There IS a difference between Party and Pokerstars tournaments.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
It was really about the shuffle and whether that could have any influence on the types of hands dealt against each other.

[/ QUOTE ]



No.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
UUUHHHHH, can anyone explain variance to me



[/ QUOTE ]

Have you seen many people say the reverse - that they lose with the favorite on Party and they usually hold up on Pokerstars? Aren't there always a lot more threads called 'Pokerstars is rigged' vs 'Partypoker is rigged'?

AND I don't believe either is rigged.

I think what you're saying is, they're not rigged, they're just different. You think on Party it is more likely for the best hand to hold up, and on Stars it is more likely for the worst hand to suck out. Not intentionally, just 'cause the programmers suck.

Clearly what this means is you should take advantage of your knowledge and KEEP PLAYING ON STARS, BUT TRY TO GET YOUR MONEY IN WITH THE WORST HAND.

We could play a bunch of heads up to test this theory if you want.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
This stuff isn't really relevant though.
You are claiming that the reason your 'favored hands' aren't holding up on Stars is because of the RNG.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not so much a 'claim' but more accurately whether it was even possible. Thanks for your input.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
that they lose with the favorite on Party and they usually hold up on Pokerstars?

[/ QUOTE ]


As I mentioned in a previous post...Yes. We had one of these last week.
He said that the cards at the other sites were okay...but that the cards on party were clearly not 'running right' and that the favorite just didn't hold-up as much.


There are about a zillion people out there who say that the cards on party are worse than live or on other sites.
There are almost as many people saying the reverse (that the cards on stars are worse...and that party's are okay).


When I was on the PPM cruise I had to ignore MANY conversations all around me on how 'you can just tell' that the 'cards on party aren't the same as live...or even on other sites'.
Then someone would chime-in and say that it was his experience that the cards on Paradise were really bad...but the cards on Party were usually pretty good when he played there.

Get it?? It all revolves around what happened to YOU when YOU played there.

all these people are so narrow-minded that they think that if they have a few bad-beats on Stars....but a nice-run of 'normal' cards on Party...then that is evidence that somehow Stars cards just aren't very good at all and something must be wrong with their set-up.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
There are about a zillion people out there who say that the cards on party are worse than live or on other sites.
There are almost as many people saying the reverse (that the cards on stars are worse...and that party's are okay).


[/ QUOTE ]

You have been here longer than me - if what you say above is true then I stand corrected. I was under the impression that it was not so evenly divided. My apologies for wasting everyone's time. I am not so narrow-minded that I can not accept new facts.

[Jim Easton]

Wow, a "Party ISN'T rigged" post.

[Roland19]

Post deleted by Mike Haven

[FlFishOn]

"Mathematically speaking you are correct about the sample size."

Bullsh+t.

You go to PokerScam.com and play 10 SNGs. In every one, every damn one, you go all in with KK or AA and each time you lose to a big pair just below you, KK loses to QQ, AA loses to KK. You gonna keep playing there? NO, you are gone, likely before 10 SNGs too.

How were you able to draw a conclusion so quickly?

Don't ever tell me a sample size must be 100 or 1000 or 1000000000000 unless you know a bunch more about situation. Correct statistical methodology is quite rigorous, it's not just picking some number out of the air.

[FlFishOn]

"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'.