Online Poker - Almost Certainly Rigged

[mojobluesman]

Before you write something nasty about me because of the subject of this post, please hear me out and keep an open mind.

I just played a relatively short session (about 1 hour)where I played 5 hands past the flop. I lost all 5 hands and wound up losing 30BBs for the session. It wasn't fun, but it was no big deal.

The big deal was this.

I had the best hand going to the river in 4 of the 5 hands and lost to 2 outs once, 3 outs twice, and 4 outs once.

The probabilities of losing with "x" outs on the river is:

2 outs - approx. - 4%
3 outs - approx. - 6%
4 outs - approx. - 8.5%

Individually, no big deal.

However, losing this way in what was essentially 4 of 5 hands taken to the river is a mind boggling statistical oddity. It's about 1 out 100K for 4 consecutive hands. Probably a little less for 4 of 5, but not all that much if you consider that the 5th was pocket TTs that lost heads up.

Now I know you are going to say we've all been through tough beats. 1 out of 100K means it's going to happen and it just happened to happen to you. However, the problem is that this is the 3rd time it has happened to me in about 7K total hands of play.

I say that this is essentially a statistical impossibility for the typical person after just 7K hands.

I realize the counter argument has long been "what do the online sites stand to gain by rigging results. They make a fortune on rake and don't care who wins".

I accepted that as true all along because it is very logical at first glance. However, my results speak louder than my business theories and sometimes the most OBVIOUS answer IS the CORRECT ONE.

The only thing that is plausible to me is that the sites monitor how much rake action each player gives them and whether they just bonus whore or play every day regardless of their bonus status.

The reason that could be the key is because it is certainly in the interests of the online sites to keep "regular customers who are large rake contributors" happy at the expense of bonus whores who play for a few days and then disappear for a month to play at competitor sites that are giving out another reload bonus. I have been bonus whoring exclusively.

I seems obvious to me that I'm not a valuable customer. I take money out of the games almost every month because of bonuses regardless if I lose on the card playing alone or not.

If you tilt the probabilities slightly in favor of regulars, you maximize your profits.

The bonus whores keep coming because they net out to profits, but if the site takes some of their profits away from them to subsidize regulars, the regulars wind up getting it all raked away at your site instead of somewhere else where the bonus whore took it.

Of course if every site is doing the same thing, it nets out to all the sites doing only as well as if no one was bonus whoring and everything was legit, but all else is not equal.

I think other players should at least think about this carefully because I am now totally convinced that several sites are in fact mildly rigged in favor of bigger/better customers at the expense of bonus whores. I plan on altering my bonus playing strategy to try to reduce my percent subsidy to "the regulars" at the site. I am going to reduce the number of sites I play at and play without bonuses from time to time on certain sites where the games are reasonably attractive even without bonuses.

[DMBFan23]

stick it in her pooper

[mmbt0ne]

I know what you mean (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wahmbulance)

[wyoak]

OMG U R RITE!!11!one!

[OrangeKing]

What you described is not even close to being a statistical impossibility. Why do the rest of us with much bigger sample sizes not show similar problems?

I've seen some pretty ridiculous runs in live poker, but I don't claim that's rigged. If such a small sample (5 hands? Are you serious?) is enough to convince you, I'm thinking you went in thinking online poker was rigged, and were ready to jump on anything you could find as "proof."

[mojobluesman]

The small sample is the reason the stats are so meaningful. For it to happen once in 100K hands would be normal. For it to happen 3 times in 7K hands is close to impossible.

I guess it doesn't matter much that I am presenting a bordeline statistical impossibility combined with a business incentive based on the childish responses of naive youth I've gotten so far.

[reubenf]

Earlier today I was dealt Ah 3d. The flop came 3c 4d 8h. Turn Ks. River Jc. That is almost a statistical impossibility. Poker is almost certainly rigged.

[wyoak]

give me hand numbers and hand histories for these 3 times, i'll investigate.
http://www.deneroff.com/Images/News04/inspector_gadget_01.jpg

[MrWookie47]

Cash out. Quit poker. It's the 0 EV thing to do.

[4T25Q85]

lol, these threads always crack me up /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Quercus]

[ QUOTE ]

stick it in her pooper


[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty much assumed this was the Official Thread Ender. Why are we still talking about this?

[Shillx]

Do you also cry that this [censored] is rigged when you get delt pokcet aces twice in a row? That is roughly 49000:1 against.

Brad

[joeski19]

Maybe your tin foil hat needs more foil?

[Little Lew]

[ QUOTE ]

I say that this is essentially a statistical impossibility for the typical person after just 7K hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

Statistics don't say that things are impossible, only improbable - You know, the 'infinite number of monkeys on infinite keyboards' thing.

[mojobluesman]

I haven't been keeping all my hand histories because I've been impoving at such a rapid rate, the early playing is not relevant to my ability now. I also never imagined I would need them for an investigation like this. Also, one of the sites does not offer any HHs to begin with. However, like the rest of you, until now, I believed the sites were all legit. Since I no longer believe that to be the case I will definitely begin to store all records of all my play and will promptly post the next occurrence.

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you also cry that this [censored] is rigged when you get delt pokcet aces twice in a row? That is roughly 49000:1 against.

Brad

[/ QUOTE ]

If they get cracked.

[mojobluesman]

Well it hasn't happened yet, but I doubt I would become suspicious unless it happened more than 3 times within 7K hands. It would have to happen more than 3 times though because 1 of 49K is less than 1 of 100K. If it ever does happen to me, I'll let you know.

[Chex]

You're dumb.

[GrunchCan]

2 things.

First, the only thing that is a virtual statistical impossibility is that you were correct in estimating your chance to lose in each of those hands. I would estimate that you were probably close to breakeven, and I'd be willing to wager that you were a dog in at least one instance.

Second, setting aside all the logical and probably correct arguments that it's not in PP's best interests to rig the games, consider this. If PP decided to go ahead and rig the games in favor of certian high-quality customers, the software required to execute this goal would be so incredibly complex that the entire site would bog down. Instead of getting close to 65 hands per hour, you might get 20. Seriously.

Edit: typos

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe your tin foil hat needs more foil?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I just soiled myself.

[mojobluesman]

I sort of suspected that many of the participants in this forum were kool-aid drinking cult followers incapable of a lot of independent thought, but I thought the high volume of absolute brain power might overcome the brainwashing and naivety of youth to at least consider what I am suggesting because a business incentive DOES EXIST.

I am not another crackpot pissed off because he had a bad session. I am taking a lot of money out of these games because of bonuses. I am simply being dealt cards that defy normal statistical distributions in games that are not regulated or audited by truly independent parties. Furthermore, it would not shock me if some of these sites have ties to at least some unsavory characters.

I got past the level of naivety exhibited on this board a few weeks after I walked into my first card game. There's a lot of expensive maturing yet to occur here. I can see that much. I'll be happy to drop it because you all are obviously not ready to have a serious discussion, but I am willing to guarantee that within several years when the poker boom dies down a little or congress gets involved there's going to be all kinds of disclosures about cheating, corruption, rigged games and other site manipulation.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
If PP decided to go ahead and rig the games in favor of certian high-quality customers, the software required to execute this goal would be so incredibly complex that the entire site would bog down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to mention all the therapy required by the software after it had to choose which of it's "friends" it liked best.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
I sort of suspected that many of the participants in this forum were kool-aid drinking cult followers incapable of a lot of independent thought, but I thought the high volume of absolute brain power might overcome the brainwashing and naivety of youth to at least consider what I am suggesting because a business incentive DOES EXIST.

I am not another crackpot pissed off because he had a bad session. I am taking a lot of money out of these games because of bonuses. I am simply being dealt cards that defy normal statistical distributions in games that are not regulated or audited by truly independent parties. Furthermore, it would not shock me if some of these sites have ties to at least some unsavory characters.

I got past the level of naivety exhibited on this board a few weeks after I walked into my first card game. There's a lot of expensive maturing yet to occur here. I can see that much. I'll be happy to drop it because you all are obviously not ready to have a serious discussion, but I am willing to guarantee that within several years when the poker boom dies down a little or congress gets involved there's going to be all kinds of disclosures about cheating, corruption, rigged games and other site manipulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've reduced yourself to the level you are deriding.

I will no longer give you any more thoughtful responses on this matter, as my efforts to engage you in debate would clearly be in vain.

[bottomset]

Grunch beat me HU for like 36BB yesterday, I'm totally with you mojo .. I'm like invincible HU and I lost man the site has be rigged /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[wyoak]

give me hand histories dammit. you've nearly got me convinced.

edit to add - congress isn't going to get involved.
also, if they rig it in favor of the higher rake contributors, wouldn't it follow that new accounts would go bust almost constantly, since their contributed rake would be so low?

and also, with no hand histories, I'd say it's more likely than anything that your memory is skewed. We remember getting bad beats but forget dishing them.

[mojobluesman]

1. Don't be such a pompous ass and assume I can cannot count outs. I can assure you I was facing 1 opponent with the number outs I identified.

2. I mentioned no specific sites, but I did mention a business incentive for mild rigging.

[mojobluesman]

Did you happen to read some of childing responses I got!

[Shillx]

Look dude. There are 52! ways to shuffle a deck of cards (this is about 8*10^67 different ways to mix up a deck) and what Party does is take a % of those possible shuffles and inputs them into a random # generator. So if Party uses 96-bit technology, that means that they will generate 2^96 different shuffles (8*10^28). This isn't perfect, but it is pretty damn good at making the game fair.

So the cards are predetermined even before the hand begins. Based on a number of factors (hand #, system clokck, etc) a random hand is chosen and delt. The shuffle does not change mid hand to stack the odds in someones favor. So if I have AA on a 862 flop and Johnny has KK, PP can't tweak the deck mid hand to get a king to fall on the turn.

Brad

[Chex]

Somebody end this thread. Please! My entertainment is over with as he continues to ramble...I think I am actually a "valued customer", because all I do is make money, sorry the sites don't like you.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess it doesn't matter much that I am presenting a bordeline statistical impossibility combined with a business incentive based on the childish responses of naive youth I've gotten so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing is impossible, dude. Women might someday stop running out of the room, screaming, when you come in...it's improbable, but not impossible.

As for business incentive, I've seen this used as backup for why Dow Chemical wanted a lot of people to die in India, and how the Bush administration was behind the WTC attacks, and my response is the same: put down the pipe, it's making you stoooopid.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't been keeping all my hand histories because I've been impoving at such a rapid rate, the early playing is not relevant to my ability now.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you do have a girlfriend, she just lives in Canada so we wouldn't know her, right?

[mojobluesman]

A good programmer can do anything he/she wants.

What you are describing is the process we all believe exists. I am saying that if you were correct, I would not have experienced a 1 of 100K event 3 times in 7K hands. The possibility is so remote, that anyone that isn't mildly suspicious of these events in combination with a business that is unregulated, unaudited etc... is very naive. I'm sorry if that is insulting, but you are either living in a section of the world where people behave a lot differently than the world I am used to, or you are naive. Heck, I may just be the dumbass that experienced a 1 in a million event(or whatever it is), but given the game and the conditions I'd prefer to err on the side of caution instead of wishful naivety.

[bozlax]

Y'know, I think Mojo might be a shill for the poker sites! Y'know, come on here, ranting and raving about how it's fixed, and we all think, "If a crazy MF like this thinks it's fixed, there's NO WAY it is!"

By the way, Mojo, to paraphrase "Jerry McGuire", "You had me at 'nasty.'"

[Meech]

"For example, patients suffering from paranoid-type symptoms – roughly one-third of people with schizophrenia – often have delusions of persecution, or false and irrational beliefs that they are being cheated, harassed, poisoned, or conspired against."

[MrWookie47]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

stick it in her pooper


[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty much assumed this was the Official Thread Ender. Why are we still talking about this?

[/ QUOTE ]

[wyoak]

[ QUOTE ]
A good programmer can do anything he/she wants.

What you are describing is the process we all believe exists. I am saying that if you were correct, I would not have experienced a 1 of 100K event 3 times in 7K hands. The possibility is so remote, that anyone that isn't mildly suspicious of these events in combination with a business that is unregulated, unaudited etc... is very naive. I'm sorry if that is insulting, but you are either living in a section of the world where people behave a lot differently than the world I am used to, or you are naive. Heck, I may just be the dumbass that experienced a 1 in a million event(or whatever it is), but given the game and the conditions I'd prefer to err on the side of caution instead of wishful naivety.

[/ QUOTE ]

most big poker sites are audited by 3rd parties.....

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
A good programmer can do anything he/she wants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, I just can't help myself. I'm pretty sure I'll regret it.

It just so happens that I am a good programmer, and I can tell you with authority that the software needed to do what you propose (select particular opponents and deal them extra +EV situations) would be very complex, and would slow down the system.

[ QUOTE ]
What you are describing is the process we all believe exists. I am saying that if you were correct, I would not have experienced a 1 of 100K event 3 times in 7K hands. The possibility is so remote, that anyone that isn't mildly suspicious of these events in combination with a business that is unregulated, unaudited etc... is very naive. I'm sorry if that is insulting, but you are either living in a section of the world where people behave a lot differently than the world I am used to, or you are naive. Heck, I may just be the dumbass that experienced a 1 in a million event(or whatever it is), but given the game and the conditions I'd prefer to err on the side of caution instead of wishful naivety.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's being a pompus ass now?

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that if you were correct, I would not have experienced a 1 of 100K event 3 times in 7K hands

[/ QUOTE ]

it's pretty obvious that you don't know dick about statistics

if you take ONE specific 7K hand sample, then you are unlikely to experience the aberration. if you take a 700 million hand sample, it should be trivial to find one 7K stretch in there where your 1/100K event happens 3 times, because there are so many 7K hand stretches to choose from.

in fact, if the cards follow a distribution, which they do, then you would be able to set a sample size in which it is virtually guaranteed that you will find your longshot event happening 3 times over 7K hands.

your problem is you're looking at the wrong set of hands as "the sample". that's EVERY HAND PARTY DEALS, not your tiny 7K stretch. I'm sure I have 7K stretches where it's happend 3 times, and times where it hasnt happened at all. I'm sorry you got the [censored] end, but it happens. over the extremely long run, it follows a random distribution.

Thread over. and you didnt even stick it in her pooper.

[mojobluesman]

Gee and I thought a few people that posted responses might be shills for a certain group of people that have benefitted from the poker explosion by selling books. I could see why they woundn't want any scams exposed.

[SoftcoreRevolt]

Isn't it random how randomly random events occur?

Your theory is as good as this movie.

http://img25.echo.cx/img25/4905/robo20vampire8dl.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

[KingOtter]

1. You're making a spectacular claim.
2. You're providing absolutely no proof that these events even happened. Not even one hand. Most sites even let you go in and request the last 100 hand histories, so you would at LEAST have this available to you, even if you don't 'keep hand histories'. I bet you could get even more if you e-mailed support. So your excuse for not having the hand histories is poor at best.
3. It is not naive, nor irrational to doubt you. In fact, it is completely rational to completely dismiss your claims based upon both 1 and 2.
4. It is irrational to expect a community of online-poker-players (who see this issue come up weekly) to believe you without any proof or substance.

So stop with the silliness.

KO

[kiddj]

[ QUOTE ]
A good programmer can do anything he/she wants.

What you are describing is the process we all believe exists. I am saying that if you were correct, I would not have experienced a 1 of 100K event 3 times in 7K hands. The possibility is so remote, that anyone that isn't mildly suspicious of these events in combination with a business that is unregulated, unaudited etc... is very naive. I'm sorry if that is insulting, but you are either living in a section of the world where people behave a lot differently than the world I am used to, or you are naive. Heck, I may just be the dumbass that experienced a 1 in a million event(or whatever it is), but given the game and the conditions I'd prefer to err on the side of caution instead of wishful naivety.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your logic/statistics are a little flawed. You said you had 5 hands, where 4 of the 5 hands you lost to 2 outs once, 3 outs twice, and 4 outs once. These hands are independant of each other. If you lose to a 2 outer 20 times in a row, the odds of it happening again is the same. Whether they happen in a row or 5,000 hands apart, it doesn't mean anything. Who won these hands? Who benefited by your bad run? One player? What limit was this at? I've been nailed like that many times. Ever lose to a 1 outer? I'm not saying that you're an idiot. My point is the evidence you have is not conclusive. If you can't prove it, mathematically or otherwise, then you shouldn't be making an argument.

Besides, if these things didn't happen, the Improbability Drive wouldn't be able to operate.

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason that could be the key is because it is certainly in the interests of the online sites to keep "regular customers who are large rake contributors" happy at the expense of bonus whores who play for a few days and then disappear for a month to play at competitor sites that are giving out another reload bonus. I have been bonus whoring exclusively.

[/ QUOTE ]

These customers are quite happy when their 29o hits 2 pair on the river and they rake a big pot. They don't mind putting in more money every now and then and don't need someone to tweak the results for them to ensure that they will win an occasional pot. Haven't you ever seen a slot machine suck money out of someone? Every once in a while they win 10 quarters and are happy even though they are putting 3 in at a time.

Even a HINT of a site being rigged by a respected media firm would result in HUGE losses as customers would flock elsewhere or take their money out entirely.

You really think they need to risk that?

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, if these things didn't happen, the Improbability Drive wouldn't be able to operate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate that f-ing thing...I'm still trying to get bits of whale off of the roof of my house.

[btspider]

http://www.simpsonscrazy.com/homer/33.gif

Your ideas are intriguing to me. I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[MrWookie47]

C'mon guys. We get one of these every one or two weeks. At least half have to be people just looking to start a flame war rather than someone who honestly thinks it's rigged. Even if it's the latter, no one is going to convince any side that they're wrong. Can we, as a forum, just decide that the official response to any and all such posts is S.I.I.H.P. (First person to post it gets a gold star. NH DMBFan.), and make that the only response? I'm guilty of having perpetuated the thread somewhat, too, but posting all these statistical arguments is just feeding the trolls. Let's just get a cheap laugh from the OP, get a cheap laugh because someone said "pooper," and let this and all such threads die a timely death.

I apologize for bumping this thread up to the top again, but hopefully this will be the end of it.

[John Paul]

[ QUOTE ]
Before you write something nasty about me because of the subject of this post, please hear me out and keep an open mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mojobluesman,
Folks have been a little harsher on this thread than you deserve. I did try to keep an open mind, but I think there are some mathematical errors in your post that make this seem less likely than it really is.

[ QUOTE ]
I just played a relatively short session (about 1 hour)where I played 5 hands past the flop. I lost all 5 hands and wound up losing 30BBs for the session. It wasn't fun, but it was no big deal.

The big deal was this.

I had the best hand going to the river in 4 of the 5 hands and lost to 2 outs once, 3 outs twice, and 4 outs once.

The probabilities of losing with "x" outs on the river is:

2 outs - approx. - 4%
3 outs - approx. - 6%
4 outs - approx. - 8.5%

Individually, no big deal.

However, losing this way in what was essentially 4 of 5 hands taken to the river is a mind boggling statistical oddity. It's about 1 out 100K for 4 consecutive hands. Probably a little less for 4 of 5, but not all that much if you consider that the 5th was pocket TTs that lost heads up.

Now I know you are going to say we've all been through tough beats. 1 out of 100K means it's going to happen and it just happened to happen to you. However, the problem is that this is the 3rd time it has happened to me in about 7K total hands of play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets look at that more closely.

Based on the % you give above, the proportion of times you will lose these 4 hands is a row is
.04*.06*.06*.085=0.00001224
Dividing 1 by this gives you a 1:81,698 odds, not 1:100k which is a lot less - but still pretty unlikely.

However, these odds aren't right. I assume what you are dong is dividng the number of outs by the number of cards you dont know so 2/46, 3/46, 4/46 - since you know the 4 up-cards and your 2 hole cards. However, you rounded them, the real numbers here are:
2 outs = .0435
3 outs = .0652
4 outs = .0870
In every case your numbers were a little low. So if you redo the calculation with these numbers, you now have a 1:62156 event. More likely still.

But, that is still wrong. You see, in order to have a 2 or 3 or 4 outer, you have to specify the villian's hole cards. Without the hole cards the outs against you don't make any sense. So it should be 2/44 or 3/44 or 4/44. When you do this you get:
2 outs = .0455
3 outs = .0682
4 outs = .0909

Redoing the numbers again gives you 1:51981 which is a lot less then 1:100k.

You stated in the thread that all the hands were heads up at the river and that you counted the outs right, and I don't have any reason to doubt you. But, there could have been folks on the turn that were drawing to runner-runners that did not hit, which ideally should be worked in.

So - how likely is it to happen in 7k hands. You haven't been keeping track, so I will have to estimate. Based on the stats in the FAQ, in 7000 hands you will have seen the flop about 23% of the time = 1610 hands. Of those around 30% will have gone to showdown = 483. I will guess that you are ahead about 50% of the time on the river = 291 hands.

At this point I'm not positive how to proceed. There are 288 4 hand runs in here where you are ahead at the river. Dividing 288 by 51982 gives us 1 in 180 = again unlikely but hardly proof of rigging. However, the 288 runs of four hands are not independet, so I may be doing this wrong.

Also there are lots of other factors not included here. I looked for exactly four hands that loose to a 2,3,3 and 4 outer. But if you had lost to run of 1,2,2,4 outers that would seem bad too, so the odds of that happening should have been included, etc. And, as DBMFan23 pointed out, even if it was really unlikly that most poker sites have so many runs of 7k hands that all sorts of stuff happens.

Finally, how likely is this to happen 3 times - unlikely but hard to calcuate exactly without knowing:
1) what were the situations the other 2 times
2) how unliklely a beat do you need to notice it
3) how many villians were in the hands on the other runs as well.

So,
I do think you had an unlucky session and 7k run, but I don't think the odds against this are quite as bad as they seem if the cards are being dealt fairly.



John Paul
(who's biggest losing hand at 1/2 is KK over 4.5k hands)

[aK13]

All the math and stats wiz' make my life a lot easier, since I can let others do the calculations for me =).

[droolie]

Mojobluesman- We will not convince you otherwise but think about this...

I am a pure unadulterated whore. Of the 52K hands I've played I'd say 75% of them have come while clearing bonuses. I've been running a winrate that is practically impossible to sustain over the course of that time. If they were to fix the deck against anyone it would be me and yet they seem to be shoveling me money hand over fist.

Your argument is just plain silly. Just because you were the victim of a statistical anomoly does not mean there is any causal effect. I bet if we were all to look at our databases every one of us would find a similar statistical anomoly over the course of a 7K hand stretch.

For instance, last week I hit 2 Royal Flushes in just under 900 hands. Calculate the odds of that happening to whore who is having the deck stacked against him. It must be about 1,000,000,000,000,000:1. And yet I know I was just plain lucky. Just like I know you were just plain unlucky.

Seriously the deals are on the level keep playing your game and get over your paranoia and give up the conspiracy theories. They just don't add up.

[scotty34]

The chances of you getting that exact hand are around 650 000:1 I believe. The chances of you getting the hand you got right after is the same. The chances of getting both of those hands in a row is 650000^2:1 which is very near a statistical impossibility. I'm convinced.

[scotty34]

So what if it's rigged? What exactly do you hope to accomplish by telling this to everyone? You already knew exactly what response you would get. It is the exact same as every other person who tries to make a rigged claim. You certainly don't expect everyone to say "Oh my God, you are right!! I'm going to quit poker right now, and leave all of the money I'm making, because some guy lost a few hands. That means I could lose a few hands too!!. I better get out now!"

[trainslayer]

I did not read past the first 3 paragraphs of this thread.

Hurray!!!! I am now a winning player. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Sad part is no other winning player will ever know. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[sexypanda]

Ok, so this is what I'm hearing:

"Yea, so I was playing poker online and they dealt me a hand. Now look, the chances of me getting that exact hand are really small, like less than 1%. Well anyway, I lost that hand. Then, I got another hand, and the chances of me getting that exact hand were also like really really small. I lost that hand too. To make a long story short, I lost alot of hands. So, since the chances of me getting those hands were really really really small (we're multiplying them all together now), and since I lost money, this only leads me to one conclusion: POKER IS RIGGED!!!1!!11"

[xenthebrain]

I just played a game.

The board: A /images/graemlins/heart.gif J : club: J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 3 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

The chances of the board lying like that is 1 to 2,598,959
Man this was odd

If this wasn't so damn rigged.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
Before you write something nasty about me because of the subject of this post, please hear me out and keep an open mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to waste my time reading all of the other posts. However, from the ones that I've skimmed, you've already closed your mind to the possibility that you're wrong and that you're not looking at the situation properly. I think you should hold yourself to the same standard you are asking of others.

[ QUOTE ]
I just played a relatively short session (about 1 hour)where I played 5 hands past the flop. I lost all 5 hands and wound up losing 30BBs for the session. It wasn't fun, but it was no big deal.

The big deal was this.

I had the best hand going to the river in 4 of the 5 hands and lost to 2 outs once, 3 outs twice, and 4 outs once.

The probabilities of losing with "x" outs on the river is:

2 outs - approx. - 4%
3 outs - approx. - 6%
4 outs - approx. - 8.5%

Individually, no big deal.

However, losing this way in what was essentially 4 of 5 hands taken to the river is a mind boggling statistical oddity. It's about 1 out 100K for 4 consecutive hands. Probably a little less for 4 of 5, but not all that much if you consider that the 5th was pocket TTs that lost heads up.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be good for you to post these hands. Were they all heads up? I would be a little surprised if so. If they are not all heads up, then you're not counting outs properly. It's not the probability that *THAT* person draws out on you, but the combined outs of all your opponents. If there are two opponents out there, there could be 7-12 outs drawing against you. That severely adjusts all of your odds calculations.

[ QUOTE ]
Now I know you are going to say we've all been through tough beats. 1 out of 100K means it's going to happen and it just happened to happen to you. However, the problem is that this is the 3rd time it has happened to me in about 7K total hands of play.

I say that this is essentially a statistical impossibility for the typical person after just 7K hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, see above. You get beat by a particular 2-outer, but that doesn't mean that there were only two live outs against you. You also seem to be drawing from memory that "this" has happened to you three times. Were they all identical to these situations? I doubt it. Were they all 4 out of 5 hands? Probably not. Your memory might be a bit selective and until you can produce evidence for these other "cases", you're not going to be convincing very many people that you're right.

[ QUOTE ]
I realize the counter argument has long been "what do the online sites stand to gain by rigging results. They make a fortune on rake and don't care who wins".

I accepted that as true all along because it is very logical at first glance. However, my results speak louder than my business theories and sometimes the most OBVIOUS answer IS the CORRECT ONE.

The only thing that is plausible to me is that the sites monitor how much rake action each player gives them and whether they just bonus whore or play every day regardless of their bonus status.

The reason that could be the key is because it is certainly in the interests of the online sites to keep "regular customers who are large rake contributors" happy at the expense of bonus whores who play for a few days and then disappear for a month to play at competitor sites that are giving out another reload bonus. I have been bonus whoring exclusively.

I seems obvious to me that I'm not a valuable customer. I take money out of the games almost every month because of bonuses regardless if I lose on the card playing alone or not.

If you tilt the probabilities slightly in favor of regulars, you maximize your profits.

The bonus whores keep coming because they net out to profits, but if the site takes some of their profits away from them to subsidize regulars, the regulars wind up getting it all raked away at your site instead of somewhere else where the bonus whore took it.

Of course if every site is doing the same thing, it nets out to all the sites doing only as well as if no one was bonus whoring and everything was legit, but all else is not equal.

I think other players should at least think about this carefully because I am now totally convinced that several sites are in fact mildly rigged in favor of bigger/better customers at the expense of bonus whores. I plan on altering my bonus playing strategy to try to reduce my percent subsidy to "the regulars" at the site. I am going to reduce the number of sites I play at and play without bonuses from time to time on certain sites where the games are reasonably attractive even without bonuses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your argument here is shaky. I'm not saying it's impossible, but merely pointing out a possibility is not enough to make a case. The model you suggest here is not the "MOST OBVIOUS" one out there. And since you haven't produced solid evidence, but only vague recollections, there is no reason to believe your position is more likely to be true than the even simpler one (ie online poker is not rigged and that you are simply short-sighted in your not-so-careful analysis).

Your position is exactly like those who argue things like "my aces never hold up". By a series of off-hand recollections of events involving "streaks" of losses, they conclude that something is wrong with aces and that they are not powerful hands. The conclusion is wrong because the analysis is weak and short-sighted. From what I see, you're doing the same thing.

[mojobluesman]

You are making assumptions about what I think. I never said that all the games are rigged or that every customer is classified and given some + or - economic value.

I said that given the probability of what I have experienced and the fact that these sites are unregulated and unaudited I have come to believe there is some rigging going on. I could never know the extent of it or even how often it occurs. I just have my suspicions because there is some business justification for it like I have identified.

All I kow is that heads up at the river when I am ahead against 2, 3, or 4 outs I am an overwhelming favorite and shouldn't lose 4 times in row or 4 of 5 very often. I should never lose 4 times in a row 3 times in a 7K sample. Not in this lifetime or next.

If someone flipped a coin and it landed on heads 15-20 times in a row and the guy doing the flipping was nicknamed "knuckles" I'd stop be suspicious even though a run like that with coins is statistically possible too.

That's the point!

You are correct that I got pompous in response, but that's only because I correctly predicted that any possible claim of rigging would not be taken seriously here and I would get bashed for it. At first I asked politely people to think about my experience and the fact that there may be something amiss and was immediately trashed.

[BatsShadow]

I have had quads 9 times in under 8000 hands. What's the chance of that happening?

[mojobluesman]

[ QUOTE ]
it's pretty obvious that you don't know dick about statistics

if you take ONE specific 7K hand sample, then you are unlikely to experience the aberration. if you take a 700 million hand sample, it should be trivial to find one 7K stretch in there where your 1/100K event happens 3 times, because there are so many 7K hand stretches to choose from.

[/ QUOTE ]

No fooling, but I didn't play 700 million hands, I played 7K and it happened.

So what you want me to do is believe that I am the unlucky dumbass who it just happened to happen to and not the more obvious conclusion that something is amiss?

Is it at least clear why I would think some people are naive?

There are 2 possibilities.

1. I experienced an absolutely amazing statistical event.
2. Something is amiss at an unspecified unregulated gambling site.

Pardon me but I wasn't born yesterday, so I vote for #2 with my money.

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
You are correct that I got pompous in response, but that's only because I correctly predicted that any possible claim of rigging would not be taken seriously here and I would get bashed for it. At first I asked politely people to think about my experience and the fact that there may be something amiss and was immediately trashed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they are not going to take you seriously. You know this, because I'm sure you have seen the other piles of threads of people making claims as to why poker is rigged. None of them provide very good evidence, and there are extremely good counter arguments to every one of them. We have all read these, and made our decision. People are making smartass remarks now because they are getting tired of hearing this. It's nothing new or interesting.

People are not going to take you seriously. Many of us are making hundreds and even thousands of dollars per week playing online poker. Sure we experience our bad beats and have downswings also amounting to hundreds or thousands of dollars, but through our experience and others, we know that it will even out in the end.

You do realize that taken individually, every single hand dealt is a statistical anomoly. I have been dealt AA twice in a row (50000:1) and then QQ right after that making the odds of that 10 000 000:1. I certainly haven't played 10 000 000 hands. Hell, I've been dealt 9h2c then 8d9d then 3hKc - calculate the odds of that happening, its not very likely. Stretches of strange occurrences happen. Read the DERB thread in the mid-high stakes forum.

Seriously, what were you expecting the response to this to be, and what were you hoping to accomplish by posting this? I know I, for one, am not going to quit playing a game that is making me thousands of dollars just because you said you took a few bad beats.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't been keeping all my hand histories because I've been impoving at such a rapid rate, the early playing is not relevant to my ability now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bwaaahaahahahahha!

Haahhaha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Hooooooah! Hahahahahah!

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]

So what you want me to do is believe that I am the unlucky dumbass who it just happened to happen to and not the more obvious conclusion that something is amiss?

[/ QUOTE ]

haha this is complete BS. I'm glad you lost. I hope you lose more.

[droolie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't been keeping all my hand histories because I've been impoving at such a rapid rate, the early playing is not relevant to my ability now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bwaaahaahahahahha!

Haahhaha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Hooooooah! Hahahahahah!

[/ QUOTE ]

*spits soda at monitor*

It's not often a LOL! remark literally makes me laugh out loud but damn that was an infectious post.

nh!

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
I said that given the probability of what I have experienced and the fact that these sites are unregulated and unaudited I have come to believe there is some rigging going on. I could never know the extent of it or even how often it occurs. I just have my suspicions because there is some business justification for it like I have identified.

[/ QUOTE ]

And yet you titled your thread, "Online Poker - Almost Certainly Rigged"

Let me re-iterate.

Hahahahahhhaaaahahahahhah!

Herheheheheheheeeeeeeeeeeeeehahahah! Ha Ha~!

111!!11!! ON111ONpone!

[ILoveShowGirls]

A) We all know the odds of those draws coming in, but we all know the propensity of fish and calling stations to draw to them.

B) As Bobby Baldwin is always saying, if you are playing the best hands straight up, then you will continously get drawn out on, but in the long run you will be a winner.

I just got off a 75BB downswing, during which all kinds of muck drew out on me, and I've only had 9 pairs of Aces in my last 5k hands, but in the long run I'm ahead.
And I have, statistically speaking, round about the right amount of aces dropping in.
(including one time multitabling at two sites, I got two aces at the same time and won with a set on both, now if thats fixed I like it /images/graemlins/wink.gif but it hasn't happened since)

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
No fooling, but I didn't play 700 million hands, I played 7K and it happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's pretend for a second that you really were the victim of such an unlucky event.

You do realize that Party Poker alone has "hosted" 2.3 billion hands?

A lot of the other major sites are up in the billions too.

This string of bad beats that you describe have clearly occurred many times over the course of this many hands, and were statistically probable.

So you got one of them. Quit being a moran.

[Ringo_Mojo]

[ QUOTE ]

I accepted that as true all along because it is very logical at first glance. However, my results speak louder than my business theories and sometimes the most OBVIOUS answer IS the CORRECT ONE.


[/ QUOTE ]

Has anyone else noticed that everytime one of these posts shows up it includes a line like this? I find it especially funny because the obvious and correct answer is always "You suck at poker and varriance gave you a kick in the nuts."

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
There are 3 possibilities, with #0 being by far the most likely.

0. I overestimated my chances to win.
1. I experienced an absolutely amazing statistical event.
2. Something is amiss at an unspecified unregulated gambling site.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

And before we go any further, let us specify the hitherto unspecified things:

1) Post the damn histories, and have your theory vetted.
2) Tell us which site it was - not which site it wasn't.
3) Stop being an arrogant ass and bitching about other people being arrogant asses, naieve, thoughtless, or whatever. One or the other. Both makes you a hypocrite.

Until you do this things, you are just whining unjustifiably.

[mojobluesman]

The answer is certainly not 0 because I know how to count outs and saw the opponents hand because we showed down.

I will keep all hand histories, but the site in question today does not offer them.

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
The answer is certainly not 0 because I know how to count outs and saw the opponents hand because we showed down.

I will keep all hand histories, but the site in question today does not offer them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you talking about a big site like Party, or some offbeat place like your buddies homegame where they stack the deck everytime you take a piss or fu[/i]ckedintheasspoker.com where the same 9 people play on every table and can see what the turn and river cards are going to be before they hit...

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The answer is certainly not 0 because I know how to count outs and saw the opponents hand because we showed down.

I will keep all hand histories, but the site in question today does not offer them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you talking about a big site like Party, or some offbeat place like your buddies homegame where they stack the deck everytime you take a piss or fu[/i]ckedintheasspoker.com where the same 9 people play on every table and can see what the turn and river cards are going to be before they hit...

[/ QUOTE ]

If this turns out to be a home game, I will [censored] my pants.

[mojobluesman]

The answer is certainly not 0 because I know how to count outs and saw the opponents hand when we showed down.

I will keep all hand histories in the future, but the site in question today does not offer them.

I was not surprised by the response I got. That's why I went out of my way to suggest to others to at least listen to what I have to say with an open mind. A polite request for HHs was certainly reasonable. Unfortunately I don't have them and I realize that doesn't smell very good either. However, the types of responses I did get were not very mature or professional. To me, if you were to trust what I am saying at all (or don't dismiss it out of hand) it's fairly apparent that the assumption should be one of concern about the games and not an automatic dismissal as a statistical oddity.

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
The answer is certainly not 0 because I know how to count outs and saw the opponents hand when we showed down.

I will keep all hand histories in the future, but the site in question today does not offer them.

I was not surprised by the response I got. That's why I went out of my way to suggest to others to at least listen to what I have to say with an open mind. A polite request for HHs was certainly reasonable. Unfortunately I don't have them and I realize that doesn't smell very good either. However, the types of responses I did get were not very mature or professional. To me, if you were to trust what I am saying at all (or don't dismiss it out of hand) it's fairly apparent that the assumption should be one of concern about the games and not an automatic dismissal as a statistical oddity.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you expect trust, you must give it.

You have said:
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't been keeping all my hand histories because I've been impoving at such a rapid rate

[/ QUOTE ]

(emphasis mine)

You are in a learning stage, as is everyone. You know this and have said as much. And yet you refuse to believe that you overestimated your chances to win the pot? For example, just becasue you lost to an opponent who sucked out one of 4 outs does not mean you were a 43:4 favorite on the flop.

"A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."

[droolie]

I have gone through all your posts and have come to the conclusion you are in need of a break...I am doing this to help you not to be mean...Here is a sampling of some of your posts. They show a guy in search of answers and struggling to win. Almost every post you have made is complaining about a hand you lost and asking what you did wrong. You have officially taken the trip off the deep end with your poker is rigged post and you need help...I hope you can see it's you not poker that's the problem...

[ QUOTE ]


OK now that I admitted what a moron I am, would someone please honestly admit to me how often they make mistakes like this in an average hour (or similar mistakes). I find myself leaving money on the table at least once per hour by not betting the river for value or by making some other such mistake.

I think I have gotten so used to bad beats, I have come to expect bad things to happen and now it's hurting me when I actually get good cards (like I've been getting all day today....FINALLY!!!!!)



[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I play for the reload bonuses because it's obvious that I'm not good enough to win money just playing based on my results. I also don't enjoy it enough to lose money just to play. As a matter of fact, I don't think too many people are actually winning at $1-$2 and higher because based on some of the advice I read here, it's obvious to me that I am a better player than most and I admit I can't win.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]


I am getting buried so far!

[/ QUOTE ]

Going down the "poker is rigged road" is your last ditch effort at saving your sanity from suffering through a long breakeven stretch. You know you're a good player but somehow you aren't getting the results you deserve commesurate with your play. You brain needs convincing that there must be a reason for this happening to you. There is no reason other than, it happens. It happens to everybody regardless of whether they are a whore or not. It just happens to be your turn and unfortunatley it came early in your career when you were unable to emotionally handle the brutal reality of variance and random chance. You are just on a bad run. Forget about it. Your play seems good and your analysis is excellent. Take a break and come back with a clean state of mind. You are losing it dude. I honestly hope you can laugh at this line of thought two months from now when you get your head on str8 and start winning like you certainly should be. If you alter your whoring routine it will seem like that got you off the secret blacklist and out of your funk but it really will not be the case. It will be water finding it's level. Keep whoring, start winning. But for now take a break!

[mojobluesman]

Of course I may have overestimated my chances of winning the hand early on, but not on the river because I saw the cards.

[Peter Harris]

if you no longer believe the site to be legitimately secure, what on earth motivates you to continue playing there?

This stuff happens. A lot. Your sample is small and there have been many worse. I bet all of us with 100k hands will have seen this occur a few times, you are not looking at the big picture - these moron players are ATMs and people like us are the ones cashing in.

If you are genuinely sceptical, stop playing online. Complaining here will not elicit sympathy (people have tried before, and with just as little evidence). We play to win. Online sites allow us to do that. The millions of dollars they are making mean they don't "need" to keep poor players chipped up. Spare the conspiracy theory.

Regards,
Pete Harris

[mojobluesman]

Thanks for not insulting me and giving your best advice.

[scotty34]

Nice and well thought out/researched response. Nothing more useful can really be said. Please let this thread die now.

[btspider]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it at least clear why I would think some people are naive?

There are 2 possibilities.

1. I experienced an absolutely amazing statistical event.
2. Something is amiss at an unspecified unregulated gambling site.

Pardon me but I wasn't born yesterday, so I vote for #2 with my money.

[/ QUOTE ]

3. your determination for absolutely amazing statistical event is flawed

[Vagrant]

omg your right the sites are rigged in favored of regulars!!. I have only played 6000 hands on party poker and got a royal flush. Thats a 1 to 650,000 shot!! this is statistically impossible. Or maybe i have no understanding of what probability really means. idiot.

[Brain]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

stick it in her pooper


[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty much assumed this was the Official Thread Ender. Why are we still talking about this?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a new response to many in this forum who don't frequent OOT. They have yet to learn the ways. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[DocMartin]

Whew, good thing you got that horrible session with those 5 brutal hands out of the way. Now you should't have another one like that for 100K hands or so.

Your "pokarma" (perhaps I should copyright this term for poker karma) should be golden right now, hit the tables hard while it lasts!!

[UncleSalty]

[ QUOTE ]
So what you want me to do is believe that I am the unlucky dumbass who it just happened to happen to and not the more obvious conclusion that something is amiss?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, that about sums it up.

[turaho]

My flopped set of fives on a 952 flop was totally cracked by KK when he hit a K on the river. He was drawing to two outs! Online poker is rigged.

[no1super2001]

You know, I hate to pile on...

Being a newbie and learning the game for myself, I have found this site invaluable. The most important thing that I have learned is that this is a long haul endeavour. You said that you are not keeping hand histories because you are impoving at such a rapid rate. Perhaps a little introspection would reveal that, that being the case, a 30BB downturn is not a big deal. Regardless of the reason.

I am afraid that your understanding of statistics is woefully lacking. There are 169 unique starting hands in my PT database, with 7,000 hands since I made the belated committment to my game with that purchase. At 6,500 hands, there were only 168 unique hands.

The point is that the odds do not normalize until hundreds of thousands of combinations are generated. Even 72o will win some hands, our hope is that the fish at the tables try to prove to us that they will, often.

One other point, I remember when you started posting. A Thursday or Friday and you posted several hands. Unless I am mistaken, you participate in few threads that you do not originate. Some of the situations you have posted are common and discussed at length in other threads. May I suggest that you try posting blind AKA "grunching" and then read the other posts to compare your views.

FWIW