a note to you conspiracy theorists (or good news for stars)

[C M Burns]

No doubt many of you have at least considered after a couple bad beats, maybe the system is biased somehow, favoring all those fish. Well I decided finally to do a little "reseach" on this subject. What I did was keep track of a number of pre flop head up allins to see if they check out.

These hands are all at Stars over the last moth or so. Mostly sng (turbo since i was impatient) but a few from multi's. To qualify two, and only two people had to be in an allin situation pre flop, then i recorded the hands and who won, only about 1/3 are mine, i computed the expected win rate and compared it to observed (tie hands were excluded)

175 hands in total. Expected win probability for favorite was .66, and the favorite won .67 or 67% of the time. You do not need to be a statistician to see that this is right in line with what is expected.

And 175 hands may seem small but it is actually a reasonable sample to make some conclusions. I won't go into detail but this is very much like telling whether a coin is biased, how many flips do you need? Of course it depends how big a bias but 100 flips would be a reasonable amount to detect a .1 bias (e.g. .6 head) There is more variablility in the hands of course but, we are talking hundereds of hands not thousands to make a reasonable conclusion.

However, what about my hands. 61 hands were mine, of those I was favored 69% of the time. Ok I guess since most of these were high blind small stack situations. My expected win was .55, and observed was .46, a considerable diference, not rediculous but one would expect this only about 10% of the time (run of these 61 hands). I guess I should be happy i was slightly profitable over than run. Of course then if you take my hands out the favorite wins much more than expected (.75 to .66).

So the bottom line is that Stars tourney allins seem to be fair for all of you. Whether they are out to get me is still to be decided.

[TylerD]

Good news and good work Monty. Still stings when your opponent spikes his set on the river though [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[JWise]

your post proves nothing and actually leans toward stars having a bias shuffle.

[gabyyyyy]

[ QUOTE ]

your post proves nothing and actually leans toward stars having a bias shuffle.

[/ QUOTE ]

His post really does prove nothing. 175 hands? You also only analyzed when 2-3 players were involved.

[MicroBob]

i agree that you need more than 175 hands to begin to prove the validity of the stars all-in.

certainly there are several out there who's expectation isn't even close to the actual result after only 175 situations.


please note - most people know that i am not generally with the 'deal is probably rigged' crowd.


your experiment is a start....but that is all it is.

i also agree that your own personal results tend to validate the 'conspiracy' gang's suspicions more than it refutes it....but with that few hands, it REALLY doesn't do either.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
your post proves nothing and actually leans toward stars having a bias shuffle.

[/ QUOTE ]


you realize you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence right?

i agree his post proves nothing, that's about it. i also believe the site is legit, not that it matters.

[JWise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
your post proves nothing and actually leans toward stars having a bias shuffle.

[/ QUOTE ]


you realize you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence right?

i agree his post proves nothing, that's about it. i also believe the site is legit, not that it matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

when i say proves nothing I mean proves nothing

[MicroBob]

i agree with JWise.

i think it can LEAN one way without really fully PROVING anything.

although 'fully proving' may be redundant...as i'm not sure it's possible to 'partly prove' something. you either proved it or you didn't, right?? thats a different topic though.

[Gonzoman]

[ QUOTE ]
i agree with JWise.

i think it can LEAN one way without really fully PROVING anything.

although 'fully proving' may be redundant...as i'm not sure it's possible to 'partly prove' something. you either proved it or you didn't, right?? thats a different topic though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clear some stuff up mathematically, it is impossible to 'prove' anything using statistics. One can only show that the results achieved are highly improbable assuming the null hypothesis is true. What the orignal poster has done here is shown that assuming the deal is fair, the results are well within the range expected.

If someone wants to show that the deal is not fixed towards fish, one would have to make the null hypothesis 'the deal is fixed to allow the fish to win an extra x% of the time'. Then run an experiment with enough data to determine that the null hypothesis is highly unlikely.

[C M Burns]

What it more or less proves is that at least allin pre flop, things are as they should be. As for the amount of hands, if there was say a .05 bias in the shuffle/system, where the worst hand won 5% more often than it should. after 175 hands you would get results that "significantly" (in a statitical sense) differ from true chance about 97% of the time. If you wanted to get this up to 99% you could get another 100 hands or so, but this seems close enough for me.

And not that i ever thought it was biased, i just though it was nice to see that things work out how they should.

So the point is this shows that it is very very unlikley (about 95% sure), that stars shuffle shows any sort of bias at least after the flop. I guess you could come up with some other way it could be biased but now the theories must be more complex and involve pattern maps.

And way to disregard something without any explanation for the oposite. And if posts had to prove something to be worth posting here I think there would be alot of empty space.

Edit: and just after i write this i bust out of a stars tourney w/ AQ against 39, i take it all back it is clearly rigged