to post or link to if Utah were inclined to present his evidence, so consider me another skeptic who's waiting for evidence before I even consider his assertions. He has asked for someone to tell him why his math does not suggest a bias, but he has yet to provide the data. And no, nobody cares enough to ask Utah to email them the info. Most of us have jobs (or are too busy crushing our online games to waste our time proving what we already know).

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
I am simply saying the deal was inaccurate. I also provided evidence to support it.

[/ QUOTE ]
As has been pointed out, you have not provided any evidence. You have alluded to (but not provided) a small amount of data which may or may not support your conclusion.

When you should have expected to win 78-80% of the time, you actually won how often? How often when you should have expected to win 76-78%? 74-76%? Etc., etc., etc.

Do you honestly believe that 150 hands is an adequate sample size from which to draw conclusions with any confidence?


Regards,
Jer

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Whenever pokerstars hesitatates to deal the turn/river a draw-out always occurs. It looks kind of rigged to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
This has not been my experience. Sometimes a draw-out occurs, sometimes the leading hand holds up. I haven't tracked any results (and how could I, given the question of what, exactly, constitutes a hesitation), but I suspect that the draw-outs are more memorable because of the drama, and hence seem over-represented.

[MLG]

I think we are getting to the crux of the matter here. You can calculate (by combining the results, with the number of trials) how likely a specific series of events is to occur. As was initially stated if you flip a coin 15 times and get heads it is extremely likely (I'm not sure of the exact percentage) that the coin is biased in some manner (two headed, weighted, something like that). Thus, even with a relatively smaller sample size (especially with events that are not 50/50 but more like 70/30) it is possible to determine (with varying degrees of certainty) if something is biased. That being said, it is impossible to tell what errors you might or might not have made in your calculations without a little more information. I'm a little unclear as to what hands you used in your sample. Were they all-ins you witnessed, all-ins you were involved in, all-ins you lost, what. Also, it is possible that you made a calculations mistake which we wouldn't know about without your calculations.

As you are making no accusations that the sites are rigged, and are at least attempting to seek a reasonable explanation for your statistical anomaly I'm inclined to at least take what you've done seriously.

[DrPhysic]

Given that Utah has been around a while and does have some credibility here...

Is this not another "Party Poker (Pick site du jour) is fixed" post, with a "my stats are better than yours" overtone, and no data?

How long has it been since we have seen the same post? A week? 3 or 4 days?

If there were any truth, I don't believe the online sites could continue to exist, because somebody would prove it.

If you believe it to be true, post the data (original hand histories and hand #s, so there is no question of accuracy) preferably on Probability Forum, with your interpretation of the stats, and let the 2+2 mathematicians and statisticians have at it.

If it can't be proven mathematically, why continue crying "I got my aces busted again, so and so site must be fixed"!

Doc /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[PrayingMantis]

I have read most of this thread, and there are few things I'd like to add.

First, I have all the respect for the original poster, but the original post, by itself, and for a few reasons, is not essentially different from many many others "on-line poker is rigged" posts. And this is why:

I have played tens of thousands of tournament hands at Stars. I haven't noticed any kind of "funny" thing about the dealing, and my results are great, consistently so. I'm sure there are many others here that have the same expirience. So, as a starting point, you will have to work MUCH harder than writing this rather fuzzy post, in order to even start to convince me I should consider there might be, maybe, something a bit "fishy", about some aspects of the dealing. Your post is very far from achieving it.

Second, you must understand that in order to get any serious response, you MUST post your evidence, and not just throwing conclusions into the air. 150 hands can be a microscopic sample, or it can be a huge one. Depending in EXACTLY what you're looking for. However, it isn't too big for posting it here. Telling people you are ready to email them the results is far from enough. Why not post it, or put it somewhere available on-line, so we can all look through it, and think about it ourselves? It is very possible, for example, that you got "appropriate" results, but your method of getting it or calculating it, was wrong. There are people here who are able to notice such things.

Third: WHY should the dealing be "inccurate"? and what does it mean? It's not that you are playing against the house. You are playing against other players. So if the dealing is consistently against you, it is necessarily IN FAVOR of others. Why? For what purpose? Are "others" playing for the house? Or are you suggesting that the deals are "not fair" for everybody? It doesn't make sense. There is that myth about dealing going in favor of "fish", to keep them in the game. I have never noticed anything that justifies this thinking. Is this what you are actually saying? Is it something deliberate, or anybody can capitalize on this random "inaccurate" dealing? If it is the latter, than this whole argument does not make any sense. I'm sure you can undertand why.

If you will answer some of these questions, I will be ready to think more seriously about what you're saying. Otherwise, it is just another "on-line poker is rigged" post, as far as I can see.

[zephyr]

Lets see if I can do this logically. I take it from your post that you've calculated your odds against chance to be 1/0.0005 = 2000. So this being said, lets compare a couple of other things that have odds against chance of around 2000 to 1.

Coin flip: 11 heads in a row (2048 to 1)

High PP vs low PP (all-in preflop ie. KK vs JJ): 5 losses in a row (~4491 to 1)

Dominated ace (all in preflop ie. AK vs A10): 6 losses in a row (~3312 to 1)

Flopping a flush: 2 times in a row (14110 to 1)

Being dealt AA twice in a row (48800 to 1)

Being dealt AK of spades twice in a row (1.7 million to 1)

Perhaps this puts your results into some perspective. What you have recorded in 150 hands is 7 times more likely to occur then someone to flop a flush twice in a row, 24 times more likely to occur than someone being dealt AA twice in a row, and 880 times more likely than being dealt the AK of spades twice in a row. Do you think that everytime that someone gets dealt aces twice in a row they send an email to PP software development.

For your study to have any weight I'd be searching for something in the range of odds against chance of 1 billion to 1. Impossible?

Let's take the coin flip for example.

Step 1: You begin to notice that the coin seems unfairly balanced.

Step 2: You flip a coin 11 times in a row and each time it's a head; your odds against chance is 2048 to 1.

Step 3: You suspect that the coin is not balanced. You flip it another 11 more times in a row and sure enough, heads everytime. Now you're looking at a little over 4 million to 1 odds against chance.

Step 4: You're pretty certain that the coin in now fixed, so you flip it another 8 times and again 8 heads in a row. You've now fliped the coin 30 times and each time it came up heads. Your odds against chance are a little bit more than 1 billion to 1.

Step 5: You conclude that there is reasonable evidence to say that the coin is fixed.

Step 6: You begin betting on tails.

You've reached step 2. My point is that if the deal is truly unfair as you claim, you don't have far to go to prove your hypothesis with a much greater degree of certainty.

Since the dawn of modern physics a statistical nature of the universe has become more and more apparent. A famous quote:

"God doesn't throw dice." - Albert Einstein

had the most clever of replies:

"Albert! Stop telling God what to do!" - Enrico Fermi

Everything in the universe has some aspect of probability associated with it. For us, the magnitude of the variability is much much greater than we would ever imagine.

Continue your investigation and let me know how it turns out.

Best Regards,

Zephyr

[Jurollo]

Before people start throwing out these conspiracy theories think about it for a second. By screwing you over on all-ins what does the site gain? It would have to be one of the largest scale conspiracies ever to place enough players at tables to make a poker room money. And secondly, why in the world would a site risk their million dollar rake machine they have by trying to skew the results and chip away at players $100 at a time? Doesn't make any sense. And finally if you go bankrupt at a site and you are left feeling something was fishy you wouldn't go back, multiply this times the numbers of times they would have to screw people to make it profitable and the site would lose all its players soon, thereby making it not as profitable as it once was. These sites would only be harmed by trying to stack the deck, so everyone needs to take a breath and relax or go to a B&M casino and play for a while and keep stats, you'll see the exact same things.

[Utah]

Um..I cant duplicate my results and I am missing some hands from the file and I must be using an older version. However, my results should still hold true since these hands are the majority of the sample. Additionally, there is an inconsistancy as I have more wins in this smaller sample than I did in total before.

With this sample, my results are .08 instead of .0005. I dont know what I did and I cannot figure it out. I wish I could find the file with all my calculations.

Sorry about wasting everyone's time.

Here are the hands:

The results are 68 wins and 70 loses with an average advantage of 55 to 45.

Me Opponent Odds Result
A,9s A,A 15 Lost
55 10,10 19.5 Lost
K,K A,A 20 Lost
4,4 K,K 20 Lost
3,3 10,10 20 Lost
A,7o A,Qs 25 Lost
A,3o K,K 25 Won
A,9 A,Q 25 Lost
A,9 A,10 26 Lost
A,6o A,Ko 26 Lost
7,8s K,K 28.7 Lost
A,8o Q,Q 28.7 Lost
A,J KK 29.1 Won
A,3o A,10s 30 Lost
K,9s K,Qo 30 Won
a,4o A,ko 30 Lost
A,8s J,J 32.2 Lost
Q,2o A,Js 32.3 Lost
A,6s A,10o 32.9 Lost
A,6s 77 33.1 Lost
J,9s A,3 34 Lost
10,5 Q,9 35 Lost
K,7 A,Q 35 Lost
J,Qo A,6o 35 Lost
6,5o A,Js 35.1 Won
Q,9 A,J 36 won
K,Qo A,2s 39.7 Lost
J,10o A,Ko 40 won
A,2o A,6o 41.5 Won
Q,6 A,5 44 Lost
9,10o A,7o 45 Lost
4,5s A,8o 45 Lost
Q,10 9,9 45 won
AK 88 45 won
10,9 A4 45.1 Lost
A,7 44 46 Lost
A,Q 5,5 46 Lost
A,Ko J,J 46 Won
A,Ko J,J 46 Won
A,Jo 9,9 46 Won
A,Q 6,6 46 Lost
K,Qo 10,10 46 Lost
A,9 2,2 46 Lost
A,Q 3,3 46 Lost
A,7o 4,4 46 Won
A,10o 88 46 Won
A7s 5,5 47 Lost
10,8s A,6o 47 Won
A,5 3,3 49.1 Lost
5,5 K,Js 52 Lost
QQ A,K 54 Lost
88 A,J 54 Won
99 QJ 54 Lost
JJ A,Qs 54 Won
4,4 A,K 54 Won
K,8 Q,J 54 Lost
6,6 A,10 54 Tie
J,J A,K 54 Won
4,4 A,5o 54 Won
3,3 A,Ks 54 Won
J,J A,Ko 54 Lost
9,9 A,Qo 54 Won
Q,Q A,Ks 54 Won
9,9 K,Qo 54 Lost
3,3 A,Js 54 Won
9,9 A,Qo 54 Lost
Q,2 9,7o 54 Won
66 A,K 54.9 Won
A,Ko J,10s 55 Lost
A,6 K,10 55.6 Won
A,9s KQ,o 56 Won
K8 Q10 56.6 Lost
K,5 Q,8 56.6 Lost
A,J K,Q 56.6 Lost
A,10 Q,9 56.6 Lost
q,3 7,10 57.1 Lost
A,Qo 5,4s 58 Lost
A,10s K,Js 58 Won
A,Jo K,10s 59 Lost
A,Qo K,Js 60 Lost
A,K 8,9s 60 Lost
A,Jo K,8s 62 Won
A,6o 5,4o 62.2 Won
33 A,3s 62.5 Lost
A,K J,10 62.5 Lost
K,10o 4,5o 62.5 Lost
A,Qo K,Jo 62.7 Lost
A,2s A,9o 63.7 Won
A,Q K,9 64 Won
A,K Q,8 64 Lost
A,Q K,J 64 Won
A,Q J,9 64 Won
A,8o Q,4 64 Lost
K5o Q,3o 64 Lost
7,7 A,8o 64 Won
A,5o K,9o 64 Lost
K,Jo Q,9o 64 Lost
A,5 K,4 65 Won
A,Qo J,8s 65 Won
K,7 4,3 65 Lost
A,5o K,8s 65 Won
A,J K,9 65 won
A,Q K,8s 65 Lost
A,6s K,3o 66 Won
A,Jo A,4s 67 Won
3,3 a,2o 68.5 Lost
6,6 A,5o 68.9 Won
QQ Q,A 70 Won
A,10o A,9s 70 Lost
K,K A,10o 70 Lost
A,9o A,50 70 Won
KK A,6o 70 Lost
A,Qs Q,7s 70 won
9,9 A,2o 70.6 Won
QQ A10 70.8 Won
QQ A,8 70.8 Lost
J,J A,3o 70.8 Lost
K,K A,Jo 70.9 Won
JJ K,3 71.9 Won
AK A,Js 72 won
A,Ks K,6s 72.6 Won
AK A4 72.8 Lost
AK A6 72.8 Won
A,K A,Q 73 won
A,K A,Q 73 won
K,Q K,J 73.6 Won
A,K A,9 73.6 Won
A,Q A,10 73.6 Won
A,8 A,7s 73.6 Won
A,Ks K,9s 75 Won
A,A 10,10 80 Won
10,10 5,5 80 Won
A,A 5,5 80 Won
A,A K.K 80 Tie
A,A K,K 80 Won
K,K 6,6 80 Lost
A,A A,2 87.8 Won
KK KQ 90.8 Won
K,K K,Q 90.8 Won

[Scorpion]

Just grab a deck and deal two cards to yourself and 2 cards to an opponent. Pick the favorite and see how often the "favorite" holds up.

[VarlosZ]

I Am Not A Statistician, but I am confident that results like that represent a fairly unremarkable run of bad cards. Bad runs happen, and what else is a bad run if not an improbably bad set of cards over time?

Besides, in general, very unlikely things happen all the time. Imagine I thoroughly shuffle a deck of cards, then lay them out on a table in sequence: Qc, 2s, 4c, Td, 4h, etc. The odds of that particular 52-card sequence coming up are phenomenally bad . . . and yet, there it is, right there on the table.


Lastly, and most importantly, in order for your accusation to have any merit, you'd need to provide at least a hypothetical, plausible process by which an error in PokerStars' software could consistently produce unlikely results such as these.

It is my understanding that the sequence of cards in the deck is determined prior to the start of each hand. Even if there were an error in the software that made this sequence somehow predictable, that should have no effect on the likelihood of a suckout. Finally, the counterweight to the improbability of your sample is the (in my opinion incredible) improbability of a problem such as this going unnoticed and/or uncorrected by so many for so long.


Good luck and best regards,
Jer

[William]

You guys are should do your homework more often.

You are talking about the famous 78% rule (copyright William ), an indisputed reality of online poker /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[SeppDeitrich]

doesn't look like a problem to me the results look like they're close in relation to your expectation.

[Toro]

[ QUOTE ]
It is my understanding that the sequence of cards in the deck is determined prior to the start of each hand./quote]


Not that it makes any difference one way or another, I've been told by more than a few, that Pokerstars continously shuffles the cards throughout the play of the hand activated by the entropy of the players mouse clicks to prevent against someone figuring out their algorithm.

I've read their blurb on it but it's vague on this point. Anyone know for sure. I'm curious because it makes a difference on hands that you drop out of and kick yourself when you get a favorable board. If this is true the same cards most likely would not be up there.

[Cerril]

By the way, I'm just jumping on this late, but it seems to me that even were your results one in two thousand, they wouldn't be terribly aberrant.

Granted, streaks like that, or worse, should only appear a couple dozen times at most in the history of PS, but they'll be there. That you happened upon one was odd but not really all that odd, when you figure someone almost had to have a result like that, and probably several people.

Still, as you said, you might not have even had those odd results after all. That would be far less surprising.

[PrayingMantis]

Thanks for posting the results you based your accusations upon.

After rereading your original post, and some of your other posts in this thread, I believe you owe PokerStars some serious aplogoy. You have accused their dealing to be "inaccurate", with no evidence to support it. Many readers could easily understand you are accusing Stars of being rigged. Now that you have finally provided some "evidence", it is very very poor and does not support anything.

I know this is only a public board, nothing more, people can say whatever they like. But I believe the crucial difference about *this* board, is that we're really trying to take this game seriously, to base and explain everything we say, to discuss every matter without accepting false reasoning only because it sounds OK. In this respect, this thread is a shame, especially since it wasn't originated by a complete newbie. That's my opinion.

[Wayne]

[ QUOTE ]
Durron so you think it is as likely for me to flip a coin 20 times and wind up with heads 20 times, as it is to wind up with 10 of each? If so, read your math books again.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a thousand monkeys each play a thousand all-ins, one monkey will see a pattern strange enough to post to 2+2.

[AndysDaddy]

Based on your data, you would expect to win 75 of the hands (74.89 to be precise). You actually won 67 hands. Not being a stats expert I can't tell you the standard deviation or what the odds are that these results could occur by chance, but given the small sample size I'd say that your results fall well within a normal distribution.

[AtlBrvs4Life]

I can't believe this thread is still going. Pointless.

[Utah]

I do not owe Pokerstars any apologies. I went and reread my email to them. I told them my results seemed funny and I asked them to review my results. They refused and then they told me my sample was too small (it definately is not).

I also never accused of Pokerstars of being rigged and I made that point many times in this thread.

Also, I cant find my original calculations and I am still trying to get to my original numbers. Therefore, the original calculation might still be right.

Finally - .08 is still quite low. Its only in the realm of possibility now.

[PrayingMantis]

You do not owe them an apology for writing them this or that email. You owe it to them for accusing them here, on this board, for having "inaccurate" dealing, without the LEAST piece of a resonable evidence. And I repeat: many readers can understand from this, that you are suggesting Stars is rigged, regardless of your rejecting of this particular point. I bother to deal with this ridiculous thread only because you're far from being a newbie here.

The fact that you keep insisting on your "the original calculation might still be right" and "0.08 is still low" lines, really makes you look like a fool, IMO.

Enough said.

[Utah]

I solved it and I can get close to my original numbers. I used the following distribution applet (http://ic.net/~jnbohr/java/CdfDemoMain.html) to get an approximate number. The difference was that I was using multiple allin hands - which I lost every one. Also, I used a shorter sample size for the calculation. I then went on a 13/3 W/L.

Here is the set of hands that I used. They correspond to only .017 (less than two percent).

BTW - you think I am a fool for thinking .08 is low? You dont think it is low? hmmmm....You would be comfortable playing online when you are in the .08 of results. double hmmmm..... Also, this is not the board for Scientific studies of Online Dealing Accuracy. Its a message board. And, you completely missed the point of my last post. Pokerstars could have cleared it up for me quickly. Given I have played for at least a 1000 hours on their site they could have shown good customer service. They decided not too - their choice.

Finally, if you think I am a fool please feel free to come and play with me and find out for yourself. I play under Brandy and I am on Pokerstars most nights.

KQ 90.8 Won
K,Q 90.8 Won
A,2 87.8 Won
10,10 80 Won
5,5 80 Won
5,5 80 Won
K.K 80 Tie
K,K 80 Won
6,6 80 Lost
K,9s 75 Won
K,J 73.6 Won
A,9 73.6 Won
A,10 73.6 Won
A,7s 73.6 Won
4,5 73 Lost
A4 72.8 Lost
A6 72.8 Won
K,6s 72.6 Won
K,3 71.9 Won
A,Jo 70.9 Won
A10 70.8 Won
A,8 70.8 Lost
A,3o 70.8 Lost
A,2o 70.6 Won
Q,A 70 Won
A,9s 70 Lost
A,10o 70 Lost
A,50 70 Won
A,5o 68.9 Won
a,2o 68.5 Lost
A,4s 67 Won
K,3o 66 Won
K,4 65 Won
J,8s 65 Won
4,3 65 Lost
K,8s 65 Won
K,9 64 Won
Q,8 64 Lost
K,J 64 Won
J,9 64 Won
Q,4 64 Lost
Q,3o 64 Lost
A,8o 64 Won
K,9o 64 Lost
Q,9o 64 Lost
A,9o 63.7 Won
K,10 63 Lost
K,Jo 62.7 Lost
A,3s 62.5 Lost
J,10 62.5 Lost
4,5o 62.5 Lost
5,4o 62.2 Won
K,8s 62 Won
K,Js 60 Lost
K,10s 59 Lost
5,4s 58 Lost
K,Js 58 Won
7,10 57.1 Lost
Q10 56.6 Lost
Q,8 56.6 Lost
K,Q 56.6 Lost
Q,9 56.6 Lost
KQ,o 56 Won
K,10 55.6 Won
J,10s 55 Lost
A,Qs 55 Lost
A,K 54.9 Won
A,K 54 Lost
A,J 54 Won
QJ 54 Lost
A,Qs 54 Won
A,K 54 Won
Q,J 54 Lost
A,10 54 Tie
A,K 54 Won
A,5o 54 Won
A,Ks 54 Won
A,Ko 54 Lost
A,Qo 54 Won
A,Ks 54 Won
K,Qo 54 Lost
A,Js 54 Won
A,Qo 54 Lost
9,7o 54 Won
KQ 54 Won
K,Js 52 Lost
3,3 49.1 Lost
5,5 47 Lost
A,6o 47 Won
88 46 Won
44 46 Lost
5,5 46 Lost
J,J 46 Won
J,J 46 Won
9,9 46 Won
6,6 46 Lost
10,10 46 Lost
2,2 46 Lost
3,3 46 Lost
4,4 46 Won
A4 45.1 Lost
A,7o 45 Lost
A,8o 45 Lost
6,6 45 Won
10,10 45 Lost
A,5 44 Lost
A,6o 41.5 Won
A,2s 39.7 Lost
A,Js 35.1 Won
Q,9 35 Lost
A,Q 35 Lost
A,6o 35 Lost
A,3 34 Lost
77 33.1 Lost
A,10o 32.9 Lost
A,Js 32.3 Lost
J,J 32.2 Lost
A,10s 30 Lost
K,Qo 30 Won
A,ko 30 Lost
KK 29.1 Won
K,K 28.7 Lost
Q,Q 28.7 Lost
A,Q 27 Lost
A,10 26 Lost
A,Ko 26 Lost
A,Qs 25 Lost
K,K 25 Won
A,A 20 Lost
K,K 20 Lost
10,10 20 Lost
10,10 19.5 Lost

[LinusKS]

Personally, if there was any evidence that any site was non-random, I'd be interested in seeing it.

I'm not sure why all the hostility - I mean, it's not like any of us here has a stake in the gaming sites.

I do agree with those who've said they have relatively little to gain and a lot to lose by playing with the deck -- but they have nothing to lose if nobody's checking on them.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
I solved it and I can get close to my original numbers. I used the following distribution applet (http://ic.net/~jnbohr/java/CdfDemoMain.html) to get an approximate number. The difference was that I was using multiple allin hands - which I lost every one. Also, I used a shorter sample size for the calculation. I then went on a 13/3 W/L.

Here is the set of hands that I used. They correspond to only .017 (less than two percent).

BTW - you think I am a fool for thinking .08 is low? You dont think it is low? hmmmm....You would be comfortable playing online when you are in the .08 of results. double hmmmm..... Also, this is not the board for Scientific studies of Online Dealing Accuracy. Its a message board. And, you completely missed the point of my last post. Pokerstars could have cleared it up for me quickly.


[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly?


Your data is a random, inconsistent form. If you repost your results in this form:

AsTh KdQh W
9c9d Jh8s L
etc.

I will compute for you a probability distribution for # wins.

You are throwing around numbers like ".08" but you haven't said anything about what that number represents, nor how you arrived at it.

eastbay

[ QUOTE ]

KQ 90.8 Won
K,Q 90.8 Won
A,2 87.8 Won
10,10 80 Won
5,5 80 Won
5,5 80 Won
K.K 80 Tie
K,K 80 Won
6,6 80 Lost
K,9s 75 Won
K,J 73.6 Won
A,9 73.6 Won
A,10 73.6 Won
A,7s 73.6 Won
4,5 73 Lost
A4 72.8 Lost
A6 72.8 Won
K,6s 72.6 Won
K,3 71.9 Won
A,Jo 70.9 Won
A10 70.8 Won
A,8 70.8 Lost
A,3o 70.8 Lost
A,2o 70.6 Won
Q,A 70 Won
A,9s 70 Lost
A,10o 70 Lost
A,50 70 Won
A,5o 68.9 Won
a,2o 68.5 Lost
A,4s 67 Won
K,3o 66 Won
K,4 65 Won
J,8s 65 Won
4,3 65 Lost
K,8s 65 Won
K,9 64 Won
Q,8 64 Lost
K,J 64 Won
J,9 64 Won
Q,4 64 Lost
Q,3o 64 Lost
A,8o 64 Won
K,9o 64 Lost
Q,9o 64 Lost
A,9o 63.7 Won
K,10 63 Lost
K,Jo 62.7 Lost
A,3s 62.5 Lost
J,10 62.5 Lost
4,5o 62.5 Lost
5,4o 62.2 Won
K,8s 62 Won
K,Js 60 Lost
K,10s 59 Lost
5,4s 58 Lost
K,Js 58 Won
7,10 57.1 Lost
Q10 56.6 Lost
Q,8 56.6 Lost
K,Q 56.6 Lost
Q,9 56.6 Lost
KQ,o 56 Won
K,10 55.6 Won
J,10s 55 Lost
A,Qs 55 Lost
A,K 54.9 Won
A,K 54 Lost
A,J 54 Won
QJ 54 Lost
A,Qs 54 Won
A,K 54 Won
Q,J 54 Lost
A,10 54 Tie
A,K 54 Won
A,5o 54 Won
A,Ks 54 Won
A,Ko 54 Lost
A,Qo 54 Won
A,Ks 54 Won
K,Qo 54 Lost
A,Js 54 Won
A,Qo 54 Lost
9,7o 54 Won
KQ 54 Won
K,Js 52 Lost
3,3 49.1 Lost
5,5 47 Lost
A,6o 47 Won
88 46 Won
44 46 Lost
5,5 46 Lost
J,J 46 Won
J,J 46 Won
9,9 46 Won
6,6 46 Lost
10,10 46 Lost
2,2 46 Lost
3,3 46 Lost
4,4 46 Won
A4 45.1 Lost
A,7o 45 Lost
A,8o 45 Lost
6,6 45 Won
10,10 45 Lost
A,5 44 Lost
A,6o 41.5 Won
A,2s 39.7 Lost
A,Js 35.1 Won
Q,9 35 Lost
A,Q 35 Lost
A,6o 35 Lost
A,3 34 Lost
77 33.1 Lost
A,10o 32.9 Lost
A,Js 32.3 Lost
J,J 32.2 Lost
A,10s 30 Lost
K,Qo 30 Won
A,ko 30 Lost
KK 29.1 Won
K,K 28.7 Lost
Q,Q 28.7 Lost
A,Q 27 Lost
A,10 26 Lost
A,Ko 26 Lost
A,Qs 25 Lost
K,K 25 Won
A,A 20 Lost
K,K 20 Lost
10,10 20 Lost
10,10 19.5 Lost

[/ QUOTE ]

[C M Burns]

I'm not sure what you mean by figured out, but since I like to play with numbers I did my own analsis, assuming your numbers mean the prob that you would win the hand, then (removing ties) I get a total of 137 hands av prob of winning .546, actual 70 or .51, which is well within the normal range, using the binomial distrobution (not exactly right) you would expect about 20% of runs of 137 allin to have 70 or fewer wins. Is this what you are saying now?

Awhile back I did a similar test of preflop allin, on stars SNGs. Although mine were no only my own hands, they were all the pf allins at my table for a period. My results showed almost exactly what would be expected by chance. But I did find that the ones that were mine won much less than that expected by chance. I know that 150 is a reasonable sample for what you are testing, I had about 75 or so. I don't doubt your statistics, I may doubt you "sample" though b/c they were all your allins only for the fact that you may be selecting hands from a group which you know is negative, so perhaps you have a biased sample. So I'm not trying to critisie, since I like when people actually do stuff like this instead of just how things "seem", but just offering a potential explenation. which is I guess what you found happend? (this part I wrote b4 I read the trhread)

[Dominic]

this is retarded...what possible reason would a poker site have for rigging hands? And how exactly would they do this, hmm? You actually think that with the thousands of hands that are dealt PER MINUTE, they have a guy monitering each and every one, taking notes on who's a fish and who's a good player, and rigging a specific hand to fall just so it gives a bad beat?

You might be good at statistics, but if you believe this you're a moron and I want you at my table.

[Dominic]

Utah...this is retarded...what possible reason would a poker site have for rigging hands? And how exactly would they do this, hmm? You actually think that with the thousands of hands that are dealt PER MINUTE, they have a guy monitering each and every one, taking notes on who's a fish and who's a good player, and rigging a specific hand to fall just so it gives a bad beat?

You might be good at statistics, but if you believe this you're a moron and I want you at my table.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
this is retarded...what possible reason would a poker site have for rigging hands? And how exactly would they do this, hmm? You actually think that with the thousands of hands that are dealt PER MINUTE, they have a guy monitering each and every one, taking notes on who's a fish and who's a good player, and rigging a specific hand to fall just so it gives a bad beat?

[/ QUOTE ]

do you really think a computer program isn't capable of determining which players are losing money and which players are winning?

if they wanted to, pushing the deal a bit in the fishies' favour would be a very easy thing to do. i'm not saying they would want to do it, but they easily could if they wanted to.

[Chuckles1248]

As a programmer, I think saying that "If they wanted to, they could do it easily" referring to rigging the board when All-in is completely wrong. While it wouldn't be the hardest thing ever, it wouldn't be some simple change, and it would be obvious what it was for, so someone from the programming staff would likely alert the gaming authorities that control these sort of things.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
As a programmer, I think saying that "If they wanted to, they could do it easily" referring to rigging the board when All-in is completely wrong. While it wouldn't be the hardest thing ever, it wouldn't be some simple change, and it would be obvious what it was for, so someone from the programming staff would likely alert the gaming authorities that control these sort of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

the programming would be quite simple. not 3 lines of code, but not very complicated either.

obviously, the programmer would have to be in on it. and as for the rest of the programming staff, they wouldn't necessarily have to have access to the code.

and do let me know if this is a foolish question - what "gaming authorities"? i'm not under the impression that online gambling is very strictly regulated.

again, i'm not saying it's rigged. i'm saying they could rig it if they wanted to.

[stinkypete]

as for reasons for rigging the hands, there's many.

a) make the new players win so they get addicted and keep playing.
b) make the losing players win once in a while to make them think the might be winning players, to keep them playing.

it could increase their profits quite a bit (until the public finds out that its rigged).

[2planka]

Nonsense. From a business perspective, would you rather have hit and miss clientele or regular players who pay the rake day after day?

Bad beats happen. I put on a gem of my own last night.

KK on the button, raise 3xBB, SB reraised, I pushed, he called. SB shows As2s. Flop is 3 spades. Turn pairs the board, river is a K for a wonderful suckout for me or a bad beat for the other guy.

All a matter of perspective. That and sample size.

[stinkypete]

From a business perspective, you want to have a lot of players. To keep the regular players there, you need to have bad players for them to prey on.

and as for your hand, you got your money in when you had the best of it. it wasn't a bad beat. if your opponent had won, it would have been a bit of a bad beat.

[RoyalSampler]

I think you are amiss on the motivation. Firstly, the site is NOT rigged. But, if they were to rig it, the reasoning is extremely simple. Keep the money distributed.

If 1 guys has 91% of the chips at a table and each remaing player has 1%, the maximum pot is 10% of table chips.

If the table is evenly ditributed, I hope you see 100% of the chips can go in, thus resulting in a bigger rake.

Please don't get picky and point out the rake caps. Point is, this WOULD be the motivation for changing to odds to favour the underdog. But, please don't delude yourself that this is actually the case (not directed at anyone), if you lose you:
a) got unlucky
b) played bad

Suck it up /images/graemlins/laugh.gif (not that I can talk)

(Edit) Hehehe, I forgot this was in a tournament forum.
This reasoning obviously only applies to ring games. Now, the only possible effect on tournaments would be a negative one. It is in the casino's interest for SnG's to be as quick as possible, hell this is why a lot of B&M's only have them weekdays! The meagre gain in newbie morale, as previously suggested, would be neglegible against this. Imagine how much they'd make if SnG's lasted 10 minutes!!! No ring games the motivation would be to favour the underdog, but tournaments it would surely be to favour the leader.

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are amiss on the motivation. Firstly, the site is NOT rigged. But, if they were to rig it, the reasoning is extremely simple. Keep the money distributed.


[/ QUOTE ]
first of all, i'm not claiming its rigged. i was just explaining some of the benefits of rigging to the site.

[ QUOTE ]

If 1 guys has 91% of the chips at a table and each remaing player has 1%, the maximum pot is 10% of table chips.

If the table is evenly ditributed, I hope you see 100% of the chips can go in, thus resulting in a bigger rake.


[/ QUOTE ]
i guarantee you that having a bad player play at the site for a long time instead of losing his money right away greatly outweighs the benefits of very slightly increasing rake on a per hand basis. how often are players all in? not very. you're pointing out a very tiny benefit to the site, and making it seem as if its THE benefit of rigging the cards. quite simply, you're wrong.

in fact, your average crappy player is probably more likely to throw in chips in frustration when he's about to bust out than when he's breaking even.

[ QUOTE ]

Please don't get picky and point out the rake caps. Point is, this WOULD be the motivation for changing to odds to favour the underdog.


[/ QUOTE ]
I'm gonna get picky anyway and point out that the rake in Sit-N-Go tournaments is capped at zero. If it was a rake motivated thing, you'd change the odds to favour the person with less chips, not the underdog. Your arguments make absolutely no sense.

[ QUOTE ]
But, please don't delude yourself that this is actually the case (not directed at anyone), if you lose you:

a) got unlucky
b) played bad

Suck it up /images/graemlins/laugh.gif (not that I can talk)

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm saying that the motivation would be to make losing players win. Obviously, then, I'm not saying that it was rigged to make me lose all my money. Again, you're not making any sense.

FYI, I've said it before, but I don't think Poker Stars is rigged, and I rarely play there.

[Dominic]

Pete, your reasoning is all wrong, and I'll tell you why. Before online poker, there have been plenty of B&M casinos offering poker without "rigging" anything. According to you, if the bad players didn't win occassionally, they wouldn't play. I agree with that...but the game of Poker gives us all enough variance by itself - meaning luck does play a part of winning. A great player will not win every session. But he will win enough to be a winning player. A bad player will not win enough to be a winning player, but he will win enough to make him come back for more.

That's the beauty of Poker. Even if a game is 90% luck and 10% skill, the person who is more skilled will be a winner over the long haul. Period.

No need for "rigged" games. There will be plenty of bad players to keep everyone happy.

[RoyalSampler]

Yeh you jumped on my post before I realized it was in a tournament thread. My bad, but please read my additions for tournament play. On a side note, man you are an uptight individual. Chill man /images/graemlins/smile.gif it's Wednesday, we're half way there /images/graemlins/wink.gif

peace /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[stinkypete]

Please do point out where my reasoning is wrong.

All I'm saying is there would be benefits to rigging the site. The bad players would stick around longer. More players means more sit-n-go income and more rake in ring games.

Would Poker Stars make money if the site wasn't rigged? (Yes, and they do.) That still doesn't mean that income couldn't be increased by rigging the cards. Businessmen don't think "Oh, I'm already making money, so I don't need to make anymore." which is what you're implying by saying that my reasoning is wrong.

[Chuckles1248]

Okay, well not gaming "authorities," but they did have their Random Number Generator certified, so if you can prove something is wrong, there's plenty of grounds for a class-action lawsuit against both the site and the company that certified them: http://www.empirepoker.com/about_us/game_fairness.html

[stinkypete]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, well not gaming "authorities," but they did have their Random Number Generator certified, so if you can prove something is wrong, there's plenty of grounds for a class-action lawsuit against both the site and the company that certified them: http://www.empirepoker.com/about_us/game_fairness.html

[/ QUOTE ]

wrong site there dude.

[stinkypete]

oh and btw, the quality of the random number generator doesn't have anything to do with the rigging of cards. a bad RNG doesn't know who the underdog is, and won't favour him.

[Chuckles1248]

Oh...right, sorry about the wrong site.
I agree that the RNG doesn't have anything to do with rigging it, but I believe that for the RNG to be verified, it has to be taken from the final product, otherwise there's nothing stopping them from getting it verified then changing it around, so the outside company probably looked at the software as a whole, not just the RNG.

In any event, it's not rigged, and if it was, it would take a whole lot more than 150 hands to prove it.

[stinkypete]

heh... i took a look at that site, it's pretty funny:

"Virtually any online poker room game can be turned against the house if the numbers are biased. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the online poker room to make the random number generator as unbiased as possible."

hahaha. right. if the deal is biased, i can make it so that the house pays rake to me on every hand. what a joke.

[nummy]

Without proof, there is no basis for anything but a comment of what you think might be happening.

[Chuckles1248]

Yeah, I thought that was pretty funny too....although making the house pay me rake sounds like a pretty good idea...

[Dominic]

theortetically, I guess it would be advantageous to rig an online game...but practically? How are you going to do that? How many hands are dealt at PokerStars per minute? Per hour? Who's going to monitor each and every hand, make a decision on who's a bad player and who's a good player, and THEN manipulate which cards come off the deck??

How much is THAT going to cost to effectively do? And is that cost worth the supposed income you'll generate from getting these players to stay longer just because you've let them suck out a few times?

THAT'S where your reasoning is wrong, Pete. It's feasibly impossible and fiscally ruinous to even attempt such a thing.

[stinkypete]

you don't need a person monitoring each and every hand.

all you need is some simple software that will check who's losing money and who's winning money, and make the losing players draw out once in a while. it's not that complicated. at all.

how much would it cost? a few thousand at most - a few weeks of one programmer's time. that's assuming the programmer's a moron. a good programmer could easily do that in a day or two.

it's perfectly feasible technically and fiscally.

[gergery]

Buy El Diablo’s Pattern Maps, then you won’t have this problem.

[Dominic]

I'll allow that it may be possible to have a program like this up and running...but you're missing an important part of your argument..that by doing this you will get bad players to stay on the sight longer than if they just played their hands without the rigged results. I still don't agree that this is a given cause and effect, but I'll allow that one, too, for the sake of argument.

What you're missing is that your "bad beat program" is not able to pick and choose who's a bad player and who's a good one, all it's able to do is see who's losing money and who's winning money, and adjust some results accordingly. For all it knows, it's the bad player that's currently winning and the good player that's down.

All it's doing is giving out bad beats to people who are winning. In fact, based on your cause and effect argument (bad players will leave if they don't win more than they should) I can conclude that the good players who are now getting bad beats more than they should will now leave the site for other, non-rigged sites. So the customers you're keeping are offset by the ones you're losing.

So I ask you once again, how is this a fiscally sound plan?

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
as for reasons for rigging the hands, there's many.

a) make the new players win so they get addicted and keep playing.
b) make the losing players win once in a while to make them think the might be winning players, to keep them playing.


[/ QUOTE ]

An unrigged deck of cards already does this naturally. So, why do you need to rig the deck?

[2planka]

How, precisely, do you write code that determines who is "winning" and who is "losing" online? I have accounts at several sites. I play at some more than others. What sample size determines who is a "good" player from the site's perspective? Why bother as long as the dollars stay at your site?

[Desdia72]

lose when you're the favorite. nobody cares how many times you may get rivered. you can provide all the statistics, hand trackings, and data all you want and nobody will care. in my last 38 SNGs, i've been rivered 15 times (39%) with the best hand at the start--- whether it be one pair, two pair, 3 of a kind, a str8, and even a fullhouse. 5 of these rivers occurred in 4th on the bubble (one tonight). in a two table SNG, i just went out in 6th holding two pair to a str8 on the river (so that's two rivers in back to back SNGs). these rivers ALWAYS seem to occur at the most crucial of times to either knock me out of the SNG or to cripple me so bad, i'm bounced out shortly thereafter. i got hit by the river 4 times in the two SNGs i played tonight--- two of which left me low in chips and the other two both knocked me out (4th on the one table, 6th in the two table). i feel your pain, but dawg, you whizzing up the wrong tree in these forums. i could come up in these forums and say Lee Jones and the Pokerstars Gangsta Crips (PGC) did a drive-by shooting by my house, killing my brother and wounding my girlfriend and the only thing people in these forums would say is, "Tough break. Maybe you should move".

*note: the 15 rivers are all knockouts (bounced from the SNG). they do not iclude the numerous rivers i suffered
during the course of the SNGs that left me aneamicly low in chips.*

the only thing you can do is deal with it and keep it to yourself.

[Desdia72]

HU in a SNG last week, i choose to go all-in with 10 8o with the blinds at about 200/400 with, i think, a 50 or 75 ante. the player i was up against was mostly playing high cards or pairs. everytime he won a hand during the course of the SNG, he either had high cards in his hand or pairs. he had just knocked out two consecutive opponents with the exact same hand, trip 3s. my game plan was to be aggressive HU and raise in certain spots with any two cards (i was'nt getting dealt anything so i was'nt too hard to raise with crap). my read on the player was that he would'nt play unless he had something good, so i felt being aggressive in the all-in with 10 8o was'nt such a bad move (even though i did'nt have to with about 4K to his maybe 9K). well, i guessed right about him playing high cards because he was dealt A Qo and called my all-in. i actually was ahead in the hand when i caught a 10 on the turn but the last three cards dealt were K 10 J or J 10 K, so i ended up busted out by the familiar river card.

with that being said, people can argue whether i should have folded preflop and waited for a better spot to be aggressive or whatever (i don't have beef with that, i was fortunate enough to get the 10 on the turn). the only thing i was concerned with was the river card, which did nothing for reinforce an irksome pattern within my last 35+ SNGs, to say the least. i have come to expect it now, so when it happens...i just say, "oh well" and keep it moving.

*in the two table: had A A cracked by K 6 all-in (caught K on flop 6 on river) and two pair 9s & 10s to Jack high str8 when 7 hit on the river. "What can 'ya do?"

[Keven]

The big problem with Utah's argument is that he does not factor in the Law of Large Numbers. It is statistically probable that any one person (and many more) amongst all the many players will have results that do not fit probability with both positive and negative results. You mention that flipping heads 15 times in a row would most likely prove bias in either the coin or the flipping. This is not necessarily true. If you had a room full of "flippers" say 10,000 flipping 15 times you could expect quite a few of them to be all heads and some all tails. So really your results could be simply "coincidence." I know that it is counter intuitive but try reading on the law of large numbers and you will see my point. To prove your case of bias it would take a statistically significant number of players tracking a statistically significant number of hands to prove the bias. See http://skepdic.com/lawofnumbers.html for a simple explanation.