Why do those who say a site is unfair have to provide proof?

[holdemguy]

I mean I am a realist. I know in most cases the accuser has the burden of supplying the proof of their statement. But, the fact remains that it is near impossible to concretly prove a site does not shuffle and distribute the cards fairly. What are you supposed to to ask a site to provide them proof to help you uncover that their site is unfair?

I mean isn't it enough proof that you have 4-5 regular different online poker players making the claim that something is awfully odd at pokerstars every single week? Granted hands like AA KK or qq are not always winners but you do expect to win with them "MOST" of the time. I just am failing to understand why no validility is given to these 4-5 posters who complain regularly about pokerstars shuffling to be unfair. Humans created the software and humans are certainly not flawless. Why are you people always so quick to side with the site? Are you scared to face an actually reality that you may indeed have been cheated for sometime? While these so called random number porgrams supposedly randomly distribute the cards, An A almost always shows up on the flop. Their should only be four aces in the deck so this means that it should happen 1 in every 4 hands. Well we all know it happens quite more frequently than this. My suggestion to you all who always put down those who have valid complaints against a site, would be to stop thinking so one sidedly. Just because someone posts that what they have witnessed over and over again seems odd and not fair does not mean that they are simply a bad player who suffered a couple of bad beats.

You all really need to take a look at your comments because the one posting a sites flaws has just as much validility as your counter argument. As you have abosultely "ZERO" proof that it is indeed fair.

Good day.

[holdemguy]

Furthermore,

How about those who constantly put down a players statements of a site's shuffle to be unfair- PROVIDE PROOF THAT THE SHUFFLE IS FAIR?? Lets see your evidence proving the site deals fairly, besides your one sided comments about your favorite site.

[rusty JEDI]

Their should only be four aces in the deck so this means that it should happen 1 in every 4 hands. Well we all know it happens quite more frequently than this

Could you please show some proof that A hits more than 1 in every 4 hands. Maybe some hand histories. Please send more than 10.

[holdemguy]

Hello Rusty. Can "YOU" please provide proof that an ace does not hit at your favorite pokerstars site more than 1 in every four hands?? Stop skirting around the issue, answer my questions. Why Must the accuser always provide the proof. How about you provide some proof that stars' shuffle is fair, rather than boasting how much you love the site, and how if anyone insults it you will be there to knock them down.

Good day!

[Ryan_21]

...Why is pokerstars the MOST commonly accused site of bad beats???? I would feel a lot more comfortable calling someone a kook that accused all sites, but most people's problems and accusations lye with pokerstars? Seems like its more than a coincidence.

By the way I do play at Pokerstars and am up on the site, and I also realize that most people who post accusations are long term losers, but I do want to point out that I see more wierd stuff at pokerstars than any other site.

Ryan_21

[holdemguy]

Ryan,

It is wierd because most of the odd occurances happen in tournament play, where you would least likely expect it. Although if they have a stake in any player I could see them juicing the shuffle. Party poker's shuffle seems a bit odd as well.

Thanks for the response.

[Fishy]

Otherwise I couldn't win so many tournies!:)

But I have no proof that they are frauding the shuffle, and can't think why they would want me to win so much:) and currently have nothing against their decision.

You can try to collect all the hand histories of their big tournies and write a program to count the frequency, see if they match the true probabilities, if you have the time:)

The only site which is a little funny is Propoker, nobody talks in there and they are all great players! They read me like a book, the fluctuation was crazy in that site too, maybe it's because they are better players and so I responded with more aggression.

[Ryan_21]

I only played at Party once for about a week and I went through a bad run, but I wrote it off due to the worst players in the world that I've ever seen collectively drawing out on me time and time again. I just figured it was a bad run and not enough evidence to make accusations. (not that Im making accusations about Stars, just saying I see a lot of weird things there)

And I dont know if they happen more often in Tournys or Ring games there, b/c I only play tournys there, you can find a lot better ring games elsewhere.

Ryan_21

[Fishy]

Pokerstars is the top site for tournaments and crucial hands in No limit tournies typically are all in before the flop or on the flop, etc. People CONCENTRATE more on the turn and river. Not only it is CRUCIAL and you FOCUS on it, they also REMEMBER it as THE HAND which knocked them out.

As Schoonmaker or Feeney, it is some psychological phenomenon known as "recency effect", which cause guys to skewed their decision making and overemphasise THE LAST HAND, especially if they rehearse it!

In limit if you don't hit on turn or river, most will fold and not get to see the other guys cards. And few unbelievable badbeats to see.

For individual hands NO limit holdem have much higher variance and especially if you go all in early on.

[holdemguy]

A lot of the occurences I used in my stamentas were observances, so they would have zero psychological significance to me personally. While I understand what you are saying, understand that I am not making my statements based on just a few occurences, I am making it upon hundreds of both personal and non personal observations of unfair dealing situations on the site.

Good Day!

[Fishy]

[picabo]

How do you make a nonpersonal observation, are you like that guy on tv that talks to the dead? Except you are channeling unfair flops. Where are the flamethrowers... /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif

[holdemguy]

It's non personal because I am not involved in the hand thus having no vested interest in the outcome.

[Jimbo]

I mean I am a realist. I know in most cases the accuser has the burden of supplying the proof of their statement. Then Mr. realist why would this be any different?

What are you supposed to to ask a site to provide them proof to help you uncover that their site is unfair?
You do not need any information from them. The hand historys should provide all the data you need if you take the time to gather a large enough sample, which most of the conspiracy kooks do not do.

I mean isn't it enough proof that you have 4-5 regular different online poker players making the claim that something is awfully odd at pokerstars every single week? Here is your next false assumption. I have never seen 4 or 5 regular posters make these accusatiuons, only one new poster with 4 or 5 login names agreeing with themselves. Show me 4 or 5 respectable and regular posters and I may give your arguement more credence.

I just am failing to understand why no validility is given to these 4-5 posters who complain regularly about pokerstars shuffling to be unfair. How about the fact that there are 2 or 3 thousand players at Pokerstars who think the deals are normal. Why would we believe such a small minority versus such a large majority?

Why are you people always so quick to side with the site? Are you scared to face an actually reality that you may indeed have been cheated for sometime? Because it is more plausible than to believe these "flash in the pans" that blow in, make a few posts crying about being losers and cheated then disappear when asked for an example. Not scared, go on cheating me as long as the cashout checks keep coming.

An A almost always shows up on the flop. A good example of a blanket statement with no hand histories to support your contention, and yes I could capture enough flops to show you otherwise so show me yours and I'll show you mine. See how easy this can be? You conspiracy theorists just refuse to provide a sample of what you are complaining about so after a while it makes more sense to ignore you. (Which I intend to do after this post unless you provide hand histories showing some fraudulant deals)

Just because someone posts that what they have witnessed over and over again seems odd and not fair does not mean that they are simply a bad player who suffered a couple of bad beats. And just because someone posts that this is true does not make it true. Why do you not understand this? You act like none of us have ever witnessed a hand of online poker and we should believe any kook who posts his drivel without question.

You all really need to take a look at your comments because the one posting a sites flaws has just as much validility as your counter argument. As you have abosultely "ZERO" proof that it is indeed fair. I have no proof that the moon is real either but I believe it is because I see it every clear night. Now I have yet to see these rigged shuffles so you tell me who has more proof the ocassional kook or my own lying eyes?

[holdemguy]

Jimbo you never cease to amaze me.

You say I have no proof the moon is real. Do you have acces to a television or any news archives. What do you think the astronauts did up there while in space, took a leak?? No they took pictures that is proof. I wonder how much these sites are paying you to constantly stick up for them no matter what the circumstance. Your logic is so flawed and outdated it is sad.

[Fishy]

[jek187]

Not scared, go on cheating me as long as the cashout checks keep coming.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Maybe online poker is rigged, maybe it's not. I don't care. I still win. I highly doubt a live shuffle is completely random either.

[thwang99]

Actually, programmed properly (and I'm sure most sites are programmed properly, it's such an important component), a computerized shuffle that is properly fed randomness will be MORE random than a casino shuffle. Way more random. There's things like shuffle tracking that you can do that you can't do with a properly randomized computer shuffle, that is fed random events.

- Tony

[GrannyMae]

Actually, programmed properly (and I'm sure most sites are programmed properly, it's such an important component), a computerized shuffle that is properly fed randomness will be MORE random than a casino shuffle. Way more random. There's things like shuffle tracking that you can do that you can't do with a properly randomized computer shuffle, that is fed random events.

exactly the point tony. add to this your data that shows the occurences of these events are exactly as one would expect from a random shuffle.

i'm not sure which WSOP event it was, but i just read a write-up on an earlier event from this years tourney, and the underlying story within the story was the appearance of pocket aces over and over. the story never once mentioned the possibility that the deal was unfair. all it mentioned was how it made for a more exciting tourney.

why is this excitement at the WSOP, but a conspiracy when it happens online? as jimbo mentioned, the majority of the players don't shout about it being clean, because that is what we expect. all we hear about is a few kooks with selective memory and no data to back up their claims.

HOLDEMGUY, go reread HFAP, i guarantee this will help your "problem". fix your game, and the demons will no longer be in your life.

http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/evil/teu28.gif

[mbpoker]

>It's non personal because I am not involved in the hand thus having no vested interest in the outcome.

That is precisely why there is more talk about bad beats at PokerStars. It is because Stars is the only site that opens cards when all-in in tournaments and rolls them out in a slow motion. All the observers see inevitablle bad beats and remember them vividly.

As to the proof. I know that Stars sends all hands played to any player who requests it. A player can then analyze these hands to death. Did anybody come with any substantiation of any conspiracy theory even on a small sample. Not that I know of. What better proof do you want?

How about you request all hands played by you on Stars and then post how many Aces showed there on the flop?

[rigoletto]

I've been using the same butcher for 4 years. Now somebody (Mr. A) tells me that the butcher is a scoundrel and what he passes for beef is actually horsemeat. I'm very surprised since I've never experienced any problem and have only gotten good quality stuff at a reasonable price. I also have several friends who are very satisfied with this butcher.

I tell Mr. A that I have no reason to distrust my butcher and ask why he makes these accusations. He tells me that he bought a piece of meat last week that was not very good and he suspected it might be horsemeat.

I say that of course I'll take his word for it and never use this butcher again and instead make a 5 mile D-tour to get meat!

[Simon Diamond]

We have ZERO proof, you have ZERO proof, so does this post have ZERO point?

Jimbo hits the nail on the head when he says the only people questioning the legitimacy of sites are people who breeze in with accusations. Until some regular respected posters start questioning the sites, why would we be worried?

And at the end of the day, if you don't trust a particular site or online poker in general - don't play. No brainer really.

Simon

[maplepig]

It's quite stupid to think that a site will intentionally make a tournament unfair. If it's for ring games, there's still some point(although too little to make it a reality), the site may be doing it to increase actions so that they can collect more rakes. In tournaments, the site collects the same amount of money regardless of the outcome of the cards. Why would they spend the time to intentionally make the cards strange?
Of course, they can be morons that enjoy doing useless work.

[XlgJoe]

It's kind of ironic how the moon was brought into the conversation. There are many people who think the moon landing was all faked and shot somewhere out in the desert.

And by the way there is a lunar eclipse tonight(thur 11:15)

[Punker]

Have you considered emailing support with your concerns?

[WiredPair]

Couple things I haven't seen mentioned (or maybe I missed them, or maybe I'm just off-base).

You asked, "Why do those who say a site is unfair have to provide proof?" If you were accused of something, wouldn't you like to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

Maybe not much faith is put into outside accountants these days (can use say AA?), but don't most sites have their random shuffling programs examined by outside accountants? (I could be way off base here, but I thought I recall "certifications" on several sites regarding this type of review by outside firms.)

Finally, you mention that hands like AA, KK, etc should win "most of the time". I'm sure you know this and I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but in a full-tabled game, the "best" hand, AA wins about what, 1/3 of the time? The point being big pocket pairs get cracked all the time, especially in low limit games.

Anyway, just my thoughts. As Rome would say, "out".

[smd]

Totally agree. If someone wanted to sit down and record thousands and thousands of flops from B&M, and crunched the numbers, it wouldn't surprise at all if you saw some non-randomness in LIVE shuffles.

When the dealer breaks out a new deck, I have a hard time believing that the few shuffles he/she does randomizes it very well.

[HavanaBanana]

[Terry]

How many times did an Ace flop in your last 1,000 hands? Last 2,000?

Don't tell us how many you "think" it was or how many it "felt" like it was... count them. It ain't that hard.

[thwang99]

Simon Diamond wrote:

"Until some regular respected posters start questioning the sites, why would we be worried?"

Regular, respected posters HAVE questioned sites. For example, one site was questioned as possibly having bots. Readers here listened to those concerns, because they were brought up by respected posters, brought up in a legitimate light, and with backing and evidence. The claims were laid out clearly and it wasn't "it must be rigged!". So, it DOES happen. Respected, repeat posters ARE on the lookout for cheating and rigging, I believe. It's just that most posters who post about rigging don't seem to provide much stuff to make it seem more than someone who's experienced a horrible run of bad luck.

- Tony

[elwoodblues]

Good Post Jimbo...and this answers the question of why the burden isn't shifted.

To all the conspiracy theorists out there, if you can (in an intellectually honest way) answer just one question for me: What proof would you accept from the company that you suspect of cheating that they are not cheating?

It doesn't take too long to see why there is no evidence that will satisfy you. Any evidence they provide will be looked upon with suspicion (after all, they are lying).

Tin Foil Hat Wearing Friend: "Prove you don't rig the flops"
Cheating Company: "Here are 10000000 random hands that suggest random flops"
Tin Foil Hat Wearing Friend: "How do I know that you chose those hands are random?"
Cheating Company: "You have to trust me."
Tin Foil Hat Wearing Friend: "I don't trust you, you're a cheating company...prove that you aren't cheating."

Maybe if you can prove that you aren't really a super-intelligent elephant that has learned how to operate a computer and play poker I'll accept that we should require a burden shifting...
Tin Foil Hat Wearing Friend: I'm not a super-intelligent elephant...look, here's a picture of me, my wife, and kids
Me: "That's precisely the kind of answer I would expect from an elephant of your intelligence."

elwood

[Franchise (TTT)]

Anyone else ever seem to notice this trend?

1. New guy flies in crying with accusations

2. Quick responses from some regulars tell him he's a moron

3. New guy continues banging his head against the wall

4. More responses from regulars, thread starts to get long

5. New guy is never seen or heard from again

In my opinion, we can only conclude that ... HE DISAPPEARS OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH CAUSE "THEY" FIND OUT HE KNOWS TOO MUCH! /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif

[Simon Diamond]

Yes Tony you are right, I was thinking that as I logged on just now. I certainly do take notice of thoughtful regular posters, who do back up their claims with substantial evidence.

Anyway, I'll be back in time for the next Zoo tourney hopefully, until then keep up the good work here guys - I have far more important things to sort out than worry about some card shuffle.

Simon

[Ted Geisel]

If you say "X" is true, you should bear the burden of persuasion, if not proof. If you think just saying "X", is persuasive and shifts that burden to anyone who thinks otherwise, you are mistaken.

Assume arguendo, that an anonymous poster said "holdemguy/TedGeisel/whomever cheats AND is a professional pedophile". Is it properly up to you or your friends to prove you do not cheat and are not a pedophile ?"

By the way, 48/52 X 47/51 X 46/50 = 78.26% chance of no Ace in a three card group. This is slightly better than 1 in 5 and slightly less than 1 in 4. However, you also need to consider the effect of the first 4 to 20 cards dealt as hole cards, which will affect the likelihood of whether a flop is dealt. (This actually helps your argument I think, as it seems hole cards heavily weighted with aces are more likely to see a flop, skewing the flops seen toward fewer aces appearing.)

[lorinda]

I am going to Pokerstars right now and will record the frequency of aces on the flop on the highest limit table with more than five players, and the first 1/2 game that I see for the next 30 minutes.

Lori

[lorinda]

6521...

6572 9Q8
6637 5Q8
6765 A35
6830 4T2
7003 2J9
7061 (Game now shorthanded) A92
6997 59K
7197 AK8
7249 A45
7373 4J7
7445 434
7565 234
7623 TK4
7738 8Q5
7741 A3A
7875 J37
7874 J8J
8028 T85
8075 268
8169 7T2
8357 Q4J
8460 QQT
8504 Q76
8466 2AK
8656 68Q
8701 6A3
8876 4T6
8989 QQJ (It is already obvious to me that there are too many Queens)
9228 TT7 (Far too many pairs too)
9152 J48
9349 T25
9463 83J
9581 425
9565 TA7
9902 7JJ
9809 9K2
9978 84A
20124 T76
0213 8A8
0233 JKQ
0312 A7J
0439 23J
0396 AKA
0559 7K9
0749 J5A
0712 44K
0815 95Q
0808 7T3
0986 T4J
1081 Q38
1198 992
1212 J89
1341 34A (hey flop was same as last three digits in hh no.
1371 A9K
1441 T26
1483 5AK
1809 4QK
1622 K3A...... oh poo, I just realised Ive been using the "previous hand" instead of the "current hand number" which will make validating these flops a lot harder.

I will repeat experiment at a later date, it's nearly bed time, and I have to admit I screwed this evidence up.

Lori

[holdemguy]

At the higher limit tables the hands dont go to the river as often as in the lower limits thuhs flawing your observation. Furthermore just wtached 25 hands at 30/60 limits and of those thirty an ace came on the flop 14 times.

I guess well see just another biased view by a biased player.

Good Day!

[beernutz]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Furthermore just wtached 25 hands at 30/60 limits and of those thirty an ace came on the flop 14 times.


[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you ought to check your observation stats again Einstein.

[Jimbo]

"Furthermore just wtached 25 hands at 30/60 limits and of those thirty an ace came on the flop 14 times."

Good beginning Holdemguy, please get back to us when you have 99,975 more consecutive sample flops and we will get right to work on the statistical analysis.

[lorinda]

Previously, in this thread..

Newbie pokerstars whiner with new id wrote:

An A almost always shows up on the flop. Their should only be four aces in the deck so this means that it should happen 1 in every 4 hands.


A bit more recently, the same proofless poster put:

At the higher limit tables the hands dont go to the river as often as in the lower limits thuhs flawing your observation.

Are you telling me that the river affects the flop?

Lori

[mbpoker]

Let's make it easy. How about just 100 consecutive hands. But pleeeaaase, post the hand numbers, not just "I saw ace coming every hand".

[Tom D]

You asked: "Why are you people always so quick to side with the site?"

There is only one answer: it’s their job. Awhile back, it was proved beyond any doubt that Jimbo had been posting under at least three different names. Two were winning, swashbuckling 15-30 players and the third was a newbee kid just starting out in the lower limits, reading his poker books like a good boy should, building his bankroll, and moving up the limits. All three had one thing in common, though: as soon as someone questioned the integrity of online poker, they were on him in a second, deriding, ridiculing, and insulting him to drive him off the board. In fact, Jimbo even bragged about all the people he had run off in the past, apparently forgetting he was in character for the newbee at the time and wasn’t supposed to have been around when the driving off happened.

Now, the question is what would cause a man to adopt three (at least) separate identities to participate on this little ole forum? Why would someone form his own cyber-gang, pretending to be three successful online players, to relentlessly prowl this forum looking for people to attack? There are two possibilities: he's obsessed in a freaky way and has severe socialization issues, or he is an agent for a poker site.

I hope this answers your question.

Tom D

[GrannyMae]

There are two possibilities: he's obsessed in a freaky way and has severe socialization issues, or he is an agent for a poker site.

maybe it is because he is schizo and really IS all those people at those given times.

ever think of that, kook?

http://e4u.consoleradar.com/fingers/fing28.gif

[thwang99]

My gawd, that was the lamest reasoning I've ever seen.

[thwang99]

Hmmm, didn't mean to come across that way. What I should have said was, I don't think the conclusion that Jimbo is paid by sites to heckle posters who post of a rigged deal is valid based on the evidence posted above. The conclusion that that is his job is a legitimate conclusion, but in my opinion it's not the right one based on the evidence. Basically I don't think the evidence can support that conclusion in any way. I'm not saying he isn't paid by poker sites, that is still possible, of course. In my opinion that's not his job, and I'd bet $100 on that.

[thwang99]

"Their should only be four aces in the deck so this means that it should happen 1 in every 4 hands."

Four aces in the deck doesn't mean 1 in 4 flops will contain an ace. It's actually 21.7%, closer to 1 in 5 flops.

[rusty JEDI]

Hey Jimbo...Did you get your anti-kook check this month? I havent got mine yet...or have they already switched our pay over to the new system. You know the one where they just rig the deal for us instead of the monthly check.

Im glad they can put aces on 75% of the flops to juice the rake, or else they might not be able to afford to pay us for scaring kooks and defending poker sites.

[Tom D]

Hey Granny,

Let met get this straight. Jimbo thinks he's three people, but I'm the kook?

Tom D

[Tom D]

Tony,

What is a job, again? I thought I knew, but after reading your post, the concept seems to have slipped away from me. I’d have to know, before we could bet.

Tom D

[Jimbo]

Tom D, you are such a kook! You have not proved diddly squat. What about you and your alter ego pokerguy? Tom as far as a bet just figure up your total net worth and I'll bet you that amount I am not paid to post. Gee I might make almost thirty bucks from Tommy Boy!!!


PS: I have posted as Net Kook Numero Uno but that was always public knowledge.

[eMarkM]

Here's my proof. Good enough for me. All my card statistics from Paradise. A couple of anomolies, like I'm not getting as many Cowboys as would be expected, but certainly no evidence of juiced decks. Pretty much all showing what was expected is in line with what I got.

Total hands you were dealt cards: 73260

All suited starters dealt: 17124 (23.37%)
All suited starters expected: 17238 (23.5%)

All connected starters dealt: 11570 (15.79%)
All connected starters expected: 11492 (15.7%)

Suited connector starters dealt: 2867 (3.91%)
Suited connector starters expected: 2873 (3.92%)

Paired starters dealt: 4401 (6.007%)
Paired starters expected: 4309 (5.88%)

AKo dealt: 697 (0.951%)
AKo expected: 663 (0.905%)

AKs dealt: 227 (0.310%)
AKs expected: 221 (0.302%)

Any AK dealt: 924 (1.261%)
Any AK expected: 884 (1.21%)

A's dealt: 313 (0.427%)
K's dealt: 297 (0.405%)
Q's dealt: 351 (0.479%)
J's dealt: 347 (0.474%)
T's dealt: 362 (0.494%)
9's dealt: 351 (0.479%)
8's dealt: 317 (0.433%)
7's dealt: 340 (0.464%)
6's dealt: 335 (0.457%)
5's dealt: 359 (0.490%)
4's dealt: 325 (0.444%)
3's dealt: 349 (0.476%)
2's dealt: 355 (0.485%)
Each pair expected: 331 (0.452%)

Total hands you were dealt cards: 73260
Times a flop dealt when you were dealt cards: 63527 (86.71%)

When user dealt AK, flops at least one A or K: 276 (31.83%)
expected: 281 (32.4%)

USER HAS ANY TWO SUITED CARDS (dealt 15141 times):
Using both user's hole cards, flopped a:
3 flush: 6239 (41.21%) expected: 6297 (41.6%)
4 flush: 1651 (10.90%) expected: 1657 (10.9%)
5 flush: 143 (0.94%) expected: 127 (0.842%)
Three cards on the flop make up a:
3 straight: 476 (3.14%) expected: 482 (3.18%)
2 flush: 8342 (55.10%) expected: 8345 (55.1%)
3 flush: 838 (5.53%) expected: 790 (05.22%)
any pair: 2557 (16.89%) expected: 2563 (16.9%)
Hand user flops:
High card: 7928 (52.4%) expected: 7968 (52.6%)
Pair: 6125 (40.5%) expected: 6118 (40.4%)
Two pair: 644 (4.25%) expected: 612 (4.04%)
3 of a kind: 233 (1.54%) expected: 238 (1.57%)
Straight: 52 (0.34%) expected: 62 (0.412%)
Flush: 141 (0.93%) expected: 126 (0.835%)
Full house: 16 (0.106%) expected: 14 (0.0918%)
Four of a kind: 0 (0.000%) expected: 2 (0.0102%)
Straight flush: 2 (0.013%) expected: 1 (0.00589%)
Royal flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.000654%)

USER HAS ANY PAIR (dealt 4068 times):
Using both user's hole cards, flopped a:
Underpair (to flop): 962 (23.65%) expected: 955 (23.5%)
Overpair (to flop): 949 (23.33%) expected: 955 (23.5%)
Set: 451 (11.09%) expected: 468 (11.51%)
Quads: 6 (0.147%) expected: 10 (0.245%)
Three cards on the flop make up a:
3 straight: 128 (3.15%) expected: 129 (3.18%)
2 flush: 2245 (55.19%) expected: 2239 (55.0%)
3 flush: 196 (4.82%) expected: 210 (5.16%)
any pair: 669 (16.45%) expected: 697 (17.1%)
Hand user flops:
High card: 0 (0.0%) expected: 0 (0.00%)
Pair: 2967 (72.9%) expected: 2922 (71.8%)
Two pair: 638 (15.68%) expected: 658 (16.2%)
3 of a kind: 426 (10.47%) expected: 438 (10.8%)
Straight: 0 (0.00%) expected: 0 (0.00%)
Flush: 0 (0.00%) expected: 0 (0.00%)
Full house: 31 (0.762%) expected: 40 (0.980%)
Four of a kind: 6 (0.147%) expected: 10 (0.245%)
Straight flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.00%)
Royal flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.00%)

USER HAS OFFSUIT CONNECTORS FROM 54o to JTo (dealt 3994 times):
Using both user's hole cards, flopped a:
Open ended: 307 (7.69%) expected: 342 (8.55%)
Double belly: 28 (0.70%) expected: 21 (0.531%)
Straight: 56 (1.40%) expected: 50 (1.26%)
Three cards on the flop make up a:
3 straight: 116 (2.90%) expected: 126 (3.15%)
2 flush: 2240 (56.08%) expected: 2198 (55.0%)
3 flush: 193 (4.83%) expected: 206 (5.16%)
any pair: 675 (16.90%) expected: 676 (16.9%)
Hand user flops:
High card: 2105 (52.7%) expected: 2103 (52.6%)
Pair: 1602 (40.1%) expected: 1614 (40.4%)
Two pair: 164 (4.11%) expected: 161 (4.04%)
3 of a kind: 59 (1.48%) expected: 63 (1.57%)
Straight: 59 (1.48%) expected: 49 (1.23%)
Flush: 0 (0.00%) expected: 0 (0.00%)
Full house: 5 (0.125%) expected: 4 (0.0918%)
Four of a kind: 0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.0102%)
Straight flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.00%)
Royal flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.00%)

ALL FLOPS SEEN BY THE USER:
Three cards on the flop make up a:
3 straight: 2028 (3.19%) expected: 2024 (3.19%)
2 flush: 35053 (55.18%) expected: 34977 (55.1%)
3 flush: 3316 (5.22%) expected: 3288 (5.18%)
any pair: 10675 (16.80%) expected: 10762 (16.9%)
Hand user flops:
High card: 31718 (49.9%) expected: 31838 (50.1%)
Pair: 26962 (42.4%) expected: 26845 (42.3%)
Two pair: 3049 (4.80%) expected: 3020 (4.75%)
3 of a kind: 1321 (2.08%) expected: 1342 (2.11%)
Straight: 239 (0.38%) expected: 249 (0.392%)
Flush: 141 (0.22%) expected: 125 (0.197%)
Full house: 83 (0.131%) expected: 92 (0.144%)
Four of a kind: 12 (0.019%) expected: 15 (0.0240%)
Straight flush: 2 (0.003%) expected: 1 (0.00139%)
Royal flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.000154%)


Total hands you were dealt cards: 73260

Total final boards seen when you were dealt cards: 41529

USER HAS ANY TWO SUITED CARDS (dealt 10137 times):
Four flushes flopped: 1211 (11.95%)
expected: 1109 (10.9%)
When flop four flush, got flush: 409 (33.77%)
expected: 423 (35.0%)
Hand user has at river:
High card: 1767 (17.4%) expected: 1767 (17.4%)
Pair: 4224 (41.7%) expected: 4323 (42.6%)
Two pair: 2269 (22.38%) expected: 2241 (22.1%)
3 of a kind: 439 (4.33%) expected: 439 (4.33%)
Straight: 492 (4.85%) expected: 462 (4.56%)
Flush: 710 (7.00%) expected: 660 (6.51%)
Full house: 212 (2.091%) expected: 225 (2.22%)
Four of a kind: 10 (0.099%) expected: 13 (0.126%)
Straight flush: 13 (0.128%) expected: 7 (0.0663%)
Royal flush: 1 (0.010%) expected: 1 (0.00781%)

USER HAS ANY PAIR (dealt 2840 times):
A set flopped: 350 (12.32%)
expected: 320 (11.3%)
When flop set, got boat or quads: 111 (31.71%)
expected: 117 (33.4%)
Hand user has at river:
High card: 0 (0.0%) expected: 0 (0.00%)
Pair: 1045 (36.8%) expected: 1008 (35.5%)
Two pair: 1113 (39.19%) expected: 1123 (39.5%)
3 of a kind: 351 (12.36%) expected: 333 (11.7%)
Straight: 43 (1.51%) expected: 54 (1.90%)
Flush: 55 (1.94%) expected: 55 (1.95%)
Full house: 210 (7.394%) expected: 243 (8.54%)
Four of a kind: 23 (0.810%) expected: 24 (0.842%)
Straight flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.0160%)
Royal flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.00182%)

USER HAS OFFSUIT CONNECTORS FROM 54o to JTo (dealt 2556 times):
Flopped open ended: 228 (8.92%)
expected: 219 (8.55%)
When open ended, got straight: 66 (28.95%)
expected: 70 (30.7%)
Hand user has at river:
High card: 445 (17.4%) expected: 440 (17.2%)
Pair: 1095 (42.8%) expected: 1092 (42.7%)
Two pair: 540 (21.13%) expected: 569 (22.3%)
3 of a kind: 107 (4.19%) expected: 111 (4.35%)
Straight: 253 (9.90%) expected: 233 (9.12%)
Flush: 43 (1.68%) expected: 50 (1.95%)
Full house: 70 (2.739%) expected: 57 (2.22%)
Four of a kind: 3 (0.117%) expected: 3 (0.126%)
Straight flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 1 (0.0209%)
Royal flush: 0 (0.000%) expected: 0 (0.00110%)

ALL RIVERS SEEN BY THE USER:
Hand user has at river:
High card: 7377 (17.8%) expected: 7231 (17.4%)
Pair: 18093 (43.6%) expected: 18199 (43.8%)
Two pair: 9667 (23.28%) expected: 9757 (23.5%)
3 of a kind: 2001 (4.82%) expected: 2006 (4.83%)
Straight: 1992 (4.80%) expected: 1918 (4.62%)
Flush: 1310 (3.15%) expected: 1256 (3.03%)
Full house: 997 (2.401%) expected: 1078 (2.60%)
Four of a kind: 73 (0.176%) expected: 70 (0.168%)
Straight flush: 18 (0.043%) expected: 12 (0.0279%)
Royal flush: 1 (0.002%) expected: 1 (0.00323%)

Four to a flush on board 1822 (4.387%)
expected: 1782 (4.29%)

[Ted Geisel]

Great post, although I doubt it will convert those who "know" the truth regardless of the facts or lack of evidence.

I do have a couple of serious questions. I have never used any analytic software like yours ... what program is it ?

Secondly, how does the progrma project rxpectations for the flop ? I understand expected values for dealt cards, but how does it assess/project the likelihood there will even be a flop, given certain dealt hole cards ? For example, whether a flop is likely depends upon how loosely a given set of hole cards are played by the players dealt in. A group of 10 $1-2 calling station players, two of who have Ax and two with Kx are almost guaranteed to see a flop, versus the same set of hole cards dealt to a 15-30 table of rocks and raisers.

There is nothing wrong with using simplifying assumptions, I am just curious.

Ted Geisel

[thwang99]

The program is pokerstat (http://www.pokerstat.com). It just calculates flops it sees, so yes, it's skewed slightly towards flops seen. Flops are seen most of the time, I guess the few times a flop isn't seen is when the players have really crappy hole cards. This must not have much of an effect, since the occurances of things happen close to the expected rate.
- Tony

[lorinda]

Tom D, you are such a kook! You have not proved diddly squat

I think this is unfair.

Tom D has proved diddly-squat time and time again.

Lori

[Jimbo]

"Tom D has proved diddly-squat time and time again."

I stand corrected Lorinda. You and Granny have risked an attack from Tom D by chiming in on my behalf. I thank you both as well as Tony and Jedi. Tom has it in for me personally since I expressed concern privately for his mental health. Since then he has become more and more unstable.

[GrannyMae]

You and Granny have risked an attack from Tom D by chiming in on my behalf

this was before the deep-fried kitty post.

get him tom!! i'm with you!

http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/violent/sterb085.gif

[Tom D]

Is that you, Jimbo? I want to talk to Adnirol now…if you would follow the swinging watch…your eyes are getting h-e-a-v-y…you’re falling asleep…and when I snap my fingers, you’ll wake up as Adnirol.

Good. The last I heard, you were doing very well, had pushed your initial $120 bankroll at Party up to about $2,000, playing $.50/1 and $1/2, and were seeking guidance from pros like Lorinda on precisely when you should move up to $2/4. Bravo Adnirol! You certainly demonstrated to everyone that with a little old-fashioned hard work, patience, and study, they too could become successful online. If online poker wanted a “poster child” I’m sure you’d be the favorite.

But, I’m curious. You and Jimbo both claim to have no knowledge of each other, except from this forum; you both claim that each of you is a physically distinct “personality”; and you both claim that neither of you share a “collective memory”. Now I must admit, since your very first post here was Nov. 30, 2002, I wondered how you could have had such an amazing awareness of the conspiracy wars raging before your time, when you responded to one of my posts for the first time Dec. 14, 2002:

<font color="blue"> Re: Tony and Michael [re: Tom D] 12/14/02 02:28 PM

So tom you say this and yet you are correct and psychic about other peoples intentions and motivations? Who do you think would want to pound that message home, day after day after day? It can’t be regular Joes, because even people with limited intelligence would have to know that they have no way of knowing if someone was cheated or not. For me to use language like that I would have to be absolutely, beyond a shadow of doubt, positively sure I was right; and even then, I probably wouldn’t use language like that. But these people are using that language on a mere guess? No Tony, it doesn’t jibe.

In my opinion you come across as a bitter person with a large case of paranoia. You have less proof, in fact none, than the people here who believe and advocate that the sites are predominately honest. I suspect your life is full of monsters around every corner. This is sad yet you publicly insult other people you have never met simply because they ask you to prove your allegations or just have an opinion contrary to yours. Personally if you would even attempt to substantiate you position with a fact or two I would give your opinion some value and many others may as well. As long as you sound like a sore loser only those kooky people you mentioned are apt to agree with you. What is so difficult to understand about this?

adnirol

ps: I read 50 or so of you previous posts last night and am basing my post on your past history as well as this thread.

Whoever I might be I am probably someone else.</font color>


But you cleared that up with your postscript explaining that you had read “50 or so” of my posts the night before, and thank goodness you were courteous enough to tell me, because I was really scratching my head and saying to myself “Whoa, how does this new guy know me so well!” I mean, I thought I was crazy.

But I digress. What I’m most curious for you to explain, and I’m sure you can, is the second paragraph of your post below:

<font color="blue"> I admit it, Tom is correct! 12/15/02 03:15 PM

Yes it is true! I am paid by a consortium of 99% of the online poker rooms. They offer me free rake, future knowledge of the card runouts and an unlimitd number of aliases and bank accounts. Myself and others are paid in the lofty six figure range, plus what we are able to win at the poker rooms with our inside knowledge, just to post on message boards and discredit rational, savy posters such as Tom. I admit to being part of the vast conspiracy that Tom implicates.

We have successfully had Rama branded as a crackpot and I was directed to do the same to Tom. It appears one of our succeses in silencing Doug Duke has diminished. I am told that that problem is not my concern but will be handled by others more competent and patient.

I refuse to divulge the names of other paid goons on this site due to fear for my personal safety but most of you already know their identities.

Tom I am pleading for your forgiveness. Please understand I have simply become accustomed to the lifestyle a several hundred thousand dollar a year income can provide. I have grown werary of changing names, attempting to discredit your factual representations regarding online poker rooms and attempting to portray you as a paranoid kook when you are on the contrary a very rational and enlighteded critic. I could probably keep my job and continue my lifestyle if you would do me a small personal favor. Please PM me with where you got your inside information about this conspiracy. If I turn this over to the consortium I am sure they will leave both you and I alone.

Please Tom, I am begging for your help and forgiveness!

Adnirol, another highly paid goon! (Out of the closet and clearing my conscience)

Whoever I might be I am probably someone else.</font color>

Rama was gone before you got here, but Doug Duke was gone way before you got here: since before Jan. 2002. Yet, you seem to have intimate knowledge of the Doug Duke “problem” going back a couple of years, at least. I’m sure there’s a simple explanation, like you’ve read everything everyone ever posted over the last three years, but I thought I’d ask just to clear up the Jimbo/Adnirol collective memory issue.

By the way, your little signature line at the bottom is delightfully clever.

Tom D

[Tom D]

It’s funny how people demand absolute certain proof, which doesn’t exist, from anyone who opines online poker is rigged, and feel morally justified raining down insults on him when he doesn’t produce the absolute proof that doesn’t exist. Yet, these same people go into a frenzy, jumping pews and shouting halleluiah, over numbers like yours and Tony’s.

Your numbers mean nothing. They no more prove the deal is square than counting the number of times each letter appears in a book proves the words are spelled right.

Tom D

[lorinda]

Your numbers mean nothing. They no more prove the deal is square than counting the number of times each letter appears in a book proves the words are spelled right.

Tom,

Whilst I understand and respect your distribution theory, the large majority of claims are that too many aces/not enough aces/too many 3 of diamonds/too many four flushes appear on flops/boards/in the hand.

Whilst the numbers do not disprove YOUR distribution theory, they are useful to disprove the theories of newbie kooks who have yet to advance to the higher ranks of kookdom, this, at least will cause more interesting rants to appear and make them worth reading.

Lori

[holdemguy]

You are saying if a poster is new their comments are basicly worthless? Lorinda something is seriously wrong with your trend of thinking. You ignore the fact that 4-5 New poker playing regulars come to this site saying the same thing that the deals are not fair. But just because they are new means that their comments are worthless. In my opinion you have made hundreds of worthless posts but do I always discredit your comments because of this? Certainly not. If you do happen to make a logical statement or in the KGC issue I give you full credit. But in an instance where you simply discredit all posts by a new poster, I must say your logic is certainly flawed.

Good Day!

[lorinda]

What I am saying here is that all the "juiced" deck and juiced flop theories are proved incorrect by the data submitted by people such as mongeron and thwang.

This should be used to put people's minds at rest.

Tom D's theory is much harder to disprove, but it shall soon be done.

This is not a competition holdemguy, the purpose of this forum is to help people understand how it works, if you read mongerons post again, you will see that your theory is flawed, maybe you will go away happy knowing this, or maybe you will invent some theories that make more sense and are harder to disprove.

Lori

[rigoletto]

In my opinion you have made hundreds of worthless posts

And you have only made 10, so you better get cranking boy, if you want to catch up!

[holdemguy]

First of all I am not going anywhere. Second my original post was not a theory it was a statement. A statement that you site supporters and shills are quick to discredit anyone who makes personal statements about a site being unfair. I gues sI am talking to a rock here. Your rebuttles are like a broken record. You keep saying the same thing over and over again regardless of what new evidence or comments that are suggested.

Good Day!

[lorinda]

Your rebuttles are like a broken record. You keep saying the same thing over and over again regardless of what new evidence or comments that are suggested

The only new evidence in the last day has been Mongeron's analysis of all the flops he has ever seen at the site.

That evidence is contrary to what you posted.

I am not saying you are lying, but I think you should order your last 2000 hands or so and do something similar, you might discover that you are mistaken.

Lori

[beernutz]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
You keep saying the same thing over and over again regardless of what new evidence

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you please review for those of us following this thread exactly what evidence has been presented that the sites are rigged?

[William]

In my opinion you have made hundreds of worthless posts

Please let me know when you found one that is worth to read.
The task is to huge for me.

( because if there is one poster that is REALLY useless... )

[GrannyMae]

But just because they are new means that their comments are worthless

no one is saying that new poster's comments are worthless. we are just saying that YOUR comments are worthless.

Get it right, kook.

http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/obscene/eck13.gif

[Terry]

This is the kind of post I will only make if it’s buried deep in a thread like this one. Here we go.

If a poker site wanted to rig their games and they were at all clever there would be no evidence of unnatural distributions of cards. The would not rig the deal or the shuffle. All cards would be dealt at random, then the hand that will win that pot would be given to the player of their choice. All board cards look normal, all hole cards look normal. Even if you were watching their chosen winner play you would not know what was going on. You would simply think he played bad cards and got lucky.

Now, is this going on somewhere now? I think not, because, well, simply because lots of good players win online. If a bunch of actual winning poker players are all losing on a site then something is wrong, but we don’t hear that. We only hear from an occasional newbie to online poker who gives only his impression of something being wrong instead of actual facts, and, oddly enough, many of those posts have stories about multiple accounts on the same site, which further tends to discredit the poster.

It’s like the time when the new Odyssey video poker machines were introduced in Las Vegas. It quickly became apparent that something was wrong “because” the pros weren’t winning. Sure enough, it turned out there was a flaw in the programming. The “proof” that a site is on the level is the fact that the good players win.

I’ll keep watching the card distributions where I play, hoping it’s not giving me a false sense of security, but reading the posts here is probably the best thing a player can do to stay on top of what’s happening. If several people start having problems with the same site, it’s “Adios, amigo.”