| Posted by: Boltneck at December 27, 2007, 5:59 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Quote:
People come to sites like these for help but you experts dont do that you would rather laugh and tell them how bad the play poker or be real inventive and call them something like donk or donkey.
It's a shame that you feel this way, but I think that you are confusing 2 different issues. Yes, people who accuse sites of being rigged and fail to supply any evidence to support that are often ridiculed, and justifyable so (in my opinion). However, I would challenge you to reply here with a link to ANY thread on this site where a member, either new or old, has been ridiculed for asking for advice.
Quote:
No matter what anyone ever says you experts always want to use the word rigged.
And here is a guy justifing what went on at absolute as merely a security issue..a security issue thats all.
Again, I think you may be getting 2 issues muddled into one. The Absolute debacle related to individuals who were cheating (and caught out). This was ... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: CHESTERFLICK at December 27, 2007, 5:16 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
I have not posted in quite some time and it is because I have never seen so many experts at one site before I mean really what could I possibly add to your little gang of experts. My god you all must be filthy rich with all the poker knowledge you have and you math skills are only 2nd to the top guys at NASA.
But here is the truth about it as I see it.
Whenever anyone comes to this site and claims anything to the negative to online poker they are laughed at and beat up so bad by you poker experts that I would think they would never want to return.
No matter what anyone ever says you experts always want to use the word rigged.
And here is a guy justifing what went on at absolute as merely a security issue..a security issue thats all.
The real question is if online poker is ALWAYS on the up and up..well obviously the answer is no. To what extent..who knows maybe the absolute thing is the only time in online poker history that anyone was caught cheating. Rigging is another type of chea... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Four Dogs at December 26, 2007, 11:42 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Alon Ipser
Using PT to prove that online poker is not rigged will not work. Everyone knows that the sites have software that can detect PT and they only juice the tables where no one is using PT
Doh! Nice going Alon. You just started a whole new conspiracy theory.
Quote: Originally Posted by combuboom
omg AA dealt on all sites are now below expectation! this proves online poker is rigged for....... non-action!?!?
i'll add my Full Tilt Poker db when i'm home
really, check it out. The poker sites are down by 46 AA's after 400,000 hands. Twisted logic says they're losing rake $. They better fix that leak before they go broke. Full Tilt is getting totally screwed.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: combuboom at December 26, 2007, 11:50 am | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
omg AA dealt on all sites are now below expectation! this proves online poker is rigged for....... non-action!?!?
i'll add my Full Tilt Poker db when i'm home
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Boltneck at December 26, 2007, 11:45 am | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Alon Ipser
Using PT to prove that online poker is not rigged will not work. Everyone knows that the sites have software that can detect PT and they only juice the tables where no one is using PT
Number of tables where nobody is using PT = 0.1%
Therefore:-
Maximum number of tables that are juiced = 0.1%
The case is proven - the games are not rigged
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Effexor at December 26, 2007, 7:50 am | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
I realized I didn't include all my databases.
Here's the total for my 2 db's:
Full Tilt
Hands 43,212
AA - 162
expected - 194
1 / 266.7 I'm dealt AA
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Alon Ipser at December 26, 2007, 5:00 am | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Using PT to prove that online poker is not rigged will not work. Everyone knows that the sites have software that can detect PT and they only juice the tables where no one is using PT
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Four Dogs at December 25, 2007, 10:44 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by royalburrito24
This experiment seems like it would be ery fun to participate in. However, I do not have PT or PO. I would like to purchase PT when I begin to actually show a big enough profit in poker. Sigh.
Not to turn this into a PT thread, but IMO, buying a product like PT might actually help you to show that profit RB.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: royalburrito24 at December 25, 2007, 8:09 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
This experiment seems like it would be ery fun to participate in. However, I do not have PT or PO. I would like to purchase PT when I begin to actually show a big enough profit in poker. Sigh.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: dakota-xx at December 25, 2007, 7:10 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Four Dogs
Ah, ery nice. Thx Dax.
Ooh! That one hurt our cause a bit. lol
I knew it was rigged against me lol.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: dakota-xx at December 25, 2007, 6:45 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Pokerstars:
12,359 hands
AA - 52 times
56 expected
Fulltilt - 1724 hands
AA - 7 times
7.8 expected
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Four Dogs at December 25, 2007, 4:01 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Sorry for taking so much time to get back to this. Hollidays and all. I hope you all understand that this is just for fun and that IF a site wanted to fiddle with their shuffling algorithm, there are other, less obvious ways they could and would do it. IMO, the action hand argument is the most widespread, probably because it's the easiest to understand.
Dispelling the notion that big rake generating hands like AA or KK are more prevalent should go a long way toward silencing all but the most hard core conpiracy theorists. Take away their biggest weapon and they might actually have to learn something about the issue to continue the debate, something they are unlikely to be qualified or inclined to do.
Very few of us have a DB big enough on its own to prove or disprove anything about the frequency of a given hand but many who don't understand this might think that their library of 20,000 hands is a sufficiently large enough sample to do just that. I'm no statistician, but it seems to me... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: zachvac at December 25, 2007, 1:45 am | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Actually I've never seen anyone argue this, it's too easy to disprove. Instead, people argue that AA and KK coincide more, so that AA still comes out as much as it should, and KK comes out as much as it should, but given there's an AA out there, KK comes up proportinally too much and ice ersa. So even if (when) we come up with a perfect proportion of AA, people will still continue to believe that when we get AA, KK comes up more often than it should. This is not a testable hypothesis because we don't take every AA hand to showdown and especially when we set, it's possible someone is laying down KK. Although I guess what we could do is take all the hands in which we have AA where the board doesn't hit an A. We're assuming no one would fold KK to an under flop when we're in it with aces. Of course I guess that wouldn't work because that's assuming we never fold our aces, which isn't true at all.
So scratch that last idea. Basically, we are trying to come up with ways to prove a negative, which is... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: Boltneck at December 24, 2007, 3:09 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
What I was most interested in was a comparison of the number of times when 2 players had the same top hand ie AA s AA, KK s KK, QQ s QQ or AK s AK (either suited or not in the last example).
It would need a few lines of PL/SQL to extract it because it's not going to be available with any of the existing PT stats.
I would stress that I am not a subscriber to the rigged theory, my motives are to rule out as many of the common arguements as possible, hence looking for ways that rake could be increased that would not be so easily detectable.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: F Paulsson at December 24, 2007, 2:47 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
What kind of information would you want from a big database? I mean, I've 120k from Stars alone this year, and few statistical anomalies require a large sample than that to find, really. I guess what I'm saying is that if there's something you'd want to test Stars ring games for that can be detectable in PT, I can probably do it with my DB alone.
/FP
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Boltneck at December 24, 2007, 12:02 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
This is a "wouldn't it be nice if......" not a suggestion, because it's probably impractical. A quick bit of (rough) mental arithmatic tells me that we have about 350,000 hands posted so far. I'm sure there are many others who have PT / PO who haven't posted. Just think what we could do if we could collate all of those stats. into a single PT db (I've got all my HH's archived - as I'm sure do most others).
I suspect someone (AG would be odds on favourite) is about to post a link to someone who already has done this, but if it doesn't already exist, it would be awesome!
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: mendozaline at December 24, 2007, 2:24 am | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Four Dogs
.....to post the number of ring hands you've tracked (no rake in tourneys right?) along with the number of times you've been dealt AA. Also, to sort the cheaters from the honest we should break the numbers apart by site. If the argument holds water then we should all be seeing hands like AA or KK more often then expected.
I think you are making two mistakes here. One, I don't think it's a given that rigging would apply to ring games but not tourneys. Two, I don't believe that rigging would be to get more rake for the casino. In a way, though, that's just two different ways of saying the same thing.
For these two reasons, I think it would be a mistake to spend too much time studying AA and KK and QQ statistics. That's a little too obvious. Maybe JJ and AKo since they already have a love/hate relationship attached to them.
No, in my opinion it would make much more sense studying other card combinations. Pick one maybe that w... | | Read Entire Entry |
| Posted by: SeanyJ at December 24, 2007, 12:55 am | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Site: Pokerstars
Number of ring hands: 31,216
Dealt AA: 137
Expected: 141
I am dealt AA: 1/227.85 hands
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Four Dogs at December 24, 2007, 12:53 am | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by switch0723
you can work out the percentage to be sure
hands dealt: 12972
AA: 57
Switch, is this Full Tilt?
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Four Dogs at December 24, 2007, 12:43 am | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Tygran
Minor correction, your odds are correct but the decimal is off a point in the percentage .
Should be ~ .45% chance
Great post, keep it going people!
Oops thx for the fix.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: F Paulsson at December 23, 2007, 8:56 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Site: Pokerstars
Number of ring hands: 116,766
Dealt AA: 535
Expected: 528
I am dealt AA: 1/218.3 hands
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: ChuckTs at December 23, 2007, 8:11 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Site: Pokerstars
Number of ring hands: 33,252
Dealt AA: 158
Expected: 150
I am dealt AA: 1/210.5 hands
Won: 87.97%
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: tenbob at December 23, 2007, 7:46 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Site: Pokerstars
Number of ring hands: 72,635
Dealt AA: 314
Expected: 330
I am dealt AA: 1/231.2 hands
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Boltneck at December 23, 2007, 6:32 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
What a brilliant idea - it won't shut the conspiracy theorists up, but at least they'll have to think of a new angle / excuse!
I've got 15,997 hands available at present. I created a new database when I made a fresh start at poker a couple of months ago. I have however got ALL my old hand histories archived (perhaps 50,000 more) so when I have time, I'll create a new db and load them also. For the moment, the results from my current db are:-
AA - 69 times (win 82.61%)
Expected - 72 times
Pretty close to expected
KK - 57 times (win 63.16%)
Expected - 72 times
Rather low, but not suspiciously so
The above is on the iPoker network.
Not sure what the win % should be expected (and it's probably not relevant to this thread) but my aces seems rather higher than I would of expected.
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Tygran at December 23, 2007, 6:17 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Quote: Originally Posted by Four Dogs
I think the chances of being dealt AA or any pair is like 220:1 or about 4.5%
Minor correction, your odds are correct but the decimal is off a point in the percentage .
Should be ~ .45% chance
Great post, keep it going people!
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Tygran at December 23, 2007, 6:15 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
Just AA data, and just pokerstars data but here you go.
6312 hands
dealt AA: 29 times
Expected: 28.6 times
looks pretty good to me
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: juiceeQ at December 23, 2007, 6:03 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
This is fantastic. I'm going to sticky this so that is doesn't get lost in the shuffle. Come on guys, let's see those stats!
| | Static Link |
| Posted by: Four Dogs at December 23, 2007, 4:48 pm | | Topic: Rigged: The AA test Forum: Card Chat |
I know we're all sick and tired of the on-line rigged debate. I've been trolling this site for 3 years and it just never seems to end, and the recent Absolute fiasco hasn't helped matters, never mind that what happen there actually had more to do with inexcusably loose security measures rather than actual RIGGING.
The logic behind the belief that the sites rig the game is ALWAYS the same and NEVER backed up by any facts. The belief is that the sites somehow profit from increased rakes by pitting big hands against eachother.
"Now why is it rigged...well like many people here have said, its because of the amount of rake they get...now alot of idiots dont know the bigger the pot, the more they rake...they also dont realise if there are MORE MONSTER HANDS ie, AA, AK, KK, there are going to be more all ins, the more all ins, the more you deposit once again..."
This quote is from a recent thread, but really, it's just one of hundreds and there's nothing unique about it. ... | | Read Entire Entry |
|