Pokerstars Is Fixed

[ZKoeske]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) When I refer to hands with 1-10% chance of winning or huge underdogs, I'm not speaking pre-flop. I'm talking after post flop with people catching runner runner.

2) I explicitly said that over samples of 100 hands, there would be some where the "huge underdog" wins 75% of the time. My point is not that this shouldn't happen but that these samples occur in bunches of about 300 consecutive hands. Then dissipate and the theoretical percentages prevail. And then you see another clump of 300 hands where 75% of the time the "huge underdog" wins. I don't know a lot about statistics or probability, but I would think that something like this consistently occurring over thousands of hands is highly unlikely.

3) Yes, my numbers are estimates and I am completely aware that my statements hold no water without proper statistical documentation. The reason I posted was because I have noticed peculiarities(as have about 5 of my good friends who play often on pokerstars), and I wanted to see if anyone else in this forum had noticed similar results and found them questionable, or had previously done any kind of statistical analysis to determine the legitimacy of online sites. I am not challenging anyone to prove me wrong, I am simply putting the question out there and looking for advice from someone who is proficient enough with statistics to advise me how to test what I am trying to.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) When I refer to hands with 1-10% chance of winning or huge underdogs, I'm not speaking pre-flop. I'm talking after post flop with people catching runner runner.

2) I explicitly said that over samples of 100 hands, there would be some where the "huge underdog" wins 75% of the time. My point is not that this shouldn't happen but that these samples occur in bunches of about 300 consecutive hands. Then dissipate and the theoretical percentages prevail. And then you see another clump of 300 hands where 75% of the time the "huge underdog" wins. I don't know a lot about statistics or probability, but I would think that something like this consistently occurring over thousands of hands is highly unlikely.

3) Yes, my numbers are estimates and I am completely aware that my statements hold no water without proper statistical documentation. The reason I posted was because I have noticed peculiarities(as have about 5 of my good friends who play often on pokerstars), and I wanted to see if anyone else in this forum had noticed similar results and found them questionable, or had previously done any kind of statistical analysis to determine the legitimacy of online sites. I am not challenging anyone to prove me wrong, I am simply putting the question out there and looking for advice from someone who is proficient enough with statistics to advise me how to test what I am trying to.

[/ QUOTE ]

in case you missed my earlier thoughts in this thread, i will repeat them: You Are Dumb.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
I will throw some things to consider out and leave it at that. Ok first off there are a few huge misconceptions about the math involved PERIOD. First off, all starting hands are 50 50 before the flop...

[/ QUOTE ]

It was very considerate of the poster to include such nonsense early on, so I could realize with little effort that reading any further would simply give me a headache.

[ZBTHorton]

OP:

I'm having an extremely tough time understanding your logic(since you really don't offer any evidence) but I do have a quick question.

If the sites are "rigged" but only in short term.

That is to say, in the long term, the "riggedness" of the stats will come back to normal...doesn't this mean that if the site is rigged for the short term in a negative way, that it is equally rigged at some point in the positive way to as to offset the statistical improbabilities? And if so, who cares?

[The Raizer]

I would like very much for you to explain what advantages one hand has over another one, if all hands were not 50 50 we would just wait for pocket aces. You can make a boat just as easily with 57os as you can ak, AA will lose to 27os, the flop determines who stands where so how is everyone not almost even before the flop?

[ZKoeske]

[ QUOTE ]

If the sites are "rigged" but only in short term.

That is to say, in the long term, the "riggedness" of the stats will come back to normal...doesn't this mean that if the site is rigged for the short term in a negative way, that it is equally rigged at some point in the positive way to as to offset the statistical improbabilities? And if so, who cares?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, My original post stated that I got the impression that it was rigged both for you and against you at various times. Thus, there are times when you can't lose just like there are times when you can't win. When playing live I've never felt like I could call with anything and end up making a full house, or that I would lose with AA or KK after flopping trips with them again and again. However, this happens to me very often online. Certainly, you see a lot more hands online, but this "streakiness" is a continual thing, not just a one time occurrence I'm talking about.In an average 10-day span, there are possibly 4 days when every hand I play loses no matter what advantage it has pre or post flop, after all my chips are in, the other person invariably catches runner runner. And in the same way, there are 4 days when I can't lose and everytime I get a low pocket pair I make trips against someone else who has unfortunately flopped top 2 or something like that. Then the remaining 2 days everything seems to be normal. No, I don't have statistical data because I have basically accepted that the sites are fixed, I make a good amount of money still, and I just have learned to take the terrible beats for a few days until they dissipate, because I know they will be followed by a period where I win everything I lost right back. I would like to begin tracking my play statistically but wanted to first get my opinion out there and see what people thought.

You say who cares? Basically, I care because more than half the time I feel like I am at the mercy of the site and no matter how I play a hand the outcome is predetermined. I would like to get involved in posting about strategy and individual hands, but it has previously seemed pointless to me to engage in posting about specific hands when I feel like I was bound to win or lose regardless of how I played.

I also wrote my original post because I was curious to see if others had experienced this phenomena, and just wanted to get a consensus opinion.

[ZBTHorton]

[ QUOTE ]
When playing live I've never felt like I could call with anything and end up making a full house, or that I would lose with AA or KK after flopping trips with them again and again. H

[/ QUOTE ]

How much have you played live? If you take into consideration the amount of hands you see per hour live vs online, and the fact that your win rate in most live cash games is more than a comparable online game. It should be extremely easy to see why your seeing these results.

The last time I went to Vegas, I won 140bb's in two days, and lost it all in 6 hours. Playing the same stakes. Against the same level of players. Surely you've experienced something similar.

On a similar note, and to expand on the comment I just made. The win rates online are in most cases much lower than the same game live. For instance, if I played 5/10LHE live, and won less than 5bb/100 I'd be shocked. When I play online, 5/10LHE, if I won at 1.5bb/100 I'd be thrilled.

When you have a lower win rate, your standard deviation goes up, as does your variance. This will cause you to have amazingly ridiculous swings all the time, because the players are better, and you are not given the opportunities to expand on your edge. My personal guess is that your "true"(if you played infinity hands) win rate online is very small compared to your live win rate, therefore; when you combine that with the number of hands your playing per hour online(2-2.5x PER table) your swings seem huge in comparison.

[ZKoeske]

[ QUOTE ]


On a similar note, and to expand on the comment I just made. The win rates online are in most cases much lower than the same game live. For instance, if I played 5/10LHE live, and won less than 5bb/100 I'd be shocked. When I play online, 5/10LHE, if I won at 1.5bb/100 I'd be thrilled.

When you have a lower win rate, your standard deviation goes up, as does your variance. This will cause you to have amazingly ridiculous swings all the time, because the players are better, and you are not given the opportunities to expand on your edge. My personal guess is that your "true"(if you played infinity hands) win rate online is very small compared to your live win rate, therefore; when you combine that with the number of hands your playing per hour online(2-2.5x PER table) your swings seem huge in comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not questioning anything you say, I was just curious since I'm clearly not an expert, but why would your win rate be lower for online games than live games?

[ZBTHorton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


On a similar note, and to expand on the comment I just made. The win rates online are in most cases much lower than the same game live. For instance, if I played 5/10LHE live, and won less than 5bb/100 I'd be shocked. When I play online, 5/10LHE, if I won at 1.5bb/100 I'd be thrilled.

When you have a lower win rate, your standard deviation goes up, as does your variance. This will cause you to have amazingly ridiculous swings all the time, because the players are better, and you are not given the opportunities to expand on your edge. My personal guess is that your "true"(if you played infinity hands) win rate online is very small compared to your live win rate, therefore; when you combine that with the number of hands your playing per hour online(2-2.5x PER table) your swings seem huge in comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not questioning anything you say, I was just curious since I'm clearly not an expert, but why would your win rate be lower for online games than live games?

[/ QUOTE ]

Live players generally are not nearly as good as a online player. There are several reasons for it.

#1 is that people come into casinos looking to gamble all the time. I can't tell you how many first timer poker players I've played 15/30 or 30/60 with live. Do people play 30/60 online as first timers? Sure. But they go broke really really fast, and USUALLY move down.

#2. The invention of HUD's, PT, etc make the online game a much different experience.

#3. The ability to play multiple tables keeps some players who might play more hands live, play less hands online and within check. When I play LHE online(full ring, which I don't do anymore) I was like a 20/10. When I play live I'm alot more like a 28/15. Some of it is boredom, some of it is taking more advantage of worse play.


#4. It's also very easy for "Joe Gambler" who's in Vegas for the week to put 2K into a poker game. He has it in his pocket. It's fairly difficult for the average person to get large sums of cash into Poker sites on a whim. It usually takes several days or more your first time around.

For instance. If you go into Vegas, walk into Bellagio, and play 15/30LHE. I'd say that game is the equivalent of 1/2 or 2/4 online. Maybe even weaker at times. This may seem crazy, but it's honestly very true. I don't know the limits you play, and obviously this doesn't ring true all the way up to 50/100+. But I can guarentee a 30/60 game online is tougher than a 30/60 game live, the vast majority of the time. As I've played both.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like very much for you to explain what advantages one hand has over another one, if all hands were not 50 50 we would just wait for pocket aces. You can make a boat just as easily with 57os as you can ak, AA will lose to 27os, the flop determines who stands where so how is everyone not almost even before the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just in case any new players are confused by this, or worse, think there might be some sense here, please ignore this poster. He is either a troll or clueless about poker. To say that all hands have an equal chance to win preflop is nonsense.

To nit pick, I assume that by 57os he means a 5 and a 7 offsuit. The standard notation is that 57o is two different suits, 57s are of the same suit. For the record, 57o and AKo do in fact have the same odds of improving. The difference is that if neither improve, the AKo wins. And if both improve, the AKo also wins. If two players see the flop with these hands and the hand goes to the river, the AKo will win about 63% of the time.

AA will indeed lose to 72o. About 12% of the time. Again, AA wins if neither improve. If the 72o improves, AA still likely wins. The 72o must improve to 2 pair or trips to beat the AA.

And all of this discussion so far ignores fold equity. If you have AKo or AA, you will (or should) be betting more aggressively, and will much more likely get your opponent to fold before the river. So the stronger hands here will win even more often.

For some reason there have been a number of posts recently that compare two hands based solely on the odds of improving or on the number of (undiscounted) outs. All ignore the probability of improving a weak hand and still losing, and all ignore the probability of winning without improvement.

Anyone confused by these topics should immediately read Ed Miller's GSHE, followed by Miller's SSHE.