Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

Even with a million hands you cannot prove it one way or the other. I could rig a site so that there was no way you could catch me, unless there was such a thing as Verifiable Card Decks.

I don't think it will ever come about, but that was my attempt at giving the sites more credability. I do agree that this perception of online poker being rigged is limiting the growth.

-scarr

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm dead broke. I only do the play money tables [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

The above, in total, lacks any logic.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

"And how do you think shareholders would react if there was either proof or legitimate question of the integrity of the games? "

How did Enron shareholders react? Tyco? Adelphia?

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

"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. "

If your data stays on track I promise you the RNG is not the problem. It will represent a deliberate site buggering of the deal in the most likely way, favoring underdogs on a few % of the hands.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

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

This is flawed thinking, statistically speaking. The sample size needed for a reasonable conclusion shrinks as the observed data diverges from the expected value. Very small samples can prove a hypothesis when the skew is big.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certainly not trying to draw any conclusions here. And for the record, I don't believe any particular site is rigged. I have yet to see any evidence of that being the case. However, I do find it a little difficult to convince myself that it's entirely out of the realm of possibility.

Although, I do suppose that having a healthy perspective, and trusting that the games are fair (which for the most part I do), is important and essential to consistently playing at the top of your game.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are no facts to back up the rigging theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think the rigging theory is applicable in its own right -- I refuse to accpet the premise. It is in a site's interest to NOT to be rigged in favor of the fish. Winning players are more high volume -- rigging the game against yr regular rake generating play is not just bad business. It's really really dumb. Most "fish" as we call them are recreational players, who play only occasionally, often on a lark, to have a little fun, relax, etc.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

"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."

This is simply wrong. Let's take a look at your coin analogy. We will wager on a coin flip. I'll be flipping the coin. No, you may not inspect it. You may bet heads only on any flip or pass. After 20 flips, 10H/10T you jump in and bet and lose. another 20 go by, 11H/9T and again you bet and lose. Repeat this 20 times, you're -20 bets. Still want to bet? No, you'd be a fool. In fact you likely quit betting after you lost 8 in a row. You drew your conclusion after 8 flips!

"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."

Bullsh+t. With proper analysis reasonable conclusions can be drawn from scant data. It's strictly a question of understanding the statistics of hypothesis testing.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

"If the results hold up for a whole year, then I will use the data to my benefit. "

Wise indeed. Your data will have no value to anyone else. I speak from experience.

On data collection: You must avoid 'selection error'. You must be absoulutly certain to record all hands that apply. If you are the least bit biased, even accidently, your data is sh+t.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

" 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."

Two points. 27% vs 37% is not 10% different, it's 37% different (higher). This is big. If maintained you need very little data to prove your hypothesis.

Secondly, by grouping all these dominated hands together you build in some error, maybe as much as 5-10%. To do it right you need to calculate each exact match-up, a ton of work.

Where did/do you play to gather this data?

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

Two points. 27% vs 37% is not 10% different, it's 37% different (higher).

you build in some error, maybe as much as 5-10%.

Is The later a real 5-10% or a 18½-37%? Please clarify...

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

His estimate for % winning underdogs is .27 +/- .027, maybe. I'd need to see a bunch of work.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
What was that?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Moderator(s) notified In a moment you will be automatically returned to the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is completely innappropriate.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ 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."

This is simply wrong. Let's take a look at your coin analogy. We will wager on a coin flip. I'll be flipping the coin. No, you may not inspect it. You may bet heads only on any flip or pass. After 20 flips, 10H/10T you jump in and bet and lose. another 20 go by, 11H/9T and again you bet and lose. Repeat this 20 times, you're -20 bets. Still want to bet? No, you'd be a fool. In fact you likely quit betting after you lost 8 in a row. You drew your conclusion after 8 flips!

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's examine this hypothetical situation you've set up and see how it contrasts with the post I was responding to.

In your situation, you are (I assume) the one who provided the coin and is doing all of the flipping. You have only one opponent: me. If that is the case, I might have reason to believe that you are cheating me, but losing eight coinflips in a row is far from proof.

But here is where the situation is different: the OP never claimed that the site was rigged against HIM, he said that the site seemed to be paying off non-favorites at a higher rate than would be expected given a pure environment.

So let's take your analogy and tweak it to match the original claim, shall we?

I have a six-sided die and ten people. For each round of our game we will pick two people at random and roll the die. If a 1 or 2 comes up, player A will win. If a 3, 4, 5, or 6 comes up, player B wins.

The person rolling the dice has no monetary interest in which player wins in any given situation--they make the same amount of money no matter who wins. Given that information alone, I can see no reason why the dice roller would have an interest in rigging the results, but let's continue with our analogy anyway.

Now let's say we play 270 rounds of this game. Pure odds tell us that a 1 or 2 will come up in 90 rounds and the remaining numbers will come up in the remaining 180 rounds.

Are you seriously trying to tell me, that if a 1 or 2 ends up coming 110 times and the other numbers fall 250 times, that the game is now rigged?

If you do, I invite you to go buy a six-sided die, gather 10 friends with an hour to spare, and try this experiment on your own. Be sure to report back with your OMG DICE ARE RIGGED!!11! post.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

My point was missed by you completely. I'll make it simple.

Statistical conclusions can be drawn from small data sets when the are sufficiently different from expectation.

It's clear you lack the statistical knowledge base to justify further elaboration on my part.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
For [censored]'s sake. can we get a separate "online poker is rigged" forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For [censored]'s sake. can we get a separate "online poker is rigged" forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I be king of the new forum? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

Are we playing Let It Ride?

No?

Then the answer is no.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

Although I have never concluded it is rigged, I believe that one should question everything.

As a lawyer, I have seen the inner workings of corporations in the US and the greed and unethical behavior can be bewidlering. But the online poker sites are offshore and unregulated by tough gaming agencies such as those in Nevada and New Jersey.

I've played almost 15k hands and have a win rate of approx 1.2 BB/100. But I can say that it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn. I think Party should make flushes a lower ranked hand just because they happen so often on its site.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]


I've played almost 15k hands and have a win rate of approx 1.2 BB/100. But I can say that it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn. I think Party should make flushes a lower ranked hand just because they happen so often on its site.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a lawyer, you should know better than to make a statement like that without evidence.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I've played almost 15k hands and have a win rate of approx 1.2 BB/100. But I can say that it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn. I think Party should make flushes a lower ranked hand just because they happen so often on its site.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a lawyer, you should know better than to make a statement like that without evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm at work. I'll cite PT stats when I get home.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I've played almost 15k hands and have a win rate of approx 1.2 BB/100. But I can say that it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn. I think Party should make flushes a lower ranked hand just because they happen so often on its site.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a lawyer, you should know better than to make a statement like that without evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm at work. I'll cite PT stats when I get home.

[/ QUOTE ]

PT stats with only a 15k sample size is going to fail the Daughbert test.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
My point was missed by you completely. I'll make it simple.

Statistical conclusions can be drawn from small data sets when the are sufficiently different from expectation.

It's clear you lack the statistical knowledge base to justify further elaboration on my part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you have any interest in illustrating your points with relevant examples or did you just wander into this thread to point out how smart you are?

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

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


I've played almost 15k hands and have a win rate of approx 1.2 BB/100. But I can say that it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn. I think Party should make flushes a lower ranked hand just because they happen so often on its site.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a lawyer, you should know better than to make a statement like that without evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm at work. I'll cite PT stats when I get home.

[/ QUOTE ]

PT stats with only a 15k sample size is going to fail the Daughbert test.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what, forget it. My point wasn't to prove anything. It was to say that one should not blindly accept things as facts, especially when it involves a) a corporation that is b) offshore and c) not regulated by a powerful and strict gaming agency.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find it kind of scary that nobody even remains open minded about this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those of us who have played long enough, and have both good statistics and track records, don't have to be "open minded" about this. We have indisputible facts that answer this question for us.

There simply is no dispute. There are no facts to back up the rigging theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you can quickly give me your win % heads up with a hand you have dominated over a sample size of say, 250k+ hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

Still waiting...

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

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


I've played almost 15k hands and have a win rate of approx 1.2 BB/100. But I can say that it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn. I think Party should make flushes a lower ranked hand just because they happen so often on its site.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a lawyer, you should know better than to make a statement like that without evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm at work. I'll cite PT stats when I get home.

[/ QUOTE ]

PT stats with only a 15k sample size is going to fail the Daughbert test.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what, forget it. My point wasn't to prove anything. It was to say that one should not blindly accept things as facts, especially when it involves a) a corporation that is b) offshore and c) not regulated by a powerful and strict gaming agency.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have never argued that these corporations are not capable of very shady dealings. I think what Party did with its IPO was very very shady, and its founders made billions off of it while the stockholders saw a 30 percent drop the first quarter. However, its not that an online poker site isn't capable of somehow rigging the cards, its that to do so would be ridiculously stupid, for so many reasons that have been argued before, I don' tfeel like spelling them all out again for the millionth damn time. And as a fellow lawyer (8 more months), I can tell you that while there still has not been one shred of hard evidence (statistics from large poker databases, etc.) to show that there is anything wrong with the deal at the major sites, there has been plenty of evidence to show that they are fin. (Once again, large databases which show hand distributions exactly as one would expect, including the number of straights and flushes made).

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]


You know what, forget it. My point wasn't to prove anything. It was to say that one should not blindly accept things as facts, especially when it involves a) a corporation that is b) offshore and c) not regulated by a powerful and strict gaming agency.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that there are two major camps on this issue.

The first group says that since the online poker sites are off-shore companies not regulated by the US government, they easily can, and therefore do, cheat.

The second group says that they obviously can cheat, but that no one has provided any hard evidence that they do cheat. Note to all: "noticing" an unusual number of flushes, bad beats, runner-runners, etc., is not hard evidence except on that new TV show, CSI Poker.

Those of us in the second group have a vested interest in knowing what is going on the industry, and certainly do not blindly accept honesty as a fact.

But as a lawyer should know, you cannot prove a negative proposition, such as that online poker is not rigged. On the other hand, all it takes is a single example to prove the positive propostion that online poker is rigged. Until someone provides such an example, I and others will continue to play.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Until someone provides such an example, I and others will continue to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you're a winning player. As a winning player would you continue to play if you had evidence that too many flushes make and too many dominated hands win?

I know I would. As long it's more convenient than going to the nearest B&M which is 80 miles away and as long as I can continue to beat the game, I would continue to play.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

The "online poker is rigged cause dominated hands/draws come in too often" crowd betray that they don't know what seperates good players from bad ones. Good players get draws too. Good players get dealt dominated hands.

I think 2+2 should start selling "How we know what isn't so" by Thomas Gilovich.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

Many poker sites showed a reasonable statistics about the hands played. It's our right to trust it or not.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I've played almost 15k hands and have a win rate of approx 1.2 BB/100. But I can say that it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn. I think Party should make flushes a lower ranked hand just because they happen so often on its site.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a lawyer, you should know better than to make a statement like that without evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kinda like OJ was innocent?

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
You know what, forget it. My point wasn't to prove anything. It was to say that one should not blindly accept things as facts, especially when it involves a) a corporation that is b) offshore and c) not regulated by a powerful and strict gaming agency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, dem furriners are all cheats, I tell you wut.

Seriously, though, you're the one who's asking us all to swallow this theory without any evidence. Those who have played large numbers of hands, and especially those who have large Poker Tracker databases, are the ones with the evidence.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

I'm on jihad against the statistically ignorant. Off with your head.

It's above my pay grade to enlighten you.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

yes.....MOST...sites are rigged.........for the one who dont beleive it.........hey.....i gt a Bridge to sell

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

where is the evedence?

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Those who have played large numbers of hands, and especially those who have large Poker Tracker databases, are the ones with the evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have millions of hands in PT databases. I still don't know the answer to these questions as it's not readily available.

Can you please share with me your custom queries for extracting this information?

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've played almost 15k hands and have a win rate of approx 1.2 BB/100. But I can say that it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn. I think Party should make flushes a lower ranked hand just because they happen so often on its site.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh

Flushes are seen more often than straights, because many players will play junk hands if they are sooted.

If you ran several hundred thousand simulations of 10 handed play, where evey hand was played to showdown, you would see more straights than flushes

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

My understanding is that poker tracker can store to many standard databases.

Learn SQL and you can do all the custom queries you want.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

The problem, and it is not isolated to you, is that many people's perceptions of a site's fairness are created by 1. individual hands they remember 2. their own success/failure wrt that site. Number 1 is problematic for many reasons including the fact that certain events are going to have a larger impact than others when creating a perception and also the fact that many people haven't a clue what a real 'bad beat' actually is. For example, AA vs. 27off is only a bit less than a 7 to 1 favorite preflop. Once out of every 8 hands 27o is EXPECTED to take down rockets yet you'd think Aces were a 99 to 1 favorite the way some people react when they're cracked.

It has been said many times here before, including in this thread, but bears repeating--it is trivially simple to show that an online power site is rigged. Just show ONE SINGLE VERIFIABLE EXAMPLE. I've been reading 2+2 and before that RGP (or even RG before that) for the last 10+ years and I've yet to see one.

[ 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 ]