Playing online - for the birds??? - Page 4

MS Sunshine · #31 02-13-2003, 11:26 AM

"If it makes you feel better when you deposit your money that there is no way you would be cheated in any way - then fine, live in your little perfect gambling utopia. "

Why do I win?

Why do others here win?

We don't care about the other BS. We are very bottomline sort of guys. You lost, you thought you were cheated. Fine.

Buy-in for 40BB, Win 150BB, move up in limit, win 50BB and then go broke in two days. Now, watch for funny hands, which are always there if you look, then find funny hands. "Well, I'm the BIG winner down at the Elks game."

Yada Yada yada..................Again, why do we win?

MS Sunshine

tdiddy · #32 02-13-2003, 11:48 AM

sucka · #33 02-13-2003, 12:01 PM

I'm not saying that it's in any sites best interest to make sure that no one wins. Clearly, that's not the case.

Look, I'm not making any excuses for whether or not I'm winning or losing online. I have already said that I don't think I play as well online for a multitude of reasons that I have explained previously in this post.

I'm basing my judgements on things that I've witnessed in a relatively short period of time while playing online. Anomolies that continue to occur in what I feel is greater than what occurs in an a regular cardroom. I could be wrong - I could be way off - I'm just making an observation on what I've seen.

As it turns out, I'm actually doing OK online. After playing fairly badly for a while I've turned my game around and while I'm still down a few BB's I've come back around. That still doesn't mean that the frequency of freaky stuff that happens makes me feel any better.

Like I said previously, it's interesting to me how so many people viemently defend these unregulated businesses - they would NEVER do anything to even slightly increase their profits. I don't know about you, but when was the last time you heard someone running a business say, "Well, we're making plenty of money..." - especially a business owner who had absolutely ZERO checks and balances.

You can't prove that there's nothing going on any better than I or anyone else can prove there is. Meanwhile, these online gambling sites are laughing all the way to the bank.

Here's just one example. I played for a little less than an hour yesterday at lunch. Just for grins I started taking screen shots of boards and hands that were showing down. I started seeing some weird crap, so I started keeping track of the next 20 hands or so...

Keep in mind, I'm not in most of these. Just observing.

2 hearts on the flop - runner-runner put 4 to a straight on the board.

2d Th 9h Jd Qc

5 players showdown in a monster $20+ pot (this is a $.50/1.00 micro game)

I player has AQ, 1 player has QJ, one player has A6h for the flopped nut flush draw, one player has JT. Basically, a clear example of let's tie 5 people to the flop give them all a legitimate hand and see what happens.

About 3 hands later....

Board shows 8h Th Js As Qh.

One player has KJ for flopped top pair and another has K7h for a strong flush draw. One player makes his straight on the Qh coming down while the other makes his flush. Another monster pot.

2 hands later...

Jc Th 9c Td 7c

J8s ends up taking down the pot - with flopped top pair making his gutshot on the river. Other hands involved - well, ATo makes trips and another guy gets his pocket Kings cracked. Another huge pot.

THE VERY NEXT HAND...

Tc Qd 8h 8s 8c

Hmmm - wonder if the 2 showdown hands have a pair for the full-house?

Of course they do - QJo shows down with JTs. Another huge pot.

2 hands later...

Qd Kh Ah Ts 9d

Not a huge pot - but the winner? JTs for the flopped nuts - other players? Big slick, and QJ. Can we possibly have anymore face cards out at one time?

I'll spare you too many more - but here's one about 3 hands later...

Kd As 6c 10c 5h

A $19.50 pot on a 2 way showdown. You guessed it - one person had QJo for the straight and the other player had pocket T's. So, the same card that gives the guy his straight gives the other player his set.

In a span of those 20 hands - there were 8 straights, 4 flushes (1 flush over flush), 5 not shown down, 1 set and 1 two pair.

A little odd? Maybe.

Tom D · #34 02-13-2003, 12:35 PM

I’ve seen Tony’s numbers, and Tony and I have talked about them. My argument is that they don’t say anything about randomness, and to loosely infer that they do is sloppy thinking. It’s impossible to work from Tony’s distribution results and know anything about the distribution process.

As an analogy, imagine you came across five bushel baskets filled with apples to various levels. No matter how many times you count the apples in each basket, you can’t tell me one thing about how they got there. Were they put in one at a time, in order, reverse order, two at a time, or was one basket filled and then the next and then the next?

Another analogy: imagine you and I are cutting the deck for high card, and every time I pluck a deuce you get an Ace, and every time I draw a trey you get a deuce, and every time I draw any card except a deuce, you get the next lower card. You might scratch your head after awhile and wonder why you’re losing 12 out of 13 games, so you add up all your results and find that you have nothing to worry about. You have received exactly the number of cards for each rank that you would expect, and so have I, so, based on your thinking, you are safe to conclude that the selection process must be random.

Testing for randomness, or non-randomness, is its own science and requires a rigorous mathematical analysis of data Tony does not have.

Tom D

lorinda · #35 02-13-2003, 12:57 PM

A few points I have noticed in this thread.

1) My views match those of MS Sunshine.

2) Tom D's analogy of a game where you lose 12/13 hands is a great example of the distribution problems he has been trying to explain for so long.
Anyone wishing to argue the case for online poker now needs to overcome that example, although PWC do the work on distribution AS WELL AS randomness of the deck and that is good enough for me.
However, I accept that since Paradise produces the "block" of hands that PWC analyse, they could have turned off the "cheat shuffle" mode for those periods and back on again for the rest of the time.

3) over a period of seven hours, you can spot a pattern that looks suspicious in anything.

Possibilities include.

a) too many high flops
b) too many low flops
c) alternating high and low flops
d) alternating runs of high and low flops.
e) alternating runs of a) b) c) and d)

These are pretty much all the options over such a short time period and certainly each of them would look "rigged" taken alone.

they would NEVER do anything to even slightly increase their profits

How would YOU increase your profits in this highly competetive arena with many intelligent people doing constant research into how fair your site is?

would you
a) Provide the best service so that your customers return
b) Cheat to gain a slightly bigger rake and lose customers
c) Put your rake up
d) Have good offers

Certainly not all sites opt for a) but most that opt for b) have very few customers.

How big an increase do you think Paradise gets from cheating their customers, will it cover the PWC costs? I doubt it.
Don't forget the costs of paying the programmers to be silent about the issue too.

You can't prove that there's nothing going on

Jimbo explained why this is a long time ago, and as you can't be bothered to do your research into previous posts on this issue, I can't be bothered to find it.

You mention all the huge pots, did you send for hand histories and observer the losers in these pots too, you know those who had the gutshot low straight and suchlike.

Micro games have huge pots because people don't fold.
Because people don't fold, more people hit runner runner.
I don't have the numbers at hand, but let's say runner runner flush comes every 16 hands, now then, four people chasing per hand... hmm, every four hands, sounds about right to me (given other runner runner chase options)

A little odd? Maybe

It would certainly have been more odd if, in all these monster pots, not one person managed to chase down their hand.

Lori

MS Sunshine · #36 02-13-2003, 01:04 PM

You caught me when I'm done clipping my toenails and I'm trying to put off picking out the belly-button lint. It seems the Stud 8/B game is not holding my attention.

You can't prove that there's nothing going on any better than I or anyone else can prove there is. Meanwhile, these online gambling sites are laughing all the way to the bank.

Well, not all of them are laughing on the way to the bank.

As to the hands that took up most of your post, could someone please tell me about ACR's current Poker Bucks promotions? Could I please get a Justice4all info Spama-gram? I'm willing to read anything at this point.

Screen shots?

"In a span of those 20 hands - there were 8 straights, 4 flushes (1 flush over flush), 5 not shown down, 1 set and 1 two pair."????

I'm a god damn poker moron, ask around here, but I work at very hard at it. I don't care how many straights have been seen lately. I'm too busy take notes. I can't prove the deal is honest anywhere, but I don't care because time spent trying to do that doesn't make me MONEY.

It's not a card game to me, but a money game. Work on your game, check the lobby for a better game and check the HH's for holecards of unknown players and forget all this other crap. Get your head into winning.

If I happen to fall out of this conversation it's either because I've fallen off to sleep or I have moved on to the belly-button lint, not that I don't care about this subject dearly. [sarcasm OFF]

MS Sunshine

Hotchile · #37 02-13-2003, 01:22 PM

Sucka, you have gone to great lengths to list a number of hands that occurred online in an effort to prove that they are anomolies.

Go to a B&M room and write down 30-50 hands in the lowest limit game you can find. The reason that the board always ties people to the hand is because there are too many hands being played, opening up a plethora of combinations that will tie them to a board. It is common in micro-limits to see JTo played from UTG. It is very easy to get a small piece of many boards with this hand. Add in all suited aces getting played and a bunch more boards are getting tied into. Add in all suited connectors and you'll find even more hands tied to the flop.

The point is, with so many combinations available, the poker site would have to cheat in order to AVOID tying players to the flop. It's virtually impossible.

Do this little experiment in a B&M at the lowest limit there and you will find the same activity occurring. It might set your mind at ease and maybe even give you some insight into low limit poker and how to play it more effectively.

HC

David · #38 02-13-2003, 01:26 PM

I find myself doing things I would never do in a B&M cardroom and I suspect many are guilty of this. I call when I should fold just to see what the other guy has. I call when I should raise just to see that a safe card comes. I watch TV while playing, I surf the net while playing, I read while playing, I generally don't pay attention like I should while playing online. These are the reasons I play almost no limit games online. I find when playing PL or NL I pay much more attention. I HAVE FOUND THE ENEMY AND HE IS ME!!! Not an algorithm, not stupid lucky players, not the cardroom, ME!!! I believe if most people will look at why they lose online and win B&M they will find either that they are not as good as they think or they are not concentrating on the game or more likely a combination of both.

beernutz · #39 02-13-2003, 01:34 PM

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
and to loosely infer that they do is sloppy thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Love you too, Tom. Just can't resist getting a dig in, even when its unnecessary.

Randomness is tested by seeing if a sample is representative of the population using a test such as Wald-Wolfowitz. Isn't that what Tony's numbers support, that the expected numbers of various winning hands are insignifigantly different from the actual number observed in his sample. I realize of course Tony's is not a representative sample, but it is a very large one which has its own advantages.

Tom D · #40 02-13-2003, 01:45 PM

You argument that you win, therefore the games are square is weak for two reasons: (1.) I don’t know that you win. (2.) You’re winning doesn’t mean the games aren’t tweaked.

For example, say once a session the house reroutes (by whatever means) a pot you would have won to a player less gifted than you are, to keep him in the game, give him hope, develop a loyal customer, etc. Just because your skills are such that you can overcome it and win a little something doesn’t mean you aren’t being cheated.

There is, I assume, a limit to how fast the house can cheat and still fly under the radar. It’s not likely that you’ll see four sets of quads in a row get beat by four straight flushes everyday. They have to be a little subtler than that, or some of the geniuses here might catch on.

Tom D