Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I know SQL quite well. I just assume since you and all the others already have seen the data, maybe you could just share it with me.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I know SQL quite well. I just assume since you and all the others already have seen the data, maybe you could just share it with me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have such a database. What I do know is, I've been consistently winning at a high rate, a rate that couldn't be sustained if the site was rigging suckouts against me. I also know there are so many people with poker tracker databases, who have looked at the numbers and compared with each other, that any anomalies would be noticed.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]

I assume you're a winning player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that everyone who posted here was a winner. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
As a winning player would you continue to play if you had evidence that too many flushes make and too many dominated hands win?

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had such evidence, I would probably continue to play as long as I continued to win. Possible reasons to continue include:

1. Perhaps I have already subconsciously adjusted my game to such irregularities.

2. Such evidence, if widely known, would cause the sites to correct their software.

3. If such evidence was not widely known, this knowledge might give those in the know a bigger edge.

But the point remains that there is no such evidence.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I know SQL quite well. I just assume since you and all the others already have seen the data, maybe you could just share it with me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't have such a database. What I do know is, I've been consistently winning at a high rate, a rate that couldn't be sustained if the site was rigging suckouts against me. I also know there are so many people with poker tracker databases, who have looked at the numbers and compared with each other, that any anomalies would be noticed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you're the one doing the sucking out. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Seriously though, your first post made it sound like you have tons of evidence. A few people in this thread have pointed out all the evidence that exists if you have PT. I'm still waiting to see any of it.

Besides pre-flop card distribution, it's a fairly complex process to get more info from PT.

Nigel

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]


actually, if you're implying that more straits would complete than flushes, as the true "odds" come into play, i think that is opposite of what would happen.

9 cards to complete flush draw, 8 to complete strait draw.

perhaps a bit nitpicky, but thought in the interest of accuracy, this bore pointing out.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
The problem, and it is not isolated to you, is that many people's perceptions of a site's fairness are created by ... individual hands they remember

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I guess it's time once again to trot out this classic RGP posting by Paul Philips:

[ QUOTE ]
Some of you know that in a past life I was a programmer and a manager
thereof. In mid-1997 our company acquired an online game site called
playsite that had a decent population of people playing classic games,
one of which was backgammon. The codebase was something of a mess though,
so we undertook a complete rewrite and released it in early 1998.



After we released the new code, we began receiving email from people
and hearing chat online that there were unusually many doubles being
rolled in the backgammon games. That sounded unlikely but I took a
look into the code, and it was as straightforward as could be, no room
for a wacky error. The server picked two random numbers from 1 to 6
in the normal java fashion.



The java random call is a simple wrapper around the C library function.
We were seeding it in the normal ways. Everything was fine. But the
complaints were unrelenting, so we took increasingly extreme measures
trying to figure out what was going on. First we incorporated a java
RNG to avoid the C library. When this didn't "help", we started
logging all the die throws and did statistical analysis on tens of
thousands of logged rolls.



What we found was that doubles were being rolled at precisely the rate
one would expect. There was absolutely nothing surprising in the stats.
We communicated this to the complaining players, but it still didn't do
any good. You could go into a backgammon lobby anytime and you'd
rarely have to wait more than a couple minutes before chat would emerge
that "everyone knew" that too many doubles were being rolled. It had
entered the realm of known facts, and there was no getting around it.



We closed the dozens of filed bug reports involving our loaded dice and
moved on with our lives, but I've never forgotten the certainty with which
people asserted that our dice were not rolling right. And the point, of
course, is how similarly that certainty is echoed here when people talk
about online poker being rigged for this or that result.



I see three major factors contributing to this misplaced certainty.
The three are the same whether we're looking at original vs. rewritten
playsite, or B&M poker vs. online poker. Much of this has been
written before by myself and others, but I include it here to help
illustrate how similar the backgammon and online poker situations are.



1) SPEED. We build an unconscious model of how often noticeable events
take place, but it's largely rooted in time, not in number of events.
When the number of events per unit time increases (the rewritten playsite
was of course faster, just as online poker is faster than B&M) then we
are surprised to observe more noticeable events.



2) SELECTION BIAS. We notice quads. We notice doubles. We feel like
we know how often they happen because we know that we notice them, but we
do not know how often unnoticeable events take place. We therefore lack
the necessary data to do analysis, but we have so much faith in our brains
as pattern recognition machines, we try it anyway.



3) MEMETICS. This is in some ways the biggest one. When you're
surrounded by people who have become convinced that something is true,
it's difficult not to start believing it's true yourself. Online chat
environments make it very easy for people to share their feelings about
the injustice of the randomness, and it's such a seductive idea anyway,
it's not hard for it to gain followers. Read "The Tipping Point" for more.



In closing, here is one quote I found in my old email. I wish I had
the whole file so you could see how widespread the certainty was.


Message: your dice are throwing doubles again---CALIBRATE THEM! get
your act together



A message to online poker sites: Your decks are dealing bad beats
again. CALIBRATE THEM!



[/ QUOTE ]

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]


actually, if you're implying that more straits would complete than flushes, as the true "odds" come into play, i think that is opposite of what would happen.

9 cards to complete flush draw, 8 to complete strait draw.

perhaps a bit nitpicky, but thought in the interest of accuracy, this bore pointing out.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are saying something completely different. You are saying that given a straight or flush draw on the flop, the odds of hitting the flush draw on the turn/river are better than the odds of completing an open ended straight on the turn/river. This says nothing about the relative odds of flopping a 4-flush vs. flopping an OESD. It also says nothing about the likelihood of a player seeing the flop with 2 to a flush vs. 2 to a straight.

The previous poster is correct that starting from zero and dealing random hands to the river, you will get more straights than flushes.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I know SQL quite well. I just assume since you and all the others already have seen the data, maybe you could just share it with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been posts here, with screenshots of very large pt databases, looking for the kinds of things you are talking about. I know the search function on this site sucks, but they are there.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

you are a moron

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

I've found that if I wear an aluminum cap while multitabling, Party cannot scan my brainwaves via satellite to discern my tendencies.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
The poorly player loses in general to average players and other poor players, and highly rated players too ... (but once in a while gets a "bonus") where he wins slightly more often than he should.

Of course people take money from the sites, if not then the sites would cease to exist. However, as you know by design, less money comes out of the site than goes in. It is all a question of how much.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's called "rake."

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've found that if I wear an aluminum cap while multitabling, Party cannot scan my brainwaves via satellite to discern my tendencies.

[/ QUOTE ]

You make your own out of aluminum foil, I trust. The commercial beanies are worthless. Also, I find they work better with the shiny side out.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's assume you have 30 million dollars.
Let's assume you want to invest them and start an online poker site.
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?


yes, yes, I know, usual replies, assume you're an idiot, 3 jump in the river, etc... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

As a businessman, I'd call Dutch Boyd.

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

LOL


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone around here belives online poker is rigged. There will be an overwhelming number of votes for "Yes".

[/ QUOTE ]

You're so naive. You failed to realize that the major online poker sites are also rigging this poll. Do not underestimate their power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]



no it isn't.

you just think it is.

Is the concept of selective memory really that hard to understand?

When your draw comes in on the turn you are winning a smaller pot if everyone folds at that point and it is less exciting (or it is less heart-breaking and less noticeable if your opponent caught his draw on the turn).
When you catch it on the river it is a bigger pot and thus more memorable (either as an exciting win or a heart-breaking loss).





What truly amazes me is that all these 'online deals are not right' conspiracy dudes all THINK they are agreeing with each other even though they aren't.

There are those who say that they need to set it up to keep the fish winning and therefore donating.
there are those who think that a high-volume player is the type they want to have win...because he'll come back to start more games and generate more rake.
there are those who think that the draws ALWAYS hit on the river (supposedly to build bigger pots).
there are those who say they just create general 'action' flops toinduce more bets and create more rake


It is my theory that if they wanted to generate more rake at 15/30 and higher then they would do the OPPOSITE of 'action-flops'.
They are almost guaranteed to have a $3 max-rake as long as they get to ANY flop.
So if there is ANY post-flop action then it is just taking them longer to get to the next hand.
They would want totally dead flops to end the hand faster if they REALLY wanted to generate more rake (which is a theory that nobody seems to be expressing).
Action-flops would actually HURT the site's intake of rake.


And then there are those who say that such-and-such site feels 'right' while the other sites don't feel as right.

There are conversations where 1 guy thinks Paradise is rigged but Party is 'mostly ok' while the other guy thinks that it's party that is the one that is rigged while paradise is okay.
They KNOW they are on the same side here. Because they both KNOW that the online-sites are rigged to varying degrees.
but which sites are MORE rigged than the others is just friendly banter and a matter of opinion similar to whether a hamburger tastes better with ketchup or mustard. They both like hamburgers and that's all that matters.


The inconsistencies of everybody in the conspiracy group as to WHY it would be rigged in the first place and HOW the hands are rigged (action flops, rivers completing more draws, fish's all-in's ALWAYS coming through with dominated hands, etc etc) is really interesting to me.
Because many of these people making these arguments aren't completely stupid (believe it or not).
tHey live normal lives and have normal jobs and they do NOT think aliens took Kennedy's brain or anything like that.


But they have ALL gotten frustrated from their losses and beats in poker and ALL refuse to believe that the beats that are happening to them could be just 'normal'.


(also - the Paul Phillips post that was copied in this thread was very interesting. I hadn't read that before. I love Paul Phillips).

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

funny how this crap always comes from losing players with post counts under 10

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

no it isn't.
you just think it is.
Is the concept of selective memory really that hard to understand?
When your draw comes in on the turn you are winning a smaller pot if everyone folds at that point and it is less exciting (or it is less heart-breaking and less noticeable if your opponent caught his draw on the turn).
When you catch it on the river it is a bigger pot and thus more memorable (either as an exciting win or a heart-breaking loss).

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course this is a huge factor as to why many people insist that online poker is rigged, however it does not in the least bit negate from fact that it is still possible.

[ QUOTE ]
What truly amazes me is that all these 'online deals are not right' conspiracy dudes all THINK they are agreeing with each other even though they aren't.

There are those who say that they need to set it up to keep the fish winning and therefore donating.
there are those who think that a high-volume player is the type they want to have win...because he'll come back to start more games and generate more rake.
there are those who think that the draws ALWAYS hit on the river (supposedly to build bigger pots).
there are those who say they just create general 'action' flops toinduce more bets and create more rake

It is my theory that if they wanted to generate more rake at 15/30 and higher then they would do the OPPOSITE of 'action-flops'.
They are almost guaranteed to have a $3 max-rake as long as they get to ANY flop.
So if there is ANY post-flop action then it is just taking them longer to get to the next hand.
They would want totally dead flops to end the hand faster if they REALLY wanted to generate more rake (which is a theory that nobody seems to be expressing). Action-flops would actually HURT the site's intake of rake.



[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to see a complete mathematical analysis supporting your theory as to which scenerio would be more profitable before excepting it as fact.

Also, I think you are only thinking in terms of cash games, whereas in tournies it would be to the their advantage that people got eliminated quickly moving all-in.


[ QUOTE ]

And then there are those who say that such-and-such site feels 'right' while the other sites don't feel as right.
There are conversations where 1 guy thinks Paradise is rigged but Party is 'mostly ok' while the other guy thinks that it's party that is the one that is rigged while paradise is okay.
They KNOW they are on the same side here. Because they both KNOW that the online-sites are rigged to varying degrees.
but which sites are MORE rigged than the others is just friendly banter and a matter of opinion similar to whether a hamburger tastes better with ketchup or mustard. They both like hamburgers and that's all that matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is probably very true, but still does not rule out the possibility of sites being "rigged".

[ QUOTE ]
The inconsistencies of everybody in the conspiracy group as to WHY it would be rigged in the first place and HOW the hands are rigged (action flops, rivers completing more draws, fish's all-in's ALWAYS coming through with dominated hands, etc etc) is really interesting to me.
Because many of these people making these arguments aren't completely stupid (believe it or not).
tHey live normal lives and have normal jobs and they do NOT think aliens took Kennedy's brain or anything like that.
But they have ALL gotten frustrated from their losses and beats in poker and ALL refuse to believe that the beats that are happening to them could be just 'normal'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this for the most part. But I think it's a pretty broad generalization to say that ALL refuse to believe that ALL beats and losses are normal.

[ QUOTE ]
(also - the Paul Phillips post that was copied in this thread was very interesting. I hadn't read that before. I love Paul Phillips).

[/ QUOTE ]

That post, although very interesting, did not dispel a single theory.

Just because he pointed out some anecdotal instances of selective memory, does not mean that another site would not take advantage of that tendency and use it in their defense.

The point of my post was not to defend the tinfoil-hat crowd, or accuse any site of being unfair.

It was simply to play Devil's advocate, and point out to people who insist, with great certainty, that online poker is not rigged, that they are about as lacking in the proof department as anyone else.

Just because there is documented evidence of people beating the games long-term, does not mean that a site has not devised clever little ways of pulling that little bit extra out of the game. And if that “little bit extra” ads up and translates into millions of dollars at the end of the year, than I can think of no good reason why they would not at least consider it.

On the other side of the coin, the people who claim that the games are rigged, should realize that although this may possibly be the case, there are many people making a substantial earn regardless, and that any wrong doing should be considered as an added cost amounting to nothing more than a small fraction of the rake.

To me that seems like a reasonable price to pay, all things considered.

Also, to those who believe that the underdogs are winning a little bit more than their fare share in order to keep the fish from wandering too far - wouldn't this also be advantageous to the winning players in the long run?

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

Bob, if one was rigged, I would imagine it would be only to support the player base.

The rake really takes care of itself.

Nigel

Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
 

[ QUOTE ]
It was simply to play Devil's advocate, and point out to people who insist, with great certainty, that online poker is not rigged, that they are about as lacking in the proof department as anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

You either have not read or have not understood many of the posts here. No one is insisting "with great certainty" that online poker is not rigged. Many of us here are insisting that:

1. there has been not a shred of evidence that online poker is rigged other than the usual "Everyone knows that there are more runner-runner suck outs online.";

2. all available quantitative information (hand histories, players' data bases, etc.) show results 100% in line with statistical expectations; and

3. those of us who have studied the game and know how to play find that the results at the table are entirely consistent with what we would expect, both in terms of theory and live experiences.

Therefore, the logical and efficient course is to procede under the assumption that online poker is not rigged until it is proven otherwise.

As far the failure to provide proof that online poker is not rigged, that is conceptually impossible. You generally cannot prove a negative proposition. Can you prove that you have never cheated on your spouse (assuming you have one)? No. Can you prove that you have never stolen anything? No. That is the legal principle behind the assumption of innocent until proven guilty. It is not because we are nice people who give everyone the benefit of the doubt. It is because not guilty is a very difficult thing to prove, while guilty can be shown with a single fact.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course this is a huge factor as to why many people insist that online poker is rigged, however it does not in the least bit negate from fact that it is still possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of the online-is-rigged nuts fall back on the argument that since it is possible, it must be true. The same argument is used to show that we didn't land on the moon, that the UN is using black helicopters to take over the US, that ETs hang out at trailer parks, etc. Online-is-rigged is the ultimate ploy in self-denial. I am not a loser, but I am losing at poker, so it must be rigged.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because there is documented evidence of people beating the games long-term, does not mean that a site has not devised clever little ways of pulling that little bit extra out of the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The absurdity of this is stunning. The work required would be enormous, as would the bad PR if if came out. And given the number of people involved in the industry it would come out. Has no one ever considered how much Stars would benefit if they could prove that Party was rigged? You think they don't watch Party for evidence?

If Party wanted to pull "that little bit extra out of the game", they can do it openly. A few minor tweaks on the rake structure would get them millions. They could announce it in a small bulletin buried somewhere on their web site and few players even notice.

People who can't accept the simplest explanation, that online poker is not rigged, are people who cannot accept the personal consequences and implications of that explanation.