There IS a difference between Party and Pokerstars tournaments.

bocablkr · #1 10-06-2005, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the distribution of hands is identical over a large sample size?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's clearly rigged.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is my POINT - it is not rigged but it is different. Did you ever hear of cards getting blocked. That does not happen with an automated shuffler. It has nothing do with rigging - just affects the distribution of hands.

benfranklin · #2 10-06-2005, 01:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]

That is my POINT - it is not rigged but it is different. Did you ever hear of cards getting blocked. That does not happen with an automated shuffler.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you are saying that a defective (or at least different) RNG at Stars results in card clumping? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

bocablkr · #3 10-06-2005, 02:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That is my POINT - it is not rigged but it is different. Did you ever hear of cards getting blocked. That does not happen with an automated shuffler.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you are saying that a defective (or at least different) RNG at Stars results in card clumping? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Did not say that it is defective just different. They use a different RNG (pokerstars even uses the mouse movement in its algorithm) and therefore the distribution CAN NOT be identical.

benfranklin · #4 10-06-2005, 02:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Did not say that it is defective just different. They use a different RNG (pokerstars even uses the mouse movement in its algorithm) and therefore the distribution CAN NOT be identical.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue is not whether they are identical, it is whether they are statistically significantly different. And whether either is statistically significantly different from the normal distribution. The answer to both is no, based on empirical analysis of hundreds of thousands of hands done by posters on these forums.

In short, neither you nor anyone else has yet posted any statistically significant evidence that the online distribution of cards varies from the norm.

bocablkr · #5 10-06-2005, 02:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Did not say that it is defective just different. They use a different RNG (pokerstars even uses the mouse movement in its algorithm) and therefore the distribution CAN NOT be identical.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue is not whether they are identical, it is whether they are statistically significantly different. And whether either is statistically significantly different from the normal distribution. The answer to both is no, based on empirical analysis of hundreds of thousands of hands done by posters on these forums.

In short, neither you nor anyone else has yet posted any statistically significant evidence that the online distribution of cards varies from the norm.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am aware of the statistical analysis performed by members here and at other sites. Aren't those just on the actual hands dealt. Are they ever on the number of times one hand comes up against another? Ex. number of times AA comes up against KK. You can have an analysis that shows the number of AA hands and the number of KK hands is statistically correct. But what if every time the KK hand was dealt an AA hand was dealt (of course an exaggeration).
Has anyone performed that type of analysis? If so, I apologize.

MicroBob · #6 10-06-2005, 02:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Has anyone performed that type of analysis?

[/ QUOTE ]

so is the 'riggedness' with 'evil-intent' or not?

Because if AA vs. KK somehow does come up more often online then that would seem to point to 'evil-intent' by the site itself which you claim isn't happening.

Additionally, you are claiming that the underdog hand wins more often anyway....so whether KK vs. AA comes up more often isn't even in the realm of the 'less-randomness' you were alluding to.

If KK beats AA more often than it should then you are back to what you are talking about.

I am unaware of such a KK vs. AA study at various online-sites.
Mostly because if one did exist I wouldn't care about it anyway.

I had a hand just a couple days ago where I folded QQ pre-flop when 2 other big stacks were all-in (and there was another PF raiser yet to act).
They had AA vs. KK.
I honestly do not remember whether this hand happened at Party or Stars. I think it was Party but I'm not positive.
it was just one of those 'golly...that was weird' type hands...I pat myself on the back for making a good fold... and I move on.

FWIW - My last significant KK vs. AA confrontation (I had KK, and lost) was at the WSOP. It sucked.
There was a lot of talk of all the KK's getting clobbered by AA that day.
Just a couple orbits earlier though I had QQ and doubled-up vs. AA.
We had a zillion big-hand confrontations at our table and we were talking about how many times each of us had shown AA or KK.
Johnny Chan was at the table and semi-jokingly made the dealer spread-out the deck to make sure we didn't somehow have a 5th ace in there.
It was pretty funny.

Live poker at the WSOP is SOOOOOOOO rigged.

bocablkr · #7 10-06-2005, 02:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
so is the 'riggedness' with 'evil-intent' or not?

Because if AA vs. KK somehow does come up more often online then that would seem to point to 'evil-intent' by the site itself which you claim isn't happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Micro, why would this necessarily imply 'evil intent' rather than just a consequence of the difference in the shuffle algorithm. There are many threads about pokerstars being rigged, etc. This was not meant to be one. I am sorry it turned out that way. It was really about the shuffle and whether that could have any influence on the types of hands dealt against each other.

FlFishOn · #8 10-06-2005, 04:10 PM

"The answer to both is no, based on empirical analysis of hundreds of thousands of hands done by posters on these forums."

Bullsh+t. You have no such evidence but I know you, like Fox Mulder, '(I) want to believe'.

MicroBob · #9 10-06-2005, 02:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They use a different RNG (pokerstars even uses the mouse movement in its algorithm) and therefore the distribution CAN NOT be identical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Random = Random.

both are random.

To try to invent otherwise is silly.

To try to blame the RNG for your lack of success in pokerstars tournaments is idiotic.

Are the 2+2'ers who have done really well in Stars tourneys just 'getting lucky'?
Have they discovered some alternative strategy where they try to put in the underdog hand more often than not?
Were Barry Greenstein's money-finishes in the recent WCOOP tourneys somehow an accident?
What about the guy on here a week or two ago who was CERTAIN that party's deal was just 'not right' but that the cards on Stars 'seem to be pretty true and are obvioulsy okay'?
Am I borderline retarded for participating in yet another 'such-and-such site is less random' thread?

(fwiw - I too have been running really badly in stars tourneys of late)

bocablkr · #10 10-06-2005, 02:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To try to blame the RNG for your lack of success in pokerstars tournaments is idiotic.

Are the 2+2'ers who have done really well in Stars tourneys just 'getting lucky'?
Have they discovered some alternative strategy where they try to put in the underdog hand more often than not?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said I wasn't having success at pokerstars - I have cashed many times. The original OP was that when I finally got knocked out it was usually with the favorite on Pokerstars vs. getting blinded out on Party. Maybe the antes are part of the reason??