Cheaters in our Midst?

[LetYouDown]

[ QUOTE ]
I further believe that if you run the software on you own hand history files that your results will not vary much from mine.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's the first thing you've said that I've agreed with.

[VivaLaViking]

This was all done by computer but it didn't mis-add. 89 sets / 13 value card is ~= to a mean of 6.84. Thanks

[VivaLaViking]

Thank you for the post. Any ass kicking I get here is a minor percent of what's in store for me so it preps me a little. I wanted to put the standard deviation in but I haven't had time yet. I only put a print routine for some of the pair data. Being on the verge of statistical relevance is like geing a little pregnant. There is other data that I can see but no print routine is enabled, like flopping 2 or three cards with a held suited A. When all the data is viewed cummatively even if statistical significance is not acheaved individually, it tells me to play poker elsewhere.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you asking what site these trials were taken from? If so if I had an email address I'd send you an email. BTW: Condition A was tounament hands and Condition B were cash games. Also, the way hand hisory file are written the flop can be seen if you are in or had folded. This would show up in the Win %. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

why would the site intentionally flop a reduced number of sets? intuitively it would make more sense to for them to increase the number of good hands to drive up betting and collect more rake.

[elitegimp]

[ QUOTE ]
Being on the verge of statistical relevance is like geing a little pregnant.

[/ QUOTE ]

hehehe. What I meant is that most statisticians consider either 1% or 5% to be the cut-off for "statistically relevent deviation" (at least according to several of my undergrad stat professors). I think you need to collect more data and hope that your deviation from the mean goes up or down (i.e. does not stay the same). And by "more data" I mean another couple hundred hands, not "let's see what happens with the next 5 pocket pairs."

Also, it seems like you are biased towards showing that this online site is rigged. That's a very dangerous mindset to have because you'll look for evidence that agrees with you and ignore evidence that disagrees with you.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Being on the verge of statistical relevance is like geing a little pregnant.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is not true. there are measurable degrees of statistical significance, but pregnancy is digital - you are or you are not

[Stephen H]

You really need to include your method of selecting hands to be in your results there. Realize that your selection criteria is going to be hammered the hardest to insure that it doesn't introduce any bias, so if you're hoping to get some idea of what you're going to face, you should probably reveal that now.
You'll also need to at least mention any other factors that may affect results. For example, when AA goes to a flop, is it more likey that another A was dealt to a player than if it doesn't see a flop? (I don't know the answer, and it's probably an interesting discussion point, but that's beside the point) Given issues like that, you really should strive for a much larger sample size; I'd want at least something statistically significant for each rank. 1K/rank, or 13K pairs, would be a good start.
The point being that a few raw numbers in a chart compared against statistical averages isn't really enough to get excited about; and more than that, it's certainly shouldn't be enough to get legislation passed.

[Nottom]

OMG online poker is rigged!!!

I'm surprised it took so long for someone to finally figure this out. I'm gonna go cross-link this to the zoo immediately.