I cannot win on pokerstars. Reasons ??

[antisocialgrace]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
gee what happened to the stats you aces at poker stars were so keen to show up the OP with?

Did you discover anomalies which can't be explained? phenomena which can't be comprehended? aberrations there's no accounting for? deviations that defy understanding?

You seemed so eager to set the record straight, I'm just wondering why it hasn't happened?

[/ QUOTE ]
This post ^^^ isnt valid until this time tomorrow night. Even then i don think its fair to the "aces at poker stars" as you put it, its not like they live to post here at 2+2! I am sure they have better things to do besides satisfying your curiosity on something that really just doesnt MATTER... oh and this surely isnt the first such analysis that has been done on Stars HHs, i am not with Stars but i am SURE they have performed such analysis on a MUCH wider sample than this little 500k on one person. Not to mention the third party folks they pay to do so. So i'm pretty sure we wont be seeing any "phenomena which can't be comprehended".

Earlier when you said [ QUOTE ]
Nevermind. Inadmissable, chain of custody.

[/ QUOTE ] were you trying to say that we shouldn't believe what sciolist posts because of the data's "chain of custody"?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the site were rigged it would be simple for them to cook the books and then pawn it off to a poker tracker bug when he posts his real stats. not saying they'd do that just that they could.

have you ever lost set over set five times (four on flops) in one day or flush over flush five times in a row? I have. Guess where ..

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]

have you ever lost set over set five times (four on flops) in one day? I have. Guess where ..

[/ QUOTE ]

At the WSOP?

Were you the pro grinder I spoke with who was eliminated from four out of five satellites by set over set?

[realjaydub]

Instead of criticizing them and being all bitter at the hands where they beat you perhaps you should consider that there is some reasoning to why they play that way and perhaps they are a step or three ahead of you as far as poker-skill or theory goes


Did you not read...


Boc4life, Sethypoo, mediocre players at best and they want to judge my play. Boc4life is one of the morons who check raises with 3 outs and usually hits. Sethypoo raises the button 95% of the time wen its folded to him,he is usually met with a 3 bet from me, he then proceeds to flop 2 pair wen i flop top pair, end result sethy takes down my KQ with Q7 off.

[MicroBob]

boc4life is a pretty good player I believe.
sethypooh almost certainly does NOT raise the button 95%. I can pretty much guarantee that.

Sorry your KQ somehow didn't holdup against Q7. Must be rigged.

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]


have you ever lost set over set five times (four on flops) in one day or flush over flush five times in a row? I have. Guess where ..

[/ QUOTE ]

However great the odds against something happening, given enough trials, it will eventually happen.

Flush over flush in a game with community cards is unremarkably common. (If they were flushes of different suits, you would have a scoop. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

[antisocialgrace]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


have you ever lost set over set five times (four on flops) in one day or flush over flush five times in a row? I have. Guess where ..

[/ QUOTE ]

However great the odds against something happening, given enough trials, it will eventually happen.

Flush over flush in a game with community cards is unremarkably common. (If they were flushes of different suits, you would have a scoop. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

Five times consecutively I lost when I had a flush to a higher flush, all three-on-board not four. Two of them were Queen-high. I would say that's pretty damned deviant in any sample.

[ChipFerFree]

I just lost with AA back to back -- yet somehow -- I still don't believe it's rigged -- no really it's not. Chit happens which sucks and life goes on...

[JackCase]

[ QUOTE ]

Five times consecutively I lost when I had a flush to a higher flush, all three-on-board not four. Two of them were Queen-high. I would say that's pretty damned deviant in any sample.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I understand the post, you are saying that in some series of hands, you lost flush over flush 5 times, without making a flush and winning over that time period.

Three observations:

1. I doubt it. More likely you remember being beat about 5 times over some period of time, and don't remember the times when you won with a flush. Or when you won with flush over flush.

2. Even if it happened, well, stuff happens. The OP was whining about losing 80/20 decisions. Well, 20% of the time, that happens.

3. I doubt the bad beats the OP claims happened to him either.

For all the whiners crying about unsubstantiated rigging, I offer the following classic response from Paul Phillips:

[ QUOTE ]
Some of you know that in a past life I was a programmer and a manager
thereof. In mid-1997 our company acquired an online game site called
playsite that had a decent population of people playing classic games,
one of which was backgammon. The codebase was something of a mess though,
so we undertook a complete rewrite and released it in early 1998.

After we released the new code, we began receiving email from people
and hearing chat online that there were unusually many doubles being
rolled in the backgammon games. That sounded unlikely but I took a
look into the code, and it was as straightforward as could be, no room
for a wacky error. The server picked two random numbers from 1 to 6
in the normal java fashion.

The java random call is a simple wrapper around the C library function.
We were seeding it in the normal ways. Everything was fine. But the
complaints were unrelenting, so we took increasingly extreme measures
trying to figure out what was going on. First we incorporated a java
RNG to avoid the C library. When this didn't "help", we started
logging all the die throws and did statistical analysis on tens of
thousands of logged rolls.

What we found was that doubles were being rolled at precisely the rate
one would expect. There was absolutely nothing surprising in the stats.
We communicated this to the complaining players, but it still didn't do
any good. You could go into a backgammon lobby anytime and you'd
rarely have to wait more than a couple minutes before chat would emerge
that "everyone knew" that too many doubles were being rolled. It had
entered the realm of known facts, and there was no getting around it.

We closed the dozens of filed bug reports involving our loaded dice and
moved on with our lives, but I've never forgotten the certainty with which
people asserted that our dice were not rolling right. And the point, of
course, is how similarly that certainty is echoed here when people talk
about online poker being rigged for this or that result.

I see three major factors contributing to this misplaced certainty.
The three are the same whether we're looking at original vs. rewritten
playsite, or B&M poker vs. online poker. Much of this has been
written before by myself and others, but I include it here to help
illustrate how similar the backgammon and online poker situations are.

1) SPEED. We build an unconscious model of how often noticeable events
take place, but it's largely rooted in time, not in number of events.
When the number of events per unit time increases (the rewritten playsite
was of course faster, just as online poker is faster than B&M) then we
are surprised to observe more noticeable events.

2) SELECTION BIAS. We notice quads. We notice doubles. We feel like
we know how often they happen because we know that we notice them, but we
do not know how often unnoticeable events take place. We therefore lack
the necessary data to do analysis, but we have so much faith in our brains
as pattern recognition machines, we try it anyway.

3) MEMETICS. This is in some ways the biggest one. When you're
surrounded by people who have become convinced that something is true,
it's difficult not to start believing it's true yourself. Online chat
environments make it very easy for people to share their feelings about
the injustice of the randomness, and it's such a seductive idea anyway,
it's not hard for it to gain followers. Read "The Tipping Point" for more.

In closing, here is one quote I found in my old email. I wish I had
the whole file so you could see how widespread the certainty was.

Message: your dice are throwing doubles again---CALIBRATE THEM! get your act together

A message to online poker sites: Your decks are dealing bad beats
again. CALIBRATE THEM!


[/ QUOTE ]

[5thStreetHog]

After reading antisocialgrace`s posts,im convinced this thread is rigged.The chances of someone dumber than OP posting mustve been one million to one.

[Sciolist]

Annoyingly, my PC crashed overnight importing. It got to 111k hands in. This is hand/instances/win percentage in PT. Importing the rest now...

110928

aa 555 82.70
kk 503 70.78
qq 520 69.42
jj 550 65.82
tt 488 58.81
99 504 47.62
88 479 43.42
77 478 32.22
66 507 28.60
55 481 17.88
44 503 12.52
33 489 13.50
22 497 11.07

Expectation for number of pairs is 502 by the way. I'll look more closely at the numbers when I get home again, sorry!