Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

Proposition: Party and skins deal nonrandom turn and or river cards some small % of the time to benefit underdogs thus sending chips from good (winning) players to fishies.

Rebuttal: There's no way a bunch of programmers could keep such information under wraps. The dirty secret would get out (there are others, most are spurious or logically flawed).

This is all well covered ground. This week I read that the 42% owner or Party, Anurag Dikshit, is/was seriously involved in the software end of the business. Did he write the needed buggered code? I'm thinking that the rebuttal above now falls in light of this information. One skilled, highly placed programmer could easily and secretly cobble up the needed code. Hell, I could do it (in basic [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] ). Now we know that such an individual exists at the highest level.

No need to flame, I'm immune.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

Your idea is proposterous. If someone were going to rig the software to help fish, why would they only rig the "turn and river" cards? Why not preflop and the flop?

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

What overwhelming evidence do you have to support your claim?

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

Too easy to spot.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

Caution: To avoid possible heat damage,Do not cover oven floor or an entire rack with Reynolds wrap aluminum foil except according to oven manufacturer's instructions.

EFF you Reynolds.If I get sucked out again while wearing your hat ; you are gonna face a lawsuit.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

I may never have evidence. The experiment needed to detect this bias is daunting to perform.

I do have some preliminary data that is not quite right.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

It would be an incredibly complicated code to assemble.

And yes, we would be able to detect it.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

I'm 99% sure Dikshit doesn't maintain his own code now, and 100% after the IPO. Still too many people involved.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

Why would Party do anything to jeopardize their cash cow? It begs the question, "If you had a 14 inch dick, would you cut it in half?"

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

How would you write code to find such a thing? any easy way to do it through Pokertracker? Preflop isnt as important as the randomness of the flop, turn and river. Give an advantage to those who play low cards, suited cards, any pair etc. I dont want to start (more) rumors, but I would be interested to know the results. If I can help, drop me a PM.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why would Party do anything to jeopardize their cash cow? It begs the question, "If you had a 14 inch dick, would you cut it in half?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Then you could screw two girls at the same time and satisfy them both rather then having to go easy on only one.

/devil's advocate
//ashamed at having posted that

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

Who cares if it's rigged, It's giving me sh*tloads of money, are you saying that it could give me even more? I don't see your fascination with proving that online poker is any different than playing live.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

[ QUOTE ]
It would be an incredibly complicated code to assemble.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it wouldn't be. Really, it wouldn't be. It is just a simple branch to utilize a "picking" routine rather than the standard randomization. Really, coding isn't that hard for people that code for a living.

[ QUOTE ]
And yes, we would be able to detect it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think individuals would. It surely could be done in a manner that would require many millions of hands to be compared and analyzed together in order to show any deviation from standard expectations. Think of how many hands you would have to have to show that even the first two cards are dealt within standard expectations.

Math guys?

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

A better example would be, if you had a 14 inch dick, would you inject it with AIDS because it would make it grow another half inch?

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why not? Then you could screw two girls at the same time and satisfy them both rather then having to go easy on only one.

/devil's advocate
//ashamed at having posted that

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh boy, so naive when they're young aren't they?

1)Who cares about satisfying the woman?
2)Who goes "easy"?

Someone's been watching too many Disney movies...

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And yes, we would be able to detect it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think individuals would. It surely could be done in a manner that would require many millions of hands to be compared and analyzed together in order to show any deviation from standard expectations. Think of how many hands you would have to have to show that even the first two cards are dealt within standard expectations.

Math guys?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's already been done. Cards are random.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

Could you please elaborate on this preliminary data?
I'm very curious. This evening, I had a full house busted by a runner runner str8 flush. It was not the first time. It was like they knew because they kept raising, too.
It got me thinking not about things being rigged, but possibly hacked....
I will probably post more of my thoughts about this in my own thread once I get them sorted.... The 10K+ hand losing streaks do seem to happen quite a bit.
X

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

[ QUOTE ]
A better example would be, if you had a 14 inch dick, would you inject it with AIDS because it would make it grow another half inch?

[/ QUOTE ]

awesome.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

You're in a fight with Mike Tyson.

Every round you get to start with one free shot.

You think this free shot makes a difference? If not why bother?

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's already been done. Cards are random.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, here is the funny thing -- it really hasn't been done. Read closely what the auditors examined. You will notice that there has been zero examination of the system at random testing intervals. Only an examination of prepared and supplied data sets.

This is not the same, do you see why?

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's already been done. Cards are random.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, here is the funny thing -- it really hasn't been done. Read closely what the auditors examined. You will notice that there has been zero examination of the system at random testing intervals. Only an examination of prepared and supplied data sets.

This is not the same, do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about the same thing here? POSTERS from this site, in order to refute the "non-randomness" argument went out and collected data over tens of thousands of hands. I'm not talking about 3rd party auditors.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

I heard that if I have 2 spades in my hand and 2 on the board after the turn, that Party will allow me to catch my flush about 19.6% of the time...

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

Why do you make this post every few weeks?

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's already been done. Cards are random.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, here is the funny thing -- it really hasn't been done. Read closely what the auditors examined. You will notice that there has been zero examination of the system at random testing intervals. Only an examination of prepared and supplied data sets.

This is not the same, do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about the same thing here? POSTERS from this site, in order to refute the "non-randomness" argument went out and collected data over tens of thousands of hands. I'm not talking about 3rd party auditors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you provide a link for that. Only examination I have seen has been that starting hands are random. And no one doubts that, since even the most stupid would-be rigger will know that they can't get away with not having a random distribution of starting hands.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

"I will probably post more of my thoughts about this in my own thread once I get them sorted"

please dont.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

Q: What's a simple method to prevent cheats that is used in every casino poker game but not used online?

A: Burn cards.

That's how they rig it online, plain and simple.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's already been done. Cards are random.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, here is the funny thing -- it really hasn't been done. Read closely what the auditors examined. You will notice that there has been zero examination of the system at random testing intervals. Only an examination of prepared and supplied data sets.

This is not the same, do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about the same thing here? POSTERS from this site, in order to refute the "non-randomness" argument went out and collected data over tens of thousands of hands. I'm not talking about 3rd party auditors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you provide a link for that. Only examination I have seen has been that starting hands are random. And no one doubts that, since even the most stupid would-be rigger will know that they can't get away with not having a random distribution of starting hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately I can't, but you can probably use the search function to find it. It might be in the archives as well. I looked at it once, was convinced and moved on. There's just too much evidence to support the sites NOT rigging the deck.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's already been done. Cards are random.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, here is the funny thing -- it really hasn't been done. Read closely what the auditors examined. You will notice that there has been zero examination of the system at random testing intervals. Only an examination of prepared and supplied data sets.

This is not the same, do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are we talking about the same thing here? POSTERS from this site, in order to refute the "non-randomness" argument went out and collected data over tens of thousands of hands. I'm not talking about 3rd party auditors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you provide a link for that. Only examination I have seen has been that starting hands are random. And no one doubts that, since even the most stupid would-be rigger will know that they can't get away with not having a random distribution of starting hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately I can't, but you can probably use the search function to find it. It might be in the archives as well. I looked at it once, was convinced and moved on. There's just too much evidence to support the sites NOT rigging the deck.

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence? I have seen no compelling evidence that supports the view that they aren't rigging and of course no evidence of them doing it.

Which is my point. Somewhere along the way the idea that we here at 2+2 somehow proved that it is fair crept in. And that happened without anyone actually proving it (beyond showing that starting hands are random). But that doesn't prevent members here from constantly claiming it. Which in my book make you guys as irrational as the ones claiming it it rigged.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

[ QUOTE ]
I do have some preliminary data that is not quite right.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've been asked to show the evidence of your "claims" many times in the past and refused each and every time.

I thought all was right with the world now, you have a poker tutor, etc... and you had given up on your conspiracy theories.

Once again, would you care to show us the preliminary data that indicates that things are not quite right?

Seriously, I think everyone here would be very interested in seeing your results, even at the preliminary phase.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

[ QUOTE ]
What evidence? I have seen no compelling evidence that supports the view that they aren't rigging and of course no evidence of them doing it.

Which is my point. Somewhere along the way the idea that we here at 2+2 somehow proved that it is fair crept in. And that happened without anyone actually proving it (beyond showing that starting hands are random). But that doesn't prevent members here from constantly claiming it. Which in my book make you guys as irrational as the ones claiming it it rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if it were rigged, it seems as though it would be impossible for someone to make money at this. If you play any two and rely on the "rigging" to help you, you lose money. You win by playing quality cards, and playing them correctly after the flop.

The thing is, if 10 people are sitting at a table, and 9 of them are playing any 2 cards, while 1 is playing only good cards, chances are that one of the 9 will hit exactly the right cards he needs. But it won't be the same one every time!

Good players will always, in any setting, suffer far more bad beats than they will give to other players; the reason is that they know what cards to throw away before the flop, and when to quit afterward. They don't rely on miracle turns and rivers. The nature of the fish is to play too many hands, and to go too far with them. This results in an inordinate number of suckouts; I can't tell you how many times I've folded a hand that would have been a monster if I'd stuck with it. And this is true both live and online.

No, it's not direct evidence, but until someone shows me a statistically significant sample that demonstrates any form of rigging, I have no reason to believe it is rigged and will act accordingly.

-Mike

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

[ QUOTE ]

Well, if it were rigged, it seems as though it would be impossible for someone to make money at this. If you play any two and rely on the "rigging" to help you, you lose money. You win by playing quality cards, and playing them correctly after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is simply not true. It could be rigged and still be profitable. It would be dependent on the degree of rigging. If every hand is rigged it would be hard to win, if one hand in 10000 is rigged it would hardly affect earnings at all.

I am not saying it is rigged. I don't believe it is rigged. I just think it is stupid to pretend we have proven it is not when we haven't. I would very much like to see someone doing a big statistical analysis of PT databases. It wouldn't be all that hard to prove it is not rigged since we as a collective have all the numbers to test this.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

I tested hands where there were two player, one of which was all-in in SSTs where both hands were shown. The results were biased in favor of the underdogs.

Rigorous experimentation here is problematic. Even if you could conduct a truly valid experiment, what do you do with the results (besides avoiding PP)? I do that already.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

My old research means nothing. I can sway no one with it except myself.

Want to duplicate my experiment? I'll supply details, PM me.

Any new research will be equally valueless.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

"It would be an incredibly complicated code to assemble."

No. I see something that does what I imagine written in a few dozen, maybe a hundred lines.

"And yes, we would be able to detect it. "

I can design this experiment but it will not be easy. No current add-on software will sniff out what a suspect.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

"What evidence? I have seen no compelling evidence that supports the view that they aren't rigging and of course no evidence of them doing it.

Which is my point. Somewhere along the way the idea that we here at 2+2 somehow proved that it is fair crept in. And that happened without anyone actually proving it (beyond showing that starting hands are random). But that doesn't prevent members here from constantly claiming it. Which in my book make you guys as irrational as the ones claiming it it rigged. "

My goal was to keep this an open question and to point out exactly how difficult reaching a conclusion one way or the other would be.

My original research didn't mesh with randomness. If it did I'd be done with it. I refuse to take Party seriously because of it. I share my conclusion for what it's worth, which ain't much.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

Play (or observe) SNGs at Party. Record every hand that has exactly two players before the flop and at least one of them is all in. You must carefully restrict your sampling to every occurance, not just when you 'remember' to do it otherwise sampling bias will creep in. Record which hand wins (ignore ties). Suits are important in the starting hands. The board cards are of no importance, just the winner.

Each matchup has a W/L probability (twodimes.com or Poker Probe are required to determine the exact %) and the easiest way to analyze the data is Credit the favorite with 1 if it wins and 0 if it loses. Add up all the fractional favorite's probabilities and compare it to the sum of the 1s. It takes a lot of data to smooth out the lumps. Statistical techniques are needed to test your hypothesis.

Good luck.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

I haven't mentioned this in many months.

We get new folks here. A few actually have some objectivity.

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

There are better things to spend your time on.

If you believe you can't win at online poker for WHATEVER REASON.... STOP [censored] PLAYING ALREADY!!

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

[ QUOTE ]
We get new folks here. A few actually have some objectivity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, turning $50 into $8,500 in a little over a year has kinda messed up my objectivity...

Re: Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned
 

[ QUOTE ]

Which is my point. Somewhere along the way the idea that we here at 2+2 somehow proved that it is fair crept in. And that happened without anyone actually proving it (beyond showing that starting hands are random). But that doesn't prevent members here from constantly claiming it. Which in my book make you guys as irrational as the ones claiming it it rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wasn't just starting hands. It was flops turns and rivers as well. They were all in the normal realms of "random" and that was fine enough with me. If they're rigging it to seem random to statistical analysis, when in fact it isn't, that's a lot of work for very little payoff.

And other than this, you're not going to find compelling evidence that they're NOT rigging, because you really can't prove a negative.