LOL- Mr. Gutshot kicked off Paradise! (LONG)

Hi. My name is Mr. Gutshot and I have a problem. I continue to play low-limit internet poker despite my better judgement. I have taken such a ridiculous beating that I am even beginning to suspect the conspiracy theorists have reasons for their questioning.

Some hands that made me wonder?

1)I have JJ in a 5-man game and raise. The flop comes 943 or something with 2 hearts. I bet and get called. The turn is a 2 of hearts or something to that effect. The river is a 5 hearts. I have the jack of hearts, but figure he must have the ace to call me down for the nuts flush. Well, I was wrong- he had the nuts flush though- he called me with q6os all the way and his 6h turned into a runner runner str8 flush!


2)I have 77, a couple of people have posted in late position. I am big blind. Only the small blind calls. I raise, hoping to get out someone, with the intent of mucking if flop isn't favorable.

Flop is OK--- 942 or something---- I bet my 77 and all fold save one. Turn is J- I bet, though now I am worried. River is 10.

I give up and check, but call his river bet just to see how stupidly I have played the hand. He has 78os. He called with a runner runner gutshot!


All the other suckouts were rather boring compared to these- just your standard 2 outers etc.

Anyway, I basically am on the brink of insanity. I am the first to admit that I play fast and loose at times. Maybe this is just karma biting me in the rear. After hours and hours of this, however- I send an e-mail to Pardise entitled "your site is rigged!". It was mostly so that I could get a laugh to relieve me from the tension of all the beatings. I coninued to play on- I even won a hand! Then, in the middle of trying to bluff someone out, I was suddenly hurled from the game!

I tried to get back, then I changed to a different game, thinking, "maybe they are just trying to save me from some enormous bad beat". I sit in another game- then I am kicked off, and my log-in password no longer works! Finally- I get an e-mail.


Basically it sends me links to all these sites that prove the shuffling is- get this- "as close to truly random as possible".

Huh? What does that mean? Why isn't it truly random? What is truly random? It also informs me that until I retract my statements- which were made to only them in a private e-mail- they are restricting access to my account. Basically, I can't play, and I can't cash out MY MONEY. As measly as my bankroll has become after the thrashings I've been taking, I still don't feel right about someone taking away my access to money that is mine.


Anyway I just want everyone in the whole world to know that I DO NOT THINK PARADISE POKER IS RIGGED. I think that perhaps:

A) I am a bad player (I mean, who the hell bets into someone with a runner runner str8 flush draw? He's basically even money, right?)

B) The players who have been sticking it to me are just better than me.

C) Low-limit internet poker defies logic.

D) Costa Rica is a wonderful place.

E) 1 out is a lot better than no outs.

F) 2 outs are twice as good as 1.


Look, anyone who has read my posts in here before knows that I have never said Paradise was rigged. Even when I quit for a few weeks and deleted them from my PC, I still maintained that I thought the site was legit. I have just recently recieved a response from them and they explained the whole "as close to truly random as possible" thing. I know that this stuff happens and will all turn around for me someday- but I need to play ineternet poker! I can't help myself. Somehow I keep thinking that people calling for runner runner str8 flushes are the kind of opponents I want....


Hopefully, Paradise will return my access so that I may continue to get drawn out. Hope to see you all there! Keep those q6 off suits ready!

There is no such thing as "random".


index

Two guys looking for a poker game, in front of a door, in an alley, in south Philly:


After one of them knocks, he turns to his buddy "I heard they have a high rake here, everyone plays tight and they cheat"


His friend tells him to "Shhh, if they hear you talking like that they might not let us in."


MS Sunshine

Play VERY tight! You have to play tight, say, 15-20% outside the blinds in full handed games at low limits if you want to be a consistent winner. Of course, you should adjust to the table.


The hand with 77, you shouldn't raise out of the big blind. If you do raise, you want to flop a set, otherwise give it up on the flop. I wouldn't raise (lowers variance).


Anyways, just some random thoughts at 4am... going to sleep now!


- Tony

Funny!

Such a warm feeling you get from this xample of truly fantastic customer service. Nice to know a 10 year old is running Paradise and that the $millions in deposits are is great hands.


Isn't it ;-)

Shaun, play in Tourneys! I am one of the worst players you will ever see, but I can make money out of the single table games because my 'style'(lol)seems to work - sit on your hands until you get something decent and then just bet it up. It's amazing how many times you knock guys out of hands who are terrified to call or bet into you when you have been betting all the way with second pair, for example.


And yes, I get creamed in ring games.

I realize these plays contribute to my variance, and this is probably why I am getting sucked out on so much now- I get no respect, even though I play less hands than anyone else at the table. Anyway, the point is, I did like the flop! All anyone could have had was a 9 or an overpair to my 77, which was unlikely enough to make my betting correct when added to the deception of raising from the big blind. Sure, my play was pushing it- but this is what I do. Understand, though- I don't push it without a percieved edge, and in this case- I had it. This guy called me with nothing- a backdoor gutshot str8 draw. I could understand if the pot was big- but it wasn't!


I am the first to admit that at times my style leads to high variance. I do, however, play tight much of the time as many of you suggest- Tighter than a frog's rearend. That just doesn't cut it either when you are running like I am. I don't play dominated hands- I fold stuff like AJos when a lot of players have limped in. I throw away KQos when its been raised, unless it is an obvious steal attempt. In other words- if anyone thinks "correct" play can stop people from calling with 1 outers-they are very wrong.


Anyway- if there's anything good that comes of this, it is the stories I get to tell all my friends. /images/wink.gif

Shaun,


Are you just playing 5 man games? And at what limits?


regards,


jazzman

"There is no such thing as random"


Although I generally like your posts, I must disagree on this one. There is a very precise definition of randomness, i.e. it occurs when every possible outcome is equally likely.


The problem with poker sites is that they must use a dealing algorithm that simulates randomness. Most often, they begin with a seed that is presumed to be a random event, and based on that seed, generate a hand.


A dealing algorithm may be flawed if 1) the seed is not, in fact, random or 2) the hand generation program is flawed. When PP says that their hand generation is "as close to truly random as possible," I believe they are acknowledging the difficulty in designing a perfect algorithm, and expressing their commitment to do the best they can. What more can they do?


It is just my opinion (I may be wrong) but I believe that any dealing algorithm can be improved. I hope that PP, as well as all of the other sites, are working on this. As to the bizarre hands that show up on PP? I have seen them; I have felt sucked out by them; I have screamed at my computer on more than one occasion; but I attribute the phenomenon (in this order) to

1) implicit collusion, 2) actual collusion 3) other possibly nefarious activities on the part of players and 4) possible, inadvertent flaws in the dealing algorithm. I believe, however, that PP (and most of the other sites) are doing their best to deal with all of these problems, including factor 4, so that they can provide a game that is "as close to truly random as possible."

I've been playing all kinds of crappy ring games at 3-6 and 2-4. I have also played some 5-man 1-2 while waiting for better games. Most of the beatings have been in 2-4. Maybe I should just expect idiotic plays to beat me so that my overall win rate drops closer to 1 BB an hour, but how long must this go on? I'm only human- I can only take so much. Actually, I also lost some in Omaha 8 or better, a game that I am new to. I expect to do worse in that game, but in Hold-em it pains me to lose constantly in passive games. I'm actually pretty confident it'll turn around- I just find it therapeutic to relay my misfortunes to the twoplustwo community. Its the smiles that keep me going...

Great post. That is pretty much where I come down on the matter. I doubt seriously that they are purposely trying to cheat us out of measly micro-limit bankrolls. They make more money if more players play- so it is in their ineterest to keep people coming back. I would hope that this is accomplished by keeping the games as real as possible.

Allow me to clarify.


My argument is not that "random" is undefined, your definition is clear... My point is, "Less and less predictable", perhaps even to an asymptotic degree, does not equate "random". It may very well be unpredictable by any reasonable means, but "random" should be used with the same caution as words like "infinite"... they are concepts, rather than tangible phenomena.


"There is a very precise definition of randomness, i.e. it occurs when every possible outcome is equally likely."


This has never, nor will it ever, happen.


Causality: Things happen for a reason. Those reasons are mechanical; they involve forces that can be measured. If the causes are duplicated, so are the effects. This applies as much to the solar system, as it does to a runner-runner flush draw.


index

*****************

Index,


I see your point, and believe that you have stated it intelligently and articulately. However, I hope that you will not be offended it I use your comments as a jumping off point, not so much to disagree with you, as to elaborate my reasons for responding to your earlier post.


"My argument is not that "random" is undefined, your definition is clear... My point is, "Less and less predictable", perhaps even to an asymptotic degree, does not equate "random". It may very well be unpredictable by any reasonable means, but "random" should be used with the same caution as words like "infinite"... they are concepts, rather than tangible phenomena."


I agree that words like "random" should be used with care. I also agree that perfect randomness is unattainable, except, as you suggest, as an asymptotic limit. This is why attempts to "prove" that the deal at PP is random are doomed to fail. This is also why statistical method makes the assumption of randomness the null hypothesis, i.e. that which must be disproved, rather than the alternative hypothesis.


"This has never, nor will it ever, happen."


Whether or not theoretical randomness ever occurs, statistical theory places the burden of proving non-randomness on those alleging it. Innocent until proven guilty is correct statistical procedure as well as a good principle of law. Until I see well designed, statistical tests to the contrary, I will continue to give PP the benefit of the doubt.


"Causality: Things happen for a reason. Those reasons are mechanical; they involve forces that can be measured. If the causes are duplicated, so are the effects. This applies as much to the solar system, as it does to a runner-runner flush draw."


Although I would love to debate the philosophical concept of causality with you, I'm not sure that this is the appropriate forum. I would point out, however, that quantum theory and chaos theory have raised considerable doubts about causal determinism. Feel free to E-Mail me if you are inclined to pursue the discussion.


By the way, let me reiterate that I have been very impressed with the quality of your posts.


Fischer

Paradise uses truely "random" events to seed their generator. For example, they take mouse clicks and other "random" events from users to generate more entropy. From their site:


"With thousands of clients connected using all sorts of different hardware and moving their mice in different non-predictable ways, this is by far the biggest source of entropy and gets us far more than 17 new random bits per second."


This is the only true way to get random numbers (and also maybe using the new thermal random generator in Intel CPUs, though I haven't looked into that). I've heard of another site that uses a geiger counter to generate random numbers!


- Tony

There is no mechanical causality that determines when an unstable isotope decays. So I guess we should relocate all internet card rooms to nuclear waste dumps, they can set up geiger counters over the hot stuff and use them to generate random bits for shuffling. ;-)


zooey

Sounds good....


But how will we decide which dump to go to? There's more than one to choose from, you know... We could throw a dart at the map.... or.... ummmmm.. Oh!! We could assign different nuclear waste dumps to 10 different poker players... then have them play on PP... and the first player to have pocket aces would have "their dump" win!


Oh.. but wait... there IS the problem of PP not being completely random. Perhaps we need to move PP to a nuclear waste dump so we could set up geiger counters over the hot stuff and use them to generate random bits for-


oh.... right.


index

Fisher-


I thank you for your post, your kind words, and would be honored to continue discourse by email... I have posted my address above...


What is interesting with regard to the nature of the subject at hand, is the fact that we may be arguing towards the same end... It may be our "definitions" that differ...


Example:


The series of numbers that make up 'Pi' in decimal form (3.1415.....) are considered to be random.... and (you're going to love this) it is BECAUSE of that fact that I can make a conclusive statement such as this:


"I can not say as to WHERE, but within the sequence, there can be found exactly one million "zero's" in a row..."


Do you see why?


index

I havent read your post carefully (sorry for that), but something took my attention:


You wrote: "I would point out, however, that quantum theory and chaos theory have raised considerable doubts about causal determinism. "


Actually, chaos theory refutes causal determinism.


Regards

"The series of numbers that make up 'Pi' in decimal form (3.1415.....) are considered to be random.... "


It's not proven to be random. Actually mathematicians have repeatedly tried to see the logic behind the serie. Without succes however, but at this point we dont know if it's completely random or not. The only truly random thing I can come up with is nuclear decay (as said by another poster).


Regards

Seems to me that they might have done you a favor. Having said that, I also suspect that they are making toooo much money. I can't imagine being kicked off of a site for making a private disparaging remark towards them. Surely they understand when a player gets frustrated that occasionally things get said. I heard of another player either getting booted or having chat turned of for saying something nice about other poker sites. I take it that Paradise has a small self esteem problem. I know a good therapist that might be able to help though. C'mon paradise, grow up a bit. OOOps, now I might not be allowed to play there.

http://www.pokerspot.com/random.html


They use a geiger counter for random shuffling. - Tony

No disrespect Shaun but it seems to me that you played both those hands very badly. Otoh maybe you knew just how bad your opponent was. In which case you played them very well! But seriously with four hearts and a str8 on board holding only the J and then with 3 overcards to your 7s?


Well like you say you push it sometimes lol.

Though the plays seem marginal, consider how far ahead I am until the river in both situations- especially on the flop. I knew the opponents well enough to know that they were total fish, I just didn't expect them to beat me that way. Also, consider the weak pot odds they are getting. Believe me, I understand your point, but like I said, I was way ahead early on, and I had a feeling this was such. The JJ hand was a 5-man game, and I felt I probably had the higher heart- which I did- but knew my opponent would bet the river if I did not. I bet he would have done the same with only a 6 high flush and not a str8 flush.

Thanks for your comments, and again, I understand where you are coming from.