Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
after a year you are bankrupt.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, why the f would you be broke? You're raking it in by the truckload.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's assume you look like your avatar, this is my answer:

Cutie, let papa do the talking..... wait for me in bed.....

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
after a year you are bankrupt.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, why the f would you be broke? You're raking it in by the truckload.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's assume you look like your avatar, this is my answer:

Cutie, let papa do the talking..... wait for me in bed.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's assume you just like to use the phrase "let's assume."

Unless you're joking, please explain how you can possibly think you will go broke operating a major online poker site like Party.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
after a year you are bankrupt.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, why the f would you be broke? You're raking it in by the truckload.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's assume you look like your avatar, this is my answer:

Cutie, let papa do the talking..... wait for me in bed.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's assume you just like to use the phrase "let's assume."

Unless you're joking, please explain how you can possibly think you will go broke operating a major online poker site like Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's the beauty of the word assume. Today I'm rich, tomorrow I'm broke and every night I have 10 bunnies sharing my bed. Ohh, maybe that should be imagine or I wish or...

And yes, I have been known for making a joke or two... but shhhhhhhhhh it's a secret.

Once again, my best response is: "cutie, let papa do the talking....!

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

If they do somehow juice the pots or rig the game, it’s certainly not enough to stop expert or even good players from making thousands of dollars a month, and even hundreds of thousands a year in some cases.

It is believed that Party pulls in over a million dollars a day in rake alone, which would lead some to argue that “they make enough money”, and that they wouldn’t jeopardize their immensely profitable business for a few extra bucks.

This to me seems somewhat of a logical fallacy.

First of all, to imply that someone makes “enough” money is completely arbitrary, and in most cases quite far from the truth. I have yet to hear of a company that feels they make “enough” money, and willfully forfeits pursuing any additional avenues of revenue.

To think that there aren’t people working around the clock, sitting in boardrooms discussing and strategizing about how to pull even more money out this very lucrative (albeit shady) industry, would be naïve. Especially now having a responsibility to shareholders. (Keep in mind that just because they may not have cheated in the past, does not mean for certain that they would not do so in the future, especially if forecasting an eminent demise or decline in revenue.)

Mainstream businesses and corporations are known to be seedy and ruthless themselves, and have been caught taking all kinds of corrupt and suspicious measures to increase the bottom line. So to think that an online gambling site would be any different would be overly optimistic IMO.

Secondly, if they did decide they wanted to increase profits in such a manner, they could easily do so, quite substantially I might add, by simply sitting in on games as “players” and taking the occasional pot from unsuspecting customers. The fish would never notice, and those using tracking software would simply chalk it up to variance.

It would be very easy for them to extract very large sums of money using this method without ever leaving a single footprint in poker tracker.

As far as suspicions arising….well, what would be the difference from where things are at right now? They have already been accused by many as being rigged, and have yet to bat an eye.

I am not accusing any online poker site of being rigged as of yet. I am simply taking into consideration possible means and motives if one such company were to be so inclined.

Poker will always be popular, no doubt about it. But the future of online poker is murky at best. No one can say for sure where exactly the law will stand when the dust settles, so putting the emphasis on short-term strategy would be a very wise decision to say the least.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

<font color="blue"> Secondly, if they did decide they wanted to increase profits in such a manner, they could easily do so, quite substantially I might add, by simply sitting in on games as “players” and taking the occasional pot from unsuspecting customers. The fish would never notice, and those using tracking software would simply chalk it up to variance.
</font>

I thought about that one too. You can hire some Costa Ricans for $100/day each to pull out $1,000 off the tables can add 100k/day easily.

It is good to read a post from someone who is thinking logically.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

After playing on-line for 2 years now I began to feel that the underdog hands were winning more often than they statistically should. And no, this is not based on my bad beats but bad beats of all players in games that I am playing and been able to observe.

But I also know that the bad beats stick out more in your mind but it was still nagging me. So I started tracking and keeping daily records. I've only been doing this since the beginning of August so my sample size is too small but my results to date are showing just what I perceived.

There are 2 categoriers that I track because these are the two that my perceptions told me were out of whack.

#1. Dominated hands or what I call 3 outers. Like AK vs AQ, JJ vs A5, KJ vs KT etc. My rule for tracking these hands is this. It has to be heads up and both players must be all-in before the flop with the hands turned up. Statistically the underdog on these types of hands should win about 27%. To date i've observed and recorded 271 such hands and the underdog has won 100 or 37%, 10% higher than they statistically should.

#2. Flush Draws. My rule for tracking is this. It has to be heads up and both players are all in after the flop and one player has a made hand and the other a flush draw. Statistically the underdog, the flush draw should make his flush about 37%. To date I've observed and recorded 60 such hands and 35 flush draws or 58% have made, 21% higher than they statistically should.

As I said the sample size is too small so I want to continue to observe and record for at least a year to see if it holds up.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

This is exactly the type of thing I have observed as well.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
To think that there aren’t people working around the clock, sitting in boardrooms discussing and strategizing about how to pull even more money out this very lucrative (albeit shady) industry, would be naïve. Especially now having a responsibility to shareholders. (Keep in mind that just because they may not have cheated in the past, does not mean for certain that they would not do so in the future, especially if forecasting an eminent demise or decline in revenue.)

[/ QUOTE ]

And how do you think shareholders would react if there was either proof or legitimate question of the integrity of the games? Party going public makes it much less likely that they'd do anything with the very high potential to destroy their business overnight.

These threads are funny; I understand how some fish can psychologically run to "the games are rigged!", but I can't believe that anyone who thinks seriously about it and does a little analysis still believes it to be true.

It would be illogical and naive not to consider the possibility of an unfair game. It is perfectly logical and sound - unlike the conspiracy theorists - to open up my poker tracker database, see that I'm dealt hands as often as I should be, that the big hands hold up as often as I'd expect them to, that the types of final hands (i.e., flushes/straights/boats) come in as often as expected, and that I've already made my yearly earnings goal with nearly 3 months to spare, and come to the logical conclusion that the game isn't the problem.

[ QUOTE ]
There are 2 categoriers that I track because these are the two that my perceptions told me were out of whack.

#1. Dominated hands or what I call 3 outers. Like AK vs AQ, JJ vs A5, KJ vs KT etc. My rule for tracking these hands is this. It has to be heads up and both players must be all-in before the flop with the hands turned up. Statistically the underdog on these types of hands should win about 27%. To date i've observed and recorded 271 such hands and the underdog has won 100 or 37%, 10% higher than they statistically should.

#2. Flush Draws. My rule for tracking is this. It has to be heads up and both players are all in after the flop and one player has a made hand and the other a flush draw. Statistically the underdog, the flush draw should make his flush about 37%. To date I've observed and recorded 60 such hands and 35 flush draws or 58% have made, 21% higher than they statistically should.

As I said the sample size is too small so I want to continue to observe and record for at least a year to see if it holds up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just out of curiousity - are you including times when your opponents are on draws and they come in (or don't) in your analysis? Because if you are, there's a problem with your numbers - you do not see what your opponents held the times they fold on the river when their draw doesn't come in. Therefore, they're not actually hitting as often as you think - your sample is just biased in that opponents are more likely to go to showdown and let you see their hands when they win.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

If you all had done your homework and knew about the 78% rule, you would know that observations are not necessary [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

I've already made my yearly earnings goal with nearly 3 months to spare,

CONGRASTULATIONS, you've reached Winning fish status [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just out of curiousity - are you including times when your opponents are on draws and they come in (or don't) in your analysis? Because if you are, there's a problem with your numbers - you do not see what your opponents held the times they fold on the river when their draw doesn't come in. Therefore, they're not actually hitting as often as you think - your sample is just biased in that opponents are more likely to go to showdown and let you see their hands when they win.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only hands I'm recording are all-ins with both hands turned up. For flush draws, it's after the flop where 2 players get it all-in. For the dominated hands it's 2 players getting it all-in before the flop. Both of these situations can be statistically predicted with accuracy.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

what can you expect from a post count =1

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

so tru. post count 1.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

all online poker is rigged and the earth is the center of the universe

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Party going public makes it much less likely that they'd do anything with the very high potential to destroy their business overnight.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that publicly traded companies always abide by the rules, and never take unlawful, aggressive steps to maximize profits that could potentially threaten their very existence, simply because they are already making money?

Just because you have the future of online poker mapped out, does not mean there isn’t room for the possibility of corruption in an already questionable industry. I’m not making accusations here, I’m just trying to look at all the angles, while you seem to be shutting out any possibility of present or future shenanigans.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
Nobody's brought up the key question here:

Is Party Poker competent enough to both rig the deck, and prevent the secret from getting out?

For anyone who's dealt with them, the answer is obvious. If they really had rigged the deck, there would be evidence leaking all over the place, and not just statistical evidence. Witnesses and participants would have made it public, or else Party would lose all the extra money and more from being blackmailed by the programmers. Unless you want to go searching Party Ltd.'s headquarters for mass graves, you have to accept that the idea is hugely flawed.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
Nobody's brought up the key question here:

Is Party Poker competent enough to both rig the deck, and prevent the secret from getting out?

For anyone who's dealt with them, the answer is obvious. If they really had rigged the deck, there would be evidence leaking all over the place, and not just statistical evidence. Witnesses and participants would have made it public, or else Party would lose all the extra money and more from being blackmailed by the programmers. Unless you want to go searching Party Ltd.'s headquarters for mass graves, you have to accept that the idea is hugely flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Programmers? I thought Dikshit handled all the programming. Party Poker cannot be that much code.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a serious novice

[/ QUOTE ]

I never understood why so many old folks on here grow bitter, but...

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just out of curiousity - are you including times when your opponents are on draws and they come in (or don't) in your analysis? Because if you are, there's a problem with your numbers - you do not see what your opponents held the times they fold on the river when their draw doesn't come in. Therefore, they're not actually hitting as often as you think - your sample is just biased in that opponents are more likely to go to showdown and let you see their hands when they win.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only hands I'm recording are all-ins with both hands turned up. For flush draws, it's after the flop where 2 players get it all-in. For the dominated hands it's 2 players getting it all-in before the flop. Both of these situations can be statistically predicted with accuracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

If after 1,000 observed hands you notice that the trend shifts towards the favorites actually winning more than their fair share, what conclusion will you draw then?

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just out of curiousity - are you including times when your opponents are on draws and they come in (or don't) in your analysis? Because if you are, there's a problem with your numbers - you do not see what your opponents held the times they fold on the river when their draw doesn't come in. Therefore, they're not actually hitting as often as you think - your sample is just biased in that opponents are more likely to go to showdown and let you see their hands when they win.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only hands I'm recording are all-ins with both hands turned up. For flush draws, it's after the flop where 2 players get it all-in. For the dominated hands it's 2 players getting it all-in before the flop. Both of these situations can be statistically predicted with accuracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

If after 1,000 observed hands you notice that the trend shifts towards the favorites actually winning more than their fair share, what conclusion will you draw then?

[/ QUOTE ]

All I'm saying is that I was leery of what I was observing but didn't want to trust my perceptions and have decided to record the results and see what they are over time. What is wrong with that?

Then I can make my own judgements rather than rely on opinions from both sides like those posted in this thread.

For the record, I don't believe it's rigged, it would be foolish for them to do that. But I don't have total confidence in the rng yet.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]

For the record, I don't believe it's rigged, it would be foolish for them to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Specially considering the fact that there are a lot of ways to increase the revenues without rigging the games. Increase max rake (like Party just have done) at the 6max games, reduce the number of players at the tables (9 handed full ring and 5max short tables will increase the rake substantially from limits from 5/10 and upwards) and etc can increase the rake.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

I think the sites are legit. To prove they are rigged, I would need tangible evidence. ie-if Haliburton owned a piece of any of the sites, my money would be out of there in a second.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I don't believe it's rigged, it would be foolish for them to do that. But I don't have total confidence in the rng yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

What sample size would you need before your confidence is restored? Hint: I have a feeling it's bigger than you think it would need to be.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is good to read a post from someone who is thinking logically.

[/ QUOTE ]


It is truly sad that you believe anyone that disagrees with you is not thinking logically. It shows just how ignorant you really are.

Acme

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the record, I don't believe it's rigged, it would be foolish for them to do that. But I don't have total confidence in the rng yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

What sample size would you need before your confidence is restored? Hint: I have a feeling it's bigger than you think it would need to be.

[/ QUOTE ]


I realize that the sample size would have to be much greater but I'm going with 1 year.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

How about giving me a number of hands? One year of poker means a lot of different things to different people.

While you're figuring that out, I have two other questions for you: First, how many times would you have to flip a coin before you could say with confidence that the odds of it landing heads up is 50%?

Second, if I had a coin that I flipped 20,000 times that landed heads 11,000 times and tails 9,000 times, would you say that coin in rigged?

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
If they do somehow juice the pots or rig the game, it’s certainly not enough to stop expert or even good players from making thousands of dollars a month, and even hundreds of thousands a year in some cases.

It is believed that Party pulls in over a million dollars a day in rake alone, which would lead some to argue that “they make enough money”, and that they wouldn’t jeopardize their immensely profitable business for a few extra bucks.

This to me seems somewhat of a logical fallacy.

First of all, to imply that someone makes “enough” money is completely arbitrary, and in most cases quite far from the truth. I have yet to hear of a company that feels they make “enough” money, and willfully forfeits pursuing any additional avenues of revenue.

To think that there aren’t people working around the clock, sitting in boardrooms discussing and strategizing about how to pull even more money out this very lucrative (albeit shady) industry, would be naïve. Especially now having a responsibility to shareholders. (Keep in mind that just because they may not have cheated in the past, does not mean for certain that they would not do so in the future, especially if forecasting an eminent demise or decline in revenue.)

Mainstream businesses and corporations are known to be seedy and ruthless themselves, and have been caught taking all kinds of corrupt and suspicious measures to increase the bottom line. So to think that an online gambling site would be any different would be overly optimistic IMO.

Secondly, if they did decide they wanted to increase profits in such a manner, they could easily do so, quite substantially I might add, by simply sitting in on games as “players” and taking the occasional pot from unsuspecting customers. The fish would never notice, and those using tracking software would simply chalk it up to variance.

It would be very easy for them to extract very large sums of money using this method without ever leaving a single footprint in poker tracker.

As far as suspicions arising….well, what would be the difference from where things are at right now? They have already been accused by many as being rigged, and have yet to bat an eye.

I am not accusing any online poker site of being rigged as of yet. I am simply taking into consideration possible means and motives if one such company were to be so inclined.

Poker will always be popular, no doubt about it. But the future of online poker is murky at best. No one can say for sure where exactly the law will stand when the dust settles, so putting the emphasis on short-term strategy would be a very wise decision to say the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Post of the YEAR.

Finally, someone who is thinking with a clear head.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
How about giving me a number of hands? One year of poker means a lot of different things to different people.

While you're figuring that out, I have two other questions for you: First, how many times would you have to flip a coin before you could say with confidence that the odds of it landing heads up is 50%?

Second, if I had a coin that I flipped 20,000 times that landed heads 11,000 times and tails 9,000 times, would you say that coin in rigged?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right now, after 2 months I have 270 "dominated" hand samples recorded so that works out to 1620 for a year. I know that sample size is too small, but that's what I'm going to go with.

After all, I'm 56 and not going to be doing this for the next 40 years. You younger guys can do a larger sample. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

270 hands? hah.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Right now, after 2 months I have 270 "dominated" hand samples recorded so that works out to 1620 for a year. I know that sample size is too small, but that's what I'm going to go with.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you realize that your projected sample size is still painfully inadequate to make any sort of conclusions on the reliability of a random number generator, then knock yourself out.

You will not be proving anything either way and any conclusions you draw will be based more on your a priori arguments than any sort of true statistical analysis.

Good luck to you!

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
270 hands? hah.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only 270 hands but it's confirming what I perceived was happening for 2 years. If the results hold up for a whole year, then I will use the data to my benefit.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

At risk of getting flamed:

getting 100 or more "positive" outcomes out of 271 with an expected probability of 27% by chance has a probability of only 0.0159%

35 or more out of 60 with an expected probability of 37% has a probability of 0.05%

which despite the small sample size is statistically significant. (The second examle is about the same as 67 or more heads out of 100 coin tosses)

However, that does not make it rigged. Think variance. Perhaps things will even out after another 250+ hands.

Another thing to bear in mind is that there are any number of parameters you could measure (e.g frequency of getting pocket pairs, of hitting a set on the flop, suited, etc). The chances of an "anomaly" in two specific parameters over a small sample size is not in itself that surprising.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

It's going to take more than a year.

Assuming a standard rate of occurrance (150/month for #1 and 30/month for #2), after a year you'd have 1,800 trials from #1 and 360 from #2. Not nearly enough samples (esp. #2), even given the narrow range.

Someone much better at math than I (or at least, with more training, since I'm pretty good at the math I know) could probably figure out a # of instances you'd need to be confident in the result given the assumed win %s you're looking at.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]

Let's assume you have to make a decision:
1. Perfect site, no rigging, after 6 months all sharks are laughing, all fishes are broke, after a year you are bankrupt.
2. Rigged, sharks still win, just not as much as they should. Fishes still lose, just not as much as they should.

As a businessman what do you do?


[/ QUOTE ]

So is that your excuse for not being able to beat the game?

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Mainstream businesses and corporations are known to be seedy and ruthless themselves, and have been caught taking all kinds of corrupt and suspicious measures to increase the bottom line. So to think that an online gambling site would be any different would be overly optimistic IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. However...where's the evidence? A number of trustworthy people have collected millions of hands worth of data, and no inconsistancies that I know of have popped up. If inconsistancies do appear, then we can start a serious discussion on the integrity of the big sites...but we're only in the monitoring stage now, not the conclusion-drawing stage.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

I feel dumber from reading this thread.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Further curious...if taking money from the site is a bad thing to be punished, why do so many people continue to take money from the site month after month after month?

Because online poker sites have created a new kind of player, the winning fish these players are poor players, but as they keep winning over the better players, everybody, including themselves, assume they are good. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it's true. I am a fish, but I'm winning. How do I know this? The people I'm beating keep telling me how supid I was. This usually happens after I call down somebody who had 93o, no pair, no draw with ATo, no pair, no draw, after they raised preflop and bet or raised all the way to the river for the fifth hand in a row, or after I semi-bluff, get called and catch my draw. I know the people who call me a fish are losing good players, who always win in live games but can't beat the rigged online games. At least, this is what they tell me and I'm sure they know what they're talking about.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

"You are much more likely to be cheated by other players than the cardroom."

This goes almost without saying.

Inside 10 years there will be books or similar detailing the fleecing of many poker players at the hands of dishonest site(s).

I've only been fleeced once so far. How about you?

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Party/Empire are suspicious.

UB, Stars, Paradise, FullTilt and Pacific(limited) seem legit.

I do not have enough data for definitive proof at this time, and your questions will be met with sarcasm and rudeness on these discussion boards.

The basic premise, I have is that the party network wants to be the most powerful player in the poker world. This is an easy assumption to make. To be the most powerful means making the most money and having the most influence. To do this you need to generate the most rake, and you need to get the most players. How to get the most players then? You need weak player to attract strong players. So, how do you get the most weak players? You keep them on your site as long as possible without busting out. How do you do this? You have a rating system, where the site rates the players based on their previous wins/losses, their rake generated, bonuses received, play frequency etc. Then when a player who is taking money from the site (which has a bad rating) is up against one of these weak players (who has a good rating), you make the poorly rated player lose to the highly rated player by having the poorly rated player win the pot.

This is a logical argument. It is extremely difficult to prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple of years ago, when Paradise was the leading online poker site, all the tinfoil hat crowd was claiming that Paradise was rigged. I knew Party was becoming the market leader when "Paradise is rigged." changed to "Party is rigged."

It may be a logical argument, but it's still wrong. The fish don't have to be net winners to keep coming back. They just have to win sometimes. If this weren't true, slot machines, craps, roulette, blackjack, etc. would have dried up for B&amp;M casinos a long time ago. As long as a poker game is structured so that the fish have a winning session every now and then, the fish will keep coming. Limit holdem is just about right for this as it is, with no rigging required.