I cannot win on pokerstars. Reasons ??

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
If sciolist (sp?) posted the results of all 169 hands, i'm confident they'd fit within the expected framework

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll post this when I get home. I can also post my numbers on FTP/Party, and probably my (really old) numbers from PS. All are several hundred thousand hand sample sizes, it's not very likely that my big pairs would have the same deviation. Infact, perhaps it's good evidence if other people could post their numbers too

[Josem]

to clarify, i was talking about the same 500k hand sample as the pocket pairs you posted above.

[5thStreetHog]

"It has been BLATENTLY rigged for a week or so"

Just for this week cause youve ran bad,hmmmm,interesting.Move over guys,theres a new sheriff in town.

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Infact, perhaps it's good evidence if other people could post their numbers too

[/ QUOTE ]

128,415 hands at PokerStars

Largest deviation is for K4s (3.2 SD from expected value).
<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
Pairs Suited Unsuited
EV 581.1 387.4 1162.1
SD 24.1 19.7 33.9



starting_hand times_dealt
AA 580
AKs 422
AKo 1200
AQs 399
AQo 1130
AJs 353
AJo 1150
ATs 403
ATo 1138
A9s 384
A9o 1168
A8s 385
A8o 1122
A7s 407
A7o 1141
A6s 398
A6o 1199
A5s 375
A5o 1166
A4s 376
A4o 1158
A3s 412
A3o 1164
A2s 404
A2o 1168
KK 564
KQs 388
KQo 1147
KJs 405
KJo 1200
KTs 391
KTo 1188
K9s 369
K9o 1095
K8s 400
K8o 1184
K7s 417
K7o 1204
K6s 377
K6o 1152
K5s 392
K5o 1261
K4s 310
K4o 1183
K3s 436
K3o 1129
K2s 395
K2o 1197
QQ 576
QJs 393
QJo 1199
QTs 362
QTo 1173
Q9s 368
Q9o 1195
Q8s 390
Q8o 1174
Q7s 371
Q7o 1197
Q6s 372
Q6o 1141
Q5s 401
Q5o 1188
Q4s 366
Q4o 1155
Q3s 393
Q3o 1132
Q2s 405
Q2o 1174
JJ 563
JTs 411
JTo 1153
J9s 387
J9o 1211
J8s 370
J8o 1139
J7s 418
J7o 1123
J6s 385
J6o 1127
J5s 365
J5o 1181
J4s 397
J4o 1165
J3s 399
J3o 1128
J2s 373
J2o 1147
TT 627
T9s 385
T9o 1153
T8s 382
T8o 1080
T7s 391
T7o 1196
T6s 375
T6o 1172
T5s 389
T5o 1141
T4s 400
T4o 1137
T3s 361
T3o 1142
T2s 367
T2o 1147
99 552
98s 391
98o 1131
97s 364
97o 1178
96s 366
96o 1176
95s 408
95o 1123
94s 382
94o 1135
93s 391
93o 1127
92s 400
92o 1135
88 548
87s 380
87o 1162
86s 415
86o 1163
85s 420
85o 1208
84s 365
84o 1151
83s 392
83o 1175
82s 374
82o 1191
77 564
76s 398
76o 1162
75s 377
75o 1197
74s 381
74o 1170
73s 419
73o 1157
72s 400
72o 1152
66 578
65s 398
65o 1214
64s 383
64o 1158
63s 374
63o 1194
62s 390
62o 1192
55 555
54s 383
54o 1191
53s 394
53o 1102
52s 401
52o 1171
44 568
43s 393
43o 1150
42s 353
42o 1130
33 611
32s 398
32o 1171
22 585
</pre><hr />

[uDevil]

[ QUOTE ]

But the main point of my post is that you guys look at 2.3 sigma as ok!
.
.
Some of this data was, for me, astonishing, and everyone treated it as normal.


[/ QUOTE ]

It would be wrong to treat it as normal because the data was supposed to represent an extreme, ridiculously improbable sample. On examination, the initial data was found to be inaccurate. The largest deviation from expectation for any pair was 2.3 sd. That is not an improbable outcome, especially given that the data was supposed to represent an extreme case.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This ain't it.

[realjaydub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting....

I was leveling everyone on the other thread but wow.

[/ QUOTE ]
Haha...I didn't think you'd ever come right out and admit it. What will your 2 or 3 supporters do now? I suppose OnlinePro must retake the lead! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe.

I had to sooner or later

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting....

I was leveling everyone on the other thread but wow.

[/ QUOTE ]
Haha...I didn't think you'd ever come right out and admit it. What will your 2 or 3 supporters do now? I suppose OnlinePro must retake the lead! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe.

I had to sooner or later

[/ QUOTE ]

He admitted it earlier in an unrelated thread. I was chagrined.

[washus]

"Just for this week cause youve ran bad,hmmmm,interesting.Move over guys,theres a new sheriff in town."

I dind't say that. Its about feelings. It was enough for me to take my money (as I said unexpectedly with profit) and leave.

uDevil. Thanks for the data. Very nice. It looks ok:

a fast analysis for all set as a whole:

Chi-squared: 149.43 with 169dof -&gt; prob. 0.8457
Now Im happy! :-)

Any more data people?

[pocketpared]

98.2%

"That 1.8% (didnt check it for a normal distro) means that ONLY 1.8% of samples of this size (~11k) would be expected to be this far from the mean! That means that 99.2% would NOT be"

[olieovie]

Wow, you're not much of a statistician if you think that just because one subset of data doesn't meet a 95% confidence interval that you conclude a site is rigged. Are you seriously suggesting that if any two-card hand within a 10K hand set of data needs to be within 2 sigmas of its expected occurence value otherwise the site is rigged?

You may know what a confidence interval is, but I don't think you know how to apply it. There as to be a methodology to your reasoning based on the type of problem you are investigating. Otherwise, someone else can just say "Fine, I apply a 99% confidence interval and my hypothesis that the site is random is supported so STFU."