gabyyyyy....my response to you

[Wahoo91]

Hi Stew-
I agree with you.

I *don't* think the sites are rigged, but there is plenty of intuitive data out there that suggests that the possiblity exists and we should keep our eyes open.

[FlFishOn]

"I *don't* think the sites are rigged,"

Wahoo91 has been a thoughtful voice in this discussion. I respect your opinion.

That said I would first mention that my poker experience extends to 1969 and I would say I've been a winning player since 1973, pro since 1995, internet player since the begining. I've been posting at 2+2 since it's begining and I've run through 10 different handles. One was closed because M att S klan sky was having a bad day.

Much of online action is honest, I have no doubt here. UB is my home and I would be stunned if there was any problem except collusion at that site. I am equally convinced that the first site to cheat was Paradise poker. This occured a few months after their startup, in May 1999. Things may have changed but many pros were sure they were cheated. I'll never return.

Party/Empire is as crooked as a dogs hind leg. Underdogs win roughly 25% more hands than they deserve. This makes it the very best site for a fish hence the large number of them. The games there are very beatable even with the house cheating the pros. It's not real poker and you will have to play differently to maximize the potential. There is also the fear that such a site would be likely to scoot with the loot during an inquisition. I dunno. I keep exactly zero BR at P/Empire unless I'm hitting them for a bonus.

Bottom line: It doesn't matter if the site is cooking the deal if you are winning. Consider your BR a junk bond with serious default risk and simply look at the income stream it generates. If this suits your needs then why worry?

Uber-troll since 2004

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Stew-
I agree with you.

I *don't* think the sites are rigged, but there is plenty of intuitive data out there that suggests that the possiblity exists and we should keep our eyes open.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this another term for "gut feeling?" In any event, how can it have any weight to support any argument.

[Copernicus]

[quote
Party/Empire is as crooked as a dogs hind leg. Underdogs win roughly 25% more hands than they deserve.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must have numbers to back this up. Show me.

[FlFishOn]

"You must have numbers to back this up."

Yup. I'm convinced 99.5%

"Show me."

Nope. You don't know me so why would you believe me?

If you wish to duplicate my research then do some searching on my handle. I've posted the recipe twice. There is no other way to convince yourself.

Uber-troll since 2004

[FlFishOn]

I clearly have no life and looked it up for you.


I will not post my results since they have no provinance and i have no interest in defending my work. I stopped collecting data when I was convinced that the trend of divergence from expectation was several SDs and not looking back.

You wanna do it too? Here's how:

Play (or observe) SNGs at Empire. Record every hand that has exactly two players before the flop and at least one of them is all in. You must carefully restrict your sampling to every occurance, not just when you 'remember' to do it otherwise sampling bias will creep in. Record which hand wins (ignore ties). Suits are important in the starting hands. The board cards are of no importance, just the winner.

Each matchup has a W/L probability (twodimes.com or Poker Probe are required to determine the exact %) and the easiest way to analyze the data is to bracket the data, lumping all match-ups that are 80/20 to 77.5/22.5 for example and looking at the actual W/L results. It takes a lot of data to smooth out the lumps. Bigger brackets have some advantage here.

Good luck.

Uber-troll since 2004

[Wahoo91]

Is this another term for "gut feeling?" In any event, how can it have any weight to support any argument.

Intuition is very powerful way of taking in information and putting it to use. It is much more than a *gut feeling* becuase intuition actually relies on significant amounts of *real* data to develop/create patterns that would indicate the truth/falsehood of a particular statement or thought process.

For example, one of the most prevalent arguments in this thread is that "the sites have millions, why would they jeapordize that". That argument is *intuitive* not factual in nature. It is, in fact a very powerful argument, and one that carries the day in my opinion. However, this argument is not nearly as strong as most posters would be lead to believe, due to other *intuitive* data (again not factual) that indicate many possibilities that the site could be cheating.

These are namely:
1) Human nature (greed) has proven to overcome good sense time and time again.
2) These site are already in an industry many think is tainted with crime (international mob)
3) These site are off-shore and completely beyond regulations and scrutiny
4) No one really knows who owns these sites and who is in charge.

This is just some of the *intuitive* rather than factual data that indicate that we should at least a little wary here.

Hope that clarifies what I meant.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
I will not post my results since they have no provinance and i have no interest in defending my work. I stopped collecting data when I was convinced that the trend of divergence from expectation was several SDs and not looking back.


[/ QUOTE ]

Meaningless gibberish unless you state the number of samples used and the calculations, plus you need to examine the betting action on each and every hand. Also you need to know the mental state of both participants, hopefully you understand why.

Personally I bet you looked at no more than 25 or 30 hand historys, formed an opinion and have nothing better to do than post crackpot theories with no meaningful hard data.

Jimbo

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
Party/Empire is as crooked as a dogs hind leg. Underdogs win roughly 25% more hands than they deserve.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've played over 100,000 hands there and I have never noticed this!

Thanks moron!

[FlFishOn]

"I will not post my results since they have no provinance and i have no interest in defending my work."

This still stands. It's the true believer zealots like yourself that convinced me to keep my work private. You can not be convinced, I'm not trying to do it.

"Meaningless gibberish unless you state the number of samples used and the calculations, plus you need to examine the betting action on each and every hand. Also you need to know the mental state of both participants, hopefully you understand why.

Personally I bet you looked at no more than 25 or 30 hand historys, formed an opinion and have nothing better to do than post crackpot theories with no meaningful hard data."

I can't even begin to detail how wrong you are. The depth of your ignorance is difficult to plumb. Since you know nearly nothing about me you have no frame of reference. You're like a child the wanders into the middle of a conversation...

Uber-troll since 2004