Pure Tin Foil Hat Stuff - U wuz warned - Page 11

FlFishOn · #**101** 06-09-2005, 07:11 PM

Imagine a way to move money from chronic winners to losers. Losers last longer, have more fun and winners just barely notice since your site is overpopulated with fish. Everyone almost comes out ahead.

Exsubmariner · #**102** 06-09-2005, 07:15 PM

You'd draw a lot more water around here if you took me and up and got a hundred more people to contribute their databases. Otherwise you're just a troll.
X

FlFishOn · #**103** 06-09-2005, 07:22 PM

"How about looking at the data from the other sites too? "

If I sensed any oddities I'd do so. Party is the only site in recent times to trigger my bullsh+t detector. Paradise poker was strongly suspected back 6 years ago. I was not alone in my doubt, joined by several professionals. Then they changed back to what was their previous ground state and all felt normal again. Many got hammered for a couple months. I will never trust them again.

jedi · #**104** 06-09-2005, 07:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine a way to move money from chronic winners to losers. Losers last longer, have more fun and winners just barely notice since your site is overpopulated with fish. Everyone almost comes out ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, why spend the time and money to rig the site when the cards already do that naturally?

FlFishOn · #**105** 06-09-2005, 07:34 PM

Your opinion of me matters not a bit. Do your own work.

jedi · #**106** 06-09-2005, 07:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"How about looking at the data from the other sites too? "

If I sensed any oddities I'd do so. Party is the only site in recent times to trigger my bullsh+t detector. Paradise poker was strongly suspected back 6 years ago. I was not alone in my doubt, joined by several professionals. Then they changed back to what was their previous ground state and all felt normal again. Many got hammered for a couple months. I will never trust them again.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see. You suspect 1 site of having oddities (through anecdoctal evidence only), then do a 419 sample size analysis, the results of which falls within the realm of normal distribution.

So when you go to other sites, you only rely on your anecdoctal evidence to trust that they're running "correctly" instead of naturally being suspicious since you got cheated at another poker site.

Makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for clearing it up.

FlFishOn · #**107** 06-09-2005, 08:37 PM

No problem. When you've played poker for 33 years you'll have some feel for it too.

Freudian · #**108** 06-09-2005, 08:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I see. You suspect 1 site of having oddities (through anecdoctal evidence only), then do a 419 sample size analysis, the results of which falls within the realm of normal distribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even a very rigged game in the world would fall within the realm of normal distribution, but it would be even further to one extreme than this one was.

His tentative results could be indicative of it a) being a fair game with very bad luck or b) being a rigged game. If you interpret a -2.6 SD deviation as an indication of fairness your conclusions are as wacky as those that claim it is rigged because their AA got cracked three times in a row.

Sure we can raise questionmarks about his sample size, sample bias and whatever but it would be in everyones interest if more people than him did similar studies of their results.

I sincerely hope someone will write a program that crunches the PT databases searching for just these things. If it is fair our cumulative results would show it. If it is rigged, our cumulative results would show it. I have PT databases of over 2000 SnGs with a huge number of preflop all-in situations.

mmbt0ne · #**109** 06-09-2005, 09:02 PM

The problem with his experiment is sample size. There are so many variables present in what he's doing, and he has such a small number of trials, it's not a surprise that his results would be skewed at all.

Also, the problem with SnGs is that conspiracy experts tend to argue that they are rigged in order to finish faster (since Party only collects rake once per SnG). This begs the question, how much would stack size affect the outcome of all-in situations. Plus, since there will still be plenty of different situations (pockets vs. pockets, pockets vs. suited overcards, domination, etc.) we can really only run trials on each individual case, and go from there.

Like I said in the other thread, I'm willing to look at my ring game stats for draws, and see how often they come in, but I don't think those are the kind of results people want to see. In all honesty, the kind of results people want to see will be almost impossible to get without knowing what every player was holding when they fold on the rivers. There is no way to do this without having information in quantities that only Party is going to be able to provide.

FlFishOn · #**110** 06-09-2005, 09:17 PM

I make a hypothesis. I design an experiment. I get results that support my hypothesis, maybe, but are clearly 2+ SD out from expectation even with all the warts in the design.

I'm done. There are simply too many places to play poker. Why would I blow many dozen hours on any project, the results of which will not change my behavior at this point.

Party is all yours, bonii excluded.