Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned

[FlFishOn]

Proposition: Party and skins deal nonrandom turn and or river cards some small % of the time to benefit underdogs thus sending chips from good (winning) players to fishies.

Rebuttal: There's no way a bunch of programmers could keep such information under wraps. The dirty secret would get out (there are others, most are spurious or logically flawed).

This is all well covered ground. This week I read that the 42% owner or Party, Anurag Dikshit, is/was seriously involved in the software end of the business. Did he write the needed buggered code? I'm thinking that the rebuttal above now falls in light of this information. One skilled, highly placed programmer could easily and secretly cobble up the needed code. Hell, I could do it (in basic /images/graemlins/frown.gif ). Now we know that such an individual exists at the highest level.

No need to flame, I'm immune.

[b0000000000m]

Your idea is proposterous. If someone were going to rig the software to help fish, why would they only rig the "turn and river" cards? Why not preflop and the flop?

[mungpo]

What overwhelming evidence do you have to support your claim?

[FlFishOn]

Too easy to spot.

[Drunk Bob]

Caution: To avoid possible heat damage,Do not cover oven floor or an entire rack with Reynolds wrap aluminum foil except according to oven manufacturer's instructions.

EFF you Reynolds.If I get sucked out again while wearing your hat ; you are gonna face a lawsuit.

[FlFishOn]

I may never have evidence. The experiment needed to detect this bias is daunting to perform.

I do have some preliminary data that is not quite right.

[BreakEvenPlayer]

It would be an incredibly complicated code to assemble.

And yes, we would be able to detect it.

[timprov]

I'm 99% sure Dikshit doesn't maintain his own code now, and 100% after the IPO. Still too many people involved.

[PokerBob]

Why would Party do anything to jeopardize their cash cow? It begs the question, "If you had a 14 inch dick, would you cut it in half?"

[JasonP530]

How would you write code to find such a thing? any easy way to do it through Pokertracker? Preflop isnt as important as the randomness of the flop, turn and river. Give an advantage to those who play low cards, suited cards, any pair etc. I dont want to start (more) rumors, but I would be interested to know the results. If I can help, drop me a PM.

[mannika]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would Party do anything to jeopardize their cash cow? It begs the question, "If you had a 14 inch dick, would you cut it in half?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Then you could screw two girls at the same time and satisfy them both rather then having to go easy on only one.

/devil's advocate
//ashamed at having posted that

[CostaRicaBill]

Who cares if it's rigged, It's giving me sh*tloads of money, are you saying that it could give me even more? I don't see your fascination with proving that online poker is any different than playing live.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
It would be an incredibly complicated code to assemble.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it wouldn't be. Really, it wouldn't be. It is just a simple branch to utilize a "picking" routine rather than the standard randomization. Really, coding isn't that hard for people that code for a living.

[ QUOTE ]
And yes, we would be able to detect it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think individuals would. It surely could be done in a manner that would require many millions of hands to be compared and analyzed together in order to show any deviation from standard expectations. Think of how many hands you would have to have to show that even the first two cards are dealt within standard expectations.

Math guys?

[SoftcoreRevolt]

A better example would be, if you had a 14 inch dick, would you inject it with AIDS because it would make it grow another half inch?

[IggyWH]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not? Then you could screw two girls at the same time and satisfy them both rather then having to go easy on only one.

/devil's advocate
//ashamed at having posted that

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh boy, so naive when they're young aren't they?

1)Who cares about satisfying the woman?
2)Who goes "easy"?

Someone's been watching too many Disney movies...

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And yes, we would be able to detect it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think individuals would. It surely could be done in a manner that would require many millions of hands to be compared and analyzed together in order to show any deviation from standard expectations. Think of how many hands you would have to have to show that even the first two cards are dealt within standard expectations.

Math guys?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's already been done. Cards are random.

[Exsubmariner]

Could you please elaborate on this preliminary data?
I'm very curious. This evening, I had a full house busted by a runner runner str8 flush. It was not the first time. It was like they knew because they kept raising, too.
It got me thinking not about things being rigged, but possibly hacked....
I will probably post more of my thoughts about this in my own thread once I get them sorted.... The 10K+ hand losing streaks do seem to happen quite a bit.
X

[BreakEvenPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
A better example would be, if you had a 14 inch dick, would you inject it with AIDS because it would make it grow another half inch?

[/ QUOTE ]

awesome.

[Yeknom58]

You're in a fight with Mike Tyson.

Every round you get to start with one free shot.

You think this free shot makes a difference? If not why bother?

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
It's already been done. Cards are random.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, here is the funny thing -- it really hasn't been done. Read closely what the auditors examined. You will notice that there has been zero examination of the system at random testing intervals. Only an examination of prepared and supplied data sets.

This is not the same, do you see why?

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's already been done. Cards are random.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, here is the funny thing -- it really hasn't been done. Read closely what the auditors examined. You will notice that there has been zero examination of the system at random testing intervals. Only an examination of prepared and supplied data sets.

This is not the same, do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about the same thing here? POSTERS from this site, in order to refute the "non-randomness" argument went out and collected data over tens of thousands of hands. I'm not talking about 3rd party auditors.

[ddollevoet]

I heard that if I have 2 spades in my hand and 2 on the board after the turn, that Party will allow me to catch my flush about 19.6% of the time...

[Sponger15SB]

Why do you make this post every few weeks?

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's already been done. Cards are random.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, here is the funny thing -- it really hasn't been done. Read closely what the auditors examined. You will notice that there has been zero examination of the system at random testing intervals. Only an examination of prepared and supplied data sets.

This is not the same, do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about the same thing here? POSTERS from this site, in order to refute the "non-randomness" argument went out and collected data over tens of thousands of hands. I'm not talking about 3rd party auditors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you provide a link for that. Only examination I have seen has been that starting hands are random. And no one doubts that, since even the most stupid would-be rigger will know that they can't get away with not having a random distribution of starting hands.

[axioma]

"I will probably post more of my thoughts about this in my own thread once I get them sorted"

please dont.

[TGoldman]

Q: What's a simple method to prevent cheats that is used in every casino poker game but not used online?

A: Burn cards.

That's how they rig it online, plain and simple.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's already been done. Cards are random.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, here is the funny thing -- it really hasn't been done. Read closely what the auditors examined. You will notice that there has been zero examination of the system at random testing intervals. Only an examination of prepared and supplied data sets.

This is not the same, do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about the same thing here? POSTERS from this site, in order to refute the "non-randomness" argument went out and collected data over tens of thousands of hands. I'm not talking about 3rd party auditors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you provide a link for that. Only examination I have seen has been that starting hands are random. And no one doubts that, since even the most stupid would-be rigger will know that they can't get away with not having a random distribution of starting hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately I can't, but you can probably use the search function to find it. It might be in the archives as well. I looked at it once, was convinced and moved on. There's just too much evidence to support the sites NOT rigging the deck.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's already been done. Cards are random.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, here is the funny thing -- it really hasn't been done. Read closely what the auditors examined. You will notice that there has been zero examination of the system at random testing intervals. Only an examination of prepared and supplied data sets.

This is not the same, do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about the same thing here? POSTERS from this site, in order to refute the "non-randomness" argument went out and collected data over tens of thousands of hands. I'm not talking about 3rd party auditors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you provide a link for that. Only examination I have seen has been that starting hands are random. And no one doubts that, since even the most stupid would-be rigger will know that they can't get away with not having a random distribution of starting hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately I can't, but you can probably use the search function to find it. It might be in the archives as well. I looked at it once, was convinced and moved on. There's just too much evidence to support the sites NOT rigging the deck.

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence? I have seen no compelling evidence that supports the view that they aren't rigging and of course no evidence of them doing it.

Which is my point. Somewhere along the way the idea that we here at 2+2 somehow proved that it is fair crept in. And that happened without anyone actually proving it (beyond showing that starting hands are random). But that doesn't prevent members here from constantly claiming it. Which in my book make you guys as irrational as the ones claiming it it rigged.

[OldLearner]

[ QUOTE ]
I do have some preliminary data that is not quite right.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've been asked to show the evidence of your "claims" many times in the past and refused each and every time.

I thought all was right with the world now, you have a poker tutor, etc... and you had given up on your conspiracy theories.

Once again, would you care to show us the preliminary data that indicates that things are not quite right?

Seriously, I think everyone here would be very interested in seeing your results, even at the preliminary phase.

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
What evidence? I have seen no compelling evidence that supports the view that they aren't rigging and of course no evidence of them doing it.

Which is my point. Somewhere along the way the idea that we here at 2+2 somehow proved that it is fair crept in. And that happened without anyone actually proving it (beyond showing that starting hands are random). But that doesn't prevent members here from constantly claiming it. Which in my book make you guys as irrational as the ones claiming it it rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if it were rigged, it seems as though it would be impossible for someone to make money at this. If you play any two and rely on the "rigging" to help you, you lose money. You win by playing quality cards, and playing them correctly after the flop.

The thing is, if 10 people are sitting at a table, and 9 of them are playing any 2 cards, while 1 is playing only good cards, chances are that one of the 9 will hit exactly the right cards he needs. But it won't be the same one every time!

Good players will always, in any setting, suffer far more bad beats than they will give to other players; the reason is that they know what cards to throw away before the flop, and when to quit afterward. They don't rely on miracle turns and rivers. The nature of the fish is to play too many hands, and to go too far with them. This results in an inordinate number of suckouts; I can't tell you how many times I've folded a hand that would have been a monster if I'd stuck with it. And this is true both live and online.

No, it's not direct evidence, but until someone shows me a statistically significant sample that demonstrates any form of rigging, I have no reason to believe it is rigged and will act accordingly.

-Mike

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, if it were rigged, it seems as though it would be impossible for someone to make money at this. If you play any two and rely on the "rigging" to help you, you lose money. You win by playing quality cards, and playing them correctly after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is simply not true. It could be rigged and still be profitable. It would be dependent on the degree of rigging. If every hand is rigged it would be hard to win, if one hand in 10000 is rigged it would hardly affect earnings at all.

I am not saying it is rigged. I don't believe it is rigged. I just think it is stupid to pretend we have proven it is not when we haven't. I would very much like to see someone doing a big statistical analysis of PT databases. It wouldn't be all that hard to prove it is not rigged since we as a collective have all the numbers to test this.

[FlFishOn]

I tested hands where there were two player, one of which was all-in in SSTs where both hands were shown. The results were biased in favor of the underdogs.

Rigorous experimentation here is problematic. Even if you could conduct a truly valid experiment, what do you do with the results (besides avoiding PP)? I do that already.

[FlFishOn]

My old research means nothing. I can sway no one with it except myself.

Want to duplicate my experiment? I'll supply details, PM me.

Any new research will be equally valueless.

[FlFishOn]

"It would be an incredibly complicated code to assemble."

No. I see something that does what I imagine written in a few dozen, maybe a hundred lines.

"And yes, we would be able to detect it. "

I can design this experiment but it will not be easy. No current add-on software will sniff out what a suspect.

[FlFishOn]

"What evidence? I have seen no compelling evidence that supports the view that they aren't rigging and of course no evidence of them doing it.

Which is my point. Somewhere along the way the idea that we here at 2+2 somehow proved that it is fair crept in. And that happened without anyone actually proving it (beyond showing that starting hands are random). But that doesn't prevent members here from constantly claiming it. Which in my book make you guys as irrational as the ones claiming it it rigged. "

My goal was to keep this an open question and to point out exactly how difficult reaching a conclusion one way or the other would be.

My original research didn't mesh with randomness. If it did I'd be done with it. I refuse to take Party seriously because of it. I share my conclusion for what it's worth, which ain't much.

[FlFishOn]

Play (or observe) SNGs at Party. Record every hand that has exactly two players before the flop and at least one of them is all in. You must carefully restrict your sampling to every occurance, not just when you 'remember' to do it otherwise sampling bias will creep in. Record which hand wins (ignore ties). Suits are important in the starting hands. The board cards are of no importance, just the winner.

Each matchup has a W/L probability (twodimes.com or Poker Probe are required to determine the exact %) and the easiest way to analyze the data is Credit the favorite with 1 if it wins and 0 if it loses. Add up all the fractional favorite's probabilities and compare it to the sum of the 1s. It takes a lot of data to smooth out the lumps. Statistical techniques are needed to test your hypothesis.

Good luck.

[FlFishOn]

I haven't mentioned this in many months.

We get new folks here. A few actually have some objectivity.

[razor]

There are better things to spend your time on.

If you believe you can't win at online poker for WHATEVER REASON.... STOP [censored] PLAYING ALREADY!!

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
We get new folks here. A few actually have some objectivity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, turning $50 into $8,500 in a little over a year has kinda messed up my objectivity...

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]

Which is my point. Somewhere along the way the idea that we here at 2+2 somehow proved that it is fair crept in. And that happened without anyone actually proving it (beyond showing that starting hands are random). But that doesn't prevent members here from constantly claiming it. Which in my book make you guys as irrational as the ones claiming it it rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't just starting hands. It was flops turns and rivers as well. They were all in the normal realms of "random" and that was fine enough with me. If they're rigging it to seem random to statistical analysis, when in fact it isn't, that's a lot of work for very little payoff.

And other than this, you're not going to find compelling evidence that they're NOT rigging, because you really can't prove a negative.

[OldLearner]

[ QUOTE ]
My old research means nothing. I can sway no one with it except myself.

Want to duplicate my experiment? I'll supply details, PM me.

Any new research will be equally valueless .

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence we arrive at the main point of this and all your other rigged posts.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

And other than this, you're not going to find compelling evidence that they're NOT rigging, because you really can't prove a negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's nonsense. Of course you can prove that actual outcome is so close to predicted outcome that it is very unlikely (read impossible) that it is rigged. So of course you can find compelling evidence that it is fair.

We aren't examining the existance of God here, you know.

[FlFishOn]

No, again you miss the point.

My goal is to eventually have someone undertake the reasearch. I might not give them much credence but it would be a little bit interesting.

You want some sort of free lunch. No soup for you.

[FlFishOn]

"If they're rigging it to seem random to statistical analysis, when in fact it isn't, that's a lot of work for very little payoff."

I'm not wasting three 'graphs here to prove you are way off. Suffice it to say in only a few small code modules I could bugger the turn and river card, make a lot more money for the site and keep it looking very nearly random.

[FlFishOn]

Looks like I'll make that much this month. BFD.

+$2842 on the 8th, nice.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And other than this, you're not going to find compelling evidence that they're NOT rigging, because you really can't prove a negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's nonsense. Of course you can prove that actual outcome is so close to predicted outcome that it is very unlikely (read impossible) that it is rigged. So of course you can find compelling evidence that it is fair.

We aren't examining the existance of God here, you know.

[/ QUOTE ]

And again, it's already been done. The actual outcome has already been correlated with expected outcome. I was merely pointing out that if you reject the studies that has already been done, nothing will satisfy you, short of seeing the entire codebase.

[OldLearner]

Someone is certainly missing the point.

To paraphrase:

"I have evidence that means nothing and is valueless and will only convince me of my hypotheses"

So your point is to get someone else to do the research to support your claims.

Who wants the free lunch? NO SOUP FOR YOU

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like I'll make that much this month. BFD.

+$2842 on the 8th, nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you missed the point of my post... not surprising... BFD

nice results..

now spend your time posting something constructive... or don't post at all.

[bpb]

There is such a glut of pokertracker data out there that any cheating hypothesis could be tested with an analysis over a statistically significant number of real hands (millions).

I personally feel that the burden of proof is on the people who feel there is cheating. Do the math, and present your conclusions.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

And again, it's already been done. The actual outcome has already been correlated with expected outcome. I was merely pointing out that if you reject the studies that has already been done, nothing will satisfy you, short of seeing the entire codebase.

[/ QUOTE ]

So where is this study? Give me a link. Don't ask me to prove your claims. I don't reject any study but surely you can't expect me to accept something I have seen no proof of?

[augie00]

Can't the moderator simply lock these kinds of posts the second they are posted?

[Yads]

http://www.playwinningpoker.com/rgp/02/

[FlFishOn]

What you find, if you find it, will be simple stuff. Starting hands, flops analysed but not the real meat I'm looking for. Certainly nothing that includes hypothesis testing will be found.

I believe I saw an analysis of the type I describe done on either Stars or UB about 18 months ago. It showed no bias.

[FlFishOn]

"There is such a glut of pokertracker data out there that any cheating hypothesis could be tested with an analysis over a statistically significant number of real hands "

I doubt it. PT ring game data is useless. Maybe PT SST data might be useful but I don't use PT. Sill doubtful.

[FlFishOn]

Such an enlightened attitude is a real comfort.

[Wilbix]

I've never seen a sextuple post before.

Seriously though, just give it up.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]

So where is this study? Give me a link. Don't ask me to prove your claims. I don't reject any study but surely you can't expect me to accept something I have seen no proof of?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, it's probably deep in the archives somewhere. Surely someone can find this and link it for us. You're right, I can't ask you to accept something that you haven't seen before, but many of us have been over this time and time again. Maybe we should make that post a sticky.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
What you find, if you find it, will be simple stuff. Starting hands, flops analysed but not the real meat I'm looking for. Certainly nothing that includes hypothesis testing will be found.

I believe I saw an analysis of the type I describe done on either Stars or UB about 18 months ago. It showed no bias.

[/ QUOTE ]

The hypothesis you're postulating is that online poker is rigged, not that it's fair. No testing has been done on this to prove this (and if it has been, we haven't seen it).

[Phishy McFish]

(N/M)

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
"If they're rigging it to seem random to statistical analysis, when in fact it isn't, that's a lot of work for very little payoff."

I'm not wasting three 'graphs here to prove you are way off. Suffice it to say in only a few small code modules I could bugger the turn and river card, make a lot more money for the site and keep it looking very nearly random.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you waste your time doing this when the cards do a better job of this than your programmers would? Remember, it still has to look random to statistical analysis.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]


So where is this study? Give me a link. Don't ask me to prove your claims. I don't reject any study but surely you can't expect me to accept something I have seen no proof of?

[/ QUOTE ]

A prior discussion that shows the study I mentioned. (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=629910&page=&view=&sb=5&o =&fpart=all&vc=1) Again, while it's not "proof", this evidence is certainly beyond a reasonable doubt for me.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


So where is this study? Give me a link. Don't ask me to prove your claims. I don't reject any study but surely you can't expect me to accept something I have seen no proof of?

[/ QUOTE ]

A prior discussion that shows the study I mentioned. (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=629910&page=&view=&sb=5&o =&fpart=all&vc=1) Again, while it's not "proof", this evidence is certainly beyond a reasonable doubt for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

How on earth is that evidence of anything? A bare minimum of rigging would include card distribution in a large sample appearing random. Naturally that would also be a feature in a fair game.

If that is the study you have been referring to we are back to sqare one. No one has properly tested for if the games are fair.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]

How on earth is that evidence of anything? A bare minimum of rigging would include card distribution in a large sample appearing random. Naturally that would also be a feature in a fair game.

If that is the study you have been referring to we are back to sqare one. No one has properly tested for if the games are fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I know you're playing devil's advocate here, but the fact of the matter is that there has been studies done showing proper randomization of cards. Why on earth would sites go on to rig cards, yet keep them in the realm of proper randomization if the cards naturally do that already?

How else are the games fair if the cards aren't properly random? It's time for the "online poker is rigged" side to present ANY evidence, not just anecdotes, that poker is rigged.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
PT ring game data is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't use PT

[/ QUOTE ]

I see.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How on earth is that evidence of anything? A bare minimum of rigging would include card distribution in a large sample appearing random. Naturally that would also be a feature in a fair game.

If that is the study you have been referring to we are back to sqare one. No one has properly tested for if the games are fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I know you're playing devil's advocate here, but the fact of the matter is that there has been studies done showing proper randomization of cards. Why on earth would sites go on to rig cards, yet keep them in the realm of proper randomization if the cards naturally do that already?

How else are the games fair if the cards aren't properly random? It's time for the "online poker is rigged" side to present ANY evidence, not just anecdotes, that poker is rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

That 'study' didn't show that the cards were random. It showed that different cards appearing with about the same frequency. There is a big difference between the two.

I would love evidence showing that the games are fair. Or that the games aren't. I suspect a proper analysis would show the games to be fair. But that doesn't mean I think a proper analysis is redundant.

[FlFishOn]

An e-mail to a poker writer I know:
-------------------------------------
An update on my ongoing research into
PokerSuspect hand distribution. (This was written for
someone with little statistical knowledge with some
additions stuff for you)

I have gathered a lot of data, most in the form of all in pre-flop
match ups (one or both players are all-in, both hands are
exposed and all 5 board cards are dealt out).
These are most frequent in Sng tourneys and also
easy to analyze. Of this group I've limited my continued analysis
to the subset that is the highest odds type of mismatch, those that
involve domination. (I have a lot of data that is untouched so far).

The hands in this set comprise domination in 8 groups. The largest
group is of the form AK vs AQ or K9 vs K2. There are seven others
briefly by example: AA vs KK, KK vs AQ, AK vs KQ, AA vs KQ,
AQ vs KQ, AA vs AK and KK vs AK.. All hands that
ended in a tie were ignored. There were several.

As a group they should run 75.2% to 24.8% or
roughly 3-1. This expectation was derived from PokerProbe simulation
and some random samlpling. I have 419 hands in my database and the favorites have
won only 69.7% ( F= 292, D=127). While this may strike the layman as inconsequential,
when subjected to statistical tests these are troubling numbers indeed.
The standard deviation, assuming these came from a true, unbiased
source is 2.6 . This result could be expected to occur once in
every 100 times one sampled 419 hands in a similar manner.

A further test, known as a confidence interval (this required a trip
to the library and a slightly painful reaquaintence with statistical
methodology) yields the following: There is at least a 95% chance
these data did not come from a source where the favorites are
hitting at 75.2%, the expected percentage. There is yet another
area of analysis known as hypothesis testing and I may dig into it.
I expect a similar indictment with that technique.

(The expected percentage of winning favorites needs to be more
rigorously explored. I suspect my 75.2% number is at best +/- 0.5%.)


I have a lot of other data involving closer matchups and have not yet
compiled it. I may or may not. The early work and results were similar
to the dominated hands but it's time consuming.

I took a sample of hands where two and only two players are all in
on the flop and another where they are all in on the turn. The turn data
is much easier to analyze and while I don't get a lot of data points for
rigorous statistical tests, I can safely state that the turn all in data
is clearly baised in favor of the drawing hand. The flop all in data is
baised as well but less strongly.

--------------------------

This was early work. I did more with similar results. Someone needs to see if my results are reproducable, the true test for and experiment.

[Catt]

I am tempted to comment on the 419 hands but that is too easy. This however is a gem:

[ QUOTE ]
I have 419 hands in my database and the favorites have won only 69.7% ( F= 292, D=127).

[. . . ]

A further test, known as a confidence interval (this required a trip to the library and a slightly painful reaquaintence with statistical methodology) yields the following: There is at least a 95% chance these data did not come from a source where the favorites are hitting at 75.2%, the expected percentage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am just a layman but I would suspect that there is a 100% chance that these data did not come from a source where the favorites are hitting at 75.2%. In fact, I would speculate that the data comes from a source where the favorties are winning ~69.7%. But again, I am just a layman.

[FlFishOn]

"I am tempted to comment on the 419 hands but that is too easy."

This comment more or less proves you unqualified to comment.

Wrap your tiny mind around this experiment. You sit in a game at a new site for the first time. You get dealt KK and lose to your left hand opponent who holds AA. Next hand, same damn thing. Next hand same! How many you gonna play? I'm thinking 3, maybe 4. You drew some sweeping conclusion from 3 hands!

Don't tell me someone that understands statistic can't draw conclusions (not fact but well informed inferences) from small samples). Major (Zogby et al) polls draw nationwide inference sampling 1000 people out of 300,000,000! How do they do it? Perhaps you might look into it.

[MrDannimal]

And they have a margin of error of 2-4%, too. Your sample size is even smaller (in a domain where the standard deviation is higher), so you'd expect to have a larger margin of error. Suddenly, your numbers end up with in that margin. Oh noes!

Just because you drew a sweeping conclusion from 3 hands doesn't make it right, or even well informed (hell, even somewhat informed). In fact, people have been shown to find bias where there isn't one.

Show me 4,190 hands, or 41,900. Then maybe you have something.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]
And they have a margin of error of 2-4%, too. Your sample size is even smaller (in a domain where the standard deviation is higher), so you'd expect to have a larger margin of error. Suddenly, your numbers end up with in that margin. Oh noes!

Just because you drew a sweeping conclusion from 3 hands doesn't make it right, or even well informed (hell, even somewhat informed). In fact, people have been shown to find bias where there isn't one.

Show me 4,190 hands, or 41,900. Then maybe you have something.

[/ QUOTE ]

He isn't saying this is evidence of rigging though. He is just saying this is worth looking into with larger samples. Which seems perfectly reasonable.

[FlFishOn]

What's that odd sound? I know, it's some one obviously uninformed and talking out their ass.

[FlFishOn]

"Which seems perfectly reasonable. "

Let's have none of the 'reasonable' sh+t here. Flames, ill informed rants OK, but forget reasonable. This is mostly a bunch of poorly schooled 20sumthns and I'm not looking to wise them up.

[kdog]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't mentioned this in many months

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and I must say, you hooked more than you usually do with the troll this time.

[ QUOTE ]
We get new folks here. A few actually have some objectivity

[/ QUOTE ]

Objectively, over the years here, all posted statistical analysis, as well as the more logical arguments, support the not rigged side. But you already know this. So, this time I'll issue the challange you never accept...Lay out your data so that we may prove or disprove your assertion. Otherwise STFU.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
This comment more or less proves you unqualified to comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the one who had to make a trip to the public library to undertake a "painful reacquiantance with statistical methodology" in order to draft an astonishingly ridiculous message to "a poker writer." I am not the one who starts the message with "I have gathered a lot of data" and then goes on to cite his 419 SNG hands. I'm not the one who stated essentially "My data show a winning % of X; there is a 95% certainty that this data does not show a winning % of X+1." I am not the one who determined the expected outcome by a PokerProbe simulation and "some random sampling" and then acknowledges that it needs to be more "rigorously explored." I am not the one who, despite acknowledging that "I don't get a lot of data points for rigorous statistical analysis" states "the data is clearly biased." And finally, I am not the one who inserts gratuitous and ridiculous statements like "While this may strike the layman as inconsequential, when subjected to statistical tests these are troubling numbers indeed." Were you smoking a pipe when you drafted that part? Did you put on a stiff collar and dip quill to ink?

You had to go to the library to "refresh" your understanding of confidence intervals, and you adopt the posture of a statistical maven hard at work on a Cray supercomputer crunching numbers that a layman would think inconsequential -- oh, to be one of the cognoscenti.

I'm glad you found a hobby that you enjoy. Keep crunching the data! But stick to the random card space at PP -- comparing the "work" you are doing to a political poll by Zogby or others indicates that you may need a few more trips to the public library.

[FlFishOn]

I'm gonna mark you down as 'no opinion', OK?

[Aytumious]

The main problem with these type of idiotic and slanderous posts is that integrity is such an important concept for successful online gambling and people who may otherwise decide to give it a shot may read this type of drivel and decide perhaps it is not such a good idea. Provide at least something marginally interesting in the way of proof -- and no, your preliminary data is not useful -- and then we can actually have some sort of intelligent debate.

[J_B]

[ QUOTE ]
Proposition: Party and skins deal nonrandom turn and or river cards some small % of the time to benefit underdogs thus sending chips from good (winning) players to fishies.

Rebuttal: There's no way a bunch of programmers could keep such information under wraps. The dirty secret would get out (there are others, most are spurious or logically flawed).


[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, If you are a good player then move to another site. If you are a fish, keep at party please. more fish for me either way!

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And they have a margin of error of 2-4%, too. Your sample size is even smaller (in a domain where the standard deviation is higher), so you'd expect to have a larger margin of error. Suddenly, your numbers end up with in that margin. Oh noes!

Just because you drew a sweeping conclusion from 3 hands doesn't make it right, or even well informed (hell, even somewhat informed). In fact, people have been shown to find bias where there isn't one.

Show me 4,190 hands, or 41,900. Then maybe you have something.

[/ QUOTE ]

He isn't saying this is evidence of rigging though. He is just saying this is worth looking into with larger samples. Which seems perfectly reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then let's see the larger samples before he says anything. One side has already shown random data, (if not fair) with a fairly large sample size. This guy has shown us under 500 hands. Let's get some real data to debate. I'm all for it. I don't think it can be done, but if it can, let's see it.

[Orpheus]

If we look at only one TXHE hand and the board, there are (52*51 * 50*49*48*47^46) deals, or 52!/45!, divided by (2)*(5*4*3*2*1) order permutations (a hand is functionally identical, regardless if the order of the cards in it, so there are 240 unique deals that boil down to the same hand for a single player) That's approximately (8.0 × 10^67)/(1.2 × 10^56) divided by 240 = 667 billion/240 =2.778 billion distinct outcomes. That's about 25 times the number of US citizens over 18 (http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/foreign/ppl-176/tab01-1.pdf).

If we look at all 10 hands at a full table, it's 52!/27! (27 cards remaining undealt out of a deck of 52) unique deals divided by (2)*(2)*(2)*(2)*(2)*(2)*(2)*(2)*(2)*(2)*(5*4*3*2*1 ) order permutations. That's a stunning 8x10^39 unique deals divided by 122880 order permutations -- for atotal of 6.5x10^34. That's more than 1000x the total number of PROTONS in the entire adult US citizenry.

And you want to assess that mega-universe with 419 hands?

Answer this: how many coin-flips (the simplest possible test case) do you think you'd need to know if a coin was biased, just by looking at the number of heads? Unlike poker hands, there are only two possible outcomes, not some unspeakable number. How many flips would it take before you'd have a reasonable expection of 50/50 in your test

Do you think you could do it in 10 flips? Absolutely not. Suppose the coin is exactly fair. There are 1024 possible outcomes of 10 coin flips, and less than 1/4 of them have exactly 5 H and 5 tails, while 220 combinations have 6H and another 210 have 6T. Would 100 flips be enough? Well, of all the equally possible combinations of 100 flips only about 7.9% have exactly 50 H/50T. In fact, th larger your sample size, the LESS LIKELY it becomes that you'll get exactly 50/50 in the sample size (though it does grow more likely that you'll get CLOSE to 50/50 results)

My numbers may be a wee bit off, because the equations involve terms with values of over 10^100, which overload my trusty old scientific calculator, but they are close. You can look up "binomial distribution" and do the calculations yourself.

My point is this: even with something as simple as a coin flip, small deviations from the theoretical mean are EXPECTED. They are not suspicious, because, even in theory, YOU CANNOT EXPECT TO GET Exactly THE THEORETICAL MEAN. Increasing the sample size actually DECREASE your chances of getting that theoretically perfect value (which peaks at a sample size of 2, believe it or not!). Standard deviation isn't an "error", it's an essential and real property of any statistical population. To determine if a coin is biased, you must calculate the mean and SD of the ideal result, and then separately calculate the probability that your observed results came from a 50/50 coin as opposed to a 60/40 , 51/49 or 50.1/49.9 coin.

Poker hands and outcomes are far more complex (many more unique outcomes, and much higher variance) than a coin flip.

Your result does not even SUGGEST that there is rigging. It is completely consistent with a fair game at your sample size. I don't expect you to understand or accept this, but the number you got is, statistically "spot on" for a FAIR game at your tiny sample size. If you take similarly sized samples of hands from any site you trust, or from hands you deal yourself with physical cards, you will see LARGER disparities in MOST of your 419-hand samples. If you forced a statistician at gunpoint to say if this result supported a fair game or a rigged one, s/he'd have to say it was consistent with a FAIR game at this sample size. (But you'd need a gun to get them to express a professional opinion on such a tiny sample

Don't take my word for it. Deal yourself 500 hands. Record theem and calculate the results. You'll see. If you don't like the result you get, try it a few more times. You'll begin to see the light long before you get a single set that's as close to the theorectical expected value as you demand.

If that's too much work, try flipping a coin. A 100-flip run should take under 3 minutes, so you'll easily have time for several runs. Report back and let us know how often you came within 1% -or 2%- of your expected value for even this umtimately simplified example.

[strogrules]

My wife and I have often had discussions as to wether the cards on poker sites are rigged. I dont know if this has been touched on by other people, but why would poker sites who are raking in millions of dollars from rake going to risk their reputation by rigging hands. Its a lose lose situation for them.

[J_B]

I have been at B&M poker rooms where I have seen hands which were "rigged" like this!

I've seen AA vs KK vs JJ at B&M and the guy with A2s picks up the pot on the river. happens all the time.

[pokerplayer28]

[ QUOTE ]
My wife and I have often had discussions as to wether the cards on poker sites are rigged. I dont know if this has been touched on by other people, but why would poker sites who are raking in millions of dollars from rake going to risk their reputation by rigging hands. Its a lose lose situation for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it was rigged they would have done it from the start when they were not making millions of dollars, and maybe theyre only making millions now because of the rig.

I could tell you ways to rig a deal where it would be virtually impossible to prove, be fairly simple to accomplish, be very beneficial to the site, and wouldnt really hurt the pros. I obviously wont. For the people burning to ask me why i dont just prove a site is rigged, think about it youll figure it out.

As for fishon what exactly are you trying to accomplish? The sites are probably not rigged, Yes they could be, no poster has proved they are not rigged. people who think they are definatly not rigged are just as irrational as those who do. You cant convince someone who thinks a site is rigged that its not same goes for someone who thinks a site cannot be rigged for whatever dumb reason. I think that covers everything now when a post like this comes up we can just ignore them? Think of the person who would not play online because of posts like these theyd have to be pretty stupid right?

[SynSid]

[ QUOTE ]
A further test, known as a confidence interval (this required a trip
to the library and a slightly painful reaquaintence with statistical
methodology) yields the following: There is at least a 95% chance
these data did not come from a source where the favorites are
hitting at 75.2%, the expected percentage.

[/ QUOTE ]

How was your sample of 419 hands obtained? If it was 419 hands which occurred AFTER you decided to conduct the experiment then read no further. If, however, it was largely hands which had occurred BEFORE you decided to make the calculations then your conclusions are suspect due to observer bias.

Put simply, one of the main categories of individuals likely to be motivated to conduct such an investigation are are those who have had a bad run of cards - and hence whose databases are going to contain a higher proportion of "suckouts" vs them that the statistical norm.

I'd be genuinely interested in the results of some research such as that you're doing IF the source of the data were such that observer bias were removed from it. There's nothing wrong with the data coming from people who all believe poker sites are rigged (or who believe the opposite) provided the data is collected AFTER their opinions have been expressed, rather than being the data on which their beliefs are based (commonsense and Bayes Theorem both tell us this).

I've done calculations of a similar kind to yours myself - though with an entirely different objective. Specifically, I'd look at all hands on which I'd gone all-in vs a single opponent in a session (pre-river) and calculate what my total equity in all those pots was as opposed to what i ended up actually winning across all those pots. The ratio of equity:earnings would then reflect on how lucky/unlucky I was running that day rather than leading me to believe the site may be rigged. It was just an exercise I did when I was learning to play at the end of last year - and was actually an adjunct to my main focus then (was I get my money in while I had the best of it - or at least while my pot equity justified the cost of my bet).

It did occur to me then, that comparing equity on pre-river all-ins to the actual results would over the long-term be a good measure of the reliability of the randomness of a poker site.

Why restrict your research to just dominated hands? The easiest way to get a large sample would be to collect all pre-river all-ins then work out the equity for all of them along with the actual result.

[SynSid]

Oh, and if you want to get a largish volume of all-ins, I'd suggest you data mine Party "Speed" tournaments. You'll get 1 all-in per table per hand after a few rounds there.

[steamboatin]

TV poker is rigged.

Danny hit runner runner Jacks to bust Men the Master and runner runner 7's to bust out the contactor along with many miracle suckouts.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]


If it was rigged they would have done it from the start when they were not making millions of dollars, and maybe theyre only making millions now because of the rig.


[/ QUOTE ]

Do you understand the concept of "rake" and how much online poker sites actually take in? Why rig anything to gain a small percentage of what they can make legit?

[FlFishOn]

Wow, what a post. So many words, so many misconceptions.

You flip a coin 10 times and get 8 heads. Repeat. This time you get 9 heads. Repeat. This time 8. Your conclusion? You wanna bet tails next flip?

Take a real college level stat course and get back to me, OK? Really, I care. Really.

[FlFishOn]

I was just on the communicater with Scotty begging to be beamed up due to a lack of intelligent life on this rock and then I read your post. Thank you.

"I'd be genuinely interested in the results of some research such as that you're doing IF the source of the data were such that observer bias were removed from it. "

I like to think my original data was bais-free. The problem in collecting it is that in the heat of SNG play I miss some hands when I'm folded. Winning the SNG is job 1, data recording is 2.

"It did occur to me then, that comparing equity on pre-river all-ins to the actual results would over the long-term be a good measure of the reliability of the randomness of a poker site."

Just so. It's much better than my first effort and ever so much more time consuming. Any future reaserch is wasted if not using this methodology.

"Why restrict your research to just dominated hands? The easiest way to get a large sample would be to collect all pre-river all-ins then work out the equity for all of them along with the actual result. "

I was trying to avoiding the time of running every hand through twodimes.com or PokerProbe. Just my lazy nature and a reflection of the wages I was being paid for the job /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[FlFishOn]

" Let's get some real data to debate. I'm all for it. I don't think it can be done, but if it can, let's see it."

WHat's someone else's data worth to you? Nothing. You can't use it because it has no trustworthy provinance. You must do it youlself, maybe you might trust Mom to do it.

What could you do with conclusice evidence of a buggered deal at a major site? Not much. You might change your own behavior but after that there really is no profitable use for the information. Really, I've spent some time on this and every idea I come up with is either life theatening or nonproductive.

Got an idea? Please post it.

[wyoak]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, what a post. So many words, so many misconceptions.

You flip a coin 10 times and get 8 heads. Repeat. This time you get 9 heads. Repeat. This time 8. Your conclusion? You wanna bet tails next flip?

Take a real college level stat course and get back to me, OK? Really, I care. Really.

[/ QUOTE ]
holy crap you entirely missed the point of his post.

[Wyers]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, what a post. So many words, so many misconceptions.

You flip a coin 10 times and get 8 heads. Repeat. This time you get 9 heads. Repeat. This time 8. Your conclusion? You wanna bet tails next flip?

Take a real college level stat course and get back to me, OK? Really, I care. Really.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this is how you respond when met with criticism by someone clearly heads and shoulders above you in statistical knowledge.

You think you would welcome your hypothesis and intial sample to be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Any mathematician, scientist, psychiatrist. etc... expect to have their work scrutinized, tested and restested in order to demonstrate validity.

You're out of your league old man.

Out of your league.

Troll on.

BTW, how are your attempts at obtaining fraudulent documents coming along.

Do they have the internet in prison?

[FlFishOn]

"If it was rigged they would have done it from the start when they were not making millions of dollars, and maybe theyre only making millions now because of the rig."

Agree 100%

"I could tell you ways to rig a deal where it would be virtually impossible to prove, be fairly simple to accomplish, be very beneficial to the site, and wouldnt really hurt the pros. "

Agree 100%

"As for fishon what exactly are you trying to accomplish?"

It's mostly an intellectual entertainment for me. That and I never really trusted Party Poker.

"The sites are probably not rigged, Yes they could be, no poster has proved they are not rigged."

Agree.

"people who think they are definatly not rigged are just as irrational as those who do."

This is the one that I find most interesting. I guess I'm a tweaker at heart.

"I think that covers everything now when a post like this comes up we can just ignore them?"

I gave everyone the chance to skip this thread right in the header.

"Think of the person who would not play online because of posts like these theyd have to be pretty stupid right? "

I avoid Party. I play most everywhere else without worry.

[FlFishOn]

"Why rig anything to gain a small percentage of what they can make legit?"

To gain and keep market share.

[FlFishOn]

"...someone clearly heads and shoulders above you in statistical knowledge."

OK, I'm able to self-criticize. I re-read his post and I'll bet this guy really didn't get much better than a D+ in Stat if he took it at all. His post is AxBxC/N. BFD, most anyone can punch a calculator. He doesn't show he's capable of calculating the SD of an event so I stand by my original assesment. D+ on a good day.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
" Let's get some real data to debate. I'm all for it. I don't think it can be done, but if it can, let's see it."

WHat's someone else's data worth to you? Nothing. You can't use it because it has no trustworthy provinance. You must do it youlself, maybe you might trust Mom to do it.

What could you do with conclusice evidence of a buggered deal at a major site? Not much. You might change your own behavior but after that there really is no profitable use for the information. Really, I've spent some time on this and every idea I come up with is either life theatening or nonproductive.

Got an idea? Please post it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I trusted the other guy's data. I'll trust yours if you do anything. In fact, I trust your 419 hands already. It shows that it's well within variance so there's no problems there.

Right now, we're asking you to provide data and you're telling us to get our own data. Whatever.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
"Why rig anything to gain a small percentage of what they can make legit?"

To gain and keep market share.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you explain how they can gain and keep market share by rigging the site? And why would they do that when the cards themselves deal bad beats on their own just fine?

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]

I avoid Party. I play most everywhere else without worry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if you suspect Party to be rigged then this is the right thing to do. How about looking at the data from the other sites too?

[Exsubmariner]

I would be willing to provide a database containing 107831 hands of ring play and 3677 hands of tourney play plus another database containing 28884 hands of ring play to either yourself or Orpheus or anyone on this board for a serious statistical study. I honestly believe that there are at least one or two hundred other 2+2 members who have similar sized databases that they would be willing to share. I don't believe a million hands or fifty million hands for that matter would be hard to come up with. You could study the data selecting only the hands that went to showdown, calculate starting percentages, and compare expected percentage outcomes of identical starting hands with actual results and see if they fall within the calculated standard deviation. I would happily contribute whatever data is in my logs to such a study were someone willing to carry it out.
X

[MrDannimal]

Amazingly, unless there is someone in the room with you, you're the only one making any sound.

[FlFishOn]

Thanks but I have all the info I need.

[FlFishOn]

Imagine a way to move money from chronic winners to losers. Losers last longer, have more fun and winners just barely notice since your site is overpopulated with fish. Everyone almost comes out ahead.

[Exsubmariner]

You'd draw a lot more water around here if you took me and up and got a hundred more people to contribute their databases. Otherwise you're just a troll.
X

[FlFishOn]

"How about looking at the data from the other sites too? "

If I sensed any oddities I'd do so. Party is the only site in recent times to trigger my bullsh+t detector. Paradise poker was strongly suspected back 6 years ago. I was not alone in my doubt, joined by several professionals. Then they changed back to what was their previous ground state and all felt normal again. Many got hammered for a couple months. I will never trust them again.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine a way to move money from chronic winners to losers. Losers last longer, have more fun and winners just barely notice since your site is overpopulated with fish. Everyone almost comes out ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, why spend the time and money to rig the site when the cards already do that naturally?

[FlFishOn]

Your opinion of me matters not a bit. Do your own work.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
"How about looking at the data from the other sites too? "

If I sensed any oddities I'd do so. Party is the only site in recent times to trigger my bullsh+t detector. Paradise poker was strongly suspected back 6 years ago. I was not alone in my doubt, joined by several professionals. Then they changed back to what was their previous ground state and all felt normal again. Many got hammered for a couple months. I will never trust them again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. You suspect 1 site of having oddities (through anecdoctal evidence only), then do a 419 sample size analysis, the results of which falls within the realm of normal distribution.

So when you go to other sites, you only rely on your anecdoctal evidence to trust that they're running "correctly" instead of naturally being suspicious since you got cheated at another poker site.

Makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for clearing it up.

[FlFishOn]

No problem. When you've played poker for 33 years you'll have some feel for it too.

[Freudian]

[ QUOTE ]

I see. You suspect 1 site of having oddities (through anecdoctal evidence only), then do a 419 sample size analysis, the results of which falls within the realm of normal distribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even a very rigged game in the world would fall within the realm of normal distribution, but it would be even further to one extreme than this one was.

His tentative results could be indicative of it a) being a fair game with very bad luck or b) being a rigged game. If you interpret a -2.6 SD deviation as an indication of fairness your conclusions are as wacky as those that claim it is rigged because their AA got cracked three times in a row.

Sure we can raise questionmarks about his sample size, sample bias and whatever but it would be in everyones interest if more people than him did similar studies of their results.

I sincerely hope someone will write a program that crunches the PT databases searching for just these things. If it is fair our cumulative results would show it. If it is rigged, our cumulative results would show it. I have PT databases of over 2000 SnGs with a huge number of preflop all-in situations.

[mmbt0ne]

The problem with his experiment is sample size. There are so many variables present in what he's doing, and he has such a small number of trials, it's not a surprise that his results would be skewed at all.

Also, the problem with SnGs is that conspiracy experts tend to argue that they are rigged in order to finish faster (since Party only collects rake once per SnG). This begs the question, how much would stack size affect the outcome of all-in situations. Plus, since there will still be plenty of different situations (pockets vs. pockets, pockets vs. suited overcards, domination, etc.) we can really only run trials on each individual case, and go from there.

Like I said in the other thread, I'm willing to look at my ring game stats for draws, and see how often they come in, but I don't think those are the kind of results people want to see. In all honesty, the kind of results people want to see will be almost impossible to get without knowing what every player was holding when they fold on the rivers. There is no way to do this without having information in quantities that only Party is going to be able to provide.

[FlFishOn]

I make a hypothesis. I design an experiment. I get results that support my hypothesis, maybe, but are clearly 2+ SD out from expectation even with all the warts in the design.

I'm done. There are simply too many places to play poker. Why would I blow many dozen hours on any project, the results of which will not change my behavior at this point.

Party is all yours, bonii excluded.

[FlFishOn]

"I sincerely hope someone will write a program that crunches the PT databases searching for just these things."

I'm out, beyond my skill. Good luck.

[MrDannimal]

Why let that stop you now?

[razor]

[ QUOTE ]
No problem. When you've played poker for 33 years you'll have some feel for it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, you always have SOMETHING to hang your ideas on don't you? Nobody's data is any good, noboby's winning records are any good, nobody's feel is any good, nobody's experience is any good, nothing is any good... it's ALL ABOUT YOU!

33 Year experience?!?!?! You aren't really THAT stupid are you?

Nice ego trip dude! NO WAY you could be wrong because you have such an OPEN MIND! Yeah, right!


IgnoredUsers++

[Exsubmariner]

I don't think it's rigged. I've been discussing and considering the matter for enough time to know it isn't. I also have logs on 100's of thousands of hands, as do the majority of people that visit this site. I am pretty familiar with the ebb and flow of variance. 419 hands is by far too small a sample. If you had 419000 I would probably think that was small, too. I was offering an idea to provide you with a statistical sample far beyond anything you could achieve on your own. You obviously aren't interested.
I think you are afraid of being wrong. The idea probably terrifies you.
I'm curious to know how many hands you have played at the rate of 30 an hour over 33 years? Did you take detailed notes? Do you have statistics on how the cards come out in a B&M cardroom? Do they fall in the expected range? I bet you can't tell me can you? How would you deal with a 10,000 hand variance? That must take months or do the cards in B&M have less standard deviation?
I would love to play you live. Where do you play?
X

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No problem. When you've played poker for 33 years you'll have some feel for it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, you always have SOMETHING to hang your ideas on don't you? Nobody's data is any good, noboby's winning records are any good, nobody's feel is any good, nobody's experience is any good, nothing is any good... it's ALL ABOUT YOU!

33 Year experience?!?!?! You aren't really THAT stupid are you?

Nice ego trip dude! NO WAY you could be wrong because you have such an OPEN MIND! Yeah, right!


IgnoredUsers++

[/ QUOTE ]

But the cards just feel wrong, dude. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[FlFishOn]

You are clearly a philistine, statistically speaking:

"if you had 419000 I would probably think that was small, too."

"I would love to play you live. Where do you play?"

Perhaps we could just measure our dicks and decide it that way? Moron.

[OldLearner]

[ QUOTE ]
No problem. When you've played poker for 33 years you'll have some feel for it too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm starting to think you need help.

Some of your posts a few months ago indicated an apolgetic attitude to the "rigged" crap you'd been posting.

You indicated that you had a poker "tutor" or something to that effect.

You've been playing for 33 years and you need a tutor?

And your "intution" that you have built up over 33 years gives you a "feel" that that Party is rigged. Uh huh.

I've only been playing for 30 years. Maybe I need to enlist the services of a tutor and play for another 3 years to achieve your level of insight and intuition.

Man, your really out there.

[FlFishOn]

I take lessons from a well know expert at no small expense.

You must be too 'smart' to continue your education.

[Shoe]

[ QUOTE ]
One skilled, highly placed programmer could easily and secretly cobble up the needed code

[/ QUOTE ]

One skilled programmer could easily write all of party. There isn't exactly that much to their program. I could write a program to get the cash games up and running within a few months, and add on tournament, sit-n-go's, etc... after that.

Party should definitely have much better software than it has right now.

Since there is only 1 programmer who owns 42% or whatever of the company, i'm sure he could keep his lips sealed while secretly crushing the 30/60, with his "skip to the front of the waiting list" pass.

Now, of course I don't think party is rigged, and i'm sure they have more than 1 programmer, but their site could definitely be written and maintained by 1 programmer (not including network and security people, and a few DBA's).

[FlFishOn]

"Party should definitely have much better software than it has right now."

It's low grade buggy dogsh+t. They should be ashamed.

[gambelero2]

I don't like party's system that much. They allow too much time and the players stall their asses off. Also, starting an ante midway through like stars creates a more dynamic game.

Nevertheless, i've won more there per amount played than anywhere else and always gotten perfect service on cashouts and the odd occasion where i played in raked games for some stupid minimal level bonus (never more than 200).

I've also been playing for many years and everyone in our area knows me. I have a feel for something not being right also. If you've ever been cold decked in your own game (it happened in Louisiana) or seen teams of cheats in action, you develop a sixth sense for something not being right.
I'm sure Doyle and some those guys know what I'm talking about.

The point here is that I'm sure (as in having a real strong sense, no proof) that some guys had the system clocked at stars. I even thought about asking Jones to hire me as security so I could go over hand histories. I know I would have caught them.

I never once had the same feeling over at party. Not once. Nothing remotely like what was happening at Stars. That being said, I am pretty good winner for my investment at stars (i only play there casually and won't play on the internet at a high level).

More importantly, the cheating (or appearance of it) stopped whenever they updated the random number generator or their software system. I haven't seen anything suspicious in the last 4 or 5 months.