The big sting??

[mrwhippy]

Don't know if I'm being paranoid, a sore loser or if I'm right about my theory that internet cash-game poker is not all it seems.
I have noticed over the last few months of playing, a very high ratio of pots get contested between 2 and sometimes three monster hands.I play regular online tournaments and have not noticed anything amiss...this has just been on straight online cash games. I had previously been suspicious but had reassured myself that it was not in the sites interest to favour one player over another. My opinion of THIS has not changed.What is in the sites favour when they are dealing with tables that have raked pots is to keep the betting moving. If no-one bets there is no rake.....the more bets there are the more rakes they can take. At the end of the day they are a business...is it really beyond the realms of possibility that the deal of the cards is not entirely random.Think how many times there have been pots which have been contested (for maximum betting) between 2 or 3 hands which on any other day/table would kick ass EVERY time. I have watched this theory carefully for a while and have noticed this is much more than just the odd hand. Logically, it wouldn't need to happen on tourneys as the fees are paid up front thus there is no vested interest in cranking pots up with artificially big hands.
I hasten to add at this point that I have played a LOT of poker online and in "real" life and as much as I try to convince myself I am being daft I cannot get away from the fact that my online cash game results are consistently more random/unpredictable than my online tourneys and real life games.
All thoughts of interest.... /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Terry]

[ QUOTE ]
I have played a LOT of poker online

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what you mean by “a LOT”.

IF you mean you have played several hundred thousand hands, as some of us here have, AND you are winning a reasonable hourly rate, THEN you probably are daft.

IF you have played several hundred thousand hands AND you are not winning a reasonable hourly rate AND you have not been playing on ProPoker, THEN you are probably not a winning player.

IF you have NOT played several hundred thousand hands, THEN ... that discussion has taken place many times before ... hundreds of thousands of hands ago. I’m still playing and still winning.

And yes, I understand the gut-wrenching feelings and the paranoia. I still get them. I change tables or take a break. I have had two losing months at online poker in over three years. At the end of the year, the money is in my pocket.

[lunchmeat]

For limits 5/10 and higher, the sites have absolutely no incentive to juice the cards because the rake is very easily capped. In fact, for these limits if the sites had any sort of incentive to mess with the cards, it would be give players bad cards. That way more pots can be played in a given amount of time, and since almost all of them get capped anyway, that means more revenue for them.

As for lower limits, you'll have to take the word of the auditing firm that assures the deal is legit. You can also go by the word of nearly every professional player that the deal is legit.

BTW, this is not to say that I don't think some sites use tactics to increase their rake. At Cryptologic sites, for example, whenever you try to sit in an open seat shortly before the big blind reaches you, a "bug" in the system stalls your buy-in, forcing you to post after the button. Not that this is so bad for the player, but it does increase the pot size.

Rigging the cards, however, would be such an abominably dumb business decision that I doubt any legitimate poker site would risk their entire business to get fifty cents more per hand.

[Mike Haven]

post statistical proof of deal- or card-rigging (instead of gossiping about what the little voices in your head tell you) and you will be forever famous in the internet pokerworld as the first out of scores of thousands of players to do it

[mrwhippy]

I agree with the points made,however, what I should make clear is that I am just as often the beneficiary of this "glitch" (if it exists). Overall I am a winning player (though not by as much as I'd like to be!!) and I have played 1/4 million+ hands. The point I'm making is that the hand/flops often seem unfeasibly big and that there seem to be lots more "WOW" moments than there are in tourney/real life games. Its just my opinion and the rationale offered by you both is more likely than me being right.Maybe I should go back on my medication..... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[mrwhippy]

So no one else has ever thought "hang on a second".....(when their ace high flush gets beaten by 4 of a kind)

[MicroBob]

there is no question that there are more frequent 'spectacular' type boards online than in live games. simply because you are playing more hands at a faster rate online. there are also more run-of-the-mill boards online for the same reason.


the bit about the ring games vs. the tourney games online is probably partly in your head....and partly a reflection of the fact that far fewer tourney hands make it to showdown.


some people have pointed out the amazing number of times they have received the same two hole cards with similar flops when multi-tabling on party (or wherever). speculation about true randomization of the deal run-amok!! lorinda smartly pointed out that one could see the same phenomena if one were playing tables at different sites at the same time.


obviously, rigging the deal is 'possible'....but it certainly doesn't seem likely (for the various reasons mentioned about a zillion times).

if you have your 250k hands in p-tracker you may be able to look back at all the flops and determine that high cards aren't coming out any more than low cards.
you can also make determinations about how frequently you are 'supposed' to get quads, full-houses, etc and find that your actual numbers are roughly within expectations.
but you really don't need to go through the trouble.
some of the posters here have gone through their hundreds of thousands of hands and already done all the dirty-work for you.

[lorinda]

So no one else has ever thought "hang on a second".....(when their ace high flush gets beaten by 4 of a kind)

There's a huge difference between thinking it, and looking at the stats and posting it.

There are enough people here who have looked at such huge numbers of stats for the sites previously known as the big four that these sites are either a) fair or b) rigging the game in a manner that has no detectable effect upon the play.
Either of these is clearly the same thing.

Whenever going to a newer site, I am wary and looking for strange happenings.
If I get the feeling of 'something is wrong here' then I share my experience and ask what others think of the place (Given that a newer site will have less available data to show the level of honesty).

If this comes out as 'not sure' or worse, then I check out the bodies who do the auditting and the suchlike for the site (In fact I've done this for every site I play) and find out who the people in charge are and so on to make a sensible judgement based on all the available data.

I've just had a telling-off for not showing enough respect in a post (I had my reasons) so I'll try to show you some.

Online play is tougher than live play at the same limits. This has been discussed at length here, but basically boils down to the fact that anyone playing online has actually made the effort to find out how to, rather than just walking by in a casino. Also idiots in a casino have to play the smallest game in the room (In Newcastle probably 50PLO at a guess) whilst online they can play 1c/2c blinds.

The games are tougher online, if you are not beating them over "A lot" of play, you may be struggling to adapt to the slightly tougher games than those of your regular Northern England punters that you get.

Sneak down a level or two and get your confidence back.

Lori

[Mike Haven]

yeah well i reckon that all ins win every hand they're in and i am collecting stats to prove it - i saw three today

what do you say to that, smarty-pants?

[Thythe]

Why does there have to be a post about online poker being rigged every other day? Can't these conspiracy theorists just do a search and read every other post on the subject. That should keep them busy.

[Fred Duke]

Firstly, almost no one that posts here will even entertain the possibility of any site cheating in any way. Never mind that there is zero regulation of these outfits and most are run by folks easily as ethical as your corner drug dealer or loanshark. Many high minded arguments are made to dismiss the 'cranks' that dare to question this type of gaming since the livelyhood of many depend upon the steady inflow of trusting fish. '...where never is heard a discouraging word...' This is what most here would prefer. Rocking the boat might cost them money so I presonally discount their opinions, they are clearly too interested to be honest.

I make most of my income playing online as well but I'm more realistic, pragmatic, distrustful, cynical. Here are some more-or-less undebatable truths about online poker:

1. People cheat. They cheat at $1/4 and $1/2 poker and they cheat on Wall street with $billions at stake (Enron, Global Crossing, Adelphia, Martha Stewart etc). They cheat at the highest levels of governmental power (Clinton, Nixon, Toracelli etc). They rarely relate the consequences to the gains as the quest for power, money is all. Illogical decisions are made from a risk/reward viewpoint. To even consider online poker immune from this is pure folly. It is to ignore human nature and all of history.

2. To be assured of a square deal online is not possible. The only exception would be to examine the code that runs the site, not gonna happen. To prove a crooked deal is also equally impossible but it can be infered statistically. I may have some news on this front some day soon.

3. Regularly winning at a site has no bearing on whether the site is honest or not. You can beat a crooked game. You could likely beat an honest game for more but that's not 100%. It's possible the crooked game has a greater fish pool and that compensates for the lose to crooked cards.

4. Sites steal from players. PokerSpot owes me $580 and I'll never get it. Other sites have busted out stealing all the bankrolls.

5. People that post here have a huge vested interest in the success of online poker. That should allow a thinking person to discount most of the 'online poker is honest' booster club.

6. I will be savagely attacked again for this and other similar posts. See #5.

7. Most folks that accuse sites of odd things, cheating are clueless morons that are really not understanding of the principles involved.

[BradleyT]

What makes myself and 800 other posters here who do win so special that we can beat these "rigged games"?

[GrannyMae]

Here are some more-or-less undebatable truths about online poker:

that's an absolutely absolute statement. let's take a look-see

1. People cheat. They cheat at $1/4 and $1/2 poker and they cheat on Wall street with $billions at stake (Enron, Global Crossing, Adelphia, Martha Stewart etc). They cheat at the highest levels of governmental power (Clinton, Nixon, Toracelli etc). They rarely relate the consequences to the gains as the quest for power, money is all. Illogical decisions are made from a risk/reward viewpoint. To even consider online poker immune from this is pure folly. It is to ignore human nature and all of history.

hmm, i agree. next

2. To be assured of a square deal online is not possible. The only exception would be to examine the code that runs the site, not gonna happen. To prove a crooked deal is also equally impossible but it can be infered statistically. I may have some news on this front some day soon.

ok, once more i agree. let's move on
(i'm waiting with baited breath btw for the moronic statment you make in the last sentence here, but i'll let it slide since you are doing so well)

3. Regularly winning at a site has no bearing on whether the site is honest or not. You can beat a crooked game. You could likely beat an honest game for more but that's not 100%. It's possible the crooked game has a greater fish pool and that compensates for the lose to crooked cards.

ut-oh. i see a pattern developing here. i can't argue with this either. fortunately the top 5 sites pose no danger, so anyone who wants to avoid a crooked site should just stick with the biggest sites.

4. Sites steal from players. PokerSpot owes me $580 and I'll never get it. Other sites have busted out stealing all the bankrolls.

you are 4 for 4

5. People that post here have a huge vested interest in the success of online poker. That should allow a thinking person to discount most of the 'online poker is honest' booster club.

yes, correct again. the "vested interest" in the site survival is no different than people protecting the building they work in cuz they need their job.

6. I will be savagely attacked again for this and other similar posts. See #5.

not from me, we agree so far

7. Most folks that accuse sites of odd things, cheating are clueless morons that are really not understanding of the principles involved.

did you just make an argument here that is 100% ANTI-kook?

cool, thx for stopping in. please check back once per week and post this behind all the kooks.

take care

http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/sleep/schla21.gif

[Fred Duke]

Blind pigs find truffles too.

Did you read my post?

[Lori]

Did you read my post?

According to your post total, this is the 55th time I've read it.

I'll give you a 50% self-defence total, and one non kook post that i can remember, it still means I've read this gibberish 27 times, which is 26 too many.

edit: typo

Lori

[Fred Duke]

"i'm waiting with baited breath btw..."

Depending upon the bait, I might be interested. I
fish every day.

"...fortunately the top 5 sites pose no danger, so anyone who wants to avoid a crooked site should just stick with the biggest sites."

A groundless statement. You have nothing to back this up except your desire for it to be true.

"Did you just make an argument here that is 100% ANTI-kook?"

97%, yes. Many kooks out there. They give us Uber-trolls a bad name.

[Jimbo]

Ok Fred, show a smidgen of proof. Or better yet prove that I don't have a little green Martian sleeping in my spare bedroom. After all most people spend many hours stating that there is no such thing as little green men from outer space. Is that all it takes to prove something is true? That the majority believe it is not?

Jimbo

[mrwhippy]

A few points;

1;"Computers cannot generate random numbers; only psuedo-random numbers... That's why there have been a number of documented cases of math-whizzes defeating digital lotteries: they essentially 'cracked' the code (determined the seed and algorithm) by deduction, and proceeded to extrapolate future results with virtual certainty. Courts have upheld such exploits as feats of skill and not cheating, in much the same way as counting cards while playing blackjack cannot be considered cheating".(*thats a quote....I havent worked out how to do quotes yet*)

2;In my original post I made it clear that I did not believe a site would favour one player over another.As I have said I do not neccesarily believe I am disadvantaged by this if I am correct.The point was that I also am not 100% convinced that a deal is truly random and that it is not (at all) beyond the realms of possibility for a site to programme/skew the hands/card order slightly to create more action flops and thus increase their rake (PROFIT).

3; As far as auditors are concerned, their main role is to ensure that the game is equal for all players.....all players would be equally affected by this "programming glich".

4;Does anyone honestly believe that on-line sites WOULDN'T look for an angle in order to increase their profits.If this is done and it raises their rake by 0.001% its still hugely worth it.

5;I dont think unless i was able to access both the main sites servers and a mind of equal size I could conclusively prove it.ITS JUST A THEORY..

6;Can anyone PROVE I'M wrong.Does anyone have a report/link to site etc etc which CONCLUSIVELY proves I'm wrong.I'd like to be.

7; Why use pokertracker (et al)if not because the more hands you've played the more likely you are to be able to correctly predict whether your draw will come good, whether youre flush will get beat by a boat etc etc Has no-one else observed a difference between hands in online ring games and those in every other game they play?

8;Many of you have bluntly pointed out that this is a topic that has been discussed time and time again.Why is that I wonder......?Why have we all experienced the "gut wrencing and PARANOIA"? Do we all experience that same !?!?!?!? factor in B&M/home game/tourneys?.....I know I dont.

Many thanks to all of you who have taken the time to constructively offer discussion /images/graemlins/grin.gif on what was, after all only ever meant as a topic for just that. Those of you who found it demeaning to comment....you didnt have to. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[strategem]

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, almost no one that posts here will even entertain the possibility of any site cheating in any way. Never mind that there is zero regulation of these outfits and most are run by folks easily as ethical as your corner drug dealer or loanshark. Many high minded arguments are made to dismiss the 'cranks' that dare to question this type of gaming since the livelyhood of many depend upon the steady inflow of trusting fish. '...where never is heard a discouraging word...' This is what most here would prefer. Rocking the boat might cost them money so I presonally discount their opinions, they are clearly too interested to be honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you would say 'please stay off my side', but it's a relief to finally hear someone state the obvious so eloquently. I posted once re: the absurd occurences I witness online and was shouted down by the same people who are shouting this poster down. I wondered why no one was bothering to point out that this vice business is as susceptible to manipulation by organized criminals as any other.

Re: the idea that it's 'not worth it for these sites to cheat at the lower limits'. What a load of crap. The simplest math will show that it would be worth hundreds of thousands/week for them to manipulate i.e. the $50 buy-in NL tables.

After a particularly nasty series of prop beats at UB recently, I asked for about a weeks worth of hand histories. I'm still waiting for them to show up. Is there any chance whatsoever that they won't ever show up?

The integrity of online poker? I can tell you this - don't rock the boat with these sites. The reaction will be swift and sure.

[Fred Duke]

"According to your post total, this is the 55th time I've read it.

...it still means I've read this gibberish 27 times, which is 26 too many. "

Uh huh. You've done the same thing 26 times expecting a different result. This is one of the textbook definitions of insanity.

don't read my posts. They're not for you.

[Kenshin]

[ QUOTE ]
A few points;

1;"Computers cannot generate random numbers; only psuedo-random numbers... That's why there have been a number of documented cases of math-whizzes defeating digital lotteries: they essentially 'cracked' the code (determined the seed and algorithm) by deduction, and proceeded to extrapolate future results with virtual certainty. Courts have upheld such exploits as feats of skill and not cheating, in much the same way as counting cards while playing blackjack cannot be considered cheating".(*thats a quote....I havent worked out how to do quotes yet*)

7; Why use pokertracker (et al)if not because the more hands you've played the more likely you are to be able to correctly predict whether your draw will come good, whether youre flush will get beat by a boat etc etc Has no-one else observed a difference between hands in online ring games and those in every other game they play?


[/ QUOTE ]

1. Brilliant Point! Individuals with sufficient skill can definately crack psuedo-random number generators. Alas, I see a minor flaw in your point. The major sites do not actually use PSR's. Although, the exact details escape me, I believe the sites use some sort of diode which transmits an absolutely random signal for the deal. I have so much faith in the randomness and legitimacy of the number generator online, both due to external site regulation and outsider examination of VAST numbers of hands, that I consider live poker far less random.

7. You are correct again, with pokertracker, I can determine that my two flushes will get there a little less than 1/2 of the time. Shockingly, I will make open-ended straight draws 1/3 of the time. THIS INCREDIBLE INSIGHT HOLDS THE KEY TO UNIMAGINABLE PROFIT AND WORLDLY SPLENDOR

Keep up the good work,

Kenshin

[Lori]

Uh huh. You've done the same thing 26 times expecting a different result. This is one of the textbook definitions of insanity.

I have 4000+ posts split between two different names on a poker forum subsection that doesn't talk about poker.

I never claimed to be sane.

Lori

[GrannyMae]

how convenient that all the nut-job, whacko, st00pid fuks all post under one thread.

makes it easy to call all of you nut-job, whacko st00pid fuks all at once.

i'll bet my nightgown that every kook in this thread breast-fed until they were 6, and wet their beds until.. well, still do.


http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/crazy/1471.gif http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/crazy/1471.gif http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/crazy/1471.gif http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/crazy/1471.gif http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/crazy/1471.gif http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/crazy/1471.gif http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/crazy/1471.gif

[strategem]

In a word, wow. That post really lends credence to all your other posts. A real Renaissance man.... er, woman.

Do we need any further proof of the crisis in Western literacy than the disjointed ramblings of this idiot?

[GrannyMae]

In a word, wow. That post really lends credence to all your other posts.

why thank you. i work very hard at my posts and it is nice to see this hard work recognized every now and then. usually people just mock me.

i take it back, you probably don't pee in your bed anymore. sorry i was rude.

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/i0/monkeypissr.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/i0/monkeypissr.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/i0/monkeypissr.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/i0/monkeypissr.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/i0/monkeypissr.gif

[strategem]

...'why thank you. i work very hard at my posts.'

yes, I actually believe that you had to work at that last one

....'and it is nice to see this hard work recognized every now and then. usually people just mock me.'

but you keep coming back for more, I see - 3573 posts now, is it?

....'i take it back, you probably don't pee in your bed anymore. sorry i was rude.'

lol...

and the 'peeing monkey' just to erase any doubts.

what are you, 10 years old?

I hope you do well at poker; living in the outside world must be tough on you.

[MicroBob]

'Has no-one else observed a difference between hands in online ring games and those in every other game they play?"


well, lets see.....my local B&M game goes much slower. and is generally quite a bit louder
and it used to be a lot smokier too.

[GrannyMae]

and the 'peeing monkey' just to erase any doubts

you are so caught up in your KOOK-ery, that you failed to realize that my admission that you no longer pee in your bed still means i said you breast-fed until 6, and were still a st00pid moron. if you are to keep up with the goons here you must sharpen your wit-detector.


what are you, 10 years old?

i have a 10 year old enema bag. does that count?

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/i0/wc.gif

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/a0/tease.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/a0/tease.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/a0/tease.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/a0/tease.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/a0/tease.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/a0/tease.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/a0/tease.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/a0/tease.gif

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/a0/thebirdman.gif

[strategem]

....'and the 'peeing monkey' just to erase any doubts

you are so caught up in your KOOK-ery, that you failed to realize that my admission that you no longer pee in your bed still means i said you breast-fed until 6, and were still a st00pid moron. if you are to keep up with the goons here you must sharpen your wit-detector.


what are you, 10 years old?

i have a 10 year old enema bag. does that count?....'


Unreal....

to anyone following this exchange, don't get the idea that this site is about this type of juvenille content. There are plenty of extremely knowledgeable and courteous people here.

[MicroBob]

also...as i have stated previously....
if the sites wanted to make more money, all they have would have to do is raise the rake and most players wouldn't notice in the least.

party decided to prove my theory correct.
they raised the rake in december.....
the only people who seemed to care were some of the players on these boards.

or, as lori pointed out, they could just close shop and run away with everyone's money.

frankly, i am more concerned about my money getting lost or stolen by a poker-site or outsider somewhere in cyber-space then i am about any rigged deals.



i also don't really understand how these sites are supposed to 'manipulate the flop'. i have seen enough players taking their cards to the river regardless of what cards are on the board that it really doesn't seem to matter.


if i were to run a poker-site and wanted to 'mess with the deal' i would construct it so that the better hand won MORE frequently...not LESS.
it's the bad-beats and getting rivered that bring about the doubts on the deal. when the better hand wins, a lot of players don't seem to mind as much...'oh well, that's the breaks....he had AA.'

by rigging the deal in this manner, you would have fewer players complaining about the legitimacy of the deal. ironic, no??

[mrwhippy]

I find it strange that this should have become such an emotive thread.I also find it strange that some of the people heavily engaged in blowing my suggestion out of the water have been equally committed to blowing other peoples similar suggestions of irregularity (of which there are lots) out of the water.Why does this bother you so much?

One (I think) final point.Given that 2+2 posters represent a tiny percentage of all internet poker players and I am by no means the first to suggest irregularity on 2+2, would any of you statistics freaks like to estimate the percentage of all online poker players who have developed suspiciousness?I'd be interested in your guesses.

Oh yes...one more thing. Could those of you hijacking this thread with your playground name calling please use the private e-mail facility to do it please.

Thank you. /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
One (I think) final point.Given that 2+2 posters represent a tiny percentage of all internet poker players and I am by no means the first to suggest irregularity on 2+2, would any of you statistics freaks like to estimate the percentage of all online poker players who have developed suspiciousness?I'd be interested in your guesses.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point which should be properly addressed. I would guess that the percentage is pretty close to 40%. This percentage was derived by the following simple formula:
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
Online Poker Winners= 10%
Online Poker Even = 10%
Online Poker Losers = 80%
Online Poker Kooks = 40% (50% of all losers)


</pre><hr />

Now only a small percentage of the total number of winners and losers post at 2+2. The winners are less likely to become bored and try craps so they continue to post here. The losers who do not know any better never find 2+2. Some of the losers post here, learn to improve their game and take responsibility for their own past mistakes and become winners. Some of the losers come here, become kooks, blame the rigged deals and either fade away, register many user names and show strength in numbers or end up with a 2nd job and no longer post here. I suppose I should mention the really hardcore Kooks who eventually become psychotic and are banished to RGP wastland. (Although a few of them reincarnate at sporadic and unpredictable intervals)


Jimbo

[strategem]

also...as i have stated previously....
if the sites wanted to make more money, all they have would have to do is raise the rake and most players wouldn't notice in the least. .

Hi Bob

This suggests that dishonest people in the vice businesses, seeing a way to make a little more money legitimately, will then decided against making a LOT more money illegitimately when shown the opportunity. I am not sure that this is the case.



i also don't really understand how these sites are supposed to 'manipulate the flop'. i have seen enough players taking their cards to the river regardless of what cards are on the board that it really doesn't seem to matter.

I don't think that manipulation would necessarily have to end on the flop.

I think the point is that if you are willing to believe that SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE, has decided to take advantage of the obvious opportunites available to an unscrupulous online hold-em game operator, there are many different ways in which the average customer could be cheated.

The strangest part of this whole thing is the idea that people could believe, with the incredible amounts of money to be made criminally in this relatively easy climate (registration in countries with a lax approach to policing in particular), that there aren't LOTS of people taking advantage of the situation to make some big $$$. It shows a faith in the purity of human nature that I would never expect out of a bunch of poker players. This, as has been pointed out, is in itself cause for reflection.

[HUSKER'66]

WOW, what a thread! (not new mind you, but interesting) On a somber thought, has anyone ever heard the opinion of our infamous S&amp;M whom provide these boards?

Don't mean to put them on the spot, but they seem to have an opinion one way or the other about almost anything game related.

Nevermind....they're too smart to get involved with an issue like this. You would have the "kooks" stating that they won't have an unbiased opinion because it lines they purses( No offense guys (S&amp;M)) with banner adds advertising online sites.


ALL I KNOW IS THIS. It is much more convienent FOR ME to play online then it is B&amp;M geographically (as well as all the other reasons listed too many times to count) The closest B&amp;M to me is over a 4 hour drive.

If I honestly believed the deal was "rigged", I 'd be stupid to continue playing. (take this for whats it's worth)

I've made a respectable profit for the time that I've been playing the major sites. ( a little over two and a half years)

I make the above statements even after suffering more "bad beats" and "action flops" then I would care to admit. I had over a $1000 BR on a respectable site and lost it all in a little over 5 days recently.(playing 2/4 mind you)

I do NOT attribute this to the site, but my inability to look in the mirror at myself and the various leaks that I have since discovered and (hopefully) remedied. Did I mention all the bad beats and impossible turn and river cards?!?!?

I like to think that Im not wearing rose colored glasses, but then again I've been accused of seeing the glass as "half full".

I worry more about collusion, rather than the sites trying to line their bulging pockets with more profits from action flops.

Just my thoughts,

Husker

[strategem]

This from a post that interestingly went unanswered.

Just to show that the odd events we see online may not all be the result of manipulation.
__________________________________________________ _

Here`s something about party shuffling taken from this site:
http://www.ipoker.us/Rooms/PartyPoker/Default.aspx

Why is the Shuffle at Party Poker rated lacking?

Party uses a strong cryptographic PRNG for their shuffle. It is a non linear PRNG which means that the results are unpredictable, while this makes for a good secure shuffle it also means that a lot of testing needs to be done to assure that there is no bias. Nonlinear PRNG are not designed to assure that each number has an equal chance of coming out; they are designed to assure that any sequence of random numbers produced are unpredictable, not statistically correct. Extra steps need be taken to assure an unbiased shuffle, by reading their game fairness page it is not clear rather or not these steps have been taken. Party Poker does have a Certificate of Random Number Generator Evaluation from BMM International, However, the tests involved to receive this certification or not available at either the Party Poker or BMM Int. Websites. This alone is not that big of an issue, a secure PRNG can be used for simulation if it has been thoroughly tested for bias. Even with the lack of information about the steps taken to correct possible bias, I would rate the shuffle as good at Party, however, Party Poker lists things “such as network activity, time of the day and several other parameters” as the source of data for their PRNG seeds. Network activity may or not be a good casual enough source for seeds depending on how secure the network is, the time of day is completely insecure. We do not know what the other parameters are or where they come from, so we do not know rather or not they are secure sources. When Party Poker was asked if they used any hardware solutions such as radioactive decay or background noise Party Poker replied that they did not. Party does not state the seed size so we have no way of knowing if they introduce enough entropy into their shuffle to insure there is no bias or that the seed is large enough to make a brute force attack difficult. Exactly how secure the shuffle is at Party Poker depends entirely on the entropy(size) of the seed and the amount of insecure data that comes from sources such as the clock verses the amount of possibly casual enough data that comes from the “other parameters”. Party Poker gets lacking ratings on both the quantity and quality of the information they have provided and for using the time of day as a source of data to produce seeds.

_________________________________________________

[mrwhippy]

Not wishing to start an entirely new thread here but would anyone like to offer theories as to why I'm only suspicious of online ring games.
Not online tournaments.
Not B&amp;M.
Not home games.
Not B&amp;M tournaments.

Just online ring games.(Unusual for a conspiracy theorist to be so selective don't you think....?)

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Not wishing to start an entirely new thread here but would anyone like to offer theories as to why I'm only suspicious of online ring games.
Not online tournaments.
Not B&amp;M.
Not home games.
Not B&amp;M tournaments.

Just online ring games.(Unusual for a conspiracy theorist to be so selective don't you think....?)

[/ QUOTE ]

This particular question could be better answered if posted in the Psychology section. However I will venture a guess tha tyou are losing more often in the ring games so therefore you assumr it must not be your ring game play but an ouside influence beyond your personal control.

Jimbo

[mrwhippy]

Jimbo.....for the benefit of all involved in this thread lets just pretend it is in the psychology section and that way you can impart your wisdom without getting caught up in the technicalities (or pedantries) of whether this is the right forum or not.

[HUSKER'66]

[ QUOTE ]
Not wishing to start an entirely new thread here but would anyone like to offer theories as to why I'm only suspicious of online ring games.
Not online tournaments.
Not B&amp;M.
Not home games.
Not B&amp;M tournaments.

Just online ring games.(Unusual for a conspiracy theorist to be so selective don't you think....?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Fear of the "unknown"?

By this I mean you can't "see" it in person....the mix of cards, the shuffle, players espressions and tells?

[mrwhippy]

Husker...fair point, but I have no suspicions re online tournaments which have the same level of "the unknown" about them

[Lori]

Why does this bother you so much?

Because many of these posters have spent many hours of work to show that your argument is false, and you can't even be bothered to spend a few hours to read the extensive arguments and research that they have done into the matter.

Do you feel that it is fair for maybe 1,000 man-hours of work to be dismissed because some guy expects those people to re-hash their old work just to discredit something that has been discreditted many times because one or two people can't be bothered to read the archives?

THAT is why it is so emotional, it's basically saying that nobody's opinion but your own is correct, and that you have no need to read all the actual research that has been done here.

If you don't like it, don't play, I already said that my opinion is that you are not good enough. That's usually the reason, it might be wrong in your case, but it's the most likely opinion.

If I happen to be right, and you happen to be wrong, you'll miss out on a lot of money you could have won at lower limits.
If you happen to be right , and it's all rigged, then we are all going to bust soon, so you won't be alone.

Lori

[mrwhippy]

Lori....I havent seen anything (despite searching) which is anything other than OPINION either way. Despite all the "research" no-one has been able to say for DEFINITE either way. It seems that there are as many opinions offered either way, EACH with (whether you like it or not) valid,intelligent and reasoned arguments.
I am sure you would also agree that just because something has previously been discussed shouldn't eliminate it from further discussion.Given the size of this site I doubt any of the threads are by now truly original.
That said, if it angers you having to respond to such a topic........then don't. /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[HavanaBanana]

Find excuses to win, and not excuses to lose.

I have a few buddies that are playing online, and they keep asking me if it is legit, if the deal is crooked etc.
I tell them that they need to blame something else for their losses, they shut up and make another rebuy.

If you think things are fixed, then create a hypothesis and test it, if you can prove it is fixed post it here, if we agree, you win. If not, you lose.

[mrwhippy]

Why does this bother you so much?

Because many of these posters have spent many hours of work to show that your argument is false, and you can't even be bothered to spend a few hours to read the extensive arguments and research that they have done into the matter.

Do you feel that it is fair for maybe 1,000 man-hours of work to be dismissed because some guy expects those people to re-hash their old work just to discredit something that has been discreditted many times because one or two people can't be bothered to read the archives?




Just out of interest, why would anyone go to this level of effort were it not for the fact that enough people expressed a high enough level of doubt to make that level of effort valid?

[mrwhippy]

Havanabanana (cool name btw)

I'm not losing.

As I've already said, I benefit as much as the next man.I havent suggested any one player has an advantage....in fact I've clearly stated I do NOT believe that to be the case. With the utmost respect (and to save me from getting RSI) please re-read the first post.

[Lori]

Just out of interest, why would anyone go to this level of effort were it not for the fact that enough people expressed a high enough level of doubt to make that level of effort valid?


Because to convince themselves, people looked into it rather than coming here.

Let me ask you a question now.

If you are not interested in the evidence, why did you post the question?

Lori

[GrannyMae]

If I happen to be right, and you happen to be wrong, you'll miss out on a lot of money you could have won at lower limits.
If you happen to be right , and it's all rigged, then we are all going to bust soon, so you won't be alone.


oh my. that's perfect.

mind if i steal that when the urinating monkey site cuts me off and i have to be rational?

nh


http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/g0/claps.gif

[Lori]

You can steal my lines anytime Granny, I'm sure I steal yours from time to time.

Lori

[mrwhippy]

Lori....I am interested in the evidence.I just dont believe it to be conclusive ( either way ).I have read all the arguments very carefully (they've made my last night shift before my days off bearable!). I cannot stress strongly enough that I am not just interested in opinions which agree with my own.
Whatever your stance you have to agree the topic has generated a lot of discussion, most of it excellent. That is, after all what were all on this site for in the first place....isn't it? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[strategem]

Find an excuse for winning?

we found one - you have an excuse for winning when you get your money all in as an 85/15 or much better favourite. If you get your money all in as an 85/15++ favourite 10 times and you lose 8 your entire stack 8 times, it tends to do things to your faith in the integrity of the cards. It's that simple. I will spare you the hand histories, although I have them all right here.

The silliest argument I hear is that there are more hands played online and so it just 'seems' like there are more bad beats. These same people would probably tell me that it just 'seems' like I lose 8 out of ten hands in which I am an overwhelming favourite. Yes, it just 'seems' like you are constantly losing when you bet all in and your opponent has 2 outs and the next card up fills him. It just 'seems' that way.

I talked to a veteran B &amp; M player yesterday who won't play online. He told me that in an actual cardroom, when someone gets quads, the action stops and people wander over to take a look. Online, I have seen quads 3 times in 1/2 hour at the same table.

The rake-building pots are IMO separate from the strict prop beats at the ring games. And whippy is right - things are different at the SNG tables, much different. Of course, I am sure that the props are hanging around these tables too, collecting their fair share of wins.

I know, whippy... stay off your side, right?

[Lori]

He told me that in an actual cardroom, when someone gets quads, the action stops and people wander over to take a look

Comedy at its finest.

Lori

[mrwhippy]

More than happy to have you on my side Strategem.

I still can't understand the level of anger our calm, if ridiculous argument has generated. Surely if were just sh*t poker players we should be encouraged to continue seeing our misfortune as being a bad beat rather than poor play.I really can't believe anyone could get that sick of playing against chumps like us.As far as I see it the arguments against our theory are ;

1; There are more hands dealt per hour thus increasing the statistical likelihood of seeing ridiculous flops

Sure.....I however am only ever playing my cards at my table.I havent got a clue whats happening on the countless other tables but if its the same as on mine theres definitely a rat away.

2; Any suspicion = we must be losing

Don't know about Strategem but as I feel like I've stated a million times I am by no means a pro but I am also not a losing player....and that includes online ring games.

3; Its not in the sites interest

Rubbish.Plain and simple.Rubbish.

Other than a few of you there have been mostly arguments based on emotion not fact.Why this discussion would boil so many peoples p*ss I still don't get.Anger is usually the hiding place of those who can't win an argument without it.

Again just out of interest....how many of you online poker billion+ hand players find the time to play home/B&amp;M games which you can use as a reference point.

Please, please,please could anyone planning to throw a literary scud my way please review at least my posts if not all of them and respond with at least a modicum of brevity.Thank you.

[Fred Duke]

Utter bullsh+t. The integrety of any deal in online poker can not be proven, 1000 hour reasearch projects included.

[Fred Duke]

"&gt;Just out of interest, why would anyone go to this level &gt;of effort were it not for the fact that enough people &gt;expressed a high enough level of doubt to make that level &gt;of effort valid?


Because to convince themselves, people looked into it rather than coming here."

Remember Fox Moulder? Remember the poster in his office that sez "I want to believe"? With that attitude it's easy to understand how it would cloud his decisions and often in a big way.

Online poker professionals, myself EXCLUDED, really want to believe (in the integrety of online poker). It makes life so much easier. Once you believe then you need not worry about things like the safety of your bankroll and other no longer troubling things like the longevity of the potential income stream.

Enjoy your fool's Paradise or Party.


Uber-Troll since 1999

[jdl22]

It's pretty simple really. Just below the Post box to the right of the Instant Graemlins (smilies) there is a section that says "Instant UBB Code" which is immediately to the left of "Font Color."

In the right hand column, third row of this section is a link that says "Quote." Left click on this link and you will see [ quote ] [ /quote ] without the spaces appear in the post window. Select the text you wish to quote by moving the cursor to the start of it, left clicking and holding the button down, and dragging the cursor over the text. Press Ctrl+C or go to the edit menu and select copy. Now click in the middle of the [ quote ] [ /quote ] and either push Ctrl + V or click paste in the edit menu. Here is an example:

[ quote ] Your text here [ /quote ] will appear as [ QUOTE ]
Your text here

[/ QUOTE ]

Hope this helps.

[Hotchile]

Holy Crap, I can't believe I saw this.

$200 rebuy tournament today. All within one hour.

Blinds 1000/2000. Player joins tables with 2300 and withing 20 minutes has over 60,000. I'm thinking Prop or house player.

KK vs 99 vs TT. Flop is 763 all diamonds. KK has the Kd but the other two pairs are diamond free. What an awesome triple up situation for KK. OOPS, was that an offsuit T at the river?

QQ vs AA.....twice.
Me, SB with AK, I am against KK and AA. I guess I was not chosen to win.

KK vs AJ....Twice, KK lost both.

This table was bad beat central. I cannot believe that this is allowed to go on. It's time to check the software, OR, in this case, the dealer as all of this Happened in the Canadian Poker Championships at one of our local Casinos.

I have said it before and I will say it again....."LIVE POKER IS RIGGED".

HC

[Hung]

If no-one bets there is no rake.....the more bets there are the more rakes they can take. At the end of the day they are a business...is it really beyond the realms of possibility that the deal of the cards is not entirely random

You have figured it all out. You've broken the code.
Now you know about the big party poker scam. You shouldn't tell everybody here. You should use that information and become a winning player.

You're wrong about the rake. I don't know what limit you play, but the rake is always $3 on the tables where I play. So no need for more actions, because the rake has reached his limit.

But for all the rest, you're on a good track. It's ONE BIG SCAM! All the winning players are cheaters, colluders, or they know how the "system" works.
Try to be one of us.
Welcome.

ps: wow I just notice I'm one post away of 1000!!!
Maybe I should stop now and use another name.
What were the names I should use again Granny? I believe not_hung got most of the votes.

[GrannyMae]

What were the names I should use again Granny? I believe not_hung got most of the votes

did anyone really vote in that poll??

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/_950/creator.gif

[Hung]

did anyone really vote in that poll??

I don't know, but last time I checked it got 2 votes for not_hung

[Hung]

ah damn!!! I waisted my 1000 post!!!!
I didn't realize it

[Lori]

Remember Fox Moulder? Remember the poster in his office that sez "I want to believe"? With that attitude it's easy to understand how it would cloud his decisions and often in a big way

Well, I know you've been around long enough to know that when I do conspiracy stuff, the first thing I do is try to convince myself the place I'm looking into is rigged and then use evidence to quash those fears.

I am aware, as you know, that proving a site is fair without looking at the code is impossible, however proving it is fair beyond reasonable doubt (As opposed to unreasonable doubt) is often quite straightforward.

Why is it in my interest to show a site is rigged, well I imagine if I discovered Party was rigged and could prove it, that I would earn huge sums of money just by selling the proof to a fair site.

If all the sites were rigged, I would earn even more money selling the proof to Card Player and all the Vegas casinos.

Certainly my EV of this play would be enormous, so I pray for the day that I find the bit of code that shows me I'm onto something big.

Alas, until now, the major sites I have looked at (four of the top five, UB, Para, Party, Stars) seem to have everything all in order.
Of course, I used to say that Pro Poker was rigged, and Sunrise, and I'm not happy that I've looked at some other sites enough to convince myself.

Uber-Troll since 1999

Despite the fact you wind me up, you are still one of the few Trolls that has stood the test of time, so I'm afraid you are more likely to suffer my insults than the cheap imitations that are often imported.
Keep up the good trolling, believe it or not, the trolls get things done because proving them wrong (again, definitions of reasonable doubt vary) is far more valuable than just assuming everything is alright.

For what it's worth, I think you should consider yourself a kook, not a troll, you make up theories, that although I dismiss them as gibberish, are more important than reading about various things Daryn or Homer clearly didn't do in the toilets of their local casino.

Lori

[frizzfreeling]

Strategem,
In response to your "Shuffle Security: Lacking" post: What this individual is saying is not necessarily true. It is the author's take on the PRNG that partypoker uses, and nothing more. You act as if the author is an expert on the subject of PRNG's simply because he writes as if he is. Just because someone is good at talking out their ass does not mean what they say is true, or proof of anything! Although much of what he states is true, there are some very basic inaccuracies (sp?) in the explanation he gives.
I find it very interesting that people will quote unsubstantiated material to back up their theories such as you have done here, but yet not believe in overwhelming evidence to the contrary when it is right in front of your face. For instance, In my pokertracker database, I see no significant difference in the number of times i have been dealt 22 vs AA. The same goes for any pocket pair. I have been dealt 72o almost exactly the same number of times as KQo (over 200,000 hands). If Aces are dealt more than twos, then it is in such a minute ammount that it is not exploitable for any significant or even measurable profit by increased rake revenue. Remember, for them to increase rake in any significant ammount, then the corresponding "value" of hands held by players would also have to be significantly shifted upward. This, of course, would show in the stats. Hands such as AA, or KK, would occur more often than 72o, which they dont.
Now, If partypoker is manipulating the cards to create "agressive games", which would increase their rake, this would be readily shown in the stats of cards dealt, yes? They would have to have hands like AA show up preflop much more than 22 to create the action. The same goes for the flop and beyond. My figures, like those of others who have hundreds of thousands of hands racked up in pokertracker databases show the correct frequency of flopped trips, flush draws, etc.
Second, lets assume for a second that partypoker is using house players and giving THEM better cards than the rest of us, so as to generate a tidy profit for themselves. That would mean that their shill would be getting more hands like AA, KK, etc, and hitting their flushes more often than normal. However, since there cannot be two aces of spades in the same deck, or whatever other card you choose, then that would mean that I, as an opponent to this shill would NOT get these cards as often! The more often he is dealt a certain hand above average, is a hand that will be dealt to me less. This is obviously NOT happening according to my stats.
So, I am curious how anything you guys are worried about is actually happening?? Please advise.

[MaxPower]

[ QUOTE ]


I talked to a veteran B &amp; M player yesterday who won't play online. He told me that in an actual cardroom, when someone gets quads, the action stops and people wander over to take a look. Online, I have seen quads 3 times in 1/2 hour at the same table.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I listened to and believed everything veteran B&amp;M players told me, I would have gone broke a long time ago. About 80% of them believe that AK is the worst hand in poker and pocket aces never win.

For the record in B&amp;M games, I have seen quads 3 times in 1/2 hour. Last time I was at Foxwoods there were 4 Royal Flushes made in the short time I was there (not all at the same table). I have seen some of the most mind-numbing unbelievable things in B&amp;M games. I have gone 7 hours without winning a single pot on a few occasions.

I don't know why you haven't seen these things. My only guess is that you haven't played much B&amp;M poker. The notion that the action would stop when someone makes quads is ludicrous.

If you play enough poker crazy unbelievable stuff will happen both online and in B&amp;M. Thus far, every analysis I have seen (including some I did myself using pokerstat to analyze paradise poker), tell me the the deal is completely random. I also don't see any more "action flops" than I see in B&amp;M games.

None of this proves that online casinos don't cheat any more than your arguments prove that they do.

[frizzfreeling]

Just out of interest, why would anyone go to this level of effort were it not for the fact that enough people expressed a high enough level of doubt to make that level of effort valid?

This lends absolutely no credibility to your argument. There are literally MILLIONS of poker players worldwide, a large percentage of which play online, and the vast majority of which are losing players. Of these online players, most do not have any idea what is a normal deviation for hands held. They see something "unusual" (but statistically normal) happen, such as a bad beat, and they begin to question the legitimacy of online gambling, ESPECIALLY when they are losing! Its human nature. They tend to forget the times they drew out on someone, but remember the times someone draws out on them! We all do. I remember my bad beats much more than the times I made my longshot draws! Also part of human nature (a huge part) is to deny things that have the potential to damage a person's ego. It is much easier for someone to think that they are being scammed than to admit to themselves that they arent as good as they thought. It is not necessarily a conscious decision on their part either. This is so prevalent that it is really a wonder that there arent many more players claiming fraud than there already are!

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record in B&amp;M games, I have seen quads 3 times in 1/2 hour. Last time I was at Foxwoods there were 4 Royal Flushes made in the short time I was there (not all at the same table). I have seen some of the most mind-numbing unbelievable things in B&amp;M games. I have gone 7 hours without winning a single pot on a few occasions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obiously, the brick and mortar games are rigged. The dealers are stacking the deck to create action to pump up the rake, and helping out the bad players so they don't bust out and quit playing. Evidence? You've got your memory of a sample of at least 100 hands? What more do you need?

[frizzfreeling]

The silliest argument I hear is that there are more hands played online and so it just 'seems' like there are more bad beats. These same people would probably tell me that it just 'seems' like I lose 8 out of ten hands in which I am an overwhelming favourite. Yes, it just 'seems' like you are constantly losing when you bet all in and your opponent has 2 outs and the next card up fills him. It just 'seems' that way
Losing that many hands with those odds is not rare by any means. It happens all the time. It is just the statistical deviation of the game you are playing. Having an 85% chance of winning a hand does not mean that you will constanty be winning 85% over small sample sizes. If you had the same situation (85/15) a hundred times, the outcome may still be off by a large margin. I went months once without getting a straight flush online, playing 5-10K hands a week. Then one night I had 3 in less than 600 hands! The deviation from expected results in poker over reletively "small" samples is truly phenomenal!

[BaronVonCP]

You are right.

Quit.

or

File a lawsuit, and make a lot of money.

[strategem]

[ QUOTE ]

Losing that many hands with those odds is not rare by any means. It happens all the time. !

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe me... I have been desperately searching for an explanation for what I am experiencing. The worst part of it is the posters who come on and say 'you probably suck'. Well actually... no, I don't. I can see the play of players who suck. I am not one of them. I am not trying to play tricky poker. I am playing tight and very aggressive when I know I have the best of it. And I don't consider AA pocket to be the best of it when the flop comes rags after 2 people have called my raise pre-flop. I just lay it down if there is a big raise to my bet. I am sure that i have layed down the best hand numerous times, especially to players about whom I know nothing. I wait for them to show down a couple of big bluffs before I will attempt to call them with less than the nuts. I do not chase. There is no need to do so in NL poker, as far as I can tell. I just have to wait until I have a hand and then bet it. That should be enough to make money at these tables. I will take into account what you said about my experiences being statistically normal. I guess the only alternative theory is that my poker career has just happened to start with an extended losing streak during which I get great cards and get all in against crap hands and lose, and that this streak is just continuing on.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
if i were to run a poker-site and wanted to 'mess with the deal' i would construct it so that the better hand won MORE frequently...not LESS.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would be incredibly stupid

[GrannyMae]

Believe me... I have been desperately searching for an explanation for what I am experiencing.

you have been playing poker for only one year.

that's your explanation. you don't even have enough hands played to make any statistical inferences, yet you will not listen to those that have examined a million HH's.

i encourage you to keep posting, but agree with the earlier reply that suggested you raise this argument of yours again in 3 or 4 years. you still won't have enough hands played, but you will have more credibility when you argue.

a one year player don't know a conspiracy from a natural occurance.

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/k0/smashfreak.gif

[Fred Duke]

Where do you play? Respond privately if possible and include an e-mail.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Jimbo.....for the benefit of all involved in this thread lets just pretend it is in the psychology section and that way you can impart your wisdom without getting caught up in the technicalities (or pedantries) of whether this is the right forum or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I answered your ridiculous question in the very post to which you referred. It appears you only wish to find someone who agrees with your theory. Go find Tom D, he still posts on RGP as Tom D and here with a new alias. My theory is that you have played too few hours to have any clue about the subject at all.


Jimbo

[GrannyMae]

Go find Tom D

there was no greater pleasure in this world for tom d. than when you engaged him. it was as if he lived for it. he took your posts line by line and responded 20 sentences for every 1 of yours. i swear he took 2 hours making those. i think you broke his heart when you got tired of it.

anyway, you got $2?? we are subverting a paradise promo later and need a stack of goons to sit in .01-.02 NL. homer not welcome to play tho cuz he sits out until there is ony 30 hands to go. that's unethical and we will have none of it.

btw, it is my birthday

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/i/birthday.gif

[strategem]

Ok... let me get this straight... in 3 YEARS you don't think that I will have a sample size large enough to do a statistical evaluation of my hands?

The number keeps escalating. First someone said that 50,000 hands was enough. Then 100,000. Now you mention 1,000,000. A MILLION HANDS?

Like I said, the only explanation being put forth here to explain what I have experienced is that I have unluckily hit a huge 5th or 6th standard deviation event, by coincidence, during the first year of playing.

I cannot tell you guys how badly I wish that I could show you what I have been seeing. I think that at the very least, those who are insist that I suck would say 'hmmm.... well ok, you don't suck' and those who say that it just 'seems' like I am getting sucked out all the time and that I just 'don't remember' the times I win as the favourite would say 'hmmm... well in fact, it seems like you ARE getting sucked out on an inordinate number of times, and that this has been happening pretty much constantly for the past 6 months.

Lastly, and I want to make this clear to anyone who is listening to this - the whole point is that I have NOT BEEN LOSING MONEY. I can't tell you all how indifferent I am as to whether I am believed or not. I have been playing 6-8 hours a day - my lifestyle is such that I don't have a 9-5 job. I am essentially breaking even - every time I get up it all goes back, on schedule, as I mentioned.

This is getting tiresome for me - I can imagine how it is for some of the readers of this thread. I've almost had enough. I wish that I had been using PokerTracker the entire time, but I didn't even know about it until a week ago. There is no way for me to 'prove' my claims, and nothing I have heard here has been compelling evidence that all online sites are fair.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way for me to 'prove' my claims, and nothing I have heard here has been compelling evidence that all online sites are fair.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good players win and poor players lose. What could be more fair? I suggest you quit playing online. Why would you continue if you even suspect it isn't fair? Pardon me for saying so but IMHO that is the epitome of stupidity. You should take up another hobby, one that you enjoy and one that you can understand completely so that if you do lose you will believe you were beaten fairly.

best of luck,

Jimbo

[GrannyMae]

the only explanation being put forth here to explain what I have experienced is that I have unluckily hit a huge 5th or 6th standard deviation event, by coincidence, during the first year of playing.

i don't remember seeing this specualted at all. i think they said you were a beginner and likely SUCKED. i did not see anyone give you and your talent enough credit to be merely outside the bell.

btw, there are plenty of hands to analyze out there. is it pokerroom that has them? i don't remember, but those public ones, as well as all private studies have shown absolutely perfect results versus expectation. if you had read any of the archives before you came here spouting your KOOKY-ass spew, you would know this.

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/n/puke.gif

[Jimbo]

Happy Birthday Granny!! Yes I have $2 but remember my problem with Paradise support? I've given up on playing there and will pretty much stick to UB and Party for now.

I remember the first time I ever played 5/10 with Homer and check-raised him on the river with the nut flush. /images/graemlins/smile.gif He'll never win that back in your .01/.02 game. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


Jimbo

[strategem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Good players win and poor players lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.... kinda like the 'I can't hear you I can't hear you with the fingers in the ears, don't you think?

As I have said, I am not a bad player. For you to say 'You are a bad player because you lose' is basically just telling me to f**k off - it doesn't address any of the points I have made and certainly doesn't give me any credit at all for maybe, just possibly, being what I say I am. If you wanted to tell me to f**k off, you should have the guts to just come out and say it. Right?

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Good players win and poor players lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.... kinda like the 'I can't hear you I can't hear you with the fingers in the ears, don't you think?

As I have said, I am not a bad player. For you to say 'You are a bad player because you lose' is basically just telling me to f**k off - it doesn't address any of the points I have made and certainly doesn't give me any credit at all for maybe, just possibly, being what I say I am. If you wanted to tell me to f**k off, you should have the guts to just come out and say it. Right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You left out the most important point of my post. Why do you continue to play where you think you are being cheated? Answer that question and I will be able to offer reasonable advice.

Jimbo

[GrannyMae]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Good players win and poor players lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.... kinda like the 'I can't hear you I can't hear you with the fingers in the ears, don't you think?

As I have said, I am not a bad player. For you to say 'You are a bad player because you lose' is basically just telling me to f**k off - it doesn't address any of the points I have made and certainly doesn't give me any credit at all for maybe, just possibly, being what I say I am. If you wanted to tell me to f**k off, you should have the guts to just come out and say it. Right?

[/ QUOTE ]

You left out the most important point of my post. Why do you continue to play where you think you are being cheated? Answer that question and I will be able to offer reasonable advice.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

omg, i'm dizzy. kook boy can't play OR operate the forum. don't torture him jimbo, it is anti-social
http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/i/birthday.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

[strategem]

[ QUOTE ]
the only explanation being put forth here to explain what I have experienced is that I have unluckily hit a huge 5th or 6th standard deviation event, by coincidence, during the first year of playing.

i don't remember seeing this specualted at all. i think they said you were a beginner and likely SUCKED. i did not see anyone give you and your talent enough credit to be merely outside the bell.

btw, there are plenty of hands to analyze out there. is it pokerroom that has them? i don't remember, but those public ones, as well as all private studies have shown absolutely perfect results versus expectation. if you had read any of the archives before you came here spouting your KOOKY-ass spew, you would know this.

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/n/puke.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

fantastic... as always, man.... I really value your considered and constructive input. I have talked to quite a few people via PM in the past 24 hours - and I can tell you this - almost all of them specifically pointed out that your reputation at this site is... well, how can I put it.... it is simply without equal. I am sure that those who know you in private life feel exactly the same way about you. For someone with such a huge social circle as you, it is truly amazing that you would spend the time to help me out. You have been a class act since the first post and I just want to say - man, I wish I were more like you.

I wish you all the very best, and thanks again.

[GrannyMae]

it is simply without equal


oh stop!! i'm blushing

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/f0/shy.gifhttp://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/f0/shy.gif


it is hard to flame you when you are being so kind. i do appreciate the compliment tho. sorry i called you a kook-ass

[strategem]

[quote Why do you continue to play where you think you are being cheated? Answer that question and I will be able to offer reasonable advice.

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

As I have stated several times, the past few months has been a process of gradually coming to realize that something was wrong. I have tried as hard as I can to point out that I have read all the posts here about variance, the freakish things that can happen at the table, and for a long time I tried to maintain my perspective and just play my style and believe that eventually the 'fat-tail' type events would stop and that I would at least be able to make what was 'coming to me' as calculated by the odds I had over my opponents when I found myself all in. I have shut down all but one account because, as I said earlier, I find that there is a significant difference between the SNG tables and the ring games, at which I can be guaranteed of a thumping whenever I go all in and get called as a massive favourite. I will try to play only the SNG games for a while, just to see if something changes.

As a last point I don't think the customer service the various sites have a poster of me up in the office as 'most well-liked client' since I have had these discussions with them. Can they set your account on stun if they want? How incredible that anyone would ever argue that they cannot do any f**king they they want.

[Lori]

How incredible that anyone would ever argue that they cannot do any f**king they they want.

Could you explain why they singled you out of the customer base of several hundred thousand for this ill treatment?

Lori

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I have shut down all but one account because, as I said earlier, I find that there is a significant difference between the SNG tables and the ring games, at which I can be guaranteed of a thumping whenever I go all in and get called as a massive favourite. I will try to play only the SNG games for a while, just to see if something changes.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this portion of your response outlines the quirk quite well. Why would you be cheated any less at a SNG than in a ring game? If anything you should be cheated more since you have paid 100% of the "rake" upfront. It would behoove the poker sites to screw you as quickly as possible in the SNG so you play another and pony up more upfront rake. In a ring game the site should smooth out the wins so that more of the money goes to the rake rather than other players.

It all comes down to the fact that you must be doing better at 1 table tourneys than you are at ring games. Everyone cannot play ring games well, some players strengths are more suited to tourneys. Perhaps you fall in this category.

I honestly think that if you are losing at poker after a full year of playing regularly you honestly do not play as well as you think you do. This is no disgrace, it is why the games stay good at poker. Most people externalize the reason they lose so thet they are able to justify continuing to play.

Personally I was never very good at basketball but I never thought I was being cheated. I just took up a new game and made a living at it for over 20 years. The people I beat over that 20 year period all (without exception) thought they played better than they really did. The vast majority justified losing to me by saying I got lucky. I never discouraged one person from believing that and you know what? They kept coming back for more, sorta like you are doing at poker.

Again best of luck,

Jimbo

[strategem]

[ QUOTE ]
How incredible that anyone would ever argue that they cannot do any f**king they they want.

Could you explain why they singled you out of the customer base of several hundred thousand for this ill treatment?

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

huh?

[strategem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have shut down all but one account because, as I said earlier, I find that there is a significant difference between the SNG tables and the ring games, at which I can be guaranteed of a thumping whenever I go all in and get called as a massive favourite. I will try to play only the SNG games for a while, just to see if something changes.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this portion of your response outlines the quirk quite well. Why would you be cheated any less at a SNG than in a ring game? If anything you should be cheated more since you have paid 100% of the "rake" upfront. It would behoove the poker sites to screw you as quickly as possible in the SNG so you play another and pony up more upfront rake. In a ring game the site should smooth out the wins so that more of the money goes to the rake rather than other players.

It all comes down to the fact that you must be doing better at 1 table tourneys than you are at ring games. Everyone cannot play ring games well, some players strengths are more suited to tourneys. Perhaps you fall in this category.

I honestly think that if you are losing at poker after a full year of playing regularly you honestly do not play as well as you think you do. This is no disgrace, it is why the games stay good at poker. Most people externalize the reason they lose so thet they are able to justify continuing to play.

Personally I was never very good at basketball but I never thought I was being cheated. I just took up a new game and made a living at it for over 20 years. The people I beat over that 20 year period all (without exception) thought they played better than they really did. The vast majority justified losing to me by saying I got lucky. I never discouraged one person from believing that and you know what? They kept coming back for more, sorta like you are doing at poker.

Again best of luck,

Jimbo

[/ QUOTE ]

Jimbo, I guess you are comfortable believing what you believe - I guess we all are in a sense. I wasn't going to get into this but I want you to know -

I don't have to work during the day because I make my living playing another game myself. The game I play is the futures trading game. In this game, the vast majority of the participants are losers - only a small handful of people show consistent profits. In this game, it is essential that you are able to take a loss quickly. The majority of losers hold on in losing positions becuase they are 'hoping' that things will improve. I believe that this is caused in part by an unwillingness to admit that one has made the wrong decision, accompanied by a fear of realizing the actual dollar loss involved in closing out a losing position. The name of the game is discipline. I have come to a place where I LOVE to take a small loss - I EMBRACE my small losses, even when the position turns right around and becomes a winner just moments after my stop is hit. This is because I know I am preventing a few of those small losses from turning into equity-killing giants. One must understand that if one has a tenable strategy, it does not matter what the short term outcomes are - you know that in the long term you will make your money.

I tell you all of this just to let you know that I am intimitely familiar with the emotional reactions that can occur when a position goes against you. I have had runs where I could not close out a winning trade for days. When this happens I immediately start to trade smaller and I stay small until I am winning again.

I am used to success and not used to failure - not at all. The worst thing about this is that, even though you won't (can't?) credit me for it, I am taking a winning approach to this game and I am getting thumped. As I have pointed out ad nauseum, I am NOT, as you described me, a losing player. Break-even would describe it. The reason I am break even is that every time I get all in with an 85/15 fav, I get cleaned by a two outer landing on the turn or riv. I don't lose much money by getting bled, it is always the big pots, the ones in which I am drawn out in in the most fantastic ways. It is the fact that I can't get ahead in this game, one into which I come in with a huge advantage over most newbies, that is most frustrating to me.

I wish LIKE HELL I had been using PokerTracker. I could silence you guys in two seconds if I had the logs.

Thanks for your advice.

[Lori]

I wish LIKE HELL I had been using PokerTracker. I could silence you guys in two seconds if I had the logs.

If one of the sites is Stars and you complain politely, you might be able to get hold of every hand you have played there.

They are always willing to help with stuff like this.

Lori

[LikesToLose]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish LIKE HELL I had been using PokerTracker. I could silence you guys in two seconds if I had the logs.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you had Poker Tracker, you would never have posted this crap in the first place. Your memory is more fauly than the deal.

Facts please. No more "It seems..." and "I constantly...". This is why no one takes your theory seriously. Find a way to test your theory and test it. Post results here, or sell them to competitors or the press.

Second, if you were a winning player, I would think that you would have PT. While there are many 'learning' players with PT, I think most of the winners have and use it. You may be deluding yourself that you are winning, but we don't have any facts to base a conclusion on (please see above).

Third: Futures trading and Poker are vastly different. The same mentality may produce opposite results. There really isn't much bluffing or deception in Futures trading is there? You might be a 'nut peddler', which will only have limited success in Poker.

[Poker Jet]

Let me put it this way...
Why cheat.. poker rooms dont need to... their business is strictly a profit business anyways and the only idiotic move would be to upset that cart... Now if it was a "rigged deal" as proposed at the top one of 2 things would happen.

A) The more action flops would break more fish quicker, bringing less players and actually LESS RAKE (profit)
B) Someone find out and they lose their entire business...

Neither is a +EV move...

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish LIKE HELL I had been using PokerTracker. I could silence you guys in two seconds if I had the logs.


[/ QUOTE ]

Start now. It's cheap and can really improve your game, as well as get the stats on all your suckouts vs. hands that hold up.

It's really possible that you're the victim of selective memory. After all, how many times have you had a pocket pair that won without a showdown? Those might be excluded from your memory.

People have done research to debunk these claims. If you're serious about these (and from the tone of your posts, you are), then start getting a log of these hands. It won't be statistically relevant for a while, but even after 2 weeks patterns will start to form.

[strategem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Third: Futures trading and Poker are vastly different. The same mentality may produce opposite results. There really isn't much bluffing or deception in Futures trading is there? You might be a 'nut peddler', which will only have limited success in Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I disagree totally with this claim. I see a lot of parallels between these two games - in both, risk management is paramount. In both, one must not chase after profits in situations that have become losing, even if they were winning situations very recently. In both, the most important thing is the players attitude. It seems pretty superficial to call poker and trading 'vastly different' simply because there's no bluffing in poker. I guess you haven't done much trading. I believe that Chris Ferguson is a trader and there must be others, since both these games require the same skill sets.

And yes, I guess I am a nut peddler, but there have been thousands of posts on here suggesting that this is exactly what I should try to be as a beginning player on the low buy-in NL tables. Now, I am not so foolish as to suspect a grand conspiracy by the posters here to delude all us newbs into thinking that playing tight aggressive is the way to go when in fact it is not. The fact is, my style of play should work beautifully and it DOES - I don't lose big pots by chasing, I don't play marginal Aces, I raise aggressively with big pockets to shut out the rags who want to see the flop, and I constantly get into situations in which I have by far the best of it HU and go all in and get the exact call I want.


pokerjet - you asked 'Why would they cheat'. Of all the responses I hear, this is the weirdest. Why do criminals commit crimes? Ummm... greed?


jedi, you mention two weeks to see a pattern coming through - others have mentioned the figure of 1,000,000 hands.... they have suggested that I must play for 3-4 years before I can expect the probabilities to level out.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is, my style of play should work beautifully and it DOES

[/ QUOTE ]

According to you, it doesn't work. And no one here can tell whether it should or not, since you have yet to post a single hand history.

[ QUOTE ]
- I don't lose big pots by chasing,

[/ QUOTE ]

In low-limit games, the pots (and implied odds) are often big enough to chase longshot draws

[ QUOTE ]
I don't play marginal Aces,

[/ QUOTE ]

good.

[ QUOTE ]
I raise aggressively with big pockets to shut out the rags who want to see the flop,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not why you raise with big pairs.

[ QUOTE ]
and I constantly get into situations in which I have by far the best of it HU and go all in and get the exact call I want.


[/ QUOTE ]

And if this is 100% true, you would be a winner.

[strategem]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is, my style of play should work beautifully and it DOES

According to you, it doesn't work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, if you had read on, you would be able to put this statement in context - I said that it works beautifully in the sense that I constantly get in situations where I am all in with by far the best of it. Apparently you weren't able to pick up on this contextual nuance.

[ QUOTE ]
- I don't lose big pots by chasing

In low-limit games, the pots (and implied odds) are often big enough to chase longshot draws

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I understand all about that, having thoroughly familiarized myself with the concepts of pot-odds and implied odds by reading TOP, WLLHE, and HEFAP. I mean chasing a third 10 with pocket tens, when the board is paired in KK and a tight player is check-raising and betting out.



[ QUOTE ]
I raise aggressively with big pockets to shut out the rags who want to see the flop

That's not why you raise with big pairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

????? Ok, you will have to explain this to me and to every experienced player on here who has told me to raise in this situation for exactly this reason.

[ QUOTE ]
and I constantly get into situations in which I have by far the best of it HU and go all in and get the exact call I want.


And if this is 100% true, you would be a winner .

[/ QUOTE ]

And I find it very hard to win, thus this series of posts.

It's strange how I can constantly post re: my style of play and still these people insist that I suck. It's almost like it's a matter of faith with them

[pudley4]

1 - You still haven't posted a hand, so no one knows what your style of play truly is. Anyone can come on a forum and mouth all the right words.

2 - You raise with big pairs to make your opponents pay a lot to see a flop with their crappy hands.

Quick question: If you have AA at a 10-handed holdem table, and you raise preflop, how many callers do you want?

3 - You registered here over a year ago, and claim you read and study these forums, yet you only heard about Pokertracker (PT) a week ago? Bullshit. There are posts all over these forums regarding PT and how useful it is.

[mrwhippy]

Started something here didn't I.............. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[TheNutz]

&lt;quote&gt;
I talked to a veteran B &amp; M player yesterday who won't play online. He told me that in an actual cardroom, when someone gets quads, the action stops and people wander over to take a look. Online, I have seen quads 3 times in 1/2 hour at the same table.
&lt;/quote&gt;

Am I the only one who realized this was completely Stupid for A VERY SIMPLE REASON?

You are sitting at the table next to a table where a play flops quads. Does a bell ring and everyone comes over to the table midhand to watch the amazing quads MID HAND?!?!?!

Would that not be a MILD TELL ?

Or would someone simply try to BLUFF and act like they were the mystery player (at the table where the bell rang) and try to bluff the REAL QUAD holder off of HIS HAND!!!

Jesus Christ, LMFAO! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I'm suprised noone made it to this before me ...

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one who realized this was completely Stupid for A VERY SIMPLE REASON?


[/ QUOTE ]

Its also stupid for an even simpler reason, its flat out untrue. Can you imagine showing quads on the river in some casino and having people from all over the room running over and oohing and ahhing? What a farce.

[strategem]

[ QUOTE ]
- You still haven't posted a hand, so no one knows what your style of play truly is. Anyone can come on a forum and mouth all the right words.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.... man, you are a hard case, aren't you? Ok, look... Sure, I could post my bad beats here but who would be interested in that? If I posted them people like you would be abll over me telling me that I made them up - after all, what's stopping me from creating a document that looks like a HH and posting it here. Since you seem to be implying that I spending all this time... for what reason I am not sure.... because I'm a lunatic perhaps? Is that what you think? At any rate, I won't be posting any bad beats here.



[ QUOTE ]
Quick question: If you have AA at a 10-handed holdem table, and you raise preflop, how many callers do you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have said one

[ QUOTE ]
- You registered here over a year ago, and claim you read and study these forums, yet you only heard about Pokertracker (PT) a week ago? Bullshit. There are posts all over these forums regarding PT and how useful it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm.. this is very strange...please provide a link to the post where I said that I heard of pokertracker a week ago.

I appreciate any input, but your constant suggestions that I am lying as opposed to misguided are really annoying. I would have thought that if you actually read my posts you would see that at the very least, I am trying to be honest.

So thanks for your input and best of luck to you.

[strategem]

[quote Does a bell ring and everyone comes over to the table midhand to watch the amazing quads MID HAND?!?!?!


[/ QUOTE ]

Jeez.... I think he meant after the hand when the table oohs and aahs at the quads - I don't know - this is someone who PM'd me and I PM'd him back.He was saying that online, he sees quads way more than he does at a B &amp; M casino.

Funny how so many of the really good players on here, like you, tend to be abusive f**ks. I wonder if there's some kind of correlation between intolerance and poker prowess.

[blackaces13]

Strat, I understand where you're coming (in that I can see why people think online poker is rigged) but you have to understand that a lot of it is because the hands come so much faster, people multi-table, and people are simply more suspicious of computers than of real-life dealers.

There are pros who play on all sites with databases of hundreds of thousands of hands. If there were any noticable irregularities they would be known of and there would be reputable people who make their living playing poker who would come forward and let it be known.

In my experience I have NEVER heard a well known pro claim that hands online are distributed unevenly based on their longterm data.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
Quick question: If you have AA at a 10-handed holdem table, and you raise preflop, how many callers do you want?


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



I would have said one


[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, this is just wrong. AA is the best hand in the game, you want as many callers as possible for the most amount of money as possible. I could take a long time and explain why but it boils down to wanting to win money in the longrun NOT pots.

Give me AA and 9 callers everyhand I play and I'll be WAY richer than the guy who gets AA everytime and 1 caller. WAAAAY richer.

Also, he'd win WAAAAY more pots than me, oh well he can have em. Make sense?

[strategem]

[ QUOTE ]
Strat, I understand where you're coming (in that I can see why people think online poker is rigged) but you have to understand that a lot of it is because the hands come so much faster, people multi-table, and people are simply more suspicious of computers than of real-life dealers.

There are pros who play on all sites with databases of hundreds of thousands of hands. If there were any noticable irregularities they would be known of and there would be reputable people who make their living playing poker who would come forward and let it be known.

In my experience I have NEVER heard a well known pro claim that hands online are distributed unevenly based on their longterm data.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aces

Thanks a lot for the polite response. I'm done with these particular threads but I did just start a new thread with an honest question that has arisen out of all this - if you wanted to read it and comment, I would welcome it.

[strategem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quick question: If you have AA at a 10-handed holdem table, and you raise preflop, how many callers do you want?


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



I would have said one


[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, this is just wrong. AA is the best hand in the game, you want as many callers as possible for the most amount of money as possible. I could take a long time and explain why but it boils down to wanting to win money in the longrun NOT pots.

Give me AA and 9 callers everyhand I play and I'll be WAY richer than the guy who gets AA everytime and 1 caller. WAAAAY richer.

Also, he'd win WAAAAY more pots than me, oh well he can have em. Make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus Christ.

Aces.... you would want 9 callers with your AA? This goes against everything I have read and heard and believe me, from the tone of your responses to me, I know that you're not a crank. I am honestly shocked by this. What happened to 'You don't want all those raggy hands seeing the flop for cheap and then making two raggy pair on you'? What happened to 'Each hand that goes in against your AA reduces the odds that you will have the best hand at the end'?

I can start searching through TOP and Cloutier and WLLHE right now and come up with 10 different examples of these guys saying you want to raise AA so that you don't have any raggy hand calling and screwing up your odds!!

What happened to 'raise to isolate'? Why would you raise with AA if this were the case? It would then be proper to limp with this hand because you don't want to chase anyone out of the pot!!

Man oh man I am confused now.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
What happened to 'Each hand that goes in against your AA reduces the odds that you will have the best hand at the end'?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is absolutely true and it is precisely what leads to the faulty premise of wanting to induce pre-flop folds with AA. As I said you have to think of longterm EV in dollars, not in the amount of pots actually won.

Sure you'll win a lot more pots with fewer callers but the fact is that you make money from EVERYONE who puts money in pre-flop, they are all playing catch up. Also, I'm talking about limit hold em here but I assume the same principle is at work in NL cash games yet NOT in tournys where you may actually want the folds due to survival.

I used to think I wanted almost everyone to fold when I raised AA UTG but after reading some really good posts on these boards I came to realize I was wrong. You should do a search for some of these yourself, they are very interesting and should remove all doubt about why to raise with Aces and what you're hoping for. Here's an excerpt I found that sheds some light on it:


[ QUOTE ]
just ran some figures for AA utg, in the long run

for the sake of simplicity, let's say everyone bets 100 each

against 6 players you win 43% of 600 = 258

against 5 players you win 49% of 500 = 245

against 4 players you win 56% of 400 = 224

against 3 players you win 64% of 300 = 192

against 2 players you win 73% of 200 = 146

against 1 player you win 85% of 100 = 85

this means on average every time you put 100 in the middle you win 258 against 6 opponents and only 85 against one oppponent - you'll only drag pots half as often against six opponents as against one, but they will be 700 pots instead of 200 pots

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a hot and cold sim but it illustrates why you want money going in preflop and a lot of callers. You should really think about the whole "knocking people out" mentality, its far from obvious until you really think about it.

[GrannyMae]

Aces.... you would want 9 callers with your AA?


while i don't really believe you ever read anything, you can't even understand why he is saying this.

whether he is right or wrong is not the issue, but you fail to understand that he is asserting that the pot would be massive if it held up. all you can think about is the one line you heard about thinning the field because AA would hold up better against a lone opponent. however, against a lone opponent you don't win squat.

you don't even have enough of a grasp of poker knowledge and theory to have realized what he is stating, so you are not qualified to debate him.

one last thing...

i believe you like to push your views on others, which is fine. however, please take the time to READ the replies that address your concerns. you go on and on with the same assertions and all of them have been answered. but yet you still repeat yourself over and over and over.

i have been polite with you here because you are starting to clog the forum. please don't start new threads with the same recycled bullshit and we will accept you as the beginner you are and welcome you into the community. at this point, the only people responding to you are people who have not been to the forum in a few days. the rest of us are bored with you, as will be the new responders.

best of luck

[GrannyMae]

sorry aces, was typing my reply when you posted yours. did not mean to be repetitive, and your illustration with the numbers is excellent.

http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/i/birthday.gif

[strategem]

[ QUOTE ]

You should really think about the whole "knocking people out" mentality, its far from obvious until you really think about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow... Aces, I am going to have to look into this and get back to you. I suppose that the sim you gave was from that Wilson s/w or something like it. If I continue, I see that I will have to get it and do some research.

In this case, there will be an optimal preflop raise amount that maximizes the winning percentage/pot size ratio.

Thanks a lot for taking the time to give such a detailed reply.

[strategem]

[ QUOTE ]

Aces.... you would want 9 callers with your AA?


while i don't really believe you ever read anything, you can't even understand why he is saying this.

whether he is right or wrong is not the issue, but you fail to understand that he is asserting that the pot would be massive if it held up. all you can think about is the one line you heard about thinning the field because AA would hold up better against a lone opponent. however, against a lone opponent you don't win squat.

you don't even have enough of a grasp of poker knowledge and theory to have realized what he is stating, so you are not qualified to debate him.

one last thing...

i believe you like to push your views on others, which is fine. however, please take the time to READ the replies that address your concerns. you go on and on with the same assertions and all of them have been answered. but yet you still repeat yourself over and over and over.

i have been polite with you here because you are starting to clog the forum. please don't start new threads with the same recycled bullshit and we will accept you as the beginner you are and welcome you into the community. at this point, the only people responding to you are people who have not been to the forum in a few days. the rest of us are bored with you, as will be the new responders.

best of luck

[/ QUOTE ]

Granny. thanks for your kind words and I appreciate all the help you've given me here. Your posts have really made the difference. And yes, you have been very polite to me the entire time - all anyone would have to do would be to review your posts to me to see that.

Also, I have to admit - you are right; I never read anything. In fact, I can't read at all. It's something that I've coped with all my life, but I don't feel sorry for myself - things could be a lot worse.

If you think it would be best for me to refrain from starting new threads, then I can only say - no problem. I will do anything you tell me to do. I know who I'm dealing with and believe me, to even have you repsond to these posts is lucky as hell. I also really appreciate your offer to welcome me into the community here. It is people like you that really make this a great resource for beginning players like me. I am not sure what you get out of it... but on second thought, that's probably the point, isn't it?
I guess this about says it all - there's no need to clog the threads, as you said. Goodbye, Grandma and all the very best.

[TheNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
[quote Does a bell ring and everyone comes over to the table midhand to watch the amazing quads MID HAND?!?!?!


[/ QUOTE ]

Jeez.... I think he meant after the hand when the table oohs and aahs at the quads - I don't know - this is someone who PM'd me and I PM'd him back.He was saying that online, he sees quads way more than he does at a B &amp; M casino.

Funny how so many of the really good players on here, like you, tend to be abusive f**ks. I wonder if there's some kind of correlation between intolerance and poker prowess.

[/ QUOTE ]

O.K. Dude NOW We all know you are out of the loop!

You're calling me a good player?

I'm -EV HUGE!!! (Atleast I admit it)

[TheNutz]

BTW, I don't know about anyone else.. But do any of you who play more then a few hours per day... actualyl even have more then a slight 'nice hand' reaction when even so much as a straight flush hits at your table?

I don't know if it's just me, but after my first royal flush.. The second meant nothing.. and the third was like "wow, kind of cool..."

I think when you play on-line you see these type of hands so much more often, hands like quads are a dime a dozen.. I would say I see them ATLEAST once per day EASY.

[MS Sunshine]

"I hasten to add at this point that I have played a LOT of poker online and in "real" life and as much as I try to convince myself I am being daft I cannot get away from the fact that my online cash game results are consistently more random/unpredictable than my online tourneys and real life games."

I notice that online hands have a different feel from B&amp;M hands. Bridge tournaments require nine(it might be 13) riffles where poker hands only get three. The online deck is MORE random, plus many more online hands during the same amount of time and you do have a noticeable different poker experience online compared to live. With a few exceptions, I fear no funny business with online poker sites.

MS Sunshine

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- You still haven't posted a hand, so no one knows what your style of play truly is. Anyone can come on a forum and mouth all the right words.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.... man, you are a hard case, aren't you? Ok, look... Sure, I could post my bad beats here but who would be interested in that? If I posted them people like you would be abll over me telling me that I made them up - after all, what's stopping me from creating a document that looks like a HH and posting it here. Since you seem to be implying that I spending all this time... for what reason I am not sure.... because I'm a lunatic perhaps? Is that what you think? At any rate, I won't be posting any bad beats here.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 - I never claimed they weren't bad beats. What I'm questioning is whether your overall losses (or break-even play, or small winnings; however you describe your less-than-expected results) stem solely from those bad beats, or whether they can also be attributed to poor play on your part.

2 - You claim they are bad beats, but we have no proof they are. They may be reasonably played by your opponent. We also have no idea whether your "solid play" is actually solid or not. Why should we believe that you truly know how to play?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Quick question: If you have AA at a 10-handed holdem table, and you raise preflop, how many callers do you want?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have said one

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you would have been wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
- You registered here over a year ago, and claim you read and study these forums, yet you only heard about Pokertracker (PT) a week ago? Bullshit. There are posts all over these forums regarding PT and how useful it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm.. this is very strange...please provide a link to the post where I said that I heard of pokertracker a week ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't lie (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=inet&amp;Number=677336&amp;Forum=, All_Forums,&amp;Words=&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Limit=25&amp;Main=6740 12&amp;Search=true&amp;where=&amp;Name=1903&amp;daterange=&amp;newerva l=&amp;newertype=&amp;olderval=&amp;oldertype=&amp;bodyprev=#Post6 77336)

[ QUOTE ]


I appreciate any input, but your constant suggestions that I am lying as opposed to misguided are really annoying.

[/ QUOTE ]

You give us zero proof of anything you say, yet we are supposed to believe you?And so far the only time I thought you were flat-out lying was regarding your knowledge of PokerTracker.

[ QUOTE ]
I would have thought that if you actually read my posts you would see that at the very least, I am trying to be honest.

So thanks for your input and best of luck to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be trying to be honest, but you may also be deluding yourself as to your true skill. If you either A)can't remember your above-mentioned post, or B)lied in said post to try to strengthen your argument, then it's very likely you misremembering many facts with regards to these hands you keep losing (e.g. how far ahead you really were; whether your opponent played correctly or not; whether you played correctly or not)

[strategem]

[ QUOTE ]
You may be trying to be honest, but you may also be deluding yourself as to your true skill. If you either A)can't remember your above-mentioned post, or B)lied in said post to try to strengthen your argument, then it's very likely you misremembering many facts with regards to these hands you keep losing (e.g. how far ahead you really were; whether your opponent played correctly or not; whether you played correctly or not)

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I don't expect you to understand this, but... It wasn't a LIE, okay? I have heard of PT recently, not when I first joined these forums. I should have said that. I heard of the Wilson s/w a long time ago but I haven't got that yet either. I don't spend every minute of my day here as my post total will show you. When you are being attacked as a snivelling whiner, isn't it at least slightly forgiveable that you would lash back? So I said a week when it was 2 months - big f**ing deal. It's not a LIE as you keep claiming. It doesn't negate the honesty or veracity of anything else I've posted. I heard about PT recently ands I haven't used it and I wish I did. I am not trying to make this my livng, I just want to do well at it. Using PT is a great way for me to get better and if I continue I will try it.

Your pop psych really doesn't stand up to scrutiny - you shouldn't quit your day job. You can't extrapolate from this statement made in the heat of the moment and come up with a complete psychological profile of me, as you seem to want to do.

Psychologically speaking, your confrontational, demeaning attitude and your desperate desire to belittle others speaks volumes about your own little mind. If you don't think that this shows through in your posts, you are kidding yourself. I would go on to discuss the AA situation with you, but discussion is hardly your strong suit, so I think I'll pass and continue it with those who are like-minded.

DO you wonder why you're alone?

[jedi]

Look strategem,

Why don't you prove it to yourself that these things are happening. Buy poker tracker. It's WAY worth the money, especially if you play higher limits. With this tool, you can easily log the information you're seeking.

You seem to want to convince people that you're right, but without evidence, and in the face of CONTRARY evidence, no one will believe you. There are many things to explain away what you see. Selective memory for one. A bad run is another. Other posters have also said that maybe you're not as good as you think you are. I know that was the case for me when I was starting out. Post some hands. Post some hands where you win and post some where you lose. Not getting full value from your winning hands might make you a loser in the long run as well. Same with going too far with losing hands.

[strategem]

[ QUOTE ]
Look strategem,

Why don't you prove it to yourself that these things are happening. Buy poker tracker. It's WAY worth the money, especially if you play higher limits. With this tool, you can easily log the information you're seeking.

You seem to want to convince people that you're right, but without evidence, and in the face of CONTRARY evidence, no one will believe you. There are many things to explain away what you see. Selective memory for one. A bad run is another. Other posters have also said that maybe you're not as good as you think you are. I know that was the case for me when I was starting out. Post some hands. Post some hands where you win and post some where you lose. Not getting full value from your winning hands might make you a loser in the long run as well. Same with going too far with losing hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Both times you responded to me it was in a civil manner and I really appreciate it. I will take your advice re: PT.

I may sign up under another name since my cred seems to be shot here under this name. I have however, had some very helpful responses over in the NL section re: a question I asked about playing AA.

I guess my approach is irritating enough to inspire the variously demeaning and vicious responses I have read to my posts. It's actually quite amazing.

I promised my last responses here and this is IT. Thanks again for at least treating me with respect, even if you think I am deluded/misguided/stupid. As far as I am concerned, this trait in you means more than 10 WSOP bracelets.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You may be trying to be honest, but you may also be deluding yourself as to your true skill. If you either A)can't remember your above-mentioned post, or B)lied in said post to try to strengthen your argument, then it's very likely you misremembering many facts with regards to these hands you keep losing (e.g. how far ahead you really were; whether your opponent played correctly or not; whether you played correctly or not)

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I don't expect you to understand this, but... It wasn't a LIE, okay? I have heard of PT recently, not when I first joined these forums. I should have said that. I heard of the Wilson s/w a long time ago but I haven't got that yet either. I don't spend every minute of my day here as my post total will show you. When you are being attacked as a snivelling whiner, isn't it at least slightly forgiveable that you would lash back? So I said a week when it was 2 months - big f**ing deal. It's not a LIE as you keep claiming. It doesn't negate the honesty or veracity of anything else I've posted.

[/ QUOTE ]

So someone who rarely posts here comes in and starts wondering about the validity of online sites, includes an obvious exaggeration in one of his posts, but we're supposed to believe everything else is 100% accurate? Not likely.

[ QUOTE ]
I heard about PT recently ands I haven't used it and I wish I did. I am not trying to make this my livng, I just want to do well at it. Using PT is a great way for me to get better and if I continue I will try it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good, it's very useful.

[ QUOTE ]
You can't extrapolate from this statement made in the heat of the moment and come up with a complete psychological profile of me, as you seem to want to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

A - Take more time thinking/editing your posts, so you avoid the "heat of the moment mistakes"

B - I have no intention of trying to psychologically profile you. All I'm doing is pointing out that inconsistencies and lack of information from you give most reasonable posters no choice but to doubt you.

[ QUOTE ]
Psychologically speaking, your confrontational, demeaning attitude and your desperate desire to belittle others speaks volumes about your own little mind. If you don't think that this shows through in your posts, you are kidding yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[ QUOTE ]
I would go on to discuss the AA situation with you, but discussion is hardly your strong suit, so I think I'll pass and continue it with those who are like-minded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess your definition of "discussion" is different from mine. In my definition, when an individual makes a claim (I am a winning player), then is asked for some type of proof so the discussion can continue, said individual provides the proof (or some reasonable alternative). In your definition of discussion, said individual repeates the statement ad nauseum, and then attacks the other party.

[ QUOTE ]

DO you wonder why you're alone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, but I'll ask my wife and kids if they ever do.

Look, it's very simple - there are hundreds of posters who have been here a long time and many of them have played thousands of hands online and are long-term winners. We see posts like these all the time (wondering about the accuracy or validity of online sites), yet there is never any proof from the new posters. It's all "The cards feel wrong" and "I've won for years at my local room but can't win online". When asked for any kind of proof, we are either given a statistically insignificant number of hands, or complete refusal.

I never said you were a bad player; however, since only about 10-15% of poker players are winners, it's much more likely that you are not a winner than it is you are. The vast majority of poker players overestimate their own ability - I know lots of players at my local cardroom who think they are winning players but do not play a winning game.

Poker losses are not limited to only bad beats. You could be playing a winning style, yet be missing enough bets to make you a losing player. You may be slowly bleeding chips with marginal hands. You may be paying off too many obviously second best hands. There are lots and lots of reasons why people lose - bad beats are not the only cause.

Finally, if you think what I've posted is harsh, and you're going to ignore it because of that, then you have almost no chance of succeeding by learning here at 2+2. These posts are nothing compared to some of the helpful criticism you'll get (and you might as well just block Dynasty right now, because you're going to hate some of his responses.)

[jumpthru]

I didn't read this whole thread, but someone said look at the auditing being done...

I notice all sites have an auditer (usually that same compnay, dont remember the name) EXCEPT party poker...i cant seem to find there auditing documents...could someone point me there?

Also there is a poker site, dont remmeber which one, that makes publically available their hand stats for there millions of hands...they all work out as they should...of course they could fudge thoses...

but what it comes down to (and i know this hand been said) is that why risk making a ten thousand more a month rigging hands, when you are already pulling in hundreds of thousands a day...online poker is THE NUMBER ONE business model in the world right now...so much money to be made, the risk/reward of losing their business and the millions they already make, for a few thousand more doesn't make since.