R U Really sure online poker is not rigged?

[Ace-Korea]

If you got a minute, let me tell you what happened to me and then I'll ask you a question at the end.

About three months ago, I wanted to learn how to play poker. It seemed like everyone knew how to play it except moi. So I went to this web site and learned the basic rules for 5-card draw poker. It was difficult for me to remember all the rankings (e.g. whether straight is better or flush is better), but I got the basic picture.

Then I played Hold 'em at Yahoo! Games. (They didn't have 5-card draw.) For a couple of days, I kept losing (play money), but I quickly caught on. About after 2-3 days, I started winning on a consistent basis. And then I thought to myself, 'Hey, maybe I could make money by playing this game for real money.' Oops!

Anyway, I found an online poker site (I'll leave it as anonymous for now) and started to play for REAL money. Now, this was exactly one week after I learned how to play poker.

I don't know whether it was beginner's luck or what, but I kept winning. I started to play on a Thursday afternoon, and I kept winning until Sunday. (So my winning sessions lasted for two and a half days.)

And then, on Sunday, I lost everything. And then some more. (Much more actually...)

So here's my question to you. If the game was not rigged, how much money do you think I could have won assuming that all my opponents were terrible at poker and I was lucky every single time?

I played at $5/$10, $10/20, $20/$40 tables, both short-handed (6 total) and full ring table (10 total).

The amount of deposit I made was $50.00.

I played for 2.5 days and I'm almost positive that I didn't play more than 3 hours per day. (So less than 10 hours of total playing time.) I only played one table at a time.

I was totally a beginner. I didn't read any poker books or articles on poker. (For god's sakes, I didn't even know an Ace could be used to make the lowest straight, A2345.)

So how much do you think I won? (I'll post the answer later.)

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
I played at $5/$10, $10/20, $20/$40 tables, both short-handed (6 total) and full ring table (10 total)...less than 10 hours of total playing time.

If the game was not rigged, how much money do you think I could have won assuming that all my opponents were terrible at poker and I was lucky every single time?



[/ QUOTE ]

Several thousand dollars.

[ QUOTE ]
So how much do you think I won?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll guess $4,500 (but won't be terribly surprised if it's many thousands more)

[Gabe]

$7500?

[tomcain]

Here are my thoughts and I only started playing a few weeks ago myself, although I certainly knew basic poker.

The play money tables are very different than real money tables. They are very loose, to say the least. I was up many thousands before I started with a .10/.25 real table.

It is certainly gutsy to start at a $5/$10 table. I still have not hit one of those. I would say you hit a very lucky streak, although prolonged.

I have seen other people wonder about the same thing, but for losing instead of winning. I don't see that the online games have any benefit to rigging anything. They only make money if you continue to play.

Good luck. Tom

[daryn]

so.. why do you think it's rigged, because you won, or because you lost?

this post makes no sense..

next.

[squiffy]

It doesn't matter how much you won or lost. You did not play enough hands to make a statistically reliable determination about your playing ability.

If I got to the roulette tables and bet $1 million on 0 and win twice in a row. That's not enough data to know whether the wheel is rigged.

If I won 50 times in a row. Well, yeah, you've gotta start wondering if the wheel is rigged. That outcome is so unlikely statistically.

If you play for a few days at high limits, you could win a huge amount even if you are playing like an idiot.

And yes, out of 50 online poker sites. Some could very well be rigged.

With poker tracker, or some similar program, a reasonably proficient computer person could probably tell you if the flops and exposed hole cards at showdowns exhibit randomness.

But saying that you played for 2.5 days, tells us almost nothing.

Unless you flopped 100 straight royal flushes in that time. Or unless you can show that there is a distinct non-random pattern to the cards dealt out to players.

You can theorize all you want. But you have presented zero data and the data which you claim to have, will in all likelihood be an insufficient sampling to render any kind of realiable assessment.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
...how much money do you think I could have won assuming that all my opponents were terrible at poker and I was lucky every single time?


[/ QUOTE ]

I assume the answer would be "An infinate amount of money."

[irchans]

Estimate of how much you could have won

Assuming that you played mostly 20/40 short handed for 2.5*3 = 7.5 hours, the most that you are likely to have won is

3*sigma*Sqrt[hours]*maxbet
= 3 * 30 * Sqrt[7.5] * 40
= $10,000

(My estimate for sigma is an upper bound based on the fact that heads up play can have an hourly standard deviation of 30 BB per sqrt-hour.)

The probability of winning $10,000 before losing $50 to equally skilled opponents is 0.5%.

[Ace-Korea]

Wow, I can't believe you guys think that the variance could be that high (or SHOULD it be?). With my rough calculations, I won about 20 big bets per hour (on average) for 2.5 days at $10/$20 table. I guess IT IS possible, especially since the number of sessions was very low. I guess I'm just having a hard time letting it go since I totally sucked back then.

Anyways, thank you all for your comments. I'm downloading Pokertracker right now, so when I dig up some hand histories, I'll post it here for you guys to see.

Happy Holloween.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm just having a hard time letting it go since I totally sucked back then.



[/ QUOTE ]

If you think you dont almost totally suck now then you underestimate the complexity of hold em.

[Ace-Korea]

"If you think you dont almost totally suck now then you underestimate the complexity of hold em."


I only discussed about my skill level when I was just starting to play hold 'em. If you're assuming that I still 'totally suck' because it's been only 3 months since I started to play, then well... I guess you're not totally wrong.

However, I improved a lot since then. I might still 'totally suck' to your standard, but I don't think I'll lose money the way I lost it ever again.

I didn't know anything about pot odds, pre-flop strategy, and so forth. But now, I'm reading the Super System, Sklansky's books, and a couple others and they've been really helpful.

I don't underestimate the complexity. In fact, the complexity is what makes the game so interesting. At the same time, I'm not going to forget what happened to me in the beginning. But thanks for your comment.

[Ace-Korea]

Thanks for the calculation. These numbers are just amazing, even though they're hypothetical figures. So I guess winning a mere $2,752 wasn't THAT unlikely. Hmm...

[irchans]

Here is a suggestion. Never play a game where the big bet is larger than your current bankroll divided by 300. That way you will stay away from the higher stakes until you have earned enough at the lower stakes.

[Copernicus]

i said ALMOST totally, not totally. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[KSU78]

I have been playing online for some time, about 2 years. I have a good feeling about some sites and not-so-good of one at others. At the end of last July my account at one site was down to $80. It was over $10,000 at the beginning of last month without adding any additional funds to it. I figured that I had a compounding growth rate of 5.6% per day. My normal game was $3-6 short-handed. I have been trying micro no-limit and my growth rate so far is about 50% per day. I can only hope that it stays there but, of course, it is a short-term thing.

[RydenStoompala]

$100 billion? Oh...that would be a rigged game.

[KSU78]

You gave some very sound advice. A bankroll of 300 BB is sufficient size. However, I prefer one of 400 BB for my "main game". I do not like to sit in a game where I have less than 150 BB (my calculated bankroll). I also have to have a good reason to sit in a game where my bankroll is tight.

[NeoGeo]

As a hobbist, I only move up when my bankroll is at least 1000 BB of that level. At this size, I can be unafraid of playing multiple tables nor making pure-bluff play on 4th street by guessing others' hole cards. Coushion develops boldness which sometimes helps in poker.

[Nottom]

1000BBs seems excessive. So you need 6K to play 3/6?

[Lori]

1000BBs seems excessive. So you need 6K to play 3/6?

The 'problem' with the 300BB system is that although the covers the math side of things, it doesn't cover the emotional side.

Moving up and then losing 1/3rd of your roll at the new level can cause severe self-doubt in some people.

Lori

[George Rice]

It also assumes you are a winning player, probably in the 1BB per hour range.

[NeoGeo]

- Yes, I did only started playing $3/$6 when my bankroll was flirting with $6000. Now I'm at $5/$10 level, despite of all I still play $3/$6 every now and then.

- At 1000BB coushion, I am confident and mentally persuaded myself that I am not 'gambling'.

- I have only used Poker Tracker since October this year, 15.5K ring game hands so far with 5.53 BB/HR and 9.12 BB/100. I know the sample size is small, these numbers have plenty of room to go south.

[Nottom]

I am more than aware of the kind of headaches losing a chunk of your bankroll can cause. I am just surprised to see someone actually have the patience and discipline to build their bankroll up so high. Normally its the other way around.