Different probabilities on different sites?

[77rules]

I keep forgetting that writing on forums isn't so much a discussion as a pissing contest. Who can be funniest, who can ridcule the other guys the most, et c. I mean, why behave lika a human being when nobody can see you, right?

The reason I asked (and yes, I'm being serious) is because _I know_ the sites aren't rigged. It would make no sense for the sites to be rigged, and if they were, why would they single out me of all the thousands to choose from? And yet, I do a lot better at Paradise than at other sites ...

Somebody mentioned that I may not adjust to the players enough, and this might be true. I just wonder though, why would that make me a winner at Paradise (which I hear is tougher than most) and a loser at for example Party (which I hear is full of fish)?

To the guy who suggested that, thank you.

The rest of you - enjoy the pissing contest.

[mattw]

perhaps your sample size is too small at the other sites. you state you have played at paradise for a year. how much time have you played at the other sites? if you are beating paradise, there is no reason not to be able to party, pacific, etc.

[BigF]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, in the last 50 hands at eurobet I got AA 3 times, but I've had 192 hands at Empire without getting KK or AA. So, not only are the probabilities different between sites, but the probabilities are vastly different even between different skins. That's why I play at eurobet, and that's why I'm a winner and you're all losers.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you are being serious, I feel really sorry for you. How about playing 10k hands at both sites and then checking how many times you got each hand...wanna bet on the results?
The probabilities are not different...the players are. If you are a winner at one place, and not at another, it could either be just a bit of variance, or you are not adjusting to the competition correctly.
If you need an example of this, go play at the games on Absolute for a week, then switch over to Party...you're going to have to adjust.

[/ QUOTE ]



hahaha stupid journeyman. "wanna bet on the results?" hahaha you are hilarious.

[77rules]

[ QUOTE ]
perhaps your sample size is too small at the other sites. you state you have played at paradise for a year. how much time have you played at the other sites? if you are beating paradise, there is no reason not to be able to party, pacific, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Samples size is a bit small - 2/4 I got 17K hands at Party with 0.13 BB/100 (april - june). At Paradise I got 8K hands for 4.04 BB/100 (march - august). You might argue that 8K hands is not enough (and 4/100 is unreasonably high), but I have 11.5K hands at 1/2 where I'm 2.05 BB/100 over a long period of time as well.

Oh well, one of life's little mysteries I guess.

PS. No, 0.13 isn't losing, but I'm learning NL and that costs money. At Paradise, I earn that back at limit ...

[grimel]

To answer your inital question - yes the probabilities are slightly different at each site. They use different versions of random number generators. The next question to be asked is the diff enought to matter - NO. The meaningful diff comes from the players at diff sites and how YOUR game fits each site's typical player.

[mattw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
perhaps your sample size is too small at the other sites. you state you have played at paradise for a year. how much time have you played at the other sites? if you are beating paradise, there is no reason not to be able to party, pacific, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Samples size is a bit small - 2/4 I got 17K hands at Party with 0.13 BB/100 (april - june). At Paradise I got 8K hands for 4.04 BB/100 (march - august). You might argue that 8K hands is not enough (and 4/100 is unreasonably high), but I have 11.5K hands at 1/2 where I'm 2.05 BB/100 over a long period of time as well.

Oh well, one of life's little mysteries I guess.

PS. No, 0.13 isn't losing, but I'm learning NL and that costs money. At Paradise, I earn that back at limit ...

[/ QUOTE ]

friend, my purpose is not to disappoint you but rather encourage. 11.5K hands is still a very small sample size. the consensus here at 2+2 is 100k hands starts to become meaningful. even then, 100k hands may not be enough to determine one's ability or lack thereof but its a start.

in reading your response quoted above reminds me of my early days. less than 1bb/100 or just breaking even. thinking that a loosing streak of 10k hands meant i sucked(which at the time was probably correct) but now, being a successful player, realize that a 10k hand loosing streak is just a burp on the radar.

good luck on your transition from limit to NL. i too made the switch. my records indicate im a better NL player than limit. suprisingly, variance is lower at NL but when the downswings occur, yikes, they can be huge.

again, gl and tc.

[FlFishOn]

I see no reason to assume all sites deal a square game. I'd go so far as to assume that some surely deal nonrandom cards in some small percentage. It's just human nature to cheat. With online poker it's so very easy.

I've played limit HE for close to 20 years now, 12 years professionally. I do very poorly at Party and much better most everywhere else. Go figure.

[FlFishOn]

"To answer your inital question - yes the probabilities are slightly different at each site. They use different versions of random number generators. The next question to be asked is the diff enought to matter - NO. The meaningful diff comes from the players at diff sites and how YOUR game fits each site's typical player. "

To validate the above statement is impossible. THis requires 100% faith in the honest of all of online poker. What folly.

[77rules]

[ QUOTE ]
friend, my purpose is not to disappoint you but rather encourage. 11.5K hands is still a very small sample size. the consensus here at 2+2 is 100k hands starts to become meaningful. even then, 100k hands may not be enough to determine one's ability or lack thereof but its a start.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been playing since may 2004 and I'm up almost 3K dollars. If we're speaking hourly rate et c, it's not even pathetic ;-) But I've won steadily most of that time, with the exception of two months. Are you telling me I still can't consider myself a winning player? At any level? I've moved up from 0.05/0.10 to 3/6 and I'm still winning ...

Just curious

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]

Oh well, one of life's little mysteries I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]


No it isn't.
It's mostly variance (and possibly something to do with the adjustment to competition thing...but probably not much).


Almost every player on here has stretches where they are +4BB/100 for 10k hands...then break-even for 10k hands....the -1BB/100 for 4k hands.....then +2BB/100 for the next 10k hands...and so on and so forth.

There really isn't much mystery about it.
take 10k hands here and 10k hands there and you will find variance in your results (whether it be this month's 10k vs. last month's 10k...or this site's 10k vs. that site's 10k)



The reason you got so many responses that weren't to you liking is because it was kind of a dumb question.


However...it's not uncommon.


to the poster who said he didn't think he was serious (and others who can't believe people would think this way):

1 - dealing BJ at a live casino for a few months (and also playing with many bad players when I counted cards) I can assure you that the number of people who believe in 'hot-shoes' 'not changing the cards by adding an extra player' 'not taking the dealers bust-card' and other such mathmatically incompetent ideas is truly astonishing.
Lots and lots of people think that you will do better on roulette if you bet more than one number.


2 - Even with this background of experiencing people who were virtually clueless....I was AMAZED at the number of people on the PPM cruise who talked virtually NON-STOP about how the cards on Party just 'aren't right' and the 'cash-out curse' because they clearly 'change the cards on you' etc etc.
I mean...these conversations were freaking EVERYWHERE and they coulodn't let it go.
Nobody wanted to admit that they might have had inconsistencies in their own game or that the reason they lost could have been their own doing.
It was non-stop "The cards live are clearly how they REALLY run...but online it's just 'not as random'."

People everywhere really DO think this stuff.