|
|
#101
09-28-2005, 03:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
[ QUOTE ]
I've played almost 15k hands and have a win rate of approx 1.2 BB/100. But I can say that it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn. I think Party should make flushes a lower ranked hand just because they happen so often on its site. [/ QUOTE ] As a lawyer, you should know better than to make a statement like that without evidence. 
|
|
#102
09-28-2005, 03:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I've played almost 15k hands and have a win rate of approx 1.2 BB/100. But I can say that it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn. I think Party should make flushes a lower ranked hand just because they happen so often on its site. [/ QUOTE ] As a lawyer, you should know better than to make a statement like that without evidence. [/ QUOTE ] I'm at work. I'll cite PT stats when I get home.
|
|
#103
09-28-2005, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I've played almost 15k hands and have a win rate of approx 1.2 BB/100. But I can say that it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn. I think Party should make flushes a lower ranked hand just because they happen so often on its site. [/ QUOTE ] As a lawyer, you should know better than to make a statement like that without evidence. [/ QUOTE ] I'm at work. I'll cite PT stats when I get home. [/ QUOTE ] PT stats with only a 15k sample size is going to fail the Daughbert test.
|
|
#104
09-28-2005, 03:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
[ QUOTE ]
My point was missed by you completely. I'll make it simple. Statistical conclusions can be drawn from small data sets when the are sufficiently different from expectation. It's clear you lack the statistical knowledge base to justify further elaboration on my part. [/ QUOTE ] Did you have any interest in illustrating your points with relevant examples or did you just wander into this thread to point out how smart you are?
|
|
#105
09-28-2005, 03:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I've played almost 15k hands and have a win rate of approx 1.2 BB/100. But I can say that it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn. I think Party should make flushes a lower ranked hand just because they happen so often on its site. [/ QUOTE ] As a lawyer, you should know better than to make a statement like that without evidence. [/ QUOTE ] I'm at work. I'll cite PT stats when I get home. [/ QUOTE ] PT stats with only a 15k sample size is going to fail the Daughbert test. [/ QUOTE ] You know what, forget it. My point wasn't to prove anything. It was to say that one should not blindly accept things as facts, especially when it involves a) a corporation that is b) offshore and c) not regulated by a powerful and strict gaming agency.
|
|
#106
09-28-2005, 03:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I find it kind of scary that nobody even remains open minded about this. [/ QUOTE ] Those of us who have played long enough, and have both good statistics and track records, don't have to be "open minded" about this. We have indisputible facts that answer this question for us. There simply is no dispute. There are no facts to back up the rigging theory. [/ QUOTE ] So you can quickly give me your win % heads up with a hand you have dominated over a sample size of say, 250k+ hands? [/ QUOTE ] Still waiting...
|
|
#107
09-28-2005, 03:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I've played almost 15k hands and have a win rate of approx 1.2 BB/100. But I can say that it is amazing how many flushes and straights are completed on the river, not the turn. I think Party should make flushes a lower ranked hand just because they happen so often on its site. [/ QUOTE ] As a lawyer, you should know better than to make a statement like that without evidence. [/ QUOTE ] I'm at work. I'll cite PT stats when I get home. [/ QUOTE ] PT stats with only a 15k sample size is going to fail the Daughbert test. [/ QUOTE ] You know what, forget it. My point wasn't to prove anything. It was to say that one should not blindly accept things as facts, especially when it involves a) a corporation that is b) offshore and c) not regulated by a powerful and strict gaming agency. [/ QUOTE ] I have never argued that these corporations are not capable of very shady dealings. I think what Party did with its IPO was very very shady, and its founders made billions off of it while the stockholders saw a 30 percent drop the first quarter. However, its not that an online poker site isn't capable of somehow rigging the cards, its that to do so would be ridiculously stupid, for so many reasons that have been argued before, I don' tfeel like spelling them all out again for the millionth damn time. And as a fellow lawyer (8 more months), I can tell you that while there still has not been one shred of hard evidence (statistics from large poker databases, etc.) to show that there is anything wrong with the deal at the major sites, there has been plenty of evidence to show that they are fin. (Once again, large databases which show hand distributions exactly as one would expect, including the number of straights and flushes made).
|
|
#108
09-28-2005, 03:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
[ QUOTE ]
You know what, forget it. My point wasn't to prove anything. It was to say that one should not blindly accept things as facts, especially when it involves a) a corporation that is b) offshore and c) not regulated by a powerful and strict gaming agency. [/ QUOTE ] The point is that there are two major camps on this issue. The first group says that since the online poker sites are off-shore companies not regulated by the US government, they easily can, and therefore do, cheat. The second group says that they obviously can cheat, but that no one has provided any hard evidence that they do cheat. Note to all: "noticing" an unusual number of flushes, bad beats, runner-runners, etc., is not hard evidence except on that new TV show, CSI Poker. Those of us in the second group have a vested interest in knowing what is going on the industry, and certainly do not blindly accept honesty as a fact. But as a lawyer should know, you cannot prove a negative proposition, such as that online poker is not rigged. On the other hand, all it takes is a single example to prove the positive propostion that online poker is rigged. Until someone provides such an example, I and others will continue to play.
|
|
#109
09-28-2005, 04:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
[ QUOTE ]
Until someone provides such an example, I and others will continue to play. [/ QUOTE ] I assume you're a winning player. As a winning player would you continue to play if you had evidence that too many flushes make and too many dominated hands win? I know I would. As long it's more convenient than going to the nearest B&M which is 80 miles away and as long as I can continue to beat the game, I would continue to play.
|
|
#110
09-28-2005, 04:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: poker sites \"juicing\" the game
The "online poker is rigged cause dominated hands/draws come in too often" crowd betray that they don't know what seperates good players from bad ones. Good players get draws too. Good players get dealt dominated hands.
I think 2+2 should start selling "How we know what isn't so" by Thomas Gilovich.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
