Theories on how online poker is rigged?

[hackmage]

Once again this comes down to a muck problem, you have to watch a very very significant number of hands to catch two all-ins with those types of cards. Also I don't have pokertracker otherwise I'd just observe 4 SnGs and let it run all day, as soon as one was done I'd replace it. But considering how rare those situations would be and the fact I need a MUCH larger sample size than 300, I might ask for some pokertracker data that others might have. It's an idea though, so I appreciate the input. Also a variance of .3 odds over 300 hands is nothing to worry about, a variance of .3 odds over 300k hands is a different story.

Unfortunately my prof. knows very little about cards etc. so his input has been kinda moot, but he offered an idea similar to this earlier. He proposed I look at the win rates of certain hands, and see how they compare up to how often they should be winning. Of course as stated there are FAR too many variables in that idea, namely people in hand with you, but heads-up would solve quite a few problems.

Anyways I'm still brainstorming ideas and looking at the data I've already found, to see if I can think of any interesting questions. Also I am on a slight time constraint, which makes it so I can't run as exhaustive a search on my own data as I'd like. But if I get some decent results I might continue the experiment out to a few hundred thousand hands just for the benefit of the community. Don't worry though, I got a back up plan for my project if I can't secure a poker hypothesis, looking at exactly how "random" pi is, since it's a "normal" number.

Matt

[FlFishOn]

If you observe 3 tourneys at a time you will see this event every 5th hand in the late stages. That gets you one event every minute. Collecting data is time consuming but this is the one experiment that might actually lead somewhere.

As for sample size try this. You go to a new poker site and the first hand you get AA. It gets cracked. Next hand AA, again cracked. Repeat. Repeat. How many times will it take before you believe there's some problem here? I'm gone after 4, maybe 3.

Sample size must be large to detect tiny differences from the expected mean. It need not be huge to hint at less subtle problems. As soon as any event is running 2 SDs out (regardless of sample size) you can raise an eyebrow, collect more data and recheck your work and if all is correct you will find something is usually not as expected.

[ONLINEPOKERSUCKS]

[sumdumguy]

[ QUOTE ]
As for sample size try this. You go to a new poker site and the first hand you get AA. It gets cracked. Next hand AA, again cracked. Repeat. Repeat. How many times will it take before you believe there's some problem here? I'm gone after 4, maybe 3.

[/ QUOTE ]
How much is enough? How many times in a row would you have to lose AA head up before you suspect something fishy?

[kem]

I'm a firm believer that poker sites are not rigged. As it is, they already have a license to print money. They make money hand over fist. They have such little overhead compared to a B&M casino, and what casino can seat 60,000+ people at once at their tables, and deal them 60hands/hr? If online poker sites lose their reputation as being fair and legit, they lose their cash flow, and it's a huge cash flow. Too much to lose, too little to gain, they already make tons of money, why would they risk it all?

That being said, there is probably a very low probability that they would be caught if they juiced the deck in a clever manner. For instance, play everything legit until the river. Then, look at the cards of whoever is left, as well as the board cards. Find the card(s) that improve 2+ players hands at once, and increase the probability of that card being dealt on the river ever so slightly more than the remaining cards in the deck. How would they ever get caught?

[FlFishOn]

"They are probably a bunch of pimple faced losers..."

Not poker losers for sure but...yes this is my general opinion. Education today is not what it was 25 years ago.

[FlFishOn]

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, there is probably a very low probability that they would be caught if they juiced the deck in a clever manner. For instance, play everything legit until the river. Then, look at the cards of whoever is left, as well as the board cards. Find the card(s) that improve 2+ players hands at once, and increase the probability of that card being dealt on the river ever so slightly more than the remaining cards in the deck. How would they ever get caught?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is more or less exactly what I believe and also believe I uncovered at Empire. Would be nice if someone else checked my work.

[mbpoker]

>Find the card(s) that improve 2+ players hands at once, and increase the probability of that card being dealt on the river ever so slightly more than the remaining cards in the deck. How would they ever get caught?

In that case the river card would deviate from what should be dealt at random and with a large enough sample it will be caught.

One the subject of two players going all-in here is a reference of a study done by Steve Brecher for Stars' hands - http://tinyurl.com/d5ji

[kem]

[ QUOTE ]
In that case the river card would deviate from what should be dealt at random and with a large enough sample it will be caught.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but it's not as if the same river card would come up all the time (i.e. it isnt going to be the ace of spades every time). It'll be slightly more weighted to help all the players, but that is totally dependent on what the other players have. So realistically, you are never going to get a sample size large enough to catch this. Theoretically, sure, but in real life, no.

[FlFishOn]

I took a quick peek at Brecker's work. Two points; His reputation is sterling and his work here appears rigorous. Stars is very likely to be dealing a purely honest game. Now how do we get him to do it at Empire?