Kooks and Computer Coders needed for experiment.

[lorinda]

Okay,

I believe that the distribution thing can be solved, but I need the help of kooks and computer coders.

The experiment runs like this.

Could the Kooks please post which things they would expect to be rigged, Im not talking "The number of Aces on the flop" or "The number of times a player is dealt Kings" because all but the toughest of conspiracy experts have seen enough evidence to the contrary of this...surely.

However, what we need is a list of distribution occurences to look for.
A couple might be Kings vs Aces dealt, set vs set and top two vs flush.
However, I would like the sceptics to provide examples.

What I hope someone can code (I hope it's not a very long exercise) is a poker program that shows us how often these occurences should happen, and then maybe someone could post how often they DO happen.

Unfortunately I have no coding skills, no tracking ability, and If it is ME that presents the test cases, then no credibility will be given to the case.

Any chance we could organise this?

Lori

[XlgJoe]

Lorinda

I really doubt that the larger sites are using crooked deals. But, if they were I would do it just as Terry mentioned in his post somewhere below. Just deal a true random shuffle. But on a random basis give the player that has lost the most money, the winning hand. The scond worst player the next best hand and so on.

The winning hand could be 32o and folded(or played by some maniac. The point is the distributions would be random, but the poor player would get some preferential treatment. And the deal wouldn't be manipulated every hand just some percentage from 10-25% of the time. I doubt you could determine that type of rigging.


Like I said I don't believe this is happening just saying how it could.

[HavanaBanana]

Some hands are more likely to win from the getgo, if they did random deals,with a marked account getting fewer winning hands, with the assigned player to lose more than his fair share this would show up in the starting hands he would get.

Take a suspected marked account, bring 9 2+2 friends, play 2c-4c holdem with noone ever folding.
the marked account should lose in 8 hours or play right?

or, if you are REALLY sure it is fixed so the winners will become losers, then make new account , play from a new computer, buy in at 30-60 and play your little heart out to the river!
Even better, make an initial depost and lose it on purpose, then redeposit and play 30-60 you cant lose!

Don't come to me to borrow money later though.

You are the Weakest Link.... Goodbye.

[XlgJoe]

As i stated I don't believe the major sites are fixed.

All I was trying to say was that I don't believe doing a tracking of board flops/flush over flush/etc will indicate anything. To many poker programs keeping stats to get away with manipulating the deal.

Most people believe Propoker.com(not positive on site name) is rigged. Could this study prove them rigged? It would be nice if it could, but I doubt it will be able.

[Terry]

ProPoker is "different." If you watch the games for 20 minutes and then buy in, you need ... ??? ... something, but I don't know what.

[Miah]

How would you account for the looseness of the game? Surely a very loose game is going to have a lot of set over set/flush over flush beats, as well as people sucking out their cards on the end.

I'm not trying to bring this to your attention as I believe you already are well aware of this factor. Rather I am asking how would you account for this in such an analysis?

[lorinda]

How would you account for the looseness of the game

I had totally overlooked this aspect, I'll get back to you when I have thought it through more carefully.

I am still sure it is a viable experiment, but I need to work out what I am talking about first [img]/forums/images/icons/blush.gif[/img]

Lori

[GrannyMae]

but I need to work out what I am talking about first

if i worried about stoopid sh*t like this, i would have only 4 posts.

[Bubmack]

I think a good test would be a comparison of all-in bets and calls when the second best hand before the all in bet wins. Although I dont know what to compare it to since the hand that is a dog will have varying chances to win. Like a four flush is more likely to beat a set than KK is likely to beat AA.

I would still like to know the % though.

Bubs

[mongeron]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I think a good test would be a comparison of all-in bets and calls when the second best hand before the all in bet wins.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually a this kind of test has been made, I read yesterday about it at RGP. The analysis was done by Steve Brecher, and the subject of the mail starts like this: "PokerStars tournament all-in pot equities v".

According to that post, the all-in situations went as they should.

- mongeron