View Full Version : There IS a difference between Party and Pokerstars tournaments.
bocablkr
10-06-2005, 11:30 AM
I have always recommended Partypoker to my friends for live games and Pokerstars for tournaments. There is no question that Pokerstars has a cleaner interface and more tournament games than Party.
However, recently I started playing tournaments on Party and noticed a difference immediately. Whenever I lost on Pokerstars I usually went to bed with a 'bad taste in my mouth' (no flames please). I would be all-in with the best hand and get beat on the turn or river (riverstars anyone). I kept saying to myself 'well at least you put it in with a favorite'.
On Partypoker, if I went in with the favorite it would usually hold up. I started cashing in a lot more tournaments. Now, if I lose, it is because I am being blinded out and forced to go in with an underdog. Every now and then my favorite will lose but it is certainly much less often than on Pokerstars. Anyone else notice this?
Mason Hellmuth
10-06-2005, 11:31 AM
Where's Sample Size Man when you need him?
Post deleted by Mike Haven
bocablkr
10-06-2005, 11:40 AM
Why so hateful?
augie00
10-06-2005, 11:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
please die soon.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why so hateful?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because your post is silly. "Party is better because I'm running good there."
Hornacek
10-06-2005, 11:45 AM
YSSCKY
BigBiceps
10-06-2005, 11:46 AM
You only start out winning at Party in the beginning.
When they turn the DOOM SWITCH on your account, then you are going to see the bad beats.
bocablkr
10-06-2005, 11:48 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
please die soon.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why so hateful?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because your post is silly. "Party is better because I'm running good there."
[/ QUOTE ]
I understand variance and all the rest. I have played around 100 tournaments on Pokerstars and I have lost with the best hand about 90% of the time. The rest of the time I got blinded out. Even, tho I have only played around 10 tournaments on Party I have not lost with the best hand once. It is always a matter of being blinded out. Just an observation and I know it can change. No need to be so hostile.
I understand variance and all the rest.
[/ QUOTE ]
You do?
Zetack
10-06-2005, 12:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
please die soon.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why so hateful?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because your post is silly. "Party is better because I'm running good there."
[/ QUOTE ]
I understand variance and all the rest. I have played around 100 tournaments on Pokerstars and I have lost with the best hand about 90% of the time. The rest of the time I got blinded out. Even, tho I have only played around 10 tournaments on Party I have not lost with the best hand once. It is always a matter of being blinded out. Just an observation and I know it can change. No need to be so hostile.
[/ QUOTE ]
I assume that when you say lost you mean got knocked out with. If you're claiming that the best hand didn't hold up only once for you at any point in a tourney in 10 tourneys at party, but 90 percent of the time at Stars then you're full of shyte.
Ok so if its knocked out lets look at that. First of all "about ninety percent" means that its way lower. If you haven't kept an accurate record then you estimate is bound to be way off, simply because that's the way our internal biases work. For instance I've been tracking my wins every time I've had pocket aces for the last two years. No way would my estimate of how often I win with them jibe with reality.
Ok, the other problem is simply a sampling error. Your are excluding from your calculations the times you bascially blinded out and went in weak. So what your are looking at is the times you went all in with a healthy stack and got knocked out. Most of the time when you get all in with a healthy stack you have a good hand. So of course you're always getting knocked out with a good hand and usually the favorite, because its the only time you're all-in with a healthy stack. You're selecting your sample in a way that tends to come up with the very thing you're saying is a problem.
Of course you why you don't have many examples of this in your ten tourneys where you are mostly blinding out.
Another problem is simply the odds against you when you go all in more than once. If you get all in as a 2-1 favorite agains a stack that has you covered twice in a tournament you will be knocked out of that tournament 66 percent of the time on one of those two hands. Even though you were a big favorite with both hands individually. If you do it three or four times in a tourney the odds get correspondingly greater of you being knocked out on one of these 2-1 hands.
--Zetack
theben
10-06-2005, 12:10 PM
something must be rigged
radek2166
10-06-2005, 12:17 PM
You are going to get the doom switch if you keep cashing out!!!
dibbs
10-06-2005, 12:43 PM
This post has left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Thanks.
bocablkr
10-06-2005, 01:02 PM
Zetack,
Thank you for an honest response. I am aware of what you are saying. I have been playing online for years. I think people are getting the wrong idea - I am not claiming rigging or anything like that.
Just observing the frequency with which my favorites are holding up on one site vs. the other. Granted the sampling size is much smaller on one than the other. And even if they were the same that doesn't prove anything. I am a very tight player and usually only play big hands. I am getting the same amount of big hands on both sites it just 'seems' to hold up much more often on Party (so far).
Mendacious
10-06-2005, 01:06 PM
I get much better results with the Orange deck. /images/graemlins/cool.gif
bocablkr
10-06-2005, 01:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This post has left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Thanks.
[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif
[ QUOTE ]
Granted the sampling size is much smaller on one than the other.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not really, when you need over 5K+ samples 10 and 100 aren't too different.
If you truly realized this was just variance you would realize there was no need for this thread. You do think it's rigged, don't try to kid yourself.
bocablkr
10-06-2005, 01:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Granted the sampling size is much smaller on one than the other.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not really, when you need over 5K+ samples 10 and 100 aren't too different.
If you truly realized this was just variance you would realize there was no need for this thread. You do think it's rigged, don't try to kid yourself.
[/ QUOTE ]
Mathematically speaking you are correct about the sample size.
As far as rigging - I am just saying the shuffle algorithms are different. There is no 'evil' intent. Have you ever played in a casino where they have automated shufflers vs one where the dealer shuffles. Do you think the distribution of hands is identical over a large sample size?
Mason Hellmuth
10-06-2005, 01:52 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the distribution of hands is identical over a large sample size?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's clearly rigged.
benfranklin
10-06-2005, 01:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I understand variance and all the rest.
[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't sound like it.
[ QUOTE ]
I have played around 100 tournaments on Pokerstars and I have lost with the best hand about 90% of the time.
[/ QUOTE ]
Is this based on your impressions and recollections, or on empirical data? What is "the best hand"? If 2 players go all in on the flop, the outcome is often a virtual coin flip. Sometimes the hand that is ahead on the flop is not the statistical favorite to win.
[ QUOTE ]
Even, tho I have only played around 10 tournaments on Party I have not lost with the best hand once. It is always a matter of being blinded out.
[/ QUOTE ]
Same questions as above. Also, the 100 hand sample above is meaninglessly small, and a 10 hand sample is not even worth discussing.
bocablkr
10-06-2005, 01:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the distribution of hands is identical over a large sample size?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's clearly rigged.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is my POINT - it is not rigged but it is different. Did you ever hear of cards getting blocked. That does not happen with an automated shuffler. It has nothing do with rigging - just affects the distribution of hands.
MicroBob
10-06-2005, 01:56 PM
wait.
so you are also claiming that the cards are 'more random' or 'less random' in live games if it's hand-shuffled vs. auto-shuffler?
just want to make sure here.
BTW - whether there is 'evil intent' or not doesn't really change things.
When one refers to the cards 'not running right' that is generally considered to be in the same camp as 'party is rigged'.
your understanding of some extremely basic concepts is very flawed.
Oh yeah - I have noticed a difference between Stars and Party tournaments though:
NL tourneys on Stars have antes.
NL tourneys on Party do not have antes.
This is a significant difference.
Also - the players in the Party tournaments generally are not as strong imo
benfranklin
10-06-2005, 01:59 PM
[ QUOTE ]
That is my POINT - it is not rigged but it is different. Did you ever hear of cards getting blocked. That does not happen with an automated shuffler.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, you are saying that a defective (or at least different) RNG at Stars results in card clumping? /images/graemlins/shocked.gif
2+2 wannabe
10-06-2005, 02:00 PM
it's clear that, since the number of "Stars/Party/PokerRoom/Crypto/Prima/Absolute" is rigged posts is directly proportional to the amount of riggedness exists, that online poker is rigged
ONLINE POKER IS EIGGED!!OMGROFLBBQ!!!!11ONE11!!!
[ QUOTE ]
Every now and then my favorite will lose but it is certainly much less often than on Pokerstars. Anyone else notice this?
[/ QUOTE ]
I noticed this difference also except when I sit in the seat with the bald guy avatar. Don't EVER sit in that seat.
The bald guy never wins!
bocablkr
10-06-2005, 02:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
wait.
so you are also claiming that the cards are 'more random' or 'less random' in live games if it's hand-shuffled vs. auto-shuffler?
just want to make sure here.
BTW - whether there is 'evil intent' or not doesn't really change things.
When one refers to the cards 'not running right' that is generally considered to be in the same camp as 'party is rigged'.
your understanding of some extremely basic concepts is very flawed.
Oh yeah - I have noticed a difference between Stars and Party tournaments though:
NL tourneys on Stars have antes.
NL tourneys on Party do not have antes.
This is a significant difference.
Also - the players in the Party tournaments generally are not as strong imo
[/ QUOTE ]
Micro,
I respect your posts. Your observation about superior players on pokerstars is correct. The antes usually kick in during the later rounds (and it does make a difference). Question to you - do you think over 10,000 hands that you would get the same distribution of hands with an automated shuffler vs. a dealer. Forget which is correct mathematically speaking.
benfranklin
10-06-2005, 02:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
so you are also claiming that the cards are 'more random' or 'less random' in live games if it's hand-shuffled vs. auto-shuffler?
[/ QUOTE ]
With a less than ideal manual shuffle in a B&M cardroom, cards that started out in the same relative postion can remain "clumped" together. Some blackjack schemes or systems claim to be able to gain an edge by tracking clumped cards.
Assuming that card clumping happens, and I see no reason to doubt it, it seems hard to believe that it would have a meaningful impact on the randomness of a poker deal.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence of card clumping online. /images/graemlins/cool.gif
bocablkr
10-06-2005, 02:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is my POINT - it is not rigged but it is different. Did you ever hear of cards getting blocked. That does not happen with an automated shuffler.
[/ QUOTE ]
So, you are saying that a defective (or at least different) RNG at Stars results in card clumping? /images/graemlins/shocked.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Did not say that it is defective just different. They use a different RNG (pokerstars even uses the mouse movement in its algorithm) and therefore the distribution CAN NOT be identical.
benfranklin
10-06-2005, 02:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Did not say that it is defective just different. They use a different RNG (pokerstars even uses the mouse movement in its algorithm) and therefore the distribution CAN NOT be identical.
[/ QUOTE ]
The issue is not whether they are identical, it is whether they are statistically significantly different. And whether either is statistically significantly different from the normal distribution. The answer to both is no, based on empirical analysis of hundreds of thousands of hands done by posters on these forums.
In short, neither you nor anyone else has yet posted any statistically significant evidence that the online distribution of cards varies from the norm.
MicroBob
10-06-2005, 02:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
do you think over 10,000 hands that you would get the same distribution of hands with an automated shuffler vs. a dealer
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that I will get the same distribution of hands over ANY comparable set of 10k hands.
I do think that the chances of getting a 'good run' of cards or a 'bad run' of cards or any other same set of cards are equal regardless of the dealer.
[ QUOTE ]
Forget which is correct mathematically speaking.
[/ QUOTE ]
I have absolutely no idea what this means.
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the distribution of hands is identical over a large sample size?
[/ QUOTE ]
I have a sample size of over 10,000 pocket AA at each site. At Party my win rate is 95%, at Stars it is only 10%.
BTW, the only loses at Party are when playing under the bald guy avatar.
MicroBob
10-06-2005, 02:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
They use a different RNG (pokerstars even uses the mouse movement in its algorithm) and therefore the distribution CAN NOT be identical.
[/ QUOTE ]
Random = Random.
both are random.
To try to invent otherwise is silly.
To try to blame the RNG for your lack of success in pokerstars tournaments is idiotic.
Are the 2+2'ers who have done really well in Stars tourneys just 'getting lucky'?
Have they discovered some alternative strategy where they try to put in the underdog hand more often than not?
Were Barry Greenstein's money-finishes in the recent WCOOP tourneys somehow an accident?
What about the guy on here a week or two ago who was CERTAIN that party's deal was just 'not right' but that the cards on Stars 'seem to be pretty true and are obvioulsy okay'?
Am I borderline retarded for participating in yet another 'such-and-such site is less random' thread?
(fwiw - I too have been running really badly in stars tourneys of late)
bocablkr
10-06-2005, 02:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did not say that it is defective just different. They use a different RNG (pokerstars even uses the mouse movement in its algorithm) and therefore the distribution CAN NOT be identical.
[/ QUOTE ]
The issue is not whether they are identical, it is whether they are statistically significantly different. And whether either is statistically significantly different from the normal distribution. The answer to both is no, based on empirical analysis of hundreds of thousands of hands done by posters on these forums.
In short, neither you nor anyone else has yet posted any statistically significant evidence that the online distribution of cards varies from the norm.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am aware of the statistical analysis performed by members here and at other sites. Aren't those just on the actual hands dealt. Are they ever on the number of times one hand comes up against another? Ex. number of times AA comes up against KK. You can have an analysis that shows the number of AA hands and the number of KK hands is statistically correct. But what if every time the KK hand was dealt an AA hand was dealt (of course an exaggeration).
Has anyone performed that type of analysis? If so, I apologize.
benfranklin
10-06-2005, 02:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
When they turn the DOOM SWITCH on your account, then you are going to see the bad beats.
[/ QUOTE ]
The latest Pattern Map upgrade (Ver. 6.0.5) includes the ability to tell if your Doom Switch is on or off.
bocablkr
10-06-2005, 02:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
To try to blame the RNG for your lack of success in pokerstars tournaments is idiotic.
Are the 2+2'ers who have done really well in Stars tourneys just 'getting lucky'?
Have they discovered some alternative strategy where they try to put in the underdog hand more often than not?
[/ QUOTE ]
I never said I wasn't having success at pokerstars - I have cashed many times. The original OP was that when I finally got knocked out it was usually with the favorite on Pokerstars vs. getting blinded out on Party. Maybe the antes are part of the reason??
MicroBob
10-06-2005, 02:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone performed that type of analysis?
[/ QUOTE ]
so is the 'riggedness' with 'evil-intent' or not?
Because if AA vs. KK somehow does come up more often online then that would seem to point to 'evil-intent' by the site itself which you claim isn't happening.
Additionally, you are claiming that the underdog hand wins more often anyway....so whether KK vs. AA comes up more often isn't even in the realm of the 'less-randomness' you were alluding to.
If KK beats AA more often than it should then you are back to what you are talking about.
I am unaware of such a KK vs. AA study at various online-sites.
Mostly because if one did exist I wouldn't care about it anyway.
I had a hand just a couple days ago where I folded QQ pre-flop when 2 other big stacks were all-in (and there was another PF raiser yet to act).
They had AA vs. KK.
I honestly do not remember whether this hand happened at Party or Stars. I think it was Party but I'm not positive.
it was just one of those 'golly...that was weird' type hands...I pat myself on the back for making a good fold... and I move on.
FWIW - My last significant KK vs. AA confrontation (I had KK, and lost) was at the WSOP. It sucked.
There was a lot of talk of all the KK's getting clobbered by AA that day.
Just a couple orbits earlier though I had QQ and doubled-up vs. AA.
We had a zillion big-hand confrontations at our table and we were talking about how many times each of us had shown AA or KK.
Johnny Chan was at the table and semi-jokingly made the dealer spread-out the deck to make sure we didn't somehow have a 5th ace in there.
It was pretty funny.
Live poker at the WSOP is SOOOOOOOO rigged.
SampleTOOSMALL
10-06-2005, 02:37 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Where's Sample Size Man when you need him?
[/ QUOTE ]
Ask and you shall receive!
***STAMP***
Swedebubba
10-06-2005, 02:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I have always recommended Partypoker to my friends for live games and Pokerstars for tournaments. There is no question that Pokerstars has a cleaner interface and more tournament games than Party.
However, recently I started playing tournaments on Party and noticed a difference immediately. Whenever I lost on Pokerstars I usually went to bed with a 'bad taste in my mouth' (no flames please). I would be all-in with the best hand and get beat on the turn or river (riverstars anyone). I kept saying to myself 'well at least you put it in with a favorite'.
On Partypoker, if I went in with the favorite it would usually hold up. I started cashing in a lot more tournaments. Now, if I lose, it is because I am being blinded out and forced to go in with an underdog. Every now and then my favorite will lose but it is certainly much less often than on Pokerstars. Anyone else notice this?
[/ QUOTE ]
UUUHHHHH, can anyone explain variance to me /images/graemlins/crazy.gif
bocablkr
10-06-2005, 02:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
so is the 'riggedness' with 'evil-intent' or not?
Because if AA vs. KK somehow does come up more often online then that would seem to point to 'evil-intent' by the site itself which you claim isn't happening.
[/ QUOTE ]
Micro, why would this necessarily imply 'evil intent' rather than just a consequence of the difference in the shuffle algorithm. There are many threads about pokerstars being rigged, etc. This was not meant to be one. I am sorry it turned out that way. It was really about the shuffle and whether that could have any influence on the types of hands dealt against each other.
MicroBob
10-06-2005, 02:46 PM
Lots of people get knocked-out with the favored hand.
If you are a good player then you hopefully get your all-in's with the favorite more often than not.
But your favorite isn't THAT much of a favorite in most situations.
If I play 10 straight hands all-in and am the favorite each time the chances are extremely high that I will get knocked out on one of them.
It's the same principle as cash-game holdem where I am likely to suffer more bad-beats than most of my opponents.
I inflict fewer bad-beats because I am not chasing draws with bad-odds in the first place.
My opponents ARE however (at least, I hope they are) so they are going to win with worse hands against me more often than vice-versa.
Getting blinded-out on party should be less common because of the lack of ante's. You can hang onto your stack a bit longer.
If you don't notice the difference in strategy in a no-ante tourney vs. a tourney with antes then you just aren't making correct adjustments.
Party players are sometimes a bit more passive once you get near the bubble and into the money.
Therefore, you might be able to steal the blinds when the BB actually had the correct odds to be calling with most hands.
On Stars, the blind-defense of most players is still terrible...but is marginally better than on party.
If the BB has the correct odds to call with J7 many times they will actually do so....and some of those times your AK actually won't hold up.
This stuff isn't really relevant though.
You are claiming that the reason your 'favored hands' aren't holding up on Stars is because of the RNG.
MicroBob
10-06-2005, 02:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It was really about the shuffle and whether that could have any influence on the types of hands dealt against each other.
[/ QUOTE ]
No.
bocablkr
10-06-2005, 03:05 PM
[ QUOTE ]
UUUHHHHH, can anyone explain variance to me
[/ QUOTE ]
Have you seen many people say the reverse - that they lose with the favorite on Party and they usually hold up on Pokerstars? Aren't there always a lot more threads called 'Pokerstars is rigged' vs 'Partypoker is rigged'?
AND I don't believe either is rigged.
I think what you're saying is, they're not rigged, they're just different. You think on Party it is more likely for the best hand to hold up, and on Stars it is more likely for the worst hand to suck out. Not intentionally, just 'cause the programmers suck.
Clearly what this means is you should take advantage of your knowledge and KEEP PLAYING ON STARS, BUT TRY TO GET YOUR MONEY IN WITH THE WORST HAND.
We could play a bunch of heads up to test this theory if you want.
bocablkr
10-06-2005, 03:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
This stuff isn't really relevant though.
You are claiming that the reason your 'favored hands' aren't holding up on Stars is because of the RNG.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not so much a 'claim' but more accurately whether it was even possible. Thanks for your input.
MicroBob
10-06-2005, 03:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
that they lose with the favorite on Party and they usually hold up on Pokerstars?
[/ QUOTE ]
As I mentioned in a previous post...Yes. We had one of these last week.
He said that the cards at the other sites were okay...but that the cards on party were clearly not 'running right' and that the favorite just didn't hold-up as much.
There are about a zillion people out there who say that the cards on party are worse than live or on other sites.
There are almost as many people saying the reverse (that the cards on stars are worse...and that party's are okay).
When I was on the PPM cruise I had to ignore MANY conversations all around me on how 'you can just tell' that the 'cards on party aren't the same as live...or even on other sites'.
Then someone would chime-in and say that it was his experience that the cards on Paradise were really bad...but the cards on Party were usually pretty good when he played there.
Get it?? It all revolves around what happened to YOU when YOU played there.
all these people are so narrow-minded that they think that if they have a few bad-beats on Stars....but a nice-run of 'normal' cards on Party...then that is evidence that somehow Stars cards just aren't very good at all and something must be wrong with their set-up.
bocablkr
10-06-2005, 03:20 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There are about a zillion people out there who say that the cards on party are worse than live or on other sites.
There are almost as many people saying the reverse (that the cards on stars are worse...and that party's are okay).
[/ QUOTE ]
You have been here longer than me - if what you say above is true then I stand corrected. I was under the impression that it was not so evenly divided. My apologies for wasting everyone's time. I am not so narrow-minded that I can not accept new facts.
Jim Easton
10-06-2005, 03:25 PM
Wow, a "Party ISN'T rigged" post.
Roland19
10-06-2005, 04:05 PM
Post deleted by Mike Haven
FlFishOn
10-06-2005, 04:06 PM
"Mathematically speaking you are correct about the sample size."
Bullsh+t.
You go to PokerScam.com and play 10 SNGs. In every one, every damn one, you go all in with KK or AA and each time you lose to a big pair just below you, KK loses to QQ, AA loses to KK. You gonna keep playing there? NO, you are gone, likely before 10 SNGs too.
How were you able to draw a conclusion so quickly?
Don't ever tell me a sample size must be 100 or 1000 or 1000000000000 unless you know a bunch more about situation. Correct statistical methodology is quite rigorous, it's not just picking some number out of the air.
FlFishOn
10-06-2005, 04:10 PM
"The answer to both is no, based on empirical analysis of hundreds of thousands of hands done by posters on these forums."
Bullsh+t. You have no such evidence but I know you, like Fox Mulder, '(I) want to believe'.
Synergistic Explosions
10-06-2005, 04:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You only start out winning at Party in the beginning.
When they turn the DOOM SWITCH on your account, then you are going to see the bad beats.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly! The DOOM SWITCH determines if you lose or win. Doesn't matter how well you play, when it's on, you are screwed.
Simply log in and out SEVEN times to deactivate it. The SEVEN RULE. Most important online tip there is.
Someone should make this reply a sticky.
bocablkr
10-06-2005, 04:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
To the OP: What is my current location?
[/ QUOTE ]
Feel better now?
fluff
10-06-2005, 04:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
please die soon.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why so hateful?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because your post is silly. "Party is better because I'm running good there."
[/ QUOTE ]
I understand variance and all the rest. I have played around 100 tournaments on Pokerstars and I have lost with the best hand about 90% of the time. The rest of the time I got blinded out. Even, tho I have only played around 10 tournaments on Party I have not lost with the best hand once. It is always a matter of being blinded out. Just an observation and I know it can change. No need to be so hostile.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't go all in with the best hand and you'll win 90% of the time then. Duh. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif
MicroBob
10-06-2005, 04:45 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression that it was not so evenly divided. My apologies for wasting everyone's time. I am not so narrow-minded that I can not accept new facts.
[/ QUOTE ]
good for you.
accepting this possibility is definitely a positive.
FWIW - I can't confirm WHICH site has more people claiming the 'cards are rigged' vs. the others.
But I can say that there are MANY players who think the cards on Party are just plain wrong. (and, as I mentioned, the number of people on the PPM cruise who talked incessantly about this was just astounding).
I suspect that more people believe the cards to be rigged on party though....simply because more people play there...thus more people suffer horrible beats there.
Obviously a lot of people play on Stars too. So there are indeed quite a few people who make the claim that Stars beats are the worst and that it really IS deserving of the nickbane RiverStars.
Finally - there is a stunningly high percentage of live players who will request deck-changes after they get dealt 62o for the 3rd consecutive hand...somehow deducing (evidently) that a new deck will increase the chances of them finally getting the premium starting hand that they've been waiting for.
carlo
10-06-2005, 06:42 PM
Stay with it man--these guys are stinking it up with "their thoughts" which are marginally based on reality. There is a difference between the same priced chevy and ford and a blind mechanic would be able to clarify this.
The cant "random" is "random" is "random" is horse manure but these advocates refuse to give it any thought. Card distribution, perforce, would have to be different at different sites and in fact take on the character of of the RNG. To predict the distribution is of course another story and terribly highly unlikely. Only "MONK" could do this. /images/graemlins/grin.gif.
Bye the bye, there is a difference between an auto shuffler and a human being with the human being far on top.The whole tenor of the game changes when mechanical methods intervene.
carlo
2+2 wannabe
10-06-2005, 07:28 PM
how is this thread still going?
Jimbo
10-06-2005, 10:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Did not say that it is defective just different. They use a different RNG (pokerstars even uses the mouse movement in its algorithm) and therefore the distribution CAN NOT be identical.
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't believe I got sucked into this potential quagmire but this post was just too juicy to pass up.
If they were identical like you seem to wish they were then how could either one be random? Get back to me in a few decades with your answer to that question.
Roland19
10-06-2005, 11:55 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To the OP: What is my current location?
[/ QUOTE ]
Feel better now?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not really? I didn't mean it. I was joking. Sorry.
LoveDub
10-07-2005, 04:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Did not say that it is defective just different. They use a different RNG (pokerstars even uses the mouse movement in its algorithm) and therefore the distribution CAN NOT be identical.
[/ QUOTE ]
Random is random, doesn't matter where it is.
LoveDub
10-07-2005, 04:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
how is this thread still going?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's going well! Thanks for asking! Come back tomorrow when we'll discuss the CIA's role in cattle mutilation.
bocablkr
10-07-2005, 08:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did not say that it is defective just different. They use a different RNG (pokerstars even uses the mouse movement in its algorithm) and therefore the distribution CAN NOT be identical.
[/ QUOTE ]
Random is random, doesn't matter where it is.
[/ QUOTE ]
The point is that even if the RNG's are different you would expect the actual number of each hand dealt to be statistically the same. In otherwords, the same number of AA, KK , AK etc. However, I asked whether you would expect the way they would appear against each other to be the same. Would AA always face KK the same number of times, etc. I did not know if that type of analysis had ever been performed. My contention was that maybe it was statistically different. But it was pointed out that about the same number of people complain about both sites.
bocablkr
10-07-2005, 08:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To the OP: What is my current location?
[/ QUOTE ]
Feel better now?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not really? I didn't mean it. I was joking. Sorry.
[/ QUOTE ]
Forgiven /images/graemlins/cool.gif
[ QUOTE ]
You only start out winning at Party in the beginning.
When they turn the DOOM SWITCH on your account, then you are going to see the bad beats.
[/ QUOTE ]This is why i recomend that all new players skip over the beginners tables and head right to the 100/200 tables for 2 weeks. Your gonna win anyway so you might as well make the most out of it. Then you head directly to the beginners tables and learn to play.
I'm going to back the original poster here. I switched to Party a month ago and the suckouts and runner runner's seem to be very rare and far between. I'm not a big stake player, only deposited $50, but had great success in the step and multi tournaments winning over $3500.
Compared to what I witnessed at Prima, it seems just different. I know, I know. Sample sizes etc...
I still get the 'Welcome new player, you can play on the beginner tables for 45 days' etc when I log in so maybe that's why I never see these runners /images/graemlins/blush.gif
Zetack
10-07-2005, 11:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to back the original poster here. I switched to Party a month ago and the suckouts and runner runner's seem to be very rare and far between. I'm not a big stake player, only deposited $50, but had great success in the step and multi tournaments winning over $3500.
Compared to what I witnessed at Prima, it seems just different. I know, I know. Sample sizes etc...
I still get the 'Welcome new player, you can play on the beginner tables for 45 days' etc when I log in so maybe that's why I never see these runners /images/graemlins/blush.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
*Sigh*
.
Zetack
10-07-2005, 11:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to back the original poster here. I switched to Party a month ago and the suckouts and runner runner's seem to be very rare and far between. I'm not a big stake player, only deposited $50, but had great success in the step and multi tournaments winning over $3500.
Compared to what I witnessed at Prima, it seems just different. I know, I know. Sample sizes etc...
I still get the 'Welcome new player, you can play on the beginner tables for 45 days' etc when I log in so maybe that's why I never see these runners /images/graemlins/blush.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, this syndrome (false pattern recognition) which seems to be really hardwired into us, is one of the reasons there will always be so many bad players. Even here where most folks are trying to learn how to play well, even sometimes with people who have been here a while and actually do know better, the instinct to see patterns is to strong to ignore.
And as they say in SSHE, that works against our normal learning process. You make the right decision and often get the wrong results. You make the wrong decision and sometimes get good results. And its the unusual, not the normal that sticks out in our mind.
So the bad player says, gee, I like to play Q-10 off (its a good blackjack hand after all) but not for a raise...but last three times I folded q-10 off I would've flopped a monster hand. Or, this is the third time I've gotten 9-7 off in the last six hands, that's gotta means something, I'm going to play it!!!!
Ya know, or whatever.
So maybe we should celebrate these "rigged" or posts as the part of the reason we keep winning without having to be that good.
--Zetack
I agree. I also sigh at rigged posts. If I thought online poker was rigged why would I play. I don't think it is, it's probably because you remember the beats more like Sklansky says in SSHE. I've read most books umpteen times, now reading the excellent Harrington book so I keep away from those QTo's /images/graemlins/wink.gif My sessions normally end with the obligatory Mr 17% & around 8-10% PFR. I've played 100's of thousands of hands online at a variety of different sites and I just think Party seems to have the right number of pairs holding up and suckouts etc...
It will probably give me a nightmare month now as I cashed out $3000 so I'll report back... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
bocablkr
10-07-2005, 12:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I agree. I also sigh at rigged posts. If I thought online poker was rigged why would I play. I don't think it is, it's probably because you remember the beats more like Sklansky says in SSHE. I've read most books umpteen times, now reading the excellent Harrington book so I keep away from those QTo's /images/graemlins/wink.gif My sessions normally end with the obligatory Mr 17% & around 8-10% PFR. I've played 100's of thousands of hands online at a variety of different sites and I just think Party seems to have the right number of pairs holding up and suckouts etc...
It will probably give me a nightmare month now as I cashed out $3000 so I'll report back... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope you don't think the OP (me or is it I) is claiming anything is rigged because I haven't (read the whole tread).
Beavis68
10-07-2005, 12:40 PM
And here I thought we were going to have a good discussion on antes vs no antes in NL tournaments.
Zetack
10-07-2005, 12:58 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree. I also sigh at rigged posts. If I thought online poker was rigged why would I play. I don't think it is, it's probably because you remember the beats more like Sklansky says in SSHE. I've read most books umpteen times, now reading the excellent Harrington book so I keep away from those QTo's /images/graemlins/wink.gif My sessions normally end with the obligatory Mr 17% & around 8-10% PFR. I've played 100's of thousands of hands online at a variety of different sites and I just think Party seems to have the right number of pairs holding up and suckouts etc...
It will probably give me a nightmare month now as I cashed out $3000 so I'll report back... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
I hope you don't think the OP (me or is it I) is claiming anything is rigged because I haven't (read the whole tread).
[/ QUOTE ]
No you don't claim that, but you certainly suggest it. To your credit over the course of this thread you've gone, ok, the consensus seems to be that there isn't a problem and I'll accept that. Good for you. But you title your post "There IS a difference between Party and Pokerstars tournaments" and then in the body of your post it turns out the diffence is that you get repeatedly sucked out on at Stars and you don't at Party. Of course you're saying (originally at any rate) there's something wrong at Stars. Either that, or there's something wrong at Party but in a way that helps you.
And Mackem, when you say you don't see as many suckouts at Party as at Prima and that there is deffinitely a difference, how can that be anything but a rigged post? You're saying the cards aren't right at one of the sites.
What, now we're going to see buncha, I'm-not-saying-online--poker-is rigged-because-I know-its-not-but-its-just-not-quite-right-either posts?
--Zetack
Aye, it sounds like a contradiction. I don't think it's rigged but can't be 100% sure. Nobody can, I guess. We just hope and think it's legit but have this little niggle in the back of our minds when we witness crazy things at a certain site for weeks on end which makes us change sites.
I didn't say it was totally, undoubtly not rigged. I just said I think it's not rigged. It would be nice one day for some 10 million handed poker tracker dude to point something out instead of I got sucked out by a 1 outer, it's R1Gg3d!, but I doubt that will ever happen either.
PITTM
10-07-2005, 02:02 PM
riverstars!
rj
MicroBob
10-07-2005, 04:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I agree.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually...you did NOT agree with zetack.
You think that you are in the group that is happy there are people out there who think incorrectly.
But it is actually YOUR thinking that the rest of us are happy is out there.
You think the cards are different from one site to the next.
It is specifically THIS line of thinking that zetack is saying the semi-expert players should be happy is out there.
[ QUOTE ]
I also sigh at rigged posts.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just think Party seems to have the right number of pairs holding up and suckouts etc...
[/ QUOTE ]
YOUR post is one of the 'rigged' posts.
Are you sighing at your own post?
Zetack - another couple of good posts in this thread.
I find the psychology of this whole "I played there for awhile and it just SEEMS different" line of thinking to be fascinating.
The whole 'false pattern recognition' bit is quite interesting.
And I witnessed it almost daily when I was a BJ dealer for a few mths. 'those cards are hot' and 'dont take the dealers bust-card' etc etc.
And this new breed of posts where "It's not rigged....it's just, you know, different" is kind of interesting too.
"No no no. I know they're not 'out to get me' or anything like that.
It's just that THEIR version of 'random' is different than the OTHER version of 'random'. and I like the sites that are MORE random in the 'truer' sense in that they resemble TRUE randomness without being as non-random.
And if you can't immediately see the difference between the various 'types' of random then you're just blind."
Zetack
10-08-2005, 07:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And this new breed of posts where "It's not rigged....it's just, you know, different" is kind of interesting too.
"No no no. I know they're not 'out to get me' or anything like that.
It's just that THEIR version of 'random' is different than the OTHER version of 'random'. and I like the sites that are MORE random in the 'truer' sense in that they resemble TRUE randomness without being as non-random.
And if you can't immediately see the difference between the various 'types' of random then you're just blind."
[/ QUOTE ]
Rotflmao.
POTD.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.