Playing online - for the birds???
 

OK - let me just say first off that I'm no big believer in the 'consipiracy theory' that online gambling sites are out to cheat their players. Nor am I saying this just because I've taken one hellacious beating the last several days playing online - it's been atrocious and I won't go into details. After some review, it's apparent there has been some bad play on my part - I certainly don't deny that. But some of the stuff I've seen online has really got me thinking that if you decide to play online you truly are gambling - in every sense of the word.

Now, I've been a student of poker long enough to know that a bad run of cards is bound to catch up with you - and you'll never see it coming nor will you know how long it will last. I play poker voluntarly, and that I can accept. To be honest with you I wouldn't mind all that much sitting there folding trash hand after trash hand - it's part of the game. However, I find that online in comparson to B&M that there are an improportinate number of times where so many players have such good hands - hands that in many cases tie them to flop and as they get better and 'force' (I use that term lightly) players to stay in the pot.

Does this happen every hand? No. Why would it - it would be way to obvious and smarter players would soon pick up on the pattern. The thing is - as long as it doesn't occur to an individual player too often they won't really think too much about it. You can see something strange but if you weren't in the hand you just think, "Ouch! - glad I folded...".

As someone mentioned in a previous post - there are more 'dramatic' flops in online rooms than anywhere I've ever played before in my life.

Of course, all this being said - I can't prove anything and really have intrest in wasting my time trying. Just keep in mind that these sites are run offshore with NO regulation or supervision by any gaming commission. They are free to do whatever they want. Sure, they can say some big 10 auditing firm came in and made sure there shuffle algorithim was legit - but who really knows what that means.

I'm 99.99% sure that after this current buy-in gets gobbled up on my next run of Group 1 hands being taken down by 2 outers I'm done playing online. I've been a winning poker player for some time. I've been a dedicated student of the game - reading or studying something poker related nearly every day for over the past year. I don't know what's going on online - perhaps it's just that I don't play very well there. I do tend to get distracted and don't have the patience to sit and stare at my computer for hours on end playing for $1 or $2 an hour against relatively good players fighting a tough rake. In the end, I guess my free time is better spent elsewhere. I'll save my poker time for when I actually get to 'sit down' and buy a rack and envelope myself in the game.

Finally, I thought I'd share a final story about my online escpade. Tonight I decided to grind out what was left of my original buy in and continued to witness some very extraordinary activity. This hand was the one (and the details around it) that convinced that playing online just isn't for me:

Fortunately, I wasn't involved in this hand - but I grabbed a history and here's how it went.

I get one of my all-time favorites, Q5o on the button. :-)

UTG+1 raises folded to MP who re-raises folded to cutoff who makes it 3 bets. All call.

*** FLOP *** : [ 3c 3s 4h ]

Check, bet, raise...all call.

*** TURN *** : [ 3c 3s 4h ] [ 2d ]

bet, raise, raise...all call.

Your dying aren't you??? :-)

*** RIVER *** : [ 3c 3s 4h 2d ] [ Jc ]

bet, call, call.

UTG+1 and MP both had AA and cutoff had KK.

Isn't that special.

The great part was MP had just had AA the hand before as well and won a huge pot.

The even better part was that AA and KK were both dealt the very next hand and showndown on a board full of rags again.

Unreal. I don't know what the odds are of that occuring but it has to be astronmical. If I saw that event alone in an evening I wouldn't think that much of it. However, combine that with some of the other weirdness I've seen over the past several sessions it starts to get to be a little too much for me.

Anyway, maybe it is just random and I'm seeing a group of statistcal anomolies in the extreme short term - but I've only spent about 5 hours playing online the last 2 days - and it's freakin' me out. Maybe like someone mentioned, since I think something weird could be going on I'm not playing my best game. Whatever it is I'm tired of thinking about it. It serves me best just to stay away and take my game to the casino's.

Anyway, thanks for listening. I'll see ya in the card rooms.

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

OK - let me just say first off that I'm no big believer in the 'consipiracy theory' that online gambling sites are out to cheat their players

The mating call of the kook.

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

I hear you!
The only difference for me is that i cant win at my B&M cardroom.
Once a month i decide to crawl out of my lazyboy in front of my computer and go play some LIVE poker,its a 2 hour drive to port perry to go play at the great blue heron casino.
Now i dont want to accuse them of suspicious play because i dont have any proof,but im almost positive a couple of those players up there are BOTS!They dont talk and they always win,not to mention the one has a twitch(they dont maintain them very well,must be a short circuit)


All kidding aside to those of you that doubt the authenticity of the main online cardrooms ,YOU should come watch me play LIVE poker(i'm famous for my bad beats)
When i do venture up to port perry Im always asked
"where u been ?"and when i tell them im playing online these days,i always get the"Ive played but i dont trust it"
"there always setting u up","the things that happen online dont happen in real life"
So i say to those of u that say things that happen to u online dont happen in real life,i say be happy because those runs DO happen in a live game (to some of us more than others)
In three years of playing online probably six hours a day
i have only lost on quads once,last month at port perry i lost on quads twice in about a total of 30 hours play.
Thems the breaks!
If you are losing consistently online over a long period of time,at a reputable cardroom,you are simply being outplayed.
Many players who are winning players at B&M cardrooms(esp.the tight solid players)think that they know how to play the game perfect and anybody who dosent play that way must be an inferior player so they cannot reconize when a player is better than them,Therefore cannot take there game to next level.
When i started playing online i too thought i was a great player(mainly because i was a consisent winner at the B&M cardrooms even with my bad beats)but after getting pounded by the "pigeons" day after day i realized that some of these players were awesome players.
So after a while i opened my mind and learned alot from these "pigeons"
Life has been great since
Instead of blaming your run of cards or the cardroom itself,take that energy and oppurtunity to improve your game.
The future top players in the world will be "online players"
because the competiton is stonger therefore forcing the determined to play better than any B&m group of players!

"SEE YOU AT THE FINAL TABLE"
TWISTY

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

When I first started playing online around 3 years ago, shortly after PlanetPoker found out that people were exploiting thier random number generator. (It wasn't random, made national news)

There were a number of statistical analyses done on flop cards and board cards as a whole.

What was found at Paradise Poker was that not only were the hole cards random, but board cards were random, and not only were they random, but thier distribution was perfectly even.

So then the kooks start saying, "well they distribute board cards and hole cards in such a way that they create bigger pots for more rake while still keeping the distribution even."

Even if the software was capable of doing that, it isn't doing it.

An analysis of a huge number of hands was done to see if more str8ts, flushes, boats, etc were being seen compared to flop %. Amazingly the distribution was perfect.

The final conclusion was and has probably been said before; You see so many more cards/hands/flops online that it creates an illusion of something fishy (to use a technical term.)

Now not everyone uses the same number generator as Paradise, but if thier was a non-random generator out thier,then someone would be exploiting it and the casino would be scrambling to fix it.

I must be a fanboy/shill...

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

Sucka, I will give you the benefit of the doubt because you are right. You do experience more bad beats online in a session than you will have in a B&M. I think it is inarguably true. The question is why? I think there is a few options:
A) The cardroom is fixed.
B) You look at 2.5x more hands per hour than in a B&M
C) Tilt
D) Perceived tilt.

A) I have been online for a little over 3 years and the only site that I have not posted a net win at is Propoker. Many players who post here are paying the bills from online poker so I don't think the "fixed" theory holds much water.
B) This means that you can put 2.5 days worth of B&M bad beats into one session online. Sometimes they happen fairly rapidly which causes a whole new problem......
C) .....tilt, suddenly you get involved with a few hands that you maybe shouldn't. Flop top pair, oblivious that you are possibly way behind. At showdown, MR. Tight shows you his overpair. Looks like a bad beat, but isn't. This sets up yet another problem...........
D) Perception of tilt. When I see a player who is obviously tilted, I will often call him down with not much. This furthers his tilt and soon all his chips are gone. Problem is, he might not be on tilt, but if it looks like he is, I might give him the gamble and then fluke out by hitting trips at the river. I am not reinventing the wheel here. Most players here would play a tilter the same way. Now you start getting 5 callers to your KK raise. We all think you're tilting. Of course, individually, we are all playing incorrectly according to the FTOP, but collectively, we have driven our pot odds up making a lot of draws correct. Your KK just got a lot weaker. Now you lose to a correct draw and end up just a little more frustrated.

If this sounds like your experience, then maybe B&M is a better environment for you. The games are slower, the players tend to be weaker, plus you can vent to the player beside you.

However, be fair. Accusing sites of wrongdoing when any of the above could be true seems a little irrational. Agreed?

Wherever you end up playing, I sincerely wish you the best of luck.

HC

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

You wrote: “What was found at Paradise Poker was that not only were the hole cards random, but board cards were random, and not only were they random, but thier distribution was perfectly even.”

You are wrong. I believe, as a courtesy to your readers, you should make some effort to learn a little about what you’re talking about. No tests have been done to determine if Paradise’s deal is random. Either you are ignorant of the difference between the concept of randomness and the concept of distribution, and foolishly pass along your ignorance to others, or you are not ignorant, and are trying to pass misinformation on to everyone foolish enough to believe you.

Either way, you do a great disservice to online poker.

Tom D

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

How can you say you are not something, and then proceed to explain at length that you are what you claim not to be? The goons have propagated the “Conspiracy Theorist” label because it has such a derogatory connotation. It’s their only tool. Lorinda has already smeared you, trying to undermine your credibility from the start.

Be a man, say what you think, and don’t worry about what the ignorant call you.

Tom D

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

You wrote: “What was found at Paradise Poker was that not only were the hole cards random, but board cards were random, and not only were they random, but thier distribution was perfectly even.”

You are wrong. I believe, as a courtesy to your readers, you should make some effort to learn a little about what you’re talking about. No tests have been done to determine if Paradise’s deal is random. Either you are ignorant of the difference between the concept of randomness and the concept of distribution, and foolishly pass along your ignorance to others, or you are not ignorant, and are trying to pass misinformation on to everyone foolish enough to believe you.

I believe that Price Waterhouse did audit their "shuffling" or randomization of their cards, and it passed with flying colors.

I didn't take anything he said as derogatory. I personally believe sites like paradise are on the up-and-up.

shame I'm getting hammered there this week...

-Scott

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

Yeah, he's obviously trying to pass along misinformation...lol

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

LOL. First off, I'm not a 'goon', I can assure you of that.

I honestly don't know if there is some weird stuff going on online. I'm just saying, be leery of it and for those people who say 'NO WAY!" - how the hell do they know? Because a site says we got Ernst & Young or someone to audits their shuffling algorithim. Big deal.

All I'm saying is - I really don't know. After putting some thought into it the last few days, it's safe to say that I certainly don't play my best poker online. Why? I don't really know. I think the more that I play I get better - but I guess I can't really tell until I spend more time playing online which is something that I'm still not real sure I want to do - at least not for higher stakes.

At the limits I'm playing now and the money I have online I'm really not overly concerned about the $$, I just wanted to get some hands in before I take a trip to Vegas next month.

Maybe in the 'long run' things would even out for me. But the short run is freaking me out. I logged on and played again today during my lunchbreak and while I actually posted a win for the session I witnessed some more really odd anomolies - the least of which was me getting pocket pairs 6 hands in a row (pocket 4's 3 times in a row). I'll footnote that I never flopped a set and lost (or folded) every hand. [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

Anyway, like I said - maybe it's just me. Perhaps as someone mentioned - the fact that you see so many hands per hour overemphasizes the beats and weird hands. Who knows. I've played what would be the equivalent of 12 hours or so in B&M play and I've seen more wacky stuff in that period of time than I have in over 100 hours of B&M play.

Just for reference - here's how my session started today:

I'm waiting a few hands for the BB to come around - here are the first 4 flops before I get in...

1. 3 hearts come on the flop. Board pairs the turn - lots o' action...
2. Board double pairs and puts an A on the river
3. 3 to a straight come on the flop - board pairs on the turn - 3 clubs come with the river card
3 diamonds on the flop.

Finally, I get to post the BB - get red Tens on my first hand and call a raise with 5 players already in.

Flop comes AKJ with 2 spades.

I get bet into and fold. One dude shows AK and another dude shows AJ

Next hand I get A4c in the SB and call with 5 players. Flop comes with 2 4's and one club and one diamond.

Turn and river are runner-runner diamonds and I lose to QTd with a flush.

Next hand I get AJo on the button. 1 limper and I call as do the blinds.

Flop comes 9s 7s 3c

I get bet into and call - its heads up.

Jack comes on the turn completing the flush and an offsuit 4 comes on the river.

I get shown 34o and lose.

A few hands later I get a cheap play in the SB with JTh and nearly a family pot.

I fop a broadway and a guy runner-runner's 2 spades on me to make a shitty flush.

So, maybe it's just that I'm in card hell - or maybe some weird crap is going on, or maybe I'm just playing badly, or who knows.

Whatever it is - I still think playing online is a risky proposition.

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

My understanding of the PWC review is that it falls between the two claims in this thread.

They certainly look at more than just distribution, they actually perform statistical tests, not just add up the number of aces dealt.

However, Paradise supplies only the data from dealt hands, not the shuffling algorithm itself.

Lori

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

You wrote: “However, be fair. Accusing sites of wrongdoing when any of the above could be true seems a little irrational. Agreed?”

Players and online sites have an implied contract: In exchange for rent payments, players will receive a fair deal. This is known as consideration.

Unfortunately, because of the nature of the beast, players have no way to determine if online sites are actually upholding their end of the bargain; so the burden rests entirely with the sites to provide assurances where players can know they are receiving due consideration. Since no sites have done this, even though it is their clear duty, why would you think it irrational to speculate that they might not be providing the consideration they promise?

Be fair. Accusing sites of fair dealing when any number of shenanigans could be going on seems a little irrational. Agreed?

Tom D

The Big Ten
 

Regarding; "some big ten auditing firm".

The Big Ten is a midwestern athletic conference. Has 11 members----hmmm, a conspiracy?

The Big 8 Accounting and Auditing Firms -- of years ago -- has now shrunk thru mergers to half that and is called the final four.

The final four is also a basketball event -- see? another conspiracy----whats the odds on that?

I can't seem to come up with a comment about the birds, but I'm still thinking. 10 birds, auditing birds, basketball birds---something.

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

So he's just ignorant?

Tom D

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

You wrote: “I honestly don't know if there is some weird stuff going on online.”

That is the key. If online poker sites are unwilling to offer assurances that players are getting what they pay for, then it is terribly irrational to assume they are.

Many people here seem to think requiring businesses to show that consumers get is what they pay for is accusatory or insulting, like slapping Mother Teresa. It's utterly stupid and painfully naïve.

Tom D

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

"The goons have propagated the “Conspiracy Theorist” label because it has such a derogatory connotation."

Oh my, but where did the goon , or sh.it wallower, label come from?

Most of the non-random crowd also believe that it was intentionally done and it was done in secret to benefit the site that makes it sound as if they believe it's a conspiracy.

MS Sunshine

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

This is old news, but Price Waterhouse did not do an audit; they reviewed information provided them by management. Reviews are internal documents and are not meant for public consumption.

If you know a CPA, show him Paradise's letter, and ask him if it provides any assurances to consumers whatsoever.

Tom D

Where are you playing?
 

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

Goon and sh.it wallower are precise scientific nomenclature. [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

Tom D

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

Tom, IIRC the multimillion hand database that Paradise provides on their site has been analysed by Tony Hwang (who posts here as Tony H. I think and is the creator of Pokerstat). Again IIRC, Tony found the numbers of straights, flushes, boats, etc. was not statistically different from the expected numbers for such hands. You may well argument that this large sample of hands has not been audited, but it is there for public observation and review. Tony, please chime in here if I've misstated what you did.

Just my $.03.

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The goons have propagated the “Conspiracy Theorist” label because it has such a derogatory connotation .

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, the sweet irony.

Re: The Big Ten
 

The Big 10 plus 1
The Big 8 minus 4

There is too much math in this thread.

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

Tom,
I worked as a floorman for 5+ years and if ever put to the test, I couldn't prove that any one of the games that I supervised was on the straight and narrow. Yet, the same contract exists. I really have no idea what kind of "evidence" would satisfy you that the online game is not rigged. I am skeptical that any site is going to release its algorithm to anyone in order to prove its legitimacy but I think that's the only thing that would satisfy you.

I mentioned in my previous posts, a number of players on this forum pay the bills with online poker. I myself have been a winning player online for over 3 years on 5 different sites. Being from a small city in Canada, I suggest that they are not doing me the favour of letting me win. There is no motivation.

All I am suggesting is that, it is possible/probable that the feeling of online gaming appearing rigged to someone is for the reasons that I suggested in my original post.

Also, I did not use the term irrational in an attempt to be insulting or "goonish". If I spoke offensively in any way then I certainly apologize to Sucka.

HC

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

The truth is that most the non-random crowd work for organizations like the FBI, the Dept. of Justice, the Dept of Defense, etc. The random crowd works for the online industry, or can be traced to people like Tony Spilotro.

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

That's about accurate, but I didn't analyze a million hands, jsut the 70k hands in my database. Other PokerStat users analyzed their 20k, 100k, or more databases and found nothing out of the ordinary statistically either.

The one thing that PokerStat's randomness checking tool doesn't check for is runs (for example you can be dealt AA at the expected rate, but get all your AA's in a row). It also doesn't check for situations, like if two good hands are setup against each other more often than they should, since it's impossible to analyze this without knowing everyone's hole cards.

But something else to keep in mind, if Paradise was setting up situations, they would have to do it in a way that the dealing was still random. Like remember when it gave player X an extra AA, and take away an AA later, and not just keep track of this for AA, but for every hand it sets up.

- Tony

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

Releasing an algorithm or a source code would prove nothing either, because how do you know whether this is the actual source code that is being used in running the games.

However there is a way for a site to prove that the game is honest at least to some extent. When my friend complained about bad beats to PokerStars they sent him all his (over 100,000) hands and suggested that he conducts an independent review if he so wishes.

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

wow - i had no idea how popular this topic would become. All I'm saying is for all the people that say, "You people are kook's for thinking that the online sites would possibly do anything to rig the games" how can you be more sure of that than a group of people that claim that it's entirely possible that there is 'something' going on behind the scenes. Unless someone who has inside information comes forward, which I doubt will ever happen, it will remain a mystery.

However, all I'm saying is beware. I know there are people out there that win online, I don't dispute that. I mean, if a site hosed things up so bad that no one could ever win then people wouldn't play.

If a site has hundreds of thousands of hands played per day - if they can 'set up' flops and hands only a very small percentage of the time that cause several people to make huge hands only to split the pot at the end. I've seen more people tie hands and jam the pot only to split - who is the only entity that wins in that situation? That's right - the house. In my 7 or so hours of playing online (which would roughly translate into a marathon 14 hour B&amp;M session) I've seen so much weird crap going on that I can't help but think that there may be something going on.

I sent a friend of mine screen shots from an hour of my online play this afternoon. I was in maybe 60 or so hands and screenshots of 15 or so hands - some I was involved in, most I wasn't - where players are tied to boards by flops that 99% of the time would generate very little activity at all. It seems odd to me how many times this happens.

Anyway, its hard to summarize so many thoughts into a short message thread. I didn't mean to come off sounding like I'm straight out accusing site(s) of doing anything in particular. I'm just saying that it's entirely possible and we are all naive to think that an offshore unregulated company that hosted a gambling site would absolutely never think of ways, even so subtle, to make them a few extra bucks - then I have a bridge for sale if anyone's interested...

I would worry more about...
 

...something shady going on with the money I had in a site -- i.e. bad investments etc. I know that some sites have 100% of players money "on hand", but still. I don't think there is any weirdness going on. My losing sessions were tilt / bad card related -- that is all -- losing AA of something else to a suck out is so normal to me know that I only think, "guess he had to have something, if only faith alone, to be in the hand."

Re: I would worry more about...
 

I think it is more likely that Big Bird shot JFK, than Paradise cheating and aranging flops. Why would they risk cheating when they make so much money by just playing fair. Think of how much money they make dealing to 300+ tables and even if they rake only a dollar a hand from these tables thats $300 X 50 hands an hour=$15000/h at peak times and maybe half that off peakbut still about $270000 a day 365 days a year is just under $100 million.
Why would anyone risk that much money at a chance to make even double, its just not worth the chance of walking away with nothing!

Re: I would worry more about...
 

lol - why would WorldCom and Enron do the [censored] they did? They were making so much money....GREED!

And hell, WorldCom and Enron actually had governing agencies that they ultimately had to report to.

What about these online gambling sites? Do they have anyone to report to?

You are one niave person to think that someone wouldn't give themselves an additional percentage edge if it made them additional millions - especially when they are an unregluated, unchecked business.

If it makes you feel better when you deposit your money that there is no way you would be cheated in any way - then fine, live in your little perfect gambling utopia.

Re: I would worry more about...
 

"If it makes you feel better when you deposit your money that there is no way you would be cheated in any way - then fine, live in your little perfect gambling utopia. "

Why do I win?

Why do others here win?

We don't care about the other BS. We are very bottomline sort of guys. You lost, you thought you were cheated. Fine.

Buy-in for 40BB, Win 150BB, move up in limit, win 50BB and then go broke in two days. Now, watch for funny hands, which are always there if you look, then find funny hands. "Well, I'm the BIG winner down at the Elks game."

Yada Yada yada..................Again, why do we win?

MS Sunshine

good post hotchile n/m
 

Re: I would worry more about...
 

I'm not saying that it's in any sites best interest to make sure that no one wins. Clearly, that's not the case.

Look, I'm not making any excuses for whether or not I'm winning or losing online. I have already said that I don't think I play as well online for a multitude of reasons that I have explained previously in this post.

I'm basing my judgements on things that I've witnessed in a relatively short period of time while playing online. Anomolies that continue to occur in what I feel is greater than what occurs in an a regular cardroom. I could be wrong - I could be way off - I'm just making an observation on what I've seen.

As it turns out, I'm actually doing OK online. After playing fairly badly for a while I've turned my game around and while I'm still down a few BB's I've come back around. That still doesn't mean that the frequency of freaky stuff that happens makes me feel any better.

Like I said previously, it's interesting to me how so many people viemently defend these unregulated businesses - they would NEVER do anything to even slightly increase their profits. I don't know about you, but when was the last time you heard someone running a business say, "Well, we're making plenty of money..." - especially a business owner who had absolutely ZERO checks and balances.

You can't prove that there's nothing going on any better than I or anyone else can prove there is. Meanwhile, these online gambling sites are laughing all the way to the bank.

Here's just one example. I played for a little less than an hour yesterday at lunch. Just for grins I started taking screen shots of boards and hands that were showing down. I started seeing some weird crap, so I started keeping track of the next 20 hands or so...

Keep in mind, I'm not in most of these. Just observing.

2 hearts on the flop - runner-runner put 4 to a straight on the board.

2d Th 9h Jd Qc

5 players showdown in a monster $20+ pot (this is a $.50/1.00 micro game)

I player has AQ, 1 player has QJ, one player has A6h for the flopped nut flush draw, one player has JT. Basically, a clear example of let's tie 5 people to the flop give them all a legitimate hand and see what happens.

About 3 hands later....

Board shows 8h Th Js As Qh.

One player has KJ for flopped top pair and another has K7h for a strong flush draw. One player makes his straight on the Qh coming down while the other makes his flush. Another monster pot.

2 hands later...

Jc Th 9c Td 7c

J8s ends up taking down the pot - with flopped top pair making his gutshot on the river. Other hands involved - well, ATo makes trips and another guy gets his pocket Kings cracked. Another huge pot.

THE VERY NEXT HAND...

Tc Qd 8h 8s 8c

Hmmm - wonder if the 2 showdown hands have a pair for the full-house?

Of course they do - QJo shows down with JTs. Another huge pot.

2 hands later...

Qd Kh Ah Ts 9d

Not a huge pot - but the winner? JTs for the flopped nuts - other players? Big slick, and QJ. Can we possibly have anymore face cards out at one time?

I'll spare you too many more - but here's one about 3 hands later...

Kd As 6c 10c 5h

A $19.50 pot on a 2 way showdown. You guessed it - one person had QJo for the straight and the other player had pocket T's. So, the same card that gives the guy his straight gives the other player his set.

In a span of those 20 hands - there were 8 straights, 4 flushes (1 flush over flush), 5 not shown down, 1 set and 1 two pair.

A little odd? Maybe.

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

I’ve seen Tony’s numbers, and Tony and I have talked about them. My argument is that they don’t say anything about randomness, and to loosely infer that they do is sloppy thinking. It’s impossible to work from Tony’s distribution results and know anything about the distribution process.

As an analogy, imagine you came across five bushel baskets filled with apples to various levels. No matter how many times you count the apples in each basket, you can’t tell me one thing about how they got there. Were they put in one at a time, in order, reverse order, two at a time, or was one basket filled and then the next and then the next?

Another analogy: imagine you and I are cutting the deck for high card, and every time I pluck a deuce you get an Ace, and every time I draw a trey you get a deuce, and every time I draw any card except a deuce, you get the next lower card. You might scratch your head after awhile and wonder why you’re losing 12 out of 13 games, so you add up all your results and find that you have nothing to worry about. You have received exactly the number of cards for each rank that you would expect, and so have I, so, based on your thinking, you are safe to conclude that the selection process must be random.

Testing for randomness, or non-randomness, is its own science and requires a rigorous mathematical analysis of data Tony does not have.

Tom D

Re: I would worry more about...
 

A few points I have noticed in this thread.

1) My views match those of MS Sunshine.

2) Tom D's analogy of a game where you lose 12/13 hands is a great example of the distribution problems he has been trying to explain for so long.
Anyone wishing to argue the case for online poker now needs to overcome that example, although PWC do the work on distribution AS WELL AS randomness of the deck and that is good enough for me.
However, I accept that since Paradise produces the "block" of hands that PWC analyse, they could have turned off the "cheat shuffle" mode for those periods and back on again for the rest of the time.

3) over a period of seven hours, you can spot a pattern that looks suspicious in anything.

Possibilities include.

a) too many high flops
b) too many low flops
c) alternating high and low flops
d) alternating runs of high and low flops.
e) alternating runs of a) b) c) and d)

These are pretty much all the options over such a short time period and certainly each of them would look "rigged" taken alone.

they would NEVER do anything to even slightly increase their profits

How would YOU increase your profits in this highly competetive arena with many intelligent people doing constant research into how fair your site is?

would you
a) Provide the best service so that your customers return
b) Cheat to gain a slightly bigger rake and lose customers
c) Put your rake up
d) Have good offers

Certainly not all sites opt for a) but most that opt for b) have very few customers.

How big an increase do you think Paradise gets from cheating their customers, will it cover the PWC costs? I doubt it.
Don't forget the costs of paying the programmers to be silent about the issue too.

You can't prove that there's nothing going on

Jimbo explained why this is a long time ago, and as you can't be bothered to do your research into previous posts on this issue, I can't be bothered to find it.

You mention all the huge pots, did you send for hand histories and observer the losers in these pots too, you know those who had the gutshot low straight and suchlike.

Micro games have huge pots because people don't fold.
Because people don't fold, more people hit runner runner.
I don't have the numbers at hand, but let's say runner runner flush comes every 16 hands, now then, four people chasing per hand... hmm, every four hands, sounds about right to me (given other runner runner chase options)

A little odd? Maybe

It would certainly have been more odd if, in all these monster pots, not one person managed to chase down their hand.

Lori

Re: I would worry more about...
 

You caught me when I'm done clipping my toenails and I'm trying to put off picking out the belly-button lint. It seems the Stud 8/B game is not holding my attention.

You can't prove that there's nothing going on any better than I or anyone else can prove there is. Meanwhile, these online gambling sites are laughing all the way to the bank.

Well, not all of them are laughing on the way to the bank.

As to the hands that took up most of your post, could someone please tell me about ACR's current Poker Bucks promotions? Could I please get a Justice4all info Spama-gram? I'm willing to read anything at this point.

Screen shots?

"In a span of those 20 hands - there were 8 straights, 4 flushes (1 flush over flush), 5 not shown down, 1 set and 1 two pair."????

I'm a god damn poker moron, ask around here, but I work at very hard at it. I don't care how many straights have been seen lately. I'm too busy take notes. I can't prove the deal is honest anywhere, but I don't care because time spent trying to do that doesn't make me MONEY.

It's not a card game to me, but a money game. Work on your game, check the lobby for a better game and check the HH's for holecards of unknown players and forget all this other crap. Get your head into winning.

If I happen to fall out of this conversation it's either because I've fallen off to sleep or I have moved on to the belly-button lint, not that I don't care about this subject dearly. [sarcasm OFF]

MS Sunshine

Re: Here\'s a thought..........
 

Sucka, you have gone to great lengths to list a number of hands that occurred online in an effort to prove that they are anomolies.

Go to a B&amp;M room and write down 30-50 hands in the lowest limit game you can find. The reason that the board always ties people to the hand is because there are too many hands being played, opening up a plethora of combinations that will tie them to a board. It is common in micro-limits to see JTo played from UTG. It is very easy to get a small piece of many boards with this hand. Add in all suited aces getting played and a bunch more boards are getting tied into. Add in all suited connectors and you'll find even more hands tied to the flop.

The point is, with so many combinations available, the poker site would have to cheat in order to AVOID tying players to the flop. It's virtually impossible.

Do this little experiment in a B&amp;M at the lowest limit there and you will find the same activity occurring. It might set your mind at ease and maybe even give you some insight into low limit poker and how to play it more effectively.

HC

My problem is...........
 

I find myself doing things I would never do in a B&amp;M cardroom and I suspect many are guilty of this. I call when I should fold just to see what the other guy has. I call when I should raise just to see that a safe card comes. I watch TV while playing, I surf the net while playing, I read while playing, I generally don't pay attention like I should while playing online. These are the reasons I play almost no limit games online. I find when playing PL or NL I pay much more attention. I HAVE FOUND THE ENEMY AND HE IS ME!!! Not an algorithm, not stupid lucky players, not the cardroom, ME!!! I believe if most people will look at why they lose online and win B&amp;M they will find either that they are not as good as they think or they are not concentrating on the game or more likely a combination of both.

Re: Playing online - for the birds???
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
and to loosely infer that they do is sloppy thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Love you too, Tom. Just can't resist getting a dig in, even when its unnecessary.

Randomness is tested by seeing if a sample is representative of the population using a test such as Wald-Wolfowitz. Isn't that what Tony's numbers support, that the expected numbers of various winning hands are insignifigantly different from the actual number observed in his sample. I realize of course Tony's is not a representative sample, but it is a very large one which has its own advantages.

Re: I would worry more about...
 

You argument that you win, therefore the games are square is weak for two reasons: (1.) I don’t know that you win. (2.) You’re winning doesn’t mean the games aren’t tweaked.

For example, say once a session the house reroutes (by whatever means) a pot you would have won to a player less gifted than you are, to keep him in the game, give him hope, develop a loyal customer, etc. Just because your skills are such that you can overcome it and win a little something doesn’t mean you aren’t being cheated.

There is, I assume, a limit to how fast the house can cheat and still fly under the radar. It’s not likely that you’ll see four sets of quads in a row get beat by four straight flushes everyday. They have to be a little subtler than that, or some of the geniuses here might catch on.

Tom D