A first for me

[NoChance]

For the first time in a VERY long time, I suspect something very wrong at a table I am playing at. There is a person at my table that has played 191 hands against me so far. THis person has a VP$IP of 62.3 and PFR of 21.47. This person has won 53.10% of all hands seeing the flop and has a won at showdown percent of 65.38%. This is at a $3-6 table and the person has won $766.50.

Now, the funny part is, this person is not getting great cards. It just knows when to stay with hands like 92o when the pair of twos is bottom pair and win.

What are the odds of someone winning 53% of their hands when seeing that high of a VI$IP? This person is not a maniac either. Post flop aggression is 1.58. It just knows when bottom pair is good, etc.

I am ashamed I am even typing this but I have NEVER seen anything like this.

(Now up $802 after 198 hands as I typed this)

[emonrad87]

Uh, so what?

[Yeknom58]

Oooo it's a bot or somehow magically cheating.....whooooo...oooooooo. This is like the ghost made out of the bedsheet scary.

[NoChance]

Go away. You don't think I know how silly this sounds? I just think winning 67.8 BB/100 after 213 hands in a limit game (up $866 now) is a but rediculous and for the first time in my life I wonder if it is legit.

[Uglyowl]

Let us know what site this is so I can add it to my rigged list.

Seriously though this happens. You will not find a good player winning this much cuz' they don't play enough hands. Your big winners and big losers are the maniacs.

[NoChance]

Go ahead. Poke fun. I probably deserve it. But know, I asked what the odds were and have not accused, but the thoughts are there for the first time.

[lorinda]

Reged: 07/17/03
Posts: 908


Anyone ignoring these stats when someone cries bot, will eventually come unstuck.

Anyone with the reputation of a poster like No Chance is not saying this for no reason.

It's 99.9% likely that it's just a huge statistical fluctuation, but how do you think we caught out places like Pro-Poker?

Despite being one of the staunchest defenders of the "It's not rigged you moron" club, anyone who habitually brushes off ALL cries of "Cheat/Bot/Collusion" is one day likely to walk into a big surprise.

Lori

[pokerrookie]

How about posting his name so others can check their PT stats and see if he has been doing this over a larger number of hands? I know that is frowned upon, but for the good of the game...

[NoChance]

Forget I posted. This is getting nowhere.

*and I should have known that

[pokerrookie]

I think it is important to post these kinds of things, and do the research required to prove one way or the other. Remember the suspected bot from a couple days ago. The OP there could have been dismissed as being paranoid as well.

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
Reged: 07/17/03
Posts: 908


Anyone ignoring these stats when someone cries bot, will eventually come unstuck.

Anyone with the reputation of a poster like No Chance is not saying this for no reason.

It's 99.9% likely that it's just a huge statistical fluctuation, but how do you think we caught out places like Pro-Poker?

Despite being one of the staunchest defenders of the "It's not rigged you moron" club, anyone who habitually brushes off ALL cries of "Cheat/Bot/Collusion" is one day likely to walk into a big surprise.

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the classic example of small sample size.

One example from my database:
PTY 2/4
178 hands
BB/100: 61.06
VPIP: 47.2%
PFR: 6.18
W$SD: 72.5%

rushes happen

edit: my notes on him are as follows...
Q9o utg
will bet river 4 to str8 is on board w/ only pair
BB raise KJo, 4 handed- couldn't muck K high

[[censored]]

hey NOChance

I see stuff like this all the time in my PT database. I wouldn't worry about it but put him on your friends list and observe his table. After a while you should see his stats return to normal.

[gambelero2]

How are you guys tracking the other guy's stats and what site are we talking about?

[[censored]]

Using pokertracker

[Yeknom58]

Sorrry and stuff. I was just joking around. But come on ..bed sheet scary ...pretty funny huh.

Anyway...yes one day there will be serious bots cheating but hey I'm not going to sweat it or even think about it until it's painfully obvious it's true.

[daveymck]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorrry and stuff. I was just joking around. But come on ..bed sheet scary ...pretty funny huh.

Anyway...yes one day there will be serious bots cheating but hey I'm not going to sweat it or even think about it until it's painfully obvious it's true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am 100% sure there are bots on most of the big sites, they might not be known and might not be fantastic players but they will be there, we know its possible (winholdem, the sng one last week) its the idiots that try and then sell it that get found out. You just have to look at programs like playerview and pokertracker to see the quality of product that can be done by one or two people in their spare time.

Bots may become a big problem in the future the sites have to stay a step ahead and ensure it doesnt harm there business whether it by having to enter a keyword every hour or whatever. But their main eyes and ears are us who should be able to spot strange behaviour.

[OrianasDaad]

I have a theory.

There might be tables out there where an extremely loose player could become profitable by playing super aggressive before the flop, and aggressive post-flop. The ability to read players' hands and have complete and unerring post-flop play would have to be requirements in this situation.

The stats I'd look at for this player would be: When folds% and Wwo/sd%.

A bot could not overcome the initial deficit of playing over half the hands dealt to them, even over the small sample of 191 hands. I'd say that 99% of the players here couldn't overcome it.

My best guess is that Gus Hansen (or some other world-class player) decided to have a little fun playing "micro".

A couple of other questions need to be answered. How many BB did this guy win in the session you were currently in with him? Were you playing limit or NL? What stakes were you playing?

In any case, I'd probably mark this person down as an "avoid until further observation". Given the information, they are either:

1) A bot. (unlikely)
2) Much better than me. (more likely)

[Radio]

Why dont you simply try to speak to him in the chat window? If it is a bot you wont get any reply, If its a colluder then your screwed /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[OrianasDaad]

[ QUOTE ]
Why dont you simply try to speak to him in the chat window? If it is a bot you wont get any reply, If its a colluder then your screwed /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd wager that there are more people who don't chat/have chat turned off than there are bots.

[rusty JEDI]

http://members.roadfly.org/Agent7/funny/tinfoilhat.jpg


Been a while since we needed one of these.

rJ

[NoChance]

This will be my last post on this because I DO know how rediculous it sounds. Trust me, I do.

[ QUOTE ]
There might be tables out there where an extremely loose player could become profitable by playing super aggressive before the flop, and aggressive post-flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

This player was not a maniac. Post flop aggression was 1.58. Most other players at the table were higher, including myself. This person was not winning hands by getting others to fold. This person was calling check-raises with hands like J2s and winning with top pair, bad kicker or bottom pair. This person only lost on the river when trying to bluff with overcards. This person didn't seem to ever call someone else's bet and lose.

[ QUOTE ]
A couple of other questions need to be answered. How many BB did this guy win in the session you were currently in with him? Were you playing limit or NL? What stakes were you playing?

[/ QUOTE ]

This was a $3-6 limit game. The person won 144 big bets in 213 hands.

This person had a VI$IP of 62%. That means the true flop percent was probably close to 70% (I didn't check it last night). That means this person saw on average about 7 hands per round.

This person won 53% of all hands when seeing the flop. That means this person on average won 4 hands every round.

Never once did I accuse this person of being a bot. I don't think anyone smart enough to program a bot is going to have the bot playing close to 70% of the hands.

I never once mentioned collusion. That was not happening. After 110 hands or so, enough people had lost and left, that nobody else had been there the entire time.

It really was as if the person could see everyone else's cards. As I stated earlier, the only hands this person lost on the river were when they were trying to bluff with overcards and were the aggressor. I will go back and look and the history but I don't remember this person calling someone else's bet on the river and losing. (selective memory? possibly).

Also, this is the type of person I normally love to add to the buddy list and look for. I can tell you one thing. I will NOT be sitting with this person again. There are to many other good tables to choose from.

One more thing I should mention. I only lost about $75 on this table. I lost heads up to this person only a couple times so this was not a "tilt" post. I was never angry. I was just simply amazed at how often this person was winning and the stats I was seeing. That is what made me suspicious.

I also will not be reporting this person to Party. I have no proof of any wrong doing. It's just that I wont be sitting with this person again.

This was my last post on this subject. Let it die or flame away. To be honest, I realy don't care. I think many of you know that I usually am the one in your position defending the sites.

That is all.

(Yes, I will take one of those tin foil hats now. Shiny side out?)

[frank_iii]

[ QUOTE ]
Reged: 07/17/03
Posts: 908


Anyone ignoring these stats when someone cries bot, will eventually come unstuck.

Anyone with the reputation of a poster like No Chance is not saying this for no reason.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you, thank you! That was the first thing I looked at. "You know, this guy has 908 posts and has been here for some time...maybe I'll think about this some more."

I don't believe in the conspiracy theories, but I've certainly wondered at times. So I don't understand why people feel SO CERTAIN that there is no foul play at work and are completely unwilling to even entertain the thought.

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
(Yes, I will take one of those tin foil hats now. Shiny side out?)

[/ QUOTE ]

That keeps the mind-control rays out. Shiny side in is for keeping them from reading your mind. Use two sheets of foil facing each way to be safe.

-Mike

[Brainwalter]

I would tend to agree this is just a rush. I saw a guy win well over 100 BB in a live 10-20 in 60 or 80 hands. He was playing well over 50% of hands, and winning with bottom pairs, etc. He won two pots with 72o in that time period. He was not a bot, just an idiot on a rush.

[TheNoodleMan]

even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[FlFishOn]

The thing to take away from this is the reaction you get from your peers. They are so positive, absolutely sure, free of any doubt, that online poker is str8 that anyone with a question in that regard is pilloried.

Welcome to the club.

Think of the fraction of their lives invested in online poker. It's huge. When you question it, you attack their world and life choices. A strong defense is a natural human reaction.

Lastly, imagine a live game where some semi-moron is winning 4 pots per orbit for 25 orbits (something I believe is almost impossible). You'd know in a heartbeat that he's just dipped-in-sh+t lucky. Online you can't know much of anything. Worse, your likely to never know much.

[OldLearner]

[ QUOTE ]
That means this person saw on average about 7 hands per round.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh-huh

[ QUOTE ]
Post flop aggression was 1.58.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty passive huh

[ QUOTE ]
That means this person on average won 4 hands every round.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK

[ QUOTE ]
I don't remember this person calling someone else's bet on the river and losing. (selective memory? possibly).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your right about the selective memory. Also very possible that the only time he called on the end was with at least a pair. And when he did have a pair, the other person in the pot missed (I'm assuming it would be HU at the end in most cases since bottom pair doesn't win too many pots).

I made a living playing live for a couple of years playing at a small club. These are the guys I made my living off. And sometimes they won. Their big wins (like you describe) were 2-3 times my biggest win. As stated earlier, it is this type of player that wins the biggest (occaisonally) and loses the most (regularly).

Try playing the same way he does. If your money lasts long enough, you will experience the exact same thing as what you have observed.

This is why the fish come back. Not because they win a little sometimes. Because, every once in awhile, the win a lot. They then continue to pursue this holy grail.

I have seen so many 1, 2 and 3 outers hit against me in the last 3 weeks (this is playing NL with stacks already in the middle) that silly thoughts tempt my mind, like

- Party is rigged
- God exists and hates me
- There are 24 Q's in the deck and ONLY 2 aces
- These guys can see the whole board on the turn

Our puny little minds and evil subconcious conjure up all kinds of reasons for things we do not fully understand or believe. If the odds of an event occurring are 1,000,000 to 1, although incredibily unlikely, that event will, at some time occur. And if you are a part of it when it does, you will be in disbelief. So would I.

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Reged: 07/17/03
Posts: 908


Anyone ignoring these stats...
Lori

[/ QUOTE ]
I was just looking at this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1811253&page=1&view=colla psed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=2#Post1835160) and noticed that Barry G is still a newbie. just an aside on the posts = credibility idea.

[steamboatin]

Put the tin foil inside your hat so you don't look foolish.