[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

My contention was that over a large amount of hands there are continual spurts where hands with 1-10% chances of winning will infact win approximantely 90/100 times.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must conclude that you do not have a very good grasp of probability, and are reporting your undocumented impressions as facts. What hands have 1-10% chances of winning? A 7-2 offsuit has a better than 12% chance against AA.

[ QUOTE ]
What I want to know is what is the statistical likelihood that a huge underdog of less than 10% wins greater then 75/100 hands, not just once, but repeteadly in spurts over a large sample.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, there is no such huge underdog. But however you define a huge underdog, if you take enough 100-hand samples, you are going to find some where the underdogs won 75% or more. (I assume that the 75/100 number is one that you just made up.)

The phrase "repeatedly in spurts" is also imprecise and untestable. You are asking for statistical analysis of a problem you cannot define.

[ QUOTE ]
there are continual spurts where good hands lose 90% of the time to huge underdogs over a few 100 hands..and this happens over and over again. For instance. 200 hands where the best hand wins more than it should...followed by 200 hands where the best hand wins less than 20% of the time.Followed by 150 hands where the best hand wins more than it should. Followed by 150 hands where the best hand wins less than 20% of the time, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you are reporting your impressions without documentation. This also appears to show a fundamental lack of understanding of probability. Random data does not appear random to the untrained eye, because of the human tendency to impose patterns on things. Raw random data generally appears to be "streaky". Flip a coin 100 times and write down the results as H or T. The data isn't going to be HTHTHTHT..... It's going to have streaks. That is all that you have been able to report. You have not even shown the magnitude of these streaks, let alone make any attempt to show that they are statistically improbable.

In short, you have asserted that there are spurts or streaks in poker results (we knew that), that there are statistically improbable streaks in games that you have played, that you cannot document those streaks, and that you challenge anyone to prove that your alleged streaks are in fact within the range of probability.

This boils down to a basic logical fallacy. You are asking for someone to prove a negative propostion. It only takes one example to prove that online poker is rigged (which you have not provided). It is logically impossible to prove that it is not rigged.